ViaMedia

Tag: women bishops

  • GAFCON and CEEC

    by Canon Dr Phil Groves, who was a CMS Mission partner and lecturer in theology at St Philip’s Kongwa in Tanzania. He served at the Anglican Communion Office for 10 years. He has attended two Lambeth Conferences, three Primates’ Meetings and four ACCs. He has a PhD on Partnership in the Anglican Communion and is Vicar of the parishes of Cuddington and of Stone, Dinton and Hartwell. He is dyslexic and a member of the Church of England’s Neurodiversity Working Group

    Robert Thompson is right to point out that the recent alternative Anglican ordinations of seven deacons raises questions of church order.

    Of course this raises questions for the Church of England, but it is the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) that is in the frontline of the issues raised by this and by the GAFCON movement more widely.

    To understand the problem for CEEC, it is worth considering not only the three questions asked by CEEC’s National Director John Dunnett in a letter from the GAFCON 26 conference in Abuja in March but also Andrew Atherstone’s criticisms of the ‘alternative ordinations’.

    First, it is necessary to chart the major changes for GAFCON.

    Major Changes for GAFCON

    GAFCON was formed in 2008 as a renewal movement for the Anglican Communion for those who believed that churches of the Communion that blessed gay unions and accepted gay clergy should be removed from it. To do this they set out to redefine Anglicanism as a confessional church. They wrote and released their own confession – called the Jerusalem Declaration – unique because of its clause on human sexuality. The argument goes that, if we have one confession, we will all walk together without division.

    In October the GAFCON Primates declared themselves to be the Global Anglican Communion (GAC) and called for compete disengagement from the formal Instruments of Communion – the ACC, Primates’ Meeting, Lambeth Conference and the Archbishop of Canterbury.

    Following this, the March GAFCON 26 Conference was being watched carefully. The BBC had noticed that it had been heralded that the GAFCON Primates Council would elect a ‘primus inter pares’ of their own to rival the Archbishop of Canterbury; it was waiting for a big news story. But that did not happen. Instead, the GAFCON Primates appointed a ‘Global Anglican Council’ as a body to ‘provide spiritual and strategic oversight for the Communion’. 

    The ‘Global Anglican Council’ is made up of three categories of people: Primates[i], Advisors, and Guarantors. The propaganda has it that the GAFCON Primates handed over power, but this raises two points. First, they are still on the Council and they have retained the right to remain on it even if they retire as Primates. Secondly, it is right to ask who has taken on power and the answer to that is interesting.

    The Primates

    Only four of the seven Primates are from churches recognised as being in the Anglican Communion: Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda, and Chile. The others are the Primates of the breakaway Anglican Churches in Brazil and North America, along with the Primate of REACH-SA. The General Secretary is also listed as a Primate and he too is very influential.

    Within this group of churches, there are different positions on women’s ministry. The provinces of Rwanda and Uganda were among those who led the way on women’s ordination and on the empowerment of women in male-dominated societies. The Anglican Church in North America is split and has decided not to have women bishops. The others are all against women in leadership and the collective decision is for there to be no women bishops in GAFCON/GAC churches.

    The Advisors

    The Archbishop of Sydney is one of the five Advisors. Sydney Diocese has a semi-autonomous place within the Anglican Church in Australia as a bastion of reformed theology. Three of the other Advisors have strong connections to Sydney; one is a former Archbishop of Sydney who now oversees the Diocese of the Southern Cross, which has only 9 churches all in other Australian Dioceses. The Diocese of Sydney also has close links to the Bishop of the Church of Confessing Anglicans Aotearoa/New Zealand with only 20 churches. Bishop Andy Lines of the Anglican Network in Europe is also closely aligned to Sydney – ANiE shares the same complementarian theology as Sydney and regards itself as ‘Reformed’.

    When you know that REACH-SA and the province of Chile are both very closely aligned with Sydney Diocese, you can detect a very powerful bloc.

    The final Advisor is Bishop Yassir Eric who is said to be the ‘Presiding Bishop of EKKIOS’. Ekkios is a ‘province in formation’ that is dedicated to the non-geographic discipleship of Muslim Born Believers. They do not appear to have a single church. Their online presence is limited to an AI generated website with no content except a link to a Facebook page with 22 followers and one post in 2026, and a YouTube channel with no content.

    The Guarantors

    The chair of the Guarantors is former Archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola. He is joined by two businessmen: Mr Olayinka Fisher from Nigeria and Mr Emmanuel Kampouris from the USA.

    There is no reason why ordained Ugandan and Rwandan women could not have been among the ‘Guarantors’. This does not look like an oversight; it looks like a deliberate policy.

    The Council and Power

    Power in GAFCON/GAC has decisively moved towards:

    • Those churches who have never been part of the Anglican Communion and never will be.
    • Churches that assert complementarian theology.

    The inclusion of the Bishop from EKKIOS – a church not only without a single actual congregation, but also without an effective online presence – says something about what counts as a valid church.

    All this becomes important in the relationship with the CEEC.

    CEEC and GAFCON/GAC

    Up to now, the leadership of CEEC has wanted to be part of the GAFCON movement as well as the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans (GSFA), but they have questions around whether they are welcome or whether there is one big obstacle in the way.

    In his letter from GAFCON 26 John Dunnett asked three questions that expressed his disquiet at the direction of travel. I quote these in full:

    • First, what is not clear is how, and if, the launch of GAC will have a direct impact or relevance for those of us contending within the Church of England (we do however remain grateful for the ongoing commitment of GAFCON to support those contending within the C of E as well as those who have felt compelled to leave).
    • Second, I noted that the stage was dominated (perhaps even exclusively?) by men. This of course might reflect various cultural sensitivities, but if GAC is to be truly global then this needs to be addressed.
    • Finally, it continues to remain unclear how GAFCON and GSFA might relate going forwards. It is to be hoped that the launch of GAC will not exacerbate differences between them.

    I have been waiting to see if there is a public reply to these excellent questions, but nothing has been forthcoming. We can only speculate, based on the membership of the Council which was announced after the close of the conference and from the action in the alternative ordinations.

    1. What impact will the launch of GAC have for CEEC?

    The Abuja Affirmation calls for ‘principled disengagement’ and ‘constitutional disconnection’ from the Instruments of Communion – including the Archbishop of Canterbury. This means it is not going to be possible to remain within the Church of England and be part of GAFCON/GAC.

    The direction of travel of GAFCON/GAC seems to be away from the core aims of CEEC. John Dunnett is right to be concerned.

    1. Male Domination

    I fully support John Dunnett’s comments over the exclusion of women at GAFCON 26. The future looks even worse. For a start, all the members of the Global Anglican Council are men and most of them men who oppose women in leadership in the church. There will not be any room for significant leadership from women in GAFCON given the power dynamics in the Council.

    The line in CEEC is that there can be disagreement on women’s ministry because, unlike LGBTQI+ inclusion, it is not a creation and salvation issue. However, the Diocese of Sydney (and those influenced by Sydney) has a historic commitment to complementarianism where they have consistently argued that male headship and equality in difference is both a creation and salvation issue.

    John Dunnett would do well to heed the warning of Bishop Emily Onyango from Kenya, a member of the original 2008 GAFCON theological group, who describes the current GAFCON as ‘patriarchal’. 

    1. GAFCON/GCA and GSFA

    It must be a huge frustration when your allies are divided and this is the case for John Dunnett as he considers the relationship between GAFCON/GAC and GSFA.

    The GSFA is an attractive prospect for CEEC because they are firm on human sexuality but seeking to engage with the Anglican Communion. This is why they are now unacceptable to GAFCON/GAC.

    The problem is that GSFA will be reduced to 11 provinces in the Anglican Communion – some of those very small. No one can argue that they are even a majority of Anglicans in the Global South, let alone a majority in the Anglican Communion.

    GAFCON/GAC and the Alternative Ordinations

    We are once again very grateful to Andrew Atherstone for his article on the alternative ordinations. He is concerned by them.

    A GAFCON/GAC bishop – a bishop from REACH-SA – flew in overnight to ordain seven men in secret. Their names are not released, the sponsoring churches are unnamed and questions as to safeguarding and supervision are unanswered.

    Andrew’s account of the ordinations last year was generally positive, saying they had ‘launched a grand experiment’ and that they had made a ‘bold beginning’. His account of this year’s repeat is different:

    • Last year he found it regrettable that the event was not publicised and the names not released: this year he comments that ‘transparency over ordinations is essential.’
    • Last year he acknowledged that all of the deacons were men, but only in a response to a blog I wrote on this site: this year, in a challenge to the organisers, he directly asks why no women were ordained.
    • Last year he regretted the need for intervention from abroad: this year he is clear that ‘English problems need English solutions’.

    Andrew is right – transparency is essential. GAFCON/GAC is so focused on doctrinal orthodoxy that accountability is not part of the story. The recent history of John Smyth and the Fletchers should make us very afraid.

    The GAFCON/GAC direction towards complementarianism is writ large in these organisations. He claims that a REACH-SA Bishop could ordain women to the permanent diaconate. He is actually wrong: REACH-SA do not ordain women – they ‘make’ deacons. ‘Lady Deacons’ can read the Bible in public worship, teach children and assist in leading singing while lay men can preach, and even, in certain circumstances, baptise and preside at the Lord’s Table. In the polity of REACH-SA, deacons are not ordained.

    His third concern is the way geographic boundaries are crossed. The original Church of England in South Africa bishops were themselves ordained by bishops from the Diocese of Sydney, so it is unsurprising that such boundaries are regarded as immaterial. The GAFCON/GAC model will not accept that ‘English problems need English solutions’.

    Problems ahead for the CEEC

    The likelihood is that GAFCON/GAC will seek to grow by including other churches that adopt the Jerusalem Declaration. We know that the geographic element of church is low on the priority list from the promotion of the ‘presiding bishop’ of EKKIOS to the Council.

    The Confessing Anglican Church is another church seeking membership of GAFCON/GAC. It has adopted the Jerusalem Declaration and their Archbishops were in Abuja. The Secretary General of GAFCON is to speak at their September synod.

    Why should this be a concern for the CEEC? The CAC has a lot of churches in India, but also around the world and it has a UK diocese. The UK ‘diocese’ has very few churches, but a significant social media reach through their UK Bishop Cei Dewar. Bishop Dewar is closely associated with the Tommy Robinson movement: he led the prayers launching the Unite the Kingdom rally last year.

    Bishop Dewar will have no problem in signing the Jerusalem Declaration and it is hard to see the grounds on which GAFCON would reject his church.

    The CEEC is an organisation that will not want to be linked – however distantly – with Tommy Robinson. His abusive appeal to ‘Christian Nationalism’ will be anathema to CEEC.

    The Core of the Problem

    The problem is that GAFCON/GAC basis itself on a false ecclesiology. The Bible does not support the idea that unity comes from doctrinal conformity any more than through institutional discipline (the GSFA model).

    Chrisitan unity is through relationships. Our relationships with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and the relationship of love that binds us in our differences. This is what Jesus and Paul both argued for in the Scriptures. This is what GAFCON/GAC ignores.

    John Dunnett and Andrew Atherstone are asking the right questions. They should be concerned.

    [i] The GAFCON/GAC General Secretary Bishop Paul Donison is listed as a ‘Primate’ indicating a place of influence and power.

  • 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.

  • Can Parliament Permit Church of England Clergy to Marry Same-Sex Couples? Should it?

    by Professor Iain McLean, FBA FRSE, Professor Emeritus of Politics, Oxford University and a fellow of Nuffield College. As a Quaker, he was a consultant to Britain Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) for their lobbying on the ‘Alli amendment’ (to the Equality Act 2010, permitting faith communities to conduct civil partnerships) and on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013

    (the second in a series of four. based on a presentation to the June 26th Symposium on Same-Sex Marriage in the Church of England organised by Sir Ben Bradshaw and Jayne Ozanne)

    On 21 March 2023, Ben Bradshaw MP (Lab., Exeter) introduced a Ten-Minute Rule Bill ‘to enable clergy of the Church of England to conduct same sex marriages on Church of England premises in certain circumstances’. It was co-sponsored by parliamentarians from the Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, and Green parties (no nationalists; the bill would apply in England only). Introducing it, Mr (now Sir) Ben Bradshaw stated that it had the support of Sir Tony Baldry (former MP (Cons, Banbury) and Second Church Estates Commissioner). He also stated that

    My preference—and, I imagine, that of most colleagues—would be for the Church to do this itself….The main motivation in introducing it is to encourage the bishops to stick to the commitments and timetable agreed by February’s Synod and resist any delay or backsliding at the next Synod in July.

    The current Second Church Estates Commissioner, Andrew Selous, responded

    [I]t is necessary to respond to the Bill in my capacity as Second Church Estates Commissioner because it seeks to usurp the role of the democratically elected General Synod of the Church of England, as well as to remove the freedom of the Church of England to decide its own doctrine, a freedom that members from all parts of this House champion for religions and beliefs all over the world and one that we should therefore apply equally to the Church of England (Hansard, Commons, 21 March 2023).

    Earlier, in response to an Urgent Question, he had said:

    In order to change canon law on the doctrine of holy matrimony, there has to be a two-thirds majority in the House of Bishops, the House of Clergy and the House of Laity of the General Synod, which is itself a devolved body of this Parliament, and the vast majority of whose members are elected. There is not currently a two-thirds majority in the General Synod to change canon law on the doctrine of holy matrimony (Hansard, Commons, 24 January 2023).

    … although he modified this answer two days later to say

    the advice I was given then was by the Church legal office, and I was yesterday asked to make a small clarification. A simple majority in each of the three Houses of the General Synod could suffice to pass a measure and amending canon to change the definition of marriage in ecclesiastical law, but circumstances could also arise in which two-thirds majorities in the House of Bishops and the House of Clergy would be needed, and, as with all authorised forms of service, a two-thirds majority in each House would be required for the approval of the Synod as a form of service for the marriage of a same-sex couple (Hansard, Commons, 26 January 2023).

    A Ten-Minute Bill is purely expressive speech. Mr Bradshaw’s bill received a first reading without a division, but is tabled for its second reading on a day when Parliament will not be sitting. Nevertheless, the matter remains of current interest. The General Synod of the Church of England meets in July and November 2023. The agenda for July contains no such proposed Measure. If the Synod declines to introduce a Measure to permit those clergy who so wish to conduct same-sex weddings in their churches, can Parliament intervene with a Private Member’s Bill, which unlike a Ten-Minute Bill receives substantive debate? And should it?

    Can Parliament intervene?

    It certainly can. The orthodox doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty maintains that Parliament remains supreme, even when it has delegated authority to bodies such as the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments, and the General Synod of the Church of England. Since delegating authority to what is now the General Synod in 1919, Parliament has intervened in the doctrine of the Church of England, most notoriously in the ‘Prayer Book controversy’ of 1927-8. Twice, the House of Commons turned down the Church of England prayer book, on the grounds that it was too close to Roman Catholicism. The decisive majority included Calvinist MPs from Scotland and Ulster. They could vote, because of parliamentary sovereignty, even though it was an England-only matter.

    The doctrines of the Church of England have less protection from Parliamentary interference than do those of the Church of Scotland. Both Parliament and the courts interfered with the doctrines of the Kirk, the former by the Patronage Act 1711 and the latter in various court judgements culminating in the Free Church case (Bannatyne v. Overtoun [1904] AC 515). In 1711 Parliament enacted a right for lay patrons to nominate ministers. In 1904 the judicial House of Lords awarded all those assets of the large United Free (UF) Church of Scotland that had come from the former Free Church to the tiny continuing Free Church, on the grounds that

    the Establishment principle and the Westminster Confession were distinctive tenets of the Free Church; that the Free Church had no power, where property was concerned, to alter or vary the doctrine of the Church; that there was no true union …; and that the appellants were entitled to hold for behoof of the Free Church the property held by the Free Church before the union in 1900.

    To forestall any repetition, the Church of Scotland and the UF Church, who were merging, obtained a remarkable abnegation of Parliamentary sovereignty in the Church of Scotland Act 1921 c.29 (‘An Act to declare the lawfulness of certain Articles declaratory of the Constitution of the Church of Scotland in matters spiritual prepared with the authority of the General Assembly of the Church.’). These Articles Declaratory, drafted by the General Assembly, trump any statutes that might conflict with them.

    This ancient history illustrates two bad ways of interfering with religious freedom. Both 1711 and 1927-8 were instances of what is now called the ‘West Lothian Question’, in which a measure affecting only one part of the UK is enacted against the majority vote of members from that part. The majority of Scots MPs voted against the 1711 Act. The majority of English MPs voted in favour of the Prayer Book. And the courts would not now presume to wade in to identify the fundamental tenets of a religion and use that as a basis for assigning property. Are there, though, any good grounds for parliamentary involvement in religion?

    Should it?

    There are two main arguments against introducing a bill to permit C of E clergy to solemnise same-sex marriage, and two main arguments in favour.

    The first argument against is that what is delegated should stay delegated. By delegating authority to the Church of England, Parliament extricated itself from what had been very time-consuming and messy arguments about, for instance, divorce, the Roman Catholic presence in England, and marriage to a deceased wife’s sister. The second argument against is that espoused by Andrew Selous above: that intervention would ‘remove the freedom of the Church of England to decide its own doctrine’.

    The first argument in favour of intervention is that a purely permissive measure cannot be detrimental to religious freedom. On this argument, individuals have freedom; organisations, not so much. In its zeal to protect the religious freedom of clergy opposed to same-sex marriage, the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act 2013, it is argued, tramples on the religious freedom of clergy supportive of same-sex marriage. As noted in the Ten Minute debate, various denominations have opted in under the 2013 Act or its Scottish equivalent, in all cases permissively. Both Acts protect the conscience of those unwilling to conduct same-sex marriages when their faith group has decided to be open to them.

    The second argument is that the Church of England is for some purposes an agent of the state. Ever since 1753, when it was granted a monopoly of marriage in England & Wales (except for Quakers and Jews, who are still treated differently), it has regulated property and succession rights on behalf of the state. All parish clergy act as registrars – a civil function – when they officiate at a wedding. In addition, they have a common-law duty to marry parishioners, and couples have a common-law right to ask to be married in the parish church of either of them. However, as the Explanatory Notes to the 2013 Act make clear:

    Subsections (4) and (5) provide that any duty of a member of the clergy of the Church of England or the Church in Wales to solemnize a marriage does not extend to same sex couples. In addition, any corresponding right of parishioners to be married by such clergy does not extend to same sex couples. The effect of this is that the common law duty on the clergy of the Church of England and the Church in Wales to marry parishioners is not extended to same sex couples.

    Examples…

    A man lives next door to a Church of England parish church and wishes to get married there. He is getting married to a woman. Neither of them has ever attended services at the church or professes to be Christian. He speaks to the vicar who agrees to marry the couple, given his legal duty to marry parishioners.

    A man who lives next door to a Church of England parish church wishes to get married there. He is getting married to a man. Both of them regularly attend services at the church and are committed Christians. He speaks to the vicar who has to refuse to marry the couple, since it would not be lawful for him to do so and the legal duty to marry parishioners does not extend to same sex couples.

    For a text presumably drafted by civil servants and/or parliamentary drafters, this seems unusually forthright.

    The ‘quadruple lock’ inserted in the 2013 Act at the request of conservative denominations contains a couple of tumblers that are unique to the Church of England. They are section 1 subsections 3-5:

    (3) No Canon of the Church of England is contrary to section 3 of the Submission of the Clergy Act 1533 (which provides that no Canons shall be contrary to the Royal Prerogative or the customs, laws or statutes of this realm) by virtue of its making provision about marriage being the union of one man with one woman.

    (4) Any duty of a member of the clergy to solemnize marriages (and any corresponding right of persons to have their marriages solemnized by members of the clergy) is not extended by this Act to marriages of same sex couples.

    (5) A “member of the clergy” is—

    (a) a clerk in Holy Orders of the Church of England, or

    (b) a clerk in Holy Orders of the Church in Wales.

    Subsection (3) is declaratory, and nobody’s religious freedom would be impaired by its repeal. The effect of repealing subsections (4) and (5) would be to remove the anomaly highlighted in the Explanatory Notes.

    I conclude that a Private Member’s Bill to repeal these subsections would be a simple way of granting parliamentary approval of the consciences of clergy who wish to conduct same-sex marriage, while preserving all the protections already in the 2013 Act for clergy who do not. If such a bill won parliamentary time (which requires at least the tacit consent of the government of the day), the votes on it would be classically ‘conscience’ matters and no party would be expected to whip its members. Unlike in 1927, however, Scottish and Northern Irish members should not vote.

  • Mutual Flourishing or Repeating Our Mistakes? A Response to Together in Love and Faith

    Mutual Flourishing or Repeating Our Mistakes? A Response to Together in Love and Faith

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

    I was delighted to read the proposals from the Bishop of Oxford summarised  in the Church Times (4 November) and to hear him speak about them further on Radio 4 (details of all media engagements here). I had begun to fear that the Church would remain too timid publicly to extend to those in same sex relationships the love and welcome extended to those in heterosexual relationships.

    Looking at the first four of +Steven’s proposals in Together in Love and Faith, the second is to give “freedom of conscience to clergy and ordinands to order their relationships appropriately”. This would at last allow us to move on from the 1991 Issues in Human Sexuality document which was only prepared as a “discussion document” but which subsequently – and astonishingly – acquired the status of “holy writ”, even though the Preface stated “We cannot expect all to agree with our conclusions”. Yet when, in July 2022, Revd Mae Christie asked the question at General Synod, “When and by what mechanism was Issues in Human Sexuality formally written into the Selection Criterion of the Church of England?”, she received the following reply from the Bishop of Chester in his capacity of Chair of the Ministry Council:

    We do not have a record of the date or the mechanism by which Issues in Human Sexuality was formally written into the former Selection Criteria. Unfortunately, since the information is not readily available it could not be obtained within the time-frame available for responding to Synod questions.

    I was a founder member of Inclusive Church in the wake of the Jeffrey John debacle in Oxford diocese before the days of civil partnerships and same sex marriages. The “freedom of conscience” which +Steven is now proposing was the hallmark of our endeavours and, over two decades later, we have made no progress to date. I had rather feared that such a provision had been lost entirely in the pressure to regularise same sex marriage.

    Looking at +Steven’s proposals 1-4 together, I am taking it that clergy should be among those who are able to turn to the Church to solemnise their own same sex marriages in Church. I am not quite sure that this is crystal clear.

    However, there may also be a legal difficulty with the proposal for solemnising singe sex marriages in Church, whether for clergy couples or lay, which only rarely enters into LLF discussions. The CofE website Your Church Wedding makes clear that “Although same-sex marriage legislation has changed, it remains the case that it is not legally possible for same-sex couples to marry in the Church of England”.

    The reason for this prohibition is that, in 2013, when the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act was enacted, the then-Archbishops (Williams and Sentamu) were so bitterly opposed to it that the Government went massively out of its way to appease them by including a “quadruple lock”. This was intended to “safeguard” the CofE against any attempt by any future Government to unscramble the legislation to allow such marriages in CofE Churches. Savi Hensman has discussed this on the Equal website.

    Bishop Steven’s proposals 5-7 are a different matter; they concern the provision of a platform for those clergy who oppose single sex marriage in approximately the same way as has been done for those who opposed the ordination and consecration of women. I am afraid my sympathies lie with the suffragans in the Oxford Diocese who are not in agreement with this, because that framework has at its heart a central dilemma. While the Five Guiding Principles state that “the Church of England is fully and unequivocally committed to all orders of ministry being open equally to all, without reference to gender”, at the same time they make “pastoral and sacramental provision for the minority within the Church of England who are unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests”. How is it possible to do both? More than that, this arrangement apparently allows the Church to “maintain the highest possible degree of communion and [also, and at the same time, contributes] to mutual flourishing” (House of Bishops Declaration 2014; GS Misc 1077). Whether Synod would be prepared to accept such a flawed notion a second time remains to be seen.

    Another aspect of this arrangement in relation to women as priests and bishops is that it did not emanate from the Church in the first place but very definitely was imposed upon the Church by Parliament in 1992; Judith Maltby’s 2011 chapter in Mark Chapman, Judith Maltby and William Whyte (eds) Established Church: Past, Present and Future explains this. Having been established in 1992 this arrangement was, in effect, replicated in 2014.

    By 2014, however, the attitude of Parliament was totally different. It was the Government, rather than the Church, which introduced the Lords Spiritual (Women) Bill in 2014. This was specifically to allow new women bishops to leapfrog over their male counterparts in order to speed up the process of appointing women to the House of Lords. Indeed, debates in both Houses reflected their view that discrimination against women was not to be tolerated any longer in the Mother of Parliaments. All indications are that nowadays Parliament is as opposed to discrimination on these grounds as it is to discrimination against women.

    On the Sunday programme on 20 November, Ben Bradshaw, MP assured listeners that Parliament could well take an interest in the matter of gay clergy and laity if the Established Church continues to remain out of step with the people of this land. Mr Bradshaw was a very effective Parliamentary operator on the matter of women bishops and I am sure he would be as effective this time.

    Further, these arrangements in respect of women have allowed pockets of discrimination and, in some cases, bullying and downright rudeness to persist, which grieve and may damage all women (lay and ordained) who experience and even hear about them. This is why a mediation service had to be set up. Those who are “unable to receive the ministry of women as priests or bishops” can still be elected to the Crown Nominations Commission, there to impede the nomination of women as Diocesans. If similar arrangements persist, the same discrimination would be likely to occur in respect of those candidates in civil partnerships and same sex marriages.

    I would beg the Bishop of Oxford to bow to what seems to be the majority view in his own Diocesan House of Bishops and not to propose another fault line which will involve many of the same people and parishes and is likely to have many of the same effects. He might also reflect upon the costs of supporting specific bishops for the relatively few parishes which are already provided with Episcopal Oversight in these straitened times.

    Finally, the Established Church should perhaps be asking itself whether it can yet again propose a framework which would rely on carve-outs from one of the most important and effective pieces of legislation in recent times, The Equality Act (2010). It might also bear in mind that discrimination of any kind is essentially against the tenets of our Christian beliefs as has been made abundantly clear in the recent work on race and disability, for example. The Church perhaps needs to examine the justification for continuing to go out of its way to facilitate discrimination on grounds of either gender or sexuality.

    The first four proposals from +Steven are permissive rather than directive; that should offer latitude enough.