The agenda for the July General Synod includes the continuation of the ‘Living in Love and Faith’ programme. Last October, in the face of concerns expressed by evangelical bishops unwilling to ditch the teaching of Christ and the apostolic witness of the New Testament, Bishop of Liverpool Paul Bayes eulogised the ongoing process as part of a radical new Christian inclusion. Members of the General Synod and the wider Church should have no illusions about what that ‘radical new Christian inclusion’ – a phrase coined by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York – entails.
The future may be seen in a case from the recent past. When, in 2014, the General Synod agreed on the introduction of women bishops, the House of Bishops produced a Declaration promising respect and provision for those conscientiously unable to accept the innovation. Much was made of it being undergirded by a Canon prescribing a procedure for the resolution of disputes and the appointment of an Independent Reviewer, but the Declaration was essentially a gentlemen’s agreement.
Unsurprisingly, the current Bishop of London, Dame Sarah Mullally, is not a gentleman. Unlike her predecessor, Dame Sarah refused to accommodate the 2016 request of the Parochial Church Council of St George’s, Headstone, Harrow for a male bishop ‘whose marital status conforms with Apostolic teaching and practice expressed in the historic teaching and practice of the Church of England’, viz ‘that he be the husband of (no more than) one wife’. Although she contended that this request was not a concern relating to the ordination of women as bishops, Dame Sarah declined to explain how a woman bishop might be a husband. When she entrusted the episcopal oversight of the parish to Bishop Jonathan Baker – a remarried divorcee with a living first spouse (and also a signatory of the Pilling Report, which led to ‘Living in Love and Faith’) – St George’s PCC resolved that he would not be invited to exercise his ministry in the parish.
In September 2018 St George’s PCC brought a grievance against Dame Sarah to the Independent Reviewer, Sir William Fittall. Like Dame Sarah, Sir William did not deign to address the theology of the PCC’s Statement of Theological Conviction and Needs. At the only stage in his report when he wandered into theological territory Sir William focussed on another of the St George’s PCC’s requests: that for ‘a male bishop at whose consecration a male bishop who had not consecrated a woman as a bishop presided’. Here Sir William delivered a sustained attack on a ‘so-called theology of taint’, doubtfully within the spectrum of Anglican theology and tradition ‘even interpreted at its broadest’, and ‘a theology which Traditional Catholic Bishops in the Church of England have firmly rejected’.
Sir William’s chosen target was snatched from thin air and bore no relation to the St George’s PCC’s clearly stated ‘theology of communion’. Indeed, Sir William’s predecessor’s report dismissing a grievance in 2015 against separate traditionalist Chrism Masses quoted Bishop Tony Robinson of Wakefield citing such a theology of communion in favour of their necessity and continuation. As former National Secretary of Forward in Faith Geoffrey Kirk observed
Mr Keeble’s PCC, it should be abundantly apparent, is not acting upon a doctrine of ‘taint’, but is valiantly seeking to uphold a coherent and consistent position in the face of the issues-led inconsistency which surrounds them.
More disturbing even than Sir William’s Sir Humphreyesque rhetorical framing and theological maladroitness was his judgement that specific theological convictions contrary to the acceptance of female bishops and priests are irrelevant to the undertakings of the House of Bishops’ Declaration – which ostensibly promises episcopal provision tailored to the differing needs of conservative evangelicals and traditional catholics. Geoffrey Kirk commented
This is a curious decision, which seems to deny opponents of women’s ordination any coherent theological position, condemning them to mere naked sexism. … It seems that the Church of England, in its determination to uphold the integrity of women’s ministry, can only view those who continue to uphold the Church’s perennial teaching as prejudiced bigots. A position which it clearly intends to prefer to reason and principle.
These conclusions were confirmed at the highest level when, in accordance with the Canon regulating the activity of the Independent Reviewer, St George’s PCC wrote to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York asking for the dismissal of Sir William for not acting impartially and fairly.
Without even a cursory attempt to address any of the points put to them, the archbishops, in their reply of 13 February, state that Sir William ‘retains our full confidence as he continues to discharge his responsibilities in this important role’. (This endorsement of Sir William’s acumen and rectitude presumably also represents an admission on the part of Archbishop John Sentamu to complicity in perpetrating Sir William’s theology of taint, when he stepped aside in 2015 for Philip North to be consecrated by bishops who had not consecrated a woman.)
For all his blundering, blatant selective reasoning, we have cause to be thankful to Sir William Fittall: he has, albeit unintentionally, unmasked the archbishops’ ‘new radical Christian inclusion’ as its Orwellian opposite. Can there be any doubt that the project of which ‘Living in Love and Faith’ is a part will significantly further alienate and marginalise those whose hitherto mainstream beliefs correspond to the faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, uniquely revealed in Holy Scripture, set forth in the catholic creeds, and witnessed to in the historic formularies of the Church of England?
Stephen Keeble is a persistent man with a spine. We need more like him.
Indeed, but thanks to the leadership, the Church of England has set its sights firmly on apostasy.
The cuckoo has pushed the chick out of the nest..
‘Living in Love and Faith’ is a project with the purpose of heralding fundamental change in Church of England doctrine while keeping the numbers of those who will leave on account of it to the fewest possible. There would of course be no reason for a project of this magnitude, publicity and PR effort if it were not intended to change anything. Indeed the subtly loaded title with which it is blessed is ample warning of what its instigators intend.
The only question yet to be answered is whether it will be honest in defining the liberal (Ozanne / Bayes / Percy) position on LGBT issues as the official C of E position or whether it will obfuscate its way to declaring ‘Mutual Flourishing in our Time’, which is another way of saying nothing matters any more. Whichever way it goes (my money’s on obfuscation), the reality will still be such a crossing of red lines that anyone in the C of E who cares about these things (clearly not as many as one would have thought 10 years ago) will be unable to avoid making a pretty stark choice.
Rather like the sage advice I remember a school teacher once giving us – decide you’re not going to take drugs before you go to the party because it’s too late once you’re there – those who have not thought through their own position before the finished LLF is presented in 2020 will be unlikely to have the degree of certainty and resolve necessary to confront the hard choice laid before them. If we haven’t already done so, now is the time to sort out exactly what in LLF will be unacceptable for our remaining in the church.
Yes indeed. And it may be that LLF will actually do faithful Christians in the C of E a favour. The present situation whereby people have had enough and leave one by one as individuals, sinking or swimming entirely alone, is far from ideal. But if LLF were to precipitate an organised departure, there might a better chance for building up a coherent alternative to a heretical C of E. It would doubtless be messy but all church organisations are messy because we human beings are messy.
It goes without saying that it would be much to be preferred if those charged with delivering LLF found they simply couldn’t agree amongst themselves on a coherent way forward, and therefore came to the conclusion that it is an ill-conceived project which isn’t worth the inevitable chaos and pain. Thereafter the LGBT headbangers could either repent of the trouble they’ve caused or leave to set up their own organisation (good luck with that!).
But for now we’re in the calm before the storm – a kind of phoney ‘good disagreement’ truce which we all know cannot last.
Excellent Don, and very true
From a truly Christian point of view the goal of inclusion is a good one. That is when applied to the established denominations, to Pentecostals and Charismatics, the Open Brethren and other groups who acknowledge and follow the basic tenets of the faith.
But inclusion as sought by these folk is an abrogation of the the Christian faith as revealed in Scripture. It is a denial of man’s ‘lostness’ and sinfulness before a holy and righteous God and a slight on the life and death of our Lord Jesus Christ who became man and dwelt among us in order to save the repentant.
That there will be a split within the Church of England becomes ever more apparent, and as someone recently said here there needs to be a banner raised by GAFCON and all groups who hold to the Gospel within the Anglican tradition, and an all out drive to welcome in those who have been disillusioned or broken by what is going on.
As our Lord said in the parable, “Go out into the highways and byways and compel them to come in!”
One of the hindrances to Christian unity is that whilst we accept the basic tenets, we get hung up on peripheral issues and squabble endlessly over them, so diluting our unity and blunting our focus.
to dannybhoy
“The cuckoo has pushed the chick out of the nest”
Thanks for using this expression! That was exactly our experience when joining the Ordinariate – which would never otherwise have needed to come into existence. (But in which – just for the record – one has found nothing but unexpected affirmation and fulfilment.)
AMiE is another chick so treated, and the two have much more in common than might at first appear.
The Ordinariate is for Anglicans who have decided to give up Anglicanism to go to Rome. Nothing of the essence of Anglicanism remains.
I think it necessary to stipulate that the Ordinariate was the Catholic Church’s response to requests that came primarily from clergy and from within the Anglican Communion. Had they been willing to accept Anglican Holy Orders as valid, I rather suspect that there would have been many more clergy crossing the Tiber (I know several) and had they been willing to make more accommodation for divorced clergy and laity, would have had more parishes move to Rome.
Prior to my response, let me note that as of this morning, at any rate, there are still one TEC diocesan bishop, and a few suffragans in CoE, and no doubt hundreds of clergy in both places, desperately trying to hang on the “essence of Anglicanism” that Edgarson refers to above.
Unfortunately, other than in the few places where clergy struggle to maintain orthodoxy, precious little of “the essence of Anglicanism” remains in the Church of England or TEC or any of a number of other :”Anglican” provinces. The 39 Articles and Athanasian Creed have been relegated to the historical documents library. The apostolic succession has been overthrown. Even if one were to accept the consecration of women bishops as consistent with historic episcopate (a major rhetorical feat), the Porvoo agreement and TEC’s union with ELCA (and similar “full communion” agreements) clearly endorse bishops outside of apostolic succession. And it is clear without question that Scripture no longer “contains all things necessary for salvation” in TEC, CoE, etc, as they now require that one subscribe to the doctrines of “inclusivity”, worship a god of indeterminate gender, and accept that that god created humans with fluid genders on a sliding scale of 73 alternatives (as of the most recent press release I saw from a university that studies such things).
And on the Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion, while the names persist, the sacrament of Baptism was completely rewritten by TEC in 1979, and is no longer necessarily performed in the name of the Trinity in favor of any 3 random persons and./or objects, and the Holy Communion once reserved to baptized Christians is now available to anyone who happens by.
So, given the current state, is it any surprise that people would be looking for alternatives, whether the Catholic Church, or a Reformed Church, or the mega-church in the suburbs?
,
Any of the Orthodox groups are options for some.
I agree with what has been said here. Going with the Ordinariate = Welcome to Rome.
Such travellers are aware of this, and are comforted by “Anglican Use” liturgy, service forms, and forms of music which far surpass Roman “Plainsong” chant: all approved by Rome as this option was being developed.
Because of an assortment of difficulties bombarding the Catholic Church in recent decades, it was advantageous for them open up this ‘road to Rome’ at a time when more and more Anglican laity and clergy were seeking conversion.
I have very carefully read this response-thread several times before responding. To my mind, a key question rests on what Jesus said in Matthew:
“Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (reference pending)
My heart and treasure is now anchored to the Church of Rome. This, being the end of a process of discernment over this past year, which cannot be separated from a growing tug on my heart by God the Holy Spirit… in my view.
Many believe that much of traditional Anglicanism has walked away from the Word to follow after innovations that have grieved the Holy Spirit.
I began my life in the ACoC as a chorister from the tender age of 8. I was later baptized and confirmed. I dearly loved the Anglican tradition. I later befriended a now Deacon in the RC Church, who had pressed me for some 15 years to convert – and I rebuffed his every effort, until he stopped trying.
I had sought clerical help and later the support of parachurch ministries for unwanted SSA and later married my wife of now 25 years. I fought first hand – publicly – against the error of celebrating ssa as a gift from God, when it was anything but.
It became clearer to me, slowly, that the Anglican Church has become apostate, and my heart was being led elsewhere. I fought valiantly to re-form with a continuing Anglican group that had not strayed into rebellion, but it gained no lasting traction where I am, and no ‘ordinariate’ was available to me, either.
You argue, Alphatomega, that there is some life, health, and vitality yet within the Anglican Church, as I once did. I now consider it to be a whitewashed tomb, with a reformation history of some 570 or so years. ROME is not without her troubles of a certainty, but she has a life and history of arguably 4X as long, and I believe that God has led me there. So our HEARTS are no longer in the same place, and we may both feel justified in our own conscience.
I do want to thank you for patiently reading thru this post. These are weighty matters and they demand a proper treatment. Now as an afterthought, you might want to check out Dr. Taylor Marshall online. He is a convert to Rome as an ex- Anglican priest, not a mere layman running after flights of fancy, if you will pardon my liberty with one if your thoughts, above. And all clergy that swim the Tiber must be re-ordained in the RC Tradition. And lastly (I hope), the Ordinariates are also fully Catholic and permanent, with allowances made for some Anglican forms and music. I understand that the former Anglicans are glad to be there, and their now fellow Catholics are delighted to have them, just as my RCIA class received me.
You’ll likely find more of the “essence” of Anglicanism in the RC or OC that under Welby in the U.K. or Curry in the US.
I see..
Although my wife and I spent 7 years in our village parish church, it was because the vicar was what I, as a non conformist with no denominational loyalties; would call a born again Christian with a vocation. We got on very well, although he was very definitely a conservative Anglican!
All that to say I had to look up what ‘AMiE’ and the ‘Ordinariate’ stood for. So does this mean you are now very high Church/ Anglo Catholic or you have joined the Roman Catholic Church?
Despite my fundamentalist background, through our involvement with Churches Together we have made very warm relationships with the Catholics, including their Priest. It has been a very interesting learning curve for us getting to know these folk and finding out that we have so much in common.
Although I have somewhat suspicious of hierarchical church structures, I can understand Christians finding a spiritual home within the Catholic church. Certainly my wife and I enjoy getting to know our local Catholic congregants.
alphaTomega
I mentioned the Ordinariate, in passing, to test a perception I had that whenever it is mentioned it is ridiculed, despised and criticised. Even so, I was a little taken aback that my personal integrity and sanity should be challenged by someone who knows nothing about me, so quickly. Unfortunately it has rather careered the discussion off piste.
However, you make two important points, which seem to deserve a response.
The first is about the sufficiency of Scripture in relation to Artlcle VI (of the XXXIX). I completely agree with this article, and that was one of the principle reasons for leaving the CofE, for surely there can be few organisations which so systematically ignore their own foundational articles. I have no doubt that you also had to do the same for the same reason. I would only add two comments to this: first the Catholic Church has, in addition to Scripture, the principle of the “Magisterium”. This itself derives directly from the idea expressed by St Paul in I Corinthians 11, 23, in fulfilment of the Lord’s own promise in John 16, 12-14, and the problems in the contemporary Catholic Church are largely because the Magisterium is being ignored. Secondly, my observation would be that catholics actually have found more in Holy Scripture than some Protestants have found!
To be honest, your second point about “moral fidelity” would not be a point I would take into account in deciding to either join or leave a church. Scandal though it most certainly is, the failure of some members of a community (even its leadership) to maintain its high standards applies to my mind as much to the Church of England as it does to the Church of Rome, but it would not, for me, be a deciding criterion. But presumably that was also a reason why you left the CofE (or TEC?) I’m just guessing.
It is because of issues like this that the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham came into existence..
Interesting that the discussion ended in Ordinariate-bashing. Here’s another quote from Geoffrey Kirk from 2016 (by which time he had joined the Ordinariate):
‘One is reminded of the words of C.S. Lewis:”Now it is surely the case that if all these supposals were ever carried into effect we should be embarked on a different religion.” Indeed. Sad that so many Evangelicals, all of whom believe themselves to be “biblical Christians” par excellence, have conspired to support such an unbiblical and uncatholic practice as women’s ordination, so unbiblical and uncatholic in fact as to constitute a different religion, a difference in kind, not just degree. We might be able to forgive Evangelicals who do not have a Catholic ecclesiology or a Catholic view of ordination. Anglicans, however, cannot be forgiven.’
alphaTomega you seem a little confused. The Ordinariate is largely populated by former Anglicans who have converted to Roman Catholicism. That was what it was designed for. Significantly, however, Anglicanorum coetibus, 2009, states that
‘Without excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman
Rite, the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist
and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical
celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican
tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintain
the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican
Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the
faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared.’
I attended the first use in London of the Ordinariate Communion Rite and the only real difference from a Prayer Book Catholic celebration was the use in English of the historic Roman Eucharistic Prayer, a feature of the English Church from its inception to the time of Cranmer – the best part of a thousand years.
And your point is?