Greater freedom for the parishes

From the Vicar General of the Province of Canterbury

Madam, — Your leading article “Free the laity” (Comment, 17 April) was correct in drawing attention to the plight of the many parishes unable to fulfil their administrative and legal obligations. No mention, however, was made of the important changes to the Church Representation Rules made by the Church Representation and Ministers Measure 2019, which were intended to address the problem.

In brief, while the new Rules contain a model structure in Part 9, Part 2 enables a parish to make a scheme to “amend or supplement or to replace (either in whole or in part)” the Part 9 model. The result is for parishes to have a freedom not previously enjoyed to legislate for themselves upon matters of Church Representation at the local level, to work towards simplification, and to remove requirements inappropriate to their actual needs.

There are some matters (for example, that the laity must outnumber the clergy in the PCC) which cannot be excluded by scheme. The making of a scheme also requires approval by the diocese. Nevertheless, in practical terms, the new Rules give “ordinary” or “struggling” parishes genuine opportunities to regulate their own affairs.

Unfortunately, the 2019 Measure was soon overshadowed by the Covid lockdowns, with the result that the potential for change is not yet widely appreciated. It is to be hoped that the dioceses and other supporters of the parochial system will publicise the benefits now available and encourage parishes along this path.

Full engagement of the laity in the process is more likely to be fruitful than another round of general legislation (which does not always fulfil the expectations of the voices calling for it).

TIMOTHY BRIDEN
London EC4

Diocesan finances and self-supporting ministry

From the Revd Dr John Caperon

Madam, — Your front-page headline “Stipend rise may hit posts” (News, 17 April) states an all-too-obvious truth, which the Church of England appears to have sidelined. For at least the past 40 years, it has been clear that the costs of adequately supporting stipendiary ministry have been rising, and that available resources are unable to keep up with demand.

The other all-too-obvious truth is that during this period there has been little if any long-term, coherent, theologically clear thinking about the hugely significant place of the volunteer ministry, the ministry of non-stipendiary or self-supporting ministers, whatever we call them — “free priests” is a good solution — in the future shape of the Church’s ministry.

It really is time that, now that we have a former SSM as Archbishop, we began some serious thinking and planning for a resource-depleted future, in which free priests are likely to be of increasing value and importance.

JOHN CAPERON
Crowborough, East Sussex

From the Revd Hugh Thomas

Madam, — I read with concern about the financial challenges in Southwark, which is not alone in this regard.

It is encouraging that the Bishop of Kingston highlighted the need to “try something different or reshape ministry provision”. I would hope that the effective encouragement and deployment of self-supporting ministers in Southwark would be part of the solution. Financial necessities can lead to SSMs’ being viewed as, primarily, a useful means to “fill gaps”. But their utilisation should rather be viewed as part of an overall strategy for all priests, treating SSMs as equals and available for a range of posts, including senior staff posts.

My recent research project has highlighted the wealth of experience and skills of SSMs, which they willingly and joyfully give to support parishes around the country. There is a vast “army” of more than 3000 nationally who can be part of the solution of a reshaped ministry provision.

Perhaps the only positive aspect of the financial difficulties of Southwark (and perhaps other dioceses) is the need to think creatively about the reshaping of ministry provision around all priests: stipendiary, self-supporting, house-for-duty, and part-time stipendiary.

HUGH THOMAS
Address supplied (Hurst, Berkshire)

From Mr Jonathan Cryer

Madam, — You attribute a quote to the vice-chair of the Oxford diocesan board of finance that dioceses “were dependent on central funding over which they had no control”. Not quite. First, there will be elections to the General Synod later this year. If dioceses want control, then they have to elect to the General Synod representatives committed to gaining it. Second, there are at this point in the Church’s history just too many dioceses. One way forward is to grapple, however painfully, with the consequences of reversing the trend of 100 years ago.

JONATHAN CRYER
Gilmorton, Lutterworth

Not so much religious revival as sporting quirk

From the Revd Dr Simon Cross

Madam, — In Chine McDonald’s recent article (Analysis, 17 April), she cites the appearance of boxers with religious tattoos and Bible references on their trunks as evidence that, perhaps, some form of spiritual awakening is taking place.

There are few people with whom I dislike to disagree with more than Ms McDonald, but such overt religious messaging has been part of combat sports culture for decades. Perhaps the most obvious example of that would be Muhammad Ali back in the 1960s and ’70s.

It has become part of the new attempt to support the original claims of the Quiet Revival report to say that sports people are openly avowing Christianity. It takes only a brief analysis, however, to see that sports people have long leaned heavily on religion, as well as lucky charms and individual rituals, to help them to believe that they will succeed.

Cognitive psychology shows that such beliefs actually do help them to win, but that is not down to divine intervention — whether it’s a lucky pair of socks, or a cross tattoo. What really matters is the belief.

SIMON CROSS
Chair, Progressive Christianity Network
Kirk Ella, Hull

Patriotism in the Church

From Mr Alan Green

Madam, — I read with interest the article “English churches should fly the flag of St George” (Comment, 17 April).

It is my view that the true patron saint of England should be St Edmund, neither because I’m one of the two churchwardens of a church of his name, nor because I live in Suffolk, of which he is the county patron saint.

St George never even visited England; nor did he speak the language. He did die for his Christian faith, but then so did St Edmund.

St George’s tomb lies in Lod, in Israel, whereas the life of St Edmund can be celebrated in the cathedral in Bury St Edmunds. The spires in the roof of the Millennium Cathedral represent St Edmund’s crown. To see that at sunset is a sight to behold.

We flew a flag on the roof of the tower, white, with a red cross, and with a shield in the centre depicting the crown of St Edmund, to celebrate the person our church is named after.

ALAN GREEN
Kessingland, Lowestoft

From Mr Matthew Chinery

Madam, — The hymn board on Remembrance Sunday gently encouraging a healthy patriotism (the Revd R. W. Crook, Letters, 24 April) was not something that I had particularly encountered until visiting one of my local churches a couple of years ago. After a moving Act of Remembrance and eucharist, we sang “Jerusalem” as the recessional hymn.

I must admit that the musical selection left me more bemused than full of patriotic zeal for building Jerusalem in England’s green and pleasant land on my walk home — probably because that walk was through the streets of central Cardiff.

MATTHEW CHINERY
Address supplied (Cardiff)

Fornication: but what is the meaning of porneia?

From Mr Jonathan Goll

Madam, — Canon Angela Tilby (Comment, 17 April) raises the difficulties caused by the traditional interpretation of “fornication”. Is the trouble caused by longstanding mistranslation?

The Greek word “porneia”, long translated “fornication”, is now often translated “sexual immorality”. I challenge this. I believe that it should be more narrowly translated as “prostitution, or making use of a prostitute”.

For the derivation of the word is from “peran”, meaning to “carry across the sea for sale”, and therefore the corresponding noun “porne” means “something sold”, and is usually translated as “prostitute”. Now, the Law of Moses has harsh punishments for adultery and prostitution, but is much gentler with consensual sex when both participants are unmarried. They are expected to get married, and a bride-price is to be paid, but nothing further.

We are surely, then, wrong to conflate prostitution and unmarried sex. And what I am suggesting fits the New Testament better. At the Council of Jerusalem, four — and four only — demands are made of Gentile Christians, to abstain from: food polluted by idols; porneia; meat of strangled animals; and blood.

Outwardly this list is puzzling. But most porneia back then was shrine prostitution; if this is taken as the right translation, then all four are to do with idol-worship, which there was probably great social pressure for many Gentiles to conform to.

The geographer Strabo specifically mentions there was temple prostitution in Corinth at this time. So, when St Paul is so furious with the Corinthians concerning porneia (1 Corinthians 5), no wonder: a man has engaged in shrine prostitution! It is dubious whether the women involved were consenting, which is maybe why only he gets the punishment, not the woman.

Even the Latin word “fornicatio” means “going to a brothel”; for “fornix” means “a small vaulted chamber”. (The word “furnace” is related.) These underground chambers originally housed the brothels in ancient Rome.

Why do we keep using the translation “sexual immorality”? The impression I have is that, a bit later, some of the church Fathers used the word in this wider sense, and this has influenced translators. Some Fathers have the reputation for being overly harsh in sexual matters (although those more skilled in patristics may disagree with me). Let us not make Scripture so harsh.

JONATHAN GOLL
Halesowen, West Midlands

Vocations encouraged by university chaplaincy

From the Revd James D. Hargreave

Madam, — Three cheers for Symon Hill’s article (Comment, 24 April) on the need to protect university chaplaincies! My very first conversation with a member of the clergy was at the age of 18, soon after starting my Classics course at King’s College, London. After a fairly normal period of late teenage scepticism, I was soon challenged by the intellectually stimulating sermons delivered by Prebendary Gordon Phillips, the Revd (later the Rt Revd) Michael Marshall, Ronald Swan, and many others, including guest preachers at evensong in the splendid setting of Christ the King, Gordon Square. Through the encouragement of a fellow resident in hall, I joined the choir and was prepared for confirmation by the Revd Edward Shotter, chaplain to medical students and, later, Dean of Rochester.

My vocation to the priesthood emerged directly as a result of the influence of these very gifted and devoted priests. I often wonder how many vocations have been nurtured through the ministry of university chaplains. However this service is to be funded, it would be tragic if students were deprived of the opportunity to engage with clergy serving in this environment.

JAMES D. HARGREAVE
Cottingham, East Yorkshire

No voting advice, please

From Mr Stephen Billyeald

Madam, — Would someone please tell the Bishop of Norwich (News, 23 April) that we want theology and spiritual guidance from our bishops and archbishops, not political guidance.

STEPHEN BILLYEALD
Pangbourne, Berkshire