by the Revd Neil Patterson, Director of Vocations & Ordinands in the Diocese of Hereford and Chair of the General Synod Gender & Sexuality Group
The debate on sexuality in the Church of England is in a curious place as I write. The College of Bishops has resided, and my social media coverage identifies the Charles Tyrwhitt blue check shirt as a preferred smart-casual choice. Informal reports suggest the predominant preference is for some sort of move forward, but there are many options for how, and more work is being done in readiness for a meeting in December. In the meantime, a few bishops led by Oxford have declared their hands for change, and a good deal of reaction has followed. And some of us have continued with conversations across the divisions, to try to listen to and understand those with whom we disagree. But above all we are still waiting, and praying for an outcome which is both hopeful and does not lead to a train crash in February. This may be particularly likely if the bishops succumb to the Boris Johnson temptation of both having and eating their cake in the belief that they can choose a positive option for change and not face the division and resistance in Synod that will result.
The process of listening to conservatives need not happen only in person. The Church of England Evangelical Council have been impressively open with their position and arguments, and you can find it all on their website. In particular, I found myself recently reading their Visibly Different, a briefing paper setting out the case for separate structures (‘visible differentiation’) for those on either side in the sexuality debate. It is not an agreed statement, but is closely allied to others that are. Aside from the expected reiteration of the general conservative position on sexuality, with which you would expect me to disagree, there is a great deal in it that is problematic. The core argument for differentiation (at 5.3.2-6) is based on a seemingly thin understanding of the Church as merely an association for mutual support among Christians, rather than a gift from God in redemption into which we are all incorporated by baptism, whether we choose it or not. Perhaps because it was first written for internal consumption there also feels to be much that amounts to ‘keeping our end up’ in future debate. And the proposals for provincial arrangements appear to be based on a weak and confused understanding of the history of the provinces within the polity of the Church of England.
Having said all that, however, I want to recognise that the call for visible differentiation comes from brothers and sisters in Christ who are deeply concerned for their future place in the Church, especially as it now seems likely that a majority of the bishops favour a more supportive position on same-sex relationships, and perhaps even marriage. That concern is amplified, as I hear it, by the experience of the somewhat limited structure offered by the See of Ebbsfleet (formerly Maidstone) and the way in which senior appointments appear to be closed to complementarian evangelicals. There may also be a sense that although the Five Guiding Principles are in place and the traditional Catholic movement shows no signs of fading away (a recent New Directions proudly carried interviews with ordinands and curates born since the women priests vote of 1992), their honoured place is undoubtedly in something of a small corner.
Proposals for differentiation do, however, tend to meet instinctive hostility from many, including bishops, because they seem to offer a pick-and-mix ecclesiology, and to undermine the Church of England’s catholic (in the sense of universal) understanding of its mission – a Christian Presence in Every Place by means of the parish system under dioceses. So, because I am also an enthusiast for ecclesiastical law, I found myself wondering if I could suggest to all concerned another format for differentiation. Are there ways we work as a church across historic boundaries for particular purposes? Yes. There are Bishop’s Mission Orders.
BMOs, introduced in the Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011, allow for ministries to be created on a cross-parish, and even cross-diocese basis, with a particular remit for mission. There is an (elaborate) process for consultation, but parishes and local clergy cannot necessarily prevent their being formed, and there is provision in existing law for them to have financial arrangements, enable licensing of ministry and synodical representation. It does not seem legally impossible to me for further provision about the reason for the ministry, such as theological conviction, to be added. I should stress that I am not proposing simply using BMOs as presently constituted – but looking to them as the germ of a model that may help us if we face irreconcilable division. It may also be compatible with the suggestion I have heard from one conservative bishop that border-crossing between existing bishops would be preferable to creating new sees.
An example may help, so let us think of a city in central England with a diversity of church views which I know enough to describe but from which I am distant enough to be forgiven (please!) for simplifying here: Oxford. In that city the diocesan bishop, Steven Croft, has declared his support, in principle, for same-sex marriage. One parish priest in the city, Vaughan Roberts of St Ebbe’s, has responded in disagreement (see both essays here). It seems very possible that, especially if some actual national change does happen, Mr Roberts will be supported by his PCC in finding it impossible to remain under the authority of his bishop. But because +Steven is gracious and generous, he will want to find a way for Vaughan to flourish all the same. So it would be possible to imagine an Order declaring that St Ebbe’s, whose geographical parish is tiny and not particularly relevant to their ministry, is to have a ministry to all in the city of Oxford who cannot receive the oversight of the Bishop of Oxford, and will instead receive ministry from a nearby bishop acceptable to them, perhaps the Bishop of Guildford, who is known to have ‘sound’ views.
However, let us be even-handed. It may be that the national decision is one of strict opt-in by individual parishes for (say) blessing same-sex couples, with the bishops all collectively standing aloof, so +Steven remains acceptable to St Ebbe’s. It might be that in Oxford only one parish, perhaps the University Church of St Mary the Virgin, wishes to bless same-sex couples. As I can recall from picturesquely beating the bounds as an undergraduate, their parish is also tiny, and not related to the congregation. So that could result in an Order of the opposite nature, declaring them to be the one parish in the city to which same-sex couples are allowed to resort, and placing them under the oversight of a specially identified liberal bishop, perhaps Alan Wilson of Buckingham.
I hope it is obvious that I am to some extent thinking aloud, and that in reality much more detail would need to be worked out in every place concerned. In particular, the decisions on where Orders might need to be made and who could make them would need to be very carefully assigned, and it is doubtful that anyone would be happy leaving the sort of absolute power in the hands of diocesan bishops that is conferred by a BMO. Perhaps a carefully constituted national Commission would be needed. But this might, perhaps, be a way to define the rights and positions of churches and people of different convictions that would have legal security without an ecclesiology that looks like schism in all but name.
Any thoughts?