Clericalism, bullying, spiritual manipulation, domestic abuse, misogyny, cowardice dressed up as command, and power wrapped in religious language have all done real damage.

So this is also not a plea for the Church to become more “macho”. It’s not a request for louder men, harder men, angrier men, or men who imagine the Gospel exists to validate their own importance.

The Church doesn't need men to dominate, She needs men to be converted.

But…

Conversion doesn’t mean the Church should become embarrassed by male strength, courage, protectiveness, discipline, sacrifice, fatherliness, rightly ordered authority, or the willingness to stand firm when standing firm is difficult.

These things can be corrupted, but so can intelligence, compassion, ambition, influence, tenderness and zeal. The Christian answer to corruption is not suspicion of the gift itself. It’s conversion.

The opposite of toxic masculinity is not harmlessness, it’s holiness.

Masculinity is not the enemy

There is a version of church life in our current time that seems nervous around “male strength”. It knows what bad masculinity looks like, and rightly wants no part of it, but it struggles to speak positively about good masculinity without immediately qualifying, softening, apologising, or translating it into something less threatening.

That’s a problem… We need to address it.

If the Church has nothing better to offer men than suspicion or softness, she shouldn’t be surprised if men go looking elsewhere for formation, answers and camaraderie.

Elsewhere is not gentle. Secular culture is very good at offering men caricatures of strength. It’s full of dominance, sexual conquest, emotional numbness, contempt for weakness, anger as identity, or success as salvation.

The Church should be able to offer something deeper.

She should be able to say to men, “your strength is not wicked, but it must be disciplined. Your courage is not embarrassing, but it must be placed under obedience. Your desire to protect is not primitive, but it must be purified by love. Your authority, where you are given it, is not for self-display, but for service. Your weakness isn’t the end of you. Your anger isn’t automatically righteous. Your desires aren’t meaningless, but neither are they sovereign.”

In other words, the Church should know how to form men. Not manage, flatter, or fear them. Form them.

The men Scripture gives us

The Bible doesn’t give us one flat model of “manhood”. It gives us:

• Abraham, called out into obedience without being allowed to control the promise.

• Joseph, resisted temptation and used power to preserve life rather than avenge himself against his brothers.

• Moses, lead people through danger and yet learnt meekness. (“Meek” by the way, is fascinating in the Old Testament (Anav - Hebrew) and *New Testament (Praus - Greek) meaning of the word… It doesn’t exactly mean what modern use has lead us to all think when we hear the word.)

• David, whose courage is real, whose sin is terrible, and whose repentance is not optional.

• Joseph of Nazareth, who protects, listens, obeys, stays quiet, and acts faithfully without needing to make himself the centre of the story.

It also gives us John the Baptist, who tells the truth without needing approval. Peter, who is bold and weak, ashamed and restored. Paul, whose authority is inseparable from suffering, and whose strength is made perfect in weakness.

Above all, it gives us Christ.

Christ is not a sentimental figure of agreeable “niceness”. He’s gentle, but never weak. He’s meek*, but never evasive. He welcomes sinners, but doesn’t flatter sin. He touches the unclean, rebukes the proud, weeps at the tomb, overturns tables, blesses children, forgives enemies, endures violence, and gives His life for the world.

In Christ, masculine strength is not abolished, it’s crucified and made holy.

That’s the pattern the Church should offer men. Not domination, self-assertion, the performance of toughness, or anxious need to be admired.

But:

Obedience, sacrifice, courage, chastity, truth, protection, repentance, fatherliness, service, and love.

These are not the “lesser things”. They’re the demanding things.

The Church needs fathers and brothers

To say the Church needs fathers and brothers isn’t to say she doesn’t need mothers and sisters. That’s not the argument here.

The Body of Christ isn’t a competition for spiritual importance between genders.

The Church needs holy women and holy men, nuns and monks… She needs the gifts of the whole Body - priests, deacons, lay leaders, catechists, teachers, godparents, wardens, evangelists, intercessors and servants. She needs courage wherever Christ gives it, wisdom wherever the Spirit forms it, and authority wherever it is exercised as service.

There’s a particular need to speak again of “spiritual fatherhood” though…

Not paternalism, control, or the old clerical habit of treating people as children, but fatherhood in the deeper Christian sense. The willingness to protect without possessing, to teach without crushing, to bless without demanding applause, and to discipline without humiliation.

Many boys and men need that. So do many women.

So do parishes.

So does the wider Church.

A good father doesn’t make himself the point. He helps others become strong enough to stand before God and carries responsibility without turning it into theatre. He knows that authority isn’t the right to be served, but the call to give himself away.

One Body, not a grievance contest

The Church has had to repent of ways in which men have misused power. That repentance is necessary and isn’t optional, it’s part of truth.

But repentance becomes distorted when it turns into a grievance contest…

It is possible to reject toxic masculinity in a way that begins to enjoy the suspicion, belittling, or humiliation of men as a whole. It’s possible to mistake the lowering of one group for the raising of another and for old wounds to become new permissions in over-correcting zeal.

Permission to sneer, to exclude, to caricature, to assume guilt, or to claim resentment as justice.

The Church isn’t healed when one group’s resentment is renamed as another group’s repentance. Sin is not male, holiness is not female.

Christ doesn’t convert one part of the Body so that another part can applaud from a safe distance. He calls the whole Body to repentance.

That means men must repent of the ways masculinity has been distorted into domination, lust, violence, vanity, entitlement, passivity, cowardice or contempt. It also means the rest of the Church must resist the temptation to treat men as a problem to be managed rather than souls to be formed.

The Body is one. When one part is humiliated, the whole Body is diminished, when one part is healed, the whole Body is strengthened.

So the question isn’t whether the Church should become more male or more female, harder or softer, louder or quieter.

The question is whether we are becoming holy.

Form men, do not merely manage them

The Church doesn’t need to apologise for calling men to holiness. It’s one of the most loving things she can do.

Call men to pray, to worship, to confess their sins, to self-control, to chastity. Call them to protect the vulnerable, to honour women, to care for children, to serve without sulking. Call them to lead without vanity, to repent when they fail. Call them to stand firm when truth requires it, and to kneel when pride resists it.

None of that is toxic, it’s Christian.

A Church that cannot form men will leave them to be formed elsewhere. By screens influencers, resentment, pornography, politics, consumerism, loneliness, anger, and a culture that alternates between mocking men and exploiting their worst instincts.

The Church can offer something better, She can offer Christ.

The man who is strong enough to be gentle. Humble enough to obey. Courageous enough to suffer. Pure enough to love without consuming. Authoritative enough to serve, and free enough to give himself away.

The Church doesn’t need men to become less “masculine” in order to become holy. She needs masculinity healed, judged, disciplined, forgiven, and transfigured in Christ.

The opposite of toxic masculinity isn’t embarrassed masculinity. It’s sanctified masculinity, and the Church must remember how to form it. Getting brothers, dads, uncles etc into church is already hard enough - telling them every Sunday that the pop-culture world doesn’t like any of their natural tendencies, will only make it worse.

Suggested Reading

• The Book of Common Prayer

• St Augustine, Confessions

• C. S. Lewis, The Four Loves

• Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

• Michael Ramsey, The Christian Priest Today

• John Paul II, Redemptoris Custos

A Church that doesn’t care about the world God has made which includes poverty, loneliness, justice, grief, war, family, work, children, the elderly, the sick, the frightened and the forgotten, has misunderstood the Incarnation.

But… The Church isn’t only here to make this life kinder, calmer, fairer, more useful or more bearable. Her purpose and reason is to proclaim Christ crucified and risen, to call sinners to repentance, to baptise, to forgive, to feed with the Body and Blood of Christ, to bury the dead in hope, and to teach us to look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

That last phrase can sound almost too familiar to trouble us.

We say it in the Creed, hear it in the liturgy, at funerals, in hymns, in Scripture, in the Eucharist, and in moments when death is so close that spiritual optimism is no longer enough. I sometimes wonder whether we believe it with the confidence our worship assumes.

A Church that forgets heaven will eventually forget what salvation is for, and quietly pretending hell is unreal will struggle to explain why grace matters.

Subscribe now

A smaller universe

Modern life trains us to live in a small universe.

Not necessarily a stupid, shallow one. There’s great seriousness, intelligence and compassion outside the Church, and Christians shouldn’t pretend otherwise, but secular imagination tends to narrow the frame. It teaches us to speak about human life in terms of wellbeing, identity, belonging, mental health, fulfilment, productivity, and personal meaning.

None of those is trivial, indeed some are really important, but they aren’t large enough to carry the full weight of a human soul.

The Gospel isn’t simply that we can become nicer in this life. Things may happen like finding community, discovering purpose, improving our behaviour, or contributing to society. When they do, they’re gifts, but they aren’t the whole Gospel.

The Gospel is that we can be judged, forgiven, saved, raised, and drawn into the eternal life of God.

It’s a much larger claim than “nice things may happen”. It refuses to let death have the final word, to let sin become merely damage or poor choice, refuses to reduce grace to reassurance, and refuses to pretend that human beings are only complicated animals in need of comfort, management and occasional moral encouragement.

We are made for God, which is why a faith too small for heaven will always become too small for us.

Heaven is not an optional extra

Heaven is often made sentimental, which may be one reason the Church sometimes sounds shy about it.

It becomes the place where nice people go after a difficult illness, or the soothing idea that those we love are somehow still around, and a soft-focus answer to grief when no one knows what else to say. There’s tenderness in that, and we should be gentle around grief, but heaven isn’t simply religious comfort at the edge of death.

Heaven is communion with God.

It’s the fulfilment of everything for which we were made. It’s not escape from creation, but creation brought to glory, and it isn’t God saying that this world doesn’t matter, but God refusing to abandon what He has made and redeemed in Christ.

The Church’s hope isn’t thin consolation or, “At least they live on in our memories.” It isn’t, “Death is natural, so make peace with it.” Christian hope is stranger and stronger.

Christ is risen, Death is defeated, and the dead will be raised. The saints live in God, the angels worship, the Kingdom will come, and the life of the world to come is not a poetic way of saying that things generally turn out all right. It’s the promised future of God’s creation in Christ.

The Church forgetting this doesn’t mean She becomes more realistic, She becomes less Christian.

Why judgment still matters

Of course, if we speak of heaven, we cannot simply pretend the other side of the Christian story doesn’t exist.

Hell shouldn’t be turned into a cartoon threat. The Church doesn’t need to frighten people into faith with crude images, spiritual bullying, or lurid delight in damnation. There’s something deeply un-Christian about speaking of hell without tears.

Neither can hell be quietly dismissed as an embarrassment from the Churches medieval period. It names the terrible possibility of refusing God, refusing love, refusing truth, refusing mercy, refusing life. It says that our choices matter because we matter. Evil is real, not merely unfortunate, and God’s mercy is not sentimental indulgence, but rescue.

Judgment isn’t the opposite of mercy, it’s the truth before which mercy becomes astonishing.

Without judgment, sin becomes vague. Without sin, grace becomes soft. Without grace, salvation becomes unnecessary. And then Christianity slowly becomes moral improvement with candles, wellbeing with hymns, or social concern with a cross in the background.

The Church doesn’t need to become obsessed with hell, but she mustn’t comfort people with a faith too small to save.

People know, often more deeply than they admit, that something is wrong. Not only in the world, but in us. We aren’t merely products of systems, instincts, habits and histories. We are also morally responsible creatures who need mercy.

Mercy only matters if there is something real from which we need saving.

The unseen world is not decoration

The saints, angels, resurrection of the dead, and life of the world to come aren’t decorative extras.

They’re part of the Christian account of reality. The Church doesn’t worship in a closed universe.

At every Eucharist, when she joins her voice with angels and archangels and all the company of heaven, she isn’t adding atmosphere, but telling the truth. Earth and heaven aren’t sealed off from one another.

The Church militant and the Church triumphant aren’t two unrelated ideas, the saints aren’t merely inspirational figures from the past, the angels aren’t poetic embroidery, and the dead in Christ aren’t simply memories.

The Creed has unapologetically been saying this and teaching this the whole time.

Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead. We believe in the resurrection of the body. We look for the life of the world to come. These aren’t optional sentences for the more dramatic sort of Christian, they’re the shared language of the Church.

A Church that stops speaking this way may still speak about love, welcome, service, justice, belonging and hope, but the hope will begin to shrink. It will become hope for better conditions, better relationships, better institutions, better mental health, better politics, better inclusion, better community.

Again, these aren’t bad things. They’re just not enough.

The Church must speak of a hope large enough to face death.

People are not hungry for a thinner faith

One of the mistakes churches can make is to assume that modern people need less.

Less doctrine, less judgment, less mystery, less demand, less talk of sin, less heaven, less hell, less eternity, less of what might sound strange to an age trained to distrust the unseen.

Perhaps many people aren’t looking for a thinner faith? Perhaps they’re looking for one large enough to tell the truth about death.

A culture of wellbeing can help us manage life, but can’t raise the dead. A culture of moral concern can call attention to suffering, but it won’t forgive sin. A culture of spirituality can offer language for longing, but it isn’t going to reconcile us to God. A culture of therapy can help us understand our wounds, but it won’t heal the fracture between the creature and the Creator.

The Church shouldn’t be embarrassed that she offers more than this.

She doesn’t need to become severe, theatrical or grim, but she does need to recover confidence in the last things, not as a threat held over people, but as the horizon within which mercy, holiness, repentance and hope make sense.

Heaven is not escapism. Hell is not a preacher’s weapon. Judgment is not cruelty. Grace is not niceness. Salvation is not self-improvement.

The Gospel is bigger than this life because Christ is Lord of the living and the dead.

Remember heaven

This isn’t a call for the Church to speak less about the suffering of this world, but for her to speak of that suffering in the light of eternity. The hungry must be fed, the lonely visited, the vulnerable protected, the grieving comforted, but none of this is less urgent because heaven is real. It’s more urgent.

If human beings are made for communion with God, then every person matters more, not less. Every wound matters more. Every sin matters more. Every act of mercy matters more. Every funeral matters more. Every Eucharist matters more. And every soul matters more.

The Church must remember heaven, not as an escape from the world, but as the truth that finally makes sense of it.

Suggested Reading

• C. S. Lewis, The Great Divorce

• C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory

• N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope

• Dante, The Divine Comedy

• Jeremy Taylor, Holy Living and Holy Dying

That’s the danger in any anxious ecclesial moment. The thinking that if only we find the “right” phrase, campaign, public posture, tone, or message, the Church will somehow become credible again.

Language does matter. A slogan can gather attention, and a phrase can help a community remember something important. “Christ is risen” isn’t exactly a long sentence. “Love your neighbour” is brief enough to print on a mug, even though living it is rather less convenient.

The problem isn’t that the Church uses words, the problem is when just saying words becomes easier than the becoming.

When words become thin

Slogans aren’t always bad. Cringey as they often are, we shouldn’t pretend that every short phrase is shallow simply because it can fit on a poster.

The Church has always needed memorable words, because the faith must be preached, prayed, sung, taught and handed on, but a slogan is not the same as witness.

• A slogan can be repeated quickly.

• A saint is formed slowly.

• A slogan can be deployed without much cost.

• A saint is been changed by obedience.

• A slogan can signal belonging.

• A saint bears witness.

• A slogan can make us feel righteous.

• A saint is being made holy.

The world is already very good at slogans, so those distinctions matter. The world knows how to perform concern, urgency, moral seriousness and belonging. It knows how to reward the right language and punish the wrong, and how to turn causes into badges and conviction into identity.

The Church is meant to offer something deeper.

Not less conviction, courage, and speech, but speech that has passed through prayer. Conviction that’s been humbled by repentance, and public witness that begins not with the need to be seen saying the “right thing”, but with the slow work of being converted to Christ.

The Church mustn’t confuse saying the right thing with becoming the right kind of people.

The danger isn’t conviction

The Church should have convictions, so this isn’t a plea for a vague Church.

She should care for creation, protect the vulnerable, repent of sin, defend the poor, seek justice, evangelise, teach, worship, bless, challenge and console.

At the same time, this isn’t a plea for a Church that retreats into beautiful worship while the world suffers outside the door.

The Word became flesh, not an aesthetic preference. A Church that worships beautifully and ignores the wounded has misunderstood both beauty and worship.

The danger isn’t having a cause, it’s when the cause becomes the centre and Christ becomes the religious language arranged around it.

That danger isn’t always obvious, because the cause may be good.

Justice, creation care, safeguarding, tradition, reverence and mission are all good, but every good thing in the Church must be converted by Christ.

Otherwise, even our best concerns can become another way of enthroning the self and it becomes “my” cause “my” tribe, “my” preferred register, “my” version of compassion, “my” version of courage, “my” version of holiness and “my” version of the Church.

Then, almost without noticing, we begin to use Christian language to decorate what we had already decided to worship.

Every tradition has its own performance

It’s tempting on all sides to believe this is a problem mainly for other people. Other traditions perform for themselves, other clergy use ministry as a platform, other Christians mistake their favoured emphasis for the Gospel, other institutions hide behind careful language…

No part of the Church is immune.

• Evangelical urgency can become busyness without holiness.

• Catholic reverence can become beauty without conversion.

• Liberal compassion can become kindness without costly truth.

• Conservative courage can become firmness without charity.

• Charismatic authenticity can become feeling without obedience.

• Institutional responsibility can become caution without repentance.

• Activist concern can become motion without prayer.

No tradition is purified simply by being “ours”.

There’s a kind of solemnity that is really vanity in vestments, a kind of informality that is really self-expression with a microphone, an activism that is really restlessness with moral vocabulary, and a kind of doctrinal confidence that is really fear of being humbled.

The Gospel judges all of it, which is a mercy, even when it feels like exposure.

Christ doesn’t merely endorse our best instincts, He purifies them. He doesn’t give our causes a halo and send us on our way, He asks whether we’re willing to be converted by the truth we claim to serve.

The Church doesn’t need every tradition to perform itself more loudly. She needs every tradition to become holy.

Holiness is slower than messaging

A phrase can be drafted in an afternoon, purifying a soul takes a little longer. A campaign can be launched with a logo, a prayer and a set of resources, but a Christian life is formed through worship, repentance, Scripture, Eucharist, silence, service, failure, forgiveness and the long obedience of ordinary days.

This is why the Church can become impatient with holiness. It’s difficult to package doesn’t always produce immediate evidence of success, fit neatly into a communications calendar, and it resists slogans because it’s trying to make saints, not merely gather agreement.

This slow work is the Church’s true work.

Every Sunday, the Church says again the words she didn’t invent. She confesses sins the age might prefer to rebrand as wounds, mistakes, systems or self-expression. She comes to the altar with empty hands to receive mercy she didn’t earn, and she’s sent out, not to perform virtue, but to live as Christ’s Body in the world.

That is confused as inactivity, but it’s formation.

If public witness doesn’t come from there, it will eventually become performance. Sincere performance perhaps. Useful performance even, but performance all the same.

The Church needs saints

I don’t mean perfect people, plaster figures, or the sort of pious caricature that makes holiness look inhuman, humourless and faintly damp.

I mean saints who are people in whom grace has gone deep. People being made truthful, merciful, repentant, courageous, prayerful, humble and free. Some are famous, most aren’t. Most visit quietly, forgive slowly, pray when no one is watching, tell the truth without cruelty, serve without needing to be seen, and stay faithful when faithfulness looks ordinary.

The Church has always been renewed by such people.

Not by slogans, strategies, campaigns, and statements alone. Words matter, but the Church’s words become credible when they’re carried by sanctified lives.

The world doesn’t need the Church to become another anxious institution with religious slogans, there are enough anxious institutions already. It also doesn’t need us to baptise every urgency of the age into Christian language and call that courage. It doesn’t need clergy, parishes, bishops, ordinands, activists, conservatives, liberals, evangelicals, catholics, charismatics or institutions performing their favourite virtues more convincingly.

It needs saints.

It needs people whose justice has been purified by mercy. People whose compassion can bear truth, whose courage is disciplined by charity, whose reverence leads to service, whose activism begins in prayer. People whose doctrine becomes worship with public witness which isn’t a stage for the self, but an offering to Christ.

The Church doesn’t need fewer convictions, she needs deeper conversion, and so do we all.

Suggested Reading

• Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together

• St Augustine, Confessions

• Thomas à Kempis, The Imitation of Christ

• Evelyn Underhill, The School of Charity

• The Book of Common Prayer

We live in an age which often assumes that reality must be measured and managed before it can be believed and trusted. It needs to be able to be explained before it can be taken seriously.

Modern imagination isn’t necessarily hostile to God in an obvious way, it’s often more subtle. It makes the world smaller and trains us to suspect that whatever cannot be counted, tested, mapped, improved, or consumed is probably private, decorative, emotional, or unreal.

The Church doesn’t fear science, truth isn’t divided against itself. A Christian shouldn’t be anxious about discovery, reason, evidence, or the patient discipline of learning how the world works. The problem isn’t science, it’s the smaller belief that only the measurable is real.

The Christian claim has always been larger than that, and one of the quiet gifts of Anglican worship, especially in its choral and liturgical inheritance, is that it keeps that larger world alive.

A world flattened by explanation

There is a kind of explanation that enlarges wonder, and there is a kind that flattens it.

Good science often belongs to the first kind. It shows us a universe more ordered, intricate, strange, intelligible, and beautiful than casual unbelief sometimes allows. It doesn’t make reality thinner, in many ways, it makes reality more astonishing. The more we learn about the scale of the cosmos, the delicacy of life, the structure of matter, the mysterious intelligibility of mathematics, and the dependence of everything on conditions we didn’t create, the harder it becomes to pretend that the world is merely obvious.

There’s another instinct, and it is everywhere. It says that once something has been described, it has been disposed of. Once we can explain a process, we have exhausted its meaning. Once we can locate an experience in the brain, or trace a practice through history, or analyse the social function of religion, we have somehow explained away the holy.

That isn’t reason, it’s reduction. It’s the habit of treating the world as though it were less deep than it is.

The Church mustn’t answer that habit by becoming anti-intellectual, defensive, or suspicious of learning. Christianity has no need to retreat into the shadows every time someone turns on a microscope or points a telescope towards the heavens. The created order is not an embarrassment to faith, it’s gift, a sign, it is the world God made.

The Church must also refuse an imagination that cannot bear mystery. The Christian faith doesn’t ask us to believe in a vague spiritual mist hovering over an otherwise closed universe. It tells us that the whole of reality is charged with the presence, judgment, mercy, and glory of God.

The world is not less mysterious because we understand more of it, it’s more mysterious than we ever dared imagine.

The Church need not fear truth

One of the oddest habits of modern argument is the assumption that faith and reason must be natural enemies. It’s a very tidy story, which is probably why it survives. Religion belongs to the old world, science to the new. Faith belongs to darkness, reason to light. The Church belongs to superstition, and modern people have moved on, usually with a podcast, a ring light, and absolute confidence that no one before 2012 had thought very carefully about anything.

Christian tradition is more interesting than that.

The Church Fathers were not frightened of thought. Augustine didn’t turn away from philosophy because he found God, he learned to see truth more deeply because he found God.

The great Christian tradition has argued, prayed, reasoned, sung, disputed, written, contemplated, and built. It has given us monasteries and universities, cathedrals and hospitals, metaphysics and music.

At its best, it’s never asked us to choose between the mind and the soul, learning and worship, or the created order and the Creator.

The Church of England, at her best, knows this too. Her inheritance is not a refusal of reason, but reason placed within reverence. Scripture is read aloud, doctrine confessed, Psalms sung, and sacraments are received. The mind is not discarded at the door, it’s brought into worship, humbled, widened, and taught to kneel.

That’s why the Church need not fear truth, but rather the loss of depth. She must fear becoming embarrassed by her own claim that the visible world is held within a greater reality.

She must fear the temptation to translate everything into the language of usefulness, heritage, wellbeing, or social value, because those are the terms a secular age finds easiest to understand.

There are moments when the Church must simply say what she believes:

• God is real.

• Christ is risen.

• Angels and archangels are not decorative flourishes.

• The saints are not sentimental ornaments.

• Worship is not collective nostalgia.

• Prayer is not self-soothing with candles.

• The Eucharist is not an exercise in community symbolism, however much community is formed around it.

These are claims about reality, our reality, and if the Church ceases to make them, she may remain busy, pleasant, and publicly useful, but she will become very thin indeed.

A Church that sings a larger world

This is where Anglican choral tradition matters. Not because it’s tasteful, photographs well, and makes visitors feel they have stepped into a superior heritage experience with better acoustics. At its best, choral worship matters because it carries a larger world.

Choral Evensong is one of the Church of England’s strangest gifts. It doesn’t anxiously explain itself or rush to prove its relevance, it gathers the day and offers it to God. It takes Scripture, psalmody, canticles, silence, confession, prayer, and music, and arranges them into an act of worship that is somehow both public and intimate, ancient and immediate.

The psalms aren’t always polite, the canticles are not vague spiritual uplift, and the Magnificat is not gentle religious decoration. It’s the song of a young woman announcing that God casts down the proud and lifts up the lowly. The Nunc Dimittis is not a pretty evening mood, it’s an old man standing at the edge of death and saying that he has seen salvation.

When these things are sung, they don’t become less serious, they’re deeply lodged in us.

Anglicanism doesn’t always argue people into mystery, sometimes it sings them there.

There are truths the mind resists when stated plainly, but enter quietly through music. Not because music bypasses truth, but because it carries truth in a form the whole person can receive. A line of psalmody can remain in the soul long after a sermon has faded, a canticle can teach someone to pray before they would know how to describe what prayer is, and choir can give voice to longing that a congregation has brought with it but cannot articulate.

It’s not decoration, it’s formation.

Theology carried on breath

At its best, Choral music is theology carried on breath.

The Christian faith can’t only learned by explanation. It’s learned by repetition, attention, posture, sound, silence, gesture, and time. What we sing shapes what we believe, what we repeat becomes part of the soul, and the prayers we didn’t invent become the prayers that hold us when our own words fail.

This is one of reasons I advocate that the Church should be careful about treating beauty as an optional extra. Beauty isn’t the enemy of mission or a luxury for churches with good choirs and ancient stone, beauty is one of the ways truth becomes inhabitable.

Of course beauty can become evasive, used to avoid repentance, cover decay, flatter taste, or to make worship into performance. A beautiful liturgy can still be spiritually dead if it becomes self-regarding, but the answer to misused beauty is not ugliness, just as the answer to empty formality is not formlessness.

The answer is conversion. Music converted into prayer, reverence converted into adoration, skill converted into service, and tradition converted into living obedience. A choir is not there to perform sacred atmosphere for religious consumers, it’s there to pray, and to help the Church pray.

That’s why choral worship at its best doesn’t draw attention merely to itself, it opens a door. It lets the heart stand before something greater than preference, taste, fashion, or mood.

Choral music reminds us that worship isn’t something we make up ourselves, it’s something into which we’re drawn.

With angels and archangels

Every time the Church sings or says “with angels and archangels and all the company of heaven”, she’s making a claim about reality.

Christian worship has never taken place in a closed universe. The Church doesn’t gather as a self-contained religious association, producing meaning for its members. She gathers with the whole company of heaven, worships the Father through the Son in the Spirit, and she does so with angels, archangels, apostles, martyrs, confessors, saints known and unknown, the living and the departed, the visible and the invisible Church.

This isn’t always easy for modern people to say without embarrassment. We’ve become very good at symbolic readings of the faith. Angels become poetic language, saints become inspiring examples, and the spiritual realm becomes a slightly awkward inheritance, best handled with academic caution and not mentioned too loudly in case someone sensible is listening.

The saints aren’t decorative though. The early Church Fathers and Mothers are not museum pieces, and angels aren’t poetic embroidery, they belong to the Christian account of reality.

This doesn’t mean the Church needs to become sensational, credulous, or strange for the sake of strangeness. There is no virtue in making the faith sound like a badly lit supernatural documentary, but there is also no virtue in quietly editing out the unseen world until Christianity becomes a moral philosophy with hymns.

The Christian life is lived before God, among the saints, under the care of angels, in conflict with sin and evil, and in hope of the resurrection of the dead. That is the world the liturgy assumes. It’s the world the early Church inhabited, the saints witnessed, and the world the Church still sings about, even when her confidence falters.

The Church of England at her best

The Church of England isn’t compelling when she’s trying to be bland.

There’s a version of Anglicanism that presents itself as polite moderation with a decent choir and a capacity for forming committees. It has its charms, I suppose, particularly if one enjoys agendas, minutes, and the faint smell of damp hymn books, but that’s not enough to sustain a soul.

The Church of England at her best is stranger, deeper, and more beautiful than her own reputation sometimes suggests.

She is a parish church at dusk with the Office being said by three people and the angels of God. She is a cathedral choir singing the Magnificat into a secular city that does not quite know why it is moved. She is a font worn by generations of baptism. She is a priest lifting bread and wine at an altar where grief, guilt, longing, and hope have been brought for centuries. She is children fidgeting beside saints in glass. She is a choir stall, a prayer book, a candle, a psalm, a silence, a blessing.

This isn’t nostalgia. Nostalgia wants the past back because it is afraid of the present. Tradition, properly understood, is different. It doesn’t trap the Church in the past, it hands on what the present needs but cannot produce for itself.

What the present often needs is depth. Not more noise, novelty, another anxious attempt to sound relevant, another thinning of worship until no one is offended, moved, confused, converted, or changed. The world has no shortage of accessible experiences, what it lacks is holy depth.

The mystery people may be looking for

It’s often assumed that modern people need the Church to make faith simpler, lighter, more informal, more immediately useful, and less demanding. That’s true in a basic pastoral sense. The Church shouldn’t hide the Gospel behind needless fuss, private codes, or unexplained habits. A newcomer shouldn’t feel as though they have arrived halfway through a play in a language nobody warned them about.

There’s another possibility. Perhaps many people don’t need the Church to make everything thinner, what if they need the Church to make reality deeper again?

A secular age can be exhausting precisely because it’s so thin. It explains much and adores little, produces endless content and very little wisdom, stimulation without transcendence, opinion without contemplation, choice without rootedness, and self-expression without worship. It gives us more ways to describe ourselves than ever before, but fewer reasons to be still before something holy.

Maybe that’s why mystery still draws people?

Not obscurity, clerical theatre, or the sort of churchiness that enjoys being difficult and then congratulates itself on being misunderstood. Mystery isn’t the same as confusion, but depth. It’s what happens when reality is encountered before God and refuses to be exhausted by explanation.

Keep singing to the unseen

The Church shouldn’t become embarrassed by the unseen world.

Not because she should become anti-modern, anti-science, or anti-reason. Not because she should retreat into aesthetic comfort while the world suffers. Not because choirs are magic, or old buildings are automatically holy.

She is not a spiritual heritage society, a moral improvement club, a chaplaincy to national nostalgia, or a provider of calming experiences in attractive buildings. She is the Body of Christ, worshipping the living God with the whole company of heaven.

Her inheritance matters because it keeps teaching the Church to inhabit a world larger than the one the age can measure.

So let the Church keep singing the psalms, the Magnificat, and the Nunc Dimittis. Let her keep teaching children to sing old words, to keep filling cathedrals and parish churches with music that does not flatter the moment. Let her keep saying, with angels and archangels and all the company of heaven, that earth is not closed to heaven, and heaven is not indifferent to earth.

In a secular age, one of the Church’s most radical acts may be to keep singing as though heaven is real. Not loudly to prove a point, faithfully, because it’s true.

Suggested Reading

• The Book of Common Prayer

• St Augustine, Confessions

• Pseudo-Dionysius, The Celestial Hierarchy

• C. S. Lewis, The Discarded Image

• Jeremy Begbie, Resounding Truth

• Evelyn Underhill, Worship

• Alexander Schmemann, For the Life of the World

  If this resonated with you, share it with someone who knows that faith is not made stronger by making mystery smaller.

  Share

  If you have not yet subscribed to The Ember Post, you are very welcome to do so.

  
  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  
  

Synod, papers, amendments, governance, safeguarding, creation care, national unity, liturgical revision, public witness, institutional trust. The future shape of Anglican life.

This is all very important, a Church that refuses to govern, safeguard, deliberate, repent, teach, or take responsibility is not being spiritual, it’s being careless. There is no virtue in ecclesial vagueness, and no holiness in pretending that difficult public questions can be avoided by lighting a candle and looking solemn.

The danger is that the Church continues to become more fluent in the language of activity than in the language of mystery. She speaks confidently about initiatives, programmes, causes, relevance, growth, governance, networks, and public positioning, while speaking rather more nervously about holiness, repentance, sacrament, judgment, grace, worship, and God.

This isn’t some sort of a left- or right-wing problem. It isn’t an evangelical problem, a liberal problem, or a catholic problem. It is a Church problem, perhaps even a human problem. We are more comfortable managing things than adoring, and we find it easier to organise the life of the Church than to be searched by the living God.

Yet as I continue to say again and again in the Ember Post, the Church is not renewed by becoming more useful, more fashionable, more informal, or more publicly agreeable. She is renewed when she becomes more deeply herself. A worshipping, praying, repenting, sacramental, Christ-centred body.

The Church simply MUST remember mystery.

Creation belongs to Christ

The new Festival of Creation in Christ is a good place to begin, because it could so easily be misunderstood from both directions.

Some will welcome it because they already think the Church should speak more urgently about the environmental crisis, others will instinctively worry that another festival risks making the Church sound like a religious echo of whatever public cause currently occupies the headlines. Both reactions are understandable, but neither is quite enough.

Creation care is not a fashionable add-on to Christianity, the world isn’t disposable scenery for human salvation. The earth is the Lord’s and all things were created through Christ and for Christ. The groaning of creation is not outside the concern of the Gospel, and a Church that cannot speak about the world God made has misunderstood both creation and redemption.

So the question is not whether the Church should care about creation, of course she should.

The sharper question is whether she can speak about creation in a way that deepens the mystery of Christ rather than thinning it into a cause. A Festival of Creation in Christ can be a richly Christian thing if it draws us into wonder, repentance, gratitude, restraint, sacramental imagination, and the cosmic scope of redemption. It can remind us that creation is given through Christ, reconciled in Christ, and destined in Christ for freedom and glory.

That little phrase matters: in Christ.

Without it, creation easily becomes one more theme, one more campaign, one more season of resources, one more way for the Church to demonstrate that she is on the right side of a public issue. With it, creation becomes doxology. The world is not merely something to be protected, though it must be protected. It’s something received, blessed, wounded, redeemed, and offered back to God.

The Church is at her best when she makes public concerns deeper, not merely religious.

The confidence we often misplace

The Church is often very confident when speaking about things the culture already knows how to hear.

Justice, welcome, care, community, climate, mental health, belonging, social responsibility, inclusion, repair, reconciliation, and national life.

These aren’t bad words, many of them are deeply Christian words when they are rooted in Christ rather than borrowed from the mood of the age. A parish that is indifferent to the suffering of its neighbours has not become more orthodox. It’s become less Christian. A Church that refuses to speak about public life has not become more spiritual, She’s forgotten that the Word became flesh.

There is a strange imbalance though, when the Church appears more publicly assured about those themes than about the great central mysteries of the faith.

Sin,salvation, grace, judgment, holiness, confession, sacrament, prayer.

The Cross.

The Resurrection.

The Real Presence of Christ among His people.

The strange mercy of being forgiven, and the terrifying joy of being called to become holy.

These are not specialist interests for those who enjoy “churchy” things. They are the heart of the Christian proclamation. If we become shy about them, no amount of public relevance will make us compelling. We may become more acceptable, but not necessarily more truthful. We may become easier to explain, but less able to save anyone from despair.

The world doesn’t need the Church merely to bless the moral instincts it already has. It needs the Church to show the world what it cannot give itself worship, repentance, forgiveness, holiness, sacrament, and the mystery of God.

Breadth must mean more than tolerance

Anglican breadth is one of the Church of England’s great gifts, and also one of her great tests.

At its best, it’s not muddle, an indifference or the lazy habit of avoiding decision by calling everything generous. True breadth is the difficult, prayerful, disciplined attempt to remain in communion with those whom Christ has also called, even when their instincts, language, temperament, and emphases differ from our own.

That breadth should have room for evangelical urgency, charismatic warmth, liberal seriousness, catholic depth, parish steadiness, contemplative silence, social action, public theology, traditional liturgy, fresh expressions, choral worship, children running noisily after Mass, and old ladies who know exactly where everything belongs.

It should have room for mission that is accessible and worship that is mysterious. Room for preaching that calls people to Christ and sacrament that teaches without explanation. Room for contemporary forms and inherited forms, for the guitar and the thurible (though not always in the same service, for everyone’s sake).

Breadth can become suspect when one register quietly becomes “the assumed future” and the others are merely tolerated as heritage.

If the Church is truly one Church for many, then traditional, catholic, sacramental, and reverent instincts cannot be treated as decorative survivals from a more confident past. They are not nostalgic preferences. They are living Christian instincts.

• Silence is not a lack of energy.

• Vesture is not theatrical self-importance.

• Beauty is not a distraction from mission.

• Reverence is not coldness.

• Traditional language is not necessarily exclusion.

• The altar is not an obstacle to accessibility.

• The saints are not a quaint embarrassment.

• The Daily Office is not an eccentric hobby for clergy and ordinands with too many books.

These things have formed Christians for centuries. They have carried grief, repentance, adoration, obedience, and hope through ages more difficult than ours.

If we are serious about Anglican breadth, then they deserve more than polite accommodation, they deserve confidence.

The difficulty of loving the Church from within

There is a particular difficulty in loving the Church from within.

It’s easy to criticise from outside. It’s easy to be clever, detached, and permanently disappointed, but it’s much harder to love the Church enough to serve her, while still noticing the ways in which she can wound, confuse, flatten, or embarrass the very faith she exists to proclaim.

This is especially difficult for ordinands and younger Anglicans who are trying to be faithful without becoming factional. Many are not looking for a smaller, purer Church built in their own image. They aren’t trying to wage war against other traditions. They are not refusing the breadth of Anglicanism. Often, they are trying very hard to inhabit it honestly.

But it can be tiring when the inherited, sacramental, reverent, and catholic instincts of Anglican life are treated as if they are awkward to mission rather than essential to it. It can be tiring when informality is assumed to be more authentic, when accessibility is confused with thinness, when depth is mistaken for difficulty, and when mystery is treated as something to be managed down before anyone new arrives.

The Church should not make people choose between mission and reverence, it’s a false choice.

The question is not whether the Church should speak to those outside her walls, of course she should. The question is whether she will offer them something more substantial than a religious version of what they can already find elsewhere. If people are spiritually hungry, then we should not give them a thinner meal in the name of accessibility.

We should give them Christ.

Mystery is not obscurity

One reason the Church sometimes becomes nervous about mystery is that mystery is easily mistaken for obscurity.

There is a difference…

Obscurity keeps people out, mystery draws people in. Obscurity hides meaning behind private codes, clerical habits, unexplained gestures, and the assumption that newcomers should somehow already know what is happening.

The Church should not defend that. If people are lost, we should help them. If language needs explaining, explain it. If worship has become fussy, self-indulgent, or unintelligible (even to the faithful), then reform may be needed, but mystery is not the same as confusion.

Mystery is the depth of reality when it is encountered before God. The Eucharist is not mysterious because the Church has failed to simplify it. It’s mysterious because Christ gives Himself to His people under the forms of bread and wine. Baptism isn’t mysterious because water is difficult to understand, it’s mysterious because through water and the Spirit we are joined to Christ’s death and resurrection. The Cross isn’t mysterious because the doctrine is poorly communicated, it’s mysterious because the Son of God enters death and defeats it from within.

The answer to mystery is not simplification. The answer to mystery is initiation, teaching, patience, beauty, and worship.

A Church that remembers mystery doesn’t become less welcoming. She becomes more honest about what she is welcoming people into.

The global Church is not embarrassed by holiness

There is also a wider Anglican question here.

The Church of England is not the whole Anglican Communion, and it isn’t always the centre of Anglican gravity (however naturally it may be tempted to think so). Across the Communion, Anglicans inhabit very different pressures, cultures, sufferings, histories, and theological instincts. Some are navigating poverty, persecution, political instability, rapid growth, post-colonial memory, deep internal division, and the complicated inheritance of Anglican structures themselves.

The recent conversations about Communion, trust, and difference remind us that Anglicanism is not simply an English institution with international branches. It’s a global Christian family, damaged and gifted, seeking to discern what it means to belong to one another in Christ.

That should humble the Church of England.

It should also broaden our imagination. In many parts of the world, Christians do not assume that mystery, sacrifice, repentance, deliverance, holiness, spiritual conflict, martyrdom, and sacramental seriousness are embarrassing, they are simply part of Christian reality.

Even within the West, where secularity has often been treated as inevitable, there are signs that many people are not necessarily looking for a Church that sounds more like the culture around them. Some are drawn precisely by depth, beauty, rootedness, doctrine, and demanding forms of belonging.

We should be careful here.

• Not every hopeful statistic proves revival.

• Not every conversion story becomes a trend.

• Not every young person entering an Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Pentecostal, or traditional parish is making the same theological statement.

The picture is mixed, and easy narratives are usually dishonest, but the spiritual hunger is real enough to make the Church ask better questions.

What if people are not only looking for welcome, but for holiness? What if they do not only need community, but worship? What if they are not put off by mystery as much as we fear? What if the Church’s embarrassment about her own sacred inheritance is less missional than we imagine?

A Church broad enough for reverence

The Church of England does not need to become narrower in order to recover mystery, that would be the wrong lesson.

She doesn’t need to become only Anglo-Catholic, only evangelical, only liberal, only charismatic, only choral, only informal, only traditional, only anything.

The Church is not renewed by one party finally winning the right to call itself the future, but she does need a deeper account of breadth.

A breadth that cannot bear reverence is not broad enough. A breadth that cannot bear silence is not broad enough. A breadth that cannot bear vesture, sacrament, incense, confession, beauty, saints, and traditional devotion is not broad enough. Just as a traditionalism that cannot bear mission, preaching, conversion, Scripture, evangelistic urgency, justice, and the gifts of other traditions is not catholic enough.

The Church needs all her traditions converted to Christ, not indulged, converted.

Evangelical zeal must be converted from busyness into holiness. Catholic reverence must be converted from aesthetic preference into adoration. Liberal seriousness must be converted from moral earnestness into worship. Charismatic warmth must be converted from experience into obedience. Activist concern must be converted from urgency into charity. Institutional caution must be converted from self-protection into repentance.

No tradition is pure simply because it’s ours, but every tradition, when purified by Christ, has gifts the Church needs.

That is the kind of breadth worth defending.

The altar must not become an afterthought

The deepest question is not whether the Church can manage Synod better, communicate more clearly, make creation care more theological, or hold together her traditions more generously. All of that matters.

The deepest question is whether the altar remains central, not only physically, spiritually.

A Church can have excellent governance and still be thin in prayer. She can have active campaigns and still be uncertain about holiness. She can have mission plans and still be vague about repentance, a strong public voice and still forget the voice of Christ. She can speak often about unity while neglecting the sacramental life that makes Christian unity more than politeness.

The altar is where the Church learns that she does not make herself. She receives.

She receives mercy, judgment, the Word. She receives the Body and Blood of Christ, her life from beyond herself. That is why the Church must return again and again to worship, not as one activity among others, but as the source from which everything else must flow.

Creation care belongs there. Justice belongs there. Mission belongs there. Synod belongs there. Safeguarding belongs there. Parish life belongs there. Ordinands, bishops, evangelicals, catholics, liberals, charismatics, doubters, converts, children, the weary, the wounded, the awkward, and the overconfident all belong there.

Not because the altar makes everything easy, because Christ is there, and if the Church remembers that, she may yet become not less engaged with the world, but more truthful within it.

The Church must remember mystery, not as an escape from the world, as the only way to see the world truthfully before God.

Suggested Reading

• Rowan Williams, Being Christian

• Michael Ramsey, The Gospel and the Catholic Church

• Alexander Schmemann, For the Life of the World

• Romano Guardini, The Spirit of the Liturgy

• Evelyn Underhill, Worship

• Sarah Coakley, God, Sexuality, and the Self

• The Book of Common Prayer

• The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion

The machinery of Anglican life has been turning this week, and a lot of it matters. A Church without order is not being spiritual, she’s being careless. Bishops, councils, canons, safeguarding, budgets, buildings, formation, and mission plans are not optional extras, they’re part of the ordinary labour of being the Church in time.

The danger is that we begin to imagine that the Church is held together by the things that organise her.

She is not.

The Church needs strategy, but she is not held together by strategy. She needs structures, but she is not saved by structures. She needs plans, but she is not sustained by plans. The Church is held together by Christ, and whenever that sounds too obvious to say, it is probably time to say it again.

The trellis is not the vine

There is a good Anglican instinct that cares about order. We are not a tradition that pretends the Church can float above administration, history, law, place, or institution. Anglicanism is full of parishes, dioceses, provinces, synods, canons, councils, committees, schools, cathedrals, boards, registers, rotas, and minutes. Some of that is beautiful, some of it is exhausting, most of it is necessary.

The Christian life is not disembodied. The Incarnation doesn’t permit the Church to become an idea, a mood, or a loose gathering of spiritual preferences. The Church needs forms, visible commitments, ordered ministry, common prayer, sacraments, discipline, teaching, money, buildings, and people willing to sit through meetings for reasons holier than the meetings themselves usually feel.

A trellis matters because it gives shape and support to living growth, a trellis gives structure but it’s not the vine.

Without it, the vine may sprawl, tangle, or collapse, but no one mistakes the trellis for the life itself. It can be perfectly measured, carefully repaired, beautifully painted, and still have no fruit growing on it.

That is the risk for the Church, we can become very good at maintaining the trellis. We can speak fluently about structures, processes, and all the things that govern and keep the show running, while forgetting that none of these things is the life itself.

The life is Christ.

The Church needs order, but order is not enough

It’s tempting, especially in anxious times, to believe that the Church’s problems can be solved if only the machinery is improved. Better systems, clear accountability, sharp communications with a coherent public voice.

There’s truth in that, we can’t pretend that some systems really have failed. Some governance has been too slow, too defensive, too confused, or too complacent. When the Church gets practical things wrong, people are hurt, trust is damaged, and the Gospel is made harder to hear.

So this is not an argument against reform. It isn’t an argument against planning, and it isn’t a romantic plea for holy muddle.

Holy muddle is still muddle, but the Church cannot be renewed by competence alone. Competence can make the Church more responsible, more accountable, and more able to do what she has promised to do. That matters, but competence cannot forgive sins. It cannot raise the dead or make a congregation holy. It cannot reconcile enemies or turn bread and wine into a foretaste of the Kingdom, and it can’t make the proud humble or the despairing hopeful. For that, the Church needs grace.

Strategy may help the Church act more faithfully, but it cannot replace faithfulness.

Coordination is not communion

One of the words the Church uses often is communion. It’s a beautiful word, but also a dangerous one if we let it become vague.

Communion is not the same as coordination. It’s not simply about being on the same mailing list, attending the same conference, voting in the same chamber, sharing the same branding, or being linked by a structure.

It is possible to be networked without being reconciled, to be consulted without being converted, and to be strategically aligned while remaining spiritually estranged.

A parish can have a mission action plan, a functioning PCC, a decent website, an active rota, a safeguarding dashboard, and a calendar full of events, and still be thin in prayer. A diocese can have programmes, frameworks, funding streams, leadership pathways, and a compelling vision document, and still struggle to speak plainly about holiness, repentance, worship, and Christ.

A Communion can have instruments, conferences, councils, statements, and proposals, and still find that the harder work is not structural but spiritual.

The harder work is learning to belong to one another in Christ.

That won’t be produced by a process, though processes may help it. It can’t be summoned by a slogan, though words matter. Communion is not the absence of disagreement. nor is it mere politeness in the presence of disagreement. It is a life received from God, tested in truth, deepened by prayer, and made visible in sacramental belonging.

Without that, our structures become clever ways of standing near one another without actually being reconciled.

What actually holds the Church together

The Church is held together by things the world often finds unimpressive.

Prayer said, scripture read aloud to people who have heard the passage before and still need to hear it again. Baptism at the font, confession spoken quietly, forgiveness received undeservedly. Peace exchanged with people we did not choose. The Creed said with those whose temperaments, politics, histories, and wounds are not our own.

These are not decorative extras around the edge of the real work, they’re the real work.

The Church is not first held together by common taste, shared class, cultural memory, political agreement, institutional loyalty, or strategic enthusiasm. She is held together because Christ gathers sinners into His Body and gives them a life they could not have made for themselves.

That is why worship matters so much. Worship is not the Church’s weekly morale exercise. It’s where the Church becomes visible as the Church. Around the altar, we learn that we are not our own project. At the font, we learn that our belonging begins in gift, not achievement. In confession, we learn that truth and mercy are not enemies. In Scripture, we learn that the Church is judged by a Word she did not write. In the Eucharist, we learn that unity is not something we manufacture. It is something we receive.

That doesn’t make strategy irrelevant, it puts it in its place.

The parish is where this becomes real

It is easy to talk about the Church in large terms. The Church of England. The Anglican Communion. The global Church. The national Church. The institutional Church. The future Church.

We MUST remember most Christians meet the Church at a much smaller scale.

A pew. A priest. A warden with too many keys. A coffee rota. A child asking a question at the wrong moment. A funeral that leaves the whole place quiet. A sermon that lands unexpectedly. A person you find difficult kneeling near you at the rail. A prayer list with names known and unknown. A building that smells faintly of stone, flowers, polish, damp hymn books, and time.

This is not sentimental, it’s incarnational.

The parish is where the Church’s grand claims are tested by ordinary faithfulness. It’s where communion stops being an idea and becomes the awkward, holy fact of being joined to people we might not otherwise choose. Where strategy either becomes service or reveals itself as paperwork. Where mission becomes a person, not a demographic, and where growth becomes not merely a number, but a soul coming home.

The parish does not make the Church small, it makes the Church visible.

If the parish forgets prayer, no national vision can compensate for it. If the altar becomes marginal, no strategy can make the Church central. If worship becomes thin, no amount of activity can make the Church substantial.

The Church’s future will not be secured by cleverness alone. It will be received, if it is received at all, as grace.

When plans become anxious

There is a particular kind of tiredness that comes over the Church when she begins to believe everything depends on her own cleverness.

Every decline becomes an emergency, and reports becomes a diagnosis. Every initiative becomes a possible rescue, while every meeting carries the weight of salvation. Every new programme has to be the one that finally turns the tide. The Church becomes restless, and restlessness begins to look like faithfulness.

Christian hope is not the same as institutional panic, we see and hear enough of that everyday at our jobs, on the news, etc.

The Church should plan, plant, reform, teach, repent, repair. She should organise herself wisely and use her resources well, but she must not become the sort of institution that thinks the Kingdom of God depends on her ability to manage it into being.

That isn’t hope, that’s anxiety wearing a mitre.

The future of the Church belongs to God. That doesn’t absolve us of responsibility, but it frees us from the fantasy that responsibility means control.

A faithful Church can plan without pretending she owns the future. She can count without worshipping the numbers and reform without despising what she has received. She can grow without becoming vain, decline without despairing, and act without imagining that action is the same as grace.

The Church does not need less seriousness, she needs deeper seriousness. The seriousness of prayer, of repentance, of holiness, of worship, of trusting Christ with His Church.

The Church is held together by Christ

There is a freedom in remembering this.

The Church is not held together by our brilliance. Not by our reports, our resolutions, our branding, our governance, our networks, our conferences, our growth targets, or our ability to sound persuasive in public. All of these may have their place. Some may be necessary, some may even be gifts, but they are not the foundation.

The foundation is Christ.

That is why the Church can be honest about her failures without losing hope. It’s why she can reform without pretending she is reinventing herself from scratch. It’s why she can serve the world without becoming merely another institution competing for relevance, and why she can sit in long meetings and still know that the meeting is not the point.

The point is Christ.

Christ at the font. Christ in the Scriptures. Christ at the altar. Christ in the poor. Christ in the wounded. Christ in the difficult neighbour. Christ in the one who forgives sins. Christ in the one who gathers the scattered children of God. Christ in the one who is before all things, and in whom all things hold together.

The Church needs strategy, but she isn’t held together by strategy.

She is held together by the One who called her into being, feeds her with His life, judges her in truth, forgives her in mercy, and sends her into the world as His Body.

Everything else is trellis. He is the vine.

Suggested Reading

• Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together

• Rowan Williams, Being Christian

• Michael Ramsey, The Gospel and the Catholic Church

• Eugene Peterson, The Pastor

• John Stott, The Living Church

None of this is unimportant. Most of it is urgent, some long overdue, some hopeful, and some a reminder of deep failure. A Church that cannot count, plan, apologise, safeguard, fund, organise, and take responsibility is not being spiritual, it’s being careless.

However, there is a danger when the Church begins to explain herself mainly in the language of usefulness. What does she deliver? Is she growing? Is she viable? Is she trusted? Is she relevant?

These are not wicked questions. Some need asking, but they are not the first question, let alone the deepest one that needs answering.

The Church doesn’t exist because she is “useful”. She exists because God is to be worshipped.

(Cue: gasps and shock…)

The tyranny of usefulness

Modern life has a way of turning everything into a tool.

Rest is recovery for productivity, friendship is networking, silence is mindfulness, and exercise is optimisation. Even sleep is measured, scored, and improved. Nothing is allowed simply to be good any more, it must deliver.

This instinct has seeped into faith. Prayer is praised because it helps mental health, worship is defended because it builds community, churches are valued because they provide warm spaces, food banks, youth groups, heritage, volunteering, pastoral care, and civic belonging.

Of course that’s true, Parish churches are useful in a thousand quiet ways, but usefulness is a dangerous master.

Once the Church justifies herself mainly by what she delivers, she starts to sound like every other anxious institution defending its budget, buildings, relevance, and public value. She may still say holy things, but the centre of gravity has shifted. God becomes the source of good outcomes rather than the living Lord before whom we kneel.

It is a quiet shift, but not a harmless one. A Church that can only explain herself in terms of “usefulness” has already forgotten something essential.

God is not the Church’s most effective resource

There is a form of religious speech that sounds devout while quietly making God instrumental.

God helps us flourish. God gives us purpose. God strengthens community. God inspires justice. God brings comfort. God supports resilience. God helps us become better people.

Again, these things are not false. The problem is not that God does none of them, the problem is that they can become the reason we think God matters.

God is not the Church’s most effective “resource”. He is not the fuel for mission plans, the emotional architecture beneath wellbeing work, or the sacred endorsement of social usefulness. He is not a technique for producing nicer people or more cohesive neighbourhoods.

He is not a divine solution to the problem of institutional decline.

God is God.

That sounds almost too obvious to need saying, which is usually a sign that it badly needs saying.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is not valuable because He helps the Church make her case to the world. He is not worthy because He is useful to us. He is worthy because He is the source and end of all things, the maker of heaven and earth, the one in whom we live and move and have our being.

If worship produces good things (and it does) those good things are not the reason worship exists.

The most important thing about worship is not what it does for us, the most important thing about worship is who God is.

The Church has learned the world’s questions too well

Now, yes, the Church must answer practical questions. She must account for money, protect the vulnerable, repair what is broken, take responsibility for harm, think carefully about formation, and learn how to speak to those who no longer assume Christianity matters.

There is no holiness in incompetence, but the Church also has to be careful not to let the world set the whole examination paper.

The world asks, “What are you for?” And too often we answer too quickly.

We say that the Church is for community, for belonging, for justice, for compassion, for mental health, for children, for heritage, for moral formation, for social action, for civic life, for loneliness, for beauty, for continuity, for meaning.

All of that’s true, but if we stop there, we have given a list of benefits rather than a confession of faith.

The Church is for God.

Only when that is first can the rest be properly ordered. Community becomes communion rather than mere sociability, justice becomes holiness rather than ideology, compassion becomes charity rather than sentiment, and growth becomes fruitfulness rather than institutional anxiety.

When God is first, usefulness finds its proper place. When usefulness is first, even holy things become strangely thin. The order matters…

Prayer is not a productivity hack with candles

One of the oddities of the modern world is that it often rediscovers Christian practices only after stripping them of worship.

Silence for focus, fasting for health, confession for emotional honesty, gratitude for happiness, and prayer for calm.

It is not that these rediscoveries are all wrong. There’s wisdom in them, Christian practices do shape and form the body, mind, and heart. The Church should not be embarrassed by the fact that her ancient disciplines often answer modern wounds.

The thing is though, prayer is not a productivity hack with candles. The Church’s practices do help us, but they are not first about helping us, they are about turning us towards God.

This is why worship can look so strange to a culture obsessed with measurable impact.

1. People gather

2. They stand

3. Sit, kneel, listen, sing, confess, receive

4. Depart

Nothing obvious has been produced. No quarterly objective has been met, no brand has been advanced, no content has been optimised.

The world looks at it and asks, “What did that achieve?” The Church should answer: God was worshipped.

That is enough. Indeed, it is the one thing needful.

The uselessness of love

Part of the problem is that the deepest things in life are not useful in the ordinary sense.

Love isn’t useful.

Not if by useful we mean something that exists only to produce an outcome. Parents don’t love a child because it delivers measurable value. We don’t sit beside a dying parent because it’s efficient. We don’t stand at a grave because it solves grief.

The most human things are often the least useful in the narrowest sense. They are not useless because they don’t matter, they’re useless because their worth exceeds utility.

Worship is like that.

It is not useless because it’s empty, but because it’s too full to be reduced to an outcome. It’s the creature turning back to the Creator, the soul remembering its source. It’s the Church standing before God on behalf of the world, not because the world has asked for a “report on impact”, but because the world belongs to Him.

This is why the worship of the Church matters even when it looks unimpressive. A half-empty weekday Mass, Morning Prayer said by three people in a cold chapel, Evensong sung to a scattered congregation, a priest at an altar in a parish no one important has heard of, a candle lit by someone who quietly on their own.

The world may not know what to do with such things, but Heaven does.

When usefulness becomes a temptation

This is not a call for the Church to despise usefulness, that would be absurd, and rather “un-Anglican”. Parish life is practical. Roofs leak, boilers fail, safeguarding matters, food banks need volunteers, clergy need stipends, children need teaching, the sick need visiting, and the poor need more than pious thoughts.

The Incarnation does not permit a spirituality that floats above the material world, but usefulness becomes a temptation when it becomes the Church’s main defence of herself, and when every conversation about worship has to be translated into attendance, mission, community benefit, or growth before we are willing to call it valuable.

The Church must recover confidence, not arrogance, or indifference to suffering. Not a retreat into pretty religion while the world burns. Confidence that adoration is not escapism, prayer is not passivity, and worship is not an optional hobby for those who like that sort of thing.

Worship is the centre from which the Church learns to do everything else truthfully. Without worship, service becomes activism. Strategy becomes anxiety. Apology becomes reputation management. Growth becomes vanity. Tradition becomes nostalgia. Mission becomes sales.

The Church is most useful to the world when she is not trying to be useful first. She is most herself when she worships.

A Church with nothing to prove

There is something quietly defiant about worship in an age of measurement.

Worship does not need to flatter the age and doesn’t need to prove that it is sufficiently productive, therapeutic, relevant, or impressive.

A Church that remembers this will still care about numbers, but she will not be ruled by them. She will still steward money, but she will not confuse funding with faithfulness. She will still serve the community, but she will not become merely a community service provider. She will still apologise for sin, but she will know that repentance is not a press statement. She will still engage the world, but she will not ask the world to tell her what worship is worth.

Because God is God

There is a line the Church has to learn to say again, not defensively, but simply.

We worship because God is God.

That is the beginning of Christian sanity, and rescues the Church from becoming an anxious machine for producing measurable religious outcomes. Reminding us that the world is not finally held together by our strategies, our relevance, our plans, or our performance.

The Church has many duties. Some are practical, some are painful, some are urgent, some are deeply ordinary, but beneath them all is the first duty, the first joy, and the first truth.

God is to be worshipped. Everything else begins there.

Suggested Reading

• Romano Guardini, The Spirit of the Liturgy

• Evelyn Underhill, Worship

• Alexander Schmemann, For the Life of the World

• Rowan Williams, Being Christian

• Josef Pieper, Leisure: The Basis of Culture

It’s usually said a finality, as though the matter has been settled. Religion may be useful for those who need rules and/or a moral framework, but not for the basically decent. You know, it’s not for those who pay their taxes, are kind to their neighbours, give to charity now and then, and do not go around doing anything especially monstrous.

It’s not a foolish argument to be fair, in fact, its strength is that there is truth in it. Most people do know something of right and wrong, Christians don’t need to deny that, it’s not as though human beings are moral blank slates. We are made by God, and even in our fallen state there remains in us some echo of the good for which we were created. Conscience is real so is kindness, courage, loyalty, mercy, generosity, and justice.

The problem isn’t that people outside church know nothing of “goodness”. The problem is that knowing the difference between right and wrong is not the same as being healed.

Knowing is not the same as being saved

Christianity has never taught that the human problem is simply lack of moral information. If that were the case, salvation would be a matter of clear instructions. A leaflet or sermon with a code of conduct, in which case we’d simply need education, not redemption.

But the Christian claim is deeper and more uncomfortable than that, we often know the good and don’t do it. We know what mercy requires and still nurse resentment, we know pride is destructive and still arrange our lives around it, and that honesty matters but still protect our favourite lies.

We know love is better than selfishness and still find ourselves curved inward.

That’s not ignorance, that’s sin…

Sin is not merely a list of bad behaviours committed by unusually wicked people. It’s the distortion of the human heart, the gap between the person we know we should be and the person we actually are when no one is watching. The Church exists because that gap isn’t closed by being a decent person.

The Church is not a moral improvement society

This is where the confusion often begins, Christianity can and is easily mistaken for moral improvement:

• Be kinder

• Be more patient

• Be more inclusive

• Be more useful

• Be less selfish

• Be a better neighbour

None of this is wrong, a Christian life should produce mercy, honesty, courage, and care for others.

Faith that never becomes visible is not much faith, but the Church is not a moral improvement society. She’s not a weekly gathering for people who would like to become a bit more decent, she’s not the spiritual wing of good citizenship, primarily a heritage charity with hymns, a social project with candles, or a place where the already virtuous gather to refine their manners and have some coffee and cake after a bit of sing-song…

The Church is where sinners are brought into the life of Christ, where the dead are raised in baptism, sins are confessed and forgiven, Scripture cuts and heals, bread and wine become the food of pilgrims, the proud are humbled, and ordinary people are slowly made holy by grace.

That’s about much more than “being good”, It’s also much harder.

Decency is real, but it is not enough

One of the reasons the “I’m a good person” argument is so persuasive is that we all know decent people who don’t go to church. Sadly they’re often kinder, more generous, less obviously selfish, less bitter, less anxious, and less interested in judging others than a lot of churchgoers. Christians should be honest about that, there are people outside the visible life of the Church whose moral seriousness should shame many of us inside it.

That still doesn’t settle the question though, because Christianity is not a competition to see who is subjectively nicer. The Gospel does not ask whether I can find someone worse than myself, or whether I can assemble enough evidence to prove that I am basically all right.

It asks whether I have been reconciled to God? Which is a different matter to tallying up points on a heavenly scoreboard.

A decent person may still need forgiveness, kind people may still need repentance, generous people may still need worship. A morally serious person may still need to be saved from pride, fear, despair, self-deception, and the deep loneliness of life without communion with God they’re not even aware of.

The question is not whether goodness exists outside the Church, the question is whether goodness, by itself, can raise the dead?

The problem with being “basically good”

The phrase “I’m basically a good person” can mean different things. Sometimes it means, “I have tried to live decently.” Sure, that deserves respect. Sometimes it means, “I have not done anything especially terrible.” Which is a lower bar than we like to admit. Sometimes it means, “I do not want anyone, including God, to make a claim on me.” And BOOM, That is where the real issue begins.

Goodness, when detached from God, can easily become self-protection. It becomes the story we tell ourselves to avoid judgment, dependence, surrender, or change. We don’t necessarily want to be holy, we want to be justified on our own terms.

That’s why the Church must be careful here… Her answer to “I’m a good person” shouldn’t be a sneer, it absolutely should not be, “No, you’re worse than you think,” . The better answer is that even goodness needs grace, kindness needs grace because it can become selective.

Your conscience needs grace because it can become dull, justice needs grace because it can become self-righteous, generosity needs grace because it can become performance, sorrow needs grace because it can become despair, and love needs grace because it can become possession.

The Christian claim is not that human goodness is fake, it’s that human goodness is wounded.

The Church can make the confusion worse

some clergy and more than a few parishes need to be careful. If people think Christianity is simply about being kind, inclusive, decent, and socially useful, they have not invented that idea from nowhere. It’s the perception they’ve heard from some churches and bad theology.

Not usually explicitly, or even usually intentionally. Often it’s comes from a good place to avoid sounding harsh, to meet people gently, and to show that the Church cares about ordinary life. All of which matters, but when the public language of a parish becomes almost entirely about welcome, community, kindness, and social usefulness, while repentance, grace, holiness, worship, salvation, and the living Christ recede into the background, confusion is inevitable.

Then we are surprised when people say they can be good without church.

Of course people can be good without church, if by “good” they mean living a broadly decent life. The Church is not here to merely help people become broadly decent. She is here to proclaim Christ crucified and risen, to call people into the life of God, and to make saints, not simply pleasant citizens.

That’s not a call from me for every sermon to be severe or every parish noticeboard to sound like a tract. It means clergy and parishes need to watch the balance of what’s being taught teaching, even by accident. If the only message people hear from us is “be kind,” they may reasonably conclude that they already understand Christianity well enough without ever encountering Christ.

When that happens, the Church has not become kinder, just less clear, and people can feel the loss, even when they can’t name it.

Christ did not come to make us vaguely nicer

The Gospel is not less than morality, but it is far more than morality.

Christ does not simply arrive as a teacher of ethical improvement. He forgives sins, heals the sick, casts out demons, eats with sinners, calls people to repentance, speaks of judgment, gives himself on the cross, rises from the dead, sends the Spirit, forms a Church.

This is not the work of a moral adviser, it’s the work of a Saviour…

That is what the “good person” argument misses. It assumes the central question of human life is whether we have behaved well enough to avoid needing God? Christianity says the central question is whether we have been drawn into communion with the God who made us, loves us, judges us, forgives us, and raises us to life?

The Church is not needed because people are incapable of knowing right from wrong, It’s needed because knowing right from wrong has never been enough to save us.

Good people still need worship

There is another piece of this that is easily missed, even if someone were as good as they imagine, they would still need worship.

Worship is not a remedial activity for the morally weak. We were made not merely to behave, but to adore. We were made for communion, thanksgiving, praise, sacrifice, and love. To be human is not only to know the good, but to be turned towards the source of all goodness.

A person may be decent and still not worship, they may be kind and still live as though God were peripheral, they may be morally serious and still never bend the knee.

The Church calls us beyond “self-assessment”, where we ask whether we have done enough to count as good. She calls us into the larger and freer life of worship, where goodness is no longer a private achievement but a gift received, offered back, and transformed.

That is why the Church matters, not because God needs our attendance figures, but because we need to worship.

The better invitation

So perhaps the Christian answer to the “good person” argument should hold together tenderness and courage without denying the real goodness that exists in people’s lives. Not pretending that every churchgoer is morally superior, scolding those who have learned to distrust religious institutions, but saying plainly that Christianity is about more than moral decency.

It’s about grace, forgiveness, being known and judged and loved by God. It’s about learning to worship, becoming holy, and being made new in Christ, not merely reassured that we were “acceptable” all along.

The Church is not for people who have failed to be good enough, It’s for everyone who needs God. Which is all of us, even the good, especially the good, when goodness has become the thing that keeps us from grace.

Suggested Reading

• C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

• St Augustine, Confessions

• Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

• Rowan Williams, Being Christian

Then comes the next “gotcha”, if that’s how the Church of England began, then her orders are invalid, her claims of being catholic are hollow, and apostolic succession was broken beyond repair.

It is a neat line, but it’s bad history and very often, bad theology.

Henry VIII mattered enormously, the break with Rome changed the constitutional and legal shape of the English Church in ways no serious historian should minimise, but that is not the same thing as saying he created the Church in England out of nothing. The Church of England’s official history traces its roots back to the Roman province of Britain, and the Anglican Communion describes Anglicanism as both “Catholic and Reformed,” not as a religion founded in the sixteenth century.

A Church in England before Henry

If we are going to speak honestly, we have to begin honestly. There was a Church in England before the Tudor break with Rome.

The Church on these islands was shaped through British, Celtic, and Roman influences over centuries. The Church of England’s history roots go back to Roman Britain, which frames Anglicanism as the continuation of a church that is both ancient and reformed.

Henry did not invent bishops, dioceses, monasteries, parish life, shrines, saints, sacramental worship, or the Christian imagination of this land. He inherited an already existing ecclesial world.

What Henry VIII actually changed

But honesty DOES cut both ways…

Henry VIII did not invent the Church in England, he did, however, wrench the English Church away from papal jurisdiction and place it under royal supremacy. That’s no small adjustment, it was a major constitutional change. The Church’s relation to Rome was decisively altered, and the later Edwardian and Elizabethan settlements would deepen those changes in doctrine, liturgy, and self-understanding. The Church of England’s history page itself presents the Reformation as a defining period of rupture and reconfiguration, so the truthful Anglican position is not that “nothing happened.”

“A coastline changed by storm is still coastline”, and a church reconfigured by political and theological upheaval is still not the same as a church conjured ex nihilo by a monarch’s tantrum.

The real argument is not really about Henry

This is where the internet sneer usually hides something deeper.

Very often, the point is not simply “Henry started it.” The point is, “therefore Anglican orders are invalid, apostolic succession was lost, and Anglican claims to catholicity are an empty costume”.

A more serious argument, deserving a more serious answer.

On one side, the Church of England plainly claims continuity with the historic Church. In her own liturgies and official forms of service, she professes belief in “one holy catholic and apostolic Church,” and in the ordination material she speaks of her ministry as apostolic and of herself as part of that one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

On the other side, Rome doesn’t accept Anglican orders as valid. Pope Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae judged them “absolutely null and utterly void,” and that remains the formal Roman Catholic position to this day. Anglicans don’t accept that judgement, but they do have to reckon with it.

The real debate isn’t whether Henry invented Christianity in England. He did not. The real debate is whether the ancient Church in England, after the Tudor’s, retained apostolic succession and catholic continuity in the full sense Anglicans claim and Rome denies.

It’s a genuine theological dispute, it’s not settled by a joke about divorce as a way to silence Anglicans in public.

Are Anglicans actually catholic?

Yes, Anglicans absolutely are catholic, but they aren’t Roman Catholic.

It means claiming continuity with the universal Church, the creeds, the sacraments, and the historic episcopate. The Church of England’s own texts say precisely that she is part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. The Anglican Communion describes Anglicanism as both “Catholic and Reformed.”

This distinction matters, because people often confuse catholic with Roman Catholic as though they were interchangeable. They aren’t…

Rome, of course, uses “Catholic” in a full canonical sense for those churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome. That includes not only the Latin Church commonly called Roman Catholic, but also the Eastern Catholic Churches, which are fully Catholic while not Roman in rite or liturgical culture.

Vatican II explicitly affirmed the full dignity and rights of the Eastern Catholic Churches within communion with Rome.

So the Anglican claim is not, “we are Roman Catholics who have mislaid the Pope.” The Anglican claim is, “we are catholic Christians, historically reformed, not newly invented.”

One may dispute that claim, but one should dispute the claim that is actually being made.

Apostolic succession is a dispute, not a punchline

Here is where charity and seriousness are both needed.

For Rome, the question of Anglican orders is settled officially against Anglicanism. For Anglicans, the historic episcopate, episcopal consecration, and continuity of ministry remain integral to self-understanding.

The Church of England’s ordination rites and declarations do not speak as though ministry began in the sixteenth century, they consciously locate ordained ministry within the apostolic life of the Church.

Meanwhile, Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue has continued for decades precisely because this disagreement is not trivial, even where full agreement has not been reached. The Anglican Communion presents ecumenical dialogue and the search for visible unity as integral to Anglican identity.

That does not magically dissolve the Roman objection, but it does show that the issue is not ridiculous on its face, it’s a serious ecclesiological disagreement about succession, sacramental intention, communion, and the nature of the Church.

Which is another way of saying it’s not the sort of thing that can be dismissed intelligently with a meme about Henry VIII.

Why bad church history matters

One might ask why any of this deserves so much attention? Perhaps the Henry line is only a joke, but lazy history is rarely harmless.

If people are encouraged to believe the Church of England is merely the ecclesiastical afterbirth of a royal tantrum, then everything else becomes easier to caricature as well. Her orders, her liturgy, her saints, her continuity, her claim to belong to the one Church of Christ. Once caricature takes over, serious disagreement becomes much harder, because one side is no longer dealing with history but with myth.

There are serious critiques that can be made of Anglicanism. Rome has some, Orthodoxy has some, Protestant traditions have some, Anglicans themselves have plenty, but criticism worth hearing should at least begin by telling the truth.

The truth is more demanding.

Older than the argument

The Church of England is not innocent of compromise or unscarred by politics. She has been shaped by monarchs, parliaments, reforms, reactions, saints, opportunists, martyrs, and bureaucrats. Her story is mixed because all Christian history in this fallen world is mixed.

But she is older than her “Tudor crisis”…

Older than Henry’s ego, older than the break with Rome, older than the lazy argument that tries to collapse fifteen centuries of Christian life on the British Isle’s into one royal quarrel.

The Church in England, indeed Britain, did not begin because one king wanted an annulment. A much older church was forced through a violent and consequential upheaval, and what emerged carried both continuity and scars.

That does not settle every question, doesn’t erase Roman objections, and it doesn’t make the Reformation tidy, but it tells the truth. Truth is always a better place to begin than a clever line you heard once in a comment section and repeat with ignorance.

Suggested Reading

• Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English People

• The Church of England, History of the Church of England

• Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation

• Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars

More and more often, churches seem tempted to borrow the instincts, language, and emotional temperature of the world’s factions. It’s not always in obvious ways, it’s not a manifesto, a banner, or even a party-political statement.

Sometimes it is simply a tone. A set of assumptions, a way of speaking that makes clear, before a stranger has even crossed the threshold, which people are considered safe, which people are considered suspect, and which opinions must already be in place if one is to belong.

Once that happens, something serious begins to shift.

The Church no longer sounds like a place where sinners may come and be changed. She starts to sound like one more tribe, one more camp, one more gathering in which the right instincts function as passports and the wrong ones mark you out before grace has even had a chance to speak.

That is dangerous, not only because it distorts the Gospel, but because it “others” the very people Christ still calls the Church to meet.

The Church cannot be neutral, but she must not become captive

The answer, of course, is not that the Church should be apolitical in the shallow modern sense, She can’t be and never has been.

Christianity has moral content. The Church must speak about truth and falsehood, justice and injustice, mercy and cruelty, life and death, sin and repentance, neighbour-love and human dignity. She isn’t able to withdraw into a polite fog of “spirituality” and say nothing about the world God has made and the human beings for whom Christ died.

There is a difference between being morally serious and becoming politically captive.

The Church is not called to sound like a branch office of contemporary partisanship. She is not sent into the world to echo the instincts of whichever tribe happens to feel most righteous at the moment. The Gospel does not sit comfortably inside the emotional habits of left or right for very long. It should disturb both, humble both, expose vanity, cruelty, hardness of heart, self-deception, and the love of power wherever they are found.

The Church does not stop being prophetic when she refuses to be partisan, quite often, that is the only way she remains truly prophetic at all.

How churches begin to “other” people

Part of the problem is that parishes can begin to “other” people long before they consciously mean to.

It happens when political instinct takes over pastoral instinct. When suspicion comes before invitation and the emotional register of church life makes clear that some people will be received first as problems to be managed rather than souls to be loved.

Of course the Church must not affirm everything people bring in with them. People come carrying sins, ideologies, wounds, hostilities, illusions, and loves that need reordering. That is true of all of us, but the Church must begin from the conviction that people are to be encountered as persons before they are sorted into categories.

Once a church begins to feel like a place where the worldly tribe has already been chosen, and everyone is expected to fall into emotional formation behind it, the Church stops sounding like the household of grace and begins to sound like a place of prior ideological filtering.

That is not mission, it’s sorting, and it’s one of the reasons so many people feel the Church has nothing to say to them except, “become recognisably one of us first.”

Christ did not come as a mascot for a side

Christ is endlessly claimed, and endlessly reduced.

Every age wants to recruit him, every faction wants a manageable version of him. Some want a Christ who only comforts, some want a Christ who only condemns. Some want a Christ who flatters their instincts, and confirms that their enemies are the real problem.

Christ refuses all of that…

He calls sinners, confronts hypocrisy, overturns false charity, welcomes the compromised, judges the self-righteous, and commands a love far more demanding than tribal solidarity. He does not ask first whether a person already speaks the “right social language”. He meets, calls, unsettles, heals, and commands.

The saints, too, were not party creatures. They served the poor, confronted power, loved the unwanted, defended the truth, and often looked inconvenient to all the camps around them. Their holiness was not reducible to ideological familiarity, they belonged first to Christ.

That is why they still unsettle us, they are too alive to be used as mascots.

Love does not require naiveté

This is where Christians often become hesitant, because once one warns against partisanship it can sound as though one is asking the Church to be vague, passive, or endlessly accommodating.

That’s not the point!

Christ commands us to love our neighbour, He does not command gullibility. The same Gospel that teaches mercy also teaches watchfulness. The same Lord who tells us to forgive tells us to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Christian charity is not the suspension of judgement, it isn’t the refusal to protect the vulnerable, name evil, resist manipulation, or recognise danger.

The Church must be able to love without becoming naive, welcome without becoming morally shapeless, and to speak with mercy without surrendering truth.

That is very different from allowing the emotional habits of politics to dictate how people are imagined before they are even encountered. The Church can be prudent without becoming tribal and discerning without becoming suspicious by default. She can protect the flock without learning to sound like a faction that already knows which kinds of people count as enemies.

Why partisan churches fail spiritually

A church absorbed by politics, whether softly or loudly, does not simply become less pleasant, it becomes less spiritually credible.

People know when they are entering a place where the deepest thing is no longer the presence of God but the mood of a tribe. When they are being invited into repentance, and when they are being invited into alignment. They know when grace is being offered, and when social belonging is being quietly policed.

That is why politicised churches so often feel exhausting. They ask people to perform the right instincts before they have even learned how to pray, teach emotional allegiance faster than holiness. They end up sounding like smaller versions of the world they claim to resist.

The Church is not at her best when she becomes a venue for moral sorting. She is at her best when she becomes a place in which sinners can be brought into the presence of Christ and remade.

That will include moral challenge, uncomfortable truths, and repentance. It will not begin with worldly tribalism, because tribalism is one of the very things the Gospel comes to judge.

The Church must remain wide enough for conversion

A Church that sounds too much like a tribe becomes narrow in a way the Gospel never is.

Not morally narrow, but humanly narrow. She begins to lose the capacity to imagine that people unlike herself may yet be called by Christ, and forgets that grace often begins in disorder, confusion, resentment, ignorance, woundedness, and half-formed longing. She becomes surprised by sinners, which is one of the worst things a Church can become.

The Church of Jesus Christ must remain wide enough for conversion. That means wide enough to love people before they are tidy, wide enough to speak truth without prematurely collapsing into culture-war idioms, wide enough to resist both sentimental softness and political hardening, and wide enough to remember that Christ did not found a faction, but a Body.

If the Church wishes to remain a place where people can still hear the call of God, she must be careful not to let the borrowed instincts of politics drown out the stranger, steadier, more demanding music of holiness.

Suggested Reading

• The Book of Common Prayer

• St Augustine, The City of God

• T. S. Eliot, Notes Towards the Definition of Culture

• Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together

Not “holy fear” in the older Christian sense, not the fear of the Lord that Scripture speaks of as the beginning of wisdom, but something flatter and more psychological. A nervous, distant formality mistaken for coldness. For many people, anything that looks solemn, symbolic, or “set apart” is assumed to be designed to keep “ordinary” people at arm’s length.

That misunderstanding has touched almost everything, including the way many people now see clergy, vestments, robes, and the outward signs of sacred office.

A cassock becomes theatre, a stole becomes fussiness, a chasuble becomes extravagance, a collar becomes an oddity. What was once understood, however imperfectly, as part of the Church’s way of marking holy things now risks being dismissed as costume, ornament, or clerical vanity.

If people are not taught what these things mean, that reaction is hardly surprising.

When symbols are no longer taught

The modern layperson is often surrounded by church symbols and yet given very little help in reading them.

They see a priest vested for Mass, or in choir dress, or simply wearing a collar in the street, but no one has really explained what any of it is for. They may notice colours changing with the seasons, or garments becoming more or less elaborate, but without any real catechesis those things simply register as style choices. At best they become part of the atmosphere, at worst they look like needless complication.

The Church shouldn’t be shocked by this. If symbols are no longer taught, they will eventually become opaque. Once they become opaque, they are easily treated as optional, eccentric, or vaguely embarrassing.

This has pastoral consequences. People begin to assume that vestments are only for clergy taste, only for aesthetic preference, only for those who like “high church things”. The deeper truth, that the Church clothes ministers in certain ways because she is trying to say something about office, sacrifice, service, time, holiness, and the difference between ordinary life and liturgical action, begins to disappear.

That is a serious loss.

Vestments are not self-expression

The point of vestments was never that, “Father gets to wear something impressive”.

In fact, properly understood, vestments do almost the opposite. They cover the person in order to point beyond the person. They say that what matters most here is not the private personality of the minister, but the office being exercised and the mystery being served. They place the priest inside an inheritance, reminding both priest and people that the liturgy is not being improvised out of individual charisma.

That is why dressing everything down is not always as neutral as it seems.

Of course there are contexts in which simpler dress is fitting. Of course not every priest is vested in every setting. Of course the Church must avoid empty fussiness and aesthetic self-importance, but when the instinct is always to reduce, simplify, flatten, and de-symbolise, the message people receive is that these signs don’t matter very much.

And if they don’t matter, why keep them?

The answer, of course, is that they do matter. Not because God is impressed by fabric, but because human beings learn through signs. We are formed by what we see as well as by what we hear. The Church knows this (or at least she used to...).

The difference between richness and extravagance

There is, of course, an honest objection here.

How can the Church justify fine vestments, precious vessels, embroidered fabric, candles, silver, gold, and visual richness when there are poor people in the world, hungry people in the parish, struggling families just outside the church door?

It is not a foolish question. It is a serious Christian question, and the Church should answer it seriously.

The answer has never been that beauty is a betrayal of the poor. The answer is that the Church must hold together two duties which modernity constantly tries to pull apart, the duty of mercy and the duty of worship.

The poor should be fed. The lonely should be visited. The suffering should be served, and God should be worshipped with reverence, beauty, and costly love.

Christian tradition has generally understood that these are not enemies. The woman who anointed Christ with costly ointment was criticised in terms that sounded practical, even moral, but Our Lord did not accept the criticism. There is a kind of expenditure that is not waste but worship.

That does not excuse vanity. It does not justify clerical “peacocking”. It does not mean every church must imitate a baroque sacristy, but it does mean that not every sign of richness is worldliness. Some of it is simply the Church’s attempt to say that God is worthy of honour.

What clergy represent

Part of the difficulty today is that many clergy themselves may not have been formed very deeply in the meaning of these outward things.

Some wear them with dignity and understanding, some because they have inherited them, some avoid them because they do not want to look fussy, inaccessible, old-fashioned, or overdone.

Some have never really been taught to think of them as “theology in cloth”, but that is what they are.

The priest does not only preach theology, they also wear it, carry it, enact it, and stand within it. The collar says something, the stole says something, the alb says something, the chasuble says something, even the refusal of these things says something.

Clergy represent more than themselves, one reason why the office matters, they are not simply private Christians with public jobs. They stand (however imperfectly) as visible signs of the Church’s ministry and of the holy things entrusted to her. That is why what they wear can never be only personal preference.

The point is not to turn priests into mannequins, it’s to remember that visible ministry is always teaching, even when no words are spoken.

The fear behind irreverence

Sometimes what gets called modernisation is not really confidence, sometimes it’s embarrassment.

An embarrassment about looking too priestly, too ceremonial, too formal, too set apart. An anxiety that sacred symbols will be misunderstood, and so it is safer to reduce them, look more familiar, more ordinary, more obviously of the world as it already is.

When the Church becomes embarrassed by her own signs, she usually teaches embarrassment rather than understanding.

People do not become more reverent because the symbols disappear, more often, they simply lose the chance to learn what those symbols meant in the first place. The mystery is not translated, it’s thinned, and a Church that is always thinning herself for fear of being misunderstood will eventually have very little left to explain…

Reverence does not keep people out

This is the point at which many people assume a choice must be made. Either the Church is reverent, symbolic, solemn, and perhaps slightly strange, or she is warm, inviting, and open to ordinary people.

That’s a false choice.

Reverence does not keep people out, often it is one of the things that draws them in. In a culture that explains everything, markets everything, personalises everything, and strips every office of its gravity, there is something deeply relieving about encountering a place where holy things are treated as holy.

People do not need every symbol to be immediately familiar in order to sense that it matters, often what arrests them is precisely the fact that it is not ordinary. The problem comes later, when the Church fails to teach what has been seen.

That is why explanation matters. Not defensive explanation, embarrassed explanation, but confident, patient catechesis. This is why the priest wears this, this is why the colours change, this is why the altar is dressed, this is why we bow, this is why we kneel, this is why some things are beautiful, this is why some things are veiled.

People are often more ready to learn than the Church assumes.

The Church must not be embarrassed by holy things

The deeper issue, then, is not really fabric, it is whether the Church still believes that holy things should look holy.

Whether sacred office should appear as sacred office, worship should feel different from ordinary life, outward signs should still carry inward truths, beauty and symbolism still belong to Christian formation, reverence is still understood as a form of love.

If the answer becomes uncertain, then vestments will always seem excessive, robes will always seem theatrical, and solemnity will always be suspected of hiding fear or pride.

If the Church remembers what these things are for, they can once again become what they were meant to be. Not displays of clerical self-importance, but humble signs that what is happening here is not casual, self-invented, merely functional, but given, received, and holy.

Reverence is not fear, it’s love taught to kneel.

Suggested Reading

• The Book of Common Prayer

• Percy Dearmer, The Parson’s Handbook

• Alexander Schmemann, For the Life of the World

• Romano Guardini, Sacred Signs

One of the habits of modern church life is that every serious concern is quickly dragged into the nearest trench.

Raise a question about reverence, priestly seriousness, or the loss of weight in the Church’s public face, and before long someone assumes you must be refighting an old battle, but that is not always what is happening.

Sometimes the concern is simpler, and deeper, than that. Sometimes the concern is that the Church risks becoming spiritually weightless.

The issue is not first who, but what

One of the difficulties in speaking about the Church now is that every question is quickly reduced to representation, personality, or alignment. Who is visible, who is platformed, who is being recognised, who is being left out.

The deeper question is not first who is in view, it’s what sort of priesthood, what sort of ministry, what sort of Christian seriousness is being made visible at all.

What kind of spiritual imagination is being offered. What sort of Church appears before the half-curious, half-wounded person wondering whether Christianity contains anything solid enough to trust.

That is where the real question lies, because it is entirely possible to have no wish to reopen old arguments, and still feel that much of the Church’s public presentation now leans towards the casual, the softened, and the self-consciously approachable. And one can feel, too, that this comes at a cost.

Reverence is not decoration

The Church has increasingly behaved as though signs of reverence are secondary to signs of relatability.

The office matters less than the personality, symbol matters less than the styling. The priest is presented less as someone set apart for the cure of souls, and more as someone whose main task is to appear accessible, expressive, and reassuringly unthreatening.

Reverence is not decoration, it’s one of the ways the Church teaches people that holy things are actually holy.

That includes the way clergy bear themselves, how sacred symbols are treated whether the priest appears as someone standing under an inheritance, or simply customising a role to suit the tastes of the age.

This matters because the modern world is not short of personality, styling, or casual self-expression.

What it is short of is holiness.

When the Church stops looking as though she knows the difference, something important begins to thin out.

The softening has gone deeper than style

The problem runs deeper than presentation.

The Church has spent years softening herself in every register. Her language, posture, symbols, and moral voice has softened. Even her confidence in speaking of sin, repentance, sacrifice, holiness, discipline, and worship has often been replaced by a gentler, flatter vocabulary of welcome, wellbeing, and inclusion.

Those things have their place. The Church should welcome, should heal, should make room.

But…

If that is all people can see, then the Church no longer appears as a place where souls are being formed in the presence of God. She appears as one more institution trying very hard not to seem demanding. A Church that is always anxious to appear harmless will not be trusted by people who are dealing with things that are anything but harmless.

Young men notice this, even if the Church does not

This is where the issue becomes more urgent.

We live in an age in which many young men are spiritually adrift, emotionally under-formed, suspicious of institutions, hungry for meaning, and vulnerable to counterfeit versions of strength. The answer is not to flatter grievance, indulge reaction, or resentment. It is certainly not to imitate the louder and uglier voices that promise strength while forming cruelty.

Neither can the Church afford to sound as though masculinity itself is a problem to be “managed”.

There is a difference between opposing “toxic” masculinity and becoming embarrassed by masculinity as such. The first is necessary, the second is a mistake.

If the Church cannot speak to ordinary men without seeming faintly suspicious of them, or unable to imagine a recognisably masculine form of holiness, others will gladly step in. Many of those others will not offer discipline, sacrifice, gentleness, courage, fatherhood, repentance, chastity, and service. They will offer something far less Christian and far more corrosive.

Young men do not need the Church to become “macho”, they need the Church to become substantial.

They need to see that Christian manhood is possible. That holiness need not be ironised, softened, or emptied of form before they are allowed near it.

A Church for the whole nation must look broader than this

If the Church of England, indeed global Anglicanism wants to be the Church for the everyone, then she must remember that the world contains all sorts of people, with all sorts of instincts, temperaments, and ways of receiving things.

Not everyone is drawn by the same register, responds to the same tone, finds informality reassuring, experiences casualness as kindness.

Some people, including many ordinary men, are more likely to be drawn by seriousness than by sentimentality. They are looking for depth, structure, reverence, forgiveness, and a sense that the Church stands within an inheritance older and steadier than the passing fashions of the age.

The problem is not that every priest should look the same. The Church would be poorer for that.

Nor is the answer some artificial performance of “manly church” designed by committee.

The issue is whether the Church’s public face has become so skewed towards the casual and the culturally fluent that other forms of priestly seriousness are quietly disappearing from view. A national Church must be broad enough to hold more than one public register of Christian seriousness.

The old beauty should not be surrendered to modern politics

This is why the whole conversation becomes so frustrating.

It is constantly dragged into the wrong frame, as though every concern about reverence, priestly identity, masculinity, or symbolism must be reduced to factional positioning.

The Church’s real danger is not only division on this issue or that one. It is the gradual surrender of her beauty to modern politics.

By that I do not mean “party politics”. I mean the whole modern habit of seeing everything through signalling, representation, reaction, and institutional messaging. Once that takes hold, even priesthood itself begins to be read in those terms. What matters is what a cleric signifies socially, not what he or she signifies sacramentally. What matters is how the Church is seen, not whether the Church still sees herself clearly.

When that happens, the old beauty begins to drain away.

The beauty of priesthood. The dignity of office, humility of wearing something one has received, not invented, the seriousness of standing at the altar as servant, not stylist. The sense that the Church’s task is not merely to reflect the world’s categories back to itself, but to draw people into a world reordered around holiness.

What people are crying out for

The modern Church often assumes that what people need is a version of Christianity made less demanding, less symbolic, less formal, and less weighted with inherited meaning.

I suspect the opposite is often true.

People are not starving for more informality, they are already drowning in it. They are not desperate for more self-expression, they are already exhausted by it. They do not need a Church that seems unsure whether she has the right to speak of reverence, discipline, or sacred office.

They need a Church that remembers what those things are for.

That includes men too, especially those who are spiritually adrift and poorly served by the culture around them.

If the Church wants to keep young men from being formed by crueler voices, she must offer more than slogans and soft evasions. She must offer a better vision, a thicker vision, and form of holiness that is demanding, reverent, self-controlled, sacrificial, and unafraid of spiritual depth.

In other words, she must look more like the Church, not less.

For the sake of everyone

None of this requires the Church to retreat into tribalism.

None of it requires a campaign against anyone, pretending that old disputes can simply be solved by tone, aesthetic purism or some new clerical dress code.

It requires something harder than that: discernment.

The discernment to know that not everything casual is welcoming, everything soft is kind, everything modern is missionary, everything symbolic is superficial, everything masculine is toxic.

If the Church is to be for everyone, then she must resist the temptation to become spiritually weightless. She must remember that priesthood is not a lifestyle category, that holy symbols are not props, and that people looking for God may need more from the Church than a friendly tone and a familiar aesthetic.

• They may need depth.

• They may need seriousness.

• They may need beauty.

And they may need a Church that is still willing to look holy.

Suggested Reading

• The Book of Common Prayer

• Michael Ramsey, The Christian Priest Today

• Alexander Schmemann, For the Life of the World

They can host, serve, convene, stabilise a neighbourhood, anchor a village, support a foodbank, house a concert, preserve heritage, and offer community space in an age that has very little of it left.

All of that is true, and all of it matters, but it is not the first truth.

A church is not just a useful building with a spiritual backstory. It is a place set apart, and exists, before anything else, for the worship of God. Once the Church begins to speak of her buildings chiefly in the language of utility, she starts to forget what they are for.

More than useful

Of course churches should serve their communities, and they always have. The false choice between sacred and useful has never really held. Church buildings have long been woven into the common life of the places around them.

The trouble comes when usefulness becomes the controlling idea. Then the church is subtly recast as a venue, an asset, or a platform, and worship begins to sound like one activity among many. The building remains, but its meaning thins out.

That thinning is not only architectural, it is theological, Christians do not gather in church simply because it is convenient to have a covered space with chairs. They gather there because the place itself has been given over to prayer, sacrament, praise, repentance, burial, blessing, grief, thanksgiving, and the stubborn hope that God meets people in particular places as well as in all places.

What holy places do

A church does something to people long before a service begins. You step out of the ordinary pace of things. Your voice lowers, eyes adjust. Stone, timber, candlelight, worn kneelers, memorial plaques, flowers before the altar, the hush before prayer: all of it begins to teach you, even before a word is said.

A church tells the body what the soul has forgotten, it reminds us that not all spaces are the same. There are places in which one may behave as one likes, and places in which one is called to attention. A church is one of the latter, it’s a place where the world is interrupted, where human life is brought before God, where sin and grace, death and resurrection, grief and joy, are carried into prayer.

This is one reason the old buildings matter so much. They were not designed merely to be efficient, they were built to orient people towards heaven.

Not every use is fitting

This matters especially now, because financial pressure has pushed many churches into a more openly transactional relationship with their own buildings, and it’s completely understandable. Parish finances are fragile, Cathedral budgets are punishing, and repairs do not pay for themselves, so fundraising is unavoidable.

Necessity however, does not remove the need for judgement…

There is a difference between opening a church building in ways that support its life and treating it as though it were simply a striking backdrop for whatever might bring people through the door. That difference matters all the more in places where generations have worshipped, memorials line the walls, the dead are buried, and where the altar is not a decorative surface but the place of offering.

That is why certain things jar so deeply, even when they are defended as practical. Silent discos, parties, and other events that treat the church as an atmospheric venue may raise money, but they can also train people to forget what sort of place they are standing in. The same is true when altars are handled carelessly, or used as display tables, staging points, or visual props. Even where no malice is intended, something important is lost when sacred things are treated as though they were interchangeable with ordinary furniture.

A church need not be frozen in aspic to remain holy, but sacred space does need to be respected.

That, I think, is the heart of it. Not panic or purism. Just the refusal to pretend that every possible use is equally fitting in a place that has been set apart for the worship of God.

The altar is not a table for anything else

At the centre of the church (and in side-chapels) stand the altar’s, and this is perhaps where the confusion becomes clearest.

An altar is not simply a convenient flat surface in a beautiful room. It is the place where the Church offers and receives, bread and wine are taken, blessed, broken, and given, where earth is drawn into heaven. Even traditions that speak differently about the Eucharist know that something deeply holy is at stake there.

That is why the altar cannot be treated casually. It is not a display table, staging area, a place to pile leaflets, floral arrangements for an event, or the ordinary clutter of life.

To say this is not to be precious for the sake of it. It is simply to recognise that reverence is formed through habits. If the altar is treated as ordinary, people will learn that it is ordinary. If it is treated as holy, begin to remember that they themselves are called to holiness too.

Places where the dead are remembered

There is another reason all this matters, many churches are not merely buildings of historical interest. They are places where the dead are buried, and memorials are kept, where names are inscribed in stone and brass, where generations have been entrusted to God.

That changes the atmosphere of a place. It means a church is not only a public space but a place of memory and reverence, a place where the communion of saints is felt not as an abstract doctrine but almost as a presence.

One does not stand lightly in such a place, and to fill churches with noise, spectacle, or careless novelty is not only to risk disrespecting the building itself. It is to risk forgetting the lives, prayers, and bodies that have already been laid there in hope of the resurrection.

What the Church should remember

This is why churches still matter, even in an age that struggles to understand them.

Not because they are quaint, useful community assets, or because they offer a picturesque setting for events. They matter because they bear witness to a world larger than the one we ordinarily inhabit. They tell us, in stone and silence, that God is worthy of worship and that human life is not exhausted by what is immediate or measurable.

The Church does not help herself when she becomes embarrassed by this, and treats her own buildings as though their holiness were a liability. Nor does she help the world when she behaves as though sacred space is only ever instrumental, only ever valuable because it can be repurposed for something else.

A church is for prayer. It is for worship, for baptism, absolution, anointing, Eucharist, burial, blessing, and the slow sanctification of ordinary lives.

Other uses may at times be fitting, but they are fitting only when they remain answerable to that first purpose, not when they eclipse it.

For the sake of reverence

To say that a church is not just a venue is not a retreat into nostalgia or to deny present realities. It is simply to insist that the Church should still recognise her own holy places.

If we stop doing that, we not only lose something beautiful, we lose something formative. We will teach ourselves, and others, that the sacred is never more than the useful in religious dress.

And that would be a serious loss indeed for a world starved of reverence, hungry for silence, and weary of endless transaction. The church building still stands as a sign that there is more to life than consumption and convenience. It reminds us that there are places where we do not merely gather, but adore.

A church is not just a venue, it is a house of God, and it should be treated accordingly.

Suggested Reading

• The Book of Common Prayer

• T. S. Eliot, Little Gidding

• Alexander Schmemann, For the Life of the World

• John Keble, The Christian Year

That matters beyond Britain, because the real question is not whether one country can sustain a satisfying headline about religious renewal. The real question is what people seem to want when they begin asking Christian questions again, wherever they are. The answer, more often than not, is not difficult to see. They do not seem to be looking for a safer gospel, a smaller God, or a Church embarrassed by her own supernatural claims. They seem to be looking for the real thing.

When the numbers wobble, the hunger may still be real

Christians do not need to panic every time a hopeful statistic is challenged. If our confidence depends on flattering numbers, it is not much confidence

Shaky data does not mean nothing is happening. There are still real signs of spiritual seriousness in different places. Not proof of revival, perhaps, but proof that hunger has not gone away.

What matters most is not just that people are moving, but what they seem to be moving towards.

The age has no shortage of vagueness

For years, much of the Western Church has tried to make Christianity seem less strange, less demanding, and easier to translate into the language of wellbeing and belonging. Belonging can be offered by brands, movements, and online tribes. If the Church offers little more than an agreeable atmosphere and a little ethical uplift, she should not be surprised if the spiritually restless keep walking.

What people cannot find so easily is an encounter with the holy. They cannot find many places willing to speak plainly about sin and grace, repentance and forgiveness, prayer, the Holy Spirit, or the possibility that the world is more than a closed material system. Yet that is precisely where Christianity begins to sound like more than a lifestyle supplement.

The tragedy is that many churches have assumed this is the language modern people would reject. Increasingly, it seems to be the language many have been waiting to hear, and that may be exactly what many people are looking for.

Share

When people search, they often move toward depth

One of the more striking features of recent stories, is that spiritually curious people often do not move toward the thinnest expression of Christianity. They move toward seriousness. Toward reverence, beauty, and churches that seem to know they are handling eternal things.

When people start asking ultimate questions, they are rarely looking for a faith that has already edited out its own difficulty. They are not usually searching for an institution that has trimmed itself into a form acceptable to modern assumptions. More often, they are searching for transcendence. For forgiveness, order, mystery, and worship that feels as though something is truly at stake.

This is one reason why so much church talk about “relevance” has aged rather badly. Relevance, as it is often imagined, has meant sounding close to the assumptions of the age, but people in spiritual distress are not always helped by hearing the age repeated back to them in ecclesiastical language. Quite often, they come because they have already discovered that the age cannot save them.

They are not looking for a Church that mirrors the room, they are looking for a Church that opens a window.

The supernatural is not the problem

Here the modern Western Church has often seemed oddly nervous. We are usually comfortable talking about service, justice, heritage, ethics, inclusion, education, or public witness. All of these have their place as I’ve said before, but many churches become noticeably less confident when speaking in more direct Christian terms about conversion, miracle, spiritual warfare, sacramental grace, sanctity, angels, the devil, the unseen world, or the living presence of Christ.

It is not that Christianity should become lurid or theatrical. The supernatural is not made more persuasive by becoming eccentric for its own sake, but Christianity is a supernatural religion all the same.

It is about the God who acts, calls, forgives, heals, judges, and raises the dead. Once the Church loses the nerve to speak that way, she should not be surprised if she begins to sound weightless.

One reason the language of “full-fat Christianity” has struck a nerve in some recent commentary is that it names a real instinct (even if the phrase itself is a little journalistic). People seem to know when a church believes that something real is happening, and they know when a church sounds as though it is explaining away its own message…

What this means for Anglicanism and beyond

This is not a case for denominational boasting, it isn’t an argument that one tradition should simply copy another, and it isn’t an excuse to announce revival every time a graph twitches upward.

It is a reminder that churches which still draw serious interest often have certain things in common. They speak of Christ as someone to be worshipped, not merely discussed. They invite people not only to attend but to repent and believe, they treat beauty as more than decoration, and they offer doctrine, not only atmosphere.

They act as though the faith is something to be received and obeyed, not endlessly diluted until nobody objects.

Where Anglicanism still does this, she remains compelling. Where she forgets how to do it, she becomes thin very quickly.

That is why the answer is not to become louder, trendier, or more frantic. It is to recover confidence in the riches already in our keeping. The parish Mass, Choral Evensong, Confession, fasting, The Psalms, The creeds, the sacraments, the Church year, and the conviction that what happens at the altar is not symbolic theatre but contact with holy reality.

Readers in different countries will picture different churches, different customs, different inherited forms, but the underlying question is the same almost everywhere. Will the Church meet spiritual hunger with the depth of her faith, or with a carefully edited version of it?

A weaker Christianity will not meet the moment

If there is any fresh openness to Christianity in different parts of the world, whether modest or significant, this is no time for the Church to retreat further into managerial caution. It is no time to offer an edited faith stripped of mystery and danger, and to act as though the best we can do is provide a moral framework, a little community, and some vaguely spiritual language for difficult times.

What the moment calls for is confidence. Not swagger, propaganda, or inflated statistics. Just confidence.

Confidence that Christ is still worth preaching. Confidence that the supernatural claims of Christianity are not embarrassing leftovers from a premodern age, but part of the very truth people are starving to hear.

A Church that no longer believes in more than the world already believes will not convert the world to anything, and a safer gospel will not answer a deeper hunger.

The task before us

The real question, then, is not whether Britain is reviving, or France is surging, or America is rediscovering the Bible, or Australia is noticing new patterns among younger Christians. The real question is whether the churches are prepared to meet spiritual hunger with something recognisably Christian.

That begins simply enough, by speaking of Jesus without embarrassment. By preaching repentance and grace as though they matter, recovering the unseen dimension of the faith without sensationalism, trusting that reverent worship is not a barrier but a bridge, and by letting Christianity be thick, sacramental, prayerful, demanding, and alive.

If people are turning again toward Christian faith, even tentatively, they will not be helped by a Church that no longer sounds convinced that God is really there.

People are not hungry for less of God, they are hungry for more.

Suggested Reading

• The Book of Common Prayer

• C. S. Lewis, Miracles

• Michael Ramsey, The Christian Priest Today

• Alexander Schmemann, For the Life of the World

This week, as so often, the Church has been spoken of as though her truest life is found in spectacle.

Canterbury has taken all the oxygen. There has been the enthronement, the commentary, the statements, the predictable reactions from every familiar corner, and the usual urge to make the whole thing stand for something larger.

Before long, the Church is no longer being spoken of as the Church at all, but as an institution onto which the culture projects its own obsessions. That, it seems to me, is part of the problem.

When the Centre Takes All the Oxygen

This is not because what happens at the centre doesn’t matter. It does.

Leadership matters, bishops matter, what happens in Canterbury? Matters.

But…

The centre has a way of distorting our vision. It encourages us to think that the Church is most herself when she is most visible, most debated, most publicly interpreted. It teaches us to confuse prominence with substance, and noise with life.

Yet the real life of the Church of England, Anglicanism as whole, has never depended chiefly on headlines. It has always lived somewhere quieter and sturdier than that, it lives in the parish.

It lives where the office is still said, where the altar is still prepared, where the Scriptures are still read, where the dead are still commended to God and children are still brought to the font.

It lives in the local church that opens its doors week by week whether the national mood is interested or not.

The Life That Never Makes the Headlines

What the headlines almost always miss is that the Church’s life does not begin at the top and trickle down. It rises from the ground, from ordinary faithfulness. From Morning Prayer in a half-empty nave, candles lit before Mass, choir practice on a Thursday night, a churchwarden quietly unlocking the building, flowers arranged before the altar, the familiar cadences of Common Prayer.

From priests who keep going, and parishioners who do too.

This is the life of the Anglican Church as it has so often been lived. Not glamorous enough for a news cycle, perhaps, but sturdy enough to outlast one.

When the Church Borrows the Language of the Age

Part of the reason so much modern church discourse feels so thin is that everything now has to be read through the language of symbolism, relevance, representation, or institutional positioning. Every event must be made to stand for some larger ideological meaning. The Church is forever being translated into the categories of the age, and then everyone seems surprised when she starts to sound like every other anxious institution trying to justify itself in contemporary terms.

The trouble is that the Church cannot live for long like that without forgetting what she is. She is not here merely to mirror society back to itself in ecclesiastical dress, nor to provide a religious version of whatever argument the age happens to be having this week. She exists to worship God, to hand on the faith, to preach Christ, to administer the sacraments, and to form people in holiness. Once those things begin to recede behind commentary and performance, something essential starts to thin out.

What Anglicanism Already Possesses

What makes this more frustrating is that Anglicanism already possesses so much of what the modern world is actually starving for. It has continuity in an age of churn, it has inherited prayer in an age of improvisation, it has reverence in an age of display, it has slowness in an age that cannot sit still.

At its best, the Church offers something modern the world badly needs but rarely knows how to name:

A way of inhabiting time, place, memory, and worship that does not have to be reinvented every five minutes in order to seem alive.

That is why the old churches matter. It is why Evensong matters, why parish Mass matters, why the liturgical year matters, and why the small acts of Anglican devotion that seem “quaint” to some people remain one of the Church’s great strengths.

These things are not decorative extras. They are part of the way the faith becomes tangible. They locate us in something received rather than invented, remind us that Christianity is not a mood, a stance, or a set of reactions, but a life into which we are formed.

Where the Church Becomes Believable

People are not only hungry for innovation, many of them are exhausted by it. They are tired of institutions that panic, brands that posture, and public life that never stops performing itself. The Church gains nothing by joining that race. She does not become more persuasive by seeming less rooted.

On the contrary, she becomes thinner, more uncertain, and less believable. What makes Anglicanism compelling is not that it keeps up especially well with modernity, but that it knows something older and steadier than modernity does.

That, in the end, is why the parish matters so much. It is where Anglicanism becomes believable. Not as an idea, but as a way of life, bread and wine, prayer offered in sorrow and thanksgiving.

It becomes a sermon preached into ordinary difficulty, the blessing at the end of a hard week.

It becomes the baptising of infants, the burying of the dead, the keeping of Lent, the proclamation of Easter, the quiet carrying of one another’s burdens.

In the parish, the Church stops being theory and becomes habitation.

For All the Noise Around the Centre

If the Church of England is to have a future worth hoping for, it will not be because she learned how to perform modern relevance more convincingly at the institutional centre. It will be because she remembered where her real life is, and stopped apologising for the inheritance that has sustained her for centuries.

So let Canterbury be Canterbury, let the commentators comment. Let the institution do what institutions do, but let us not forget where the life is. It is not first in the headlines, in the reactions, nor in the symbolic significance people are so eager to impose upon every moment.

It is at the local altar, in common prayer, in Word and Sacrament, in the parish church at the end of the road, where God is still worshipped and the faith is still handed on.

For all the noise around the centre, the parish is still the point.

Suggested Reading

• The Book of Common Prayer

• Alexander Schmemann, For the Life of the World

• Ronald Blythe, Akenfield

• T. S. Eliot, Little Gidding

A Pleasant Church Is Not the Same as a Faithful One

There is much in the Church of England today that is, on the surface, genuinely encouraging. Many parishes are warm and hospitable, services are prepared with care, and people are often kind, attentive, and quietly generous. In some places there has also been a welcome recovery of beauty, with candles, vestments, music, and liturgical shape returning after years of neglect.

None of this should be dismissed, but it does raise a question that is not often asked directly. Is it possible for a church to feel thoughtful, welcoming, and even beautiful, while gradually ceasing to be spiritually serious?

I think it is, and more than that, it may be one of the central temptations facing Anglicanism now.

The danger is not always decline or unbelief, more often it is a quiet softening. A church becomes easier to inhabit, but harder to be formed by. It retains its tone, its activity, and even its aesthetic, but begins to lose its weight.

Subscribe now

The Drift Toward Atmosphere

This is what I mean by atmosphere, not beauty in itself, but the growing sense that the purpose of church is to create a particular feeling. Calm, safety, welcome, belonging, reflection.

These are not wrong, but they are not enough.

Over time, many parishes have become skilled at producing this atmosphere. They know how to make people feel at ease, how to ensure nothing sounds too sharp or too demanding. They’re experts at creating a space where one can remain near the edges of Christianity without ever being drawn fully into it.

This rarely happens deliberately, it’s the result of a gradual shift in language. Words like sin, repentance, holiness, and judgment recede. In their place come softer categories like wellbeing, community and belonging.

The result is not falsehood so much as dilution, and a tone begins to replace a theology.

What the Church Is Quietly Losing

That matters because Christianity is not, in the end, a tone. It is not a mood that can be sustained by careful curation. It is a claim about reality that all Christians believe, that really, in Faith, must believe…

It tells us that God is holy, that sin is real, and that redemption requires more than encouragement. It tells us that Christ is Lord, not simply an example, and that the Cross was necessary, not merely moving.

And it tells us something else (which the modern Church often hesitates to say plainly), that the Christian life unfolds within a real struggle. Not only in the world, but within the human heart itself. Between truth and illusion, grace and sin, and between what leads toward life and what leads away from it.

When the Church loses the language for that struggle, it does not become more accessible, it becomes less capable of forming people who can live truthfully.

Atmosphere can reassure, but cannot sustain…

Formation Cannot Be Replaced by Feeling

This is why formation matters.

Atmosphere can make a church feel alive, and can draw people in, but it cannot teach someone how to pray when prayer doesn’t seem to be working. It cannot sustain repentance when it becomes costly and “not fun anymore”.

It cannot carry a person through suffering or doubt. Only formation can do that.

Historically, Anglicanism understood this. The parish was not simply a place to gather. It was a place where the Christian life was learned and slowly formed..

That is why recent calls to restore theological seriousness to parish life matter. Graham Tomlin’s argument that we must bring theology back to the parishes is not theoretical. It is a recognition that a Church which does not teach its faith will not sustain it.

The same concern can be seen in wider warnings about the erosion of theology itself. Reporting in Church Times on cuts to theology departments highlights how fragile serious formation has become, so a Church that loses confidence in theology will often compensate with tone.

A Church Preoccupied With Everything Except Holiness

At the same time, the Church of England is carrying real and necessary responsibilities. Safeguarding reform, institutional accountability, and the rebuilding of trust all matter deeply. General Synod’s recent move to strengthen independent safeguarding reflects that urgency.

But there is a risk here, a Church can become administratively safer while becoming spiritually thinner. It can become more careful in process while becoming less confident in proclaiming holiness, repentance, and transformation. It may learn to manage itself well while quietly forgetting how to call people into a life that costs something, and that imbalance is beginning to show…

The Inheritance We Seem Reluctant to Offer

What makes this moment more striking is that Anglican Christianity already possesses what many are searching for. None of this needs to be invented, it only needs to be offered.

And yet there is often hesitation, as though the full weight of the tradition might be too much. So instead the Church offers something lighter, something easier to inhabit, and less demanding. That instinct increasingly looks misplaced.

Even now, there are signs that what people are drawn to is not less seriousness, but more. A recent Church Times feature on younger people exploring religious life suggests that discipline, structure, and depth still carry real appeal.

Recovering the Centre

The answer is not to abandon beauty or welcome. Both matter deeply, but they cannot carry the weight of Christianity, and the centre must be Christ.

Not as a background presence, but as the one who calls, commands, forgives, and transforms. The one around whom the entire life of the Church is ordered.

If that centre is clear, then atmosphere can serve it. If it is not, then atmosphere will begin to replace it.

When that happens, the Church may continue to function, it may still gather, still feel alive, still appear to be doing well. But it will struggle to form people capable of living the Christian life with depth and conviction.

A Faith Worth More Than Atmosphere

What Anglicanism needs now is not less beauty, but more nerve.

• Not less kindness, but more seriousness.

• Not less community, but more Christ.

It needs to recover the confidence to speak clearly again about holiness.

Atmosphere can make a church feel alive, but only truth, grace, and discipline can make it faithful.

Suggested Reading

Graham Tomlin, Bring Theology Back to the Parishes

Church of England, General Synod Approves Motion to Strengthen Safeguarding

Church Times, Professor Warns of “Scary” Cuts to University Theology Departments

Church Times, Why Are Some Young People Being Drawn to the Religious Life?

For a long time the story seemed settled. Christianity was fading, churches were emptying, and the future (we were told with quiet certainty) would belong to a more secular and more flexible world in which religion survived only in softened forms.

Faith, according to that story, would have to adapt in order to survive. Doctrine would need to loosen, moral claims soften, and worship would need to become lighter, friendlier, and easier to approach.

Yet something unexpected appears to be happening, despite the detractors in comment sections…

Reports from a number of places suggest that younger people are beginning to look again toward Christianity. The Bible Society’s research project The Quiet Revival has argued that church attendance among younger adults in England and Wales has risen in recent years.

Meanwhile wider commentary has suggested that this curiosity is not confined to Britain alone. The Lowy Institute has pointed to a similar pattern internationally, noting that younger generations are showing renewed interest in religion and spiritual practice.

It would be easy to exaggerate what these signs mean, so we’ve got to be carefully optimistic. Curiosity is not the same as conversion, and trends can change quickly. But even a small shift is significant after decades in which faith seemed to hold little attraction at all.

The Church should welcome that curiosity with gratitude, but gratitude should be followed by a more searching question.

If people begin to return to faith, what exactly will they find when they arrive?

Curiosity Is Fragile

Curiosity has a quiet quality to it. It does not announce itself loudly, and it rarely demands attention. More often it appears as a question that someone carries privately for a while before deciding whether it is worth pursuing.

A person who begins to explore Christianity is not yet committed to belief. They are simply open to the possibility that faith might contain something real. That openness is fragile and we need to watch out.

If the Church meets curiosity with vagueness, the moment passes. If someone arrives with serious questions and encounters only warm sentiment, institutional language, or yet another political viewpoint echoing mass-media trends, the result is not usually anger, it is simply disappointment.

The person concludes that whatever they sensed might exist within Christianity is not actually present in the place they have encountered it.

Curiosity fades quietly, and it rarely announces its departure.

Share

What Many Are Actually Searching For

One of the more interesting features of this renewed curiosity about faith is that it does not appear to be driven primarily by a search for comfort.

Many younger people exploring Christianity today are doing so because they suspect that it might ask something demanding of them. They are not necessarily looking for reassurance, they are looking for seriousness.

• They are intrigued by prayer that expects attention.

• They are curious about confession and repentance.

• They are interested in theology rather than suspicious of it.

In other words, the attraction seems to lie in depth.

This has been noted by a number of observers. Writing recently about younger generations rediscovering religious tradition, commentators have pointed out that historic practices such as liturgy, sacrament, and disciplined prayer often appear more compelling to seekers than carefully simplified versions of the faith.

The pattern is striking because it runs against much of the Church’s recent instinct…

For several decades many Christian communities assumed that survival required becoming more relaxed, more accessible, and less demanding. The expectation was that faith needed to become lighter in order to remain relevant.

Yet the people now showing an interest in Christianity often appear to be looking for the opposite. They are not asking for a faith that expects less, they are asking whether there is a faith that might actually be true.

Subscribe now

The Temptation to Offer Something Lighter

Moments like this present the Church with a subtle temptation.

When interest begins to appear after years of decline, the instinct is often to respond quickly and enthusiastically. Churches that have struggled for many years naturally want to welcome new energy.

This enthusiasm can sometimes lead to a strange miscalculation. Instead of inviting people into the depth of the Christian tradition, the Church offers a lighter version that feels easier to understand and easier to accept.

The result can be quietly disappointing…

People arrive looking for seriousness and are reassured that nothing too serious will be required of them. They come expecting mystery and encounter explanations that flatten it. They come searching for truth and find a conversation that hesitates to make any strong claims at all.

The Church believes it is lowering barriers, in reality it may be removing the very things that made faith worth exploring in the first place.

I wrote about a similar instinct in Tolerating Ourselves to Death, where the desire to appear endlessly accommodating gradually dissolves the confidence needed to speak clearly about truth.

A faith that asks nothing eventually offers very little.

The Parish Question

For Anglicanism this moment raises an important question about the parish.

The parish was never meant to be simply a social gathering that happens to meet in a church building. Historically it existed to teach the faith, celebrate the sacraments, and to form Christian character over time.

A parish was meant to be a place where the Christian life could be seen and learned.

If younger people begin appearing at the door again, the parish cannot rely solely on activity and hospitality. It must also be capable of offering teaching, prayer, and worship that shape a life.

This is why some theologians have begun to argue that the Church must recover its confidence in teaching theology at the parish level. Writing recently in Church Times, Graham Tomlin argued that it is time to bring theology back to the parishes.

The argument is simple, a Church that does not teach its faith will eventually forget it.

The Inheritance Already in Our Hands

One of the curious aspects of this moment is that Anglican Christianity already possesses many of the things that younger seekers appear to be looking for.

• The Anglican tradition contains a rich sacramental life.

• It carries centuries of theological reflection.

• It preserves a liturgical inheritance that forms the imagination through worship.

These are not small things.

They are precisely the kinds of practices that have historically formed Christians into people capable of prayer, repentance, and moral seriousness.

Yet modern church life sometimes behaves as though this inheritance were an embarrassment rather than a gift. Programmes replace formation, activity replaces worship, and energy replaces depth.

As I reflected previously in When the Church Confuses Activity with Faithfulness, the temptation to measure vitality by busyness rather than spiritual depth has become one of the quiet habits of modern church life.

Activity does not form belief. Only worship, teaching, and disciplined practice can do that.

A Quiet Responsibility

If reports of renewed curiosity about Christianity are even partly accurate, the Church will face a quiet responsibility. Curiosity may open the door, but formation is what keeps people inside.

That formation requires more than friendliness. It requires a Church that is willing to teach, to pray, and to worship as though God is real and the Christian life is worth giving one’s life to.

The question facing Anglicanism is therefore not simply whether people might return to faith.

The deeper question is whether the Church still has the confidence to offer them a Christianity that possesses depth, conviction, and discipline.

Curiosity may be returning, but curiosity alone cannot sustain belief.

If people come looking for faith again, the Church will need to show them something that is worth believing.

Suggested Reading

Bible Society – The Quiet Revival

Lowy Institute – Religious Revival: Why Young People Around the World Are Finding Faith Again

Graham Tomlin – Bring Theology Back to the Parishes

Few words make modern Christians more uncomfortable than authority.

The word feels heavy, it suggests hierarchy, control, perhaps even abuse. In a culture alert to power and suspicious of institutions, authority is rarely assumed to be good. It must justify itself, and even then it is treated cautiously.

The Church has absorbed this instinct.

We speak easily of service, collaboration, listening, and inclusion. We are slower to speak of oversight, discipline, obedience, or binding and loosing. Authority sounds harsh. It risks misunderstanding, and it may appear unpastoral.

And so we soften it, but in doing so, we risk forgetting what authority was given for in the first place.

Authority as Protection, Not Domination

In the Christian tradition, authority was never meant to be domination. It was ordered toward care.

A bishop’s authority was not corporate management, it was guardianship of doctrine and unity. A priest’s authority was not personal influence, it was the delegated responsibility to preach the Gospel faithfully, administer the sacraments, and pronounce absolution.

Authority existed so that the vulnerable would be protected, the confused instructed, and the faithful strengthened. It existed to guard truth from distortion and to ensure that worship remained recognisably Christian.

This kind of authority is not self-assertion, but restraint for the sake of others.

Yet because authority has so often been misused, we now hesitate to speak of it at all., the pendulum swings from abuse to avoidance. In trying to prevent domination, we risk dissolving responsibility.

The Authority to Forgive

One of the clearest examples of Christian authority is also one of the least discussed, the authority to forgive sins.

In the Gospels, Christ gives his apostles authority not simply to teach, but to bind and loose. That language is not metaphorical flourish. It assumes that something real is entrusted.

In Anglican liturgy, absolution is not framed as encouragement. It is spoken with confidence: “I absolve thee” or “Almighty God… pardon and deliver you from all your sins.”

Those words make sense only if authority is understood as gift, not threat. They assume that forgiveness is enacted, not merely declared as a feeling.

If we grow embarrassed about authority, we also grow hesitant about absolution. We turn forgiveness into reassurance, prefer conversation to declaration, but something is lost when the Church no longer speaks with entrusted confidence.

Authority and Formation

Authority, properly understood, makes formation possible.

Without recognised teaching authority, doctrine becomes preference. Without pastoral oversight, discipline becomes suggestion. Without boundaries, belonging becomes vague.

This is not a call for rigidity, it is an acknowledgement that formation requires structure.

A parent exercises authority so that a child may grow. A teacher exercises authority so that knowledge may be transmitted. In the same way, the Church exercises authority so that faith may be handed on intact.

When authority disappears, it does not produce freedom, it produces uncertainty.

The Fear of Being Misunderstood

Part of our hesitation is understandable.

We know the history of clericalism, we know that power can be abused. We know that trust, once broken, is hard to restore. No serious Christian should be casual about these realities.

If every form of authority is treated as suspect, the Church becomes reluctant to teach clearly or to correct gently. Leaders become facilitators rather than shepherds, and oversight becomes administration.

The faithful are left without the confidence that someone is responsible for guarding what they have received.

Authority as Service

The paradox at the heart of Christian authority is that it is inseparable from service.

Christ speaks with authority, yet washes feet. He commands, yet suffers. He binds and looses, yet gives his life.

This pattern shaped the Church’s understanding of office. Authority was sacrificial before it was directive, it was exercised for the good of others, not the elevation of the self.

When this vision is lost, authority becomes either oppressive or embarrassing. When it is recovered, it becomes steady and life-giving.

Anglicanism, at its best, has held this tension well. It has retained bishops not as executives, but as signs of continuity. It has retained priestly absolution not as theatre, but as pastoral care, and it has retained ordered liturgy not as control, but as stability.

None of this requires harshness, but it requires confidence.

Why It Matters Now

We live in a moment of profound suspicion toward institutions. That suspicion is not entirely misplaced, yet human beings still seek guidance, clarity, and boundaries.

If the Church cannot articulate what authority is for, she will either mirror corporate models of leadership or retreat into permanent consultation.

Neither reflects the Gospel.

Christian authority is not about winning arguments or enforcing uniformity. It is about protecting what is true, administering what is holy, and forming people for maturity.

When the Church forgets what authority is for, she does not become more compassionate, she becomes uncertain, and uncertainty is a poor substitute for faithful oversight.

Consider how you respond to the word authority. Do you instinctively resist it, or have you seen it exercised well? Seek out examples of authority that serve rather than dominate, and ask whether the Church in your context embodies that pattern.

Suggested Reading

• St Matthew 16:13–19

• The Ordinal in the Book of Common Prayer

• Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity

• Rowan Williams, Tokens of Trust

There was a time when the Church assumed that more was happening than could be seen.

When prayers were not simply therapeutic exercises but real petitions. When absolution was not reassurance but release, death was not a poetic image but an enemy, and evil was not reducible to systems or psychology, but a presence that needed resisting.

That language has not disappeared entirely. It remains in the liturgy, lingers in Scripture, and it surfaces in the creeds, but in practice, something has shifted.

In much of Western Anglican life, the supernatural register has grown faint. We still speak of grace, but often as encouragement. We speak of sin, but cautiously, and often in sociological terms. We speak of forgiveness, but as emotional healing rather than spiritual deliverance.

The unseen has not been denied outright, it has simply been domesticated.

Confession Without the Devil

Confession only makes sense if something more than self-improvement is at stake.

If sin is merely poor behaviour, confession becomes reflection. If guilt is only psychological discomfort, absolution becomes reassurance, and if evil is simply structural, repentance becomes activism. The Christian tradition has always spoken more starkly than that.

It has assumed that human beings are entangled in realities that cannot be explained away by upbringing or environment alone. It has spoken of temptation, of accusation, of spiritual conflict, and has treated forgiveness as something enacted, not merely felt.

When that language fades, confession feels unnecessary or theatrical. We apologise to one another, but hesitate to kneel before God, prefer conversation to absolution, and something is lost.

Lent Without Death

Lent is not meaningful if death is only symbolic.

On Ash Wednesday, we are told that we are dust. Not metaphorically, but actually. We are mortal creatures, subject to decay, accountable before God.

If death is merely a poetic way of describing change, the ashes become sentimental. If evil is only a metaphor, then fasting becomes lifestyle discipline, and if judgement is impolite to mention, repentance becomes optional.

The Church’s liturgy does not assume metaphor. It assumes reality.

It assumes that Christ’s victory over death is not a spiritual mood, but a real claim. That something has happened in history which changes what death means. That resurrection is not inspiration, but event.

Without the supernatural, Lent collapses into wellness culture.

The Embarrassment of Angels

One of the quietest signs of the shift is how rarely we hear certain words preached plainly.

• Angels.

• The devil.

• Judgement.

• Spiritual warfare.

These words are still printed in Scripture and embedded in the liturgy, but they are often handled with caution, softened into metaphor, or passed over entirely.

Part of this hesitation is understandable. No one wants to sound unbalanced or sensational, the Church has seen excess before, but embarrassment is not the same as wisdom.

If the unseen world is real, then pretending it is merely symbolic does not make us mature. It makes us reductionist, and we end up with a faith that fits comfortably within modern assumptions, but loses its scale.

A Smaller Gospel

When the supernatural fades, the Gospel becomes smaller.

Christ saves us from guilt, but not from the powers of darkness. He comforts us, but does not conquer anything. He inspires, but does not defeat death.

The Cross becomes an example of love rather than a victory over sin. The Resurrection becomes hopefulness rather than triumph, and baptism becomes belonging rather than rebirth.

None of these shifts happen overnight. They happen gradually, through tone and emphasis, through what is stressed and what is left unsaid.

The Church need not become dramatic or theatrical to recover depth, but she does need to recover confidence in the unseen.

Why This Matters Now

Western culture is not less spiritual than it once was. It is spiritually chaotic.

Astrology, manifestation, therapeutic mysticism, and diffuse spiritual language flourish. What has faded is not belief in the unseen, but belief in an ordered, moral, and accountable unseen.

If the Church retreats from that terrain out of embarrassment, she does not produce rational clarity, she produces a vacuum…

Anglicanism at its best has never denied mystery, it has knelt before it. It has spoken of angels in the Sanctus, of the communion of saints, of the defeat of death. It has confessed sin without euphemism and proclaimed forgiveness without hesitation.

That confidence does not require fanaticism. It requires seriousness.

Death, Judgement, and Mercy

The older Christian tradition held three realities together without embarrassment: death, judgement, and mercy.

• Death is real.

• Judgement is real.

• Mercy is real.

Remove one, and the others distort.

If there is no judgement, mercy becomes indulgence. If death is only metaphor, resurrection becomes encouragement, and if sin is merely dysfunction, confession becomes optional…

The Church’s task is not to frighten, but to tell the truth about reality. And reality, according to Christian faith, includes more than what can be measured.

As Lent continues, pay attention to the language of the liturgy. Notice what it assumes about sin, death, angels, and redemption. Resist the temptation to translate everything into metaphor too quickly.

Suggested Reading

• St Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, especially 6:10–18

• The Book of Common Prayer, the General Confession and Absolution

• C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

• Athanasius, On the Incarnation

There is something deeply unfashionable about Lent…

In a culture that prizes self-expression, constant novelty, and curated identity, a forty-day season of restraint sounds almost defiant. Lent does not promise reinvention, offer a spiritual upgrade, and it does not even assume that we feel particularly motivated.

It simply arrives each year and asks us to begin again, that, in itself, is mercy.

The Church does not wait for us to feel ready, we are not asked whether we are in the right mood for repentance. The Church places Ash Wednesday before us and speaks honestly about dust and mortality. From there, she sets a rhythm that does not depend on our enthusiasm but on our willingness to return.

Habits, Not Inspiration

Modern spirituality often revolves around intensity. We speak about breakthrough moments, transformative experiences, and sudden clarity. When those moments come, they can be real, but they are rarely sustainable on their own.

The Church assumes something steadier and more realistic. We are given practices that can be kept even when inspiration fades. Prayer at fixed times, fasting that is deliberate rather than dramatic, and almsgiving that is concrete rather than sentimental.

Lent does not exist because we are incapable of spiritual depth. It exists because we are inconsistent. We forget, drift, and become distracted by lesser things. The season does not shame that weakness, it works with it.

There is a quiet dignity in being formed by repetition. The Church understands that what we do consistently shapes who we become far more reliably than what we feel occasionally.

Ashes and Honesty

On Ash Wednesday, we are marked with ashes and reminded that we are mortal. It is one of the few moments in the year when the Church refuses to soften her language. We are dust. We will die. That is not a threat. It is a fact.

There is something bracing about beginning there. Lent does not start with self-improvement or vague aspiration, it starts with truth.

That truth is not meant to crush us, it’s meant to free us from pretending. When we accept our limits, our need for grace becomes less abstract. We are not striving to be impressive before God. We are returning to him as creatures who depend on mercy.

The ashes are not theatrical, they are a refusal to lie about who we are.

Fasting Without Drama

Fasting has an unfortunate reputation. It is sometimes associated with extremes, or with a kind of religious competitiveness that no one finds attractive.

Properly understood, fasting is far simpler than that. It is the deliberate act of setting something aside in order to remember that we are not ruled by our appetites. It is a small training in freedom.

In a world that encourages constant consumption, the ability to say “no” without resentment is quietly radical. Lent does not ask us to despise the material world, it asks us to hold it more lightly. When we fast, we are not rejecting creation, we are learning to receive it without clinging to it.

The Church’s invitation is measured and humane. It is not about proving seriousness, it’s about recovering attention.

A Calendar That Carries Us

One of the most underestimated gifts of Lent is that it belongs to the Church’s calendar. It does not depend on our private initiative, and does not need to be reinvented each year. It is simply there.

The lectionary continues to unfold, prayers deepen, Sundays follow one another with a steadiness that can feel almost stubborn. Whether we feel spiritually sharp or dull, the season carries on.

That consistency is not oppressive, it’s protective. When faith rests entirely on individual motivation, it rises and falls with mood and circumstance. When it is held within a shared rhythm, it can endure fluctuation.

The Church, in her wisdom, assumes that we will have weeks when we feel nothing at all. Lent makes room for that and won’t collapse because we are inconsistent. It gently draws us back.

A Different Kind of Strength

Many Christians at the moment feel weary. There is a sense of distraction, of spiritual thinness, of being pulled in too many directions at once. Lent does not respond to that by increasing intensity.

Instead, it offers something quieter and harder: discipline.

Discipline is not severity. It is structure ordered towards love and recognises that freedom is not found in endless choice, but in learning to choose what is good repeatedly. Over time, habits do what arguments cannot. They form patience, honesty, and endurance.

The Church is not trying to make us impressive during Lent. She is trying to make us faithful. It’s a slower project, and a far more demanding one.

The Mercy of Beginning Again

Perhaps the greatest kindness of Lent is that it returns every year. However badly we have kept it before, however distracted we have been, we are given another opportunity to begin.

The Church does not seem surprised by our inconsistency, it’s practically expected, and instead of withdrawing, she offers structure.

That structure is not a burden. It is a gift.

We do not enter Lent because we trust ourselves. We enter it because the Church, in her long experience, knows that we need a rhythm stronger than our impulses. In giving us that rhythm, she gives us something steadier than inspiration.

She gives us mercy.

As Lent approaches, resist the urge to turn it into a performance or a personal reinvention project. Choose a small, concrete practice and keep it faithfully. Let the repetition do its work. Trust that habits, held within the Church’s life, will carry you further than enthusiasm ever could.

Suggested Reading

• The Church of England’s Lent resources, Draw Near

• The Book of Common Prayer, particularly the Collect for Ash Wednesday

• St Matthew 6:1–18

• Martin Thornton, English Spirituality