News that the Church of England has ditched the ‘church’ bit for the sake of appearing more ‘modern’ is both an exaggeration and underplays the deeper crisis at the centre of Christianity.

First, the facts.

The current headline about the Church of England becoming ‘of England’ centres around a study titled, New Things: A theological investigation into the work of starting new churches across 11 dioceses in the Church of England conducted by the Centre for Church Planting Theology and Research in Durham.

The Church of England is not becoming ‘of England’, but the use of ‘church’ to describe its new projects is definitely under threat.

Essentially, the study notes that ‘there has been an emergence of new ecclesial language across the Church of England; what we could call an espoused ecclesiology’. Something which has happened ‘quickly’.

Lots of language changes are happening ‘quickly’.

Think about how quickly medical institutions and sporting authorities disavowed the biological definition of ‘woman’ and removed gendered language such as ‘mother’ and ‘father’ so as not to ‘cause offence’. It is now considered ‘cyberbullying’ to criticise biological men in female spaces. Same conversation.

The report continues:

‘…the new language is shaping dioceses mission and ministry. Each diocese is using a “main descriptor” for their new things. That the term “church” is not used, in favour of other terms (community, congregation etc.) is worth of theological reflection.’

Certainly, it has been worthy of social media outrage where perplexed Christian worshippers from various denominations – as well as casual irreligious observers – are all tilting their heads in confusion. Since when was the word ‘church’ controversial to the church?

There are a few articles from scholars attempting to explain this, citing semantics where ‘the church’ is ‘not used’ in the Bible and therefore the best word. None of which bears any relevance to cultural interpretations of ‘the church’ in Western history where it has become a cornerstone of Christian worship and community.

‘The language thus also serves to connect new and old, pioneer/planted and inherited. “Christian community”, for example, transcends the old/new divide: the descriptor works for both.’

Speaking of language, the convolution and vagueness of this discussion reads a bit like a thesis on Woke breakdancing, but eventually the authors get to the point about the ‘fragility of some of this language and the looseness of some of the definitions’.

The report then asks ‘two deeper questions’ including: ‘What does it mean that the language of “church” is not used here and has been subsumed within these other descriptors?’

A reasonable question for all of us to ponder as we sit inside the steadily crumbling shell of Western Civilisation. ‘Church’ has never been an offensive term. Even warring Christian sects who burned each other at the stake for centuries accepted the word ‘church’ nonchalantly.

Perceiving ‘church’ as offensive could be both a self-inflicted injury from progressives within the faith desperate to please their inter-faith peers and also a consequence of an ideological war launched by neo-Marxism on the Church of England. Remember, the Church of England maintains a powerful position within the British government and the Monarchy where King Charles III is the Supreme Governor of the Church – sorry – community – and his power, bestowed by God, is exercised via Parliament. In the context of this ecosystem: no Church of England – no God – no King. To stage a political coup, the church must first be untangled as one might unfasten the safety net from beneath the acrobat.

Reducing the influence of the Church of England breaks the sacred connection to the Constitutional Monarchy, laying the groundwork to remove the Monarchy from Parliament by pushing them into a purely ceremonial role. Then – and only then – can a neo-Marxist revolution take place. This method is more palatable to the radicalised ‘Woke’ youth and freshly imported citizens (from socialist nations) than a traditional revolution. King Charles III is a fool if he thinks cosying up to ‘green’ causes and progressive issues will save him from the ambition of revolutionaries and power-hungry morons.

It is doubtful the Church of England expects this consequence.

I’m sure it believes that adherence to the Woke Gospel will endear it to the youth, fill ‘church’ seats, and re-fill its once sizeable coffers. Church leaders probably think that by praying to the Church of Climate Change and worshipping at the Altar of Gender Affirmation, some of those billionaire philanthropists will toss them cash. They will not. The progressive agenda is to burn the churches of England and at the moment they’re obliging with an act of self-immolation.

The Church of England is behaving like our Teal-voting former conservative suburbs – using language adaptations to appeal to their friends at the local cafe. You can almost hear the conversations. ‘Oh, no, it’s not a church – that word has a history of colonial oppression and pain for First Nations people. This is a community. A congregation.’ To which their perplexed friend may reply, ‘A colony?’‘What?! No. That would be extremely offensive.’ ‘A cult?’ ‘More like a spiritual club. Oh yes, Susan, it’s wonderful. You pay a fee at the door and the preacher removes all your sins – so long as you drive an EV, of course, and dust off your solar panels, and say a few Hail Gretas to keep the temperature down.’

In attempting to make itself relevant, the Church of England is in great danger of making itself irrelevant. Soon, it will be so modern that it no longer exists.

Philosophers have long been said that the changing of one word can change the world.

Corruption of language forms part of the wider problem of censorship which, in turn, constrains society’s ability to think – and soon – to pray. Whether politics deliberately manipulates language or rolls out the duct-tape, the evolution of language is an arm of the revolution.

An example from Australia is the introduction of ‘Truth Telling’. Its existence suggests that history is a ‘lie’ and the story of our nation and its cultural foundation is a fabrication. In reality, ‘Truth Telling’ is the lie and its existence is a political attack launched by dangerous separatists seeking power at the expense of civil peace. Fear of standing up to this neo-Marxist incursion into our lives is so intense that only a handful of politicians will challenge it while standing in front of a camera.

One Australian preacher who refused to repeat the Welcome to Country mantra faces a Human Rights complaint leaving many, including the Editor-in-Chief of this publication, to ask – where are his human rights?

When we look at Britain, particularly in recent years, there is a concern it has entered a spiritual race where the nation at the heart of Western Enlightenment will either become and irreligious neo-Marxist temple or and Islamic caliphate. It cannot be both. What it won’t be is a Christian church if the Church of England remains afraid to believe in itself, let alone God.

A final point. The Church of England has long been accused of having a crisis of faith in which it has replaced theology with Woke doctrine.

Said the Bishop of Dover:

‘Those who are threatened by the authenticity of this movement want to scare us into thinking that being Woke is a sin created by people on the left. But as people of God, we should never be afraid or embarrassed of being called an advent people … we must remain awake to the reality that the church’s commitment to racial justice is not the church attempting to follow the world’s direction of travel regarding inclusion, equality, and diversity – but instead it is a given.’

At least she used the word ‘church’.

Four years ago, the Archbishop of Canterbury insisted:

‘When we look at our own church, we are still deeply institutionally racist. Let’s be clear about that … I have white advantage, educational advantage, straight advantage, male advantage … I’m not ashamed of those advantages, I’m ashamed of not knowing I had them.’

Call me crazy, but I think I’ve discovered why Christians are leaving the church in droves. Who wants to listen to this nonsense? No wonder they’re struggling to fill their (not)churches.