This week the Alliance published the eighth letter in their campaign to persuade the bishops and General Synod to create a permanent, structural space in the Church of England for orthodox Anglicans.
As this blog sets out, the events of the past few weeks show that despite their best efforts, the Alliance is being undermined and thwarted at every end and turn and some serious rethinking is required.
The Alliance’s letter addressed the House of Bishops in advance of their Autumn meeting. It sought to communicate, “the scale of pain and confusion felt by those we represent while seeking to bring clarity about who the Alliance represents and what we are prayerfully seeking to achieve…”
The source of the pain and confusion is obvious: the Alliance, perhaps rightly, feel sidelined and ignored.
“Sadly, many across the Alliance are already experiencing discrimination towards those who hold orthodox views, with curacies being withheld, funding withdrawn, promotions denied and being told there is no place for you within the future Church of England.”
“To our disappointment none of our criteria for flourishing have been taken into account or integrated into the deliberations of the Leicester groups nor by the House of Bishops at General Synod”
This clearly comes as a shock to them, after all, as the letter sets out, the Alliance
- represents 2,360 clergy (about 12% of active ministers), who themselves
- “represent 42% of the Church of England’s average Sunday attendance”
- “and 53% of all under eighteen-year-olds within the Church of England.”
- have, “strong support from Primates from across the Anglican Communion.”
The frustration felt at being dismissed is palpable:
“We represent the most diverse, youngest and fastest growing networks within the Church of England and yet are repeatedly told we are a small extreme minority grouping despite offering independent validation of our data.”
It is however harder to understand exactly what the Alliance are seeking to achieve.
They position themselves as those who “are trying to combat the schism that a de facto change of doctrine and a disregard of due process is creating within the Church.”
So, once again, “they implore and commend the House of Bishops to reconsider following the correct constitutional process of Canon B2, which exists to protect the unity of the church by ensuring a two thirds majority is gained as a prerequisite for any alteration or departure from current agreed doctrine.”
But it would seem they actually hold out little hope of this happening – as they say they are “being forced to begin setting up a de facto parallel province within the Church of England in response to the de facto change in doctrine.”
The need for this ‘de facto parallel province’ was announced in their seventh letter, prior to the decisions of General Synod in July. It is slightly confusing therefore that in this new letter the Alliance appear to have foregone the need for an orthodox Archbishop and instead suggest that permanent provision of an orthodox diocese would potentially meet their needs:
“These six criteria can only be met through the powers of the ordinary of an orthodox diocesan bishop. Only orthodox diocesan episcopal oversight can fulfil these criteria, and delegated oversight on a regional basis will not work.”
The six criteria are not readily obvious, though it might be assumed that the 2023 CEEC paper, “Securing Evangelical Witness,” and the reasons John Dunnett, their Director, gives for rejecting delegated oversight would give some indication of their content.
These documents suggest the Alliance are, at the very least, looking for:
- a guaranteed ’space’ within the Church of England, which has a single, orthodox doctrine of sex and marriage and where it is possible to reject alternative doctrines;
- with an orthodox diocesan bishop with ordinary jurisdiction, who is able to select, train, ordain, appoint, license and discipline clergy and provide all forms of episcopal ministry to orthodox parishes;
- a ‘space’ where money given by parishes will only be spent on orthodox ministry but where it is still possible to access the Church Commissioners historic funds;
- and the right to retain their current buildings and plant new churches.
The problem is that the Alliance have still not offered a way forward which would enable their criteria to be met. Nearly two years have passed since this blog warned that a provincial solution was “A Unicorn made of Fairy Dust”, and a year has gone by since Anglican Futures offered a proposal for a Non-Geographical Diocese of the Church of England (NoGeoDoCE) for discussion.
The reality is, this letter has come too late.
Too late because both the process and the premise of the provision have moved on.
In a video shared this month by the Diocese of St Albans, Rt Revd Martyn Snow, who is leading the work on the Prayers of Love and Faith, reiterated what was said at Synod in July about the plan for pastoral provision based on delegated episcopal oversight.
“General Synod has now agreed that these prayers can be used in Standalone services with an understanding that they do not constitute a change in our doctrine of marriage. So, churches that want to use the prayers in standalone services to celebrate with same-sex couples will be able to do so before too long, but they will need to register with their Bishop.”
“These prayers will also need ‘pastoral provision’. Exactly what that looks like is still to be determined but we are clear that there will be an option to request spiritual and pastoral oversight from another bishop. In this way we hope that whether people are in agreement or in disagreement on this there will be away for them to remain truly a part of the Church of England and for same-sex couples to experience the welcome of the Church of England.”
Announcing a plan for diocesan consultations between February and July 2024, he said,
“We see it as a key principle that they will be applied in different ways probably regionally across the Church of England, so not just individual dioceses but groups of dioceses working together to ensure the right provision for all of our clergy and churches.”
The publication of this video, before the House of Bishops met, suggests that the principle of delegated episcopal oversight has already been agreed and will not be overturned by a letter.
The Alliance were also blindsided by the Lambeth Palace media team, who ensured that the publication of the Alliance letter was totally overshadowed. First, by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s admission that he was the great, great, great, grandson of a slave owner and then by a Statement confirming that the Archbishop of Canterbury stands by what he told Alastair Campbell in a recent video. Namely, that he believes “..all sexual activity should be within a committed relationship and whether it is straight or gay, in other words we have not given up on the idea that sex is within marriage or civil partnership.”
The Lambeth Palace Statement explained, “his thinking has evolved over the years through much prayer and theological reflection – particularly through the Living in Love and Faith process – and he now holds this view sincerely. “ It continued, “Archbishop Justin stressed his absolute commitment to those who hold a traditional view having “a full and undoubted place in the Church of England”.
The language echoes that used by the Archbishop of Canterbury at the Lambeth Conference which in turn further undermines the Alliance’s position.
Readers of this blog may remember that before any discussion had taken place amongst the bishops gathered at Lambeth, and in the face of loud voices to the contrary, Justin Welby announced that the matter of sexuality was now adiaphora (a matter on which faithful Anglicans can disagree). For him, only one sentence in the controversial ‘Call’ really mattered.
“As Bishops we remain committed to listening and walking together to the maximum possible degree, despite our deep disagreement on these issues.”
The Statement was a reminder of the fundamental paradigm on which the House and College of Bishops, including many of the “the Alliance link bishops”, are operating. It is a belief that it is not just possible, but it is necessary, for faithful Anglicans to agree to disagree about issues of human sexuality.
Once this has been accepted it doesn’t matter whether the Archbishop of Canterbury believes the “traditional view” or, as Welby described it at the Lambeth Conference, he has, “come to a different view on sexuality after long prayer, deep study and reflection on understandings of human nature,” because both are valid expressions of the Christian faith. What matters is that whatever he believes he is accepted by those who hold a different view.
It also doesn’t matter whether Justin Welby is forced to resign, or just chooses to announce his retirement, the paradigm has already shifted. The reality is that the only ‘orthodoxy’ that must now be upheld in the Church of England is the need to remain united across difference. Any form of structural provision would undermine this orthodoxy.
Thus, the idea that the Church of England will provide a structural solution, whether a Diocese or a province is rendered more and more unlikley each day.
This leaves the Alliance with the task of building a ‘de facto parallel province’.
John Dunnet shared their vision in Evangelicals Now, earlier this month:
“The obvious point to make is that it is not an actual or real province – de facto is by contrast with de jure. At the same time, it can in practice be a very real and positive reality.
Imagine between 500 and 1,000 churches working together ‘as if’ they were an orthodox province within the Church of England. Imagine them using their money to support orthodox mission, ministry and evangelism. Imagine them receiving spiritual oversight from orthodox men and women of recognised national leadership stature. Imagine their ordinands being trained for ministry and institutions committed to orthodoxy, and curates being ordained by bishops upholding the apostolic faith as we have received it and being placed with orthodox training incumbents. And imagine all this being served by a college of bishops, clergy and lay leaders whose Biblical teaching and personal integrity is entirely consistent with the historic doctrine and teaching of the Church of England. This would describe what a ‘de facto parallel province’ looks like on the ground.”
The problem is that, as the Alliance point out, however good one’s imagination, the orthodox cannot flourish without “the powers of the ordinary of an orthodox diocesan bishop.” In Anglicanism, jurisdiction matters. There cannot be an orthodox ‘college of bishops’ without it.
If the Alliance cannot live with the delegated episcopal oversight they are being offered, then they will need to look to those prepared to offer ‘irregular’ episcopal ministry. Which is why it is significant that a bishop of the Church of England was formally rebuked and given an injunction under the Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM).
The bishop in question, Rt Rev Tim Wambunya is an orthodox bishop who has been disciplined for ordaining a former student in Germany without permission. He has, in the past and with the permission of his diocesan bishop, ordained orthodox Church of England candidates.
in his letter of apology Bishop Tim has had to underline his public acceptance of the House of Bishops’ commitment to walking together.
“I am deeply committed to the unity of the Church of England, and that I come to you with a strong determination to strengthen that unity across our diversity…
… My appointment adds breadth of ethnicity, theology, liturgical style, to the leadership of Lichfield Diocese. This, I believe, will enrich our shared ministry together…
… Together, let us continue to build a vibrant and inclusive community that reflects God’s love and grace.”
Bishop Tim’s injunction requires him to “undertake further training, on the polity and nature of the roles and responsibilities of a Bishop within the Church of England and on adherence to the customs and the canons regarding ministering in other Dioceses.”
It is very unusual for a bishop to be disciplined under the CDM and in the current context it appears to be a shot across the bows of the Alliance. A warning that any irregular episcopal actions will not be ignored, but rather be formally rebuked and a process of re-education required.
Which leaves the Alliance and those that look to them for leadership in an unenviable position.
They know they cannot flourish without “the powers of the ordinary of an orthodox diocesan bishop.” yet, the House of Bishops has proved they have no intention of providing such oversight, nor will they turn a blind eye to the irregular practices that would be necessary to maintain any kind of de facto parallel province.
As Bishop Martyn Snow told General Synod in July:
“My desire is that such people should have a place within the Church of England, um, but inevitably if that’s to be the case there will have to be some shift from an understanding that says, “We cannot simply agree to disagree”. …. if there are those who feel this really doesn’t work then there’s not a lot I can do about that.“
Maybe he was telling the truth?
Maybe it’s time to stop imagining he can do anything else?
