Church-planting, ‘new things’, parishes and MPs
From the Revd Dr Christian Selvaratnam
Sir, — I am grateful to Madeleine Davies for her two helpful articles on resource churches, in which I am quoted (Features, 9 and 16 August). Her research highlights the significant positive impact that resource churches, church-plants, and growing churches are having within the Church of England. These churches are reaching new people in new ways, growing the Church younger, nurturing new vocations, starting new churches, and revitalising congregations that might otherwise close.
Nevertheless, in my experience of working with both parish growth and church-planting, I have observed that new mission often comes at significant personal cost. Pioneers of all kinds frequently face pressures beyond the usual demands of ministry, requiring considerable resilience and a distinct set of skills to navigate these challenges — often without receiving the recognition that their efforts deserve.
Interestingly, this reality is not new: it is encapsulated in an apt phrase that dates back to the third century. Often illustrated with imagery of St Peter’s inverted crucifixion and St Paul’s beheading, the ancient liturgical phrase “plantaverunt Ecclesiam sanguine suo” (they planted the Church with their blood) reminds us that the growth and expansion of the Church has always been recognised as costly, and that those involved in this essential work stand at the forefront of apostolic tradition.
CHRISTIAN SELVARATNAM
Dean of Church Planting, St Hild College
Address supplied
From the Revd Professor Ian Bradley
Sir, — The answer to the question that you ask about what lies behind the “new things” started in the Church of England over the past ten years (Leader comment, 16 August) is all too clear from the last line of Madeleine Davies’s news story in the same issue. They are neither a sign of the Holy Spirit at work, nor a symptom of the panicky floundering of a Church that has lost its way, but, rather, a confirmation that business and management theory has overtaken theology as a guiding principle in the Church of England. One might add management jargon as well, as evidenced by the quotations given from the Revd Will Foulger’s report on these “new things”. I am at a loss to understand what “operant theology” is, and BMO is a new and unexplained acronym to me.
It is telling that just five of the 900 new initiatives reported by dioceses could be said to exist in the Catholic tradition. Even more telling, I suspect, would be a count of how many of them embrace the ethos of “inclusive church” so powerfully affirmed by the Revd Lucy Winkett in her recent sermon at St James’s, Piccadilly (Comment, same issue). I would not be surprised if none does.
Would it not just be more honest to call these “new things” what they essentially are: initiatives in Evangelical managerialism?
IAN BRADLEY
4 Donaldson Gardens
St Andrews, Fife KY16 9DN
From Canon R. H. W. Arguile
Sir, — The Bishop of Chelmsford is, of course, right (Feature, 9 August). Politicians need to engage. But it works the other way, too. Every parish is in a parliamentary constituency. Every MP elected to serve it is faced with a huge number of issues affecting his or her constituents. What he or she needs, apart from anything else, are facts.
Over the past five years, I have, as a retired priest engaged in local issues, been able to supply our former MP with information about the affairs of the community in which I live. I have been fortunate to be involved enough in the life of the town to be able to report as dispassionately as I can on local decisions, local concerns, and, in particular, in the town’s recently approved Neighbourhood Plan (in which I played a part). We now have a new MP, to whom I hope to continue to supply information.
Facts include local sentiments and expressed local needs. There are inevitably contradictory interests and questions that arise. Do we promote the interests of the neediest from across the constituency, or those of the local people whose needs, while not as great seen in terms of deprivation, are key to the sustainability of the various elements of a community? To take two small examples: our lifeboat service and our fire station need volunteers; and both services are vulnerable without a balanced sustainable demographic.
I have not talked religion with either the former or the new MP. What we have done is to inform them, with the implication that people matter and that human purposes, while massively complex and not susceptible to one-liners, are part of the process of wrestling with the will of God for a particular community.
My experience so far is that MPs are hugely interested in being informed about what is going on among the 50,000-plus people, some of whom voted for them, but all of whom have needs and legitimate wants. All of this depends, however, on whether clergy regard themselves as chaplains to a congregation or parsons to a parish.
R. H. W. ARGUILE
10 Marsh Lane
Wells-next-the-Sea
Norfolk NR23 1EG
Piccadilly sermon
From the Revd James H. Grayson
Sir, — The Revd Lucy Winkett (Comment, 16 August) is right. The grace of the Christian gospel is inclusive of everyone regardless of race, gender, or social status. The gospel is about sin, repentance, forgiveness, and redemption. None of us is righteous, and we all stand in need of the redeeming love of a righteous and holy God. The issue with the whole process of Living in Love and Faith is that it moves away from the clear, trans-Testamental teaching on sexual behaviour, marriage, and the family.
We can see this reflected in St Paul’s concerns expressed in 1 Corinthians 5-7. The key point in chapter 6 is that, whatever sins we commit (and he gives a number of examples), we can, through our acknowledgement of sin and the power of the Holy Spirit, change. We can be redeemed. This fact is confirmed by genetics that complex human behaviour is not ultimately genetically determined. If our behaviour is determined, then there is no sin, and there is no need for a Saviour.
The Revd Lucy Winkett quotes Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s dictum that we should not be silent on a key issue. But Bonhoeffer also emphasised, in The Cost of Discipleship, the dangers of preaching cheap grace. Grace was costly. Our debt was paid painfully on the Cross.
JAMES H. GRAYSON
25 Whitfield Road
Sheffield S10 4GJ
Blackburn and the use of episcopal powers
From Miss Vasantha Gnanadoss
Sir, — You report (News, 16 August) that in May 2020, the then Bishop of Blackburn, along with his two suffragans, wrote to the Archbishops alleging that “strings have been pulled and networks have been used” to prevent their removing Canon Andrew Hindley from office.
In July 2022, Canon Rowena Pailing, Vice-Dean of Blackburn Cathedral, resigned. She has told the BBC that “I couldn’t work for an organisation which put its own reputation and the protection of alleged abusers above the protection and care and listening to victims and survivors.”
The pulling of strings to protect reputations seems to be deeply entrenched in the Church of England’s culture. Another example is the never-ending delay in publishing the report about John Smyth. We already know that the report is likely to have gaps that will conceal a lack of action by some bishops. Some bishops who failed to act to stop Smyth’s abuse have already retired, thus avoiding sanction. Others are getting close to retiring age.
Responding to the BBC’s exposure of the Canon Hindley scandal, the Archbishops say: “We absolutely believe that there is no place in ministry for people who are a risk or pose a risk to others, and continue to work to ensure that our systems are made ever stronger and more robust.”
In recent times, sanctions for alleged safeguarding lapses have been applied to some bishops, but not to others. Should the Archbishops now say that “We absolutely believe that there is no place in ministry for any bishop who does not take robust action when complaints are made about clergy who are a risk or pose a risk to others.” Will the Archbishops now use their powers without fear or favour?
The Archbishops claim that the Clergy Discipline Measure limits their power. Nevertheless, bishops clearly do have powers at various stages; the power to decide when to investigate, who investigates, the Terms of Reference, and implementation of recommendations.
VASANTHA GNANADOSS
242 Links Road
London SW17 9ER
Tanzanian character of Africa Bridge project
From Mr Philip Whiteley
Sir, — There are inaccuracies in your review relating to the Africa Bridge project in Tanzania (Books, 2 August). Your reviewer, the Rt Revd Michael Doe, described the project as an “American NGO”, which is not correct: it is a Tanzanian enterprise, with Tanzanian board members and support from local government agencies in the country. There is fund-raising in the United States, and shared leadership between US-based and Tanzanian individuals. The board has members based in both Tanzania and the US, not exclusively in the US, as the review suggests. The model was invented by Tanzanians, with one exception: Barry Childs, who is of British heritage, born and raised in Tanzania. All these details are contained in the book reviewed, And the Children Shall Lead Us.
The review repeats common tropes about both US philanthropists and Tanzanian citizens, suggesting that the former are self-serving and socially naïve, and that the latter are impoverished and dependent. This has not been my experience during three years of helping Barry to write his book and meeting others involved in Africa Bridge on a visit earlier this year to projects near Tukuyu.
I observe a high degree of entrepreneurial brilliance and close cooperation, and families becoming sustainably better off in terms of income and prospects. The Africa Bridge model, being cooperative and sustainable, is a genuine innovation in social entrepreneurialism.
Africa is changing: digitally connected, entrepreneurial, highly educated, and with a strong sense of purpose. The Africa Bridge model is part of this change. This is clearly shown in And the Children Shall Lead Us. The review does a disservice to your readers by failing to communicate the achievements and the potential of this innovation and the people who have created it.
PHILIP WHITELEY
Balks Lodge
Walkers Lane
Leeds LS12 4AF
Historians who revised view of Georgian C of E
From Mr C. D. C. Armstrong
Sir, — I am puzzled by the statement in Canon Robin Gill’s review of the Revd Dr Peter Sedgwick’s The Development of Anglican Moral Theology 1680-1950 (Books, 9 August) to the effect that the book follows “the revisionist work of the late Patrick Collinson” in showing that “the 18th century was not as moribund for the Church of England as has often been claimed.”
Professor Collinson was known for his work on the Elizabethan and Jacobean Church, but he never wrote about Georgian Anglicanism. I suspect that the scholars consulted on the 18th century by Dr Sedgwick include Professors Stephen Taylor and J. C. D. Clark, and the late F. C. Mather.
C. D. C. ARMSTRONG
Flat 2a, Ulidia House
34 Donegall Road
Belfast BT12 5JN
Moving with the times
From Mr Matthew Clements
Sir, — As the former naval officer Lester May (Letters, 16 August) says, the Navy did have HMS Crusader, HMS Saracen, and HMS Saladin; but these names have not been used on RN ships since the Second World War. The world has changed since the 1940s. Some words in common usage as recently as the 1980s are now regarded as offensive, and publicly calling a fellow officer a “snowflake” is unwarranted.
The RAF has not gone soft: it is an organisation that does not wish to alienate a significant proportion of the British public.
MATTHEW CLEMENTS
4 Church Street, Bicester OX26 6AZ