Sunday, August 4, 2024

What on earth is going on in the CofE and is it an expression of God's will in heaven?

With all the usual caveats about commenting on the affairs of another church (my own church is hardly perfect, what do I know when looking from a distance, that sort of thing) I wonder if some comment is in order about developments in the CofE right now. The reasonable concern from a Down Under perspective being that the CofE is just a tad more important than any other province to the Communion as a whole because the ABC is the Primate of All England AND the Primus Inter Pares among the bishops of the Communion. If England goes ...

This is my potted version of developments:

In recent years the CofE has been discussing and determining that prayers might be offered for same sex partnerships. Arguments back and forth in meetings of the General Synod. Ups and downs re people appointed or resigning from roles in the considered and considerable process of formalising the aforementioned prayers. Statements made by various bodies including conservative evangelical bodies which are both distinct from one another and interconnected which represent a kind of jockeying for position (many would say "power") in whatever may happen as convulsions in the CofE variously look like internal restructuring underway or schism fermenting or something else.

So in recent days a particular development has been not one but two "commissioning services", one in All Souls Langham Place and the other in St Helens Bishopgate (on any reckoning, flagships of the English evangelical fleet), for "overseers" (quasi-bishops, many do think) and seven men to lead, teach, and preside at breaking of bread services which are vowed and declared not to be eucharists, with a further commissioning a year from now (quasi-deacons become quasi-priests, many do think.) (Read more here and then here.)

A formal response from the Diocese of London - issued after some days rather than immediately, so presumably with aforethought and canon lawyer consultation behind and within its words - is here. It has the feel of "nothing much to see here" but that is not what one commentator thinks, the redoubtable Angela Tilby, who writes in the Church Times:

"IN CASE of any doubt, it can now be assumed that the C of E really is in a state of schism. After the commissioning service at All Souls’, Langham Place, on 12 July (Comment, 19 July), a second service took place last week at St Helen’s, Bishopsgate, attended by representatives of the Alliance network, which includes New Wine and Holy Trinity, Brompton."

She goes onto argue that Puritanism has reappeared in the CofE:

"The claim to represent the true voice of the C of E in countering doctrinal infidelity is nothing new. It is the voice of the angry Puritanism that has been channelled down from the Reformation, when it was mostly directed at those who were not thought sufficiently anti-Catholic. It is also the contempt of those who habitually mocked liturgy, bishops, and vestments during the reign of Elizabeth I. It is the rage of the Roundheads in the Civil War, and the bitter disappointment of those ejected from their livings with the return of the Prayer Book in 1662."

From one side of the matters unfolding, Colin Coward is clear and convicted.

From another side of the matters unfolding, Martin Davie races ahead to the possibility of a Third Province (after Canterbury and York) being formed. That is, although Martin does not specifically discuss current manoeuvres, to the extent that they are the advancing a new structure of authority within the CofE, then they may in the future be seen as de facto steps in establishing such a province.

From a Communion perspective, perhaps establishing a "Third Province" would settle those voices within the Global South (though possibly not within Gafcon) who are concerned about where the CofE is heading over same-sex partnerships. A significant development which provided an ecclesial structure for those whose views align with the views of Global South/Gafcon could mean that Global South voices (if not also Gafcon) would need a nuanced approach to the CofE because the CofE could not be dismissed as a faithless, unorthodox church. Instead it would need to be treated as a church in which room had been found for all sides on these matters to remain in one entity. I use "entity" deliberately: it would be interesting to see if a Third Province meant it was in communion with the other two provinces or not.

Therein, of course, lies an ecclesiological rub: would the CofE remain a "church" (an expression of the body of Christ) if it had three provinces, only two of which were in communion with each other? Other questions arise, such as whether a "church" is a church when it divides internally/structurally on theological grounds? Or, is it two churches talking as though they are one for the sake of property, assets and civil law, but not one for the sake of Christ?

My own desire is that we would focus less on describing "the other" as "homophobic" or as "faithless, unorthodox" and more on what it might mean to be "in Christ" but not agreed on a matter. Everyone arguing the various positions, in the CofE, in the Communion, is a follower of Christ. That we do not agree on a matter does not make one side some set of bad Christians or sub Christians or whatever disapproving term we wish to use to justify talk of Third Provinces, schism and so forth.

God's will in heaven is for unity in the church on earth because our heavenly future starts now and not at the End.

15 comments:

Ms Liz said...

The Colin Coward post is refreshing, thanks for including the link. What he says speaks to many of my own struggles, i.e. coming out of (non-Anglican) evangelicalism. He included, "My faith is recovering..." and for me those few words spoke volumes. ~Liz

Mark Murphy said...

In these debates, Ian Paul (on the conservative side) keeps popping up and saying: allowing for two different approaches on this issue won't work because it's never been done anywhere else in the Communion. Not only in this rather weird fatalistic logic, but it's also not true, right? Because that is how we do things here, right?

Anonymous said...

Peter writes: "The reasonable concern from a Down Under perspective being that the CofE is just a tad more important than any other province to the Communion as a whole because the ABC is the Primate of All England AND the Primus Inter Pares among the bishops of the Communion."

Forgive the questions of an outsider, but this seems just a tad more ... hierarchical? British colonialist, even? I thought the great majority of Anglicans who actually go to church are in the Global South, in sub-Saharan Africa (weren't you there recently?) - and I gather that the Global South have told the Archbishop of Canterbury that they don't accept his (assumed) leadership any more. Is my information correct?
And doesn't NZ Anglicanism have three different provinces based on race and culture? I confess it's an idea I can't find in the New Testament ('in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile nor Scythian') but if you find it helpful for your mission, maybe it's OK (after all, the Catholic Church has masses in Tagalog etc).
It isn't pleasant watching a church disintegrate but this is what happens when you try to change the doctrine of marriage without admitting it - because that's the end goal, as the English bishop Stephen Croft has admitted.
I suspect all the angst over a new province in the Church of England is the fear that most of the young people and children would end up there, leaving the other provinces with non-renewing congregations composed of over-60s. Just about all the student, youth and children's work seems to be focused in the evangelical parishes.

Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh

Peter Carrell said...

Thank you for comments, Liz, Mark, William.

Mark: I think Ian might reply, "When ACANZP tried it [to hold two views together], people left." Nevertheless, I think you have a point: I know ++JW thinks we down here have cracked it and CofE should look more closely etc. However, I would also acknowledge that the CofE is more complex in its internal groupings ect than we have ever been.

William: CofE's importance is not hierarchical but historical. If we lost the CofE from the Communion [this is not currently in view; it is the extreme possibility of what I am discussing] I would continue to be Anglican, but it wouldn't feel the same.

Anonymous said...

Peter, I don't think you will end up with "losing the CofE from the Communion", instead you will have two Anglican communions, an old white British-American one and a new African/Asian communion with ACNA and other western churches associated - a bit like what has happened to the American Methodists this past year.
Who would have guessed 50 years ago that homosexuality was the issue that was going to split Protestantism? As it is doing to German Catholicism as well.
As for "historical importance", while the money and the buildings are in the "north", the centre of world Christianity has moved decisively south.

Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh

Mark Murphy said...

1. I don't quite understand the "third province" language. The first province is the CofE allowing the possibility of blessing same-sex couples. A third province would be those who want to be under conservative only bishops. What's the second province then?

2. Comparing the Three Tikanga system to conservatives having their own province reminds me of a comment made by a "participant" in the current British racial riots: " I can understand how the American Indians feel, because white people here are now being pushed off our lands."

3. Rainbow Christians haven't been afforded a third province. Despite these recent moves, both in England and here, they continue to be treated with theological disdain and condemnation in the church (routinely hearing that homosexuality as a salvation issue), continue to be denied equality in full sacramental life, and rainbow clergy continue to be forced to live a lie (you can be in a civil partnership but you have to remain celibate) if they wish to conduct their ministry life with a supportive partner, like straight clergy are allowed to do. Who is the persecuted group in the church that really warrants inclusion?

Mark Murphy said...

Anglicans in NZ, Aotearoa, and Polynesia enjoy full equality with each other, regardless of which tikanga they participate in. The three tikanga system is a creative response to the fact that full quality was not historically practiced here - i.e. white, English, colonial Christianity assumed as the Universal Gospel and local cultural/theological expression suppressed.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Mark
The first two provinces are Canterbury and York [i.e. the CofE as it is].
Others on the net also make the point: if there could be a "Third Province" for one set of theological convictions, why not a "Fourth Province" for other theological convictions, including convictions that are the converse of those behind the push for a Third Province.

Mark Murphy said...

Aha. Thanks Peter

Anonymous said...

Just to say that on Ian Paul's blog a certain Dr Carroll ( PhD Durham) is being discussed as a now theological adrift former Evangelical ...Perry Butler England.

Peter Carrell said...

Thanks Perry
What have I done to deserve ... :)

William: your analysis would be correct if you could prove that all "south" Anglicans are neutral or against Canterbury's role in the Communion.

I think you will find that not all of Africa or Asia sing from the same hymnsheet on that score.

Ms Liz said...

According to an Anglican Ink article (Conger, 2020) "The call for a Third Province for the Church of England arose over twenty years ago in the debates surrounding the ordination of women. Opponents of women clergy asked that a third province be formed to accommodate those who could not accept that innovation. General Synod declined their request."

That appears to have been a wise decision given what I've read in RNS 07-Jun-24 about ACNA (where individual bishops decide whether women can be ordained as priests in a diocese).

After all this time, despite supposed decisions and church bylaws, it's *still* a contentious issue with some ACNA folk evidently determined to prohibit WO entirely.

One diocese "asserts that when it joined ACNA in 2009, it did so only provisionally, given the ordination of women in parts of the denomination. Now, it wants to be in “full communion,” — but to make that possible, it says ACNA must come to a consensus on women’s ordination."

If a group has settled on a particular position in a deeply divisive controversy, what appears a solution now might simply be kicking the can further down the road. A way will be found in the future, one way or another, to exert pressure or circumvent the rules, or ... whatever. At least, that's how it seems to me after reading about ACNA.

I realise CofE and ACNA are very different. But honestly, I fail to feel any confidence that adding another province = a lasting and satisfactory solution.

RNS link: https://religionnews.com/2024/06/07/nearly-300-acna-clergy-and-a-texas-diocese-call-for-male-only-priesthood/

Mark Murphy said...

I agree, Liz. You get your own ecclesiastical province now because a priest is blessing two people who are celebrating their faithful, loving, life-long commitment to each other, and wish to do this with their Christian brothers and sisters and in the presence of God? I suppose Christian churches have been founded on worse grounds than these, though I can't think of any right now.

Ms Liz said...

Thanks Mark. Just now I was reading comments under +Peter's first link, "Another Commissioning Service". Pete Broadbent (Bishop), and I'm quoting part of his comment, said: "...But evangelical Anglicans do not (as I think you also know) believe complementarianism to be a first order issue. That is why we are co-belligerent on the LLF/PLF stuff, which we do believe to be a first order issue. CEEC and the Alliance are indeed coalitions."

This re-inforces for me how strongly opposed the two sides really are. I've been staggered at the level of hostility to WO and yet that's not even considered a *first* order issue! The two sides appear to be utterly implacable - in my outsider view.

In the same page of comments I found Tim Chesterton explaining the hurt caused by use of descriptions such as 'unorthodox', again part of his comment: "...you have a choice about how you use words like ‘orthodox’ (making the rest of us into heretics) and ‘faithful’ (so the rest of us are unfaithful)." I've been troubled by seeing use of such language too, and +Peter also addressed this near the end of his essay.

It's difficult to process my frustration with this situation of confrontation - even though I'm not Anglican. But this is the Church! So I do feel it. What can be done about it? I've no means of knowing so the question must remain.. I just don't believe a new Province will provide any kind of real fix!

Anonymous said...

Anyway, well done, Hamish Kerr, and nice to see Shelby witness to his Christian faith. Citius altius fortius! - especially altius.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh