ViaMedia

Category: Good Disagreement

  • General Synod: Once More Unto the Breach?

    by Canon Simon Butler, Member of General Synod and Vicar of St Mary’s, Battersea

    In two weeks’ time the new General Synod will be inaugurated. Synodical psephologists are already analysing the results, trying to see where they lead, especially on the question of human sexuality, attitudes to which seem to have been a key factor in determining who has been elected. The Church Times reckons that both progressives and conservatives have done well at the expense of the middle ground and traditional Catholics[1]; Inclusive Church reckons 45-47% of those elected are clear progressives; the Evangelical Group in General Synod (EGGS) also appears to have done well, although it is hard to see how many of ‘their’ candidates will vote in a conservative direction, if only because EGGS encouraged conservative candidates not to be clear about that in their election addresses[2]!

    All of this is grist to the mill to experienced Synod watchers: Anthony Archer, sadly not elected again from St Albans, says “I fear Living in Love and Faith (LLF) is dead in the water…there will be no change of any kind during 2021-26[3].”; from a very different perspective, Peter Ould claims that “there is still a substantial orthodox presence in the Church of England…LLF is not a shoe-in for the revisionists and we are likely to see no change…towards accommodating same-sex unions[4].”

    Despite divergent hopes, both Archer and Ould agree about one thing: that both ‘sides’ have the numbers to block any attempt by the other to move the church in a more conservative or more progressive direction. And, while strictly numerically that may prove accurate, I find myself wondering whether this is a genuine piece of realpolitik or simply a processing of either hopes dashed or worst fears not being realised?

    I think the jury is still out.

    First, because Synod is a gathering of disciples open to the Holy Spirit. We often change our minds or adjust our perspective through relationship and listening. Over the next five years, despite the best attempts of campaigning bloggers like Ian Paul and Colin Coward to persuade us that the choice is about two mutually-exclusive, competing ‘orthodoxies’ – what Paul would call “historic biblical orthodoxy[5]” and Coward “radical Christian inclusion…an evolutionary process[6]” – General Synod is made up of people committed to listening to God and one another. For reasons more psychological than theological, the most irreconcilable conservative and progressive campaigners seem to only want a ‘winner takes all’ approach.

    That is simply not part of the DNA of the Church of England. We bear with one another, we recognise we need one another, we accept (at our best) that we cannot be ‘A Christian Presence in Every Community[7]’ with only people like us. We say at every Eucharist, “we who are many are one body”. Like it or not, conservatives and progressives are stuck with one another – not chiefly in synodical deadlock, but in a shared obedience to discern together the mind of Christ for the future of the Church. Who knows where that could lead? Could God’s truth be bigger than either/or?

    Second, because LLF is alive and well and being engaged with. Peter Ould’s sleight of hand claim that, because lay Synod electors return good numbers of conservatives the Church of England is more conservative than liberals claim and conservatives fear, is no more than an assertion, especially as worried conservatives have been encouraged for some time to pack Deanery Synods with members[8]. Conservative forces are often energised to resist change more by fear than hope when it comes to politics; but, even if the conservative bloc is strong in Synod, the evidence of LLF is that, where it is done properly, it is landing well and that many people are listening and learning, not just to bolster their own view, but to appreciate the views of others. At the very least this must open up the possibility that listening really does change hearts and attitudes and that change remains entirely possible. The possibility of change is what we signed up to in commending Living in Love and Faith.

    So even if there are blocking minorities in the General Synod, I agree with Charlie Bell that compromise is still possible[9]. Indeed, I think both theologically and politically it may well be essential for the health of the Church we all claim to love – even if we don’t love all of it as much as we love our bit of it! The problem is of course that both “sides” want to compromise in separate ways – and expect the other side to do so in ways that suit that our “side’s” agenda. We will have to work extremely hard and long to discover the costly path of what Bell helpfully articulates as “compromise and conscience”.

    This week, there has been an encouraging first step in response to the dreadful proposals to criminalise LGBTQ+ people in Ghana. As many will know, the Ghanaians have issued a statement supporting a parliamentary Bill[10] which, among other things, will result in draconian action against LGBTQ+ people and their supporters, even potentially their families. These ungodly proposals have attracted widespread criticism, including from Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and many diocesan bishops. Significantly, however, the Officers of the General Synod have combined with the leaders of key Catholic, Evangelical and progressive voices on sexuality to issue a joint statement of support for Archbishop Justin’s intervention. It’s a positive step to see both progressive and conservative voices on sexuality uniting in the face of something that clearly flies in the face of every statement and agreement made by the Primates of the Anglican Communion.

    Such solidarity is a small but visible step we have been able to take together; yet, given the much wider challenges the Church of England faces, can conservatives and progressives can find any further common ground? For some, like Peter Ould and Ian Paul, the synodical deadlock is evidence that no change is likely and I firmly expect them to argue that the whole project should be abandoned; I’ve begun to hear that argument rehearsed. But what they fail to appreciate is that, for many progressives, even the evolutionary ones like me rather than the radical ones like Colin Coward, the issues are as fundamental to our discipleship as those of conservatives: for us the Gospel is for all; we often see holiness and discipleship in same-sex relationships, a sign of God’s blessing that the Church should honour. The loving faithfulness I see in such relationships in my congregation is far more exemplary than the tabloid tone we see in some conservative blogging, which see progressives colluding in a “furious assault on the Church”[11].

    Whatever the synodical numbers, this matter isn’t going to go away. Unless we can compromise, we will all have to shoulder responsibility for a never-ending argument about sexuality while the Church of England becomes even more distant from the people of our land.

    It’s time to start a different conversation. No one holds all the cards. Do we all dig our heels in crying, like Luther, “Here I stand; I can do no other”? Or might we all stop blaming each other for the division we face, and try and reach a settlement? Ironically, with no winner-takes-all possible, the likelihood of a settlement actually increases.

    Some will cry “Once more unto the breach, dear friends![12]”, as we return to the synodical fray, but I find myself wondering if we can afford to doubt the possibility of a settlement, remembering Lucio’s words in Measure for Measure, “Our doubts are traitors and make us lose the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt[13].”

     

    [1] https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2021/22-october/news/uk/high-turnover-in-general-synod-elections

    [2] https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/09/22/church-of-england-evangelicals-general-synod-candidates/

    [3] https://www.facebook.com/anthony.archer/posts/10158075355006361

    [4] https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/what-will-the-new-general-synod-look-like/

    [5] https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/debating-the-church-and-same-sex-marriage/

    [6] http://www.unadulteratedlove.net/blog/2021/8/3/radical-christian-inclusion-a-definition

    [7] The strapline of the Church of England

    [8] http://www.ceec.info/uploads/4/4/2/7/44274161/gs_2021_elections_paper_leaflet_-_jw_edit_28.08.2020.pdf

    [9] https://viamedia.news/2021/10/13/general-synod-the-importance-of-compromise-conscience/

    [10] https://www.episcopalcafe.com/ghanas-anglican-bishops-support-draconian-anti-gay-bill/

    [11] https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/what-miracles-does-the-church-need-on-sexuality/

    [12] Henry V, Act III, Scene I

    [13] Act I, Scene IV

  • ‘The Bible is Clear’, Consent & ‘Conversion Therapy’

    by the Revd Canon Dr Phil Groves, former Director of the Anglican Communion Office (2006 – 2016) and Associate Rector Wychert Vale Benefice 

    In the public debate over ‘conversion therapy’ the leaders of evangelical powerhouses such as the Evangelical Alliance and the Church of England’s Evangelical Council have sought to maintain space for people to receive ‘non-coercive’ counselling and prayer for those seeking to live in accordance with their beliefs. They cite freedom of religion and spread stories about people being denied the right to pray the Lord’s Prayer. Religious freedom is said to be at stake.

    What I don’t see is any engagement with the damage to evangelical theology done by advocating such change orientated therapies.

    ‘The Bible is clear’ has become a mantra of institutional evangelicalism as exemplified by the response to the Evangelical Alliance to proposals to ban conversion therapy:

    ‘The teaching of the Bible is clear that sexual activity is restricted to monogamous marriage between one man and one woman. For Christians who hold to this biblical teaching, it is essential that those who experience same sex attraction are free to pursue and receive support to help them live in accordance with their beliefs.’

    If ‘the Bible is clear’ defines reality then it must follow that ‘same sex attracted people’ can find fulfilment in singleness or in heterosexual marriage.

    Plenty of Biblical scholars have questioned whether ‘the Bible is clear’, but they have been unconvincing to those who represent evangelicalism. However, in rejecting such claims evangelicalism needs to face up to just what it is endorsing.

    No one claims the Bible has anything to say on the kind of ‘support’ that might be needed by people who are convinced by the clarity of the Evangelical Alliance’s message and who know themselves not to conform.  So what kind of therapies are they keen to support?

    The Evangelical Alliance is clear that they oppose the use of electric shock treatment and rape as methodologies, and this is important because while they are clearly criminal here, the rape of lesbians in particular is common in Africa and our African Anglican allies need all the support they can get to have the laws that enable horrific abuse to be removed.

    However, they continue to support non-coercive therapies, without specifying just what they are.

    The most common ‘therapy’ that has been adopted by Christian groups is so called ‘reparative therapy’. Reparative therapy was developed by Freudian analysts and was based on assumptions that sexual drive is learnt in childhood and adolescence through desire for the more distant parent. Gay men (and Reparative Therapy focused almost exclusively on gay men) were understood to be closely attached to their mothers and have distant or absent father figures for whom they developed sexual desire. The remedy was to develop an extremely close male to male bond between male analyst and client. These relationships broke all the norms of distance and clients were rewarded for good behaviour, such as sexual fantasies and sexual encounters with women, and reprimanded for bad behaviour as the therapist became the father figure.

    The British Psychoanalytic Council only finally repudiated such analysis in 2012.

    The academic literature that informed that decision explored the abuse often inflicted by therapists on clients and the damage done to clients. ‘Talking therapies’ were understood to be harmful to clients and society as a whole. Clear policies of discrimination barring LGBT people from training as analysts was eventually put in the past.

    Of course, the people who came for psychoanalysis did so of their own free will – they were not forced into it. Except they were. They were persuaded of their own deviancy by a culture that portrayed heterosexuality as pure. They were easy to persuade that their failure of attachment to their father was real and at the heart of the problem. They were open to forming a bond with an analyst who often thrived on the power.

    During the 1990s Christian organisations promoting change orientated therapies latched on to these Freudian solutions especially with the formation of National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), founded by Charles Socarides, a leading Freudian analyst, and Catholic therapist Joseph Nicolosi.

    Their views were promoted by Anglican Mainstream and the Latimer Trust in a book published in 2007 entitled God, Gays and the Church. The book also promoted other ways of avoiding ‘same-sex attraction’ such as praying to the saints and most specifically the use of John Henry Newman as a ‘spirit guide’. Yes, the Latimer Press published a book promoting the use of prayers to the saints. However, it was the discredited Freudianism of Socarides and Nicolosi that dominated the text.

    Evangelical Christianity became the standard bearer for Freudian assumptions about sexual attraction, while often labelling progressives as Freudians (oh, the irony).

    Have things changed?

    Well, a key player in the campaigns to stop the banning of change therapy is The Core Issues Trust and it continues to reference reparative therapy as a key component of what they call Change Orientated Therapies. They don’t make people aware that it is outdated Freudianism, but the Director of CIT, Mike Davidson, is shown proudly standing by Joseph Nicolosi who was absolutely clear about the therapy he was promoting.

    Institutional Evangelicalism has become the last bastion of support for the 20th Century Freudian understanding of what it understood as deviant sexuality. ‘The Bible is clear’ is the mantra, what actually is being endorsed is an outdated Freudianism.

    It cannot be healthy for evangelical theology.

  • General Synod: The Importance of Compromise & Conscience

    by the Revd Dr Charlie Bell, Fellow at Girton College, Cambridge  and curate at St John the Divine, Kennington

     

    The next few years in General Synod are going to be challenging ones.

    There are a number of substantial issues to address, all of relatively equal importance and all of which are going to affect the life of our church and the life of its members in significant ways.

     

    I have written previously about the obfuscation and political manoeuvrings of the elections, but the reality is that – however unedifying and unimpressive some of the contests were – we are where we are, and we will have a lot of people on synod, with a lot of differing ideas, and with those ideas a lot of possible heat to be generated.

    I am relieved not to be one of them, but nonetheless, having watched the last few months of politicking, several things have stood out.

    The first thing new members of synod are going to need to do is to recognise that most – if not all – of their fellow members, and indeed wider members of the Church of England, (including those who make noise in the wider the church), are doing so not out of some kind of hatred for the church or in an attempt to self-aggrandise, but rather because they genuinely believe what they are saying and doing to be in the best interests of the church. We might vehemently – at times, angrily and in great frustration – disagree in the Church of England, but we must not lose sight of the fact that each of us comes to the table because we fervently, earnestly, and honestly believe what we are saying. If we don’t, then we are easily found out – but this is, thank God, rare.

    The first watchword of the new synod must, then, be “conscience”.

    That is, a recognition that others are not out to destroy the church, but rather acting in a way that is answerable to God, and that comes from a place of serious intent. We may indeed believe others are wrong – fundamentally so, and on issues that are close to the heart of God and His people – but we must learn to stop the slurry of accusation that we are so good at producing. Here, I once again draw attention to the Pastoral Principles – sensible, helpful and necessary in the current high temperatures in the Church of England – which are at the core of this virtue. If we cannot recognise each other as Christians – Christians who long after God and for the good of His church – then we have failed in our fundamental duty of belonging to the Body of Christ.

    From this recognition must come a commitment to listening to, and responding to, the actual words that others speak and the position that they wish to outline and believe in. There must be no more pejorative talk of ‘lobbies’ or “attempts to wreck the doctrine of the church”.  This might sound impressive in a political speech, but it is simply not true. Likewise, it is also not good enough to have one voice in private and one in public. What we say, and do, matters – and until we recognise one another’s integrities – rather than showing determination to besmirch and misrepresent each other – then we are on a road to nowhere.

    Those who want same-sex marriage are not trying to destroy the church – they are trying to enrich it. Those who want to forbid it are holding to their own view and interpretation of scripture in good conscience, however painful that might feel to faithful LGBTQI Christians. We don’t have to agree, and we don’t have to tiptoe around each other – but we owe it to each other to respond honestly, openly and without caricature or twisting the truth when we meet each other’s arguments.

    The second key theme is going to be “compromise”.

    Nobody likes it – if we are honest, we all prefer to ‘win’ outright. Yet that is not what the next five years is going to look like for any ‘side’. There are good reasons to want to ‘win’ – for those who oppose same-sex marriage, it is because of the threat of ‘blessing sin’ and of the threat to the current doctrine of the church. To those who affirm LBGTQI people, it is because every LGBTQI person that grows up repressing their sexuality in the name of Jesus Christ can lead to severe mental health consequences and is a tragedy – a needless one.  It it also because of the fact that many see the current teaching of the Church of England as fundamentally narrowing the boundless love and grace of God.

    We are quite simply not going to agree on this, but we need to either decide to walk away, or to compromise. For me, compromise and conscience are two sides of the same coin.

    In a recent article, Ian Paul – arguing for the non-affirming position – asserted that everyone agrees a compromise is impossible. I beg to differ – not least on the factual accuracy of the statement. Many, many people – of different theologies – are desperate to seek a compromise. The challenge is what that compromise might look like.

    For those, like me, who believe it is high time for the church to bless faithful gay couples, compromise is absolutely part of the way forward. I have no desire whatsoever to tell those who disagree with me that they are not Christians, however wrong I think they are, and I have no desire whatsoever to exclude them from the Church – not that I would have any authority to do so in any case. Instead, I want to find ways to genuinely walk together in which both our integrities are recognised, and in which both integrities are honoured.

    For me, this would mean turning back to the importance of conscience. It is abundantly clear that we do not all agree, and we will not come to one mind on this. It is also clear that those who are affirming and those who are not both love the church, are Christians, and ultimately love the Lord Jesus. If we are to take the Lord’s command to love one another He loved us seriously, then we must surely see a way forward based on the mutual recognition of our differences and yet willingness to enable one another and call on the Holy Spirit to reveal all things.

    This is the makings of a compromise – one that enforces neither belief or practice in this area, but that allows us to look each other in the face and say, ‘you are beloved of God, we disagree, but we will fulfil His command to love one another’. I long to belong to a church where we are open in our disagreements, and not so fearful that we won’t admit this disagreement to those who walk through our doors. It is through such openness that our fears of compromise might be ameliorated too – those who fear doctrinal catastrophe can be clear that affirming LBGTQI relationships is not the only position in the Church of England; likewise, those who fear for the safety of young people growing up in non-affirming communities can point those vulnerable youngsters to places where other points of view are expressed.

    For the ultra-purists, this will never work – but their strength is immensely over-estimated. It is quite simply not true that a compromise is not possible, desirable, or sought. Our decision is either to sacrifice our unity as beloved children of God on the altar of prideful purity, or to embrace unity in openness, diversity of belief and practice, and in a recognition that we might, just, be wrong.

    Compromise in conscience is possible – it is up to us to stop being the stumbling block in its way.

  • General Synod: the Abomination of Desolation

    by Jayne Ozanne, Director of the Ozanne Foundation and Editor of ViaMedia.News

    I grew up in a church culture that taught me that we are in a constant spiritual battle, that the devil is in the process of massing his forces against us Christians, and that we will soon, very soon, be in the “End Times” as described in the Book of Revelation and Daniel (if we aren’t already).

    Whilst it’s true that different churches gave different emphasises to different parts of this narrative, one thing was always clear – it was drummed into me that there are the “good” people and then there are the “others”, those who were working against God’s purposes, that is – “the bad people”.

    As time went on, and as I encountered more heartache and strive in my life, I learnt to embrace the narrative that the difficulties I was facing were due to the devil trying to “knock me off my path”.  I was told that all I needed to do was to stand firm, hold fast, and not let myself be blown off course.  You see, Jesus had won, He had “done it all for me at the Cross” – I just needed to faithfully believe this, and trust that it would “all come right in the end” for “all things work together for good”.

    So my faith strengthened, despite these obstacles, and I learnt to see beyond the immediate difficulties I was facing and believe that there was always a “bigger picture”, in which a great cosmic battle was being fought between good and evil.

    The problem is that this thinking brought me to a point – where millions of other Christians are today – of believing that the evil I faced in the world was down to “the bad people”, “the others”, those that are not living according to what I perceive to be “God’s way”.  I was taught there were numerous bible verses to back this up, including much of the Old Testament and books like Jude.

    So, the narrative morphed into believing that we are a Christian remnant, battling to stand for God’s truth in an evil world where those who “lived according to the world” are always to blame.  I attended large prayer rallies claiming the verse “when the enemy comes in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against them” (Isaiah 59:19 – which isn’t in everyone’s translations, proof (I was assured) of how important this verse is!).

    In other words, “we” are chosen and special, and by default “they” are not.  “They” are evil doers, those who go against God’s purposes.  To begin with, I saw this group as being quite small – those who are “obviously evil”, like murderers, rapists and Nazis.  It then grew overtime (fuelled by the many sermons I devoutly imbibed) to include those from other religions (the “pagans”), oh and yes, those who lived “immoral and ungodly” lives – like gay people.

    It was a subtle transition – I wasn’t really aware that I was on such a pathway.  I was surrounded by friends and fellow Christians who all believed the same thing.  The large Christian conferences I went to all preached the same message.  They would constantly call out “dead religion”, those who were in love with the shackles of their faith (for instance, wearing robes and using incense), rather than those who “had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ”.  It then began to make all perfect sense – the “abomination of desolation”, which Jesus had talked about (Mark 13:14) and which Daniel had written about was obviously those who belonged to this “false religion”.  Those who think they are Christian, but in fact aren’t “true Christians” – not like those of us who are real Christians (and who manifest the charismatic gifts, especially speaking in tongues).

    So now the “others” weren’t just those “of the world”, they were those “in the Church” who think they are Christian but actually really aren’t.  I began to see that they were “the real problem”, which Jesus had warned us all about.

    Of course, we shouldn’t tell “them”.  For “they” wouldn’t understand – the devil had blinded them.  We just needed to “stand firm” and “hold the line”, knowing that God would hold them accountable on the day of Judgement for preaching such a false Gospel.

    The trouble is, this approach squeezed every last ounce of compassion for “them” out of me.  Yes, of course I was worried about “the lost” – but they were those who were sick or needy, not those who were “the problem”.  No, they were people I needed to stand up to and pray against, for they were thwarting the very purposes of God.

    And so my heart hardened towards them.  Which was OK, because I knew I was right and that all that they said or did to try and dissuade me of this fact was really the devil in disguise.

    Which is ultimately why “crossing the Rubicon” and coming out for me was so very very difficult.

    You see, I became “one of them”.  I went “to the dark side”.  And so many of my past Church friends have never ever forgiven me for that.  I am an agent of the devil now.

    But the thing is, the wonderful truth I myself witnessed, is that Christ “crossed over” with me.  When I got to the other side, I found Christians who loved Jesus just as much as I did, they just manifested this in rather different ways.  I needed to learn that what I had been taught to believe were trappings of “false religion” are just people expressing their love for God in ways that resonate with them.  There are of course many paths up a mountain.

    I learnt not to judge “them”, and slowly moved from seeing a world with “us” and “them” to one just with “we”.  I learnt compassion for those who I had “othered” and embraced a Gospel that had no “outsiders”, no limits, no one beyond God’s unconditional love.

    That said, I began to see that my new fellow Christians do in fact have people they “other” too.  People they perceive as working against God’s purposes and causing misery and pain to some of our most marginalised in society.  These “others” are those who appear so wedded to the “law of God” that it has stopped them understanding the unconditional “love of God”.  These then are “the real problem”, indeed many see them “as the abomination of desolation” that Jesus had talked about.

    The ironic thing is that both sides – who both believe the other to be the devil – are being told they need to embrace and accept each other in our wonderfully broad Church of England.

    Neither side can.

    And that’s what is really going on these elections for General Synod right now.  There is a “battle” for the soul of the Church between two “sides”, where each think the other is doing the devil’s work.

    Thankfully only God knows what will happen.

    One thing is absolutely clear, though, and that is that Love Always Wins!

  • General Synod: Honest to God!

    by the Revd Dr Charlie Bell, Fellow at Girton College, Cambridge  and curate at St John the Divine, Kennington

    ‘Integrity’ is not, perhaps, the first word we might associate with elections. Those who run for high office will often find all kinds of excuses for not telling the whole truth – there are always higher goals to pursue, or a bigger vision to embrace and they just need to keep the voters sweet to gain the power to make things happen. Of course, this might not be totally honest, but that’s just the way these things go, and in any case, voters will forgive them when they see their grand plans in action. You see, it’s all for the greater good – or that’s what we’re told to believe, at least.

    For all that we say that we do things differently, that we practice ‘good disagreement’, and that we live to a “higher standard”, it’s clear that elections in the Church of England are no different. In recent weeks, we have seen election guidance that seems to call on candidates to tell nothing like the full truth – and indeed to avoid topics that might be thought to be too ‘controversial’.

    The problem is that these controversial topics are absolutely key to General Synod’s business for the next few years, and it is quite frankly appalling that candidates are being told to avoid discussions of abuse within the Church. There is something very dark indeed about calling discussion of abuse controversial, given all we know about the culture of secrecy that has led to such horrific outcomes for so many children and other vulnerable people over so many years. There is nothing controversial whatsoever about naming and stamping out abuse in the Church, and anyone standing for General Synod should be willing to discuss this topic head on or risk perpetuating the very culture we are trying to eradicate.

    Yet this kind of advice gets to the heart of the conversation about what kind of Church we want to be.

    There are a number of difficult decisions to be taken in the next few years, and if we are to make these decisions – and elect members of Synod to make them on our behalf – then we need to be doing this with our eyes open and with a serious commitment to speaking the full truth honestly and with candour. It is no longer acceptable to dance around these key topics in Church discourse. Trying to pull the wool over the eyes of voters is not the way to create a healthy structure of church governance.

    For too long, the Church of England has been willing to favour convenience and a vague sense of ‘unity’ over honesty, integrity and the full truth. It is certainly true that homosexuality is not the only issue facing the Church of England in the next session of General Synod, yet it is also true that LBGTQI people are not an ‘issue’ either. Refusing to even mention them – to treat them as collateral in the ambition for power – is disgraceful.

    The next session of General Synod is not likely to be a walk in the park, and nor should it be, given the complex discussions that are going to need to take place. Yet we should – as electors – be treated with enough respect by those who seek to represent us that we are at least told their explicit position on key elements of Church policy.

    It is not enough to ‘sound as if you are a practicing member of the Church of England’ if you want to sit on General Synod – you should be willing to stand up and be counted, be challenged, and surely be open to the possibility of compromise and discussion once elected. Candidates that obfuscate before they even get elected are hardly those that can be trusted to act with integrity once they take their seats. Refusal to mention the key topics facing the next Synod is a choice – and it is a choice to obscure the truth of your position, however winsome your arguments.

    If those who hold non-affirming positions on women’s ministry and blessings for same sex couples truly believe that their positions are right and true, then they should have the courage of their convictions to put themselves forward with their colours nailed firmly to the mast. Getting elected by the back door is the sign of a terrified sinking ship and not a healthy, vibrant, courageous Church.

    Integrity must be the marker of the next session of General Synod, if we are not to totally lose our way. The Pastoral Principles of the Church of England, which exhort people to speak into silence and call our hypocrisy, are there for a reason, and if we cannot act in accordance with them whilst standing to represent fellow Christians in the governance body of our church, which forms part of Christ’s body, then we have fallen before we even fire the starting gun.

    We are in desperate need of a Church that embodies integrity and ultimately honest and open compromise – that allows faithful Christians to live in accordance with their consciences and that deals in honesty rather than fear. We owe it to each other to clearly state what we believe and to be willing to be tried and tested on it – to take on each other’s arguments rather than our easily constructed straw men, and to always see the face of Christ in one another.

    We may never agree, and for some the strain will be too much. Nobody doubts the difficulties we face. Those standing to make these decisions on our behalf most certainly need our prayers – but they owe us their honesty in return. The Gospel requires nothing less.

     

  • General Synod: Permitting Discrimination is Very Dangerous!

    by Canon Jenny Humphreys, former member of General Synod (2010 – 2021), member of WATCH and member of the Bath & Wells Vacancy in See Commission

    I write halfway through the election process for a new General Synod. I remain a Synod rep until the results are confirmed, which makes me a member of the Bath & Wells Vacancy in See committee for one more meeting! Several of us are not standing for Synod again, and those that are standing are not guaranteed to be re-elected. So, an unknown number of new people will have to be brought up to speed very quickly, in time to vote for whoever is to join the Crown Nominations Commission to discern our next Bishop! Just one of the quirks of the governance structures of the Church of England!

    What are the significant moments from my 11 years? (Not counting the weird experience of Zoom Synod meetings over the past 18 months, and the disappointment of not being in York for the final one to say farewell to fellow members) I looked up my election address from 2010 – when candidates’ statements were distributed as printed copies by post! Looking back, it seemed easier to compare the information and aspirations listed by candidates when you could spread their declarations out on a table in front of you than it is to juggle with them online – or maybe that’s just my age showing!

    Personally, there have been a lot of changes. I was widowed shortly after the Synod elections when my husband Rod died in December 2010. The grandchildren who were infants then are teenagers now.  I retired from my role as Diocesan World Mission Adviser in 2016, and my parish is now in a Benefice with another local church and assessing what the post-pandemic future will be for worship and discipleship.

    What did I offer to General Synod in 2010? I brought an understanding of the wider Anglican Communion through facilitating our Diocesan Link with the Anglican Church in Zambia, and from attending World Mission conferences here and around the world. Co-ordinating the pre-Lambeth Hospitality for global visitors to Bath & Wells in 2008 was a very special privilege, and I hope next year’s experiences will build up similar relationships of trust, co-operation, and companionship in the Gospel for others.

    I said in 2010 that I believed it was crucial to take all that was best of the Church of England’s breadth of theological understandings, traditions, and attitudes into the future, but that we must not be afraid to change as and when the Spirit led us. 11 years later I believe that in some very significant areas the Spirit is way ahead of us, and we have some catching up to do!

    During my first term I joined GSWATCH (General Synod Women and the Church) after attending a Fringe meeting and was later invited to become a national Trustee. Obviously one of the highlights of my time on Synod was the passing of legislation in July 2014 to enable women to become bishops – this followed the damage done to the church’s reputation when the legislation in November 2012 narrowly failed to pass in the House of Laity.  Compromises had to be made to enable the legislation to pass in 2014, and the effects of these do not allow yet for full equality for women’s ministry in the Church of England. This may sound controversial to some, but continuing to permit discrimination is not only a bar to mission, particularly for young people, but gives the impression that the Church of England is another religion that does not recognise the full humanity of half of God’s people – consider the Taliban in Afghanistan denying education and human rights to girls and women due to their extreme version of Islam, and the legislators in Texas influenced by US Evangelical Christianity denying women’s control over their own bodies – the current lack of transparency from some parishes here on their attitude to women in leadership is the thin end of a very dangerous wedge.

    In my second term on Synod, I became more involved with justice and equality of opportunity for LGBTQA+ Christians. A significant moment came in February 2017 with the ‘Not Taking Note’ campaign in response to the House of Bishops’ Report on ‘Marriage & Same Sex Relationships after the Shared Conversations’. That debate was the most moving and powerful I have heard on Synod, with significant contributions from a wide range of speakers.  The Archbishop of Canterbury said that “the church needs a radical new inclusion based in love, our Christian understanding, neither careless of our theology nor ignorant of the world around us”. A request was made for the votes to be counted by Houses, thus needing approval in all three to pass. The House of Clergy voted against; the Report fell.  The outcome is the ‘Living in Love and Faith’ project – will this lead to the necessary changes? Let us hope so, especially if a more inclusive General Synod membership is elected.

    I have not only been concerned with issues of gender and sexuality: I have represented Synod on the Ethical Investment Advisory Group; and supported motions for more action on Climate Change; more equality of ministry for Readers; support for global church links and relationships; and more attention to be paid to the legacy of the Windrush generation and the church’s welcome, or lack of it, to those of different ethnicities.

    Looking to the future, there are many issues that will crop up on the General Synod Agenda – legal, financial, liturgical, missional, educational, and ethical – to list just some areas of church life. But until we take seriously the equality of every person’s identity with regard to gender and sexuality – the equality that is recognised and legislated for in all other areas of life in England – we will struggle to get our mission to tell the wider community about the love of God to be taken seriously by those we want to reach.

     

  • How to Help Change the Church of England…

    by Nic Tall, General Synod Elections Coordinator – Inclusive Church

    Voting works – change is happening!

    In June the Methodist Conference voted to allow same-sex marriages.  In September the Governing Body of the Church in Wales voted to introduce a service of blessing for gay couples.  Both stories have been welcomed by LGBTQI+ Christians and their allies, demonstrating a grassroots desire for change.  Crucially, both were as the result of voting, one where a two-thirds majority was needed in all houses.

    Many changes need decisions by governing bodies, whether it’s promoting racial justice, supporting carbon neutrality, or the introduction of equal marriage for LGBTQI+ couples.  There are meetings, conversations, much ink spilled on reports and briefing papers, but eventually it comes down to a vote.  It’s clear that voting really maters!  And how do people get to be part of governing bodies in the first place?  Again, it’s usually down to people voting for them.

    The Church of England’s General Synod is elected every five years, and voting in the 2021 election takes place between 17th September and 8th October.  Elections are taking place in every diocese for both clergy and lay candidates, and by the end of October we will know the results.  Those people returned will take part in the big debates and cast the votes that will guide the Church of England.  This will include the conclusion of the Living in Love and Faith project, with any recommendations to General Synod likely to be voted on in November 2022.

    Inclusive Church has been working in partnership with Ozanne Foundation and a broad coalition of church groups to encourage inclusive candidates to stand.  We are delighted to be supporting over 200 candidates who have signed up to our inclusive election statement:

     “I am committed to equality for everyone, at all levels and roles within the church, regardless of gender, disability, ethnicity, socio-economic status, mental health or sexuality.” 

    The full list of candidates is online at www.inclusive-synod.org.  In 2015 Inclusive Church backed 108 candidates, today we have over 200.  To have doubled the number of candidates shows the desire for a fully inclusive Church of England.

    The candidates are in place and now we need people to vote for them.  Everyone on a deanery synod can vote.  That’s every licenced priest and every parish lay representative. It’s really important to vote – the opportunity only comes up every five years.  In elections such as UK General Elections a marginal constituency would be around 1000 votes either way.  With General Synod a small number of votes can make a big difference.  In 2015 half of the diocesan elections would have had a different outcome if just five votes changed.  One in eight elections were decided by just one vote.  Electorates are small and turnout can be low, so with multiple candidates and a proportional representation voting system every vote counts!

    When it comes to General Synod every inclusive candidate will matter.  Really big decisions often pass by wafer thin majorities.  The 2017 the House of Bishops sexuality teaching document was rejected by just seven votes.  In 1992 the approval of women priests passed by just two votes.

    In 2021 just five extra votes going one way or the other in each diocesan election could change around 40 seats in General Synod.  With such close Synod votes on important matters the direction of the church will be decided by how people vote in this month’s elections.  Inclusive candidates need your vote so that they can make a difference.

    So please find out who the inclusive candidates are in your diocese by visiting www.inclusive-synod.org, and make sure if you are eligible you vote for them.  Spread your top preference votes (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) around those on the list.  If you yourself can’t vote then encourage people you know who can to do so, and share the inclusive candidates list with them.  If you’re not sure who your local deanery reps are, ask your local Church of England priest.  We have a real opportunity to make a difference by voting for a positive, open, forward looking and truly inclusive church.  This is a vision that is definitely worth voting for!

  • Uphill Struggles and the Road to Peace

    by the Rt Revd Paul Bayes, Bishop of Liverpool and the Chair of the Ozanne Foundation

    One positive side-effect of the first lockdown was that I began regular exercise again, and I’ve kept it going. Every other day I jog (candidly it’s more of a shuffle) for 2.5K around the streets here.

    There is only one fairly steep hill, which takes some will power to climb. Half way up the hill it’s easy to consider giving up. The hill is called Church Road (I know this story sounds like “Pilgrim’s Progress”, but I promise I’m not making it up).

    Church Road takes you up, past the church hall where the Beatles first played together, and past the churchyard with a grave which was the inspiration for “Eleanor Rigby”, and on to the house where the present Rector lives, who played Father McKenzie in the recent movie “Yesterday”.

    These facts might well help you in a trivia quiz (you’re welcome), but none of them makes the hill any easier. And by the time I reach the top I’m usually gasping for breath. It’s just at that point of maximum tiredness that I pass the parish church’s war memorial, facing the road at the top of the hill, with its simple message “Peace”.

    Peace is a word with many meanings, but in my experience any peace worth the name comes after a climb. No climb, no peace. In this Remembrance season that is surely clear.

    In his book “The Cost of Discipleship” Dietrich Bonhoeffer speaks of cheap grace and costly grace, the cheap grace that causes us to sleep spiritually, and the costly grace that assuredly calls us forward on the path of discipleship. In a similar way you might speak of cheap peace and costly peace.

    Cheap peace exists, for what it’s worth. I could choose to suspend my run and instead to experience a peaceful moment at the bottom of the hill. The problem with doing that its that I’m no longer exercised, and I’m not one step closer to home. Alternatively I can face the exertion and climb the hill and pass the war memorial and receive its message of peace, and run on.

    Speaking of the leaders of his own time the prophet Jeremiah was moved to say: “They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. ‘Peace, peace,’ they say, when there is no peace.” (Jeremiah 6:14)

    Jesus on the other hand came to his disciples there in the upper room, where the doors were locked for fear of the Jews, and he showed them his serious, indeed his mortal, wounds; and as a wounded and risen person he said “Peace be with you”. (John 20:19)

    Cheap peace comes at the foot of the hill, where wounds are not taken seriously, on the near side of conflict. And costly peace is to be found where the seriously wounded One lives and breathes and blesses, on the far side of conflict.

    It will not do to settle for cheap peace at the bottom of the hill, certainly not for those who follow the Prince of Peace. When I was a parish priest in High Wycombe in the 80s, and also one of the national co-chairs of Christian CND, I preached at the town’s Remembrance Day service, to an audience including senior USAF and RAF service people from the local bases, as well as some from the peace movement. At the end of the service someone drew me aside and said: “Well, Paul, it wasn’t easy, but you managed to get away without offending anyone today”. 

    I was profoundly depressed. It was evident that I had chosen words which had not reflected the truth as I understood it. It was evident that my discipleship itself had fallen short. I’m still looking for the bit in the Gospels where someone says to our Lord: “Well, Jesus, it wasn’t easy, but you managed to get away without offending anyone today”.

    Of course there is nothing to be gained by giving gratuitous offence, and of course patience and compassion and self-control and endurance are virtues in the Christian way. But when a community seeks real peace, it is only to be found after the most profound exertion, and in the midst of honest speech and honest listening, and if necessary of honest and clearly-expressed disagreement.

    To say that honest speech and honest disagreement matters is by no means to state the obvious.

    As I write the “shenanigans” following the US election are ongoing, as the result is awaited and the President rages. Television commentators are interrupting the speeches of their own President to tell their listeners that he is not speaking the truth.

    As I write the anti-lockdown and anti-vaccine movements, and even the insane fantasies of the QAnon conspiracy, continue to gather adherents in the UK – for some, joining them seems so much easier than climbing the hill of truth and walking on the stones of evidence.

    The Coronavirus has squeezed our common life hard, and it has revealed fault-lines which continue to open. In the words of the Authorised Version of the Bible: “…judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter”. (Isaiah 59:14)

    In such a world Christian people are surely called to exert themselves, and to seek the hard peace which is found at the summit of the hill. It is not enough to stay at the hill’s foot, where the grass is long and where we can agree with everyone, or at least agree to differ, and where the vulgar sound of struggle is pleasantly distant.

    This is surely true in every part of our common life, as a church as well as in the nation.

    Will we confront the lies in the public square which I have mentioned above, and take a stand for the truth, even if it means we will not get away without offending anyone today?

    Within the Church will we exert ourselves to climb the hill to where the grass is shorter, and finally to address and not to postpone matters of contention, as for example in the area of human sexuality and relationships which hurts and marginalises and silences so many?

    And in all these things will we be enabled by God’s grace to reach together for the costly peace which comes on the far side of a renewed honesty and a renewed public courage?

    I can only hope.

  • Safeguarding, ‘Reabuse’ and LGBT People

    by the Revd Canon Simon Butler, Prolocutor of the Province of Canterbury and member of the Archbishops’ Council

    Last Tuesday was perhaps the most shameful day in the history of the Church of England for hundreds of years. Forensically, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) catalogued the personal and institutional generational failures which led to the sexual abuse of children and vulnerable adults by people in trusted positions in the Church. Whilst many say that the failure to address this issue over decades amounts to ‘reabuse’, some even saying that it is worse than the sexual offences once committed, none of us can escape the responsibility that this has taken place on our watch and that we have the duty to put it right. Some are even calling for a Truth and Reconciliation process like that of post-apartheid South Africa. It’s an idea worth exploring.

    I was struck therefore by a forceful response to what seemed to me to be sincere statement of sympathy for survivors and victims of sexual abuse by Bishop Sarah Mullally from one of her priests in the Diocese of London. Father Robert Thompson described Sarah’s words on Twitter as ‘virtue signalling vacuousness’, pointing out that he has raised 4 safeguarding concerns with the Diocese of London concerning the treatment of LGBTI+ church members in some evangelical and charismatic congregations and has not had a proper response to any one of them. Lest this should seem like special pleading from him (or me) for a particular group within the life of the Church of which we are part, we should note that the IICSA report makes specific what we have known for a long time: that our hypocrisy and dishonesty about sexuality has without doubt contributed to the culture in which sexual (and I would say) emotional and spiritual abuse has been allowed to exist.

    To be fair, however, we must not assume that being LGBTI+ in and of itself makes one a vulnerable adult in safeguarding terms. Still, for as long as I can remember I have had to listen to simply dreadful stories emerging from certain evangelical and charismatic churches, usually when a church member comes out or refuses to toe the line taken by ‘the leadership’ (which usually means the clergy). They find themselves silenced, removed from every ministry and leadership role, and generally treated like pariahs. The failure of many of these congregations to be able to discuss matters of sexuality or to live with diverse opinions has wreaked a dreadful emotional toll on many LGBTI+ church members and has contributed to what can only be described as a culture of fear, the subtle and overt withholding of love or placing conditions on it, and silencing of dissent. It is, by any stretch of the imagination, a form of abuse. 

    Some within the tradition have felt uncomfortable about this for a long time. David Runcorn, a long-standing and respected Evangelical theological educator and spiritual director, has attempted to provide an Evangelical theological narrative based on openness, generosity (including to those who take a conservative view) and pastoral care. His recently-published Love Means Love addresses these concerns with an eirenic spirit that is admirable and biblical, although as a straight man he cannot necessarily summon the sense of righteous anger that those of us who see the damaged lives that have resulted do. Other evangelicals within General Synod, effectively kicked out of the Evangelical Group in General Synod (EGGS) for simply wanting to explore a line similar to Runcorn’s, have coalesced into a new group in which a different, honest expression of dissent can be aired, within a caring atmosphere far different from the stifling atmosphere of EGGS which, over my twelve years as a member, became increasingly reminiscent of a Soviet-style party meeting. It gives me no pleasure to admit I often felt afraid. Father Thompson notes the way in which especially some large churches in this tradition use their financial clout to exert leverage over dioceses: do what we want, or else, is the message.

    The tragedy for the Church of England is that there is much within evangelical and charismatic traditions that the rest of the Church of England desperately needs. Missional zeal, social justice and deep personal faith were once the hallmarks of Evangelicalism, things that attracted me to Christian faith, even if these days I feel excluded from the evangelical tradition. Ever the optimist, I remain hopeful that the tradition most committed to the theological concepts of personal sin and repentance can see the beam in its own eye instead of projecting it onto its LGBTI+ members and their friends. Some of those most urging change in the Church’s traditional position are senior evangelical bishops who have come to see that for themselves.

    In the meantime, we await the publication of Living in Love and Faith. I am committed to the process, more perhaps than many sceptics among the LGBTI+ community in the Church. But even I want to sound a word of warning. As we engage with scripture, science, theology and much more in the months ahead, we must not forget that, within parts of the evangelical and charismatic wings of our church, brothers and sisters face emotional and spiritual abuse. Conservatives and hard-liners within these traditions will want to focus on the intellectual issues – many will immediately want to rebut anything that smacks of a chink in the wall. But we must hold them and the wider church to account for this often unacknowledged abuse that is being inflicted in the name of “truth” and “sound doctrine” – including persuading those like Bishop Sarah who are I think very sensitive to issues of abuse that this is unfinished safeguarding business. I urge her and other bishops to take seriously the sort of allegations and concerns that Father Thompson has raised. There are plenty more where they came from.

    We must not forget those who are most vulnerable to bad religion and who remain at risk of the ongoing abuse that has shamed the church so obviously in recent days, and continues to do so where so-called ‘truth’ silences love. As I said at Archbishops’ Council recently, any defence of the gospel or the church that sees that as more important than protecting the vulnerable will lead us back to the place we are being shamed into leaving hopefully once and for all. Ironically, the evidence of such abuse is the clearest example of why the theological position held by conservatives is biblically untenable. 

    By your fruits you shall know them.

  • One for All and All for One?

    by the Very Revd Dr David Ison, Dean of St Paul’s, member of General Synod and Vice-Chair of the Ozanne Foundation

    The words which bind together Alexander Dumas’ Three Musketeers are also the unofficial motto of Switzerland, and date back at least to Shakespeare. It might well be a Christian motto too, echoing Paul’s reference to Jesus’ cross and resurrection (‘one has died for all’, 2 Corinthians 5.14) and affirming our loyalty to him, and to one another as members of Christ’s body.

    But it’s not a motto which the Church is or has been good at living out. The COVID-19 pandemic, Extinction Rebellion, Black Lives Matter and Living in Love and Faith together open a window of opportunity – of necessity – for the Church to do things differently. We are offered the chance to live radically with difference. But will we take it?

    In his September 15th blog on Via Media, Charlie Bell highlighted the importance of ‘intersectionality’ and that the Church has largely ignored it. Most people, including many Christians, will be unaware of the word (I had to look it up!). But nearly all of us, whether Christian or not, are caught up in what it refers to. Formally, it means the interconnection of various forms of oppression. That’s often what people experience: for example, an older black trans working-class person living in poverty suffers in themselves the intersection of multiple discriminations and oppression.

    But as Charlie Bell noted, this also applies to struggles for justice. Solidarity together by those oppressed in different ways is a powerful response, affirming intersectionality. Think of Desmond Tutu’s ‘Rainbow Nation’ and the welcome given to gay people as well as people of all colours – though this isn’t a welcome affirmed by the whole Church. Which is why the Church is perceived as oppressive: because it divides people and makes different rules to apply to them. On ‘theological’ or ‘practical’ grounds we split up those who are discriminated against – by the Church and by others – into different categories. We encourage them to remain in their boxes as individual problems to be solved, rather than taking the risk of helping them come together to work for shared love and justice for all God’s people, of whatever age, sex, gender, race, (dis)ability, sexual orientation, marital status or belief.

    There’s nothing new in this. The New Testament offers the picture of a Church called to live in radical love and justice, preaching the gospel of God’s loving salvation for all equally, living together in mutual love; and at the same time the picture of a Church struggling to make this real in practice. Whether it’s the book of Acts describing Palestinian and Hellenist Jewish believers squabbling over money in Jerusalem, or tensions between Gentiles and Jews in the early churches; or Paul addressing disunity in Corinth and elsewhere; or John writing about God’s love while excluding others from that love – the Church has had to work hard, and often failed, to transcend the social divisions and prejudices of the world around it, and has too often aided and abetted oppression rather than brought justice and love.

    Ask black people about the churches’ role in profiting from slavery and its support for the injustices of the British Empire in the past, and their experiences of racism in churches in the present. Ask working-class people of any colour about how welcome they feel their ministry is to the church. Ask women, gay and trans people how they feel about churches continuing to exercise institutional discrimination against them. Ask the survivors of abuse in the churches how they have been treated by the systems meant to protect them.

    How do we do it differently and together: ‘One for all and all for one’? The Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process in the Church of England is an opportunity to work in an intersectional way, and open up the conversation to include people of disability, people of non-white colour and non-middle class background, women in ministry and those who don’t believe they should be there – and of course LGBTI+ people who have often felt marginalised and excluded. But that requires local churches to not only own and take part in the LLF process, but to use it to listen and respond positively to all who have experienced structural oppression in church life, and look at how to work for justice not only within the church but also in the structures of society.

    In a recent newspaper article the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London wrote of the need for local decision-making, with central authority doing only what it has to do. It was written against the background of disquiet about central Church of England guidance about responding to the coronavirus, to reaffirm the importance of parishes and local Christian communities in living out the Gospel of Christ locally in practical as well as spiritual ways. And if local churches don’t take seriously the issues of oppression and social justice, then whatever archbishops may say, the Church of England as a whole will continue to relinquish its role and mar its commendation of the Christian gospel to the nation.

    The point of being local, and maintaining thriving local churches, isn’t to perpetuate the existence of the church; it’s to transform people’s lives and the life of society – to do justice and love kindness and walk humbly with the Lord. Together. One for all and all for one.