Learning from the Communion and the Church of England’s Past
The Anglican Communion has, after over twenty years of fundamental differences and divisions among its provinces and bishops, recognised the need to consider what it might mean to develop forms of “good differentiation”. Recognising their own differentiated episcopate following the introduction of same-sex marriage in 2015, the bishops of the Episcopal Church issued a statement concerning “Communion Across Difference” highlighting the work of the Communion Partners, the minority of bishops in TEC maintaining the Communion teaching of Lambeth I.10. In 2018 TEC built on this statement and set up a task force working on “Communion Across Difference” in relation to its own divisions over matters of sexuality and marriage. This reported to the recent General Convention which created a new task force to continue the work.
Within the Church of England we now face the possibility of bishops dissenting from any decisions in relation to Prayers of Love and Faith or the Pastoral Guidance and refusing, on grounds of conscience, whether more “conservative”, or more “progressive”, to follow any consensus. This raises questions as to the implications of such differentiated beliefs and practices among the episcopate. What might some form of agreed structural “good differentiation” look like if we are somehow to make space for divergent episcopal teaching and practice within the Church of England? The recently published terms of reference for the Pastoral Reassurance group includes reference to “considering the implications of freedom of conscience for bishops”.
The introduction of variation across the dioceses of the Church of England in important matters is not without precedent. For example, Section 2 of the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure allowed in principle a serving bishop not to permit women to minister as priests in their diocese, though no bishops made the possible declaration.
Similarly, guidelines in relation to communion before confirmation were introduced in 1997 where this matter would be determined by bishops for their dioceses. The rationale and process for introducing this innovation may point to a possible way forward in our current situation:
“Since ‘Communion before Confirmation’ is a departure from our inherited norm, it requires special permission. After consultation, every diocesan bishop will have the discretion to make a general policy whether or not to entertain new applications for ‘Communion before Confirmation’ to take place [in] his diocese. If he decides to do so, individual parishes must seek his agreement before introducing it. The bishop should satisfy himself that both the incumbent and the Parochial Church Council support any application and that where appropriate, ecumenical partners have been consulted. If the parties agree, the bishop’s direction shall be followed. (Admission of Baptised Persons to Communion before Confirmation: Guidelines agreed by the House of Bishops (GS Misc 488), para A).”
Remarriage in church after divorce was also handled in different ways by different bishops before a national policy was agreed. The report Marriage in Church After Divorce (2000) noted that when the working party asked diocesan bishops to indicate their policies, “the majority who responded….indicated that they did operate guidelines setting out the circumstances in which an incumbent could take such services, most of these being based on those put forward by the House of Bishops in 1985. There were nevertheless considerable variations in practice both between and within dioceses” (Para 6.1, p37).
Despite these precedents, there are more serious challenges, given the strength and divergence of opinions in the church, if we enter a situation where
- bishops teach contradictory doctrines of marriage and sexual ethics and each claim they are representing the Church’s doctrine, or
- a number of bishops prevent or limit use of commended prayers in their dioceses or
- some bishops commend prayers which other bishops view as indicative of a departure from doctrine or
- bishops pursue different policies on whether they commend those in a same-sex marriage or a sexual relationship other than marriage for ordination training or licence them.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that, whatever stance they take, every bishop will have clergy and parishes who strongly disagree with their own decisions. Some of these may view themselves as in impaired communion with their bishop and seek episcopal ministry from another bishop with whom they are in full communion.
Possible Pathways & Frameworks
A number of possible pathways then need to be considered where there are at least the following six broad options with potential overlaps between them and multiple variations within them:
- A uniform national approach which all bishops have to follow in their ministries. This refuses to permit any pattern of episcopal ministry other than that in line with the majority view. This is the current model in relation to past pastoral statements from the House, Issues in Human Sexuality etc. In the light of our disagreements and to prevent the legal disputes seen in other churches, this might be combined with some agreed way of separation for those unable to accept the majority view that enables them to continue their current ministry but transferring out of the Church of England to align with Anglicans elsewhere in the Communion. For those wishing change this could involve transferring to a province which has already embraced developments in these areas (we have three adjacent to the CofE – TEC’s Convocation of Episcopal Churches in Europe, Wales & Scotland) while for those wishing to uphold current teaching it might involve aligning with provinces in GSFA and/or GAFCON.
- A “local option” where the bishops, clergy and parishes of each diocese (while retaining the right not to participate personally in actions they conscientiously objected to) would be expected to accept the decision of the ordinary leading to different policies in different dioceses and no structures of alternative episcopal oversight. This is how communion before confirmation was introduced.
- A diversity of episcopal practices acceptable within the same diocese enabling diocesan unity but with different parishes serving under different bishops, each ministering in accordance with their conscientious convictions. This could be seen as extending and developing the approach of the London Plan in relation to the Bishop of Fulham for those opposed to women priests and bishops.
- An option for clergy and parishes in impaired communion with their bishop (because of their bishop’s decisions) to receive episcopal ministry from a bishop serving another diocese in the geographical area whose ministry they can accept. There are already regional groups of bishops and dioceses and these could form the basis for such a development. A form of this is what was developed (building on earlier DEPO arrangements) within TEC in 2018 (by Resolution B012) in relation to marriage policy for parishes under bishops unwilling to authorise same-sex marriages (although Bill Love, Bishop of Albany, could not in conscience accept this development, was disciplined, eventually resigned as bishop, and ultimately left The Episcopal Church and joined ACNA).
- An option for clergy and parishes in impaired communion with their bishop (because of their bishop’s decisions) to receive episcopal ministry from a bishop whose ministry is extra-diocesan and serves a number of dioceses. This could extend or adapt the current model of Provincial Episcopal Visitors for those who are opposed to the ordination of women.
- An option for clergy and parishes to realign with bishops who share their conscientious convictions in order to constitute a province with its own diocesan structures. This would be a province within the CofE either restructuring the existing two provinces on non-geographical grounds or creating a third province. The fullest account of what this might look like is found in work done for CEEC in 2019-20 and published as Visibly Different (Chpt 7) with additional introduction and updating addendum from 2022.
In all of these there would remain a national House and College of Bishops and a General Synod of the Church of England. In all of them except (1) there would be a recognised diversity of episcopal teachings and practices within those bodies. How these elements of both unity and diversity would be worked out geographically in relation to existing diocesan structures and the relationship between bishops and clergy and parishes is what would vary.
In relation to options (3) to (5) numerous questions would need to be addressed concerning continuity of episcopal representation for both views and the reassignment of episcopal duties, perhaps particularly in relation to jurisdiction. Here there may be value in revisiting the attempt by Archbishops Williams and Sentamu to develop a form of co-ordinate jurisdiction. These arrangements could be supplemented by the creation of a recognised, national, episcopally-led but non-provincial structure which held a clear position on the contested questions and to which clergy, parishes and individuals could be affiliated. This could take the form of developing existing networks which have a clear position they seek to commend to the wider church (such as CEEC, Inclusive Church or the Society of Catholic Priests) into a mission order (like The Order of Mission or the Community of St Mark in the New Zealand Anglican Church), an acknowledged religious community within the Church of England, or something similar to The Society.
Although options (2) to (5) have the attraction and merit of maintaining close working episcopal relationships even amidst episcopal differentiation, there are questions as to how stable and theologically coherent and acceptable these options would be. It also remains to be seen whether they would establish sufficient differentiation for those needing it even though they would all (with the exception of (2)) secure them a bishop with whom they are in full communion. In particular, these solutions appear to require acceptance of developments within the current structures that are viewed by many as contrary to the church’s doctrine. They also permit bishops serving side by side formally to teach contradictory doctrines within the same legal provincial structure and to practise them in their ministries without the church’s doctrine having formally been changed. There are risks that among those wishing to distance themselves from their bishop there will be a range of views as to how serious their bishop’s error is with people consequently looking for a range of different forms of differentiation, some content with (3), others only with (5) etc. This will likely lead to no single form of provision being sufficient and so greater fragmentation and complexity.
Furthermore, given the desire of many for the church to permit same-sex marriages, there is also likely to be continued pressure for further developments requiring in turn still further and more significant differentiation. This means any solution may prove only temporary and so these options could not be treated as permanent provision but would need to be revisited in the future, perhaps inexorably moving us over time towards either the strongest internal differentiation at a provincial level (6) or the need to negotiate a formal separation as in (1). Faced with these challenges, the two alternative options of (1) and (6) which would create less diverse structures with a united episcopacy and a single pattern of ministry may appear more attractive. They face, however, the challenge that in many, perhaps most parishes, benefices and teams, there are a range of views present and a desire to minimise differentiation and make decisive choices. This will often make it difficult to effect such a clean break into two internally coherent bodies and could signal that although messier in many ways (both theoretically and practically) options (2) to (5) may be more realistic options – at least as first steps – given the complex realities on the ground.
How should we interpret our situation and discern a way forward together? Three models
How we discern which of these paths is the best way forward depends to a significant degree on how we describe the situation we find ourselves in and the doctrinal and liturgical boundaries that are set for the Church of England as a whole. Here there appear to be three broad understandings or models at play:
We could, on the first understanding, acknowledge that we have two incompatible doctrines of marriage – that which we have received which restricts it to one man and one woman and sexual intimacy to marriage and that which wishes to extend this to include two people irrespective of biological sex and/or permit sex outside marriage. Each of these is held by a significant proportion of the church and, it could be argued, needs to be given space. If this were to be done, then in terms of continued unity and walking together the best we could currently hope for would appear to be a provincial restructuring. To try to enshrine both contradictory doctrines within the teaching of the same province of the Church of England would appear both theologically incoherent and politically impossible. The choice would then appear to be either to divide into total separate ecclesial bodies (as has happened in North America among Anglicans and currently within the United Methodist Church and as suggested in option 1 above) or to re-imagine our current two-province structure within the Church of England (as in option 6 above).
We could – as appears to be the major approach at present—argue for a second understanding: that we are not changing doctrine but simply being more generous pastorally and liturgically. All that is therefore needed are forms of “pastoral reassurance” which seek to provide sufficient legal protections for those clergy whose consciences do not permit them to be as pastorally and liturgically expansive as the Church of England will allow in future. This might lead to option 2 (or option 1) above or a minimalist form of alternative episcopal oversight within the range of options 3 to 5. There are at least two major problems with this approach:
- many do view the current proposals as representing a change in doctrine and thus crossing a red line and would be even clearer about this were sexual relationships other than marriage to be given approval. This means their need is not simply for reassurance and legal protection for their personal conscience. Their concern is avoiding participation in what they see as serious theological and moral error being introduced into the church. This leads to them being in impaired communion with those who embrace the changes in their own ministries. Where their bishops do so, CofE clergy and parishes will find themselves being deprived of what they can recognise and receive as faithful episcopal oversight in line with church doctrine.
- were any bishops to refuse to allow use of prayers or to follow new guidance this would have an effect on their clergy and parishes and lead to much greater episcopal differentiation than we have experienced before.
A third understanding is to acknowledge these problems. This may lead to acceptance that the changes do represent a de facto change in doctrine thus leading us back to the first understanding above and some provincial level solution. Alternatively, as noted in Part Two, we could view ourselves as fundamentally disagreeing over the exact content and extent of our current doctrine and recognising that these different interpretations yield different implications in terms of what is and is not indicative of a departure from it. The question then becomes one of how best to proceed if we are to continue stating the doctrine has not changed but we are giving space to practices which in the past have been held to be inconsistent with that doctrine and a departure from it or at least indicative of a departure from it.
Two possible paths to good episcopal differentiation
This third understanding raises the question as to how one best moves from the status quo to some form of good episcopal differentiation. One path would be to say something like
“the consensus of the current bishops, supported by a simple but not two-thirds majority in Synod, is that these developments are not indicative of departure from doctrine. We will therefore proceed with them but in order to enable us to continue to discern God’s will and walk together as closely as possible we will make provision (in some form of options 3-5) for those who cannot accept them (and, where necessary, for those who wish to proceed but whose bishops cannot authorise such developments under their ministry). “
Another path, learning from introducing communion before confirmation, would be to say something like
“we recognise that these changes rely on novel interpretations of current doctrine in a number of ways, are changes which we have not previously been accepted as within the bounds of doctrine, and are viewed by a significant minority in the Church of England and the majority of the wider Communion as departing from doctrine. As we seek to continue to discern God’s will and walk together as closely as possible we can therefore only currently permit them on a limited, experimental basis by providing (in some form of options 3-5) a way for those who in conscience feel bound to implement them and believe them to be acceptable within existing doctrine.”
This latter path would – if it could be practically constructed with theological integrity and with clarity as to how and when the experiment would be evaluated and then developed, continued or abandoned – amount to testing a proposed development of doctrine by means of a form of pastoral accommodation, a phrase which has (after being given much attention at the time of the Pilling Report) been noticeably absent from responses to LLF.
Pastoral accommodation, in the words of Oliver O’Donovan, is an approach which “could allow for continuity with the doctrine of the church” even as one responds in new ways to fresh practical questions and pastoral challenges. Reflecting on the response of different churches to questions surrounding marriage and same-sex unions, and in particular that of the Scottish Episcopal Church which chose to change its doctrine of marriage, he wrote:
Read it all in Psephizo:
