What happened?

The Church of England press release proclaimed Prayers for God’s blessing for same-sex couples take step forward after Synod debate.

The Church of England’s General Synod has welcomed proposals which would enable same-sex couples to come to church after a civil marriage or civil partnership to give thanks, dedicate their relationship to God and receive God’s blessing.

The Anglican Communion News Service reported the event under the headline Church of England Synod endorses bishop’s decision not to change doctrine of marriage. The article points out

During the Synod debate, only one of the tabled amendments to the bishops’ proposal was passed: that the synod endorsed “the decision of the College and House of Bishops not to propose any change to the doctrine of marriage, and their intention that the final version of the Prayers of Love and Faith should not be contrary to or indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England”.

It also points out that the two amendments urging the Synod to move towards acceptance of same-sex marriage had both been rejected in all three houses.

All true as far as it goes, but perhaps neither is telling the true story. I was hoping for generous orthodoxy to prevail and it might still do but things are not looking hopeful. It would require greater transparency and integrity from the House of Bishops than has been on display thus far.

The Church of England appears to be split three ways. There are those who urge a change to our doctrine of sex and marriage on the grounds that the received teaching is unloving and harmful. There are those who feel compelled to resist such a move towards (what they perceive to be) heterodoxy. And there are those who are torn in between and just wish for the whole debate to go away.

And then there are those who wield power, who hope they can hold everyone together by offering prayers that can (a) be said not to be indicative of a departure from the church’s doctrine of marriage, and (b) nevertheless be used to bless same-sex couples in sexually active relationships and without regard for whether the couple is in a civil partnership, in a civil marriage, or in a covenanted friendship.

Those who feel compelled to resist such a change are told that they do not have to use these prayers. They only have to accept that those who do use them are faithful, orthodox Christians too.

The first group above is not altogether happy because it is clear that the Church of England is still a long way from endorsing same-sex marriage.

The second group could be happy if it could be convinced that what is on offer is not indicative of a departure from the church’s doctrine. Alas, most in this group think it is and that saying otherwise is merely adding insult to injury or lack of integrity to lack of faithfulness. What is asked of them is nothing short of a redefinition of what constitutes orthodoxy. This is why it’s a big deal.

The third group has no reason to be happy. The one thing that seems certain in all the confusion is that this debate will not go away and that the divisions within the Church of England will deepen and solidify.

The Archbishops urge that it is our Christian duty to stick together and show the world that disagreements do not need to lead to walking apart. But you cannot walk together in different directions. There are disagreements with which one can live and others which must divide us. Tolerating injustice is not loving, neither is tolerating heterodoxy. For as long as the Bishops do not succeed in convincing the one group that refusing same-sex marriage is not unjust and the other that the prayers of blessing on offer are not heterodox, the appeal to unity is just so much whitewash. Painting over harmless hairline cracks in the wall is one thing, covering up structural damage with a bit of paint is another.

For Ian Paul's take on what happened see What exactly happened at Synod on the Prayers for Love and Faith? This also includes links to comments on the legality of what the Bishops offered by Philip Jones and by a group of lawyers who are mostly members of General Synod.

UPDATE: Christopher Cocksworth, who led the LLF process, offers his reflections here.

Staying Faithful

The following are questions by independent church minister Stephen Kneale to Church of England ministers in the light of recent developments, along with a first attempt at answering them.

1.       How do you understand the term ‘faithful’ and does your current situation help or hinder your being faithful?

Faithfulness means loyalty to Christ and his body. This includes devotion to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayers (Acts 2:42). It covers attitudes and behaviour as well as speech.

For me, as an ordained minister in the Church of England, it also means devoting myself wholly to the service of God, daily following the rule and teaching of our Lord and growing into his likeness so that God may sanctify the lives of all with whom I have to do. (From the Liturgy of Ordination)

Among other, equally important but perhaps less contentious, things this involves faithfully ministering the doctrine and sacraments of Christ as the Church of England has received them, proclaiming the good news of salvation, and defending the people committed to my charge against error.

(It also means submitting to the authority of the British Monarch and my Bishop in all things lawful and honest, and using only the forms of service which are authorized or allowed by Canon.)

My situation is both help and hindrance. The Church of England declares and formally asks of his ministers belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness, but it tolerates clergy that openly contradict the Scriptures and teach contrary to the Christian faith.

While many in this country worship Christ outside the Church of England, no other denomination, with the possible exception of the Roman Catholic church, has a better claim to catholicity, in the sense of seeking to hold together the body of Christ in a given place. Being in the Church of England is a help in terms of faithfully serving the body of Christ in my place. (It may well be different in other parts of the country.) I cannot have this close fellowship without having also fellowship with many who in word or deed deny Christ as our Lord and Saviour. This is a hindrance.

I can speak the truth freely but the lies of others compromise the message that is proclaimed. This would not altogether change by leaving the Church of England for a smaller, more faithful denomination. The background noise would not thereby go away.

Lest this be misread, I must add that my situation does of course include myself and I recognise that there are threats to faithfulness within me as well as from without.

2.       How can you remain faithful whilst in submission to those who, minimally, apologise for orthodoxy and are entertaining those who wish to undermine it?

As far as I can see, my submission to my Bishops (in all things lawful and honest) does not at present compromise my faithfulness to Christ, as far as my own actions are concerned.

The apology to which Stephen Kneale alludes was not for orthodoxy (or orthopraxis) as such but for stating orthodoxy (or orthopraxis) and maybe for doing so in a clumsy or untimely way. Still, the apology hinders rather than helps faithful Christian ministry. It does not, however, prevent it altogether.

I agree with the observation that our Bishops, on the whole, want us to keep company with people, including clergy, who wish to undermine the historic Christian faith (and by no means on matters of sexuality only), pretending that people are fellow servants in the gospel for the sake of the kingdom of God who in reality serve a God of their own imagination, perverting the gospel of Christ. This is a grievous ill, even allowing that most, maybe all, false teachers have persuaded themselves that they are promoting the Christian faith.

This does undermine my ministry. But, in some sense, it undermines all faithful Christian ministry in this country and beyond. It makes it harder to remain faithful but not impossible.

3.       How can you remain faithful while remaining in formal communion with those who openly want to reject historic orthodoxy?

I am not sure that there is much difference between this and the following question. See below. Celebrating Holy Communion alongside false teachers has elements of both joy (because it is not communion with false teachers only but with Christ and his body) and pain (because it includes an element of falsehood, apparently recognising some as fellow servants who are not in fact submitting to Christ).

In the current context absenting myself from events like the Chrism Mass on Maundy Thursday at which ministers from across the Diocese gather and clergy renew their ordination vow would not effectively signal to false teachers the dangers in which they are. But the presence of those who openly want to reject historic orthodoxy devalues the renewal of vows and makes the Eucharist less joyful than it might be otherwise.

4.       How do you remain faithful staying in whilst taking seriously the biblical call to separate from those who depart the faith and partaking in the sins of those with whom we commune?

Knowing (in principle) how to respond to the instruction to keep away from those who call themselves Christian but are idle (2 Thessalonians 3:6), or sexually immoral, or greedy, or idolaters, or verbally abusive, or drunkards, or swindlers (1 Corinthians 5:11) was arguably more straightforward when the number of those who were Christian by name only was small.

Today there are many who bear the name of Christ but do not know him, do not acknowledge Christ as their Saviour, and do not submit to him as their Lord. Some of them are in open rebellion to Christ and the teaching of his church, others are confused, still others oblivious to their state. (And I am, of course, not necessarily in a position to judge.)

We need to be mindful of a double risk. Keeping close to ‘false Christians’ makes it more challenging to heed the call of Christ not to participate in the unfruitful works of darkness but rather to expose them, not least if we come to know them as friends whom we love, respect, and in parts admire.

But keeping a clear distance to ‘false Christians’ makes it more challenging to share the good news with many in our post-Christendom society. There are two broad differences between our situation and that of the early church: (a) those from whom the early Christians were to distance themselves had heard the gospel and the separation would have communicated to them a call to mend their ways in order to be re-integrated; (b) the separation would have helped those outside the church to see more clearly the meaning and significance of the Christian faith.

Today those outside the church see a multiplicity of denominations that tells them little more than this: Christians are not agreed about what it means to be a Christian. And separating ourselves from those whose lives or doctrine betray the faith in all likelihood communicates ‘we think ourselves better than you’ rather than ‘the way you live or teach is incompatible with being a faithful disciple of Christ.’

We partake in the sins of others by committing them ourselves or by endorsing them (which 1 Timothy 5:22 may have in mind). But this is not inevitably the case by staying in the Church of England.

It is a fair question whether faithful Christians staying in the Church of England helps to preserve nominal and false Christianity, thereby promoting confusion about the Christian faith. Would it not be better to let the Church of England die? Maybe, but this is a matter of carefully weighing up a range of factors, not a matter of simple obedience to a straightforward command.

5.       How can you remain faithful to the official historic teaching of the church when liturgies and practice, with guidance issued, now affirm what is unbiblical? Can one stand on a constitution that is not applied?

The fact that the constitution is not applied in other parish churches makes life and ministry more difficult but it does not mean that I cannot apply it in our parish church.

The Guidance for Gender Transitioning Services is a grave error (cf. this post) but I am resolved to remain faithful to the official historic teaching of the church and to use any liturgy accordingly. I am dismayed but not (yet) unable to remain faithful, except for my own weakness.

6.       What is your actual plan to change the situation? How are you ‘contending’ in a way that has any hope whatsoever of effecting change?

My plan is to truly preach the word and rightly administer the sacraments, as best as I can. My contending is a matter of faithfulness to Christ, whether or not it makes any difference. Only God’s Spirit can bring repentance and submission to Christ. I try to play my very small part. For now, I don’t think that leaving the Church of England would ‘change the situation’ for the better.

Is the Church of England Rich?

Is the Church of England Rich? Maybe not as “rich in faith” (Jam. 2:5), as she might be, certainly not as rich in grace and mercy as God is (Eph. 1:7; 2:4, 7; 3:16; cf. Rom. 2:4; 9:23; 12:10) who “richly” provides us with all things for our enjoyment” (1 Tim. 6:17) and “richly provides” entrance into Christ’s kingdom (2 Pet. 1:11;  cf. Tit. 3:6).

The church seeks to let the word of Christ dwell “richly” among us (Col. 3:16), to be “rich towards God” (Lk. 12:21), having become “rich” herself because her Lord who “though he was rich” became poor for her sake (2 Cor. 8:9) and now has “unfathomable” wealth (Eph. 3:8; cf. Phil. 4:19), preparing a truly rich inheritance for us (Eph. 1:18). This is possible because God has such a wealth of wisdom (Rom. 11:33; cf. Col. 1:27) that he can bring riches out of losses (cf. Rom. 11:12).

The Church of England is arguably “rich in good works” (1 Tim. 6:18), to have the wealth that comes with an assured understanding (Col. 2:2). She sometimes displays a “wealth of generosity” (2 Cor. 8:2), at her best considering abuse suffered for Christ greater wealth and “the treasures of Egypt” (Heb. 11:26). All in all she is maybe not as rich as the church in Smyrna (Rev. 2:5).

There are a fair number of positive uses of the word group “rich/wealth” in the New Testament. But it is hard to find a single one among them which refers to material wealth. The wealth received by the Lamb in Rev. 5:12 may be the only one.[1]

Yet sadly many people are only interested in the question whether the CofE has material riches. When reference is made in the NT to material wealth, passages like the following are more typical:

"But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort.” (Lk. 6:24) 

“Come now, you rich people, weep and wail for the miseries that are coming to you.” (Jam. 5:1)

So when we ask whether the CofE is materially rich, the answer better be "No." 

The question whether the Church of England has material wealth is actually more difficult to answer than many realise, especially many of those who have little first-hand experience of the church and a good amount of bad feeling towards her.

In my opening paragraphs “Church of England” refers to the people that make up the CofE. If we ask whether the CofE in this sense is “rich,” the answer is surely “yes”. As the old saying goes, said to the congregation just before the collection plates are sent around, “the church has lots of money – it’s in your pockets!” England is a rich country. There are many poor people in England, but there are also lots of people who are “rich” compared with most other people in the world.

Things get more complicated when we ask the question about “the Church of England” as an organisation. Most of the investments that are thought to belong to “the Church of England” actually belong to an organisation called the Church Commissioners. A lot of their “wealth” is in fact the pension fund of thousands of people who work for the church.

Then there are the 42 Church of England dioceses; they are all independent charities in law. Some have historical income (e.g., from properties), others have virtually none. Then there are over 10,000 independent Parochial Church Councils who have freedom (under the supervision of the Charity Commissioners) to manage their funds quite independently.  A good number of them own land – much of which is called “graveyard” in case you’re wondering about the value of that land plus the land on which the church building is standing, often a historic church which is expensive to maintain and rarely brings in any money.

It probably does not make much sense to ask whether “the Church of England” is materially rich. We need to ask the question about the Church Commissioners, the Dioceses, and individual parishes. Very few of them, if any at all, could be called rich in terms of easily accessible money. If you were to close down these charities and sell their holdings, you could of course release a huge number of assets but some of the land holdings would not bring in muich money at all (think churchyards again) and the remaining liabilities, especially for pensions, would likely take care of much of the income that would be generated by selling off the family silver.

PS: A friend pointed out that there area number of other assets that need to be considered here such as voluntary aided church schools. Again these are assest that do not create financial wealth. In fact, as far as finances are concerned they are on the "expenses" rather than "income" side of the ledger for the church, I should think. Money could be released by selling these off, especially if sold to property developers that are not interested in schools.But the cost to society would be immense and I suspect that only the most ardent anti-church campaigners would advocate that the CofE withdraws from the education sector.

---

[1] The references mentioned in the opening paragraphs relate to words from related roots beginning “πλου-“ and are probably comprehensive as far as truly positive references in the NT are concerned. Other references, namely those to material wealth, are either neutral, e.g. referring to “both rich and poor,” or, more often, negative.