Thank you Clare; a very powerful and compelling testimony.

Actually not from the Bishop of Newcastle, but from a former missionary bishop who is now an assistant bishop in that diocese.

I felt the article read as if he wished that Britain was no longer Christian - he seemed to quote the most anti-church statistics he could lay his hands on. Personally I'm not sure reductions in infant baptisms and in weddings are the best indicators of the church's health or otherwise.

Clearly it will only be some years hence we'll know for sure where things have been heading, but personally I feel cautious optimism. Participation appears to be holding roughly steady, is starting to go up in a number of places and the church as a whole feels to be much more serious about the need for growth. Certain categories of church, notably cathedrals, are seeing strong growth nationally.

More widely, the majority of the population continue to consider themselves Christian - whatever range of things that may mean to each individual.

Most importantly they get their own bar! Well, not quite, the Bishops' Bar is open to other peers as well, but still must count for some kudos.

It's actually Canterbury, York, London, Durham and Winchester by right, then a further 21 by their length of service as diocesans. Europe along with Sodor & Man are excluded from the count.

The Lords Spiritual have the same rights as other peers at present - they can tabke bills and amendments, speak, vote, tell. Their presence is probably more significant in that it provides a place for an explicitly Christian - or more broadly, spiritual - voice in the corridors of power, allowing them access to decision makers and a platform to present a Gospel take on the issues of the day. Significantly other faith leaders such as the Chief Rabbi have spoken in favour of keeping their role, so that a religious voice is retained in parliament.

There used to be a ban on clergy sitting in Parliament, but I have a vague recollection that was repealed in 1999.

Actually David, I'd tend to feel that the role of Bishops in the Lords tends to be underestimated rather than exaggerated (though it is of course entirely possible for both things to be done at once by different people!)

If you follow Hansard, it's surprising how frequently a key intevention in a debate is made from the Bishops' Bench. Whilst many of them are active in voting, they are clearly of insufficient number to have a major impact - but numbers alone tend to be less significant in the Lords, where amendments often succeed or fail based on the mood of the House, rather than being pushed to formal votes. And with the Commons increasingly sending half finished legislation along the corridor for the Lords to tidy-up, this allows the church a key voice in refining new laws to reflect a religious/spiritual/moral dimension.

To some extent the bishops may be expanding their political role. Last year a bishop sponsored, and acted as teller for, an amendment to the 3rd reading of a government bill. David Sheppard took the Labour whip when ennobled on retirement. The CofE has just established a Parliamentary Liaison Unit to support the bishops in their role in the House.

The only stat I can lay my hands on comes from the 2007 Tearfund survey, which suggests that 23% of Anglicans identify themselves as evangelical. Obviously, many would want a more stringent definition of evangelical than that, but self-identification is probably the best for statistical purposes.

My main reaction is one of caution: facts that "everyone knows" can prove false friends, defining terms here is challenging, there is little or no consistently based time-series research, and too often someone grabs two data points, draws a straight line and proclaims an overly dramatic conclusion.

Looking over a longer period, the evangelical party was dominant in the CofE in the late 18th/early 19th century, and again in the mid 19th century - there is a regular pattern of tides coming in and going out again. Owen Chadwick's observation in "The Victorian Church" probably has application to our own time as well.

"From time to time newspapers of high churchmen announced hopefully that the evangelical party was dead or moribund. From time to time newspapers of the low churchmen rejoiced with equal justice or hyperbbole that the Tractarian party was extinct. Wish begot hope and hope begot assurance."

I think I'll hang on for the film version. I'm guessing Mel Gibson and Meg Ryan? :)

Nersen, if your hypothetical bishop has stated that he will abide by church policy, I don't think you can object to him presenting arguments for changing it. The church's discernment of God's will has always been changing and until the last days presumably always will. And this happens through people, especially leaders in the church, working through the arguments on each side of an issue.

Actually, people being prepared to abide by church policy and argue for it to be changed, rather than just flouting the rules (on the point of the OP) is pretty good going. I suspect that CharismaticCatholic may be able to speak to the reformation better than me, but Luther, for example, was probably less obedient to existing church policy.

I've been rereading Chadwick's "The Victorian Church" recently. To a theme in the posts below, it's quite cheering looking back at history - all the arguments that were once so fiercely fought over, yet are now forgotten because we either take their conclusion for granted or accept the different points of view on a subject. And whilst the tone of religious debate is often such that would make a trader blush, at least in the current arguments no one has yet thrown a dead cat at the Archbishop of Canterbury. Yet.

On our hypothetical bishop who is upholding the teaching, doctrine and practice of the church, but is arguing for change; a fair point is made that if that change goes beyond certain bounds, that will be unacceptable. But if that is the case, there are processes to pursue to challenge that bishop's right to hold his office.

We cannot have an approach whereby anyone can decide by themselves that their bishop - whilst upholding doctrine and practice - is on some basis "unsound" and so unilaterally they will henceforth ignore him. That would just allow anyone, of any stamp of churchmanship, a free trump card anytime they want to disregard their duty of obedience.

On the specific suggestion that supporting current doctrine on sexuality whilst looking for further reflection on the subject should render a bishop unfit for office: such a prelate would be doing no more than upholding Lambeth 1.10, which specifically calls the church to monitor work done on human sexuality.

Carl,

Chaos and the Church of England have long gone hand in hand, so maybe you're right. To be clear, however, your suggestion results in absolutely zero church order. It gives TEC freedom to ignore Lambeth 1.10, Windsor etc because they will explain that (as far as they are concerned) Scripture commands them to take the course they are taking, so take it they must. If an individual incumbent finds his reading of Scripture tells him that there was no physical resurrection of Christ, then he must preach that, and ignore his bishop's attempts to admonish him.

We are all fallen humanity, we are not omniscient, none of us can discern God's will in pefect detail - which is why the church's understanding of true doctrine has changed and evolved slightly over time. It is also why their are structures in place for the church to discern doctrine collectively, rather than leaving each individual to chart their own course (or, more correctly, to interpret the map in their own way).

Great contribution from +Tom, definitely helps illuminate the situation. This may just be some vast technical incompetence on my part, but it looks as if the article is cut off mid sentence (in fact mid word). Is there a bit missing?

Just so long as we're not hardwired to believe in the Daily Mail.

Pageantmaster, with your insistence on referring to the Presiding Bishop as "Mrs", are we to understand that you don't believe women are allowed to hold doctorates? Or is it just married women?