In the Church Times on 15 November 2024 there was an article by Richard Dormandy entitled ‘Pitfalls of the Ephesian Fund’[1] in which he criticised the Ephesian Fund promoted by the Church of England Evangelical Council and the Alliance as being both unbiblical and unethical. I think he is wrong on both counts and in this post I shall explain why.
The nature and purpose of the Ephesian Fund
As the CEEC explained when the Ephesian Fund was launched in November 2023 the purpose of the fund is to
‘…. enable people in churches across the dioceses to continue to support orthodox Anglican ministry when in good conscience they might otherwise withdraw or reduce their giving to their parish church as a result of their bishop’s support for the Prayers of Love and Faith initiative.
PCCs will also be able to pay part or all of their voluntary parish share (also known as ‘quota’) via the Fund – thus enabling their share to be used to support only local churches who stand with them in the historic Anglican and biblical position on sexual ethics.’ [2]
To put it simply, the Ephesian Fund is a mechanism that enable people to continue to give money in the certainty that it will be used to support ministry in the Church of England that is in line with historic Anglican teaching as summarized in the CEEC statement of faith.
Is the Ephesian Fund unbiblical?
The reason that Dormandy thinks that the fund is unbiblical is that he holds that Paul encouraged the churches for which he had apostolic responsibility to give monetary support to the church in Jerusalem in spite of the fact that: ‘Paul was profoundly at odds with many in that Jerusalem church. He was even at odds with their officially ‘published’ declaration regarding his Gentile mission.’
The reason that this was the case was that ‘the unity with these conservative Christians was in Christ, not in theology.’ For Paul unity in Christ was more important than any theological differences and he advocated supporting the church in Jerusalem as an expression of that unity.
Dormandy further adds that:
‘It simply does not seem credible that he [Paul] would have supported a ‘conscience’ collection, only for churches with which the givers were in full agreement. In fact, in his discussion of idol-meat, he pits conscience directly against unity — and concludes that conscience must take the back seat.’
Although he does not explicitly say so, Dormandy’s application for today seems to be that unity in Christ means giving unrestricted giving to other churches even if people have conscientious problems with the ministry of these churches.
The problem with this argument is that while it is certainly the case that Paul was at odds theologically with the position of some in the church in Jerusalem who argued that Gentile converts needed to be circumcised (Acts 15:5, Galatians 2:12) there is no evidence at all that he was at odds with the decision eventually arrived at by the church in Jerusalem that Gentile converts did not need to be circumcised, but did need to obey the laws laid down for aliens in Israel in Leviticus 17-18 by abstaining from four things, food sacrificed to idols, the consumption of blood, meat from an animal that has been strangled, and sexual immorality (Acts 15:20 and 29). [3]
We know that Paul was content with this decision because he was happy to take a letter outlining this decision to the church in Antioch and to read it out there (Acts 15:22-32) and in his letters to the churches in Rome and Corinth he taught Gentile converts to abide by its stipulations (Romans 14-15, 1 Corinthians 5-6, 8 and 10).
There is simply no evidence that Paul ‘profoundly disagreed’ with the decision arrived at by the church in Jerusalem as Dormandy suggests, or that he was theologically at odds with the church in Jerusalem at the time when he wrote to the Christians in Corinth urging them to give it financial support (1 Corinthians 16:1-4, 2 Corinthians 8:1-9:15). The claim that the collection for the church in Jerusalem illustrates a unity in Christ in spite of theological difference thus has no historical basis.
Paul’s relations with the Jerusalem church thus provide no support for the idea that financial support ought to be given even when such support will support the practice and propagation of serious theological error.
Dormandy is also wrong when he claims that when discussing the issue of meat sacrificed to idols Paul ‘pits conscience directly against unity — and concludes that conscience must take the back seat.’ Rather, what Paul argues is that unity has to include respect for other people’s conscientious convictions (even if one thinks they are unnecessary). This is what he means in Romans 15:1 when he writes ‘We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves.’
The reason for this is because to lead someone to act against their conscience is morally wrong since someone who acts against their conscience conviction is committing sin. As Paul writes in Romans 14:23 with respect to conscientious convictions concerning food: ‘he who has doubts is condemned, if he eats, because he does not act from faith; for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.’
Taking Paul’s teaching seriously means accepting that it is wrong to suggest that people ought to give money to support other churches when they have conscientious problems about how that money will be used. If they hand over their money despite thinking that it will be used for ungodly purposes they are, according, to Romans 14 committing sin.
Are there ethical problems with the Ephesian Fund?
The reason why Dormandy thinks that there are ethical problems with the Ephesian fund is twofold.
First, those who pay into the fund want continued support from their diocese while being unwilling to support it. In his words: ‘the fund diverts resources away from the diocese, yet support from the diocese is still expected.’
Secondly, in his view any move to give to the Ephesian Fund ‘in place of the status quo must be fully advertised and properly explained to all giving church members,’ and he thinks it is not clear that this is always the case.
With regard to the first point, it seems that Dormandy has not understood how the Ephesian Fund operates. Money paid into the Ephesian Fund is not withheld from a diocese but is used to support orthodox ministry and mission within the diocese. The amount of money the diocese receives is not reduced but is given to be used for specific purposes. If the diocese wishes to then redeploy other money to support liberal parishes it is free to do so.
With regard to the second point, Dormandy is correct to argue that if a church decides to give to the Ephesian Fund this decision must be made known to those who attend and give money to that church and the theological reason for the decision needs to be properly explained. However, this does not mean that there is an ethical problem with the basic principle of the Ephesian Fund, namely that people should have the opportunity to give their money to support ministry in the Church of England that is in line with historic Anglican teaching, including the teaching that marriage as created by God is a relationship between two people of the opposite sex and that that sexual activity should be confined to marriage thus understood.
[1] Richard Dormandy, ‘Pitfalls of the Ephesian Fund,’ Church Times, 15 November 2024 at: https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2024/15-november/comment/opinion/pitfalls-of-the-ephesian-fund
[2] CEEC, ‘Responding to the 15 November 2023 General Synod decision: looking forward’ at: https://ceec.info/responding-to-the-15-november-2023-general-synod-decision-looking-forward/
[3] For the decision eventually arrived at by James in Acts 15 see Richard Bauckham, ‘James and the Gentiles (Acts 15.13-21)’ in Ben Witherington (ed), History, Literature and Society in the Book of Acts (Cambridge: CUP, 1996) pp. 154-184.
