WATCH’s proposal to abolish the ‘House of Bishops Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests.’

The Church of England is a church in which women can be ordained as deacons, priests and bishops. It is also a church in which provision is made to protect the convictions of those in the Catholic and Evangelical traditions who cannot accept that it is theologically legitimate for women to be priests and bishops and who are therefore unable in good conscience to accept their priestly or episcopal ministry.

This position is set out in the ‘House of Bishops Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests’ which accompanied the legislation passed by the Church of England to allow women to become bishops.[1]

The campaign group Women and the Church (WATCH) is now calling for the Church of England ‘to find a generous way to bring the Declaration and its arrangements to an end.’ [2]The question that arises from this call is what would replace it. WATCH have not yet spelled this out in any detail, but their direction of travel is indicated by their explanation of what they see as the problem on their ‘Not Yet Equal’ website. This states:

‘The Church of England, with its 26 seats in the House of Lords, has exemptions under the Equality Act 2010, giving it the legal power to discriminate against women.

Did you know that the Church uses this power to allow churches to:

·      say ‘no’ to female priests applying to be their vicars?

·      say ‘no’ to female priests blessing the bread and wine in services?

·      have a special male bishop if their bishop is female or is a man who has ordained women as priests?

There is no requirement for churches to be transparent about these things, so often people attend churches, and support them financially for many years, without knowing that they are churches that discriminate against women.

Many large inner-city churches, such as All Souls Langham Place and St Helen’s Bishopsgate in London, St Andrews the Great in Cambridge, and St Ebbe’s in Oxford, do not allow a woman to be their vicar.

One in 12 bishops in the Church of England do not fully accept women as priests or church leaders.

The appointments system for diocesan bishops is skewed so that only two out of the last 11 appointments have been women.

And the situation is getting worse.

Every year more and more clergy are appointed who don’t recognise female priests or actively restrict women’s leadership.’ [3]

If that is the problem, then presumably the ‘generous’ solution would have to involve prohibiting the ordination to the episcopate of anyone who cannot accept the ordination of women as priests or bishops, abolishing the current system of Provincial Episcopal Visitors (the ‘special male bishops’) serving Catholic and Evangelical parishes unable to accept the ordination of women as priests or bishops, prohibiting parishes from not allowing women to be incumbents or serve as priests, and prohibiting the appointment and ordination of clergy who cannot accept the ordination of women as priests or bishops.

This in turn would mean the end of the Church of England’s commitment to the ‘mutual flourishing’ of both those supportive of the ordination of women as priests and bishops and those who oppose to it. It would mean that those unable to accept the ministry of female bishops and priests would have to change their theological position, or act in a way that they believe to be contrary to God’s will, or leave the Church of England.

In New Testament terms there are two fundamental problems with this approach.

The first is that it goes against the principle set out by Paul in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 that a Christian who believes that certain things are permitted under the new covenant should respect the conscientious scruples of other Christians who believe that these things are not permitted, and not put them in a position where they are led to act in a way that they believe to be contrary to the Christian faith: ‘for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin’ (Romans 14:23).

The second is that it involves some members of the body of Christ saying to other members of the body of Christ ‘I have no need  of you’ (1 Corinthians 12:20). In this specific case it means those who support the ordination of women as priests and bishops saying to those who do not: ‘We have no need of you in the Church of England.’ This is a breach of that love for others without which, as Paul insists in 1 Corinthians 13, anything else that Christians do is of no value.

A further problem is that what WATCH is calling for sets a very problematic precedent with regard to the eventual outcome of the LLF process in the Church of England. If there are now those who are proposing the abolition of the arrangements solemnly entered into to enable the flourishing of those who hold to a traditionalist position on the ordination of women, then what is to say there will not equally be those a decade or so down the line who propose the abolition of whatever safeguards are put in place to enable the flourishing of those who take a traditionalist position on marriage and human sexuality?  What guarantee do traditionalists with regard to marriage and human sexuality have that the Church of England will not sooner or later say to them ‘We have no need of you?’ just as WATCH is proposing that the Church of England should say ‘We have no need of you’ to those who cannot accept the ordination of women as priest and bishops.

This is where the CEEC’s proposal for provincial settlement as the outcome of the LLF process comes into the picture. Such a settlement would enable both positions in the current discussions over marriage and human sexuality to get what they want and in a settlement that would give them a guaranteed place in the Church of England that those who take the opposite position would be unable to abolish.

So what does this all mean? It means that the Church of England should reject the WATCH proposal and that it should begin a serious discussion of how a provincial settlement to the current divisions over marriage and human sexuality would work.

---

[1]  House of Bishops Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests at:https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/hob-declaration-on-ministry-of-bishopsand-priests.pdf.

[2]  Women and the Church, WATCH says, ‘It is time for the Church of England to find a generous way to bring the arrangements set out in the 2014 settlement to an end’ at: https://womenandthechurch.org/news/watch-says-it-is-time-for-the-church-of-england-to-find-a-generous-way-to-bring-the-arrangements-set-out-in-the-2014-settlement-to-an-end-2/.

[3] Women and the Church, ‘Not Yet Equal Campaign’ at https://womenandthechurch.org/campaign/.

Would a provincial solution require parliamentary approval?

A couple of weeks ago, I asked a well-informed conservative member of the Church of England why he thought it was that the House of Bishops seemed reluctant to even consider the idea of a provincial solution to the Church of England’s current impasse over issues to do with human sexuality as proposed by the Church of England Evangelical Council. His answer was that one of the key reasons was that the bishops believed that there was no point in considering a provincial solution because Parliament would never vote for such a development.

Prima facie this argument seems persuasive, but it should be rejected for two reasons.  

First parliamentary approval would only be needed for a provincial solution which involved the creation of a new province (for either conservatives or liberals) in addition to the existing provinces of Canterbury and York. It would not be needed for a re-arrangement of the Church of England’s current diocesan and provincial structure that did not involve the creation of an additional province.

Secondly, even if a provincial solution involving an additional third province would have to involve the Church of England bringing  a proposal to Parliament for approval, this should not be regarded as a reason for not trying to bring such a solution about.

In order to understand why these two counter arguments have force, the first thing that needs to be understood is that the legislation which requires the Church of England to bring church legislation to Parliament for approval is The Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919.

Sections 3 and 4 of this act state:  

‘(1) Every measure passed by the General Synod shall be submitted by the Legislative Committee [of the Church Assembly] to the Ecclesiastical Committee, together with such comments and explanations as the Legislative Committee may deem it expedient or be directed by the Church Assembly to add.

(2)The Ecclesiastical Committee shall thereupon consider the measure so submitted to it, and may, at any time during such consideration, either of its own motion or at the request of the Legislative Committee, invite the Legislative Committee to a conference to discuss the provisions thereof, and thereupon a conference of the two committees shall be held accordingly.

(3)After considering the measure, the Ecclesiastical Committee shall draft a report thereon to Parliament stating the nature and legal effect of the measure and its views as to the expediency thereof, especially with relation to the constitutional rights of all His Majesty’s subjects.

(4)The Ecclesiastical Committee shall communicate its report in draft to the Legislative Committee, but shall not present it to Parliament until the Legislative Committee signify its desire that it should be so presented.

(5)At any time before the presentation of the report to Parliament the Legislative Committee may, either, on its own motion or by direction of the Church Assembly, withdraw a measure from further consideration by the Ecclesiastical Committee; but the Legislative Committee shall have no power to vary a measure of the Church Assembly either before or after conference with the Ecclesiastical Committee.

(6)A measure may relate to any matter concerning the Church of England, and may extend to the amendment or repeal in whole or in part of any Act of Parliament, including this Act:

Provided that a measure shall not make any alteration in the composition or powers or duties of the Ecclesiastical Committee, or in the procedure in Parliament prescribed by section four of this Act.

(7)No proceedings of the Church Assembly in relation to a measure shall be invalidated by any vacancy in the membership of the Church Assembly or by any defect in the qualification or election of any member thereof.’

When the Ecclesiastical Committee shall have reported to Parliament on any measure submitted by the Legislative Committee, the report, together with the text of such measure, shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith, if Parliament be then sitting, or, if not, then immediately after the next meeting of Parliament, and thereupon, on a resolution being passed by each House of Parliament directing that such measure in the form laid before Parliament should be presented to His Majesty, such measure shall be presented to His Majesty, and shall have the force and effect of an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified thereto in the same manner as to Acts of Parliament:

Provided that, if upon a measure being laid before Parliament the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons acting in consultation, shall be of opinion that the measure deals with two or more different subjects which might be more properly divided, they may, by joint agreement, divide the measure into two or more separate measures accordingly, and thereupon this section shall have effect as if each of the measures resulting from such division had been laid before Parliament as a separate measure.’ [1]

The reference to the Church Assembly in the act is a bit confusing, but what it reflects is the fact that for the purposes of this legislation the General Synod now acts as the Church Assembly but with a new name.

The key thing to note in relation the 1919 act, is that the only matters which the Ecclesiastical Committee gets to consider, and on which Parliament gets to vote,  are new measures proposed by General Synod, or amendments by General Synod to existing measures. Other pieces of ecclesiastical legislation do not require parliamentary approval.

The question therefore arises whether the establishment of a new provincial structure for the Church of England would require a new measure, or the amendment of an existing measure, and hence parliamentary approval.

In order to answer this question, the first point that needs to be understood is that Part II section 3 (1) of the Dioceses, Pastoral and Mission Measure 2007,[2] lays down that the Church of England’s Dioceses Commission has the duty:

‘…. to keep under review the provincial and diocesan structure of the Church of England and, in particular—

a)the size, boundaries and number of provinces,

(b)the size, boundaries and number of dioceses and their distribution between the provinces, and

(c)the number and distribution of episcopal offices and the arrangements for episcopal oversight.’

Part II section 3(3) then goes on to lay down that:

‘If, when carrying out its functions under subsections (1) and (2) above, the Commission publishes proposals to alter the number of provinces, it shall also include, in those proposals, recommendations concerning the method of achieving the changes required by the proposals.’

Part II section 4.3 (a-d) further adds that:

‘A reorganisation scheme may make provision for one or more of the following purposes—

(a)the foundation of one or more new diocesan bishoprics with one or more dioceses constituted from one or more existing dioceses and, if necessary, the dissolution of one or more existing dioceses and the abolition of the bishopric or bishoprics thereof;

(b)the transfer of the whole of the area of any diocese to another diocese and the dissolution of the first mentioned diocese and the abolition of the bishopric thereof;

(c)the transfer of parts of the area of any diocese to one or more other dioceses and, if necessary, the dissolution of the first mentioned diocese and the abolition of the bishopric thereof;

(d)the transfer of a diocese or parts of the area of any diocese from one province to another.’

Taken together, what these three sections of the measure mean is that neither the number of the provinces of the Church of England, nor the dioceses they contain are immutable.  They can be changed, just as the number of provinces in the Church of England and the number and identity of its dioceses have been changed in the past. This means that it would be possible to create a provincial solution in which the existing provinces of Canterbury and York remained in place, but in which a new set of dioceses was created within them to cover (a) those parishes who wanted to retain the Church of England’s traditional doctrine and practice with regard to sexuality and (b) those parishes who wished to change it.[3]

Such a reorganisation scheme could thus be proposed  by the Dioceses Commission within the scope of the 2007 measure, and if approved by General Synod following the procedure laid down in the measure the scheme could then be approved by an Order in Council, as laid down in Part II (8) of the measure,  without  requiring Parliamentary approval.

Under Part II section  3(3) the Dioceses Commission could also recommend creating a new province in addition to Canterbury and York and creating new dioceses to be part of it. It would then also presumably need to recommend making provision for the creation of a third archbishop to exercise jurisdiction within this new province.

However, unlike the re-organisation of existing provinces, the implementation of such a scheme would seem to require parliamentary in addition to synodical approval.

This is not because parliamentary approval would be needed for the creation of new dioceses or even a new archbishop  (which could be achieved by royal assent to, and synodical promulgation of, an amendment to Canon C17), but because of the need to amend the Synodical Government Measure 1969.[4] This measure (and Canons H.1-3 which reflect it) only make reference to the Convocations and Houses of Laity of the provinces of Canterbury and York. This means that amendments to the measure would need to be made to include references to the Convocation and House of Laity of the new province as well. Such amendments would require parliamentary approval under the 1919 act.

However, the mere fact that parliamentary approval would be required does not means that a provincial solution involving a third province should not be attempted. This is because there are three good arguments for saying that members of Parliament should approve rather than block such amendments.

First, by giving its approval to the 2007 measure Parliament has given the Church of England the responsibility to review and reform its existing diocesan and provincial structure through a synodical process leading to an Order in Council. It would be perverse of Parliament to prevent the Church of England undertaking its responsibility in this matter by blocking consequential amendments to the Synodical Government Measure. Parliament would in effect be preventing a lawful process taking effect.

Secondly, contrary to what is sometimes suggested, the creation of a new provincial structure would not be a ‘homophobic’ move that Parliament should therefore reject as contrary to ‘the constitutional rights of all His Majesty’s subjects.’  

This is because a  provincial solution would allow those supportive of lesbian and gay relationships to achieve the changes in the Church of England’s doctrine and practice  that they want to see, and which would not otherwise take place given the lack of the necessary 2/3 majority in Synod for them, while also allowing the effective exercise of freedom of conscience to those who could not conscientiously accept such changes. 

Furthermore, not making effective provision for those conscientiously opposed would go against the principle of respect for freedom of conscience  in matters of religion already reflected in the Equality Act of 2010 and the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. The right of religious believers to act in accordance with their conscience in relation to same-sex relationships is specifically protected by both these acts, and a refusal by Parliament to allow a particular form of such protection, which the Church of England had already decided was necessary, would be refusal to follow this precedent, and  would thus arguably breach the constitutional rights of the King’s subjects.

Thirdly, the previous two points mean that refusal by Parliament to agree to the necessary amendments to the Synodical Government Measure would constitute an arbitrary refusal by Parliament to let the Church of England exercise the power of self-government given to it in 1919. If Parliament were to do this it would create a very serious crisis in the relationship between Parliament and the Church of England, and this is hopefully something that members of Parliament would wish to avoid.

---

[1] The Act can be found online at  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/9-10/76/contents

[2] This measure can be found online at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukcm/2007/1/contents.

[3] It might perhaps be argued that the 2007 measure does not make provision for changes in the provinces or dioceses of the Church of England to accommodate differences in theological and ethical conviction. This is true, but what is also true is that it does not rule them out either. The measure does not lay down any rule that says that changes to the provinces or dioceses may be made for some reasons and not for others.  

[4] This measure can be found online at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukcm/1969/2/contents.

Geographical episcopacy – a further response to Charlie Bell.

In my previous article on this site I responded to Charlie Bell’s article ‘Finding a way through’ by explaining that the proposal put forward by the Church of England Evangelical Council and the wider Alliance movement for a provincial solution to the current divisions over marriage and sexual ethics in the Church of England is not contrary to Anglican ecclesiology and would allow both liberals and conservatives in the Church of England to get what they want. Given that this is the case, I finished my post by asking why this proposal is considered problematic by Bell and others on the liberal side.

Bell’s response to my article was to post the following on X:

‘Au contraire, Mr Davie. The position you set out here in both unachievable within Anglican ecclesiology (hello geographical nature of the episcopate) and this demonstrable nonsense as a starting point. Folks, you gotta do better than this.’

If we set aside the unsubstantiated claim that what I wrote was ‘demonstrable nonsense’ what we find is that Bell’s objection to the provincial proposal is that it is  out of line with Anglican ecclesiology because of the ‘geographical nature of the episcopate.’

In the remainder of this article I am going to look at the issue of the ‘geographical nature of the episcopate’ and explain why it does not preclude the provincial solution to the current divisions in the Church of England advocated by CEEC and the Alliance.

When thinking about the nature of the episcopate the first thing that need to be understood is that the first bishops of the Church were the apostles. They were the people who were given authority by Christ to exercise oversight (episcope) over the elders, deacons and lay people of the earliest churches.

As Richard Hooker notes in his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity,  the apostles were originally bishops ‘at large’ but in time some of them at least became bishops ‘with restraint.’ [1] What he means by this is that originally the apostles were given by Christ an indefinite commission not restricted to any one place, as we see in passages such as Matthew 28:19-20, John 21:15-17 and Acts 1:8. However, from the New Testament, and from later Church historians, we also learn that the apostles, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, subsequently put limits or ‘restraints’ on the exercise of their ministry. To quote Hooker again:

‘….notwithstanding our Saviour’s commandment unto them to go and preach unto all nations; yet some restraint we see there was made, when by agreement between Paul and Peter, moved with those effects of their labours which the providence of God brought forth, the one betook himself to the Gentiles, the other unto the Jews, for the exercise of that office of everywhere preaching. A further restraint of their apostolic labours as yet there was also made, when they divided themselves into several parts of the world; John for his charging taking Asia, and so the residue other quarters to labour in.’[2]

What was at first a general episcopal ministry exercised by the apostles thus became over the course of time a specific episcopal ministry relating to particular people and particular places.

The principle that episcopal ministry relates to particular people and particular places is one that has been observed in the Church ever since.

The episcopal ministry given to bishops at their ordination as bishops can in theory be exercised anywhere in the world. Thus, a  Church of England bishop can perfectly properly confirm or ordain not only in England, but in Hong Kong or San Francisco. However, for the sake of good order in the Church bishops are given particular responsibility for specific places or groups of people. Thus, in the Church of England the Bishop of Rochester has a particular responsibility for those who live in the diocese of Rochester (West Kent and the London Boroughs of Bromley and Bexley), whereas the Bishop to the Forces has a particular responsibility for British armed services personnel wherever they are in the world.

The responsibility that most bishops have for particular places is what is meant by ‘geographical episcopacy’ and since ancient times a bishop’s calling to exercise episcopal ministry in a particular area has been symbolized by that bishop being given an episcopal title relating to a particular place within that area (hence Bishop of Rochester).

The provincial proposal being advocated by CEEC and the Alliance would involve the exercise of geographical episcopacy as it would involve bishops having responsibility for particular geographical areas. I have previously made this point in a theoretical description of what a conservative third province (the ‘Province of Mercia’) might look like.

‘Like the existing provinces of Canterbury and York, the new province would consist of parishes, deaneries, archdeaconries and dioceses. The number of dioceses that would initially be formed would obviously depend on how many parishes opted to join the new province, but one possible pattern would be for there to initially be four dioceses, one in the Southwest, one in the South and Southeast, one in the Midlands and East Anglia, and one in the North. Chaplaincies in Europe would come under the diocese for the South and Southeast.

Each diocese would initially have one bishop and one of these would be the archbishop of the province. There would be no fixed archiepiscopal diocese and the office of archbishop would subsequently be held by the senior bishop of the province.

A parish church in each diocese would be the cathedral. This would contain the bishop’s chair and would be used for diocesan services such as the enthronement of the bishop, ordinations, and the renewal of ordination vows on Maundy Thursday. The diocese would be named after the location of the cathedral and the incumbent would carry the title Dean. There would be no cathedral chapter and when not being used for diocesan services the cathedral would act as a normal parish church.’

As can be clearly seen in this description the geographical nature of episcopacy would be maintained in such a provincial arrangement. Bell’s suggestion that the geographical nature of the episcopate precludes a provincial solution is therefore mistaken.

One objection that has been made to the sort of provincial arrangement that I have described above is that it would involve the parishes of the new province being dispersed across the diocesan territory of dioceses belonging to the other two provinces. However, this is not a serious objection. There is no ecclesiological principle that says all the parishes of a diocese have to form a single geographical unit rather than being geographically dispersed. Until the Victorian period it was common for parishes to be situated in the midst of other dioceses (the parish of Croydon being a famous example) and today the 140 chaplaincies of the Church of England’s Diocese of Europe are widely dispersed across Europe, Turkey and Morocco.

If we therefore set aside the issue of geographical episcopacy as a red herring, what I would still like to know is what other problems Dr Bell and others have with a provincial solution.

---

[1] Richard Hooker, The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity,  Bk. VII.iv.1-2.

[2] Hooker, Bk.VII.iv.2. For the division of labours between Peter and Paul he cites Galatians2:8 and for John’s ministry in Asia Minor he cites Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Bk.III.16, andTertullian,  Against Marcion, Bk.IV.5.

A response to Charlie Bell – ‘Finding a Way Through.’

In his article ‘Finding a Way Through’ published on the ViaMedia.News website on 1 March Charlie Bell writes as follows about the request made by CEEC and the wider Alliance movement for ‘legally secure structural provision’ for conservatives in the Church of England who cannot in good conscience accept same-sex marriages, same-sex blessings, or the ordination of those in  sexually active same-sex relationships:

‘Simply shouting ‘legally secure structural provision’ doesn’t, frankly, do the trick, and is getting tiresome. For many – me included – these are questions not just about these prayers [the ‘Prayers of Love and Faith’], but about a fundamental threat to our ecclesiology. Casting our ecclesiology aside and creating a ‘pure’ church within a church in order to appease those who will never really be appeased is not a good strategy. Suggesting that we can remain in any serious way ‘one church’ whilst having ‘legally secure structural provision’ is a demonstrable nonsense.

So – let’s sit down and work out how we can move forwards. If you are a reasonable conservative who opposes these prayers on theological grounds, we can and want to work with you to enable you to flourish in the same church as us. We want to ensure you have pastoral provision that allows you to feel valued and loved – pastoral provision which, incidentally, has been cruelly withheld from so many LGBTQIA people for years. You do not have to buy into the lie that structural provision, with bishops out of communion with one another, special ordinations, confirmations, theological colleges, pseudo-provinces, and the rest of it, is the only answer – it isn’t, and it’s not going to happen. It just isn’t. We want you to feel supported, and we want to build each other up in the faith – and we can make this happen if we’re willing to put our minds to it, and ignore the extremes.’

I want to make a threefold response to what Bell says in these two paragraphs.

First, creating a new provincial structure for the Church of England  to provide for the differing positions of conservatives and liberals is not a ‘fundamental threat’ to the Church of England’s ecclesiology.

What CEEC is asking for is  internal differentiation within the Church of England by means of a re-configuration of the Church’s current provincial system. This could take the form of a new province for conservatives alongside Canterbury and York, a new province for liberals alongside Canterbury and York or a re-working of the two existing provinces to cover the whole country with conservatives in Canterbury and liberals in York. [1]

The key point to note about this proposal is that it is in line with the existing ecclesiology of the Church of England. The Church of England has historically consisted, and continues to consist, as a combination  of two separate provinces, each their own Archbishop (both of whom have metropolitical authority within their own province and neither of whom is subject to the other), and each having its own provincial synodical structure consisting of a provincial Convocation made up of the two Houses of Bishops and Clergy, and an attendant House of Laity.  A meeting of the General Synod is simply a joint meeting of these two provincial synods, and the two Convocations retain the power both  to veto legislation proposed in the General Synod and to make provision for matters relating to their province (see Canon H.1 and Article 7 of the Constitution of General Synod).

Adding another province into the mix, or reconfiguring the two existing provinces, would not alter this ecclesiological structure in any fundamental way.[2] What it would mean is that the two (or three)  provinces of the Church of England could continue to meet together in General Synod to debate and legislate on matters of common concern, while their provincial synods could legislate to either maintain or change the Church of England’s current teaching and practice with regard to marriage and human sexuality, thus allowing both conservatives and liberals to have what they are looking for  within their own province or provinces.

Each province would hold that the other province or provinces is (or are) part of the Catholic Church and the Church of England, and there would be transferability of ministry without re-ordination between them subject to a minister being prepared to accept the doctrine and discipline of the province to which he or she was transferring.   

The Church of England could thus stay together, but in a way which respected the conscientious convictions of both sides and would prevent the Church of England breaking apart entirely.

This approach would also give long term stability because General Synod would not be able to overrule the approach to marriage and sexuality taken by the separate provincial synods (since as at present convocations would be able to exercise a veto) and each province could set its own policy with regard to the future selection, training and appointment of clergy.

Contrary to what Bell claims this proposal is not ‘demonstrable nonsense’ since it would enable the Church of England to remain one church on exactly the same terms that it is one church today.  

Secondly, Bell assures conservatives that liberals like himself ‘want pastoral provision that allows you to feel valued and loved.’  However, conservatives have made clear that the pastoral provision that would make them feel ‘valued and loved’ in accordance with their theological convictions are precisely the things which Bell says they cannot  have, namely, their own provincial structure, their own bishops from whom they would receive confirmation and ordination and licensing, and their own theological education institutions in which students  would be trained for ministry on the basis of historic Anglican teaching (including historic Anglican teaching with regard to marriage and sexual ethics). This means that what Bell offers with one hand he takes away with the other. He says that wants to make conservatives valued and loved, but he wants to prohibit the course of action that would make that a reality.

Thirdly, Bell declares  concerning what conservatives have said they need: ‘it’s not going to happen. It just isn’t.’  My response is ‘Why not?’ All that will stop it happening is people like Bell being unwilling to allow it to happen and I really cannot see why they would wish to do so. The conservatives’ proposal is, as I have said, in line with the existing ecclesiology of the Church of England and it would result in both sides of the current disagreement in the Church of England getting what they want. So, what is the problem?

---

[1] See CEEC Visibly Different at https://ceec.info/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/visibly_different_-_dated_26_july_2020.pdf and the CEEC video ‘We love the Church of England’ at https://ceec.info.

[2] Those who know their  church history may be aware that between 787 and 796 the Church of England consisted of three  Provinces,  since Lichfield was an archdiocese, and that the United Church ofEngland and Ireland which existed from 1800-1871 originally consisted of six provinces, Canterbury,York, Armagh, Dublin, Cashel  and  Tuam. The pattern of two provinces is therefore not cast in stone. Ithas been different in the past and could  be different again.

What do we mean by reconciliation?

In his opening speech in the debate on LLF in General Synod yesterday, Bishop Martyn Snow told Synod that  ‘The  missionary imperative for this day and age is reconciliation.’

I agree with him because the New Testament makes clear that the missionary imperative for every day and age is the ministry of reconciliation. We can see this if we turn to the words of Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:18-20:

‘All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.’

The important thing to understand with regard to these verses is that although the ‘us’ and the ‘we’ refer to Paul himself, this does not mean that that the ‘message of reconciliation’ is one that only Paul has been called to proclaim. Rather, just as all Christians (and not only Paul)  have been reconciled by God to himself through Christ, so also all Christians have been entrusted with the missionary imperative of sharing the message of reconciliation throughout the whole world and until the end of time.

If we go on to ask about the content of this message of reconciliation which Christians are called to share, we find Paul’s most comprehensive statement of its content in Ephesians 2:11-22 where Paul writes:

‘Therefore, remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—  remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,  and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end  And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near;  for through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,  built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord;  in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.’

What we see in this passage is that God’s reconciling work in Christ has both a horizontal and vertical dimension. It reconciles Jews and Gentiles, but it does so on the basis of reconciling both to God through the cross of Christ. In the words of the Evangelical biblical commentator Thomas Scott:

‘… Thus Christ was the peacemaker between Jews and Gentiles: and at the same time, he reconciled both of them in one body unto God; for the ceremonial law implied man’s state of condemnation, pollution, and enmity against God; to whom he could not approach, except on a mercy seat, and by priests, sacrifices, incense, and purifications; being at last kept at a great distance from him: but the death of Christ upon the cross took away that guilt, which was the cause of the enmity; that so, a holy God might honourably pardon and be reconciled to his rebellious creatures; and it made way for the communication of his Holy Spirit to regenerate sinners and so to destroy the enmity of their hearts against the holy character, worship, and service of God. Having finished this great design he had come by his apostles and ministers, to preach peace with God, and with each other, to the Gentiles who had been far off; and to the Jews who were outwardly nigh to God. For through the Person, sacrificed, and mediation of Christ, sinners of all descriptions were allowed access to God, as a Father, and were introduced with acceptance into his presence, with their worship and services, under the immediate teaching and influence the Holy Spirit as one with the Father and the Son in this great work of salvation, as well as in the unity of the Godhead.’ [1]

In Ephesians 2:22 Paul describes the outcome of God’s reconciling work as the creation of a new temple, a holy place inhabited by people who have been made holy through the work of the Spirit. This temple is the Church and in the rest of Ephesians Paul goes on to describe what it means for Christians to live in the Church as people who have been reconciled to God and to each other through the death of Christ.

Two key points in this description are, first, that Christians are called to live in unity with one another  in a way of life marked by humility, patience, and love. In Paul’s words:

‘I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love,  eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.’ (Ephesians 4:1-3)

Secondly, in a first century social context marked by rampant sexual immorality, Christians, as those who have been reconciled to God, are to be people who not only refuse to practice such immorality. but even to talk to talk about it:

‘But fornication and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints. Let there be no filthiness, nor silly talk, nor levity, which are not fitting; but instead let there be thanksgiving. Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.’(Ephesians 5:3-6).

As John Stott explains, in these verses:

‘Paul turns from ‘self-sacrifice… to it’s very opposite, self-indulgence,’ from genuine ‘love’ to that perversion of it called ‘lust.’ The Greek words for fornication (porneia) and impurity (akatharsia) together cover every kind of sexual sin, in other words all sexual intercourse outside its God- ordained context of a loving marriage. To them Paul adds covetousness, surely because they are an especially degrading form of it, namely the coveting of somebody else’s body for selfish gratification. The tenth commandment had specifically prohibited coveting a neighbour’s wife, and earlier in this letter Paul has written of the ‘greed’ involved in unclean practises (4:19). So all forms of sexual immorality he writes, must not even be named among you. We are not only to avoid their indulgence, but also to avoid thinking and talking about them, so completely are they to be banished from the Christian community.’[2]

Paul also goes on in Ephesians 5:21-33 to describe the alternative to sexual immorality, namely,  a marriage between one man and one woman marked by a pattern of mutual subjection involving obedience from the wife and self-sacrificial love from the husband,  that reflects the archetypal love of Christ for his bride the Church of which earthly marriages are an image.

What all this means is that the Church, as a community of people who have been reconciled to God through Christ, is called to be a community which practices not only humility, patience and love, but also a community which completely rejects all forms of sexual immorality and practices godly heterosexual marriage instead. In this community there can be no room for same-sex sexual activity,  since this is a form of porneia, and no place for same-sex marriages since these are an ungodly human substitute for the form of marriage created by God to reflect Christ’s love for his Church.

The problem with the LLF/PLF debate  in the Church of England at the moment is that the majority of the bishops are promoting a truncated form of reconciliation, a form of reconciliation which emphasises quite rightly the virtues of humility, patience and love, but also gives liturgical recognition to sexual immorality in the form of the blessing of same-sex sexual relationships and same-sex marriages and the ordination of those involved in them.

The difficulty with this proposal is that the New Testament teaching about reconciliation does not permit of such truncation. It is not a menu from which you can choose some bits and not others. It is a single indivisible whole. If the bishops are truly serious about reconciliation being a missionary imperative for the Church of England they need to go away and think again.

---

[1] Thomas Scott, The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, with original notes and practical observations (London:1803).

[2] John Stott, The Message of Ephesians (Leicester and Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1979), pp.191-192.

On not saying anything significant – a response to GS 2346

On not saying anything significant – a response to GS 2346

Back in the days when I used to work at Church House, London, I was told a story about a visit by a former Archbishop of Canterbury to an Anglican province in Africa. During this visit, the archbishop gave a sermon in English with a translator provided to give the archbishop’s message in the local language. According to the story, the archbishop gave his sermon in four sections, and it was noted that after each section the translator gave a single short sentence and then stopped. Curious about this, a member of the archbishop’s staff enquired as to what the translator had said. Eventually the embarrassed locals explained that the first time the translator said, ‘He hasn’t said anything,’ the second time he said ‘He still hasn’t said anything,’ the third time he said ‘He isn’t going to say anything,’ and the final time he said ‘I was right, he didn’t say anything.’

I was sadly remined of this story when I read GS 2346, Bishop Martin Snow’s new paper from the House of Bishops for General Synod, ‘Living, in Love, Faith and Reconciliation.’ [1] 

The paper is in four parts.

The first part ‘outlines ten draft commitments through which the whole Church can continue to pursue the implementation of the motions previously passed by Synod on Living in Love and Faith.’

The purpose of these commitments is: ‘1) cultivating unity as far as possible; 2) enabling as many as possible to stay within the Church of England; 3) equipping the Church’s mission to the nation.’

The commitments are as follows:

‘1. Humility and repentance – we will seek to embody the apology we have already made to LGBTQI+ people. We will call out homophobia and actively challenge it. At the same time, we will devote ourselves to Holy Scripture with an openness to all the Holy Spirit is saying to us through God’s word, acknowledging that at times this will be deeply uncomfortable and challenging for us all.

2. Honesty and transparency – we will ensure a transparent, honest process for LLF which fully includes the Houses of Laity and Clergy in General Synod and (as far as possible) Diocesan and Deanery Synods, as well as PCCs. We commit to listening to voices which are often absent from our discussions – in particular the voices of LGBTQI+ people, those of children and young people, and GMH people. We will seek the maximum possible level of transparency regarding legal advice given to the House of Bishops (acknowledging the complexities of such advice). We will ensure that LLF does not dominate agendas of the House / College of Bishops or Synod.

3. Reconciliation – we will prioritise reconciliation as our primary witness to wider society at this time. We will commit to being a ‘learning Church’ and to embodying the ‘habits’ of reconciliation (be curious, be present, reimagine). We will learn from other parts of the Anglican Communion where there have been serious splits (in some cases now deeply regretted). We will seek to appoint an interim “Independent Reviewer” as soon as possible, to monitor the practical outworkings of the bishops’ commitment to value and respect different theological understandings, to advise us, and to reassure those concerned about their future place within the Church.

4. Breadth – we will recognise the gifts of the different traditions within the Church. We will actively reflect on how these gifts are exchanged such that power is acknowledged and everyone – those who use the PLF and those who don’t – are afforded an honoured place within the Church. We will draw fully on the LLF Resources and the expertise of FAOC (allowing them time to do their work well). We will do everything we can to ensure that no-one feels pushed out of Church. We will seek a commitment to avoid using the civil courts to settle our disputes.

5. Freedom of conscience – we will ensure freedom of conscience in relation to PLF for all clergy and lay ministers. We acknowledge the complexities within this – society is not always tolerant of differences and therefore clergy and lay ministers will come under pressure from within and outside the Church. We will ask all bishops to commit to supporting all clergy and lay ministers whether they use the PLF or not.

6. Prayers – we are committed to the experimental use of standalone services of PLF, with legal protection and support for those who opt-in to using them as well as those who don’t. This includes completing the Pastoral Guidance and Pastoral Reassurance work before enabling the use of the standalone PLF.

7. Same-sex marriage – we will not begin any discussions about same-sex marriage in this quinquennium, and we make no commitments beyond this quinquennium. Rather we will learn from the use of the PLF and allow General Synod to decide when and if to begin any discussions about SSM.

8. Ministry – we commit to exploring the process for clergy and lay ministers to enter same-sex civil marriages. We recognise that not all bishops would be content to ordain or licence such ministers, and bishops must be allowed freedom of conscience in relation to LLF in the same way as clergy (point 5). This inevitably means that there may be different approaches across dioceses until such time as changes to Canons are considered (acknowledging a change of doctrine). In this scenario, bishops would need to commit to being transparent with candidates for ministry about their own personal approach and commit to exploring alternative national approaches for candidates who they, in conscience, could not sponsor. Bishops would also need to agree to resist attempts to use disciplinary processes to force deviation from these commitments.

9. Episcopacy – we will explore an approach to episcopacy which enables us to live well with difference and provides pastoral reassurance to all across the spectrum of views on LLF. We are committed to learning from the ‘1994 settlement’ and the ‘2014 settlement’, where (in the latter case) it was only the pain of the 2012 crisis that forced more serious cooperation across divides. We seek this cooperation now, and therefore we commit to exploring the minimum formal structural changes necessary to enable as many as possible to stay within the Church of England.

10. Communion and unity– we commit to seeking the highest possible degree of communion between ourselves, other Provinces of the Anglican Communion, and our ecumenical partners. As we seek a settlement within the Church of England, we will explore the idea of ‘degrees of unity’, recognising that there are ways of staying in relationship and working together even where there are fundamental disagreements.’

There are also three Annexes,  A, B and C.

Annex A:  ‘provides a summary of the differing Canonical routes that have been requested to be explored as a means of introducing PLF in Standalone Services. It summarises the processes these require and an assessment of primary advantages and disadvantages.’

Annex B: ‘outlines considerations around removing restrictions for clergy to enter into samesex civil marriages. It summarises background information previously discussed in the LLF  process and highlights additional work that has already been called for to support  discussions and decisions in the House of Bishops on this, and related, matters.’

Annex C:  ‘summarises the workstreams in the next phase of implementation of LLF. This overview illustrates the inter-connected and interdependent nature of this work that the commitments invite continued action to pursue. An updated indicative timetable is included.’

The reason the paper reminded me of the story about archbishop’s sermon is because having read it I was left feeling that nothing of real significance had been said.

In specific terms, this is because there are three key issues that the paper fails to address.

The first issue is whether the issues covered by Living in Love and Faith are adiaphora. The unstated assumption underlying the paper is that they are. Issues concerning marriage and human sexuality, it appears to say, are ones on which faithful Christians can legitimately agree to disagree, the only question is whether they disagree well or badly.

However, as the Anglican Communion’s Windsor Report of 2004 explains, it is not legitimate to simply assume that a matter upon which there is disagreement can be placed into the category of adiaphora.

To quote paragraphs 87-89 of the Windsor Report:

‘As the Church has explored the question of limits to diversity, it has frequently made use of the notion of adiaphora: things which do not make a difference, matters regarded as non-essential, issues about which one can disagree without dividing the Church. This notion lies at the heart of many current disputes. The classic biblical statements of the principle are in Romans 14.1-15.13 and 1 Corinthians 8-10. There, in different though related contexts, Paul insists that such matters as food and drink (eating meat and drinking wine, or abstaining from doing so; eating meat that had been offered to idols, or refusing to do so), are matters of private conviction over which Christians who take different positions ought not to judge one another. They must strive for that united worship and witness which celebrate and display the fact that they are worshipping the same God and are servants of the same Lord.

 This principle of ‘adiaphora’ was invoked and developed by the early English Reformers, particularly in their claim that, in matters of eucharistic theology, specific interpretations (transubstantiation was particularly in mind) were not to be insisted upon as ‘necessary to be believed’, and that a wider range of interpretations was to be allowed. Ever since then, the notion of ‘adiaphora’ has been a major feature of Anglican theology, over against those schools of thought, both Roman and Protestant, in which even the smallest details of belief and practice are sometimes regarded as essential parts of an indivisible whole.

This does not mean, however, that either for Paul or in Anglican theology all things over which Christians in fact disagree are automatically to be placed into the category of ‘adiaphora’. It has never been enough to say that we must celebrate or at least respect ‘difference’ without further ado. Not all ‘differences’ can be tolerated. (We know this well enough in the cases of, say, racism or child abuse; we would not say “some of us are racists, some of us are not, so let’s celebrate our diversity”). This question is frequently begged in current discussions, as for instance when people suggest without further argument, in relation to a particular controversial issue, that it should not be allowed to impair the Church’s unity, in other words that the matter in question is not as serious as some suppose. In the letters already quoted, Paul is quite clear that there are several matters – obvious examples being incest (1 Corinthians 5) and lawsuits between Christians before non-Christian courts (1 Corinthians 6) – in which there is no question of saying “some Christians think this, other Christians think that, and you must learn to live with the difference”. On the contrary: Paul insists that some types of behaviour are incompatible with inheriting God’s coming kingdom, and must not therefore be tolerated within the Church. ‘Difference’ has become a concept within current postmodern discourse which can easily mislead the contemporary western church into forgetting the principles, enshrined in scripture and often rearticulated within Anglicanism, for distinguishing one type of difference from another.’ [2]

Furthermore, to quote paragraphs 92-93 of the Windsor Report:

‘Even when the notion of ‘adiaphora’ applies, it does not mean that Christians are left free to pursue their own personal choices without restriction. Paul insists  that those who take what he calls the “strong” position, claiming the right to eat and drink what others regard as off limits, must take care of the “weak”, those who still have scruples of conscience about the matters in question – since those who are lured into acting against conscience are thereby drawn into sin. Paul does not envisage this as a static situation. He clearly hopes that his own teaching, and mutual acceptance within the Christian family, will bring people to one mind. But he knows from pastoral experience that people do not change their minds overnight on matters deep within their culture and experience.

 Whenever, therefore, a claim is made that a particular theological or ethical stance is something ‘indifferent’, and that people should be free to follow it without the Church being thereby split, there are two questions to be asked. First, is this in fact the kind of matter which can count as ‘inessential’, or does it touch on something vital? Second, if it is indeed ‘adiaphora’, is it something that, nevertheless, a sufficient number of other Christians will find scandalous and offensive, either in the sense that they will be led into acting against their own consciences or that they will be forced, for conscience’s sake, to break fellowship with those who go ahead? If the answer to the latter question is ‘yes’, the biblical guidelines insist that those who have no scruples about the proposed action should nevertheless refrain from going ahead.’ [3]

Like previous papers emanating from the House of Bishops, what  GS 2346 fails to explain is either (a) why issues of marriage and human sexuality can rightly be placed in the category of adiaphora, or (b) why it might be legitimate to go down the route of allowing the blessing of same-sex sexual relationships, marrying same-sex couples, and ordaining those in same-sex sexual relationships given that a large number of Christians in the Church of England, and a large majority of those in the Anglican Communion find this ‘scandalous and offensive.’  Until a convincing explanation can be given on both these points the approach taken in GS 2346 lacks theological legitimacy. Simply treating issues as if they are adiaphora does not make them so.

The second issue is that GS 2346 fails to explain how allowing  the blessing of same-sex sexual relationships, marrying same-sex couples, and ordaining those in same-sex sexual relationships is in line with Church of England doctrine, or if it is not, why that doctrine needs to be changed. 

As I pointed our in my previous paper ‘Mr Facing Both Ways,’[4] the Church of England officially continues to adhere to (a) the traditional Christian doctrine of marriage and sexual ethics, and (b) the traditional Christian doctrine that  visible holiness of life should be required of Christian ministers and this is simply incompatible with the blessing of same-sex sexual relationships, marrying same-sex couples, and ordaining those in same-sex sexual relationships. This means that the only way that these things can legitimately happen would be if the Church of England were to officially change its doctrine. Even assuming that the necessary 2/3 majority in all three Houses of General Synod could be obtained for such a change (which at present seems unlikely), for such a change to be legitimate it would have to be shown that it was in line with the teaching of Scripture, since, as Article XX declares: ‘it is not lawful for the Church of England to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s word written.’  Thus far in the LLF and PLF processes no one has shown that the necessary change would meet this requirement and GS 2346 itself does not even address the issue. It simply assumes that since a small majority in Synod has voted for change therefore change must be right.

The third issue is that GS 2346 does not engage at all with  what those opposed to the House of Bishops current approach have stated would be required in order for there to an agreed ‘settlement’ of the current divisions within the Church of England. The paper states that its ‘Ten Commitments are being offered in the hope that they will be a basis for a settlement,’ but unfortunately, they do not provide the basis for that goal.

The ninth of the ten commitments in GS 2346 declares ‘we commit to exploring the minimum formal structural changes necessary to enable as many as possible to stay within the Church of England.’ The problem is that the bishops know perfectly well what traditionalists in the Church of England have said is the minimum requirement for a long-term settlement in the Church of England. Namely, the creation of a third province within the Church of England in which the Church of England’s traditional teaching and practice with regard to marriage and human sexuality can continue to be upheld.[5]

 As CEEC has explained, there is no ecclesiological barrier to the creation of such a province. What is blocking its creation is the unwillingness of the bishops to engage constructively with this proposal and GS 2346 continues to take this approach.

GS 2346 talks vaguely about holding meetings with ‘stakeholders’ in order to move forward towards a settlement. Such vagueness is unhelpful. What it should have said is that the Bishops will meet with representatives of CEEC and the Alliance to discuss details of a third province so that a concrete proposal can then be brought forward to Synod. If they did this, it would unblock the current impasse within the Church of England. Liberals could have their own provinces in which they could implement those changes in doctrine and discipline they are seeking, while traditionalists could have what they need to remain in good conscience within the Church of England.

The failure of the GS 2346 to say anything useful in these three areas indicates the need for the bishops collectively to exhibit the ‘humility and repentance’ they are calling for from others by engaging in a genuine ‘reset’ of their own approach. Their current approach is untheological, goes against the doctrine of the Church of England, and will not produce the kind of settlement that they say they want. They need to go away and think again, and when it meets later this month that is what Synod needs to tell them to do.

A final point to note is that the words in Commitment 4,  ‘We will seek a commitment to avoid using the civil courts to settle our disputes’ is concerning because it potentially gives unchecked power to the authorities in the Church of England to act as they see fit without the potential for any external remedy should they act in an unjust or illegal fashion. It also goes against the principle set out in Article XXXVII that the Civil Magistrates do have legitimate authority in ecclesiastical matters.

---

[1] The House of Bishops, GS 2346 , ‘Living in Love, Faith and Reconciliation’ at gs-2346-llf-synod-paper-feb 2024.pdf .

[2] The Lambeth Commission on Communion, The Windsor Report (London: The Anglican CommunionOffice, 2004), pp.38-39.

[3] The Windsor Report, pp.39-40.

[4] Martin Davie,  ‘Mr Facing Both Ways,’ at: https://wordpress.com/view/mbarrattdavie.wordpress.com

[5] See the Church of England Evangelical Council, Visibly Different, at https://ceec.info/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/visibly_different__an_introduction_for_the_next_steps_group.pdf.