When Jack Aubrey set sail with his crew on Surprise, he was left to his own devices. He could experiment with a bigger yard-arm, drill his gunners to be faster than they ever believed possible and take his frigate with uncanny accuracy to any point on the chart. This was what the Royal Navy was about. The captain was key. Once at sea, it was his shoulders that bore the burden of responsibility.
In the days of Jane Austen and Trollope that was how it was with the Church of England. The rector or vicar was key. Infrequent visits by the bishop had little impact, even if when he did turn up for a Confirmation the bishop might inadvertently confirm one of his clergy, as we read in Kilvert’s diary.
And, truth to tell, there were other drawbacks. There were gross disparities among the territorial units, with plum livings much sought after and absent incumbents leaving the donkey-work to under-paid substitutes. But the parson’s freehold, with all its blemishes (as we see from that good-humoured ‘Field Guide’) fostered initiative and plain speaking at the level that mattered.
The introduction of indirect democracy that gave us the Church Assembly and then the synodical levels of government had the unforeseen consequence of introverting the Established Church. The answer to the question ‘To whom does the Church of England belong?’ ceased to be the English people. It became the minority who took an interest in ecclesiastical matters. It led at the same time to a centralisation that aspired to turn a hotch-potch of parishes into an institutionally efficient machine purveying the same service nationally to all and sundry. Post-code uniformity was the guiding-light.
This has raised issues about the nature of the Established Church. It has inevitably taken on something of the hue of the Episcopal Church of the USA. It is torn between the freedom that comes from the abandonment of centuries-old links between Church and State and the different kind of freedom that results from introverted self-government.
At present the key unit, the parish, is lauded by innovators and traditionalists alike. But they do not mean the same thing by the word ‘parish’. We have a credibility problem with the staffing of our parishes. When the territorial scheme is stretched to breaking-point, we face a choice. Do we go down the Jack Aubrey road or do we prefer centralism?
If you have a comment on this post please send an email to Revd John King at johnc.king@talktalk.net Edited extracts may be published. To forward this to a friend click on the chain icon below.
Comments