Some comments to last week's post about a shattered (?) Communion raised questions about how Anglicans understand "authority" (i.e. authority in relation to what we believe and to what we should not be believing, if we wish to continue to claim to be truly, genuinely Anglican).
This post is not any kind of attempt at a definitive answer to such questions but I offer a few thoughts or three.
1. I am not hugely interested in whether we have a notion of authority which deals to outliers among the bishops and eccentrics among the theologians. Embarrassing and difficult though these Anglican brothers and sisters have been and are, they have never represented some kind of highway to the future and trying to impose an authority-and-discipline structure on them sometimes was, or would have been debilitating. I would rather put my energies into teaching and training and forming spiritual and theological leaders among us who joyfully adhere to the creeds and the proclamation of Scripture.
2. I am hugely interested in what Christians believe "en masse" and what shifts in those beliefs we can discern as time marches on. Put in slightly different words, what use is an authority structure for belief if God's people do not subscribe to it? The "consensus fidelium" matters - what is it that we commonly sense matters or does not matter, should believe and act on or quietly refuse to believe and thus not act on? (I am also less than convinced that if only we in positions to teach the faith did a better job we would arrest all shifts in the consensus fidelium.)
3. I suggest one outstanding modern example of a belief with an authority structure behind it but not much influence on the actual lives of the people of God (i.e. the people of God who identify as Catholic) is Humanae Vitae in respect of use of artificial contraception.
4. I suggest the outstanding, all-time example for Christians of a shift in belief, without the authority of the church driving that shift forward is our attitude to slavery. Once accepted. Then debated. Then abolished. And not to be restored.
5. Anglicans may or may not have enough authority (and, sure, definitely do not, compared with the Roman Catholic church) but we are managing some changes in belief (best example, I think, is ordination of women) which have been and are a lead to other churches (as, indeed, other churches got there first before the first Anglicans did).
6. Where we go with the common sense of the people of God does need to match in some way or another with Scripture (which is a continuing authority in the life of God's people, on any account of authority). Abolishing slavery may not have been driven forward by reading the Bible on slavery, but it is not against the Bible to have done so - it is "with" the Bible on questions of human dignity, justice and mercy.* The ordination of women to be deacons, priests/presbyters and bishops may not square with one particular text, 1 Timothy 2:11-15, but it does square with Jesus' attitude to women, especially in John's Gospel.
7. On the question of women in the church, might we all, across all denominations, acknowledge that the tradition of the church includes the most appalling things the Church Fathers said about women, and if we are not ever again going to subscribe to those deprecations of women, might it be fair to ask whether we need to continue to subscribe to the traditions they fostered about male-only ordination?
Tertullian offers a mild example: "“Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil’s gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert even the Son of God had to die.”"
That is enough for now. Somehow Tertullian escaped censure and so, I hope, will I!
*In the end, if there is change across the church on a wider scale than at present about same sex partnerships, it will involve squaring with Scripture that such change squares with what Scripture says about human dignity, justice and mercy.
17 comments:
Thank you, +Peter. Who would be considered the last, or most recent, of the men referred to as "Church Fathers"?
The Church Fathers were the influential Christian theologians and writers who lived from the late 1st to the 7th centuries AD, broadly categorized into three groups: the Apostolic Fathers, Ante-Nicene Fathers, and Post-Nicene Fathers. Thus the latest would include Leo the Great and Gregory the Great.
It is useful for slow moving church structures, who provide a steady home for those at earlier stages of faith, to have "embarrassing and difficult...outliers and eccentrics" somewhere in the Christian universe/family, even if considered apostates by some, to broach new issues and communicate shifts of consciousness that larger churches largely cannot or often don't.
I think this is Peter's argument, in a way, for the Anglican Church via a vis Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christianity. But it goes further than that.
For example, Quakers were able to raise the issue of slavery, and push with a sort of energy and initiative, that others couldn't or wouldn't, taking the lead on antislavery completely out of proportion to their actual numbers.
The same goes for toleration (e.g.. an end to imprisoning and murdering Nonconformists and Catholics in England), refusing to take oaths (as Christ instructed), pacifism, humane treatment of animals, and, more latterly, the modernization of sexual ethics (Quakers in the 1960s...!!!!!....moved to a position of sexual immorality primarily being based on exploitative or non-exploitative relationships, rather than focussing on the gender of bodies or particular sexual techniques).
Of course, these days so-called secular society also often fulfils this prophetic role often abrogated by "mainline Church".
Women have played a full and equal role in Quaker worship and church governance since the seventeenth century.
Rejecting "orthodox" systems of church authority supported Quakers to pursue these "leadings", though Quakers were not "Ranters" (i.e. they quickly developed their own "gospel order" or form of communal authority and discernment).
On his travels through seventeenth century England, George Fox met people who argued that a woman's soul is akin to a goose's. Against this, Fox quoted the Bible - in a fairly literalistic way - pointing out that Mary famously 'sung' "My soul does magnify the Lord".
Antidotes to Tertullian:
"But what Spirit is this that wants to exercise authority over the faith of someone else? And what spirit is this that won't allow the women to speak among the men, or even to speak among themselves? All this has to be exposed by that very different spirit that gives liberty to everyone who works in the gospel, and in the light, and in the grace...For the power and spirit of God give liberty to everyone, for women have received God's gift of life as well as men, and they have received the grace and light of Christ Jesus as well as the men. So they are stewards of the various gifts given by God." (George Fox, 1676).
"Can't the spirit of Christ speak in the female as well as the male? Or is he limited in that respect? And who would take it on himself to 'set the limit for the holy one of Israel' (Psalm 78:41). For the light is the same in the male as in the female. And it comes from Christ, the one who through the world itself was made. And who dares tell Christ to stop talking?" (George Fox, 1656).
Martin Sewell is a former Child Protection Lawyer, a Reader in the Church of England, and a member of General Synod until very recently. He is a serious and considered person, committed to justice and the church.
Sewell has resigned from (the English) General Synod after feeling his efforts over the years in advocating for victims of clerical abuse were constantly, systemically stymied.
"With the help of colleagues I realised that amongst the “McCavities” who are “never there” to own responsibility of failures are – the Archbishops, the House of Bishops, the Archbishops Council, the Secretary General, the Synod itself, its Standing Orders Committee, its Audit Committee, the establishments at Lambeth Palace and Church House, the Canon Law and its benefitting legal servants, the Charity Commission, and the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament."
His final reflections on Synod are well worth a read (thanks to Liz for putting me onto this).
https://survivingchurch.org/2025/08/19/martin-sewell-parting-shots/
So frustrated and baffled, Sewell concludes that nothing short of disestablishment is needed. But even that isn't enough.
In an effort to understand the systemic and hidden nature of institutional failure, Sewell has begun suspecting the work of an organized, hidden society - the freemasons.
I always roll my eyes when church people mention the freemasons. I know a number of intelligent, experienced Christians who hold such suspicions and beliefs.
I mean, maybe?
For me the bigger issue is around authority and power - not just doctrinal authority, as Peter's post addresses, but the exercise of authority and power in church governance. It is no surprise, perhaps, that some Catholic theologians have been particularly sensitive to the collective, systemic manifestation of evil, in and out of the church (Bill English, even, famously quoted Catholic social theologians in calling prisons "structures of sin"). Centralized power and authority - whether in large (Roman Catholic, Anglican) or small ('Two by Twos', Destiny) churches - is perhaps the biggest predictor for abuse and cover ups.
Perhaps the central Christian image for this is Jesus himself. Reading Mark, Jesus is always being pursued by a dark, evil force (the "priests and scribes") that is existentially threatened by his authority, freedom, and 'independent' being.
The late Father Jack Witbrock was a friend of mine many years ago. He used to be a vicar in Lyttelton before he felt called to leave Anglicanism and become a priest of the Antiochene Orthodox Church. He told me once that Freemasonry was prevalent in the vestries of many low or 'civic Anglican' churches where church membership still equated with respectability. I don't know whether I believed him or if this was an Orthodox meme. But I recall that a few years ago Canterbury Cathedral was closed for a private service of Freemasons (who gave the Cathedral an undisclosed sum of money). I had always assumed private services were against the law of the Church of England, but maybe not.
I am the last person to excuse church failures in safeguarding (I know of least one very tragic outcome for a known sex offender of the high school I attended), but I have to say that institutions across the board have an in-built instinct for protecting their own. That goes for the police, and for politicians - probably the most self-righteous people in society. They will make excuses for shoplifters (or much worse) in their own ranks. You can even destroy a man's life with a false allegation of rape, and end up with a knighthood and a cushy job as an ambassador. For a while. As someone said, God's mills grind slowly, but exceeding fine.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Freemasonry is a concern but there's other gatherings of the elite, powerful and privileged that tend to run under the radar. Search "Nobody's Friends" dining club that meets at Lambeth Palace. Such groups provide a basis from which powerful people may then protect each other (e.g. IICSA report on Peter Ball). It's secrecy that's the real issue and there should be a register of memberships so that potential conflicts-of-interest aren't hidden.
Back to CofE and Freemasonry: this excellent Guardian article reveals much of the complicated relationship between the two, as touched on in William's comment...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/08/c-of-e-christian-freemasons-church-england
Three notes - selections copied from an article by Janet Fife
(02 June, 2020); posted at the Surviving Church blog
1. re: Women and the Church
"‘You’re in a man’s world now. You’ll have to fit in.’ So said one of my colleagues soon after I was ordained deacon in 1987. That put a damper on my newly ordained enthusiasm. I’d thought I was serving God, and found I was only working in a gentlemen’s club. Not a member but a menial. Some years later, in a different diocese, that feeling was reinforced when a senior cleric told me, ‘The real reason we don’t have women on the bishop’s senior staff is that, if we did, we couldn’t tell the same kind of jokes in our meetings.’"
3. re: Freemasonry
"Freemasonry is one of the oldest and largest male clubs, and like the others has a reputation for secrecy. The extent of its influence within the Church of England is hard to discover, but undoubtedly exists. In 1984 a retired Sussex priest told me of his membership in a Chichester vicars’ Lodge; this was while Eric Kemp was diocesan bishop and Peter Ball bishop of Lewes. Years later the social responsibility adviser of another diocese expressed his concern that all three archdeacons, the heads of every major diocesan committee, and the diocesan secretary’s husband were Masons and that diocesan financial decisions reflected Masonic priorities."
Source for all three notes:
https://survivingchurch.org/2020/06/02/the-church-of-england-gentlemens-club/
Thanks Liz. You know I've never made that connection between Freemasonry and the exclusion of women from church leadership before. But, yes, of course!
I'm not a big fan of the Freemasons are behind it all theory. It's too paranoid and too easily absolves responsibility.
That said, in response to William's post, his citing the views of a vicar friend from Lyttelton: at one stage in its history, Lyttelton had perhaps as many masonic lodges as it has pubs (believe me, that's saying a lot). I was once told (by a parishioner, himself a masonic lodge member) that the land gifted for the site of Holy Trinity Church (one of the oldest in Canterbury, before it was destroyed by earthquakes) and where the present "St Saviours at Holy Trinity" now stands was originally gifted to the Anglican Church by a masonic lodge.
I think Jack was at Holy Trinity Lyttelton. His last years, I think, were at the Ashley Church in Rangiora, where he established a kind of Orthodox oratory, helped the poor and translated old rites.
I've always thought of the Freemasons as a pretty benign organisation, although it had something of an anti-Catholic history in 18th century Europe and Catholics were forbidden to join. Isn't there a women's division now?
I see the 'Nine O'clock Service' trial has ended (or fizzled) in England, so no doubt there will be more commentary on 'safeguarding' in the C of E.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
I know from more than one friend who were Freemasons and withdrew, that it is by no means a ‘benign’ organisation spiritually speaking. Some of the oaths and practices are definitely from the dark side.
I'm curious re NOS what you mean by "fizzled", William. Brain's been found guilty on 17 counts of indecent assault. I wonder what sentence he'll face (?) He's 68 yrs old. And thanks for mentioning it, I'd lost track of that story.
But also, these two paragraphs - Note for those who don't know - Mark Stibbe is a survivor of John Smythe and often acts as a spokesperson for Smythe survivors...
Dr Mark Stibbe, a former curate at St Thomas’, was also rebuked in 1993 by then-Bishop of Sheffield the Rt Rev David Lunn for expressing fears about "extremely disturbing" NOS services featuring "scantily clad young girls gyrating".
Dr Stibbe told the jury he had his “ecclesiastical wrists slapped” for raising concerns and was told: “We don't conduct witch hunts in the diocese.”
Words fail me. I mean, WHAT?!
The article provides a useful overview:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/chris-brain-nine-oclock-service-cult-b2806318.html
PS to earlier comments re Freemasonry, secrecy is the essence of the society. As far as I am aware, they are put under oath not to tell what is said and done in the ceremonies even to their wives. And, of course, thus they protect their own, which is why it is concerning when a number of clergy in a diocese are all Masonic members. I would think that secrecy and commitment to the society do play a part in many of the coverups around sexual abuse in the CofE.
Good points, Moya.
As a therapist one is, from time to time, privy to the very occasional story from a client or colleague of secret sexual abuse rings in our cities. These seemed to have happened a while back, at least in client memories. The client is often so injured and distressed that it's hard to establish the reality of what they are saying or not (and that that's not our primary job as therapists, anyway), and almost always are too afraid and distrustful of social institutions such as the police, courts, and church to take the matter further.
Some of the stories are so dark and evil that they are indeed very hard to believe.
In the one or two stories I have heard, or been privy to, the abuse rings have also involved high up policeman, lawyers, and church leaders, so that's a further obstacle to airing the stories and pursuing justice.
I'm now trying to remember a Bible passage, maybe in Mark, about truth eventually being revealed. So much suffering in relation to sexual abuse is about secrecy (and shame and fear).
Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; and you will be hated by all because of my name....
If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household!
...have no fear of them; for nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known.
Matthew 10: 21, 22, 24-26
Post a Comment