Hi Andy

Very interesting article!  Keep up the good work.

All good wishes

Paul Dyson

There is an updated statement from the Hall Council at this link:

http://www.wycliffehall.org.uk/content.asp?id=1707

A clear analysis, Jon, but, as Dave suggests, one which basically corresponds to that which has long been offered by Christians looking at the ills of modern (or any) society.  We probably all think that these three problems have just got worse in recent decades.  However family breakup isn't confined to the poorer sections of society and neither are disrespect for authority or a desire for possessions. 

I read an analysis once which suggested that disorder in society was normal but Britain had generally experienced an unusual level of good order from about 1840 to 1960 which was due to a number of factors, one of which (by no means the only one) was the prevalence and influence of the churches.  I wonder what level of Christian presence there is these days in the deprived inner-urban areas where the present troubles are concentrated.  In my own town it isn't great.  Jon, your work probably puts you in an excellent position to give a proper answer to that.  My expectation would be that most Christians (and I include myself), perhaps especially anglican evangelicals, will be viewing current events from comfortable homes well away from the areas of conflict.

Well done, Nersen!  That's killed off a topical thread very neatly.  Or will it turn during Wimbledon fortnight into another game of relentless hard-hitting base-line tennis between you and one of your regular opponents?  Don't feel you have to return this particular service - I'm off on holiday.

In the thread "Women priests and the Uzziah factor", recently resumed, attention is drawn to an article at the following link: http://www.godswordtowomen.org/bilezikian.htm, which is in effect a very detailed version of Ian Paul's CEN article.  Perhaps these two threads ought to be merged if such a thing is technically possible.

There are a few other issues connected with this one.

Over a number of years (?40) there has been a gradually increasing involvement of lay people other than Readers in Anglican worship, especially in evangelical congregations.  In my youth all services were conducted by male, robed clergy with some assistance from a male, robed Lay Reader if available, while perhaps a male churchwarden or the local squire read a lesson.  At some stage authorised lay administrators, often churchwardens and with some training, were introduced to administer the chalice at Holy Communion and other lay people began to read lessons and lead intercessions.  The organist began to be assisted or even replaced by a music group or band.  Lady Workers, when they became Deaconesses took parts equivalent to Lay Readers until ordination was allowed.

I am aware of several churches, and assume that there are in fact many across the country, where lay people other than Readers were invited by the clergy to take a leading part in conducting worship and indeed to give talks or preach, initially at Family Services but increasingly at others.  There was authorisation or commissioning by PCCs but not, as far as I know, by bishops.  Nor were preachers restricted to reading someone else's words, although considerable use might be made of service and sermon outlines produced by such as Scripture Union.  This was not done because of a shortage of clergy, in fact I was once present at a service where the leader and preacher were lay while four ordained sat in the congregation, including all the staff of the parish.  Were Area Deans, Archdeacons and Bishops unaware of this sort of development or did they turn a blind eye or indeed encourage it?

As far as Lay Presidency is concerned I have never known an instance at a service in church, although I could see it as a logical subsequent step, provided that there was proper authorisation of the presidents and those authorised were acceptable to the congregation.  I accept that there are complications with this such as are detailed in other posts, although I do wonder whether clergy who oppose it do so because it would raise the questions pointedly as to what is actually distinct about their role.  Could there also be authorisation for lay people other than Readers to conduct weddings and funerals?  I think that this has also happened in rare instances.  Thanksgivings would be possible, what about Baptisms?

Another thing I am aware of happening which would have caused traditional evangelicals to spin in their graves is Reserved Sacrament.  In situations where an ordained person will definitely not be available to preside at a Communion service s/he has consecrated the elements which have then been reserved (though without any sort of adoration) until a service which has been conducted by lay people without the prayer of consecration.  Likewise when the elements of communion are taken out to the sick by lay visitors.

In practice many evangelical anglican churches have encouraged and welcomed these developments, whether or not they have been official.  Has there ever been an evaluation of their effect and value?

For an interesting, and enlightening, insight into a Muslim community in Britain, presented by themselves, I recommend the following link.

http://www.barbodhan.org.uk

paragraph 3 of my previous should of course include:

"and usually pronounces kings bad in the end"

Aplogies

Dan, you write:

"If we imagine to ourselves the reasonable-sounding arguments which Uzziah might have urged to allow him to work as a priest, it doesn't take much awareness to realise that in essence, they are identical to the positive arguments used today to support the ordination of women in the CoE and elsewhere."

Imagine....might......awareness......in essence.....identical.  This is an interesting progression, like those intelligence tests where the candidate is invited to supply the next item, which in this case, I suspect, is "ban it!"  I also suspect that Uzziah didn't really have any arguments beyond  the usual kingly one - "might is right".  But then the text doesn't tell us explicitly what the background to the dispute actually was.

The clash between Uzziah and the priests is a good old demarcation dispute: kings are kings and should be fighting, building and protecting; priests are priests and should be sacrificing, burning incense and taking their tithes.  It looks like a set-piece confrontation, threatened and expected for some time and about political power.  The priests saw Uzziah's action as clear interference in their sphere of action.  He lost so we don't have the story from his side.  The writer of Chronicles is always on the side of the priests and usually pronounces them bad in the end, however well they start off.  The Emperor Nero and Henry VIII earned similar verdicts from history.  Sometimes the priests needed shaking up, when they got too comfortable, and had to be reminded of their duties, as in 2 Kings 12.

An interesting point from a commentary I have: "The fact that the leprosy breaks out on the king's forehead is significant (v 19).  Not only is it a very visible place, it is also an unfortunate contrast with the plate of gold worn by the legitimate high priest, as described in Exodus 28:36-38."

I too find it difficult to see what relevance this story has to the women's ordination issue, if only because Uzziah's action arose from his own evaluation of his power, whereas women had none in the priestly sense until given it (if power is the right term in their case - doubtful) and the solidarity of the priests is far from paralleled in the present-day context, since many perfectly orthodox clergy have a high appreciation of the gifts and ministry of women.

An interesting article from several points of view, though some may think it rather simplistic due to the context. 

A few observations - in no particular order and acknowledging that other contributors may well be better informed:

Similar points were being made about forty years ago when there were already significant Hindu and Muslim communities in some large towns and cities.  Some efforts at bridge-building and evangelism were made by churches, individual and co-operative, and Interserve's predecessor, BMMF (Bible and Medical Missionary Fellowship) supported various projects.  There were (and still are) conferences and conventions of those with an interest.  There are individuals and small teams who make dedicated efforts to reach Asians, sometimes (? unfortunately) from what might be called rather extreme Christiam positions.

There are some Christian congregations among those who came here from India, Pakistan and elsewhere and even some pastors who speak the appropriate languages.  I know of one CoE clergyman who is of Pakistani origin and serving in a parish with a high concentration of Muslims (mainly Indian!). I am not aware how much or little integration there has been with "indigenous" churches nor how successful such congregations have been in reaching out to Asian British of other faiths.

From observation I would say that Asian Christians have considerable anxiety, even fear, in regard to Muslims, which is understandable when they hear of some events and persecutions in the sub-continent.

British Christian churches were not generally welcoming to Christian immigrants from Africa and the West Indies.  Hence, in part, the rise of the "black" churches.

On the whole tthe other-faith communities have concentrated in inner-urban areas where churches were already weakening in the 60s and 70s and have generally declined even further since then, even to the point of disappearance.  Everywhere is part of an Anglican parish of course, but inner-urban parishes are often now parts of larger amalgamations, understaffed and with congregations who come in for services and events but have little if any engagement with the area and its community.  When mosques and temples have strong presences the remaining Christians tend to be on the defensive, trying to preserve what they have rather than feeling the confidence to reach out.  I have not observed much interest from the stronger evangelical churches, Anglican or other, which tend to be in the suburbs, nor am I aware that the eclectic congregations which sometimes take over redundant buildings are doing much in relation to other faiths.

From observation in my own locality (large once-industrial town with about 20% varied Asian population) it is very easy for white British, even for Christians with a real desire to reach out, to live lives which only rarely bring them into contact with other faiths, and even that only superficial - at the supermarket checkout.  One need never set foot in Asian areas and can easily find schools with no Asian children.

The article is right to resist stereotyping of other faith groups - "The Muslims" etc.  There is probably as great a variety amongst Muslims as there is amongst Christians, despite the cultivated images and apparently unified practice and belief.

Groups/denominations of Hindus and Muslims have considerable community spirit, perhaps more than all but the best Christian fellowships, cemented by family connections and links to the village back home, as some of the news items about response to the floods in Pakistan demonstrate.  Converts to Christianity would need to find something similar in the churches because they would be most likely leaving behind their ties and supports as well as possibly facing serious consequences - does that level of fellowship exist?

I have been told, but cannot personally verify, that there have been significant numbers of conversions from Islam in London.

Other-faith groups have their vulnerable points.  Many people who were immigrants are very anxious about the perils modern British culture has for their children and grandchildren, involvement in crime, lack of employment opportunties.  Some as a result are keen to keep their young people, especially girls, away from the influence of white youth.  But I sense that the influence of "the elders" may be waning.

Do university CUs have any "success" in reaching those from other faiths?