Not that I really care, not being Christian, but a third of the clergy of the Church of England claim that they don't believe in the resurrection. Isn't that kind of a...ummm...basic tenet of Christianity?

Two rather lengthy quotes, by your leave, will explain the phenomenon you're seeing:

This from the late British journalist and "reluctant unbeliever" Henry Fairlie, from his book _The Seven Deadly Sins Today_:

Perhaps no one sins more outrageously in our age, or is more characteristic of the slackness we tolerate, than the priest and the theologian who reduce God to no more than a concept but insist that they believe enough to remain members of their church or temple. They are making it awkward to be an atheist. ...Why stand outside the doors of the church as an atheist, and think gravely of the falsehoods preached within that one feels compelled to combat, when all the time
one could just step inside and in God's own house preach against them in His name?

And this from H. L. Mencken:

It is my belief, as a friendly neutral in all such high and ghostly matters, that the body of doctrine known as Modernism is completely incompatible, not only with anything rationally describable as Christianity, but also with
anything deserving to pass as religion in general. Religion, if it is to retain any genuine significance, can never be reduced to a series of sweet attitudes, possible to anyone not actually in jail for felony. It is, on the contrary, a
corpus of powerful and profound convictions, many of them not open to logical analysis. . . .

What the Modernists have done . . . [is] to get rid of all the logical difficulties of religion, and yet preserve a generally pious cast of mind. It is a vain enterprise. What they have left, once they have achieved their imprudent scavenging, is hardly more than a row of hollow platitudes, as empty [of] psychological force and effect as so many nursery rhymes. . . . Religion is something else again-in Henrik Ibsen's phrase, something far more deep-down-diving and mud-upbringing. Dr. Machen tried to impress that obvious fact upon his fellow adherents of the Geneva Muhammad [i.e., Calvin]. He failed-but he was undoubtedly right.

-- H. L. Mencken, "Dr. Fundamentalis", an obituary of Rev. J. Gresham Machen,
Baltimore Evening Sun (January 18, 1937), 2nd Section, p. 15.

Obviously you're mistaking the Church of England for a religious institution rather than a social organization.

In the 1980s, Dr David Jenkins was chosen to be Bishop of Durham, the third most important Bishopric in the Church of England. An academic theologian, he had called the resurrection "a conjuring trick with a bag of bones," thereby demonstrating a quite astonishing lack of familiarity with the text of the Bible.

The Sunday before his enthronement in York, a bolt of lightning, I kid you not, struck York Minster causing massive damage...

You're right, Rand. The Resurrection is not just 'a' basic tenet of the faith, it is the one tenet that must stand if the faith is to be Christian at all. The Apostle Paul said if the Resurrection were untrue, our faith would be useless (I'm paraphrasing, if you want the exact quote, tell me and I'll go get it). The so-called 'Church' of England (of which I was a member for many years) is straying so far from biblical precepts, it may as well be aethiest.

Obviously, the Church of England is Sadducean, not Pharisean, precepts.

"Obviously, the Church of England is Sadducean, not Pharisean, precepts."

And Christians have no idea who or what the Sadducees and Pharisees actually were.

Yehudit,

Explain to me why you think that Christians have no idea who or what Sadducees or Pharisees were. I will agree that most Christians don't know exactly the differences between them, but at least some Christians know of them and what they were. For instance Paul used one ideological divide between the two to escape persecution.

From my own blog:

"Might as well try to suggest that Hinduism can exist without the law of karma, or that Marxism can exist without the abolition of personal property rights, or that Rush Limbaugh could be a chapter president for NOW...This doesn't mean that Marxists or Christians or Hindus should each be of one mindset. There's plenty of room for disagreement under each of these philosophies. But each philosophy has its non-negotiables, and any organization dedicated to furthering specific ideologies is justified in making sure that its officials support the mission statement."

http://alankhenderson.blogspot.com/2002_07_01_alankhenderson_archive.html#85268784