ViaMedia

Tag: Justin Welby

  • We Don’t Need More Theology: This is the Time for Action

    by Charlie Bell, Fellow in Public Theology and Medicine at Girton College, Cambridge, Associate Vicar of St John the Divine, Kennington, in the Diocese of Southwark, and member of the LLF Vocations and Ministry Working Group

    I will admit that talk of clergy discipline is not something that excites me terribly much. If we’re brutally honest, it’s not been something the Church of England has done a stellar job at in recent years – the ‘Clergy Discipline Measure’ often finding itself to be a tool of vexatious and politically motivated censure, or utterly toothless as a way to manage genuine clerical misdemeanours. We are told that the newly introduced ‘Clergy Conduct Measure’ is going to be much better, but the proof of the pudding – as ever – will be in the eating. Yet I think it is worth focusing in on discipline when it comes to clerical marriage because – it is clear – we have become so bogged down in endless debates about ‘the theology’ [sic] that we fail to see the wood for the trees.

    One of the thorniest issues which continues to perplex the House of Bishops is how to enable clergy to enter into marriages to people of the same sex or gender. Because it’s always good to speak the truth, let’s be honest here – it is the ‘how’ not the ‘whether’ that is now being debated, for a variety of extremely compelling reasons. There are clergy who can no longer minister because they’ve entered into a civil marriage – clearly absurd – and marriage to someone of the same sex or gender is now pretty much the only absolute impediment to ordained ministry, meaning that in the middle of a vocations crisis, we are turning to people whose vocations have often been affirmed through official church processes and saying ‘no, thanks’.

    It’s a total scandal – it’s cruel, it’s self-defeating, it flies in the face of the clear evidence that LGBTQIA clergy are often wonderful pastors, the vast majority of bishops agree that it is a pernicious and nasty witness, and most importantly, I think, it is utterly unnecessary. Yet for months (actually, for years) we have heard that boring, ridiculous, and inaccurate phrase, ‘we need to do more theology’ on this, whilst we keep slamming the door in the faces of queer people. Well, actually, we don’t need to.

    The call for theology has been an absolutely superb delaying tactic, of course, but it is ultimately irrelevant, because this is not really a question about doctrine at all – it is a question about discipline. It’s time we named that, and got on with it.

    I do appreciate that there are those who think that those of us pushing for a change in discipline are – in so doing – trying to subvert or change the doctrine, so let me be blunt about where many of us are coming from. I absolutely do believe that sacramental marriage should be opened to all couples. I absolutely do believe that God is already at work in queer marriages and that the church is doing itself a disservice in refusing to recognise this. I am absolutely committed to seeing the doctrine of marriage enlarged and – in being enlarged – enriched. All of that is no surprise.

    Yet I am also clear that this is not where we are at the moment in our decision-making processes (even if we are there in the minds and hearts of many churchgoers and clergy). Again, let’s be blunt. Canon B30 is in force. The Church of England’s current doctrine is that marriage is between a man and a woman (for life, by the way, but hey – let’s not be pedantic, right?). That is also the Church of England’s practice. In order to allow queer marriage in church, we would need to change Canon B30 (which, by the way, does not require a two-thirds majority in General Synod), and we would need to modify the liturgical provision (which does).

    All of this is not opinion, but objective fact. What is also objective fact is that clergy entering into something the church does not call marriage is not going to change any of that – it cannot. In other words, whilst clergy might enter into a covenant that the state calls marriage, the church does not and will not call it ‘the holy estate of marriage’ unless or until – God willing – it is open enough to hear what the Holy Spirit is calling it to do. Which means that there is no specific doctrinal change required to allow clergy to enter an institution which is not – in the eyes of the church – the holy estate of marriage.

    It is important to be absolutely clear about this, because much water has been muddied in this arena, often rather disingenuously. Now, of course, other churches (including other Anglican churches) might well recognise queer marriage as the bona fide ‘holy estate of marriage’, but we do not, yet, in the Church of England. So what is being talked about with clergy entering into this institution is ultimately a pastoral provision in its truest sense – a way of living effectively in the complex reality of the world in which we find ourselves as a church. It is also pastoral provision in a church that really does disagree on the goods present within queer relationships, and the way to order a holy life if we are LGBTQIA. It is, in other words, a way of enabling ministry in a complicated, messy, and unsatisfactory church. We have historically called the ‘complicated, messy, and unsatisfactory church’ the Church of England.

    Currently, clergy who enter a queer marriage cannot exercise new ministry; that means that they cannot be ordained or, if they are already ordained, that they cannot hold a new license – yet if they are currently licensed, they can continue under that license, which shows the absurdity of the situation. Why not? This derives from the so-called ‘Valentine’s Day Statement’ of 2014, where the House of Bishops hurriedly declared that being in a same-sex marriage was incompatible with ordained ministry. I understand that this was a response to an anxious Archbishop desperate to keep the ‘Communion’ happy at a meeting the following day, and leaning heavily on his fellow bishops – times were rather different then. Today, queer marriage rather than civil partnerships is the norm, and yet this nasty little Statement remains the be all and end all of the way we treat queer clergy hoping to gain some civil (not ecclesial) status for their relationship.

    Ministry Division claim (with questionable reasoning) that this Statement prevents people even entering the national discernment process, and bishops – rather timidly, I might add – point to it and mostly wring their hands when they are presented with a married queer ordinand or priest. Some bishops are courageous enough to find limited workarounds, but far too many – especially those on the ‘inclusive’ side – would rather privilege ‘collegiality’ amongst bishops over pastoral care for their queer clergy. It’s pretty scandalous, and eight years on from calls for ‘radical new Christian inclusion’ what we appear to have is ‘radically weak episcopal decision making’ paired with ‘radical obsession with “doing the theology”‘, when no such theology is necessary for a basic, practical decision.

    The thing that makes all this so frustrating is that this statement could simply be rescinded, or bishops could equally simply say that they are no longer abiding by it. If that happened, there is absolutely no impediment to queer married clergy being ordained or licensed. There is not a doctrinal case to answer, because this is not the holy estate of marriage. What, precisely, would change if clergy got married, except an end to the current pointless cruelty? What is the issue here? The only difference would be that clergy would be able to regularise their relationships in law (and please just educate yourself if you don’t know the legal differences and implications between civil partnerships and marriage). The church will not collapse. Queer clergy are already in relationships, and are already being ordained and licensed – I know, because I’m one of them. So what actually changes when we get married?

    I would urge us, then, to take a step back from this endless focus on ‘theology’. There is, of course, theology to be done – about living with doctrinal differences, about delegated episcopacy, about holiness of life and estate, about the meaning of ‘intimacy’ and ‘sex’ and ‘proper place’ and so on. But not one bit of this impacts upon whether clergy should face discipline for entering into an institution that the church does not recognise beyond being a legal entity. I have heard a number of times that seeing this as a disciplinary matter means that queer clergy will be upset the church has nothing good to say about their marriages. You know what? It’s baby steps. Perhaps let us keep our jobs, first?

    After years and years of LLF, and wasted time and lives, and persistent and pernicious cruelty meted out on queer people – particularly on those in ministry – it feels too easy. Yet it really is this easy – this is a matter of discipline, and the bishops have it in their power not only to resolve this, but to stop looking quite so silly at the same time. The current position is objectively ludicrous and cruel in equal measure. No more theology – it’s time for action, instead.

  • The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Communion

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

    At midnight tonight Justin Welby will have left his role and the search for new Archbishop of Canterbury will soon be underway in earnest.

    This time there will be five representatives from the Anglican Communion on the CNC. They have probably already been selected but, rather like a football pundit on the eve of a big game, I want to offer some speculation.

    It is widely assumed that the Anglican Communion representatives will massively skew the process towards a conservative outcome. In particular, I have heard it said on numerous occasions that they will block any possibility of a woman in Lambeth Palace.

    Call me mad, but I don’t think it is inevitable – in fact it could be quite the opposite.

    At this point it is quite unpredictable who will make the list, but we have a list of names. They will all have participated as members at the Anglican Consultative Council.

    If you are not familiar with the Anglican Communion the process will make your head spin, and even for me who has attended four ACCs, two Lambeth Conferences, and three Primates’ Meetings it is not completely clear.

    As I understand it, Primates from each of the five regions of the Communion – Asia, the Americas, Africa, Europe, and Oceania – will have searched through the list of present and recent ACC members to find people to nominate. Immediately this is a bit complex, because these regions do not precisely reflect the existing boundaries, so I expect Jerusalem and the Middle East to be in Asia and potentially East Asia to be part of Oceania.

    I could be wrong – if you know any information I don’t, please put it in the comments.

    By now the names may have been presented to a group from the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion to select the five members. From the nominees, the Standing Committee will select at least one Primate, one priest or deacon (who could be a bishop), and one member of the laity. At least two will be male, and two female. A majority should be people of global-majority heritage. Not only that, there should be a youth representative and an indigenous person.

    Is your head spinning? It should be.

    Quite a lot of power is being placed in the hands of the group choosing the representatives. We do not have a clear indication of who is on that group, but it will be impossible for them not to have their bias; we all have bias. However, they have to follow the rules.

    Those rules seem to limit the choice of Primate to one who is a member of the ACC. Until recently, the constitution of the ACC was designed to preclude primates from being members, but there are currently two Primates who attend the ACC as members, the Archbishops of Jerusalem and Tanzania. If they limit themselves to those two, then either the Africa or the Asia and the Middle East place is taken.

    By coincidence, both Archbishop Naoum and Archbishop Mndolwa studied theology in Grahamstown, South Africa and Virginia in the US. These are more liberal institutions than some of the others attended by other eligible primates; neither are linked to conservative groups and both have links with TEC. I have deep respect for both Archbishops: they are people of integrity and wisdom. I suspect that Archbishop Naoum would be a good fit, but as he is Archbishop of Jerusalem and, as I shall explain, there are very good reasons to fill the Asia and Middle East slot with the ‘youth’ representative, it might be that the slot for Primates is taken by Archbishop Mndolwa.

    However, there is another option. Since ACC 14, the Primates’ Standing Committee has attended ACC meetings. As recently as ACC 16 they were only observers, but more recently they have been incorporated as members. I am unclear as to whether this has actually been discussed by the ACC and if the constitution has been amended, but it seems to be de facto in place. This means they could opt for one of the Primates on Standing Committee.

    If that is the case then there will be a focus on the one representative from Africa. The perception is that an African would be ‘conservative’ but such labels can be misleading. An African delegate will not be an advocate of equal marriage, that is certain, but they are likely to be from a province that has maintained its links with TEC and they are unlikely to object to a woman as Archbishop of Canterbury. One reason for this is that the requirement for nominations from those who have recently participated as members of the ACC means the GAFCON provinces of Nigeria, Rwanda, and Uganda are all ruled out. They have not sent delegations to the ACC for years.

    It is possible that a representative could come from the more progressive provinces such as Southern Africa, but even if they are from the evangelical heartlands of Kenya or South Sudan, they would be unlikely to block a woman Archbishop of Canterbury. For example, Archbishop Ole Sapit – the Primate of Kenya – has consecrated women as bishops. He might be a strong candidate from the Primates’ Standing Committee. Alternatively, South Sudan has taken a lead in the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans but their episcopal delegate to ACC is Bishop Elizabeth Awut, one of many impressive African women on the Council.

    African Anglicanism is not the conservative homogeny that it is portrayed as being. In most places it is a force for the empowerment of women. In the UK some may still think of the Mothers’ Union as an aging organisation concerned with sewing and jam making, but its African membership makes it the biggest member organisation in the world. It is a vibrant and powerful voice for women across Africa and has taken feminist stands on gender-based violence, education for girls, and female genital mutilation. If they choose a woman, there is a good chance she will have a similar feminist agenda.

    While there is so much choice available to the Standing Committee from Africa that it is hard to know who might be chosen, they are likely to celebrate a woman as Archbishop of Canterbury.

    Next, we turn to ‘Europe’, which in this context means Ireland, Wales, and Scotland. I think it is unlikely that any of the Primates would want to be in a position of choosing the archbishop of their neighbouring province, so it is likely that they will seek a recent or present ACC delegate. Probably the most qualified is Canon Alistair Dinnie who has just stepped down from the Standing Committee. He was the first gay man to be married in the SEC and so his selection might bring on scrutiny that he would find intrusive. But there is a good chance that the representative could come from a church which is comfortable blessing gay unions, or even marrying gay people, and which would also be delighted with a woman as the Archbishop of Canterbury.

    As I hinted earlier, Asia could provide the Youth Representative. Aishi Drong is the official lay representative from Bangladesh, but she is also a youth representative and a member of the Standing Committee. She ticks so many boxes it makes the matrix possible. I suspect they would need a very good reason not to pick her.

    Even if she is not the youth representative, the young person will come from the Anglican Youth Network. All the members of that network are more likely to be energised by Greta Thunberg than to have heard of Mary Whitehouse. The Anglican Youth Network is marked out by a commitment to the environment and to the empowerment of women and girls. I can’t see any youth representative opposing a woman in Canterbury.

    It would be a shock to me if the representative from the Americas was not progressive. The Primate of Brazil – Archbishop Marinez Bassotto – might be a candidate and she delights in being in a church which has full equal marriage. Another great candidate would be Ranjit Matthews, the clergy representative of TEC, who is very well respected across the Communion. There are many people to choose from, but whoever is chosen is likely to be progressive.

    What may cause a problem for the Standing Committee is that there does not appear to be an indigenous person among the ACC members from the provinces of the Americas. That means they will need to look to Oceania to offer an indigenous person. However, this will present a problem. The Anglican Indigenous Network limits its membership to those who are minorities in their historic lands.

    The Network has always been one of the most dynamic of Networks in the Communion. Anglican institutions in some parts of the world were violent oppressors of indigenous peoples, especially in places such as Canada and Australia. However, in recent years the Anglican Church has become a beacon of hope with indigenous leadership and successful campaigns for indigenous rights. The Anglican Indigenous Network is an amazing resource for reconciliation and restoration. However, and here again please correct me if I am wrong in the comments, I can’t spot an ‘indigenous’ person who has been a full delegate to either ACC 16 or 17.

    The closest is possibly the Polynesian Fe’iloakitau Kaho Tevi who represents the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand, and Polynesia. He is an environmental activist and he is likely to want an Archbishop who pays attention to the climate crisis. He is not going to be a conservative voice on the committee.

    The Indigenous Network is not conventionally conservative. The members have been engaged in a conversation on gender and sexuality in their own way and have refused to be drawn into the polarised conflicts. They have many important women among them and again would likely celebrate a woman Archbishop.

    The brief given to the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion thus offers a bias that could result in a delegation more progressive than those from the Diocese of Canterbury or the Church of England.

    While this article is complete speculation, I can’t find any reason to believe that the Anglican Communion members of CNC will block a woman for Canterbury.

    The project will work if the Anglican Communion delegation prioritise finding a fantastic leader for the Church of England. If they work to their best they can offer deep insight to help the whole team discern the kind of leader we need. If they do that, they will have someone who contributes to the Anglican Communion without trying to solve its problems.

    If they focus on getting a global leader they will fail to deliver a good leader for us in the Church of England and they will have an impaired Archbishop of Canterbury.

    This is all speculation – let’s see what is announced.

  • Justice and Moving On

    by ‘Graham’

    I am told, time and time again, that, twelve years after I first came forward, the Makin Review is published, and I must “move on”. Put this all behind me, start a new life. It’s 2025, move on.

    And my reply has always been: when victims have the truth, and justice. But what does justice look like? Have we received the truth? What does closure look like?

    I have always said that I do not want to be part of a witch hunt. This whole damned saga has ruined my life. All I want is honesty, humble, human honesty. I have said that this might have worked out so differently. If Justin had, in 2017, said “I am sorry, I messed up. I thought someone else was dealing with it. Are you alright? Is there anything I can do? I am in my car, ready to drive to see you, as I want to look you in the eyes and apologise. I want to give you my full, frank, comprehensive account of what I knew and when, what I did and when, to the absolute best that my memory allows. I will give you whatever time you need. I am ordering a full investigation today. What do you need? I am sorry, I am so, so sorry”.

    Then I would have forgiven him immediately.

    Instead, I had, in December, a bizarre meeting with an empty shell of a man. There was no human connection. The most extraordinary thing is that, in a two-hour meeting, Justin did not use my name once. And at the end (I admit, late for another meeting), he just walked out. No handshake. No looking me in the eyes, clasping my hands. No final apology. So, for me, no closure. What a missed opportunity. For him, not me.

    And, the truth? One thing that did come out of the meeting is an undertaking from Justin to provide a written account of what he knew, what he did. For seven years, victims have called for such an account: a statement, an “affidavit”, an account that clarifies, and answers our questions. I hope we do, eventually, receive this. Because victims do NOT believe we have yet received the truth. The Makin Review is very vague on what actually happened in 2013. The central task of Makin was to assess “how the CofE responded to a disclosure of abuse”. Yet, we do not know. We know it fizzled out. We know that everyone thought someone else was dealing with it, but we do NOT have the personal accounts of those involved. They may have given their testimony to Makin, but are victims entitled to the same? Should it be victims who have the right to quiz these Bishops, these senior clergy on what went wrong?

    A list of questions has been sent to Bishop Stephen Conway (such as “how many times did you write to Cape Town?” “How many times did you call them?” “How many times did you chase Lambeth and Justin to intervene on your behalf?”). And he has steadfastly refused to answer. Victims just do not have his account of what he did or did not do, and what went wrong. Do victims deserve to hear this? It is not in the Makin Review (why not?). And the same testimony from Jo Bailey Wells, Nigel Stock, Paul Butler, Elizabeth Hall, Thabo Makgoba, Garth Counsell, etc? Until victims can feel they have the full picture, the absolute full picture, we cannot have closure. And victims do not feel that a five-year Review has delivered a comprehensive picture. That is another story…

    I herein challenge Bishop Stephen Conway to write a full, no-holds-barred, searingly-honest account of the period 2013-16 and present it to victims. To answer our questions, on what went wrong. Bottom line: John Smyth was not stopped in 2013. Ergo, something went wrong. Yet no one failed?

    Then, justice. Do I believe people should hang? Of course not. John Smyth was our abuser. The host of people who failed to stop him fall somewhere on a spectrum of fault, but they were not our abusers. A number of people are “stepped back”. Note to self: what is the difference between stepping back, suspension, and removal of Permission to Officiate? But we are now almost two months since publication of the Makin Review and not a single CDM has been issued. The National Safeguarding Team – well, actually, not the NST, they do not have capacity, so they have farmed this out to a panel of unnamed lawyers – are supposedly investigating all those named in the Makin Review. But, two months later, silence. Makin was referring names up to NST from 2019, under Clause 3.1.6 of his Terms of Reference, so the failures of these people have been known about for years (leaving aside the book Bleeding for Jesus, and multiple media broadcasts). NST read the Makin Review in draft in March 2024. Yet, ten months later (or almost eight years since the original Channel 4 broadcast) no one bar the Archbishop has been “held to account”. Those “stepped back” are in limbo, and victims depressingly assume their investigations will all lead to naught.

    Personally, and I cannot talk for all victims, all I want is the truth, and humble, contrite apology. Why has Bishop Stephen Conway not written to me, personally, to apologise? Through an intermediary, or directly? Why has he not written to the victim who attempted suicide on Christmas Day 2013, unaware that 13 Bishops and Archbishops now knew about John Smyth? Would he meet me, face to face, humbly answer all the questions I have, look in my eyes and apologise?

    And where, two months after publication, is there any statement on following up Makin’s recommendations? Where is the called-for independent body that will make sure his conclusions are implemented? What is the action or actions that make victims, the Church of England, and the wider world, believe that lessons have been learned? That change will start? That a million pound Review, delayed for years, has actually achieved anything? Was it actually worth it?

    So, victims have no closure. We do not yet have the truth. We do not yet have personal apology. We do not yet have justice. We do not feel that anything has changed.

    So, I cannot yet move on.

     

  • A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life: A Reprise

    by Revd Dr William Lamb, Vicar of the University Church of St Mary the Virgin, Oxford, an Associate Member of the Faculty of Theology and Religion, University of Oxford, and a Fellow of Harris Manchester College

    In 2005, Marilyn McCord Adams, the then Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford, preached a University Sermon at St Mary’s entitled A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life.

    Taking as her text Leviticus 19.2, ‘You shall be holy, because I the Lord your God am holy’, Adams lamented the Church of England’s ‘record of foot-dragging equivocation’ in its treatment of LGBTQ+ persons: ‘in my judgment, the stubborn refusal of our Church to engage in imaginative thinking about human sexuality has not only cemented some illogical ideas and bad theology. It has produced patterns of institutional abuse towards gay and lesbian Christian generally and coupled homosexual clergy in particular’.

    Adams was writing in the context of the introduction of civil partnerships for same-sex couples and the decision of the House of Bishops that ‘clergy of the Church of England should not provide services of blessing for those who register a civil partnership’.

    She drew some intriguing parallels with a significant innovation in the Western church at the time of the English Reformation when clergy were allowed to marry. She pointed out that when clerical marriage was introduced in the sixteenth century, this innovation proceeded slowly. Henry VIII was particularly resistant to the idea of clerical marriage. He ordered bishops to conduct secret investigations to identify married clergy to deprive them of their benefices. In 1539, clerical marriage was criminalized. Only gradually did it become more accepted in the Church of England. Adams observed: ‘Given its dicey theological and legal history, you might expect present-day champions of heterosexual marriage to show more sympathy for those whose partnerships now face like challenges.’

    With the introduction of equal marriage in 2013, the House of Bishops issued guidance (which was rather insensitively published on Valentine’s Day 2014), stating that ‘it would not be appropriate conduct for someone in Holy Orders to enter into a same sex marriage, given the need for clergy to model the Church’s teaching in their lives’. A number of clergy, who have married, have faced various forms of disciplinary action – many have been deprived of a licence or permission to officiate. Recent press coverage of the plight of the Revd Mpho Tutu, who was refused permission to officiate at her godfather’s funeral, provides a ready example of the kind of intimidation and harassment suffered by LGBTQ+ clergy.

    In the course of recent decades, the Bishops have continued to adopt a strategy of ‘foot-dragging equivocation’. Noting that the subject of sexuality, with its deeply entrenched views, would best be addressed by a series of Shared Conversations, these discussions led to the publication of a report in January 2017 which recommended no change in the Church’s policy. General Synod refused to take note of this report. In response, the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke of a need for a ‘radical new Christian inclusion’ and suggested a new teaching document about marriage and sexuality. This led to an extended process of further discussion under the title of Living in Love and Faith.

    A substantial report was published, but it made no recommendations at all. While the previous report recommended no change, this report set out to make no recommendations. Of course, the real question is whether there has been any real movement in generating a consensus about where the Spirit of God might be leading the church at this time, but a significant consequence of this detailed and extensive work is that the House of Bishops can no longer claim that there is a need for ‘further study’. That has happened, and now the problem for them is that they have nowhere left to hide.

    My own view is that three things need to happen in the course of the next twelve months: first, the House of Bishops need to accept that their 1991 report, Issues in Human Sexuality, no longer expresses the mind of the church. Although this ‘study document’, produced by the House of Bishops, was quickly advertised as ‘the Church’s teaching’, it was never approved by the General Synod. More recently, Synod has invited the House of Bishops to reflect on the fact that this report alludes positively to forms of conversion therapy, even though Synod has explicitly rejected conversion therapy. The document was drafted before the development of civil partnerships and equal marriage – about which it therefore has absolutely nothing to say. One can no longer take seriously the demand of the House of Bishops that those presented for ordination in the Church of England should abide by Issues. More importantly, casuistical interpretations of this text, sometimes with the encouragement of DDOs and the collusion of Bishops, have not served to create healthy and open discussions around sexuality and ministry. In my view, based on 20 years of working in theological education, this has not served the task of formation well. It has generated a culture of fear and anxiety for LGBTQ+ clergy and lay ministers. We can do better than this.

    Secondly, it is now evident that the Bishops’ current policy of disciplining clergy who have married their same-sex partners is received with a combination of puzzlement and increasing alarm by the general public, including Members of Parliament. At the recent Lambeth Conference, the Archbishop of Canterbury recognised that there were profoundly different perspectives within the Anglican Communion about equal marriage, each the fruit of patient and faithful wrestling with scripture:

    For the large majority of the Anglican Communion the traditional understanding of marriage is something that is understood, accepted and without question, not only by Bishops but their entire Church, and the societies in which they live. For them, to question this teaching is unthinkable, and in many countries would make the church a victim of derision, contempt and even attack. For many churches to change traditional teaching challenges their very existence

    For a minority, we can say almost the same. They have not arrived lightly at their ideas that traditional teaching needs to change. They are not careless about scripture. They do not reject Christ. But they have come to a different view on sexuality after long prayer, deep study and reflection on understandings of human nature. For them, to question this different teaching is unthinkable, and in many countries is making the church a victim of derision, contempt and even attack. For these churches not to change traditional teaching challenges their very existence.

    The Archbishop underlined that all had an honoured place in the life of the Communion. Nevertheless, the measured tone of these words is hard to reconcile with the way in which clergy who have married their same-sex partners have been treated. There is a more general principle at stake here. We need to address the fact that the number of marriages in church has declined significantly over the last fifty years. At a time when more children are born outside marriage than within it in the United Kingdom, how might we reverse that decline? It seems extraordinary that the Bishops believe that they can promote the gift of marriage by investing time and energy in an undignified campaign against a small number of clergy simply for getting married to their same sex partner. The Bishops’ policy is unedifying, unjust and completely counter-productive.

    Finally, although some of its members tell me that the numbers in General Synod will not add up in order to change the marriage canons of the Church of England at this stage, it may be possible to chart a way forward by offering prayers of dedication after a civil marriage. A change in the marriage canons would require legislation and the consent not only of General Synod but also Parliament. The existing form of prayers of dedication after a civil marriage are commended for use by the House of Bishops.

    The Bishops might issue a revised form of prayers. They might even choose to test the mind of Synod in February (although the risk of another public and rancorous argument will hardly be edifying). Personally, I believe in equal marriage, not because I am a liberal, but because I take seriously the traditional teaching of the Church. I believe that faithfulness and commitment matter. They make a difference. In learning to love in the context of a faithful and committed relationship, we learn to love as God loves us: ‘for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health….’

    In the course of the twentieth century, questions of sexual ethics in the life of the Church were dominated by the issue of divorce and remarriage. The Church has made some accommodation for the remarriage of divorcees in recent decades, initially producing An Order of Prayer and Dedication after a Civil Marriage. At the same time, the Bishops insisted that there was no change to the Church’s official teaching that marriage was a lifelong union between a man and a woman. Although this provision has been characterised by a gentle, if untidy, pastoral pragmatism, I suspect that the Bishops might fruitfully adopt a similar strategy within the next twelve months to acknowledge the recent changes to civil marriage.

    This would be a relatively modest development and I am conscious that the overwhelming majority of people in my congregation would expect much more. Practically speaking, so long as the process was freed from the shackles of ecclesiastical lawyers (who occasionally need to be reminded that they are the servants of the church and not its masters), this could probably be achieved with a commendation from the House of Bishops. Such a development has already been adopted in the Church in Wales (in this case with the approval of its Governing Body) without generating much controversy.

    Just as ‘conscience’ clauses exist for ministers and parishes who might object to the remarriage of divorcees, similar clauses could be introduced for ministers and parishes who might object to equal marriage. As the Bishops discern the way forward, I have little doubt that ‘conscience’ will play a vital role in the process of discernment. One of my predecessors as Vicar of the University Church, John Henry Newman (1801-1890), wrote extensively about the importance of conscience. He regarded conscience as the voice of God speaking in the depths of our soul. Famously, in his later years, in a letter to the Duke of Norfolk, he wrote about those ‘extreme cases in which Conscience may come into collision with the word of a Pope’. Newman wrote, ‘if I am obliged to bring religion into after dinner social toasts, I shall drink – to the Pope, if you please – still, to Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards’. Whatever his views about same-sex relationships might have been (and I have no doubt that they would have differed from mine), Newman understood that the conscience imposes an obligation – that personal integrity dictates a fundamental human duty to hear the interior voice of our conscience and to follow its demands. He learned this insight from one of the great moral theologians of the Anglican tradition, Bishop Butler (1692-1752). As the Church finds a way of negotiating the pastoral provision for the blessing of same sex relationships, it will be important for us to keep in view the role of conscience (on both sides of the argument) and to ensure that no-one is made to act against their conscience.

    The Bishops have an unenviable task as they meet over the next few months – and I shall certainly keep them in my prayers. But I will pray that they might begin to show a little courage. At some stage, the Church of England needs to stop talking and start making some decisions. When Professor Adams ended her sermon at St Mary’s almost twenty years ago, she made no bones about her Christian commitment or her love of the Church. My hope is that we can continue to recognise the commitment and faithfulness of one another, even though at times we may disagree:

    I voice these challenges as an insider, who loves the Church because Jesus loves her, because she is the home of the sacraments, and because she is one of the few remaining institutions devoted to rearing people in the knowledge and love of God as revealed in Jesus Christ. I intend my critique to be constructive, pressed in the conviction that repentance and reform are good for the body politic as well as the individual soul. I do it also with thanksgiving for those gay and lesbian Christians whose courage, love and commitment is already shaping – without much help and with considerable institutional hindrance – patterns of holy living. Like truth in all its forms, the witness of their integrity will eventually prevail (Marilyn McCord Adams, A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life).

     

  • Risking Reputations: The Process of Reconciliation and Belonging through the Lens of Ruth

    by Revd Joshua Askwith, Incumbent of Norbury Church, member of General Synod and Reconcilers Together, a partnership of peacemakers across the UK, Ireland, and North America

    Every so often my wife and I will come to the end of a long day and flop on the sofa in search of a movie to watch. We have our favourites, of course. We bicker over whether to pick something from the Universe of Marvel or Harry Potter. But, more often than not, we end up watching a romantic movie; ‘Notting Hill’, ‘Hitch’ or, if it’s Christmas, ‘Love Actually’. And who isn’t captured by a great love story? The story of individuals crossing boundaries, showing courage and, eventually, falling in love.

    I have often heard the Bible described as the world’s greatest love story. John 3:16 tells us that God loved the world so much that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. God’s deepest yearning for His children is that we know that love and lean into it abundantly. Often, though, we don’t demonstrate the courage to cross boundaries; instead, we create communities of division. Entrenched by the views we think are correct, we do not ask courageous questions but instead belittle and degrade. We seem to fail to enact (or live out) that great love story that God invites us to be a part of.

    While it is not the most obvious of love stories, the book of Ruth is one of the greatest. Ruth and Naomi don’t always agree, but they model to us that need to cross boundaries, show courage, and to risk it all in order to learn to love and accept the family God has given to them.

    The story of Ruth begins with the tale of a Judaean family’s migration to Moab. Naomi, faced with the loss of her husband and two sons, has to make the courageous decision to return home. And so begins a process of reconciliation and love.

    This decision to return or repent in Hebrew is teshuva, from the verb lashuv. Lashuv appears eleven times in the remainder of Chapter 1 alone. It is a reminder that in repentance we can find love, reconciliation and hope. Any great love story needs more than a “first meet”. Each of our stories faces many moments of sadness and joy. Love stories are a process of learning to forgive and fall in love again and again. Teshuva towards God is a process with many acts of turning along the way: moments of repentance, reconciliation and love. This “return” or reconciliation is a process of journey, encounter and place (Lederach 1999, 26).

    While it may be Naomi who begins this journey towards reconciliation, it is Ruth who embodies the process through a series of surprising and risky encounters. From the outset, she’s a character of provocation and encounter, who takes the story into her own hands. Like Jacob wrestling with an angel in the desert, she grapples a blessing from God, and wrestles with society, risking her life in order that a family may return home. From fighting and following Naomi to risking her life in the harvest fields, Ruth seems willing to step out in faith and to trust that God will provide.

    These encounters are not the fluffy moments of the movies, but risky encounters of the most vulnerable. In each act, Ruth risks part of herself; physically and emotionally, she puts herself on the line and trusts in God. Any act of reconciliation involves such encounters of vulnerability and risk. Individuals put their lives, their belief, their love in the firing line.

    It is individuals, rather than the institution, who are in danger of being harmed. Through LLF, the Church of England has offered a dialogical approach, but this conversation is often one-sided. It is not the Church which is risking its reputation in starting the LLF process: it is those it has asked to risk themselves in taking part. Some of these conversations have been helpful. At a local level they have helped some congregations flourish and thrive. Others have not. I have heard of church members leaving congregations because they no longer feel safe. To enable an honest dialogue, the Church needs to take a risk as well.

    Towards the end of Ruth’s love story, she needs to take a life-threatening risk. Once the harvest season is over, Naomi sends Ruth to Boaz on the threshing floor. This is a moment of deep encounter but it is one which requires risk on both sides. Ruth could not have gone to Boaz if she had not already experienced some kind of grace or glimpsed some kind of hope. Yet the Church is asking individuals to take what can seem like life-threatening risks without offering any grace or pointing towards any hope.

    By taking risk, Ruth demonstrates that divine providence and human agency are inseparable; that the process of reconciliation cannot be completed without both God and us. Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury, writes

    that this is still the work of God today and the Church is at its glorious best when it seeks to demonstrate the pure and holy love of God in breaking barriers and when with courage it stands with those whose experience is of being barred from leading a full life, what Jesus calls an abundant life (2022, 104).

    Many have been barred from leading a full life. Many have walked away from the Church because it asks them to risk too much, to be harmed too much. If we have learnt anything from the recent call to safeguarding it should be that individuals should not have to risk themselves in hope of grace. Reconciliation cannot happen if an organisation is not willing to demonstrate the courage to hold up its hands and say it has got something wrong. The church cannot expect people to continue to persevere in the process if it does not take bolder steps.

    For reconciliation to take place, those in leadership need to be willing to admit their failings and risk their reputations. Boaz’s offer of protection came at a great risk to himself and his community but he chose to do it anyway. Ruth’s response only happened because the person who held the power was willing to risk his reputation and offer radical and practical grace.

    In the coming months, the College of Bishops meets to discuss the “way forward”. These discussions need to be open to the risky potential of grace. For only by offering practical protection, safety, and love can the church expect others to risk their reputation. The reconciliation of Naomi to her community was not easy. It took Ruth risking something in terms of reconciling another. There will be those of us who can risk our reputations to see people return to the church. But before any of that can take place, the Church needs to decide if it is willing to take the risk, stretch out its hand, and affirm that unity is what it is seeking; and to show that with a practical response of love.

    Further Reading

    Lederach, J. P. (1999). Journey toward Reconciliation. Herald Press.

    Tuama, Ó. P., & Jordan, G. (2021). Borders and Belonging: The book of Ruth: A story for our times. Canterbury Press.

    Volf, M. (2019). Exclusion & Embrace: A theological exploration of identity, otherness, and reconciliation. Abingdon Press.

    Welby, J. (2022). The Power of Reconciliation. Bloomsbury Continuum.

  • Women Bishops: The Legacy of Baroness Howe of Idlicote (8 February 1932-22 March 2022)

    by April Alexander, member of General Synod 2000-2021; Church Commissioner 2008-2018; member of Crown Nominations Commission 2013-2018

     

    Obituaries to Lady Howe saluted her well-known feminism, but few mentioned her Anglicanism.  For those of us who have worked for the ordination of women, however, Elspeth Howe is remembered with love and gratitude because, as a vice-president of WATCH (Women and the Church), she voiced in the House of Lords our joys and fears over the Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure (2014) and the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015.

    It is timely to look again at those joys and fears to see whether they have been realised.

    After the failure in the House of Laity in General Synod of the original 2012 Measure to allow women to be consecrated as bishops, in 2014 there was a determination not to allow the new and revised Measure to stumble at any point. It was Elspeth Howe who nevertheless asked further questions which forced the Archbishop of Canterbury (in 2013, Rowan Williams had been succeeded by Justin Welby) to address the rather embarrassing truth that discrimination against women would survive despite the indications to the contrary; indeed, such discrimination is actually embedded in the 2014 legislation and Guidance.

    To this day, parishes who want to may request from their Diocesan bishop – whether female or male – the episcopal oversight of an alternative bishop who will ‘protect’ the parish from ever having an ‘unacceptable’ Diocesan. In her speech to the House of Lords on 14 October 2014, Lady Howe asked whether the reverse would be the case. She pointed out that there were already parishes with a woman priest serving under a bishop who did not recognise her orders, and asked whether such a parish would be able to request the oversight of an inclusive bishop. The truthful answer would have been a plain ‘No’, as we have seen during the years since, but it was a fudge.

    Lady Howe also asked for reassurance that, despite all-encompassing nature of Clause 2 of the Measure, it was only the protected characteristic of gender from the Equality Act 2010 which would be overridden and not those characteristics relating to sexuality, marital status and so on. The Archbishop of Canterbury replied:

    As a matter of policy, the House of Bishops has advised that those in parochial appointments should act as though the [Equality] Act applied [to all protected characteristics other than gender]. This change is not a cloak for discrimination on sexuality, marital status, marital history or, for that matter, age (Hansard October 2014).

    This is also the answer I had been given in General Synod in July 2014 by the Chief Legal Adviser to the General Synod.  However, by the time she died, Lady Howe would have been forgiven for wondering why the debate on sexuality rumbles on, eight years after such a clear assurance, given in the House of Lords, by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

    Four months later, in February 2015, Baroness Howe spoke in the debate on the Lords Spiritual (Women) Bill which should have enabled new women bishops to ‘leapfrog’ over their male colleagues in being appointed to the Lords. In the event, of course, there have never been enough women to fill the places, and the provision lapses in 2025. She said:

    Given the great pleasure of seeing the first female bishop consecrated in the Church of England recently, it was sad to see that within a week the underlying divisions within the Church of England had begun to emerge once again…In October last year I asked the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury in this House whether archbishops would continue to consecrate all bishops in their respective Provinces. From his response and further debate in the other place I understood

    ‘that in the normal course of events, archbishops will consecrate all bishops but … there will be circumstances when an archbishop is ill or overseas’ (Commons 20/10/14; col 724).

    Then, he might delegate.

    Yet only one week after the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York (John Sentamu) had consecrated the first female bishop through the laying on of hands, he chose not to put his hands on the new Bishop of Burnley, although he was present at the time. He invited, as noble Lords will know, other bishops who were ‘acceptable’ to the new bishop to lay on hands in his place. There were only three such bishops. Thus, the contrast between the two services in that sense could not have been greater.

    This is still an important matter…. The archbishops [later] issued a statement that they would take each consecration on a case-by-case basis. Put simply, there are those in the Church of England who hold that once a bishop has laid hands on a female priest in ordination or on a female bishop in consecration he is no longer acceptable to consecrate members of the self-styled ‘traditional Catholic’ wing of the church. This is a notion of ‘taint’, however it is described by those who propose it.

    We should not forget that it has been a source of anguish among all women in the Church since alternative arrangements were introduced for ordination under the Act of Synod 1993.

    Readers should be aware that that the assurance quoted here by Lady Howe did not survive the passage of time. Citing not just the pandemic, but also ‘awareness of the sad reality that not all in the Church of England agree on issues of ordination’, the Archbishops issued another statement five years later on 20 July 2020. Rather than consecrating all bishops, they stated,

    We have agreed that the Metropolitan will normally ask another bishop to be the chief consecrator…From now on the Archbishops will ask three bishops to lay on hands with other bishops present and associating with the ordination but not in fact laying on their hands.

    From re-reading these debates, it is clear that assurances given even in the House of Lords, and even by the Archbishop of Canterbury, can turn out to be less than durable.

    What is also crystal clear is that Elspeth Howe had just the words to express the frustration and disappointment of the vast majority of women who had worked so hard for this legislation but who had no voice of their own in the legislature.

    May she rest in peace.