Lay Anglicana, the unofficial voice of the laity throughout the Anglican Communion.
This is the place to share news and views from the pews.

Get involved ...

Candidates for Cantuar: Steven Croft

 

Steven John Lindsey Croft was born in 1957. He went to Heath Grammar School in Halifax, Yorkshire, and studied classics and theology at Worcester College, Oxford, after which he studied for the priesthood in Durham at Cranmer Hall, St John’s College. He is married to Ann and has four children.

Career

Bishop Steven was ordained as deacon in the Diocese of London in 1983 and as priest in 1984.  The Crockford’s entry reads:

* +CROFT, The Rt Revd Steven John Lindsey. b 57. Worc Coll Ox BA80 MA83 St Jo Coll Dur PhD84. Cranmer Hall Dur 80. d 83 p 84 c 09. C Enfield St Andr Lon 83-87; V Ovenden Wakef 87-96; Dioc Miss Consultant 94-96; Warden Cranmer Hall Dur 96-04; Abps’ Missr and Team Ldr Fresh Expressions 04-09; Bp Sheff from 09. 

In the mid 1990s, Bishop Steven was  diocesan mission adviser. He then became Archbishops’ Missioner and Leader of the Fresh Expressions team under Archbishop Rowan Williams. He was a member of the Church of England Evangelical Council from 1997-2000.

It is said of some candidates that they may be too old; Bishop Steven is only 55  but on the other hand has only been a bishop since January 2009. Also, except for his curacy in Enfield, all his ministry has been in Yorkshire and the neighbouring County Durham.

 Publications

He is a co-author of Emmaus: the way of faith (1996-2003), a set of resources for Christian nurture widely used in the UK and across the world. He is author or co-author of a number of books including Ministry in Three Dimensions (1999 and 2008); and Travelling Well (with Stephen Cottrell) (2000). His first novel for children and adults, The Advent Calendar, was published in 2006.  In 2009 Jesus’ People: What the Church should do next challenged the reader to rethink both the role of Jesus in the Church and that of the Church in today’s society and culture. He wrote the Church of England ‘most digital Lent course yet’ for 2011, about which Church House Publishing said:

 Household music and DVD collections could be a good starting point for studying the Bible this Lent, teaches a new five-week course called Exploring God’s Mercy, compiled by the Bishop of Sheffield, Dr Steven Croft. Suitable for church groups, couples or individuals, the course prepares us for the festival of Easter by reminding us just how much God loves us, using Scriptures, specially filmed You Tube videos, podcasts for iPods, group discussions and prayer. It recommends playing popular songs or DVD clips at the start of each session, to set the scene for that week’s theme.

 

The Sheffield Diocesan Website is up to the minute, and relies heavily on videos. This means that readers like us can form quite a clear impression of what life with Bishop Steven as the Archbishop of Canterbury might be like. (The impression might still be erroneous of course).

As in the case of Bishop Tim Stevens, he is often filmed in strong light which makes his eyes narrow rather alarmingly . You may think I make too much of this, but if the eyes are windows of the soul, it is difficult to form an impression of someone whose eyes are hidden. (If I were in charge of his PR, I would also frogmarch him to Trumpers, the Curzon Street barber). Other YouTube videos are his initial ‘sermon’ at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNxezSFRc1A, his Easter message (you can see his eyes) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgmU9M43wGM&feature=related and his address to diocesan synod July 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPI5MEg0uX8&feature=relmfu.

 

 Churchmanship

Bishop Steven is an evangelistic Evangelical.

Both Sheffield bishops voted in favour of the Anglican Covenant, as did their clergy and laity.

At General Synod  in July 2012 he voted  to adjourn the debate to enable reconsideration of  amendment 5.1.c

(the position generally taken by those in favour of women bishops).

Bishop Steven has been a strong opponent of same-sex marriage:

“One in four marriages in England are performed by the Church of England and that proportion is rising at the moment. In every marriage service the priest begins the service by spelling out what marriage is – a union between one man and one woman with the intention of it being lifelong. So it is really important to register back to the Government that this is not a minor change, this is a fundamental change to a very, very important social institution.”

You can see possibly the best (ITV) video interview with him in this clip, where he explains, sitting at his desk with no props or gimmicks, exactly what his views are.  Am I alone in seeing an iron hand emerge in this charmingly velvet glove?

 

Leap in the dark assessment

Bishop Steven Croft would make an excellent Archbishop of York in due course.

39 comments on this post:

Pam Smith said...
avatar

I think Steve Croft’s leadership of the Fresh Expressions movement as a focus for mission in the C of E deserves more than a sentence if you’re looking at Archbishop potential.

Whatever you think of Fresh Expressions, or of + Stephen, I think it has to be acknowledged that creating a movement within the C of E from scratch, including the development of a new pioneer ministry ‘track’ for ordained and lay ministers, is a very solid achievement in political, managerial and administrative terms. He can obviously make things happen in the C of E.

28 August 2012 16:21
Lay Anglicana said...
avatar

I’m sure you are right, Pam. I have to plead ignorance in that I have only come across ‘Fresh Expressions’ in books or on the internet, and have no personal knowledge of its operation. Nor do I disagree that he can make things happen in the CofE. My hesitation springs from what I perceive to be (but I freely admit I may be wrong on this) his ‘closed’ approach to management, as adopted by the Archbishop of York (and Mrs Thatcher, though I don’t want to make you explode). He strikes me as a conviction manager rather than a consensus manager, and I don’t think we want another one at this point attempting to lead the whole Church of England.

28 August 2012 16:31
UKViewer said...
avatar

Well, he is one of the favoured, and I think that Pam has given a strong recommendation regarding his FX credentials.

I’ve followed him on twitter for several years and have found him, when he uses it, to be open and frank (if you can be in 140 characters).

I respect his position on same-sex marriage, although I might disagree on his interpretation.

I hesitate to give an unqualified endorsement because so many questions remain. But, if the Church is looking for strong, unequivocal leadership, he is your man.

28 August 2012 18:46
Kate ardern said...
avatar

I’m in total agreement with you on this assessment, Laura. Whilst there is no doubting +Steven’s formidable drive, conviction and ability to make things happen and he’s clearly a tremendous intellect too. I would worry about his lack of experience outside God’s Own County and his ability to build consensus amongst the various parts of the CoE. I don’t mean giving into a particular faction, but rather, how comfortable & accommodating is he to traditions that are not his preferred liturgical style? A strong element of shrewd negotiating skils & wise diplomacy are needed as ABC and his style does come across as rather authoritarian. Now that maybe perception rather than reality and he actually possesses these skills in abundance but he needs to demonstrate that he can reach out beyond his evangelical base. I too think he would make a good ABE partnering either an evangelical ABC who has a track record of being completely at ease with more traditional forms of worship or indeed an ABC from the Liberal to Highish tradition.

28 August 2012 18:46
Pam Smith said...
avatar

I think the problem for all ABCs is encapsulated in the comments here – we want someone who is good at dealing with the mechanics of decision making in the C of E – which tend to neuter most ABCs to a greater or lesser extent – without having any particularly strongly held views of their own.

I was at my selection conference when ++ Rowan’s appointment was announced. I knew very little about him but those who did know of him had very high expectations that he would lead us forward on the issues of homosexuality and the ordained ministry of women. I’m not sure we can entirely blame ++ Rowan for his apparent failure to deliver on these issues, or for his apparent retreat into authoritarianism. We seem to want a strong leader who will lead us in a direction that everyone is happy to go in.

I don’t have any particular axe to grind for + Steven, he just happens to be one of the candidates whose work I know quite well.

Lay Anglicana said...
avatar

I think we are all agreed it is a difficult job. Didn’t +Graham James, one of the candidates – we assume- say it is impossible? And with his service to both ++Robert Runcie and ++George Carey he should certainly know.
I too vividly remember my delight at ++Rowan Williams’ appointment. Like many of my ‘wing’ of the Church, I had not anticipated that he would see the role, not just as encompassing the views of those in the Anglican Communion with whom he disagreed, but as drawing its main inspiration from the likes of ++ Peter
Akinola
to produce the Anglican Covenant.
‘A strong leader who will lead us in a direction that everyone is happy to go in’? Up to a point, I think. I think this is the moment for an Archbishop of Canterbury who can heal our wounds, probably by jollying us along rather than bullying us. We all know there is no direction within the Church that everyone is happy to go in, so on this I am in total agreement with +Steven Croft: let us put these differences on hold in order to concentrate on mission. (Can we just agree on women bishops first please?)

Chris Fewings said...
avatar

Ordaining women as bishops *is* mission. So is welcoming same-sex sexual relationships as an expression of the love of God. Mission and conversion of heart.

Pam Smith said...
avatar

I think it is arguable that on the issue of women bishops we certainly do need someone who is convinced of the necessity to get the issue sorted out decisively and is capable and determined enough to do so.

29 August 2012 17:44
29 August 2012 16:05
29 August 2012 06:26
28 August 2012 19:45
Charlie said...
avatar

I think there is a danger with this series, demonstrated by many commentors and even, dare I say by the author from time to time, of drawing conclusions based on a reading of Crockford’s and one or two web pages. I heard Steven Croft speak once, and by the looks of it that means I know him better than most of the people commenting here.

What’s worth saying is to re-emphasise what Pam has said, the leadership of Fresh Expressions put him at the cutting edge of mission in the Church of England for five years. Earlier, as you briefly note Laura, he was one of the creators of Emmaus, which has been hugely influential in church circles which would not be touched by Alpha. What you have here is a Bishop who understands the importance and the possibility of mission in the parishes.

As to the breadth of his experience, Fresh Expressions was a national role which took him all over the country and gave him familiarity with the in and outs of the C of E’s structures. Prior to that at Cranmer Hall, he was in the mainstream of national thinking about both ministry and mission.

As to his leadership style, I would like to hear from someone who has been led by him.

Finally from the evangelical perspective, I don’t know what an “evangelical Evangelical” is, but the views you quote could cover a multitude of (…) Both the anglican covenant and the opposition to SSM are the “party line”, which is toed by all good Bishops. The only thing which might indicate a more conservative bent is his membership of CEEC, but even that short stint doesn’t necessarily tell you a great deal.

Lay Anglicana said...
avatar

Good morning, Charlie, thank-you very much for commenting.

For this series, or for that matter any debate, to work properly it absolutely needs response from the readers. Like you, I would love to hear from someone who has actually been led by him. This is perhaps a good moment to re-iterate (though I have said so repeatedly and ‘leap in the dark’ is meant to be a strong hint that there is very limited value to my summary on its own) that my aim here is to open what I hope might be a Socratic dialectical dialogue. You know, thesis, antithesis, synthesis? I draw together the Crockford’s entry, personal page on the diocesan website, Wikipedia entry, YouTube videos, Amazon entries and any press interviews that Google leads me to. In the case of +Steven, I have a copy of his book on the parish system but otherwise knew nothing about him until I began this exercise. After spending about three hours in total listening to the many videos available, I feel I know him quite well, but accept this is an illusion since he was by definition on parade throughout. You are also right, in my opinion, that there is no substitute for being in the same room as someone for forming an idea of them, hence darshan.

Thank-you for fleshing out the references to Fresh Expressions and Emmaus.

You are right to query ‘evangelical Evangelical’ – I should have said ‘evangelistic Evangelical’ and I will correct my text.

Bishop Steven is described on Wikipedia as an ‘open Evangelical’ and the Revd Edward Green gave me a short definition of this (as someone who supports the ministry of women, but does not accept same-sex relationships) which appears to fit his views.

Pam Smith said...
avatar

I’d call myself an open evangelical and my understanding of ‘open evangelical’ is a bit broader than that.

Eg the description on the Ridley Hall website talks of being open to other traditions and ways of understanding our faith – I would ca, contributing to the wider church and interestingly

“Open to God saying new things through the Bible and His Spirit. Being under the authority of scripture means we may need to be ready to change our mind as we understand more fully”

http://www.ridley.cam.ac.uk/general.html

There is a group called Accepting Evangelicals which says it is for people who

“believe the time has come to move towards the acceptance of faithful, loving same-sex partnerships at every level of church life, and the development of a positive Christian ethic for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

Accepting Evangelicals is for everyone who would call themselves Evangelical”

http://www.acceptingevangelicals.org/

29 August 2012 17:37
Charlie said...
avatar

Ah. Socratic dialectical dialogue.

I’ll get me coat.

Chris Fewings said...
avatar

Socratic, kitchen-table or pub-style, Laura’s made a fine job of opening this space for discussion by drumming up support for the blog on social media, inviting comments and replying to them – and she has never made any pretence of making definitive statements.

Lay Anglicana bids us welcome, and here we are.

29 August 2012 21:38
29 August 2012 18:20
29 August 2012 06:58
28 August 2012 20:31
Kate ardern said...
avatar

I guess, Pam, my preference is for someone has greater breadth of experience within the Church & some skill at reaching out to those who disagree -its easy to be a heroic leader when everyone agrees with your position ( I note that Bishops, clergy & laity in. + Steven’s diocese supported the covenant for example). But ABC requires more nuance & subtlety in conflict handling which I’m not clear from I know about + Steven, he has – you may be far better informed on this than me- ( note I say handling not necessarily resolution!) & ideally, I would like to see an ABC who has had some experience of working,outside the church too.

28 August 2012 20:37
Pam Smith said...
avatar

I think Charlie’s point is well made about + Steven’s knowledge of the C of E, and as for persuasiveness, the widespread acceptance of fresh expressions, the development of pioneer ministry and the much wider understanding of mission as a central parish activity are surely evidence of some level of persuasive ability.

‘It’s easy to be a heroic leader when everyone supports your position’ is a somewhat todd criticism – how would everyone come to support your position unless you had some ability to a) have a an idea that people could back b) explain it persuasively? Simply being a Bishop – or an Archbishop – is no guarantee that people will back you.

The key values of Fresh Expressions include listening and working collaboratively. I have no idea if + Steven has those skills in his personal toolbox, but it’s hard to imagine that he doesn’t think they are important and aspire to them since they are central to his vision of mission.

28 August 2012 20:50
Mark Vasey-Saunders said...
avatar

I hesitate to comment here, but as it seems you’d benefit from comment by someone who actually knows +Steve, I thought I would. I did my theological training at Cranmer while +Steve was Warden there (and it should be noted that although one of the ‘evangelical colleges’, Cranmer has always had a significant anglo catholic minority group amongst its students), and I think I have a fair idea of his leadership style and ability to engage with those of different traditions than his own. I don’t have any particular interest in pushing him as a candidate for ABC (though not because I doubt he’d make a good one!)

I don’t think it’s fair to characterise +Steve’s style as authoritarian. Yes he has strong convictions and a great ability to organise, but as Warden he was approachable and wanted to consult on divisive issues. Ministry in Three Dimensions, which you mention above, and his Transforming Communities, which you don’t, both present a vision of Christian leadership that is collaborative and enabling of others.

His Fresh Expressions role not only had him travelling all over the country but also engaging with those of many different traditions. One of his more recent publications (in conjunction with Ian Mobsby and others) is examining Fresh Expressions in sacramental traditions. His long-term collaboration with the anglo-catholic +Stephen Cottrell (dating back to Emmaus) should also be mentioned.

Open evangelicals are generally defined as evangelicals who are open to the insights of traditions other than their own. Although most would be pro women’s ministry not all would be anti same sex relationships (though +Steve clearly is). Christina Rees (who was also on CEEC) is an open evangelical with close links to Inclusive Church for example. The point is that for +Steve, identifying as an open evangelical is about signalling his willingness to listen to and collaborate with those of traditions other than his own.

Lay Anglicana said...
avatar

Oh Mark, if I may, first of all welcome to Lay Anglicana. I am extremely

    grateful to you for your comments. It is indeed a great help in providing light and shade and also suggests – together with the comments from others – that I may not have done Bishop Steven justice in seeing a potentially ‘closed’ authoritarian leader. In fact, the very expression ‘open evangelical’ rather hints that this is not his style as you tactfully point out.
    I had noticed his collaboration with +Stephen Cottrell actually and should have drawn the obvious conclusion that this indicates an ability to work in harmony with those of different views. (Actually, as someone who has twice collaborated on writing a book, I do know that it is occasionally difficult to maintain that harmony!)

    My main reason for questioning his readiness to be the head of the Church of England and (primus inter pares and all that) of the Anglican Communion, is that he has only been a bishop since 2009. I do see that he is good at getting people to follow him (as has been pointed out, both clergy and laity followed his lead on the Anglican Covenant for a vote in which many others opposed their diocesan bishops). Hence my suggestion that he would make a good successor to ++John Sentamu for Ebor.

Pam Smith said...
avatar

Just as a point of info – I think Justin Welby and Chris Cocksworth are also relative newcomers to episcopal orders. While Justin Welby has run a Cathedral – and has lots of secular management experience as well as reconciliation ministry experience while at Coventry Cathedral. I’m not sure what + Chris brings to the table other than his experience as the principle of a theological college but no doubt he has other strings to his bow as well.

29 August 2012 11:47
29 August 2012 09:32
29 August 2012 09:20
Derek Wright said...
avatar

Good post as always. I don’t think the Bishop Croft isn’t a serious candidate for Cantuar & I base this judgement on 3 things:
1). He isn’t a deep enough thinker- “Ministry in Three Dimensions” is a trite piece of management theory posing as missiology that is crass in the extreme.
2). He polarises opinion through his often quite strident views.
3). He doesn’t bring anything to the table that suggests he can speak to wider society.
I’m sorry to sound mean but he may well be a great bishop & man but I can’t see him even emerging as a compromise candidate.

Charlie said...
avatar

Thank goodness the decision isn’t up to you, then (or let’s hope it’s not).

This comment epitomises a plague which has reached epidemic proportions in the church, namely the propagation of unmoderated opinion. This and all comments like it can be effectively summarised as “anyone who doesn’t agree with me is an idiot, because I say so”.

Not very Socratic.

Lay Anglicana said...
avatar

Charlie, please don’t be so cross with us :>)
I think what Derek says counts as an opening statement – the thesis, if you like. If you disagree with it, fine, tell us why you disagree, point by point (smiling the smile of reason all the time you tell us). Then either Derek will come back, revising his opinion in the light of what you say. Or he will attempt to refute your points, giving us reasons (and smiling the smile of reason etc). That will be the antithesis. Then a third person will come along, or you will revise what you said in the light of Derek’s points and that will be the beginning of synthesis.
I don’t think it is fair to say the comments are unmoderated. We moderate each other – after all, you are moderating what Derek has said, aren’t you?
Here is Kenneth Clark on the smile of reason (fast forward to 1.30 if you like)

Charlie said...
avatar

Oh, I’m not cross with you Laura, I do apologise for seeming so.

I’m very happy with the idea of reasoned debate, I just felt that the comment was not in that spirit. The use of such language as “trite” “crass”, and “strident” without any justification at all doesn’t seem to be very helpful or, indeed, to invite debate.

Lay Anglicana said...
avatar

Fair enough. Welcome back to the nursery slopes…:)

01 September 2012 14:35
01 September 2012 14:02
Chris Fewings said...
avatar

Those were the days. You could be a peer of the realm and a TV personality with crooked teeth!

01 September 2012 15:31
01 September 2012 10:09
01 September 2012 09:17
01 September 2012 07:44
Erika Baker said...
avatar

Note by editor: Erika has made a number of important points in this comment, with relevance beyond the immediate candidacy of Bishop Steven Croft. I have therefore moved the text to a new blog post published today, 1 September 2012.

01 September 2012 10:45
Rosina Elston said...
avatar

The new Archbishop of Canterbury should be able to include all people, regardless of sexuality or gender. He should recognise that same-sex unions are EXPRESSIONS of mutual love as valid as heterosexual unions. If he does not, then he cannot surely claim to have pastoral oversight of these people? The Church of England will wither on the vine as my generation dies away. It already has little credibility with my children’s and grandchildren’s generations. People in its thrall cannot recognise the death pangs.

Lay Anglicana said...
avatar

Many thanks for commenting, Rosina :>)

01 September 2012 12:15
01 September 2012 11:48
Matthew Caminer said...
avatar

What an interesting discussion!

As a management consultant heavily involved in the church in various ways, may I please defend management theory which, if properly used, has a huge amount of potential value to the church, just as for any other organisation. Because management theory is often expressed in clear, simple language, Derek, it may seem to lack intellectual power, but to dismiss it, and therefore its use by +Stephen, as trite is missing a trick, I think.

I share Laura’s misgivings about such a recent elevation to the episcopate being a candidate, but people can surprise you. Maybe next one after, via York? Perhaps.

I do have a concern as to whether anyone can actually remain themselves, especially on the thorny issues, once they reach Lambeth and are face to face with the ‘curia’. The more so, picking up Erika’s point, if they are trying to juggle two jobs… CofE and Anglican communion.

On Fresh Expressions, which is big in the Diocese where I worship (messy church… Labyrinth… you name it), I have a concern that it is the ‘big strategic thing that we must all adopt with a smile on our face’, so that people who are happy with the status quo, with a pattern of what they see as dignified tradition, can be made to feel in the wrong and excluded from dialogue, when they are merely different. The glory of the CofE is that there is, or should be, room for both.

As regards same sex marriage and women bishops, I would be very concerned if they were seen to be the only defining issues upon which (a) an appointment is made and (b) the success or otherwise of that appointment is assessed. So, while “ordaining women as bishops *is* mission. So is welcoming same-sex sexual relationships as an expression of the love of God” as Chris lays out very eloquently, they are not the only issues on the table, and I do tire at those (present company excepted of course) who seem to want us to think that they are the only issues, and the suggestion that everyone in the pews up and down the country are debating them morning noon and night. They are not. So somehow, the ABC has to be mindful of ALL areas of concern, but not be beguiled by strong and skillful lobbying undertaken in a way that risks marginalising people who have their own pastoral needs, perhaps more gently expressed.

All things to all people? Who would want it?!

01 September 2012 14:13
Erika Baker said...
avatar

Matthew, I agree in principle with what you say.
But we must not overlook the fact that the current ABC has foundered precisely because of the people who want to make same sex relationships the litmus test for Christianity.
To say that it “is not” the most important thing is true in some abstract sense, but it misses the reality that all the church, national and international, has been doing is argue about it with amazing passion.

“Let’s focus on what’s really important” has not yet worked, and this simply is not a topic that can be wished away.

Whoever takes over from Rowan will have to tackle it, early on and decisively, unless they want their own tenure in Lambeth Palace to be as fraught as Rowan’s was.

Realpolitik dictates that this topic is solved.

It’s not a question of making it the decisive issue for making or assessing an appointment, it goes far beyond that. It will be the decisive issue that shapes the future of the Anglican Communion.

Rosina Elston said...
avatar

I wonder what it would be like to eavesdrop on the discussion amongst the Christian leaders in Jerusalem before they interviewed that notorious Jewish scholar, Saul. ‘What! Allow him to admit unclean uncircumcised rabble to our sanctified fellowship? How will that go down with the opposition? Things are bad enough after Peter’s dream about the Godfearers, but this man actually wants to trawl for the HEATHEN amongst the towns and villages of Syria, Greece and further afield! If we thought we were being put under pressure by the authorities now, what will they do to us when we start treating such unclean people as our brothers (and sisters)?’ The gender problem has been under the sheets for centuries; it has surfaced now, and like Evolution and the Enlightenment, it is part of our Mission to deal with it. And surely in the name of Jesus and the Holy Spirit there is only one way forward?

01 September 2012 17:35
01 September 2012 14:40
Matthew Caminer said...
avatar

Saadly, Erika, I believe that you are right, but I would be interested in your evidence for the assertion that “the reality that all the church, national and international, has been doing is argue about it with amazing passion.” Neither issue gets mentioned at all in my parish church. Perhaps it ought to be, but it isn’t. I suspect that is true for the laity in most churches. But the opinion formers and the decision makers? For sure, I agree

Chris Fewings said...
avatar

I’m curious about this Matthew. I wonder how much it is in the thoughts of those who feel uncomfortable about voicing an opinion, unsure what the reaction might be, considering how heated the debate has been in the media. I wore a badge to church for a few weeks proclaiming “Straight Christians support gay marriage” (I guessed this was true of a majority in the UK), around the time that Rev Richard Coles was told he was preaching hatred because he was wearing a dog collar. One cleric looked at my badge nervously. Three warmly endorsed it, though one with the proviso that he wasn’t sure that marriage was the right sort of blessing. A lay person in his sixties warmly endorsed it too. Most people ignored it.

Clergy supportive of openly celebrating same-sex relationships refer to it obliquely from the pulpit occasionally, aware of the constraints they are under. This reticence gives a lead to the congregation. Presumably it is an issue clergy have to deal with pastorally rather a lot – if not, that may be because disproportionate percentage of LGBT people (and queers) are avoiding the church like the plague, which would hardly be surprising.

Matthew Caminer said...
avatar

I’m not going to attempt to deal with your main points Chris, because I am not a ‘subject matter expert’ and don’t have any evidence other than what I read and hear. I suspect that a lot of what you and Erika say is right, certainly at the macro level of the church.

What I would say, though, that this is an example of how quickly a discussion of the ABC succession can gravitate to a single issue, or in this case two issues, to the apparent exclusion of all others.

01 September 2012 17:00
01 September 2012 15:51
01 September 2012 15:12
Erika Baker said...
avatar

Matthew, I’m talking about national and international politics. About people breaking away from AC in groups such as GAFCON, about people blocking Jeffry John from every appointment, about the Southern Cone, about the consistent mud flung at TEC, about the ending of international cooperation agreements that hurt poor Africans more than anyone else, about how the issue has hijacked 2 Lambeth conferences, about the Windsor Report, the various Primate meetings that were designed to block everything Rowan wanted, about the Covenant, about debates on introducing the death penalty for partnered gay people and those who support them in Nigeria and in other African countries …

You could say that real church happens quietly beneath all of that or you could say that parishes have not woken up to what is happening and how their church is being changed.

The ABC works at national and international level, not at parish level. And it takes years until the new structures and policies filter down to the parishes. But they will. Eventually, they will.

Our naval gazing parochial system is our greatest strength but also our greatest weakness.

01 September 2012 15:47
Matthew Caminer said...
avatar

Agreed!

01 September 2012 15:51
Lay Anglicana said...
avatar

Hello everyone, if it is not too difficult it would be better to continue the conversation about the Church and the role of the ABC to the new post based on Erika’s comments, which is at: http://www.layanglicana.org/blog/2012/09/01/the-church-and-society-erika-baker/
And then we can continue here with +Steven Croft?

01 September 2012 17:52
Derek Wright said...
avatar

I seem to offended some other commenters by my rather strident use of language. I’ve been attacked by people … for ratherly aimlessly swiping at someone’s views as expressed in their most infuential book. If I’ve led anyone to spill their gin, I apologise.

02 September 2012 21:55
Eva McIntyre said...
avatar

I know Steve from University days and he’s still the same Steve now. He’s a genuine person and is gentle, accessible and humble. He may have spent most of his ministry in the North but he’s not blind to the rest of the Church and his work on Fresh Expressions probably showed him more of the Church than most other bishops have seen. Whilst his stance on gay issues is a traditional evangelical one, the people in his diocese say he’s very open and non-judgemental.
His smile is genuine and he’d do a good job – although I’d prefer someone with more inclusive views, I wouldn’t be displeased to see Steve get the post.

Lay Anglicana said...
avatar

Thank-you for that personal insight, Eva – are you sure you are not just saying this because you want to hold on to Bishop John Inge? 🙂

08 September 2012 10:33
08 September 2012 10:29

Leave a Reply to Charlie Cancel reply

We rely on donations to keep this website running.