Persona non grata: an Unwelcoming Encounter at All Souls, Langham Place

by Anon.

Today, at lunchtime, I embarked on a short walk to All Souls, Langham Place, with the hopeful intention of attending their 12:00 service—a Commissioning of Overseers for alternative spiritual oversight within the Church of England, followed by a light lunch.

Unfortunately, what awaited me was not the spiritual solace I had expected but rather an unanticipated and disappointing encounter. As I stepped through the church’s historic doors, I was abruptly informed that my name was not on the list, making me ineligible to join the service. To make matters even more depressing, the staff turned cold and unwelcoming.

This unexpected denial left me deeply disappointed. All Souls had effectively deemed me persona non grata.

Today’s incident shows a definitive shutting of the doors to listening to one another by the Conservative Evangelical faction, which is sad, especially when it even extends to random Anglicans and passers-by. It highlights not only a rather sorry state of ecclesial affairs more broadly but, more importantly, a concerning aspect of CEEC’s modus operandi. I struggle to see it in any other way than as building a fortress within the Church of England. No analogy comes to mind other than that resembling a Trojan Horse.

As a faithful Anglican, I was eager to gain first-hand experience of their service. Although I do not agree with the conservative evangelical position in relation to the LLF debate, we are members of the same church, and what better way to express my commitment to staying together, despite our differences, than by attending their service and being with my fellow Anglicans?

The organisers’ decision to restrict access based on an invitation list seems antithetical to the inclusive and welcoming spirit that should characterise a place of worship, especially one within the Church of England. It is hard to see how this is not, in addition, illegal. If anything can be said about the Church of England’s policies based on today’s encounter, it is that they are far from universally applied, and CEEC seems to follow its own rules, not ones to which I am accustomed.

This raises important questions about the nature of hospitality and openness within the ‘conservative’ circles. While logistical concerns and safety protocols may necessitate certain measures, it is crucial that they do not alienate or exclude those genuinely seeking engagement and spiritual connection, within the boundaries of respect and consideration for all attendees. But I struggle to see how I could offend anyone by simply being there and praying together? Unless, of course, my very being is deemed offensive.

As I reflect on this experience, I hope that CEEC, along with their overseers (listed here, with some of them also having been on the panel to select them) whom I did not get a chance to congratulate, take a closer look at their approach to inclusivity, and that the Bishops of the Church of England will step up to protect and preserve the Church.

May the doors of our church be wide enough to welcome all who need love and friendship.

May its threshold be no stumbling block to young or old.

May this church be, for all who enter, the doorway to Your eternal kingdom.

Such is the Church of England, my spiritual home, and it is such an understanding of our unity and ecclesiology that I will fight to preserve.

Your faithful sibling in Christ.

Comments

35 responses to “Persona non grata: an Unwelcoming Encounter at All Souls, Langham Place”

  1. O.I avatar
    O.I

    The church was anticipated to be full, hence name having to be on the list. Really poor attempt at discrediting those you disagree with. Embarrassing really.

    1. Helen King avatar
      Helen King

      Merely a factual account of what happened when someone (not me) arrived. And the whole service – commissioning clergy by a renewal of their ordination vows to a role that has no place in the Church of England, having only just been created – seems very strange to me. You’re an insider, so maybe you can answer how this works with the existing PEV roles?

    2. andrewbmcgowangmailcom avatar

      If you think a service is going to be full, you ask people to wait and see if there will be space, you set up overflow areas, you stream. Or has All Souls never experienced such?

    3. Anthony Archer avatar
      Anthony Archer

      John Stott would be turning in his grave.

  2. R Prieto avatar
    R Prieto

    Sorry that you were deprived of your peculiar spiritual solace, but I think you’re reading too much into a small incident. What about a good faith interpretation that they had a list in order to avoid an overflow? I was not invited either but then, I am not a Conservative Evangelical and it would make sense that those would be the people expected to attend as a priority. And why expect that the people at the door should know who you are?
    A small incident and yet you read so much into it about the twisted minds and bad secret intentions of Conservative Evangelicals. That is the way they have been unwittingly but consistently insulted over the last series of General Synod sessions with repeated insinuations that if they don’t agree with change is because they are unwelcoming, unloving, narrow minded, homophobic (including the LGBTQIA+ people among them) deaf to the cries of pain of their opponents, and just generally unpleasant. Even if that has gone accompanied by warm words about inclusiveness, embracing everybody, even them, and a future of peace and harmony… if only they would stop throwing themselves under the bus.
    They don’t feel welcome because every time they say that in conscience they cannot agree to disagree, the answer they get is “Oh yes, you can” as if the whole thing were a pantomime.
    We are all hurt and it would be good if we could remind ourselves that being hurt is not the same as being right., and that only God knows the real intentions of all our hearts. May the Lord Jesus heal all our wounds and our hearts with the healing salve of his Spirit.

  3. John avatar
    John

    It’s pretty common for events to take place that are invitation only. I distinctly remember being rudely left of the royal wedding guest list and not being let in…. I don’t remember the calls for disestablishment.

  4. Jeremy Pemberton avatar

    Should not all those who took part in this illegal service setting up a parallel jurisdiction be asked to return their licences to their diocesan bishops? But they won’t, of course.

    1. R Prieto avatar
      R Prieto

      If every priest that has commited liturgical illegalities returned their licenses, how many would be left?

  5. SIW avatar
    SIW

    I reached the point, a while ago, that I just couldn’t take the disregard for LGBTQ+ people by the church any longer. I have now completely opted out and feel so much better for it. I don’t go to church. I don’t consider myself a Christian. My mental health has vastly improved.

  6. Susannah Clark avatar
    Susannah Clark

    Being fair, I think Charlie Skrine is generally affable, and maybe it would have been better if ‘anon’ had checked with him first. Courtesy works both ways. That said, I hold firm views on this development.

    None of this changes anything decided by General Synod, where decisions are made by the whole Church of England. Nor does it constitute the start of a third province, because that can only happen within the Church of England through established processes.

    These gentlemen (and shockingly few women) can be ‘overseers’ if they like, but they cannot self-appoint themselves as bishops. There are Church-wide normal protocols for that.

    If some Christians don’t like the direction and decisions of the Church, they can debate and engage, but in the end it’s the Church as a whole that will decide if and when blessings (or maybe one day weddings) are opened to everyone, regardless of gender.

    In a Church with two consciences on matters of human sexuality, it’s entirely reasonable to protect individual conscience on whether a priest wants to bless a gay couple or not. That does not extend to setting up your own Province, partitioning the Church, and quarantining yourselves off from other Christians regarded as impure.

    To do that, they would have to leave the Church of England and set up their own Church. Instead, all those who want to stay in a tolerant Church that allows diverse views, should continue to pray and devote themselves to their parish communities in a Church which is for all: including gay and lesbian couples.

    Offering support and encouragement to ‘conservative’ Christians is fine. The politicisation of the differences to take these roles any further would be not only divisive, but would be going down a dead end with an exit door awaiting.

    We have to be honest about that and not bow to pressure. The Church of England determines its future as a whole Church, through General Synod and oversight by formally appointed bishops. A breakaway group is not at liberty to flout the structures of the Church.

    What we can make sure is that no priest/minister has to bless a gay couple if their conscience tells them not to. That is protection of individual conscience. But while they’re in the Church of England, they are bound to accept decisions that General Synod makes, accept the proper appointment processes for bishops, and abide by what the whole Church decides, not just unilateral actions of a pressure group faction.

    The word ‘overseer’ was carefully chosen, because at present it is being described as an informal role offering spiritual support to people. But we all know that the same scriptural word has traditionally been used to describe ‘bishops’. These 21 gentlemen (and 3 women) cannot morph into bishops if they don’t get their way, without morphing out of the Church of England.

    I’d far rather see a Broad Church where we accept diverse views, and live and let live, and get on with everything else involved in parish life, because the sick, the elderly, the lonely, the poor, the bereaved, and so many others have pitiful pastoral needs and we should not isolate ‘sex’ as a pretext for partitioning the Church.

    1. R Prieto avatar
      R Prieto

      The Church of England is determining its future as a half Church and a bit. It looks like many in the other almost half honestly cannot accept the proposed arrangements and more than dubious process.. Keeping on telling them “Oh yes, you can” and calling them names does not seem to be helping much.

  7. David avatar
    David

    Is “Anon” actually a parishioner of ASLP or was this an act of performative activism?

    1. Dan avatar
      Dan

      Good question. If they’re not an ASLP regular, nor associated with any of the people being commissioned, how did they know this commissioning service was coming up?

      1. Helen King avatar
        Helen King

        Come on, now, Dan – the invitation to the service was widely shared on social media, which is how I knew about it. It didn’t feature on the ASLP website.

  8. Ian Paul avatar

    How extraordinary that ‘Via Media’ now is happy to publish an anonymous post (which bears a striking resemblance to the writing of Charlie Bell) and is full of…what can we call them?…false claims.

    This person was a friend of Charlie’s, I am guessing sent by him. At the door he refused to give his name. When he was informed if was by invitation only (which is perfectly legal; this was not a Sunday service) he asked to go to the toilet. He was warmly welcomed. He was then found trying doors in order to access the service—no doubt to heckle.

    I wonder why he did not return on Sunday?

    All this is very revealing. Those who want change in the church consistently resort to double-dealing and dishonesty. This is a prime example.

    And they refuse to allow those who continue to believe the doctrine of the Church to worship in peace.

    1. Helen King avatar
      Helen King

      Ian, Charlie has written for VM before and is always happy for his words to appear under his name. I am delighted that the person trying to get into the service was allowed to use the toilets. Very gracious. I don’t believe there is any difference between weekday and Sunday services in terms of restricting attendance. You ask, why did they not return on Sunday? Maybe because they have not yet perfected time travel? As you know there has been a good deal of interest in this event, so it was useful to see the order of service, and thank you to whoever was responsible for its timely publication afterwards.

      As for ‘heckling’, I rather doubt this was the intention. But you will I am sure recall that, when women were first consecrated as bishops, there was a gentleman who attended consecrations specifically in order to heckle. In 2016, at the consecration of the Bishop of Sherborne at Westminster Abbey, I believe that the objector was actually given a microphone to voice his views, expressed in response to the question “Is it now your will that she should be ordained?” The answer to that question does not, in the matter of episcopacy, make any difference, as the Crown has appointed the Bishop-elect and has commanded her consecration. Eventually such protests were moved to outside the building.

      I am not putting up your other comment as it repeats this one.

      1. Jospeh avatar
        Jospeh

        Why do you need time travel to attend a Sunday Service? If I remember correctly All Souls runs three services per Sunday. Besides there are Tuesday Prayer Gatherings, Men’s Breakfasts, Aroma, Roots etc Plenty to choose.

      2. Helen King avatar
        Helen King

        Merely picking up the comment ‘I wonder why he did not return on Sunday?’ How does the original poster know what Anon. did or didn’t do on a date which was yet to come? And the usual Sunday congregation of ASLP is not the object of analysis here; it’s a one-off, closed, service which is.

  9. Nigel Goodwin avatar
    Nigel Goodwin

    i read in The Observer today Helen King being quoted as saying:

    “One of the groups in the Alliance network, Living Out, has just released the Kaleidoscope course aimed at 11- to 18-year-olds, which tells them they will go to hell if they are gay.”

    Out of curioisity, I followed the links, and found absolutely nothing to indicate this was the position of the Living Out group. Quite the contrary, from looking at the literature, this would be a statement which they would explicitly say is not helpful. It seemed fairly sensible in their context, and Living Out is led by gay people..

    Can Helen King please give a reference for her quote? Maybe it was an editorial error?

    1. Helen King avatar
      Helen King

      Have you looked at the course itself? I quote from one of the videos: “when you look at 1 Corinthians chapter 6, actually, that list there, it says these people are excluded from the kingdom of heaven. This is of serious importance. Actually I love LGBT people and I want as many LGBT people to be in heaven as possible and so we have to hold on to God’s teaching around sexuality and marriage and we have to share it so that people aren’t finding themselves on that list which is excluded from heaven”. That’s followed by another member of the team telling us Adam and Eve were “married”.

      1. Nigel Goodwin avatar
        Nigel Goodwin

        OK, I take your point, it seems clearer than before. Let me check….

        Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

        well, that rules me out!

        quibbles? It is for god to judge, nobody is excluded from the above list, being gay is not the same as men having sex with men, not inherting the kingdom of god is not the same as going to hell.

        If you exclude anybody who is greedy or a drunkard or a slanderer or swindler you don’t have many left.

        See you in hell.

        Specifically, you were quoted as saying ‘go to hell’ which is not the language Paul used. Your interpretation has got in the way. I thought hell fire preaching died a death some time ago?

      2. Helen King avatar
        Helen King

        “Excluded from heaven” equals “going to hell”, doesn’t it? Unless you believe in purgatory, I suppose.

      3. Nigel Goodwin avatar
        Nigel Goodwin

        Helen, I refer you to Thouless ‘straight and crooked thinking’, who was a Corpuscle at Cambridge.

        “Excluded from heaven” equals “going to hell”, doesn’t it?

        can be categorised under several of his ‘dishonest tricks’.

        Here is a list from Appendix I – in all serious, I heartily commend the book. It can easily be found on the web and downloaded.

        1. The use of emotionally toned words

        4. Extension of an opponent’s proposition by contradiction or by mirepresentation of it.

        17. Change in the meaning of a term during the course of an argument.

        18. The use of a dilemma which ignores a continuous series of possibilities between the two extrems presented.

        21. Suggestion by repeated affirmation.

        22. Suggestion by use of a confident manner.

        23. Suggestion by prestige.

        24. The appeal to mere authority.

        25. Angering an opponent in order that they may argue badly.

        Apologies for any offense I may be causing – it is nothing personal – my main gripe is with The Guardian.

      4. Mark Andiam avatar
        Mark Andiam

        ‘“Excluded from heaven” equals “going to hell”, doesn’t it? Unless you believe in purgatory, I suppose’

        Thank you Helen. I think we need to start calling out this ‘theology’ for what it is and says. High sounding talk of ‘first order questions’ and ‘salvation issues’ means ‘you are going to hell’.. Nigel Goodwin may think ‘hellfire preaching died a death a long time ago’ but it has been resurrected as ‘biblically orthodox’ sophistry.

      5. Mark Andiam avatar
        Mark Andiam

        Ps on the subject of brimstone, Andrew Brown recently noted that ‘the Inner Ring at Iwerne are all dead by now, except for one man now facing criminal charges. They all got off scot free — unless, of course, they were right all along about hell.’

        (https://andrewbrown.substack.com/p/who-is-to-blame-for-what)

      6. Nigel Goodwin avatar
        Nigel Goodwin

        To me, the distinction is allied to what St Augustine was talking about regarding science. Does mentioning ‘going to hell’ in a Guardian article help or hinder the Christian message? Does it help any kind of dialogue? Or is calling out perceived differences more important?

        Following Jesus in action is, to me, far more important. Yes we never hear about those humbly going about doing what Jesus commanded.

        Instead we hard endlesslhy about sex (how many times do I hear people phoning up LBC and start with ‘as a christian’ and then give a non-christian response?)

        What is the perception of the church from the view of those who never attend? Constant bickering? Anti-sex? Obsessed with matters of abortion, family, marriage? Pedantic? Love dressing up in finery?

        It is a matter of perception. The perception is dreadful at present.

        Who really cares if somebody was prevented from attending a meeting/gathering? I’ve often been stopped at the door trying to get into a disco, I was seen as too old and a bit pervy!

  10. R Prieto avatar
    R Prieto

    Are you accusing Living Out of lack of tact, or lack of charity, or of agreeing with St Paul? As for Adam and Eve, when Jesus quoted Gen 2:24, what would his listeners have understood he was referring to if not marriage? Friends with benefits?

    1. Helen King avatar
      Helen King

      I’m sure you are well aware of the discussions of what is actually meant in all these clobber verses

      1. Nigel Goodwin avatar
        Nigel Goodwin

        I’m not. Not all readers are trained theologically nor are they all influenced by particular cults.

        Grab’s Matthew Henrry’s commentary from bookshelf upstairs – no, it’s too heavy, and I have some work to do.

        Aha – my curiosity got the better of me:

        https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/1-corinthians/6.html

        Even in all those words, there is no mention of going to hell.

        I don;t seem to remember these words being used in any Round Church sermon or Saturday evening CICCU talk. It is language which would have accelerated my discomfort with the cult.

      2. Nigel Goodwin avatar
        Nigel Goodwin

        In all seriousness, although Paul was talking about their prior behaviour, does anybody really think that , once justified, sanctified and washed, everybody lives a perfect life? There is nothing so dangerous as a Christian who thinks they live a blameless life. Paul himself never thought that.

        Maybe that is the problem with all church hierarchies – they put the leaders on a pedastle, and forget Dostoevskys admonition to the Prince ‘they are made of flesh and blood’.

        Juston Welby, like everybody else who has ever lived, is a sinner and continues to sin. It is our fallen nature.

        Just like the people in the original story on this thread.

      3. R Prieto avatar
        R Prieto

        “clobber verses” is the closing of any possible discussion

  11. Nigel Goodwin avatar
    Nigel Goodwin

    I read Martin Lloyd-jones on Romans and Sermon on the Mount in the 1970’s. I just looked up what he had to say on 1 Corinthians.

    https://www.mljtrust.org/sermons/other-sermons/the-reality-of-sin/

    It’s interesting. Very different to the focus on any particular sin. I don’t think there is any mention of ‘going to hell’. I think he emphasised greed and idolatry as much as sexual sins. i think he was fairly mainstream evangelical in those days.

    I do remember a sermon by Mark Rushton in which he talked sensitively about homosexuality, but also mentioned the transforming power of the gospel. I felt uncomfortable with the latter, as it can lead to ‘conversion therapy’ on a shopping list, and I dont think there is anybody in the world who can say their sexual activities have been entirely pure.

    MLJ was of his time, but I have never doubted his wisdom, even though I am no longer an evangelical christian.

    Where did righteous anger go? It is less of a sin for leaders to be in active homosexual relationships and worked alongside the people, rather than leaders who display no righteous anger and are remote.

  12. Nigel Goodwin avatar
    Nigel Goodwin

    Of course, MLJ preached hell. But I don’t think he linked particular symptoms to hell.

    Note, I regard homosexual acts as the same as any other sex acts and any other acts or thoughts full stop. We are all sinful, born in sin, and all fall short of the ideal; of that there can surely be no dispute, looking at the state of the word at present?

  13. Nigel Goodwin avatar
    Nigel Goodwin

    john Stott. he was certainly not into any kind of ‘conversion therapy’.

    This review

    https://www.bibleleaguetrust.org/john-stott-double-listening-and-homosexuality/

    indicates a very different position. It mentions Living Out several times. Somehow the author does not think Christians are sinners, or can commit sinful activities. What rubbish.

  14. Andrew Hayward avatar
    Andrew Hayward

    JB Philips was quite right in his book title Your God Is Too Small. It is quite obvious that we are born straight or gay, and I cannot see a loving Divinity exiling someone because of their sexuality. I have just written a book, The Strange Death of Christian England and its Glorious Resurrection and all over the country we are seeing the shoots of growth. Post COVID we have a glorious chance to promote our faith and our beliefs. But we must understand that love, and indeed sacrificial love is at the heart of it all. NOT cherry picking verses on their fourth or fifth translation. As Christ says by their fruits you shall know them,

Any thoughts?