ViaMedia

Year: 2024

  • Clergy Summer Quiz

    by Anon.

    1.  What is the approximate population of your diocese? How many parishes does your diocese have? How many Churches? What percentage identify as Christian? What percentage of Christians are committed in terms of a fraction (i.e., a bit; quite a bit; sometimes; depends on what else is happening this weekend; a lot; “I’m retired”; etc)? To the nearest 100,000 how many tea lights were used in your diocese last year?

    2.  How many stipendiary clergy are working in the diocese?

    (a) around 190

    (b) around 230

    (c) that’s a problem for the Archdeacon

    (d) about half

    3.  The solemn declaration made before your ordination or first licensing in the diocese that “In public prayer and administration of the sacraments I will use only the form prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer or a form authorised by lawful authority and none other” means

    (a) nothing

    (b) “Not a lot, but you’ll like it!” – (Paul Daniels)

    (c) you may download anything from the internet and use it after attaching a bogus copyright licence number

    (d) you should remember not to use such material when the bishop visits

    (e) what it says

    4. True or false, with extra points for naming these authorities: 

    (a) ‘The Church of England is a device for allowing agnostics to remain in the church’   

    (b) ‘One good thing about being an Anglican is that it doesn’t interfere with your politics or religion’  

    5.  “I can hold my hand on my heart and honestly say that I have obtained a faculty when making changes in a church or in the vicinity of a church”:

    (a) always, but sometimes afterwards

    (b) always, but I would be lying a bit

    (c) it was like that when I came here, honest

    (d) obtained a what?

    6.  An Anglican clergyperson requesting permission from the bishop to conduct a burial service for a Baptist should expect the following reply from the Archdeacon:

    (a) “I am currently out of the office…if your matter is urgent please…”

    (b) go ahead if the deceased has been baptised in the name of the Trinity

    (c) go ahead as long as you use the Anglican Rite

    (d) go ahead, bury as many of them as you can

    7.  When I see the number 1662, I know that this refers to:

    (a) the authorised Elizabethan Book of Common Prayer, which was actually published in the Stuart dynasty, after England had executed a monarch, been a republic, and otherwise decided that Puritans and Catholics should be deported overseas

    (b) the pin code for the Archdeacon’s Swiss Bank account

    (c) the key-safe code for the front door keys to Archbishop Welby’s private Swiss Chalet (second on the right, after Ken Costa’s)

    (d) the number of people working for the NST and safeguarding across CofE NCIs (though this is double counting, as most already work in Legal Affairs or Communications)

    (e) in inches, normal social distancing at a Cof E BCP 8 a.m.

    (f) the predicted number of stipendiary clergy left remaining within the CofE by 2034, that being the 500th anniversary of the creation of the national church by Henry VIII (who started it all off with a change to the doctrine of marriage)

    (g) the annual value of your clergy pension, in pounds sterling, in 2034, after deductions and allowances have been made for all current Strategic Development Fund disbursements

    (h) your monthly clerical stipend, for now

    (i) the number of people likely to be employed at your Diocesan HQ, if current trends continue. (Please don’t worry, as this expense is fully covered. That is what the Diocesan Parish Quota Share is for)

    (j) the number of new lay-led discipling churches that your Diocese promised it would create in order to obtain the £10 million grant from the Strategic Development Fund

    (k) the most difficult posture in the Anglican Kama Sutra, reserved only for male clergy who cannot in conscience accept women priests or bishops. Please note, this requires four participants, with each person required to assume the pose of the relevant number. Due to the potential hazards of this position, it should only be attempted after a risk assessment has been undertaken, and a PEV must be present at all times during the actual act

    (l) the average number of days for conducting an NST safeguarding ‘Lessons Learned Review’ such as Makin, etc. Please note, when the 1662 days are completed, the clock returns to zero and the review restarts from scratch, as there will be brand new elections to the General Synod

    (m) the number of complaints made against the Secretary General of the Archbishops’ Council and NST last year. (Editor: I’ve been asked to clarify all were thoroughly investigated and either resolved informally or not upheld)

    (n) the number of Mission Enablers employed in the CofE

    (o) the coded number of the Beast in Revelation, according to my colleagues at our local HTB Plant. Apparently if you take the two 6s away, then join the remaining numbers of 1 and 2 together to make a 12, then divide the 12 by the numbers remaining (which is 2), that equals 6. So, the 1662 BCP is actually a code for 666 as set out in Revelation 13. A series of talks is now available on the God Channel and YouTube. And there are books. Don’t say we didn’t warn you. Have a lovely summer break.

     

  • The Luxury of Marriage

    by Helen King, lay member of General Synod for Oxford Diocese and Editor of Via Media 

    That Southwark Diocese invitation to couples with ‘healthy’ marriages to come away to a luxurious hotel for a weekend to strengthen their marriage further… It’s been doing the rounds on social media and attracting a range of comments, from outrage at ‘healthy’ to surprise at the gap between ‘luxurious’ and the values of the gospel, to suggestions that the ad makes it sound like a swingers’ weekend, to questions about the weird typo where the hotel is described as ‘near’ without saying ‘where’. Since I wrote this blog post this morning, Anna and the Comms team from the Diocese have generously responded to the various complaints (including the typo) saying on X/Twitter “We recognise that some of the language used was clumsy and unhelpful.” All credit there.

    Full disclosure: I write this as someone who took the Marriage Course in 2004 and who has subsequently co-led it. I think it’s a very good course (OK, there are some cringeworthy moments, but they’re the exceptions) and my husband and I both found it very useful in different ways. When he saw the Southwark invitation and its typo, he did wonder whether the omission of the venue was to stop those of us who’ve done the Marriage Course showing up in the hotel bar and staging a really high quality argument in the style of Session 2 ‘Resolving Conflict’.

    Now, I’m not in one, but I entirely understand that clergy marriages are particularly challenged. I don’t know if that’s worse, or better, or just different in the situation where both partners are clergy, but maybe the modified four sections of the Marriage Course are adjusted according to that further potential dynamic. It is interesting, though, that the Southwark version is led by two couples where the man is the clergyperson. I wonder whether the national version also allows couples where both are clergy, or where the woman is the clergyperson, to be leaders?

    When we ran the marriage course, it was explicit in the course materials that this was for ‘couples’; whether or not they were married was not an issue. That is still stated here: “The Marriage Course is for couples who are married or have been living together for more than two years”. However, other websites put it differently. HTB’s site has “designed to help married couples invest in their relationship and build a strong marriage” (online course and in person). Has this been tightened up since we took the course?

    Time for an even fuller disclosure: we weren’t married when we took the Marriage Course. The Pre-Marriage Course wasn’t available locally so we asked the local independent church (offshoot of a Baptist church) if it would be OK to join and they couldn’t see why not. After all, my husband has been married before, just not to me… and it was my idea to do it, since marrying for the first time in one’s late 40s is quite a step to take. And Session 6 is on ‘Good Sex’. Well, there we are. If you aren’t doing the practicals, you can at least get up to speed on the theory elements.

    And the issue of sex brings me to the most disturbing point. When we ran the Marriage Course here, there weren’t any lesbian or gay couples in our church who wanted to take part. Had there been, we would have welcomed them. But the helpers, who served and cleared up the meal, by chance included lesbian and gay people, and they could watch the videos on the big screen. They didn’t raise any objections, and they said they found it all very helpful,

    But, as usual in the current state of the Church of England with its claims for a “radical new Christian inclusion” which don’t play out on the ground, there’s a significant group of people who are excluded from the Southwark Diocese weekend: clergy in same-sex civil partnerships or marriages. Clergy same-sex marriage is of course currently deemed Not OK, and those clergy who have entered such marriages are told they won’t be licensed to minister once they leave their current job. This has already deprived the church of people in good and faithful (and ‘healthy’?) relationships, who are good priests. But those in CPs are, of course, at least officially, supposed to be fine, because there’s no sex in CPs – at least, not according to the Church of England. So maybe it wouldn’t be a smart move to offer people in CPs the Marriage Course ‘Good Sex’ session. But that’s only one of the seven sessions, and the Southwark Diocese weekend is just doing four out of seven.

    So, would a clergyperson in a (perfectly valid) same-sex civil partnership be allowed to attend the Southwark ‘luxurious’ weekend where their ‘healthy’ relationship could be strengthened further?

    Apparently not. This suggests that the word ‘healthy’ is doing two different jobs: it’s making the point that, if your marriage is in difficulty, you should be looking for help from someone who specialises in this situation rather than rocking up to the luxurious hotel, but it also seems to be carrying the suggestion that only straight relationships can be ‘healthy’.

    When the exclusion of same-sex couples was stated on  X/Twitter, my fellow Synod member Benjamin John commented “But clergy can’t enter same sex marriages”? I asked him whether he would support those who enter same sex CPs having “events like this to help strengthen the relationships of such clergy?”

    He replied, “No”.

    Well, there you have it. Lesbian and gay and same-sex attracted clergy, the Church of England fully and explicitly recognises your civil partnerships, entered into according to the law of the land but also in faith and hope and commitment, but you can’t attend a weekend to help keep your relationship strong – and at least one member of Synod wouldn’t support anything that was of benefit to your relationship.

     

     

     

  • How the Church of England Accidentally Abolished The Sermon on the Mount (and Nobody Even Noticed)

    by Michael Hampson, a published author devoting his early-retirement from parish ministry to producing practical resources for busy clergy and lay-led congregations, beginning with the weekly lectionary resource Sunday Scriptures for Reading Aloud, ssra.uk

    We know from LLF (and the ordination of women, and the safeguarding crisis, and countless other examples) that the Church of England, especially in Synod, is very good at pursuing secondary details, to the point of absurdity or worse, and very bad at seeing the bigger picture, very bad at seeing the perspective of the people actually affected, very bad at seeing the perspective of the ordinary faithful lay person in the pew, and very bad indeed at seeing the perspective of the ordinary person walking past outside.

    Reading the Bible from the lectern, during the main Sunday morning service of the week, is something the Church of England really should be able to manage. But somehow, in 1997, the Church of England managed to accidentally abolish The Sermon on the Mount.

    Churches all over the world have been adopting the same universal Sunday lectionary since it was first published as Lectionary for Mass (LFM) in 1969 – because it’s superb, not least in its clarity and simplicity. The main programme for the year runs from 7 January to 26 November, reading through one gospel and a series of epistles each year, on a three-year cycle. An Old Testament reading each Sunday helps illustrate the gospel reading for the day. The main programme pauses for a fifteen-week Easter series from Lent 1 to Trinity Sunday, which includes themed readings through Lent, and after Easter has readings from Acts, Revelation, and more epistles. John is read in sections during the Year of Mark, and during the Easter series. A Christmas series, from Advent Sunday to The Epiphany, completes the programme. The Church of England was late to the party in only adopting this Sunday lectionary in 1997 – long after most of the rest of the Anglican Communion, and the other main denominations in the UK and across the world.

    As more and more denominations adopted what is essentially the same Sunday lectionary, each one enriched it with their own variations and additional options. The “common” in Common Lectionary (1983) and in Revised Common Lectionary (RCL, 1992) means “common” amongst protestants (attempting to bring increasing diversity back together), not “in common” with the catholic original; even so, very few denominations use “pure” RCL as published. But none deviates as far from “pure” RCL as the Church of England. The Church of England tinkered with RCL so much that it actually managed to abolish the Sermon on the Mount.

    Year A of the three year cycle is the year of Matthew. Chapters 3 to 25 are read in sequence on the Sundays from 7 January to 26 November. The Sermon on the Mount is the vital, fundamental context for all that follows in the gospel for the year. As Matthew chapters 5 to 7, it is read on the six Sundays beginning 28 January, known as Sundays 4 to 9 of the main programme, or Sundays 4 to 9 in Ordinary Time, or Sundays 4 to 9 after Epiphany.

    For every possible date of Easter, the Beatitudes are read before Lent intervenes. For every actual date of Easter for the rest of this century, we shall hear the next reading as well: salt and light, the law and the prophets (not abolished but fulfilled), and a call to a righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and the Pharisees. And in the next two occurrences of Year A – 2026 and 2029 – we shall also hear the introduction to the great theme, “you have heard it said – but I say to you”: in 2026, and in 2029, there will be three readings from Matthew 5 before Lent.

    But in the Church of England, in 2026, and in 2029, there will be none.

    In fact, there will be no readings at all from Matthew 5 before Lent in the Church of England until 2038 – fourteen years from now.

    And even then, in 2038, the Church of England’s selection will not include the Beatitudes.

    The Beatitudes are not set to be read before Lent in the Church of England, even as an option, ever.

    The Church of England has managed to adopt the principle of reading through Matthew, in sequence, every three years, but almost never with any part of the Sermon on the Mount included in the right place, and absolutely never with the Beatitudes included in the right place.

    For what it’s worth, the Beatitudes are permitted as an alternative in early November, for those who choose to interrupt the systematic reading of the gospel again, for All Saints Sunday – the Beatitudes there, of course, demoted from being a revolutionary challenge to the living at the beginning of the year, to being a sweet eulogy for the departed at the end – and even then only as an option.

    It is a quirk of the LFM original that there is provision for 55 Sundays each year instead of 53 – and most years can only accommodate 52. Every extra option that is added then threatens to squeeze out yet another ‘ordinary’ Sunday. And no church has added more options than the Church of England – which has also made many of them compulsory. They all do violence to the fundamental principles of the universal lectionary, but none more so than those which combine to abolish the Sermon on the Mount. First, the Transfiguration is moved out of Lent, presumably for being insufficiently gloomy, and placed on the last Sunday before Lent instead. Then Creation Sunday (remembered fondly from ASB’s quirky Ninth Sunday before Christmas) is placed, for no particular reason at all, on the Second Sunday before Lent. In the 1990s there was a brief obsession with Candlemas that we daren’t let go, so there goes the Fourth Sunday after Epiphany; or for those who choose not to mark Candlemas in Year A (it is made compulsory only in Year C), we insist again, in Year A, on the Wedding at Cana, even though the Church of England alone has already insisted on having it on slightly different Epiphany Sundays in both Year B and Year C. And that completes the great offence: by squeezing three additional Sundays out of the variable gap between The Epiphany and Lent, for truly ‘secondary’ reasons, the Church of England has abolished the Sermon on the Mount completely until 2038, and the Beatitudes for ever.

    And this is what happens when you don’t keep your eye on the main thing that actually matters, while being distracted by secondary details; when you lose sight of the bigger picture, when you forget the perspective of the ordinary faithful lay person in the pew, when you become distracted by clerical obsessions and forget, however briefly, about the millions of people out there in the rain who need to hear the truth spoken by Jesus of Nazareth on a windy hillside in Palestine: for the sake of secondary details, however worthy, you accidentally abolish the Sermon on the Mount.

    And more than a quarter of a century later, I’m not convinced that anybody has actually noticed.

    2025 is the year of Luke, Year C. Easter is late: there will be eight Sundays – almost two months – between The Epiphany and Lent, presenting an excellent opportunity to enter into the themes of the gospel for the year. Across those eight Sundays, there’s the opportunity to read, in sequence, from Luke chapters 2 to 6, of the prophecy spoken over the infant Christ by Simeon; of the 12-year-old Jesus confounding the teachers in temple; of Jesus reading from Isaiah in the synagogue in Nazareth, and being rejected there; of the call of the first disciples; and then three readings from the Sermon on The Plain.

    You could look at the various options offered in the Common Worship Principal Service Lectionary – the one that abolished the Sermon on the Mount – and eventually work out that the maximum number of readings permitted from the above selection is just four, and not even in the right order. Alternatively, you could use a little bit of the local discretion that the Church of England surely still allows, and revert instead to the core principles of the universal lectionary. Sunday Scriptures for Reading Aloud, which will still give you the Sermon on the Mount in 2026, and 2029, will also give you that eight-week series from Luke between The Epiphany and Lent in 2025. It’s about being focussed, without secondary distraction, on the task of reading the scriptures from the lectern during the main Sunday morning service of the week. It’s about being in harmony with the global church. It’s about ordinary Christianity, for ordinary churches, on the ordinary Sundays of the year.

    In a church which can’t do LLF, or safeguarding, or the ordination of women, properly, we might at least use a Sunday lectionary that “prioritises the systematic reading of the gospels and epistles for the year, reducing interruptions and omissions to a minimum” – and doesn’t accidentally abolish the Sermon on the Mount.

    The SSRA lectionary and all associated resources are available free online at ssra.uk

  • Celibacy and Conscience

    by Professor Morwenna Ludlow, a historian, theologian and priest, specialising in historical theology. She is Professor of Christian Theology at the University of Exeter and Canon Theologian at Exeter Cathedral

    The question of how Christians understand celibacy has not gone away. Recent debates over Living and Love and Faith (LLF) in the July 2024 sessions of the General Synod of the Church of England show that. But this time, the issue of celibacy seemed to me to be tied to the question of the protection of conscience. It’s this connection I want to unpick here.

    In our General Synod debates, I continue to be moved by the testimonies of those who speak about their conviction that they are called to a life of celibacy. (These have, so far as I recall, all been speakers who have also stated they are sexually attracted to those of the same sex.[1] I would love also to hear testimony about the vocation of celibacy from heterosexual Christians!) I do not think that I am in position to question their sense of vocation. In good conscience, that is not my call to make. As a heterosexual woman in a long, happy and fulfilling marriage, which began with a ceremony in my parish church, there is especially an imperative on me not to be too quick in my judgment.

    Where I baulk, however, is when I hear some claim that their conscience should determine not just their own, but other people’s behaviour. There are two related ideas here. First, there is the idea that a conscientious restraint on one person’s part should be universalised to a demand for restraint by all who find themselves in a similar position – in this case, the idea that all lesbian and gay Christians should commit to celibacy. But, as I argued in an earlier blog, the church’s consistent, scriptural and traditional teaching (i.e. doctrine) of celibacy is that it should be a freely willed response to God’s call, not a demand placed on all. Second, there is the idea – put forward notably by the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) – that the consciences of those who hold the conservative position should be protected by the provision of “a permanent structural rearrangement resulting in visible differentiation” from the rest of the Church of England.[2]

    But this second idea seems to me to involve the unexamined movement between several related positions:

    (a) In good conscience, person x believes that they can neither have an active sexual relationship outside heterosexual marriage, nor take positive steps which would condone or welcome such relationships (e.g. like offering the Prayers of Love and Faith for same-sex couples);

    (b) The conscience of x is troubled by those in their church who do have an active sexual relationship outside heterosexual marriage, or who take positive steps which would condone or welcome such relationships;

    (c) Person x has the right for their conscience to be protected from being troubled in this way.

    Points (a) and (b) are statements of fact; point (c) makes an ethical demand. In brief, I certainly think that the church and its members should acknowledge (a) by ensuring that no-one has to act against their conscience with respect either to their own intimate relationships or in offering prayers of blessing for others (and the current proposals are emphatic on this point). I also think that it would be wise for those like me to recognise the depth of feeling surrounding point (b): I may disagree with the conservative position, but I need to acknowledge the way these questions are bound up with profound aspects of faith like the interpretation of Scripture and understandings of holiness. I can acknowledge the depth of hurt, while considering its cause to rest on a misunderstanding of the gospel. Nevertheless, it is possible to recognise point (b), without conceding the demand in (c). The question is: precisely what purchase should troubled consciences have on the rest of the church? 

    It might be helpful here to reflect briefly on the role of conscience in theological ethics.[3] Broadly speaking, the Reformed tradition has been cautious about the role of conscience seen as a natural faculty because conscience, like other faculties, has been impaired by the fall. My conscience is subject to distortion by pride, selfishness and lack of attention to the other, especially those others who are vulnerable. At best my conscience can skew my moral judgment; far worse, it can become an instrument of ‘godless self-justification’ as I put my ‘personal innocence’ above my responsibility for my neighbour.[4] For this reason, theologians in the Reformed tradition see conscience not so much as a natural faculty but as that point of encounter between God and myself in the time and place I find myself in, in the world. Conscience then becomes the recognition, through grace, of God’s demand on me – or, to put it another way, the discernment of God’s call to be who God wants me to be right here and right now. This call might be addressed to me as an individual or to a community – the church.

    But what if we disagree? This question is sharp because the possession of a troubled conscience is not unique to those holding the conservative position on LLF. My conscience is deeply troubled by the fact that I am not just part of, but I am a priest in a church which I believe not to be including LGBTQIA+ people as I believe it ought. My conscience is troubled by the church’s treatment of people who are very dear to me. My conscience is troubled by the fact that, as a married heterosexual priest, I am part of a system which treats me better than it treats many LGBTQIA+ priests.

    So where might we look to resolve our disagreement on conscience? Reference is sometimes made by conservative evangelicals to Romans 14:14-15 and 1 Corinthians 8, where Paul insists that the conscience of ‘weaker’ believers to be protected. I am not sure that reference to this passage is helpful for our current disagreements. The issue in Romans and 1 Corinthians concerns beliefs circulating about the effects of eating certain kinds of food: some believers thought that eating food sacrificed to idols (or food which might be thought to have been sacrificed to idols) would imperil their salvation. But Paul is clear that he thinks that these ‘weaker brethren’ are wrong in their belief: ‘Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “no idol in the world really exists” and that “there is no God but one.” …. “It is not everyone, however, who has this knowledge. Since some have become so accustomed to idols until now, they still think of the food they eat as food offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled’ (1 Cor. 8:4-7). So any use of these passages to urge the protection of one’s position as a weaker sibling is implicitly acknowledging that one might be wrong, whilst also placing a demand on oneself to protect the conscience of those whom one believes to be wrong. Secondly, these passages are about what kinds of food are permissible, which is very different from questions of how to treat our LGBTQIA+ sisters and brothers. Thirdly, Paul begins Romans 14 with an absolutely explicit call for mutual compassion: ‘Some believe in eating anything, while the weak eat only vegetables. Those who eat must not despise those who abstain, and those who abstain must not pass judgment on those who eat, for God has welcomed them.’ Fourthly, Paul seems to be addressing issues in local communities, not making pronouncements for the whole church. In essence, the current proposals from the House of Bishops already allow for our ‘weaker’ siblings, in that they clearly allow priests and communities who do not wish to use the Prayers of Love and Faith not to use them.

    Where else might we look to learn about conscience? Because the term ‘conscience’ (suneid?sis) does not appear in the gospels we are perhaps in danger of leaving Jesus out of our accounts. If conscience is understood in God’s call to me, perhaps I should reflect on the way in which Jesus’ words frequently jolt his hearers’ out of their comfortable assumptions about their own virtue (the rich young man, those bringing the woman accused of adultery) or highlight the ever-present danger of hypocrisy and pride (the Sermon on the Mount). (I deliberately use ‘I’ here, for the danger of self-righteousness lies on both ‘sides’ of the debate.) Such encounters explain why theologians in the Reformed tradition write of conscience not as a natural faculty, but as the discernment of God’s demand on us. Conscience in this sense does not come ready-packaged; rather ‘individual moral judgement requires moulding by the believing community and its educative, pastoral, sacramental, disciplinary and therapeutic practices’.[5] This includes our reading and reflection on Scripture and a prayerful deepening of our understanding of the world. On this understanding, conscience cannot be something to be protected; rather, we are called to expose our consciences – to the gospel, to Jesus’ uncomfortable call on us, and to the messy realities of our complicated world.

    By contrast, I am hearing calls from conservative evangelicals for their consciences to be protected. These calls amount in some cases to the demand to be protected from being in full communion with those who are using PLF or who are in same-sex marriages – as if being in full communion places too great a strain on their conscience. This seems to me to be in danger of treating conscience the wrong way. Far from being the place of encounter with the call of Jesus Christ on my life, this view of conscience seems to treat it as a thing of holiness to be polished and protected. This could be understood in two ways (and I suspect that both are in play). First, conscience is understood as a pure thing to be saved from taint. Underlying this are ideas of impurity, which so often creep into Christian discussions of sex – especially when it’s women or LGBTQIA+ people whose sexual activity we are discussing. Does the idea of protecting one’s conscience (‘keeping one’s conscience clean’) presume that in fact all sexual activity, and especially sexual pleasure, is dirty – which is why it must be contained in (heterosexual) marriage and, if at all possible, redeemed by the birth of children? Second, conscience is understood as a fortress to be defended from attack, ‘that inmost citadel of the personality, where the self is… king of its own castle, uncorrupted by the compromises and pressures of the crowd’.[6] On this understanding, the exposure of the self to the ‘crowd’ imperils its very identity.

    Both understandings of why the conscience needs to be protected – a holy thing to be preserved from taint, a fortress to be protected from attack – help explain why feelings are so raw. But neither seem to me to reflect a good theological understanding of conscience as that point of encounter between God and myself. If attention to conscience means responding to Christ’s call on us, I don’t think that God wants us to focus on preserving our holiness – at least, not holiness understood in this narrow sense of protection from taint. God’s holiness does not withdraw from the reality of the world but is immersed in it. Neither do I believe that we need to preserve our identity from attack, for our identity has a sure foundation in our baptism in Jesus Christ.

    God’s call to holiness, it seems to me, calls on us to step into that crowd outside the castle walls, that place where Jesus walked and talked and prayed and ate. Sometimes that means we have to eat with people who disagree with us on issues so painful that our hearts are raw. But if my conscience is found in my encounter with Christ, it is formed precisely in my encounter with all those whom he came to love.

     

    Notes

    [1] I am trying to echo the language they themselves have used in recognition that, while many are happy to identify as LGBTQIA+, for others this is difficult.

    [2] See https://ceec.info/keepingfaith/: “What does the CEEC suggest as a way forward? CEEC remains committed to the highest degree of unity possible within the truth and doctrine of the Church of England. However, we believe that the current proposals will prevent us from walking together and promote disunity, even schism. It is clear that the strength of feeling amongst parties with differing convictions indicates that we have to find a better way forward. CEEC will continue to advocate a settlement, without theological compromise, based on a permanent structural rearrangement resulting in visible differentiation.”

    [3] I approach this topic from the perspective of the Reformed tradition, because that is where the most vocal defenders of the conservative position seem to be speaking from. The issue is treated somewhat differently by ethicists in other traditions. The authors I cite on the topic of conscience should not be assumed to agree with my position on sexual ethics.

    [4] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2009), 278, 276.

    [5] John Webster, ‘God and Conscience’, in The Doctrine of God and Theological Ethics, ed. Alan J. Torrance and Michael Banner (London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2006), 152.

    [6] Henry Chadwick, Some Reflections on Conscience: Greek, Jewish and Christian (London: Council of Christians and Jews, 1968), p. 5, quoted by Webster, 152.

  • Where is the Colour? The CEEC Commissioning of Overseers: A Theological and Ecclesiological Critique

    by Revd Dr Augustine Tanner-Ihm, Lead Minister of Saint Nicholas Church, Kingsway, Manchester

    The recent commissioning of overseers by the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) necessitates a critical theological and ecclesiological examination. This decision appears to undermine both the doctrinal foundations of the Church of England and its commitment to inclusivity and diversity. This article will explore the theological implications, the postcolonial context, and the historical and current Church of England stances on diversity, arguing that the CEEC’s actions reflect a troubling trend of white elitism. Regardless of one’s position on the structures that the CEEC has chosen – personally, I disagree with them – the lack of racial awareness remains an important issue.

    Theological Foundations and Ecclesiological Implications

    The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the principles of inclusivity, universality, and the imago Dei—the belief that all humans are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). This foundational doctrine calls the Church to embrace and reflect the diversity of God’s creation. The Apostle Paul’s teaching in Galatians 3:28 underscores this inclusive vision: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

    However, the CEEC’s recent commissioning of exclusively white overseers starkly contradicts these theological tenets. By failing to represent the rich diversity of the global Anglican Communion, the CEEC undermines the universality of the Church and perpetuates a form of ecclesiastical homogeneity that is theologically untenable.

    Postcolonial Critique and the Legacy of Colonialism

    A postcolonial analysis illuminates the CEEC’s recent actions as reminiscent of colonial practices that prioritize white, European leadership while marginalizing non-white voices. The insistence on “orthodox” bishops, purportedly to align with the theological stances of Black, Brown, and Asian Anglicans, is profoundly ironic, given that none of the appointed overseers come from these communities. Instead this practice perpetuates a colonialist framework where theological and ecclesiastical leadership is dominated by white elites, effectively silencing the diverse voices within the Anglican Communion.

    According to the CEEC, these are the first overseers to be commissioned, with more to follow. However, an article in Anglican Ink reveals that those to be commissioned later have already been chosen, a fact that raises concerns about inclusivity and transparency. Despite the presence of a few Global Majority Heritage (GMH) individuals on the CEEC Board of Trustees, this issue seems to have been overlooked. This could be due to a phenomenon some theologians describe as Theological Stockholm Syndrome, where marginalized individuals align with and support their oppressors’ frameworks and structures.

    This critique echoes the sentiment expressed by African American activist and writer Audre Lorde, who famously stated, “For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change. And this fact is only threatening to those women who still define the master’s house as their only source of support” (Lorde, 1984). The trustees appear to have been co-opted by the very tools of colonialism rather than seeking the liberation of others.

    In other words, they have succumbed to a role reminiscent of the “Uncle Tom” figure in African American vernacular, serving the interests of the dominant group at the expense of their communities. This dynamic underscores the urgent need for a truly inclusive and representative ecclesiastical leadership within the Church of England.

    For some time now, evangelical Anglicans – when arguing about unity within the Anglican communion – have used disagreements on LGBTQIA+ inclusion to say the Church of England is ignoring the voices of the so-called “Global South”. It is persons with more of an inclusive/progressive view on sexuality and gender identity who have been called racist or who have been claimed by conservatives to be demonstrating a colonial way of thinking.  Yet the framework that was put together is a farce. As a black man who is gay and evangelical, it saddens me that my siblings in Christ would use such a horrible tactic.

    For instance, as a black American man who can trace my lineage directly to slavery, I feel extremely uncomfortable with the word “overseers”. As many Anglicans would know, overseers were used to keep the enslaved blacks in check, to make sure they would not follow their conscience and be moved by the Spirit for freedom. Overseers were harsh white men from a privileged class that would propagate violence and torture against people that looked like me. Overseers would be the very drivers of enslavement. But if it is claimed that this is simply a word from the Bible, then it is translating episkopos; but that means they are Bishops! Therefore, which one is it?

    Kwok Pui-lan’s postcolonial theological framework critiques the Western-centric dominance in ecclesiastical structures, advocating for a decolonized approach that genuinely incorporates and values the perspectives of Christians from the Global South. The CEEC’s actions, therefore, can be seen as a continuation of colonial patterns of exclusion and control, rather than a move towards true inclusivity and representation.

    Historical and Current Stances on Diversity

    Historically, the Church of England has struggled with issues of racial and cultural inclusion. The Lambeth Conference of 1988 recognized the need for the Church to repent of its complicity in racism and colonialism, calling for greater inclusivity within its structures. More recently, the “Lament to Action” report highlighted the persistent racial inequalities within the Church of England, urging systemic changes to address these injustices.

    Despite these acknowledgements and calls to action, the CEEC’s commissioning of an all-white overseer body demonstrates a significant lapse in the Church’s commitment to these goals. This move not only disregards the recommendations of the “Lament to Action” report but also undermines the Church’s public witness to racial justice and equality.

    White Elitism and Ecclesiastical Purity

    The theological justification for an all-white overseer body under the guise of maintaining orthodoxy is a manifestation of white elitism. This elitism privileges white theological perspectives and leadership, marginalizing the rich theological contributions of Black, Brown, and Asian Anglicans. Such a stance is antithetical to the inclusive vision of the Gospel and the ecclesiological commitment to the catholicity of the Church.

    The Church of England’s commitment to being a national church requires it to reflect the diversity of the nation it serves. The homogeneous composition of the CEEC overseers fails to embody this national and theological mandate, suggesting a retreat into a narrow, exclusionary vision of the Church that is more concerned with preserving white dominance than with embodying the inclusive love of Christ.

    Not Reflecting the Vision of a Younger and More Diverse Church

    Prominent theologian Paul Avis has consistently emphasized the importance of the Church being a community that embodies the diversity and unity of the body of Christ. The Church of England has been striving to be younger and more diverse, a theme central to its mission in contemporary society. This vision aims to ensure that the Church is relevant and reflective of the multifaceted nature of the population it serves, both in England and globally.

    The CEEC’s decision to commission an exclusively white group of overseers starkly contrasts with this goal too. It suggests a failure to engage with and integrate the younger, more diverse demographics that are vital for the Church’s future. The Church of England is attempting to move beyond its historical legacy of exclusion and to foster a community where all are represented and valued. By ignoring the vibrant, diverse voices within the Anglican Communion, the CEEC undermines this essential mission and risks alienating younger generations who seek a Church that is inclusive and representative of all God’s people.

    A Call to Action

    The commissioning of the CEEC overseers must therefore serve as a wake-up call for the Church of England. It is imperative that the Church actively works to dismantle structures of white elitism and to foster a genuinely inclusive leadership that reflects the diversity of the Anglican Communion. This requires not only appointing “overseers” from diverse racial and cultural backgrounds but also engaging in deep, systemic change to ensure that all voices are heard and valued. I disagree with my siblings in Christ, and yes, I call them siblings because even though I strongly disagree, I have love and respect for them as people who are co-heirs with Christ.

    Theological orthodoxy is not about maintaining a narrow, exclusionary vision of the Church. It is about embodying the fullness of the Gospel, which calls us to love, inclusivity, and justice. As we move forward, let us commit to a vision of the Church that truly reflects the diversity of God’s creation and the inclusive nature of the Gospel.

    References:

    1. CEEC Overseers Commissioned in London for the Church of England
    2. Bishop of Oxford Rejects the Alliance’s Call for a Third Province Should LLF be Introduced
    3. “Lament to Action” Report, Church of England, 2021.
    4. Kwok Pui-lan, Postcolonial Imagination and Feminist Theology, Westminster John Knox Press, 2005.
    5. The Lambeth Conference Reports, 1988.
    6. Paul Avis, The Identity of Anglicanism: Essentials of Anglican Ecclesiology, T&T Clark, 2008.
    7. Paul Avis, In Search of Authority: Anglican Theological Method from the Reformation to the Enlightenment, Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014.

     

  • 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.

  • Cooking with Love and Faith

    by Nic Tall, member of General Synod and National Coordinator of Together for the Church of England

    The General Synod has met again. Once again, it has debated the current stage of Living in Love and Faith (LLF), once again the plans to move forward have been approved in all three Houses of the Synod, and once again this permission to proceed still has a significant minority of Synod in opposition to the proposals.

    One aspect of the debate was the selection of metaphors used in speeches – Fortnum and Mason port and Stilton hampers, Argos flat pack furniture, LLF being like a bus with some on board and others feeling run over. One metaphor which came up in several speeches, all opposed to the proposals, was that it wasn’t “oven ready”. That the phrase was used several times implies co-ordinated comms work from conservatives literally speaking from the same centrally pre-prepared text. “Not oven-ready” expresses a concern that there hasn’t been enough work done, that proposed pastoral guidance needs more time and more consultation before it is fit for purpose, and we should stick with Issues in Human Sexuality until its replacement.

    Since coming home from the debate, I have been thinking through the questions of process and this culinary metaphor, and I have been comparing the LLF process to baking bread. We have been following a recipe, collecting and mixing ingredients, kneading the dough, stepping back and leaving it to rise for a while, before returning to knock it back, squeezing the air out, more pushing, pulling and stretching before leaving it to rise again. A good baker knows that a time of proving before further kneading helps the structure and flavour of the bread, but repeat that process too often and you ruin it.

    Before I talk about how we have been cooking the bread of LLF, I want to think about how the House of Bishops prepared the meal that is Issues in Human Sexuality.  I recently spoke with someone who was in the room when Issues was written.  It was a document purely created by the House of Bishops, who we should remember at that point included no women and no openly LGBT+ people. There was no Programme Board, no working groups, no consultation with stakeholder groups or involvement with the wider church at all. The entire process came from the House of Bishops discussing among itself and then putting out its thoughts as a teaching document, not intended as the policy statement that Issues later became. The preface stated “We cannot expect all to agree with our conclusion and, indeed, in our discussions we encountered a wide variety of opinions… It is our hope that this Statement – which we do not pretend to be the last word on the subject – will do something ‘to help forward a general process, marked by greater trust and openness, of Christian reflection on the subject of human sexuality’”. Issues was cooked by a small group of episcopal chefs, and was not intended to be the final meal. More than thirty years since it was first served up it now become stale and few find it appetising.

    Given the lack of process leading to the half-baked Issues, what has been happening in the kitchen to cook up its replacement? LLF began with panels of experts gathering to compile material around theology, biblical studies, history and more which formed the LLF book, videos, podcasts and course. These were then made available to the whole church to study, discuss and pray about. From late 2020 through to mid 2022, all policy work was paused while the resources were used at the grassroots in parishes, benefices and deaneries. In the baking metaphor, this was a period of the LLF dough being left to rise. Then there was a consultation, the largest in the C of E’s history, capturing the feedback of over 6000 who took part in the course and following up with focus groups to drill down deeper into grassroots opinion. The results were a majority wanting liturgical affirmation of same-sex relationships, a quick decision so everyone knew where they stood and a strong desire for the church to remain together.

    Through the autumn of 2022, the House of Bishops developed their proposals, which were modest but deliverable and brought to General Synod in February 2023. Synod welcomed the proposals through a vote passed in all three Houses. There has since been further work considering refinement and implementation, including consultation with stakeholder groups, small working groups and facilitated conversations bringing together people with very different theological convictions, in-person talks with representatives from different constituencies, theological input from the Faith and Order Commission, legal support from the Church of England’s Legal Office and a further substantial debate in General Synod in November 2023 affirming the ongoing direction of travel. There have been a ‘Next Steps Group’ and a ‘Moving Forward’ video.

    In preparation for the July 2024 Synod, there were different working groups, more stakeholder consultations, a Programme Board, further meetings of the College and House of Bishops and more input from FAOC. And then at the most recent Synod a third major vote has yet again passed in all three Houses to affirm the ongoing direction of travel. We can safely say that the LLF dough has been thoroughly kneaded, shaped and proved. When we compare the many years and wide consultation of the LLF process to the short bishops-only cooking up of Issues, we can be sure that we are in a much better place that will be more widely owned by the whole church once this dish comes out of the oven.

    We also have to remember who the chefs are in preparing this meal. The commending of liturgy and the issuing of pastoral guidance is the responsibility of the House of Bishops.  When Issues was published, it did not require Synodical approval; it was a document from the Bishops. Its replacement will also not need the approval of Synod. The House of Bishops have been much more sensitive this time around in ensuring wide consultation and involving people outside their number. The new pastoral guidance will not be something created in a closed room by a small group of outwardly straight men and then passed down from on high. It has been a collaborative process, with the bishops supported by Synod, FAOC, stakeholders, the Legal Office and all our parishes and deaneries who invested time with engaging.

    But now it is down to the House of Bishops to complete the process by putting it in the oven to bake. That is their job, and it is not for the rest of us to interfere. Neither will it help if we insist on continually opening the oven door to check how it’s getting on. Too many cooks will only spoil the meal.

    So, once the well-prepared dough of LLF that we currently have has been properly baked, brought out and left to cool, I hope we will be able to gather together to enjoy the breaking, sharing and eating. And I hope that will be around one table, where all are called, including our LGBTQIA+ family members who are usually only offered crumbs under the table. I hope also that our more conservative family members will also be at the feast around the one table, and not feel that they have to sit in another room apart from the rest of us.

    I hope that shared meal comes very soon, as many in the church, especially LGBTQIA+ people, are hungry and are needing to be fed.

  • The Alliance and the Bishop of Oxford

    by Canon Dr Phil Groves, a parish priest and convenor of the Anglican Peace and Justice Network. His PhD is on Anglican Missional Ecclesiology and he was the Facilitator for the Listening Process in the Anglican Communion and Director of Continuing Indaba.


    ‘The Alliance’ has written another letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury and once again the tone portrays them as the arbiters of orthodoxy. In this letter they make it clear that they will remain within the Anglican Communion while effectively becoming a separate church – a new province – in England.

    They give the impression that it is the Church of England which will be isolated from the theologically uniform Global South, and so from the Anglican Communion itself, while they will be welcomed with open arms. They accuse the Archbishops of Canterbury and York of ‘Western elitism’ in ignoring the views of the Global South and claim they are the ones striving for unity.

    My own bishop – the Bishop of Oxford – has written a response. In it he refers to the consensus at Lambeth 2022 which was to accept different views on sexuality and to walk together. He criticises the Alliance for not mentioning the persecution of LGBTIQ+ people in parts of the world where the [Anglican] church has given its support.

    Replying to Bishop Steven, the Alliance has emphasised its opposition to the persecution of LGBTQIA+ people, but they also make clear their commitment to be in full communion with Provinces at the heart of GAFCON and the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans (GSFA) – including provinces such as Nigeria and Uganda which have promoted and rejoiced in laws that have deepened the criminalisation of LGBTQIA+ people and their allies. The members of the Alliance feel compelled to break with those who bless the union of people of the same sex, but not to break communion with those who rejoice that freedom of speech and freedom of association have been removed from those seeking to defend some of the most vulnerable people in their societies. The Alliance says it is ‘deeply concerned about the persecution of LGBTQIA+ people’ and they emphasise that their affirmation of Lambeth I.10 includes a clear repudiation of all homophobia. I don’t doubt their sentiment, but they are still aligning with church leaders who have praised laws that potentially imprison people for even being suspected of being gay.

    The letters from the Alliance frequently talk about the ‘Global South’ representing 75% of Anglicanism. This is an extremely misleading claim. It may be that 75% of Anglicans live in the Global South, but even in one diocese, let alone one parish, there is always diversity. When the Alliance talks about ‘the Global South’ they seem to mean an organisation, GSFA, that according to its leader is defined by doctrine not geography. The GSFA has 8 Anglican member Provinces from a total of 31 provinces with Global South Anglicans. The GSFA has excluded or alienated most of the Global South provinces, and has been a cause of division.

    The Bishop of Oxford is right to point out that, if the Alliance is in partnership with 75% of Anglicans in the socio-economic Global South, then that includes being in partnership with Anglicans who have steadfastly opposed GAFCON and GSFA and with those who are deliberating change. In the terms set by the Alliance, many of them are not ‘orthodox’. The Bishop of Oxford is aware of this because the Diocese of Oxford has a partnership with the Diocese of Kimberley and Kuruman in South Africa, where prayers for those in same sex unions have recently been approved.

    And a further new partnership challenges the charge that the Church of England is failing to listen to Anglicans in the Global South. This week, the Bishop of Oxford announced the launch of a new link with the Diocese of Jamaica and the Cayman Islands.

    Archbishop Howard Gregory – the Diocesan Bishop of Jamaica and the Archbishop of the West Indies – entered the partnership well aware of the progressive stance of our Bishop and of many in our Diocese. The partnership is for all in both dioceses, not just with those who self-proclaim themselves to be ‘orthodox’. His diocese also has theological diversity and we will find common ground and real challenges. He has chosen to partner his complex diocese with our complex diocese, fully aware of the range of views we have here and the direction of travel under the leadership of our bishop.

    In contrast with the Archbishops of Nigeria and Uganda, Archbishop Howard has followed on from his predecessor – Archbishop John Holder of Barbados – and bravely squared up to the homophobia in West Indian culture and law. Far from being in thrall to ‘Western elites’, the Archbishop is seeking the repeal of the British colonial penal code.

    The place of the West Indies in the story of GSFA is illustrative of power struggles across the Communion. The South to South encounters of the 1990s were intended to enable a post-colonial Anglican voice to emerge, but in the late 1990s some of the leadership partnered with Western conservatives who were seeking support for their opposition to women bishops and a clear stance on human sexuality. Following the 1998 Lambeth Conference, and up to his retirement in 2009, the Archbishop of the West Indies, Drexel Gomez, was at the heart of these partnerships. However, his lead role in that organisation alienated him from the bishops in his province. They had their own partnerships with dioceses around the world, including TEC, and they did not necessarily support his views. He was spoken of as ‘representing’ them, but he had no mandate to do so.

    His retirement coincided with the meeting of the ACC in Jamaica in 2009. I was privileged to meet all the bishops from West Indies that week and several of them told me that they had been lobbied by Western conservatives (including one from the Diocese of Oxford) telling them who to elect as their Archbishop so they could preserve continuity with the Global South. By a huge majority they ignored the advice and elected a radical alternative – Bishop John Holder.

    I knew Bishop John well. In 2006 I had just been appointed Facilitator for the Listening Process on Human Sexuality in the Anglican Communion and he sent me a copy of his training manual for all clergy in his diocese. He did so because one of the four sessions was aimed at enabling his clergy to face their homophobia, and change. He was not bowing to any Western elite; it was the conclusion of his deep engagement with Scripture and the result of his deep listening to the experience of LGBTIQ+ people (as mandated in Lambeth I.10).

    When the Bishops of the West Indies chose him as Primate, they did so in order to break with the organisation that the Alliance calls the ‘Global South’ and to ensure that they were part of an Anglican Communion that included TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada.

    This pattern was often repeated across the Communion. I saw it in Ghana, Tanzania, Southern Africa and elsewhere and so when the GSFA tried to divide the Bishops at the 2022 Lambeth Conference by encouraging dissent through the signing of a document demanding universal conformity with Lambeth I.10, only a tiny proportion of bishops from the Global South signed up. Not one bishop from the West Indies signed it.

    Calling the GSFA ‘the Global South’ is deliberately confusing. Because it is an organisation that is defined by doctrine not geography, people may be surprised to know that the breakaway Anglican Church in North America is a member! Yet the vast majority of Anglican Provinces in the socio-economic global south are not.

    All this does not mean the partnership between Jamaica and the Cayman Islands and the Diocese of Oxford will be easy. Jamaica has been struck by a deadly hurricane almost immediately after the announcement of the link and this calls for us not only to seek money to help but also to ask hard questions about our responsibility for the environmental crisis engulfing the world. We will also be required to examine our place in the horror of chattel slavery. One of the historic patrons of one of my churches was a slave owner – my guess is that slave-trade related patronage runs deep within our diocese. Effective partnership is going to be uncomfortable for all of us.

    This new partnership indicates that the Anglican Communion has a healthy future. We will need to face difficult conversations with openness, honesty, and humility, but we will benefit from those as we walk with Christ.

  • Trust and Training

    by Revd Dr Sean Doherty, Principal, Trinity College, Bristol


    This afternoon at General Synod, we debated     an important and very substantial report on Trust and Trustworthiness in the Church of England. Some impressive scholars were involved in researching and writing the report (including Professor Veronica Hope Hailey, an expert on trust in organisations, and the well-known theologian Professor David Ford), who generously gave what must have been a very considerable amount of their time on a pro bono basis. Prof. Hope Hailey conducted extensive qualitative research via interviews (which the paper sets out). The Church owes them a debt of gratitude.

    Unfortunately the amount of time we had available to discuss the report could not do it justice (this is no criticism of those who arrange the Synod’s timings, who had an enormous number of important items to schedule). It grapples with a dizzying array of topics, including a theological account of trust, the role of social media, the impact on trust of church-related abuse and the Church of England’s response, and an analysis of the current dynamics of trust and distrust within the Church of England! I hope that we can find further time and ways to consider the document further and in greater depth, and it sounds like further work on the topic is planned.

    In the spirit of fostering that conversation, in this post I want to comment on two aspects of the report. First, on page 25, it raises concerns (substantiated by comments made by two interviewees) about ‘identity and church tradition groups’ which ‘may not seem to have porous or flexible boundaries.’ One interview suggested that ordination training might be partly responsible for ‘baking in this tribal division … right from the beginning’ (paragraph 112). (A couple of speakers drew attention to the potentially clerical framing of some of the report. This would be an example, since of course training for ordination is not the beginning of anyone’s engagement with the Church of England!)

    The report then adopts this ‘tribal’ language itself. For example, on p. 40 it says, ‘Concerns are voiced, and these are not new, that the theological education and formation for the Church’s ministers, and particularly of the clergy, as one interviewee put it, “bakes in” tribal differences from the outset’ (paragraph 189).

    One TEI principal colleague noted that the term ‘tribal’ betrays a rather colonial mindset. No doubt some people are uncritically loyal to their tradition, but in our analysis I think it is important for us to say that, rather than perpetuating stereotypes of tribal cultures as something inherently negative.

     Second, in the next paragraph (190) there is a reference to ‘institutions and programmes that are designed to form candidates in a particular strand of Anglicanism.’ In the run-up to this Synod meeting, I took a straw poll of a cross-section of TEI principals to ask, ‘is your institution/programme designed to form candidates in a particular strand of Anglicanism?’

    All of those who responded said no. We see our task as preparing candidates to serve the whole of the Church. Indeed, this is one of the criteria against which our programmes are assessed when we apply for approval, and one of the things for which we are rightly scrutinised.

    Furthermore, nowadays the majority of candidates train in TEIs which gather students from across traditions, and even TEIs which have historically been associated with particular traditions are probably much broader these days than perhaps at times in the past. This is because many students choose their TEI for practical reasons such as location. Others deliberately opt to go to a TEI outside of their ‘home’ tradition precisely to get a broader experience through training.

     But even helping people to be rooted in a spirituality that feeds and sustains them need not come at the expense of breadth. Traditions can be inhabited defensively and naively, but they can also be inhabited generously and self-critically, as a healthy basis from which to be open to others and receive their gifts.

     Then, of course, the actual process of formation involves varied experiences of community worship, and encountering the full range of theological ideas in reading and seminars. Sometimes teaching is shared between staff from different TEIs such as in the Cambridge Theological Federation, or in the partnership between Bristol Baptist College and Trinity College, where I work. Perhaps most crucially, we all offer placements in a range of traditions. At Trinity, we sometimes have a little debate with particular students about why they need to go to a parish for their placement which will broaden their experience. Occasionally they are a little reluctant! But they almost always come back absolutely delighted by the experience, and grateful for the generosity of the parishes who welcome them and the clergy who supervise them and explain things.

    I hope this reassures readers that TEIs really want to ensure that candidates for ministry have ‘a deep understanding and empathy for other traditions’ (paragraph 190). No doubt there is more to learn about how we can do so, and more we can do to foster a culture in which people can be confident in their own tradition but open to others. We therefore look forward to engaging further with this work as it develops.

  • Exorcism, Conversion Therapy and Safeguarding: the Barnado’s Independent Investigation

    by Anon. 

    This morning, the BBC ran this story after the Diocese of Sheffield released two documents highly relevant to examining Church of England safeguarding practice, along with a statement from the Diocese, the Yorkshire Baptist Association and the trustees of Network Church Sheffield. The report relates to St Thomas Philadelphia Church, part of St Thomas Crookes, and so a descendant of the Nine O’Clock Service (NOS). St Thomas Philadelphia has subsequently operated as Network Church. There are similarities in that churches which appear to be ‘successful’ in terms of attracting young people and funding have been able to slip under the radar in worrying ways. The leader of NOS, Chris Brain, is also under investigation.

    The diocesan statement on St Thomas Philadelphia is available here.

    Part 1 – dated 30th November 2023 –  is the redacted Independent Investigation of St Thomas Philadelphia Church in respect of a complaint by MD.

    Part 2 – dated 26th February 2024 – is the redacted Independent Review of Safeguarding Arrangements in St Thomas Philadelphia Church.

    We understand that Part 1 investigates the circumstances around a complaint made by “MD” in 2019, alleging “MD was given an ultimatum to stop discussing his theological position on LGBTQ+ matters or he would be required to step down from the student leadership team”, that he “experienced prayer ministry, which he experienced as an exorcism, which attempted to change his sexual orientation from gay to straight”, that “he was forced to step down from volunteering on the student leadership team at the church after stating he was considering dating as a gay man”, and that he “was not welcomed at the church after his removal from the student leadership team.” The investigation found that each aspect of the complaint was Substantiated, and was therefore, Upheld.

    The report goes into detail around each element of the complaint, and also discusses the wider definition of a vulnerable adult, the responsibilities of trustees of charitable organisations, and the culture of this church as understood by the investigation team. The writers draw their conclusions from accessing documents, emails and records and from holding interviews with individuals connected to the church. The report provides an insight into the experiences of some LGBTQ+ people attempting to access church.

    A particularly pertinent line states: “…although individuals may have exchanged pleasantries with MD at times, the Church did not make MD feel welcome after he left the student team, resulting in him leaving the Church completely in 2016.”

    Part 2 includes 22 recommendations of ways in which the Church can strengthen their safeguarding. The learning from this review may form a helpful standard against which other churches’ and organisations’ safeguarding can be assessed and measured. The report reminds us: “Safe and healthy cultures do not, however, happen by accident, they are purposely developed and carefully nurtured, influenced to a significant extent by the actions and attitudes of senior leaders.”

    The Diocese of Sheffield released these reports with this apology: “We apologise unreservedly to the survivor for the distress this has caused and to anyone else similarly affected by such practices in the past.”

    Matthew Drapper, who has chosen to keep his initials within the report and to name himself as the survivor, had this to say: “In a letter to me, in 2019, the trustees of the Church denied there was any evidence these events occurred. In 2022, the organisation told the press, the church ‘does not engage in conversion therapy.’ We now know the Church did engage in conversion therapy, lied to cover it up and failed to investigate themselves. At every stage, I have had to fight for an independent review, against delay, coverup and a so-called safeguarding culture which resists external oversight. I’m grateful to every person who gave input to this investigation, at great personal cost. I have been deeply traumatised by the length of time it took to reach this outcome. I feel deeply for anyone who has experienced unsanctioned and unsafe exorcism practices. I am pleased to hear the apology and am especially glad it was addressed to the countless unnamed others who have been affected by these practices, over the years in Network Church Sheffield, and within wider Anglican and Baptist networks. I am hopeful this learning can be widely shared and that change is coming.”

    Chrissy Meleady MBE CEO, of Equalities and Human Rights U.K., who was Matthew’s Advocate through the challenge, said: “The investigation and its findings have vindicated Matthew, who was put through an exorcism for being a Gay man. He then had the reality of this experience vehemently denied as never happening. Matthew’s and others’ experiences of exorcism/conversion practices are recognised at last and an apology has been issued to him and the numerous others who were subjected to this form of Spiritual Abuse. It has been a  five year struggle to secure this justice for Matthew and others like him. It has not been without its cost.

    “We welcome the expressed commitment of the St Thomas Philadelphia Church and NCS, the Sheffield Diocese of the Church of England and the Yorkshire Baptist Church, to learn from this lessons. to ensure that nobody else is put through what Matthew was put through .

    “We welcome too the Diocese of Sheffield’s,  along with the wider Church of England’s expressed assertion that conversion therapy is unethical, potentially harmful and has no place in the modern world.

    “The UN Human Rights Committee has categorically told the U.K. to prohibit conversion practices. Its independent expert on sexual orientation and gender identity, Victor Madrigal-Borloz  has made it explicit that conversion practices are inherently discriminatory, that they are cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and that depending on the severity or physical or mental pain and suffering inflicted to the victim, they may amount to torture.”

    Philadelphia was a supposedly successful church. It’s part of St Thomas Crookes, and so a descendant of the Nine O’Clock Service.