ViaMedia

Tag: CEEC

  • To be Evangelical is to Challenge ‘Orthodoxy’

    by Canon Dr Phil Groves, a parish priest who was a CMS Mission partner in Tanzania and worked at the Anglican Communion Office for 10 years as the Facilitator for the Listening Process in the Anglican Communion and Director of Continuing Indaba. His PhD is on Anglican Missional Ecclesiology. He is dyslexic and is exploring advocacy for neurodiverse people.

     

    ‘Orthodox’[1] has become the chosen title for those seeking to reaffirm that marriage is only between one man and one woman for life. The implication is that those of us who are who are affirming and inclusive are unfaithful to the tradition of the church, to the gospel, and to God.

    Evangelical institutions have often had statements of faith, which traditionally have majored on the scriptures and salvation. Such statements are now seen to be insufficient, with new clauses defining marriage as only between a man and a woman for life being added to defend ‘orthodoxy’.

    I suspect that there are three intended outcomes from inserting and emphasising these new clauses on sexuality. Firstly, it is hoped they will protect institutions from encroachment by those who have a different view. Secondly, to ensure evangelical unity in order to form wider alliances with Anglican provinces and organisations across and outside the Anglican Communion. It also cements the idea that the doctrine of marriage is a first order issue: a salvation issue.

    These clauses – beyond any others – have become the key test of ‘orthodoxy’. Those of us who support equal marriage are being told we are not ‘orthodox’ and we are not evangelicals.

    This trend began at GAFCON in 2008, with The Jerusalem Declaration. The radical proposal at the heart of GAFCON is that Anglicanism should reject its entire history and deny its identity by endorsing a confession in order to secure unity. We have formularies and we are defined by the multitude of prayerbooks, but Anglicans have always resisted all creeds other than the Catholic Creeds.

    The Jerusalem Declaration followed traditional lines for evangelical declarations of faith but included the following statement as a ‘tenet of orthodoxy’:

    We acknowledge God’s creation of humankind as male and female and the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family. We repent of our failures to maintain this standard and call for a renewed commitment to lifelong fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those who are not married.

    It is this statement that was recently added to the CEEC’s Basis of Faith. It has seemed to engender a sense of unity across the different evangelical tribes – generally described as open, conservative, and charismatic – but it holds issues for evangelicals that will not be easy to overcome in the long term and redefines evangelicalism in a way that may make it unrecognisable to me.

    A key issue that will continue to blight evangelicalism as it relies on statements of faith is legitimate disagreement. According to the Jerusalem Declaration, there are many things the ‘orthodox’ can disagree about, but deciding the difference between legitimate and illegitimate disagreements is often a political decision rather than a theological one.

    A so called ‘legitimate disagreement’ that has caused problems in the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) has been around male ‘headship’. ACNA has sidestepped the issue with accommodation through ‘dual integrities, but some within the movement regard ‘complementarianism’ as an essential, first order, issue. Within GAFCON political expediency has led to the Diocese of Sydney – which once would not compromise on male leadership – forming alliances with the Provinces of Uganda, where women have been ordained since the early 1980s and Kenya and where they have women Bishops. In England one wonders why we needed a Bishop of Maidstone when women bishops are now counted among the ‘orthodox’. For many conservative evangelicals male headship has gone from being a defining issue to one where there can be legitimate disagreement.

    Within the wider GAFCON movement it seems also to be legitimate to disagree on the deep criminalisation of LGBTI+ people. I have no doubt that most CEEC members will agree with Sean Doherty’s condemnation of the anti-gay laws passed in Uganda. Doherty does not mince his words; he says ‘Following the example of Jesus therefore means standing against the criminalisation of sexual sin, rather than supporting it’, which sounds like it is a first order issue with implications for salvation. However, nowhere does he condemn the Church of Uganda which advocated for the law and which rejoiced at its passing. These laws in Uganda and also in Nigeria are horrific and target some of the most the most vulnerable people in the world. The Church of Nigeria is absolutely clear that the very same statement adopted by CEEC from the Jerusalem Declaration demands action to criminalise all LGBTI+ people and their public allies. While CEEC members may interpret the clause differently, they seem to be seeking alliances with the Churches of Nigeria and Uganda despite this difference. The deep criminalisation of LGBTI+ people seems to be a valid area for legitimate disagreement.

    Difference is also tolerated between those who oppose conversion ‘therapies’ and those who argue that they should be defended. The trustees of CPAS responded to Prayers of Love and Faith by endorsing the Evangelical Alliance’s (2012) ‘Affirmations on Sexuality’. This affirmation includes support for conversion therapy and, following widespread concern, the trustees removed it from their website and made clear their opposition to such therapies. Immediately they were criticised by Martin Davie, a theological consultant for CEEC, who defended the right of organisations to offer change counselling. In a previous post on this site I pointed out that the main so-called therapy regularly promoted by such groups is known as ‘reparative therapy’ which relies on unbiblical – indeed, I would say, antibiblical – pseudo-Freudian theories of sexual drive. Such therapies have been abandoned by Freudians because of the damage they cause. The evangelicals who champion reparative therapy are the last ones contending for the Freudian understanding of the root of sexual desire for someone of the same gender. This appears to be another area where difference is legitimate.

    In addition to its Basis of Faith, CPAS has a document page entitled Outworkings of the Faith. Clause 6 uncompromisingly defines marriage as a ‘life-long covenant between one man and one woman’ with a reference to Malachi 2:13-16 which says: ‘The man who hates and divorces his wife, does violence to the one he should protect’. CPAS is at least consistent in placing its condemnation of divorce and remarriage on a par with the condemnation of same-sex unions, but others are not. Unlike CPAS, CEEC regards divorce and remarriage as having precedent in the Scriptures and so remarriage while a former spouse is still living is allowable. Again, an area where disagreement is allowed.

    Advocates for the clauses that rule out support for equal marriage will find clever ways to justify why disagreement over the issues above is legitimate while disagreement over this one issue is not. However, this drive for ‘orthodoxy’ it defines evangelicalism in an exclusive way that I find impossible to relate to. As evangelicalism focuses on guarding the gospel it ceases to be about proclaiming the gospel and challenging ‘orthodoxy’. For me, the power of evangelicalism has been in challenging tradition.

    All my evangelical heroes are marked by being unorthodox and driven to challenge tradition and bring liberation.

    John Wesley, often seen as the first Anglican evangelical, set the example. His early commitment to orthodoxy led him to harsh self-righteousness. Embracing the warming embrace of the Holy Spirit opened his eyes to Romans 8, and he realised he was saved from the law of sin and death. He felt the need to break out of the institutions and, as a consequence, he engaged with the oppressed, supported abolitionism, and championed women preachers. Wesley’s evangelicalism was defined by being unorthodox and liberating.

    His opposition to slavery was taken up by the abolitionists who were regarded as wilful violent perverters of the sacred texts by those who quoted the Bible in support of their profiteering from the horrific abuse of human beings.[2] Even though they were at the heart of the British institution, The Clapham Sect were never accused of being orthodox: they were liberators.

    Josephine Butler took up the cause of emancipation from slavery, this time for women enslaved in prostitution. Her evangelical faith led her to campaign for feminist causes that inspired others to join her campaign for equal suffrage, and for children and adults forced into prostitution.[3] Her catchphrase, ‘God and one woman make a majority’, marks out her opposition to orthodoxy. She may have been on her own in human terms, but if she was on the side of God the orthodox were a minority.  Her ministry was marked by liberation.

    Butler, along with Elizabeth Fry, was a woman who found in her evangelical faith the ability to speak up in a male-dominated world. Another of my heroes is Bishop James Theodore Holly was an African-American man who found the same confidence in the same source to speak in a white-dominated world. In 1874, he became the first Anglican of African descent to be a diocesan Bishop in the Anglican Communion and he attended the 1878 Lambeth Conference. For him, liberation was not a gift of white people, but a right to be claimed by all people. His passion for liberation was backed by a commitment to changing the world, and brining liberation.

    My more recent heroes include John V. Taylor. UK evangelicals know him for his ground-breaking book on the Holy Spirit, The Go-Between God, but as a leader of CMS, Taylor recognised the value and depth of African traditions. He challenged the orthodox understanding that African music and dance were satanic. I witnessed the liberating effect in the 1980s on young leaders such as the future Archbishop of Uganda, Henry Orombi, when I was a member of his evangelism team. We travelled around the Diocese of Madi West Nile distributing traditional musical instruments so worship could be enculturated. In 1975, John V. Taylor also anticipated the ecological crisis in his prophetic book Enough is Enough, calling for a radical response to Western greed. He was a visionary prophet and a voice of liberation.

    During my time in Uganda, I met another of my evangelical heroes: Bishop Festo Kivengere. Kivengere was famous for resisting the violent regime of Idi Amin with a message of love. His eloquent preaching put him on a par with Billy Graham and his commitment to justice brought him close to Archbishop Desmond Tutu. In the 1950s, Kivengere was brought to Tanganyika by Australian missionaries to work as a school teacher. He found them complacent in the face of racism. On the trains, he and his family travelled third class while the missionaries luxuriated in first class where no black Africans were allowed. His experience of revival made him aware of gender equality. His preaching on gender equality in turn brought him into conflict with orthodox missionaries, who banned him from preaching in their churches. So, like Wesley, he preached in the market place. His theology left an indelible print on the church in Dodoma and around, which is why the Diocese of Central Tanganyika, one of the liveliest evangelical dioceses in the Anglican world, has resisted GAFCON and the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans. As a bishop in the early 1980s he carried through with his commitment to the empowerment of women, defying his synod and the Lambeth Conference by ordaining women to the priesthood because it was clear the Holy Spirit was with them. Kivengere’s story is one of liberation.

    He was not alone. Many of the key players in the East African Revival strove for the empowerment of women. This is true today, and exemplified by the great Ester Mombo. As a theological educator, Mombo has ensured top-class theological education for East Africn women as well as men. This means that across East Africa, and especially in Kenya, there are theologically educated women leaders. GAFCON tried to stop women being elected as bishops in Kenya, but true evangelical courage won out and the glass ceiling has been cracked, if not yet completely broken. This has huge implications in the fight against FGM and gender-based violence. Mombo is a relentless force for liberation.

    I am not suggesting that any of these heroes would have embraced equal marriage, but that as evangelicals they were all driven to challenge ‘orthodoxy’. Their lives and ministries were marked, not by signing declarations of faith, but by bringing liberation despite resistance from those representing ‘orthodox’ readings of the Bible.

    It is no accident that evangelicals have been at the forefront of liberation and created real change if Jesus is their inspiration.

    Jesus was never ‘orthodox’. His ministry was defined by his confrontation with orthodox leaders quoting the Scriptures and standing on tradition. He identified his ministry in releasing captives, bringing sight to the blind, and identification with the oppressed. He shocked the orthodox who expected him to endorse the rich as blessed by God and to engage in theological dialogue with the learned.

    He spoke angrily of the hypocrisy of the orthodox teachers and discussed theology with foreign women that no orthodox rabbi would even talk to informally. He did not observe the rules on ritual cleanliness, mixed with untouchables, and declared that he was free from the rules on the Sabbath.

    John the Baptist was shocked by the unorthodoxy of Jesus so he sought confirmation that Jesus was the chosen one.[4] In response Jesus did not send back a signed commitment to a statement of faith; rather, he responded by testimony to the signs of liberation.

    The evidence of allegiance with God in the world is not confessional orthodoxy – it is that ‘the blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor’.

    I cannot see these signs of liberation in the move to tighten up confessional formulations of evangelical institutions. What I see are alliances with those who are driving the deepening criminalisation of LGBTI+ people in Africa, Asia, and the Americas. I see limitations being placed on the ministry of women. I see protection being given to those who continue to promote so-called conversion therapy, with all the harm we know such therapies have had.

    I am ceasing to see the evangelical faith that inspired me in churches that have become obsessed with something they see as an ‘issue’ and which I understand as human complexity. For me, this evangelical ‘orthodoxy’ seems to be embracing law as the solution to sin and death.

    If traditional marriage can only be defended by guarding institutions and not by lives and acts of liberation, I fear it may not be of the Holy Spirit.

    Great evangelical leaders have always made stands against orthodoxy. Now is the time to choose the path of liberation.

     

    Notes

    [1] In this essay the words ‘orthodox’ and ‘orthodoxy’ refer to the use within Anglican evangelical statements and do not refer to the Eastern Orthodox Church. For further discussion see Paul Roberts, On the use and abuse of the term ‘orthodox’.

    [2] Richard A Burridge, ‘Being Biblical? Slavery, Sexuality, and the Inclusive Community’, 22nd Eric Symes Abbott Memorial Lecture.

    [3] Helen Mathers, ‘The Evangelical Spirituality of a Victorian Feminist: Josephine Butler, 1828–1906’, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 52.2, April 2001, pp. 282 – 312.

    [4] See R.T. France, Matthew – Tyndale NT Commentary (IVP) p.192.

  • Plotting the Division of the Church of England

    by Nic Tall, member of General Synod and Secretary of the General Synod Gender & Sexuality Group

    If you have been paying attention to the church press recently, you will have a sense of grumblings from conservative parts of the church, disgruntled over prayers of blessing for same sex couples. You may have noticed pronouncements about an “Ephesian Fund” or “alternative spiritual oversight” and wondered what’s going on.

    To help explain current movements within the church I will carefully plot the path that has brought us to this point. This reveals a consistent plan to partition the church which stretches back over years. Does that sound far-fetched? I’d ask you to look at the evidence and decide for yourself.

    This plan to divide the church, with conservative parishes refusing to share resources with the wider church and turning priests and parishes away from the care of their bishop, goes back to 2016. In the aftermath of the struggle to prevent women becoming bishops, some conservatives who opposed equality for women in the church looked to the issue of sexuality as the next place to oppose progressive values.

    A discussion document titled “Guarding the Deposit” was prepared for the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) in October 2016. It considered what would happen if there were moves to support equal marriage or blessing of same sex relationships in the church, and concluded that there would need to be “visible differentiation and division within the Church of England”. The envisaged division took the form of partition within the church, with both affirming and non-affirming Christians remaining within the church but divided into separate provinces. Provinces, in the Anglican Communion, are usually geographic: these wouldn’t be. They would overlap geographically but have separate episcopal oversight.

    Following October 2016, the General Synod had a busy time debating same sex relationships. February 2017 saw the famous “take note” debate, when a paper from the House of Bishops was rejected by Synod. This led to Archbishop Justin Welby declaring “we need a radical new Christian inclusion in the Church”. That response would be explored through a new project, Living in Love and Faith (LLF), producing a suite of resources available and inviting the whole church to explore the issues. LLF would take a few years to gather together these resources, but a sense that they might usher in progressive change was clearly concerning some.

    It is in this context that the CEEC, following that 2016 paper, began to take those ideas about how to divide the church more seriously. CEEC began to prepare for creating conditions where they could be put into practice.

    At its annual Council meeting in January 2019, the CEEC agreed to increase its capacity, seeking to raise extra funds, employ staff and refine options for “visible differentiation”. Until this point its annual income was around £35k, most of which was paid in a grant to a theological consultant. In 2019/20 income doubled to £100k and by 2021/22 it had increased to £176k. The January 2019 meeting also looked ahead on strategic and tactical concerns for the 2020 General Synod elections, another sign of long-term political planning.

    Having resolved to significantly increase capacity in preparation for the debates over LLF, the next part of the plan was to expunge any moderate evangelicals who harboured sympathy for those in same sex relationships. So, at the July meeting of General Synod, the Evangelical Group on General Synod (EGGS) amended its basis of faith to include conservative statements on marriage, sexuality and gender identity. This effectively removed inclusive evangelicals, leading to a split in the constituency.

    Freed up from any internal resistance that would have come from those inclusive evangelicals, the CEEC’s Council meeting in January 2020 prepared to make bolder steps. The first priority on its plan for 2020 was “Visible differentiation for the sake of biblical orthodoxy: development of Permanent Provision options and proposals from Council; development of Principled Protest; liaison across the evangelical constituency.” It also sought to focus on the 2020 General Synod elections, organising locally through Diocesan Evangelical Fellowships (DEFs). The Report and Accounts from 2019-2020 show that further plans were developed to encourage and support evangelical bishops to “be distinctive”. The intention to create division within the church was starting to take shape, using the sexuality debate as a wedge issue and strengthening links across the evangelical constituency, through local diocesan networks and bringing evangelical bishops on board. This was the first time that “principled protest” had been seen as part of the strategy.

    On 26th July 2020 the CEEC published the report “Visibly Different”, 104 pages long and expanding the themes of “Guarding the Deposit”. It spent time working in detail through the proposal for “a provincial way forward”, creating a third province which would be separate from the rest of the church but geographically coterminous. Whether liberal or conservative Christians would be deposited into this third province was a moot point; the critical part of the plan was structural differentiation, with conservatives remaining in the Church of England and enjoying all the financial benefits of doing so.

    While the CEEC was drawing up detailed plans for structural division within the church, the LLF project had been steadily developing its suite of resources for the wider church to explore issues around sexuality and relationships, and these were published on 9th November 2020. Six days later, the CEEC unveiled a 32 minute video entitled “The Beautiful Story”, including content from three bishops. This video undermined the content of LLF, presenting just one perspective, and a deeply conservative one at that. It concluded with John Dunnett, Chair of EGGS, issuing a call: “the General Synod elections in summer of 2021 are massively important and evangelicals need to be thinking now about whether they might be a good candidate”. So instead of engaging in open and honest debate with LLF, the agenda was only to focus on conservative perspectives; no others were worth discussing. It was also linked directly to maximising the political outcomes of the 2021 General Synod election.

    Moving into 2021, the CEEC looked to expand its capacity further to support its plans, employing paid staff for the first time, appointing an administrator in January, National Director in April and a Communications Director in November. In July the CEEC/EGGS National General Synod Elections Team published their guidance for conservative evangelical candidates in a document not intended for public release, but soon leaked. Candidates were assured that the local DEF would make sure “orthodox evangelicals” would vote for them in any case, so election statements should be aimed at another set of voters: those from the “middle ground”. Candidates were advised to conceal their views on same sex relationships, women’s ordained ministry or abuse within the church, but instead “as much as possible, sound as if you are a practising member of the Church of England”. “Sound as if”? On sexuality the advice was “it might be that it is wiser not referred to… talk about listening positively to and respecting the views of others, even when we find ourselves disagreeing.” A further private document on how to handle hustings meetings was distributed, again maintaining the policy of concealing their true views on sexuality and women’s ministry.

    Supported by the resources and organisation of the CEEC, not to mention this deliberate concealment of challenging views on sexuality and women’s ministry, conservative evangelical candidates performed well in the elections. The results saw many independent candidates displaced, along with a reduction in traditional catholic representation, although inclusive candidates supported by Inclusive Church maintained good numbers. Contrary to the CEEC campaign, Inclusive Church had a deliberate policy of transparency, publicly promoting a list of candidates who had signed up to a broad inclusion statement so voters would have clear information to base their decisions.

    With the new General Synod formed in November 2021, the subject of same sex relationships was bubbling away under the surface, but with the LLF materials out for use in the dioceses there was little coming directly to General Synod for discussion. The 2022 Council meeting of the CEEC reiterated the strategic priority linking LLF to differentiation, maintaining a policy that pursued division with sexuality as a wedge issue.

    Later in 2022, the momentum for change from LLF began to build, with feedback from those having done the LLF course indicating a majority wish for liturgical affirmation of same sex relationships. The House of Bishops held meetings to decide a way forward, with much speculation on the direction they would choose. In this atmosphere John Dunnett, Chair of EGGS and at this point Strategy Director of CEEC, issued a document outlining the CEECs position following LLF. The stance was to oppose any change whatsoever, effectively dismissing the whole LLF project and the ignoring the majority in the C of E who saw a place for some change to better accommodate LGBTQIA+ people. However, if that were not possible “differentiation will become an immediate necessity”. Three different options for visible differentiation were explained, with the preferred model involving “the rearrangement of episcopal oversight, dioceses and provinces.” Liberals would be given the option of opting into a “third province”, with conservatives retaining the remainder of the Church of England and relationships with the Anglican Communion.

    Which brings us to the eventful year of 2023. In January, the House of Bishops brought forward proposals for the blessing of those in same sex relationships and new pastoral guidance to replace Issues in Human Sexuality. On 9th February, Synod passed a vote in all three Houses to welcome these proposals, giving the House of Bishops a green light to proceed. This was the signal for the conservative plan to divide the church to move up a gear. Within a week a slick, pre-prepared video titled “We Love the Church of England” was rolled out. It voiced a hope for unity, but also stated that no compromise was possible. The solution presented was “structural rearrangement”, alleged to be desired by those liberals “preaching a false gospel”. Without such an arrangement it was predicted that “we’re going to tear the Church of England right down the middle.” At least five speakers in the video were based in churches that do not accept the ordination of women, and were therefore from the tiny minority of Church of England parishes (less than 5%) who hold to that view. The entanglement between historic opposition to the ministry of women and a wish to divide the church over sexuality was still evident.

    On 16th March 2023 the CEEC issued a statement that it was “compelled to resist” the direction approved by Synod, and called on conservative clergy to sign a declaration to join them. The declaration made no mention of visible differentiation, seeking to draw in as many conservative supporters as possible without spelling out the radical plan of partitioning the church.

    At the same time as stoking up fear among its conservative evangelical constituency, claiming that Synod’s decision would be “extremely distressing for evangelicals in this country”, the CEEC began to forge alliances with other groups. On 7th July, on the eve of the next General Synod meeting, a long letter raising complaints about the LLF process was published, with additional signatories from the Traditional Catholic group on synod (Anglo-Catholics opposed to the ordination of women), New Wine, the HTB Network, Church Revitalisation Trust and Myriad. Traditional Catholics coming on board was no surprise, as they had also opposed the Synod vote in February and had often sided with conservative evangelicals to oppose progressive proposals in the church. However, the inclusion of some charismatic evangelical church planting networks, particularly Holy Trinity Brompton, was a new addition. It had sometimes been assumed that HTB preferred to keep any reluctance around same sex relationships under the radar, given the diversity of views present within its congregations, as demonstrated earlier in the year by letters to the Church Times from LGBT+ affirming Christians who were HTB members.

    But the involvement of HTB and its Church Planting charity The Church Revitalisation Trust (CRT) would now go far beyond being a co-signatory to a letter. On 13th July 2023 a company called “AZ Alliance Ltd” was registered with Companies House, with a stated nature of business being “activities of religious organisations”. The two named directors were originally Sarah Jackson (Chief Executive Officer of the CRT) and Jago Wynne (Vicar of Holy Trinity Clapham, part of the HTB network of churches), with John Dunnett (National Director of CEEC) appointed as a third director in September.

    The involvement of personnel linked to HTB would continue, with former HTB Vicar Nicky Gumbel joining John Dunnett, now National Director of the CEEC, at a meeting in Cairo of the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches (GFSA) in October 2023. Gumbel (recently awarded the CBE for ‘services to the Church of England’) was recorded as attending on behalf of “Alliance UK”, while the meeting of conservative Anglicans issued a statement with the priority of “re-setting the communion according to its biblical and historic roots”. The statement went on to add “We all know and lament that our Communion has entered into a deep darkness of rebellion to the truth of God’s word.”

    In spite of the campaigning by the CEEC to stir up dissent, the General Synod met again in November 2023 and once again voted in all three Houses of Synod to continue the work on LLF, including the consideration of standalone services of blessing for same sex couples. With the CEEC having failed to derail the LLF process, two days after the vote they launched the “Ephesian Fund”, closely followed by plans to create alternative structures of spiritual oversight. These announcements were two pillars of the long-planned structural differentiation, except that they were informal in nature. The Ephesian Fund relied on the fact that payment of Parish Share or Common Fund to the diocese is purely voluntary and cannot be enforced. The aim is that any money entering the fund will only be paid to dioceses with a legal restriction attached; namely that the money can only be passed on to churches committed to a “biblical faith”, meaning those who refuse to use the Prayers of Love and Faith. It is a mechanism to begin the financial division of the church. Arrangements for alternative spiritual oversight would move all discretionary relationships with the diocesan bishop on to an alternative person, such as a retired bishop holding conservative views. While there is no way for a priest or parish to informally absent themselves from legal relationships with the bishop and diocese – such as safeguarding responsibilities – it is intended to undermine the relationship with the diocesan bishop as far as legally possible. These arrangements are currently being described as “a temporary provision which will support evangelicals until a settlement based on structural provision is made available”, a provision which is hoped would be “permanent”.

    So, following two votes in General Synod affirming the PLF, and the direction of travel on LLF moving beyond the CEEC’s red line of no change, the plan for division has now been unilaterally declared, seeking to separate the Church of England as far as possible, without formal legal provision agreed through due synodical process.

    And here is the most recent piece of the jigsaw, showing the extent to which the plan is being pursued. Rather than waiting for disgruntled churches to contact the CEEC and enquire about the financial and oversight arrangements now being developed separately from normal C of E practice, there is a proactive campaign seeking to recruit churches to this split. A proactive campaign with a deep involvement of The Alliance, Nicky Gumbel and the Church Revitalisation Trust (CRT; as of December 2023, renamed the Revitalise Trust).

    I have been passed a document from a church leader dated 11th December which had been distributed to all of their church members. The document states that the leader and his wife had been wondering whether to leave the Church of England due to “the blessing of sin” and “allowing in false teaching”. However, the leader then tells of being approached out of the blue to be recruited to join the Alliance:

    Out of the total blue I had an email setting up a phone call with Nicky Gumbel. We are not the sort of people who use our connections to position ourselves near influential people. Though he knows one or two of us from this church, we do not know Nicky Gumbel personally.

    Nicky phoned to ask what we were thinking of doing post-General Synod in November, and having listened to our dismay and despair, he then shared what he is doing through the Alliance. We are going to share this with you now, but what we would also add is that following a call with Nicky, we also had an hour’s call later with further updates on some of the detail of the Alliance with the CEO – Rev. Sarah Jackson – of the Church Revitalisation Trust, which is the active agent leading the bringing together and forward motion of the Alliance.

    Nicky Gumbel talked to us about his vision to open the Alliance to churches to join.

    The vision is to partner nationally by gathering 3000 Anglican churches across the nation, all biblical and all committed to orthodoxy, and together probably representing more than 50% of all English Anglicans. The Alliance will seek to stand in unity as one for orthodoxy.

    NG and the Alliance are working behind the scenes to develop legal protections for orthodox clergy, orthodox ordinands and training institutions, they are already working out how to offer orthodox Bishops to provide biblical oversight to clergy and churches, amongst a range of other developments.

    It’s all fairly live and quite new, but it was important for us to hear that the Alliance are seeking to ensure that spiritual oversight will be offered by orthodox Bishops, thereby giving spiritual safety for clergy and parishes who cannot “walk together” with false teaching and false practice.

    This document was being circulated to the members of the church on the same day that The Alliance wrote to the House of Bishops, asserting that they “are committed to working together with others in the Church of England to enable a flourishing of the whole church for generations to come. We want to do all we can to avoid years of more infighting in our divided church.” However, their actions show that, far from wanting the flourishing of the whole church and a way out of infighting, behind the scenes there is proactive action to split the church, part of a plan for division stretching back years.

    The revelation of the CRT as a central element in driving the plan for division is also striking. The CRT has been the beneficiary of tens of millions of pounds of central church funding, delivered through the SDF fund in various church planting schemes. In their answer to Question 32 at the July 2021 Synod, the Archbishop’s Council estimated that between 2014 and 2020 this funding amounted to roughly £50m for projects led by the CRT or for which they were a partner. That the CRT has received such large sums of central church funding to develop its network of church plants, but is now preparing to use that network to divide the Church of England, is a betrayal of the faith placed in them by the wider church.

    The CEEC and the Alliance know that the formal structural changes they seek can only happen with a legal underpinning agreed by the General Synod. This is very unlikely to happen, particularly in the current General Synod where a 2/3rds majority in all three Houses would be challenging to achieve on such a controversial plan. Having failed to prevent the introduction of the Prayers of Love and Faith, sought by a majority in the church, and aware that formal structural provision is not currently likely, the remaining option is to divide the church as much as possible through informal means. These informal means are designed to make the split that they seek a de facto reality as much as is possible, such that formal legal recognition will seem a straightforward way out of the impasse. The aim of proactively recruiting a quarter of parish churches and half of the church’s members shows the ambition, perhaps hubris, behind the plan.

    I hope this article has documented the long-term factional planning to split the Church of England and alerts the overwhelming majority of church members committed to unity to resist it.

     

     

  • Vile Bodies?

    by Adrian Thatcher, Honorary Professor in the Department of Religion and Theology, University of Exeter and a Trustee of Modern Church

    So now we know! While the authorization of same-sex marriages within the Church of England remains a distant dream, ‘Prayers of Love and Faith’ for same-sex couples are to be commended by the bishops next month for experimental use in stand-alone services. The Church of England Evangelical Council immediately announced that the proposals ‘depart from a biblical understanding of sex and marriage’.

    One of the main sticking points among conservatives throughout the churches is that ‘biblical understanding’ is unchanging. Was the CofE wrong, then, when in 2004 it changed its doctrine of marriage to permit, albeit ‘in exceptional cases’, divorce and what it called ‘further marriage’? Was it wrong to allow a widower to marry his late wife’s sister; or wrong in 1835 to prevent it; or in 1907 to allow it again, having faced down trenchant opposition from conservatives over several decades similar to the outbursts that have been heard in Synod this week?

    If biblical understanding is unchanging then employing and trading in slaves, killing Jews and crusading against Muslims is fine too. Ephesians is pretty explicit: ‘Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ’ (Eph. 6.5). Were Augustine and Aquinas right to deduce from scripture that slavery was instituted by God so that by it certain people could be blessed by learning the virtues of obedience and humility? Were white mainline Protestants biblically sound to invoke the curse of Canaan (Gen. 9.18-27) in summoning biblical support for the convenient prejudice that all black people were cursed?

    Who dares to recall that a favourite proof text of Christian slave owners was the parable of Jesus which illustrates the need for disciples to be watchful for the coming of the Son of Man by means of a slave owner meting out punishment to inattentive slaves, actually cutting one of them to pieces for misconduct (Luke 12.46)? The cutting open of the bodies of slaves by lashing and lynching was a common punishment during the Jim Crow years in the Protestant USA, and the next verse – ‘‘The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows’ (Luke 12.47) – offered a persuasive reason for doing exactly what the saying recommended. Being Christian and cruel is fine, authorized by Christ himself.

    This exegetical cruelty – the shameful shadow side of Christianity almost never acknowledged – persists in the present wranglings where scripture is utilized to reinforce cruel prejudice. It is nothing new. ‘His blood be on us and on our children’ (Matt. 27.25), cited Christians, as they hacked innocent Jewish people to death in the name of Christ. Martin Luther’s wicked text, On the Jews and Their Lies, is packed with biblical quotations. Yes, on the basis of scores of proof texts he advised that synagogues be burned, their books confiscated, their worship forbidden, and that they driven from Luther’s country. Yes, if this great Protestant Reformer could advocate these things on the basis of scripture, what confidence can we have in the siren cry, ‘sola scriptura’ heard all around the Anglican communion?

    The time has now come for an investigation into the prior historical and theological causes leading to this Anglican tolerance of prejudice and pastoral cruelty. Such an investigation will uncover that disturbing strand of the tradition that regards particular human bodies as inferior, disgusting, vile, ‘other’. This tradition would explain more than the disdain shown to LGBT people and their arrangements for living in love and faith. It would help to explain the terrible and world-wide abuse of children and vulnerable people by Christian leaders; why the churches covered it up; why racism is still endemic; why women still can’t be ministers or priests in most of the world’s churches; why spiritual abuse operates unchecked; why churches uphold marriage while ignoring the poor quality of life within many of them.

    My new book, just published, has begun this wider, deeper, and necessary investigation. Vile Bodies: The Body in Christian Teaching, Faith, and Practice uncovers an antipathy toward particular human bodies in much Christian theology. It vilifies them, whether the bodies of women, slaves, Jews, Muslims, Blacks, heretics, gays, heathens, people of lower classes. This tradition of thinking about and mistreating bodies is stubbornly entrenched in theology. It manifests itself whenever the church manages to get itself talking about bodies.

    Bridging the distance between biblical times and our own, Vile Bodies examines the psychological abuse of women compelled to see themselves as the downfall of the world; the futile attempts of holy men to deny their sexuality; the elaborate (and entirely biblical) justifications for owning slaves and enslaving whole peoples. It shows how mystical theology plundered the body’s senses in its forlorn attempts to soar above them in the soul’s search for God. It describes the elaborate manipulation of biblical texts to justify the persecution and killing of Jews, soon extended to justifying the crusades, enslaving millions, and colonizing whole peoples.

    Racism, sexism, colonialism, and homophobia follow from the theology that regards some bodies as superior, others as inferior or disgusting. A particular feature of such theology is that it requires self-delusion, constant repetition, the refusal of complexity, and the pretence that cruel and exploitative beliefs and practices are consistent with God’s will. At other times spiritual malpractice appears to be acknowledged (“We sincerely repent”) while the bad theology continues unabated. Alleged fidelity to scripture is substituted for real fidelity to Christ.

    An ‘unknowing’ of this tradition is an urgent task. The inoculation from self-criticism; the priority of apparent unity over the pursuit of truth; the abuse scandals and their concealment to protect the church’s ‘good name’; the hypocrisy that spins pastoral principles while at the same time undermining them; these are the demons awaiting exorcism from the body of the church.

    Vile Bodies: The Body in Christian Teaching, Faith, and Practice, is published by SCM Press on November 30th. Copies at a 20% discount can be ordered here.

  • The Difficulties of Differentiation

    by Revd Neil Patterson, Chair of the Gender & Sexuality Group on General Synod

    Followers of the increasingly torrid debate about sexuality in the Church of England will generally have noticed that the most prominent conservative group, the Church of England Evangelical Council, have been arguing for some time for something called ‘structural differentiation.’ In responding to this, I am informed by the private discussions over some years known as the St Hugh’s Conversations, and also the recent Living With Difference meetings convened within the LLF process. But to the credit of those representing the CEEC, they have maintained a very consistent line throughout, and I have not heard proposals different from those already in the public domain at CEEC – The Church of England Evangelical Council. However, I hope those who make them can read here a sense that I have genuinely sought to listen to their perspective, and will know that I am more open to making space for all views in a broad church than some. And I recognise that this is partly because, unlike others, I have not been subject to the sort of harmful pastoral ministry as others. However, even so I find that on reflection there is a serious problem with the proposal for differentiation, as I shall explain.

    In considering the possibility of some settlement that allows for the cohabitation of different views, it is inevitable that, as a historian of church legal structures and a member of General Synod since 2012, I should be drawn to consider the evolution of the 2014 settlement around women bishops formalised in the House of Bishops Declaration and the Five Guiding Principles, and it is here that I find the important contrast. From the discussions in 2012-14 and the regular perspective of New Directions which is kindly sent me each month, the central concept emerges of ‘sacramental assurance.’ Most Anglo-Catholics would hold, I think, to the theology that the sacraments (this works whether you think there are two or seven, incidentally) are by their nature about certainty – if the Church does what the Lord commanded, faithful to matter and words, the sacramental graces promised are assured. Even if, as for me, that approach raises other questions, I am quite happy to accept it as the legitimate belief of many, and also to see that, if you are uncertain about the ordination of women, that leads to the need for ‘sacraments we can receive with confidence’ as the slogan is.

    What became apparent in the discussions over women bishops was that, if those who doubted their orders were to continue in sacramental assurance, a higher degree of separation would be needed than before, because, as one bishop pithily put it in one of the small group discussions at Synod, “priests are sterile; bishops can breed!” It is more complicated than that; I have yet to be convinced by any argument for what is for shorthand called ‘taint’ – the refusal to receive the sacraments from a male bishop who ordains women. And the ambiguous phrase ‘mutual flourishing’ positively invites criticism from anyone who does not feel that they are personally getting what they want. But nonetheless most of the arrangements made since 2014 make sense to me, as a sad inevitability if we are to remain one church whilst allowing different convictions to exist in their own integrity. There is differentiation, but it is differentiation as a means to an end.

    Reflecting on the CEEC proposals, however, they seem different. The House of Bishops decision to commend the Prayers of Love & Faith, as an option for those places that wish to use them, does not impose any changes at all on the life of non-affirming parishes. It will not prevent conservative candidates entering training for ordination, or conservative clergy being appointed. And it is difficult to see how the provision of alternative structures, either designed by the Church of England or, it seems today, unilaterally by CEEC, is intended to meet a need for acceptable ministry. Rather what I find, both in some of the supporting texts and in the various meetings, is the expression of a much more troubling desire. That differentiation is needed to show that ‘orthodox’Anglicans (as they style themselves with little regard for the established use of that word to describe the churches in communion with Constantinople) are distinct from those of us who are moving with the House of Bishops to seek God’s blessing for same-sex relationships. In other words, it is differentiation for differentiation’s sake.

    The problem is that some distinctions, like the 2014 settlement or now-accepted varieties of worship or theology, lead to the minimal separation necessary for co-existence, the success of which is how far unity is maintained. But if the objective is to show that you have separated yourself from the unclean, the only success is the sight of clear blue water. And that is not differentiation, it is schism. And unlike the much-debated issues of sexual intimacy that appear nowhere in the Creeds, 39 Articles or law of the Church of England, schism does stand condemned by Canon A8 for the sin that it is.

  • Playing the Victim

    by the Revd Dr Charlie Bell, Fellow at Girton College Cambridge, Assistant Curate, St John the Divine, Kennington and a consultant to the LLF Implementation Pastoral Guidance Working Group

    There is often a very British reticence to ‘victimhood’. Whether it’s the stereotype of the stiff upper lip, or the willingness to ‘keep calm and carry on’, we are not known as a nation of victims. ‘Stop whingeing and get on with it’, as my school teachers used to say – and in the main, we do. ‘Playing the victim’ gets us less sympathy, and is far more likely to make us enemies.

    It has been interesting, then, to see the pernicious and yet all-pervasive narrative of victimhood seeping its way through some parts of the Church of England in recent months. In the wake of the bishops of the church putting forward a proposal that removes the impediment to us blessing a same-sex couple in the same way that we might bless a car or a plant pot, many of those for whom this would apparently be the ‘one step too far’ moral outrage have turned up the volume on their campaign to tell bishops about just how hurt they are by the whole thing.

    It remains surprising, of course, that there are people who cannot bear the idea of compromise and who appear to believe that agreeing to disagree on whether we can bless other people’s relationships will destroy the very foundations of their Christian faith. It’s important to distinguish, I think, between those who hold to this view quite genuinely, however bizarre many of us might find it, and those who are weaponizing it in a last gasp as they see their iron grip on power falter.  The former group are those whose worries and fears need to be listened to – and insofar as they are genuine, addressed. The latter – through their campaign – are doing their best, inadvertently, to ensure that this will not be the case.

    Not a day seems to go by without yet another asinine and misleading ‘question’ or statement being released on the Church of England Evangelical Council’s Twitter feed. To save the delicate stomachs of some readers who would prefer not to trawl the whole thing, here are some highlights. We have been told (several times) that the bishops are ‘denying’ the faith ‘due to cultural pressure’; we have had some very bizarre selective scriptural quotes from Revelation; we have had the usual claptrap about the fact that something legal advice specifically states is not a change of doctrine is, in fact, a change of doctrine; we’ve heard nonsense about how the changes coming are ‘theologically compromised and pastorally confusing’; and that old chestnut, the ‘lifestyle’ choice, is back with a vengeance. None of this is new – much of it is dishonest.

    Yet whilst these repeated tropes are tiresome and often – quite frankly – silly, the worst to come out of the campaign is the barefaced attempt to present those who are attempting to roll back Synod’s decision as ‘victims’. Let’s be absolutely clear about this suggestion – it is utterly ridiculous, and not only ridiculous, but insulting. For years there has been a conservative stranglehold on the policies of the Church of England, with bishops apparently too scared to say what they really think until they leave office, and a tacit acceptance that unity is quite reasonably built on the backs of queer people. At last, that wicked, immoral consensus is crumbling. It is staggering how shameless those who have fought against any liberation for queer people are now being.

    We are told that the introduction of voluntary, opt-in prayers of blessing are an existential threat to those who choose not to offer them. We are told that it is unacceptable that those who say LGBTQI people should be celibate will now have to admit to it. We are told that any compromise position, any opportunity to offer anything whatsoever to queer people, is an act of victimisation towards conservative evangelicals. We are told that it is imperative that queer clergy must not be sexually intimate and must be punished if they are, and that this is the red line. Blithe nonsense about cancel culture abounds; misrepresentation of facts, and of the reality of power structures, is front and centre. It is scandalous. As a recent Tweet from the CEEC campaign apparently unironically stated, ‘we are for respecting people, even when we disagree on theological conclusions’ – perhaps it’s time to put that into action, folks.

    The thing is, the Church of England and its hierarchy should be willing and able to challenge this ratcheting up of confected terror, rather than imbibe it and be scared by it. The Church of England has produced something rather valuable in the Pastoral Principles, yet there seems to be precious little recognition of how these relate to this recent campaign. There is little point having these principles written down if they are not going to be put into practice – and it is about time some leadership was shown and people held to account. Yet as ever it is queer people who are told to calm down and have warmer hearts.

    The apology to LGBTQI people from the House of Bishops is not worth the paper it’s written on if nobody is willing to stand up for us. Since the Synod vote, little to no comment has been made on how those of us who are LGBT face discrimination on a constant basis from wider society, let alone from the church. LGBT people face genuine and real oppression and are openly victimised, targeted and discriminated against. Trans people are murdered across the world, year by year. Gay young people in parts of sub-Saharan Africa are taken out of their homes and killed. I do not understand why there is such an oppressive and overwhelming silence on this issue. If we’re looking for real victims in all of this, a good place to start – for example – would be the queer folk of Uganda. Yet a month’s wait for anything – at all – to come out of Lambeth (and there is still nothing out of the Anglican Communion Office or GAFCON) in response to the Archbishop of Uganda’s blasphemous support for criminalisation of LGBTQI people is hardly the ‘speaking into silence’ that the Pastoral Principles demand. It’s simply not good enough, and if this is the trajectory, then the feigned apology is nothing more than an insult.

    Those who are promoting the CEEC campaign and its messages need to take a long, hard look at themselves. A false narrative of victimhood – a genuine ‘playing the victim’ – is not only a tactic that flies directly in the face of the Pastoral Principles, but one that flies directly in the face of our belonging to Jesus Christ. And the leaders of our church need to step up and speak into what is going on here, instead of running scared. Doing so behind closed doors is not enough – we are being publicly attacked day after day, and there is nothing whatsoever being said to support us.

    Queer people have put up with ‘just getting on with it’ for too long – and we’re being taken advantage of. Just because we don’t constantly play the victim doesn’t mean we’re not hurting. Many – most – of us are. We’re living in a church that tolerates and doesn’t love us, and now we’re living in a church that is willing to tacitly accept that – once again – we’re the problem. We still do not matter – we are still an issue.

    It’s time – in fact, it’s well beyond time – for our leaders to practise what they preach. We’ve been hung out to dry quite long enough.

  • Pressing ‘PAUSE’

    by Helen King, Professor Emerita in Classical Studies at The Open University, authorised lay preacher, member of General Synod and vice-chair of its Gender & Sexuality Group

    Last week I saw the current Royal Shakespeare Company production of Julius Caesar. I hated it. In the first half I tried hard to find some positives, but by the interval I was convinced that this was an incoherent production which had managed to lose everything that really mattered. There were empty seats when the second half resumed, so it wasn’t just me and my friends who were unhappy. At the end, however, while most of us politely clapped – after all, the cast did their best in a production that failed to fly – several groups of under-20s enthusiastically stood and cheered. Part of the explanation for that was that some of them were Americans, and I know from seeing plays in America that standing ovation is the default setting rather than the exception. Part of it may just be that seeing a play in Shakespeare’s town is a very special experience. But it’s also likely that they saw something in this production which spoke to them, even though it alienated others. I’m not going to follow that thought any further here, into the context of different ways of ‘doing church’; maybe another day.

    One of the many ideas in the production which I thought didn’t really work was the projection of the word ‘PAUSE’ on the screen at the back after the assassination of Caesar. There followed a counted second-by-second two-minute pause in the action. I took that as a way of emphasising that one era had ended, and another was about to begin, but also as stressing that the assassins – the self-styled ‘liberators’ of the Republic – hadn’t worked out what to do next. Actually the pause lasted for longer than the timer stated, so it seemed rather pointless.

    Pauses are complicated. For most of us, the LLF process is currently in pause mode, although not for the bishops and others tasked with examining the implications of what was passed in February’s General Synod with a 57% vote in favour. And it’s certainly not in pause mode for those who were in the 43%. I’ve been criticised for continuing to ask of conservative evangelicals “In what would unity consist if your ‘settlement’ went ahead?” Rather than pausing to see what the bishops come up with, they are producing all sorts of ways to object, most recently the very sweet idea of a breakaway deanery chapter. This one seems to have been an own goal, leading to peak Anglican comments including “Were the biscuits mostly leftover custard creams?” and “Did they have the green cups and saucers?” but also raising serious questions around safeguarding.

    In a similar burst of words, there have been more comments than usual on a couple of recent posts on this site. Such discussions tend to happen in various Facebook groups or on Twitter, but since February that has changed. After a recent post, I decided to let those commenting have free reign, just to see what happened. Very quickly, the content of the comments became detached from the original post: people preached at each other, shouted at each other, expressed how injured and misunderstood they felt, and so on. I realised all I was doing was providing a place in which people could find targets for their anger. That didn’t feel helpful and it didn’t feel right. So I stopped my formal ‘approving’ of posts, and instead several of them tried to post to tell me I was biased (very funny, when I was blocking those of all views, and where the person had no idea what I was dealing with) or that I should be allowing ‘academic freedom’ (also funny, when nobody was offering any academic support for their views).

    Should I have stopped, or simply paused? Maybe I should have offered a ‘pause for reflection’ or a pause for thinking seriously about what a settlement would mean. I’m not convinced, though, that such a pause would have made a difference. And maybe that was the point of the Julius Caesar PAUSE – that, after it, things got worse, not better.

    Today we enter a week in which this blog will press ‘PAUSE’, not for two minutes, but for seven days. When I was being taught prose reading as a schoolgirl, I learned ‘the use of the pause’; knowing when a moment of silence before or after a word helped the listener to enter the meaning more deeply. Pausing can be powerful. In this Holy Week, however we mark it, can we all concentrate on the story we all share, and all tell: of a week two millennia ago which changed what it is to be human; of God who became one of us, who taught us how to live, who experienced the anger of those who did not share God’s vision of love and mercy, who was crucified and who rose again? PAUSE.

  • One Church? Secrecy, Unity and Temptation

    by Helen King, Professor Emerita in Classical Studies at The Open University, authorised lay preacher, member of General Synod and vice-chair of its Gender & Sexuality Group

    It’s a year ago this month that I took over as guest editor of this blog. My post on taking up the role focused on how, to those outside the church, we look like a very strange social group. Looking back, has that changed? I think not. If anything, it has got worse.

    Last month, we had the long-awaited Synod debate on the Living in Love and Faith process (also known as ‘5 years of my life gone’). After hours of debate and yet more small group work, the bishops’ proposals were amended and passed with 57% in favour, and yet all that has really changed is that some conservative evangelicals have announced they are “compelled to resist”. I assume that, ahead of their meeting today, the bishops have been working out the membership of the various groups who will redraft the not-yet-allowed Prayers of Love and Faith and will write the pastoral guidance to replace the much-maligned Issues in Human Sexuality. As I write this, it remains unclear what – if anything? – will be presented to the July General Synod.

    In that blog post a year ago I remembered being part of the Diocesan Shared Conversations process which the C of E went through in 2015 and feeling that “I was desperate to find a way in which we could live together with respect being shown to those who read the Bible and tradition differently.” Little did I know then that – in my role as vice-chair of the Gender & Sexuality Group on General Synod – I would be invited to join the St Hugh’s Conversations. Tentative feelers came my way shortly after I took over this blog. I was initially horrified to find that this group existed and that it had been discussing how to split the C of E. Not “a way in which we could live together” so much a way we could live apart, with some of us welcoming same-sex marriage and others rejecting it. It made me feel physically sick. Once I had googled the group – and found nothing, confirming how well the secret had been kept – I realised that I probably should have guessed someone somewhere had already been working on the options. Because the group was secret, I couldn’t discuss it with anyone outside it, and that made it feel even worse.

    I wasn’t able to attend their meeting immediately before the July 2022 General Synod so my first experience of St Hugh’s (other than reading the file of various documents batted back and forth over the years) was in November 2022. At that meeting it was agreed that the high level of secrecy no longer needed to be maintained, not least because published comments by both Bishop Steven Croft and Vaughan Roberts had made it clear that such a group existed; we were therefore free to refer to the group, but not to name its members or attribute anything said there. I mentioned it in passing in a blog post soon after, and my fellow participant Simon Butler also mentioned it in his open letter to the Bishop of Southwark. Nobody was very interested, other than the English Churchman (A Protestant Family Newspaper) which became quite excited (“secret conversations come to light”) and that story was picked up by Anglican Mainstream. The English Churchman asked the Church of England Evangelical Council what was going on and shared their (deliberately vague?) response:

    For several years, CEEC has been talking with both those who share our views and those who disagree on the topic of human sexuality. CEEC has explored, in a number of articles, the idea that visible and robust differentiation might provide a solution to the fundamental theological incompatibility that exists around this issue within the CofE.

    Other than Simon and me, I am not aware of anyone else who has revealed they are part of St Hugh’s – is that because the conservative evangelicals in the room are embarrassed to have been part of a ‘secret’ group? Such a worry about secrecy would seem ironic when they are in churches which are not transparent about their own policies on women in ministry or on LGBTQIA+ people; something SCM’s Honest Church campaign is highlighting.

    In his open letter, Simon commented that “The uniting spirit of the St Hugh’s Conversations is a desire to bring to a conclusion the battle over sexuality that has beset the Church since 1987 … We believe – at least tentatively – that now must be the time to find a settlement which will suit us all. I have come to agree with this position.” I am less persuaded. What would ‘differentiation’, a ‘settlement’, look like? More ‘flying bishops’, deals between dioceses, another Province within the Church of England? A bishop for any combination of views on women and on LGBTQIA+ people? What sort of ecclesiology is that? I’ve now asked three times at St Hugh’s, “In any such settlement, in what would unity consist?” And I still haven’t had an answer.

    Let’s just look at what one congregation, Vaughan Roberts’ church, St Ebbe’s Oxford, has now done. Oxford has four bishops, none of whom support the CEEC. Vaughan Roberts states that

    St Ebbe’s clergy have already declared that we are in impaired communion with the bishops in our diocese, which means that we will not welcome them to preach, confirm, ordain or conduct our ministerial reviews, and we will not take communion with them.

    No unity there, then. Not even taking communion ‘with’ a bishop? That’s not “impaired” communion – it’s no communion at all. Not having your ministerial review with your diocesan bishops? Surely this is already saying that they are not in the same church? I wrote about my suspicions here when I noticed that some General Synod members weren’t even willing to attend the service at York Minster with the rest of us. Again I ask: in what does our unity consist, even now?

    In a recent post on this site, Charles Read noted that the desire to have a bishop who agrees with you on everything is something new. It’s been pointed out many times that conservative evangelicals have managed to stay in the C of E while disagreeing with the decisions on women priests, women bishops, marrying people who have previously been divorced, allowing priests to be in civil partnerships …  Where women bishops are concerned, a congregation which won’t accept their bishop can have a ‘flying bishop’ instead. Would such a congregation refuse to take communion with a bishop who is a woman, or a bishop who has ‘laid hands on’ a woman in consecrating her as a bishop or in ordaining her as a priest? Would they listen to a sermon preached by a person who accepts that women can be bishops?

    And now CEEC has raised the stakes yet again. Just when we thought the issue was gay sex, and so long as you didn’t do anything sexual then you could still be accepted in their churches, now it’s not OK to be in a committed relationship with someone of the same sex, even if you’re not doing anything you think counts as sexual. So what does that mean for clergy in civil partnerships: a relationship which the C of E had been allowing on the grounds that it wasn’t sexual? In one of the many supporting Q and A documents they offer, CEEC reject even CPs: being in “covenanted relationships such as civil partnerships so long as they don’t engage in sexual intimacy” is forbidden because such relationships are still “based on a temptation”.

    When you think of how little time in a marriage is spent feeling temptation or in “sexual intimacy”, it does seem to me that the conservative evangelical view of the marriage bond is dangerously skewed. The most conservative approach of all, I think, is the one they reject: simply to rejoice in marriage as a faithful and committed relationship for two people to live in, and to open it to any two people who are willing and able to make the marriage vows.

  • The Unholy Alliance

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

    Alliances are the bread and butter of politics. Whether it’s formal coalitions or back room deals, nobody who plays the politics game can ever truly pretend to keep their hands clean. The Church of England is no exception – not least since questions of sex and marriage have now become the latest political football. It’s easy to sink into a deep frustration about the fact that – yet again – LGBTQI+ people are forced into being the means and not the ends of yet another political fight, but there is one alliance which really needs to be called out for the extremely destructive force it might become, for all concerned and for the whole church. For it is becoming clearer and clearer that ‘traditionalist’ catholics – those who oppose the ordination of women as priests and bishops – are, at least in their official pronouncements and ecclesial bodies – joining forces with conservative evangelicals and pretending to present a unified front. It’s politically expedient, for now – but it’s theologically incoherent and ultimately inept and, unless traditionalists are careful, they are going to end up in a very sticky position.

    Because the reality is that, despite their apparent agreement – that ‘the sacrament of marriage’ is for man-woman only (ignoring, conveniently, the ‘lifelong’ element which is usually attached to that) – their theological rationale and indeed entire conception of marriage is fundamentally different. It is, incidentally, fascinating to see which hill people are willing to die on – I can’t imagine the evangelicals of years-gone-by being so willing to call marriage a sacrament! It is, presumably, the lack of actual agreement that leads to the theological thin-gruel found in the rather embarrassing trad-cath-con-evo paper that stands up to very little scrutiny yet which is ‘wholly endorsed’ by the traditionalist bishops. They might come to the same conclusion, but the working is very, very different – and it’s extraordinary dishonest to suggest otherwise.

    The key element here that most demonstrates the lack of agreement is the question of whether gay sex – even gay relationships (in fact, even gay celibate friendships, as the most recent iteration of the CEEC’s charming advice suggests) – is a salvation issue. That is, does this damn us to hell or not. And the truth is that whilst the CEEC and their heavies think that it is and that it does, the vast majority of traditionalists do not. Traditionalists, in the main, see this as a doctrinal issue of catholic order – one that may indeed even change in the wider church at some point, but which the Church of England has no authority to change unilaterally (whether one buys that particular argument is for another day). Many traditionalist priests I speak to are sick and tired of the political alliance that has been formed, because they are longing to find ways to be pastorally accommodating to same-sex couples while holding to a ‘traditional’ doctrine of the sacrament itself.

    And we really need to name the elephant in the room, because as Christians, particularly if we are in public ministry, we are called to truth, not to so-called ‘discretion’ which is ultimately a lie. That elephant is that there are plenty of traditionalist clergy having sex with men – often in committed and loving relationships. And this matters because if some traditionalist clergy are in relationships, and are having gay sex, they need to be able to justify this theologically, or stop doing it – or the whole thing is a sham. We bring everything to God – and thus we must bring everything to our theology. ‘Pastoral accommodation’ is personal – and theological. And it is utterly theologically impossible to hold this perspective together with the conservative evangelical argument about a ‘salvation issue’ – even if it is politically useful. Ends very rarely justify means – particularly when those means sow dishonesty and mistruths.

    And before there are the usual howls of faux-outrage and disgruntlement that someone could ‘say such a thing’ about traditionalist clergy – enough, already. I have been to many an event where traditionalist clergy partners are very clearly visible. I’ve been on pilgrimages where they’re sharing rooms. I’ve sat opposite traditionalist clergy with their boyfriends at supper who are quite open – provided it’s not too open – that they’re in a sexual relationship. I have traditionalist friends for whom this is their normal lived experience. Don’t tell me it’s not happening – we see it with our own eyes. It’s not an opinion – it’s a fact.

    Now don’t get me wrong – I’m delighted that trad clergy have found boyfriends, partners, whatever you want to call it – though please do try to avoid the euphemistic and ultimately hypocritical nonsense about lodgers and ‘special friends’. But what drives me absolutely round the bend is the hypocrisy.

    We don’t live in a tweedocracy of the Edwardian era, where everything was terribly nudge-nudge wink-wink, and clergy had their secret clandestine affairs with young men. The current situation is not only infantilising to the clergy and partners involved; it patronises the laity, it is clericalist in the most unappetising way, and it is ultimately a potential safeguarding risk. Dancing around the issue, refusing to be honest and open, is as potentially dangerous as it is pathetic.

    Now before I get accused of painting with too broad a brush, of course I accept and recognise that there are plenty of traditionalist clergy who abhor this kind of clandestine rubbish. That applies both those who would demand celibacy of gay clergy and those who would hope for some change in practice, in doctrine, or even – dare I say – in welcoming same-sex marriage in churches. But the traditionalist bishops have made a big mistake in pretending that there is a singular ‘Society’ perspective on this, as has the traditionalist leadership in the church’s political sphere, because they risk making hypocrites of the whole enterprise by looking to politics rather than theology. And traditionalists can do better than that.

    If traditionalists are going to oppose same-sex marriage on catholic grounds, then they are going to need to face the question of sex head on and find some answers. If you’re going to stop same-sex couples getting married – the Christian normative place for sex – then you either have to demand celibacy of all same-sex couples – yourself included – or you need to do the theological work to think about why sex outside of marriage might be theologically acceptable.

    That latter task – talking about sex in a theologically sensible way – is one that the church corporate needs to get its teeth into as the Pastoral Guidance is drawn up, given the refusal of the Church of England to take what is ultimately the more conservative option and open marriage up to people of the same sex, and hence keep sex within marriage. The traditionalist camp can either bury their heads in the sand and pretend they’re best mates with the CEEC, or they can be honest and play their part in actually talking about the issue at hand.

    Of course being honest and grappling with this, recognising there isn’t a single view or narrative, isn’t going to be easy – but the cross isn’t meant to be easy. Courage, friends – let your yes be yes and your no be no. Your integrity demands it.

  • What is The Church of England Evangelical Council Up To? Some Autobiographical Reflections

    by Charles Read, a priest in the Diocese of Norwich and a  former member of General Synod who works in theological and ministerial education across East Anglia and continental Europe

    In its response to Living in Love and Faith (LLF), The Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) has said that evangelicals need separate structures in the Church of England. This has puzzled many people, including many evangelicals.

    CEEC was set up in the 1960s by John Stott. The evangelical wing of the Church of England had been in decline for some time. You might trace this back to the very negative and reactionary response of evangelicals to the later Oxford Movement in the 19th century but certainly by the 1920s the future in the Church of England was Anglo-Catholic with great congresses and Prayer Book revision which leaned in a clearly Catholic direction.

    The evangelical resurgence came after the Second World War and by the 1960s was growing, but evangelicals remained a minority voice in the Church of England. John Stott, rector of All Souls Langham Place in London, was acknowledged as the leader of this growing section of the church. One of the things which Stott was good at was organising and putting in place structures of support. He founded CEEC to bring different evangelical groups together for networking and support. It was not a campaigning group in those early days, and has only become so quite recently.

    I was born in the 1960s in a single-parent family in a fairly prosperous village in Staffordshire, although our family was not at all prosperous and we lived in some of the very small amount of rented accommodation in the village. The only religious options in the village were the Methodist Chapel and the Church of England church. This latter was evangelical in its tradition with strong evangelical patronage from the Martyrs’ Memorial Trust. However, like most evangelical Anglican churches at the time, it had a clear vision of being there for everybody in the community. So although my family were not churchgoers on a regular basis, apart from my uncle and his wife who were Salvationists, I was duly baptised in this local church.

    When the vicar introduced a Family Service once a month, my mother took me along. (It was evangelicals who invented family services in the 1960s.) She sent me to Sunday school on the other Sundays but by the time I got to secondary school I had lapsed out of this. I started going to the school Christian Union because it was somewhere warm to go during the long lunch break! It was run by the head of RE who happened to be a Reader in the village church where I lived. He persuaded me to go to the church youth group (Pathfinders) on a Sunday morning and it was through the ministry of this group that I became a Christian in 1973.

    Growing up in this kind of evangelical Anglican church, I recall that we did not expect a bishop to share our theological convictions. We were only three miles from Lichfield but did not see the Bishop of Lichfield very often. We welcomed him warmly when he came and we took people off to the cathedral for confirmation, including me. We assumed that bishops would be theologically liberal and liturgically Catholic and we had no problem with that – it was just how it was. When Maurice Wood became Bishop of Norwich in 1971 there was much rejoicing that an evangelical had become a diocesan Bishop. (People did not generally think back to Ryle in Liverpool some decades earlier or to the 19th century evangelical bishops.)

    From this sketch of my early experiences of church life as a child and teenager, I hope you might see the fact that evangelicals like us were happy to be who we were in a church where we were a minority, and where we did not expect to find bishops, archdeacons or diocesan staff who shared our theological views. We just got along with such people, and in the parish we got on with preaching a message of God’s love and salvation open to all, if they would simply turn to God and accept Jesus as their saviour. I was never aware of being rejected because I came from a single-parent family and my unmarried mother was never rejected by the local church either. This is a far cry from the judgmentalism of the first CEEC video which was produced in response to LLF where, in passing, at least one participant speaks about children growing up in single-parent families ending up in a life of delinquency and crime because of the absence of a father. I am afraid that I did not get the memo and so, rather than enter a life of crime and anti-social behaviour, I became a Christian and ended up in full-time Christian ministry as a priest. I can only apologise to CEEC that I missed my preordained vocation. I am too old now to embark on a spree of delinquency but I am doing my best to cause disruption at Diocesan Synod and I hope that will do.

    We did not, in those days, want or ask for separate structures in order to flourish. Gradually, we learned how to work within the structures of the Church of England and to bring some evangelical witness into things. Many of us learned to appreciate things in other parts of the Church of England which we evangelicals did not have. It’s true that evangelicalism was probably more united then than it is today, even within one denomination. When Anglican evangelicals met evangelicals from other denominations we found we might disagree over things like infant baptism but we put such disagreements to one side. (With the re-emergence of Charismatic Christianity in the 1960s, a fault line did appear amongst Anglican evangelicals.) Nowadays it is common to think that there might be several different tribes of Anglican evangelicals and often they are not speaking to each other very much.

    The CEEC was supposed to bring these different tribes together but in fact has become increasingly associated with the conservative evangelical tribe. It has long since ceased to represent the breath of evangelicalism within the Church of England. As such, its claim to speak for evangelicals in the Church of England is difficult to take seriously. Very few evangelical bishops are associated with it (and there are a lot more of them now than there were in 1971!).

    We managed with bishops who were theologically and liturgically different from us and we never thought it would be appropriate to insist on a Bishop who thought and worshipped in the way that we did. This was all part of being committed to being part of the Church of England. In more recent years, evangelical Anglicans have not needed separate structures over such issues as divorce and remarriage and very few have opted into the provision of a ‘flying Bishop’ – largely because most Anglican evangelicals support the ordination of women. The suggestion from CEEC that we have separate bishops and separate structures in the light of LLF is truly puzzling, not least to those of us who have grown up evangelical. Is this an attempt at setting up a pure church? Who knows – but it is a novel move within Church of England evangelicalism. I am glad to have come to faith and grown up in the welcoming, inclusive and truly Anglican evangelicalism of my youth. I do not recognise myself or this type of evangelicalism in the pronouncements of CEEC.

     

     

     

     

  • Increasing Inclusion and Respecting Conscience: Learning from Elsewhere

    by Savitri Hensman, author of  “Sexuality, Struggle and Saintliness” and LGBTI+ equality activist, writer and involvement coordinator

    As the Church of England (C of E) prepares for the next steps on sexuality and gender identity, there has been a flurry of activity among those for and those against lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT)+ affirmation. There have been formal meetings between bishops and groups as well as ongoing campaigning, including the release of the fifth in a series of videos by the staunchly ‘conservative’ Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC), online. While still warning against the hazards of greater equality, CEEC appears to be more open than before to considering a way forward which allows space for those with different views. Generally I believe this should be welcomed, though finding a way forward amidst very different perspectives will still be challenging.

    Developments in Anglican and other churches

    The most recent phase of the C of E’s 55-year process of formal study and dialogue on sexuality and gender identity was ‘Living in Love and Faith’ (LLF). Learning materials were circulated, discussions held, feedback collected and analysed. At the end of October, the College of Bishops will begin considering proposals to put to General Synod in early 2023. Though surveys indicate that opinion has changed radically among laypeople and numerous theologians now call for greater inclusion, the pace of change at the top has been glacially slow. Yet there seems to be a genuine readiness for significant change.

    CEEC does not represent all evangelicals in the C of E, many of whom are affirming or undecided. Nevertheless, it carries considerable weight. A couple of years ago, it seemed implacably opposed to any shift which would allow greater freedom of conscience to affirming Christians, many of whom believe this is a matter of biblical faithfulness. The latest of a series of films on the current situation, ‘Learning from elsewhere’, is different in tone.

    ‘In this film we listen to voices from around the Anglican Communion who have experienced first hand the damaging impact of change without “settlement” (ie change that does not provide security for an orthodox biblical conviction),’ the website states. ‘CEEC is convinced that we must learn from the mistakes made elsewhere and reach for a settlement that works for everyone rather than a “middle ground” theological compromise does not help the Church of England going forwards.’

    The video focuses particularly on the Episcopal Church (TEC), where rifts have indeed been emotionally and financially costly to people on both sides of conflict. Admittedly at times I found myself smiling wryly, at an account of what took place which might confuse viewers unaware of the history, and the sudden discovery by those no longer sure of their dominance that a winner-takes-all scenario has flaws. Nonetheless I recognise the difficulty faced by those with opinions very different from mine who feel as if the ground beneath their feet has shifted; and am glad if a way forward can be found which is not too painful to them or damaging to the church’s wider mission and ministry.

    To start with, those watching might get the impression that the consecration by TEC of a partnered gay bishop, Gene Robinson, in 2003 was the start of the rifts which occurred. Yet divisions in this church long pre-date this, with a ‘Continuing Anglican Movement’ active over a quarter-century earlier, and had spilled out across the Anglican Communion by the late 1990s. This has not been solely about sexuality and gender identity: women’s leadership and other matters have also been matters of dispute. However in the early 2000s, the pace of disaffection did pick up. Retired history professor Ron Caldwell has provided a brief history of schisms in TEC, from a different perspective from that of CEEC, but also concludes that battling matters out in the courts is far from ideal for Christians.

    What is more, although people seeking greater inclusion have sometimes behaved in clumsy and overbearing ways, there is still space for people with ‘conservative’ views – and, to their credit, a number have remained in TEC. Clergy unwilling to celebrate marriages of same-sex couples are free not to do so, although they cannot override freedom of conscience for others who wish to offer weddings regardless of loving partners’ gender, in countries where the law permits this. Parishes can still choose ministers, and dioceses elect bishops, with non-affirming views. This might not be obvious to viewers of this latest CEEC video.

    Nevertheless, some of those unhappy with what they saw as a damaging theological shift felt strongly enough to break away, after which there were legal disputes over control of property, with varying outcomes in different states. Though the amounts sometimes quoted as having been spent by TEC may be exaggerated, it has been expensive and distressing to those on both sides. In some other dioceses, there were major tensions. It was moving to hear of reconciliation in Pittsburgh and recognition elsewhere of the value of mutual understanding.

    The Scottish Episcopal Church, after much dialogue and reflection, also moved forward on permitting equal marriage, though people uncomfortable with this were still welcomed and respected. In the words of a news release in 2017, ‘there are different understandings of marriage and that no member of clergy is compelled to conduct any marriage against their conscience.’

    In parts of the Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia and in the Church in Wales, also mentioned, blessings were allowed for same-sex couples without going as far as marriage – but some of those opposed still felt abandoned. This reinforces the fact that, if C of E bishops push for a ‘halfway house’ of permitting only blessings, it will not placate the strongly non-affirming, while perpetuating hurt to LGBT+ people and sorrow to those who feel the Spirit is calling the church to greater inclusivity.

    Archbishop Emeritus Mouneer Anis from the Global South Fellowship – which was, and is, far from representing the whole South – argued that change anywhere would damage Middle Eastern provinces. Yet globally the landscape is continually shifting and bold voices are calling for love and justice; some may say this is the Spirit’s work.

    For England, Damilola Makinde of CEEC urged a settlement without theological compromise, as the best way forward for all. A later film will explore possibilities.

    Next steps

    Like many LGBT+ and other Christians working for a more inclusive church, though admittedly not all, I seek a way forward which does not override freedom of conscience for those with whom I profoundly disagree, except in (narrowly defined) abusive situations, such as attempted exorcisms. I believe persuasive theology and the ‘good fruits’ (Matthew 7.15-20) seen in affirming spaces are often more effective in achieving change than use of legal or institutional power. The law here anyway guarantees, in churches which permit equal marriage, choice to each minister.

    If Synod agrees changes and some in the C of E wish to distance themselves, settlements may be constrained by charity law and the need to maintain spaces where mainstream C of E members can worship. However, as far as possible, I believe that generosity should be shown and fellowship maintained. The film offers some hope.

     

    Thanks to Cynthia Katsarelis for some of the information on the Episcopal Church.