Fulcrum and women bishops: let the debate begin?

Some time ago, I published on this blog a piece where I suggested (somewhat provocatively) that, in the words of the song from Oklahoma, “the ‘farmer’ of Anglo-Catholicism and the ‘cowman’ of Conservative Evangelicalism can, indeed, be friends”. (Please note, to those who think this is a sell-out, friendship does not necessarily indicate total agreement. Moreover, such friendship is posited within an evolving Anglican framework.)

Unfortunately, as a recent article by Elaine Storkey, published on the Fulcrum website, illustrates, the same is not yet true of Conservative Evangelicals and their Open Evangelical counterparts. Indeed, much as I dislike the idea, it suggests that, despite the best intentions of some, the ordination and consecration of women is shaping into a fellowship-dividing issue.

Elaine has written her article in response to claims about the recent changes in the makeup of General Synod. Suggestively, it is titled, Who won the General Synod elections and what hope for women bishops?

According to some Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals, there are now enough people opposed to the current legislation, particularly regarding its provisions for those who cannot accept women bishops, to block it when it comes back to General Synod.

Elaine, however, describes the claim that this a victory for the opponents of the measure as “extraordinary”, pointing to the more cautious assessment of WATCH (Women And The Church), who still maintain what she calls “muted optimism”.

For her own part, furthermore, Elaine doubts whether the ‘traditionalist’ analysis “is at all unbiased and disinterested” (though the same could be said of almost everyone in this situation), observing that the Evangelicals in question are neither what she calls “the official ‘Evangelical Group in General Synod’ (EGGS)”, nor, of course, Fulcrum itself. On the contrary, she commends John Dunnett, the secretary of EGGS, for “a more cautious approach to assessing the results” (although Dunnett, who stood in Chelmsford, stated in his election address that he was himself in favour of better provision in the legislation).

The Evangelicals are, of course, Reform, the bête noire of Fulcrum, and it is clear that Elaine objects strongly to what she sees as their claim to speak not only as but for ‘evangelicals’, given their small representation and, as she observes, the fact that their “amendments were defeated in the last debate”. (Though it should be added, so were all the significant amendments at this point, including the one put forward jointly by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. Such defeats were arguably as much an indication of the mood of Synod as they were of the qualities of the ‘movers’.)

As an analysis of the present position of the Synod, therefore, Elaine’s is not without its own biases and indications of interest, but these are not unexpected and can easily be overlooked. It is in the next section, however, that the real difficulties arise.

Elaine’s doubts about any claims concerning the future actions of the Synod begin, she says, with the fact that many of the new members will not really be ‘up to speed’ on legislation “so complex as the measure on women bishops”.

Many of them have not had any chance to look at earlier proposals, to follow the debate through so far, to catch up on the work of the revision committee, or to know why the various amendments did not get through. There is a lot of homework to be done before new members can get inside the issues with any real authority.

One has to say, this is somewhat disparaging towards these new members. Doubtless, many of them will have little understanding of the ways of the Synod. It is equally sure, however, that those who stood as conservative candidates did so at least in part because they had a pretty good idea what they thought of the Synodical debate and outcomes so far.

The real difficulty, however, is when Elaine goes on to the nature of the debate still facing the Synod. Thus she writes,

There are still a large number of issues to be thought about and resolved. We still need a more thorough debate on theology, and indeed on Reform’s claims that the opposition is from scriptural grounds. (Other evangelicals strongly disagree.)

Now the first of these is an extraordinary suggestion, given not just the position of the last Synod, but of Elaine herself. If there are really that many issues still to be thought through, and if the theology has not been thoroughly debated, what on earth was Synod doing voting for such a significant change — and, it may be added, making such grudging provision for those who still maintained the alternative view?

Moreover, one has to ask whether Elaine really doubts that Reform specifically, or Conservative Evangelicals generally, object to women priests and bishops on any grounds other than Scripture.

At face value, however, Elaine is arguing for more time and more debate on this crucial issue. She continues,

But to decide so far ahead of time how you will vote on a measure which has not been presented in a final form, suggests an incapacity or unpreparedness to listen and debate. For if minds are already made up along party lines, even on issues we have not yet discussed, then what is the point of Synod? All we would need to do is to assemble the tribes and count the numbers.

Yet of course, minds are made up (and it is the making up of these minds which creates the ‘party lines’). But they are surely made up, for the most part, precisely because people have been listening and debating and have been persuaded in various directions. To suggest otherwise is almost tantamount to suggesting that only the General Synod is capable of such a process.

But it is in her next paragraph that I find the most difficulty:

In fact, in my own twenty–three years as a member of General Synod, this is not what happens. The real work goes on in the interaction of those who disagree, in the exposure of people to views and outlooks which are different from their own. It is in the readiness to hear the Bible through the presentations of others that understanding is developed. It is in the listening and weighing up of the argument where decisions are best made. It is in the openness with which we concede that none of us has the whole truth, for that belongs to God alone, that humility and generosity begin to flourish.

Now I would be the first to say, ‘Hear, hear!’ if I thought this was without its own bias. For it to be true, however, it would have to presume that those currently supporting the consecration of women — those such as Christina Rees and even Elaine herself — will return to the new Synod ready to change their minds as they meet and interact with the new members (just as she hopes that the Traditionalist new members will be prepared to change their own minds).

As we all know, however, that is not going to happen. Indeed, it is not even how debate works, for debate depends on people who have made their minds up, and feel they have the supporting argument, seeking to persuade the doubters, which is precisely Elaine’s own position. She writes,

No-one has yet fully heard why many of us, who hold a high view of Scripture, feel compelled to open all the offices of the Church to the full participation of women, because we have not had chance to explain it.

Someone who feels, on Scriptural grounds, “compelled” to a course of action may certainly be sincere, but they can hardly classify themselves as open-minded on an issue.

Yet I find the statement itself utterly extraordinary. Is Elaine really suggesting that the Scriptural argument has not yet been heard? And is she suggesting that this is because those who hold to it have really “not had a chance to explain it”? If that were true, I would have to ask what has been going on for the last twenty years, since before the ordination of women to the priesthood.

Frankly at this point, were I to take Elaine at her word, I would ask why she does not call for a halt on any further legislation until the arguments have been heard and have been explained. As it is, I am simply rather baffled and do not know what to make of this.

Of course, as Elaine observes, there is room for discussion about the final form of the legislation. Indeed, she writes that, “even those of us who fully support the Women Bishops’ Measure as it stands will need to wait and see before we can give final approval our wholehearted support.” And she prays“that incoming members of Synod — even those with very firm views on the Catholic and Reformed edges — will do the same.”

But holding fire on the legislation (which the last Synod certainly did not seem so willing to do) is different from holding back on the principle, which is what should surely follow from what Elaine has written.

The problem is, I would humbly suggest, that Elaine has confused two things which Evangelicals as a whole need to keep separate. One is the argument in principle for women’s ordination and consecration. The other is the provision in practice for those who disagree with the majority view.

As it happens, some Conservative Evangelicals, notably David Banting, the former chairman of Reform, have been working hard behind the scenes, particularly with AWESOME (Anglican Women Evangelicals Supporting our Ordained Ministries), to develop a joint approach which both admits the position of those who agree with women bishops and protects the position of those who do not.

David’s position, and those of many other Evangelicals of all stripes, is that the important thing is to support one another in this. And that is a commendable approach. But it must be admitted that there are other voices saying that the same support was not forthcoming when the situation was the other way round. In other words, that those opposed to women’s ordination have not sought to make provision for those in support — which is true.

And that brings me to the question of whether women’s ordination will become, in the end, a fellowship-breaking issue. I very much hope it does not, but the feelings on this run very deeply, and feelings have a habit of overriding reason.

Personally, I would be all in favour of prolonging the debate. Indeed, that may yet happen if, as is technically possible, the legislation to introduce women bishops falls at the last hurdle. The outcome would, to say the least, be interesting. But if it is true that the debate has not yet fully been aired, then that might actually be the best way. Interestingly, AWESOME are publishing a book in November where two women discuss their different views on this issue. Perhaps we should urge everyone in the Church of England to spend the next couple of years doing the same.

John P Richardson
31 October 2010

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

A superb CDEA Meeting

Just to say Glyn Harrison at the CDEA was superb (and I'm not just saying that because he said he reads my blog).

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Chelmsford Diocesan Evangelical Association meeting, 30th October

Science, psychology and same-sex attraction: what does the research actually say?

Meadgate Church, Meadgate Avenue, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 7LJ

Saturday 30 October: 10.00 to 1.00

Coffee from 9.30, please bring a packed lunch. Non-members: £3.00.

Glynn Harrison is emeritus professor of psychiatry at Bristol University. 'Evidence' from scientific studies is quoted in debates about human sexuality. We will look at how it is used and misused on all sides of the debate and ask how insights from biology and psychology can be integrated within an orthodox Christian framework for the ordering of human sexual desire.

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

The Pharisee, the Tax Collector and the New Perspective on Paul

This morning's sermon to a local congregation on Luke 18:9-14

Introduction

Like a lot of the Bible, our parable from Luke’s gospel this morning is both simple and complicated.

The simple lesson is quite obvious — don’t be like the Pharisee, arrogant and proud and looking down on other people. Instead, be like the tax collector, humble before God because, as v 14 puts it,

... everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.

And even this simple lesson is of profound significance. A society where the humility shown by the tax-collector prevails will be very different from a society where the attitude of the Pharisee prevails.

But the passage is also complicated because of its significance for modern theological debate, and this is something of which we also ought to be aware.

Theologians are rather like politicians. You might think you want nothing to do with them. But what they say and what they decide has a major impact on the rest of us. So long as there are politicians in the political field and theologians in the theological field, we have to endure a certain amount of disruption.

The ‘new perspective’

And this particular passage is significant for what it has to say about something theologians call the ‘new perspective on Paul’.

Now we have to say straight away that the term ‘new perspective’, singular, is misleading. There are actually several ‘new perspectives’ on Paul.

But the movement, as such, got under way in the 1970s and it has been gaining ground and adherents, not least in the Church of England, ever since. You may meet very few laity who have heard of it, but you will meet very few clergy who haven’t, and it affects how they treat you.

What these ‘new perspectives’ have in common is a conviction that the Reformation understanding of Paul — especially that which goes back to Martin Luther — was wrong.

Luther, they say, read into the New Testament his own personal concerns with Roman Catholicism, which he thought taught salvation by works.

Luther projected this onto New Testament Judaism, which he also saw as a religion based on salvation by works, and contrasted it with what he read — but misunderstood — in the Apostle Paul.

The problem is, according to the New Perspective, Judaism never was never a religion of works. Moreover Paul understood that.

The only difference between Paul and Judaism was over the importance of Christ and the need for Jewish rituals like circumcision and food laws. Paul’s argument with Judaism was that the boundary of God’s people was no longer marked by whether you were circumcised but whether you believed in Jesus.

Beyond that, however, there was complete agreement — both Paul and Judaism, according to the New Perspective, taught that faith is a response to God’s grace, issuing in a life of faithfulness, on the basis of which we will be judged as worthy or not of God’s kingdom.

Consequences

Now what are the consequences of this ‘new perspective’?

Well, the first, and most obvious, is that the Reformation got it wrong. It was wrong about Judaism. And therefore it was also wrong about Roman Catholicism.

Most importantly, though, it means the heirs of the Reformation are also wrong — and according to people like Bishop Tom Wright, the current Bishop of Durham who has written some outstanding books on Christianity, but is a strong advocate of his own version of the New Perspective evangelical Christians are the most wrong of all, especially in their understanding of salvation.

God and ‘Righteousness’

Now with all that in mind — but ‘on hold’, as it were — let’s have a look at the Bible passage for this morning. In Luke 18:9 we read this:

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable ...

What is the problem here?

First and foremost, we’re told, Jesus spoke to people who were , ‘confident ... that they were righteous’. But this little word ‘righteous’ doesn’t quite mean ‘good’ or ‘blameless’, as we might assume.

Rather, it means ‘standing in a right relationship with God’.

The righteous person, then, didn’t necessarily have to be perfect. King David, for example, was an adulterer and a murderer. Yet in Psalm 51 he expresses absolute confidence in God’s righteousness and his own restoration.

There’s nothing wrong with thinking you’re forgiven and put right with God. We think we’re forgiven.

The problem is revealed as we read on: they were ‘confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else’. And what this means is brought out further in the parable.

Two Jews went up to the Temple

Two Jews went up to the temple to pray. What is the difference between them?

They are both Jews, they are both circumcised, they both know the law and respect it. But one is a godfearing and upright man, and the other is a traitor, and probably a cheat, who makes a living acting as an agent for the occupying Roman authorities.

Think ‘tax inspector for Hitler’ and you’re in the right sort of territory.

The Pharisee’s prayer

But there is another difference, and that is in the way they pray. The Pharisee prays like this (v 11-12):

God, I thank you that I am not like other men — robbers, evildoers, adulterers — or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.

And everything he says is true. So what is he doing wrong? First, he is confident he has done nothing that would really be a barrier between him and God. He is not a robber, an evildoer or an adulterer. He cannot think of a reason why God would condemn him.

Secondly, he knows he is not like those who obviously do deserve God’s condemnation — like the tax-collector, for example.

And thirdly, he is diligent in observing the requirements of his religion, he fasts and observes the Sabbath (literally, he fasts ‘twice a Sabbath’), and he tithes. He can think of several reasons why God should accept him.

Undeserved forgiveness

Now look at the tax-collector and his prayer. We are told, v 13, he:

stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and prayed, “God, have mercy on me, a sinner.”

And Jesus said,

I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God.

And that word ‘justified’ means ‘counted as righteous’. At the end of the parable, he is what the Pharisee thought he was: in a right relationship with God.

So what has he done right? Has he said, “I will try to do better?” Has he said, “I will go home and live a life of faith in response to God’s grace, on the basis of which I will be adjudged worthy of God’s kingdom?”

No, it’s not that either. What has he done that puts him in a right relationship with God?

The answer is, nothing. Or rather, everything he has done put him in a right relationship with God. He was ‘justified’ when he stood afar off, not lifting his eyes up to heaven, but beating on his breast and saying “God be merciful to me, a sinner.”

Justification and the new perspective

You see everything the Pharisee said about himself was true: he wasn’t a robber, or an evildoer or an adulterer. He wasn’t like the tax-collector and he was diligent in his religious observances.

But when he came to the Temple, what he should have done was stood afar off, beating on his breast and saying, “God be merciful to me, a sinner.”

And the fact that he didn’t shows that although Judaism was a religion teaching grace and faith, what actually happened was that people looked to themselves for a positive assurance of their relationship with God, instead of looking to God.

And that is what human beings have always done — that is why we had to have the Reformation, and why it wasn’t a mistake. Because even Christians can forget they have nothing to bring to God, and can start relying on what they are like and what they are doing.

And from there it is a very short step to contempt for others and pride in ourselves.

The outcome

You see, I said at the beginning that if we live according to this parable it will have a profound affect on us and on society.

How will it affect us? For ourselves, it will keep us humble and thankful.

Do we come to Holy Communion, for example, aware of our unworthiness, as the Prayer of Humble Access encourages us to be, or trusting in our own righteousness — glad that we haven’t committed any obvious sins this week, and that we’ve generally done right and been good?

If we understand this parable correctly, we will always come to communion knowing that here God welcomes the tax-collector and the sinner — in fact he really welcomes to Communion the person who thinks they are not worthy to take Communion.

And it will affect society. What will a society be like that is run by people who are more confident about their relationship with God when they can see the fruits of that relationship in their own lives?

It will either produce people who are burdened with anxiety, like Luther was before his own flash of insight, or they will be moralistic, self-righteous and in the end merciless.

By contrast, a society where we all know that we all stand before God as undeserving sinners in need of undeserved forgiveness will be a society where we forgive others their sins as we have been forgiven ours. And I know where I would rather live.

So let us close by praying that God will help us understand this parable, and even more that he will help us apply it to our lives.

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

A Christian 'climate-change-scepticism' sceptic

I'm not quite sure why the subject of global warming excites so much, well, excitement over whether or not there is evidence that it is happening. For some reason, the question of the evidence is treated almost as a moral issue - as if whatever you believe (rather than whatever is actually the case) makes you a better, or worse, person.

And as is usually the case when human beings become moralistic, the other side is demonised (see John 8:1-5 for a typical example). Read George Monbiot pretty well passim if you're not sure what I mean.

I would have thought it is pretty obvious that human beings cannot go on increasing in number the way they are, and using up space and resources the way they have been, indefinitely. However, not having studied the particular subject of global warming, I'm quite content to listen to experts.

But that's where the trouble, and the squabbling, seems to start, and instead of plain facts we get emotion and controversey - which would be a great shame if global warming is happening and could be ameliorated if only we got on with doing something about it.

As a Christian, I see two relevant strands in the Bible. One is the mandate to rule the earth as God's image-bearers (Genesis 1:28). That means turning it into an Eden, not a wasteland. The other is the description of climactic disaster and chaos in Revelation 8:7-12. That suggests we won't succeed in carrying out the mandate - which means if global warming is happening on the scale some argue, it would at least be consistent with a biblical viewpoint.

Anyway, I was interested to find Evangelicals Now running with a story about a Christian 'climate change scepticism' sceptic, John Cook, who is  a solar physicist. You can find a scary bit of his website here.

Just remember what Jesus said, though:

There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. ... When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near. (Lk 21:25-26, 28)

Either way, heaven on earth will never happen this side of Jesus' return. So there's always something to look forward to.

John Richardson

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

SS Wilfrid and Hilda 111, St Augustine 0

Yesterday’s press release from Reform regarding the new ‘mission society’ of St Augustine contained a telling line. According to chairman Rod Thomas, there is

“a lot of detail to be worked out” as to the exact way such a society would operate, but ... within 6-12 months the framework could be clear.

So that would be some time between April and October 2011, then.

Meanwhile, there is already an up-and-running Facebook group for the Society of St Wilfrid and St Hilda which has 111 members — even though I doubt that the typical recruit for the Society proper is exactly your Facebook type.

So what is it, I find myself asking, that the St Augustine Society needs to work out that SSWSH doesn’t?

John Richardson
22 October 2010

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

REFORM PLANS RELIGIOUS SOCIETY AS "MODEL TO WIDER CHURCH"

Ed: A note from Crockford's Clerical Directory to the writers of this press release: Deacons and Priests may be referred to as (a) The Reverend A B Smith, (b) Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms Smith (unless it is known that some other style is preferred--the title Vicar or Rector is acceptable only if the person so addressed really is the incumbent of the parish where you live or worship), or (c) The Reverend A B Smith at the first mention, and Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms Smith thereafter.

BUT never, ever Revd Smith (or for that matter, Revd Thomas).

Reform members have voted to back the creation of a religious society within the Church of England for conservative evangelicals who want to promote the church's mission but are opposed to the consecration of women as bishops.

Speaking at the network's annual conference yesterday, attended by over 170 members, Revd Rod Thomas, the Reform chairman, said: "This is a very positive move not just for us, but for the wider church. The creation of a society can both provide a model of how the church can change to become more focused on mission, not maintenance, and a way forward through the dilemma it faces over women bishops."

"Reform members are involved in innovative ways of reaching into local communities with the good news of Jesus Christ. Many are in churches with a good number of younger men and women being trained for future gospel work. We have a mission-focus which brings health and life that is good for the wider church, and a religious society would enable us to continue that focus."

"In light of the recent results of elections to General Synod, our proposal takes on even greater weight," he added.

Revd Thomas revealed to the conference that analysis of the election results showed that over one third of the house of laity and just one member short of a third of the house of clergy would now vote against women bishops unless changes were made to the draft legislation. These figures are critical, as the legislation requires a two-thirds majority across all three voting houses (bishops, clergy, laity). If such a majority is not achieved in just one of the three houses, then the whole legislation would fail and have to be re-visited.

Revd Thomas said: "The recent elections provided the first real opportunity for grass-roots members of the Church of England to have their say on women bishops. There are many who remain firmly opposed to the idea, because the Bible says that there should be different roles for men and women both in the family and the church. For them the current proposals provide no firm guarantees, and therefore are completely inadequate. So there is now a real incentive to find a way of making appropriate provision, otherwise the whole legislation could fail. A religious society with a clear statutory role has not been fully considered, and could provide a way through."

Although some senior figures within the church are known to be broadly supportive of the creation of a religious society, Revd Thomas said that there is "a lot of detail to be worked out" as to the exact way such a society would operate, but reckoned that within 6-12 months the framework could be clear.

Ends


Editors['] note:

Evangelical and Catholic groups on General Synod have swapped lists of candidates and analysed the results. The analysis shows that in the House of Clergy, 66 Clergy would block the current legislation being sent down to the diocese[s], (i.e.32.10%) and 77 laity would block the current legislation being sent down to the diocese (35.46%). Only 34% is needed to block the legislation when it returns from the dioceses. So in the house of laity a blocking minority already exists and in the house of clergy only a further 1.81% is needed, just one person.

Reform has over 1,700 members, of whom more than 350 are ordained clergy.

For further information contact:

Revd Paul Dawson, 07791 495824

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

And now — a Conservative Evangelical 'Flying Bishop'?

Some years ago I was quite rightly ticked off by an archdeacon (now retired) for saying that the system of Provincial Episcopal Visitors, or ‘Flying Bishops’, had been set up “for Anglo-Catholics”. Of course, it was not. It was set up for everyone and anyone where there was a Parochial Church Council wanting to avail themselves of the provisions of the 1993 Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod.

It is also worth observing that the system of PEVs was only one, and indeed not the foremost, way of providing the necessary oversight. The first option was actually to have local, diocesan, schemes, follow by regional arrangements between dioceses. Only thirdly would the Archbishops appoint extra suffragans to act as PEVs.

This is why, although the Act provides for only three PEVs, two in Canterbury and one in York, there are four bishops commonly identified with this system, the Bishop of Fulham having been appointed under the local ‘London Plan’.

Now it would be interesting to note, first of all, that the other arrangements made possible under the Act of Synod either never took off or quickly fell into desuetude. One of the key reasons for this was surely that the first provision of the Act itself was simply ignored from its inception. This is the clause that states,

There will be no discrimination against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their views about the ordination of women to the priesthood.

Though it is possible even now to be ordained whilst opposing the ordination of women (as has just happened with our local assistant curate), senior office has pretty well been closed to such opponents since the year women began to be ordained.

And this must also, incidentally, mitigate against the suggestion that provision for opponents of women bishops can be made satisfactorily by means of a Code of Practice. Since an Act of Synod has been so roundly ignored, how much more, experience tells us, would a Code of Practice similarly be sidelined.

Since 1993, episcopal opposition to women’s ordination has been eliminated by the simple expedient of not appointing such bishops to diocesan and suffragan posts. Those that were appointed as PEVs, however, were dedicated Anglo-Catholics, and this has had a somewhat ‘chicken and egg’ effect on the wider Church.

Clearly in 1993, it was the Anglo-Catholics who most felt the need for episcopal oversight consistent with their theology of priesthood.

By contrast, Evangelicals were generally neither interested in episcopacy, nor particularly beholden to their local bishop.

This was partly due to a lack of ecclesiological clarity, but also partly down to history. In the post-war years, Evangelicals were very much at the fringes of an Anglican church which was itself very much bigger and stronger than today. (I well remember Colin Buchanan telling us that in the early years of liturgical revision, he never missed a meeting of the relevant committee because he was its only Evangelical member.)

Evangelicals were thus used to operating with neither much reference to nor support from the central institutional structures. When the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure passed in 1993, therefore, the mood amongst many Evangelicals was that local, parish, ministry could continue largely unaffected, as it had done during the ‘Honest to God’ years and beyond. Bad bishops had not unduly hindered, and good bishops had not particularly helped, traditional Evangelical ministry. And thus, with the pragmatism that so characterizes their movement, the Evangelicals focussed on ‘getting on with the job’ as they understood it to be.

But hence also, when a group of Evangelicals approached Archbishop George Carey a few years later to ask for the appointment of an Evangelical PEV for their own constituency, they were told that there was no demand. Although this has echoes of the apocryphal shop keeper whose answer to the question, “Why don’t you stock such-and-such?” was that, “People never ask for it,” the fact is (as I have frequently bemoaned) that Evangelicals had not really been much interested in the provisions of the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod.

Yet this has, at least in part, also been due to the misapprehension I observed at the beginning, that the scheme was really ‘for’ Anglo-Catholics — a misapprehension reinforced by the way the scheme has operated from the outset. Thus Evangelicals have not been drawn into the scheme, and the scheme has been run as if it were not really for Evangelicals.

The news that the Bishop of Fulham is to join the Anglican Ordinariate, however, means that an interesting opportunity may be about to present itself, for there will certainly be one vacancy to fill, and there may be others.

Let us imagine (though I am neither suggesting, nor hoping this will happen) that in addition to Bishop Broadhurst, one of the PEVs decides either to become a Roman Catholic or to join the Ordinariate. And let us assume those resignations come into effect early next year.

It is hard to believe that the Archbishop of Canterbury or York (wherever the vacancy occurs), would suggest that the remaining PEVs must ‘take up the slack’. If they were facing a demanding situation before July, things must be even more challenging for them now. In any case, the failure to appoint a replacement would suggest foreclosure on the outcome of the Synodical process.

It should be noted, incidentally, that General Synod must still be at liberty to reject the proposed legislation entirely. It has been argued that one of the reasons why the Synod was not bound by assurances given in 1993 is that a current legislature cannot be tied to the decisions of its predecessors. That being the case, the same must be true now — Synod can say no.

And there will certainly be ‘Following Motions’ being proposed during the discussions which must now be undertaken in dioceses. In other words, the outcome of the whole process is far from certain.

That being the case, a vacancy amongst the PEVs must, surely, be filled — as, equally surely, must John Broadhurst’s post in the Diocese of London.

Given, however, that the Evangelical constituency is at last waking up to the need for episcopal provision, this would present an excellent opportunity for the appointment of a Conservative Evangelical PEV.

Such an appointment would send a powerful signal that the needs of Evangelicals in this regard are being taken seriously by the establishment, and it would also encourage the Evangelicals to take these things seriously themselves.

Now of course there might be problems, not least with the fact that until now the PEV scheme has rather operated as if it were the preserve of Anglo-Catholics.

Our own experience with Bishop Keith Newton (all our three parishes are ‘Resolution C’) has been nothing short of superb, especially in the way that he has accommodated himself to our liturgical tradition. But could the same work the other way? Would — could? — a Conservative Evangelical even fit in, let alone go along, with the traditions found in typical Anglo-Catholic ‘C’ parishes?

It is a fair question, and the answer is probably not as things stand. Yet that does not have to close the matter.

I have observed to Anglo-Catholics that the Pope’s offer of an Anglican Ordinariate actually pushes them to do one of two things — either to move closer to Rome or to move closer to the Church of England. Like it or not, the position of mere ‘disaffection’ is no longer the option it was previously.

In other words, just as those who go into the Ordinariate will need to ask what it is they take with them of the Anglican heritage, those who do not must also ask how they stand in relation to the heritage in which they remain.

And this suggests an elegant solution to the question of how a Conservative Evangelical PEV might operate within the Anglo-Catholic constituency, namely by using the 1662 Book of Common Prayer for his liturgy and Convocation Robes for his dress.

Of course, this would not be entirely satisfactory for parishes used to other rites and rituals. Yet it would not be as if they were required to abandon such usages, for this is only being proposed for those occasions when the Bishop would be present. And it would have the advantage of allowing the Bishop himself to act conscientiously. Moreover, as Canon B3.2 requires, the BCP is the ‘default’ setting of the Church when there is a dispute over the liturgy, and therefore ought to be regarded by all parties as ‘neutral Anglican territory’.

There would, doubtless, be other issues to consider and other anxieties to settle on all sides. Nevertheless, in view of what is happening in the Church of England, and for the sake of a future in which as great a degree of unity as possible ought to be sought by everyone, the creation of a new Conservative Evangelical bishop would potentially be timely for all concerned.

John Richardson
18 October 2010

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Key provisions of the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination ofWomen) Measure

With regard to my earlier posts, here and here, someone has kindly made this available.

It may be readily seen that whilst there is a similarity to what is currently available under the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure and the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod, the provisions have been substantially diluted.

Of particular note, I suggest, is that although the diocesan bishop has a 'duty' to make arrangements (section 2), and although the bishop has to take account of the Code of Practice, the arrangements made are entirely local and may be reviewed at the bishop's discretion at any time. Moreover, the Code of Practice may be applied differently in different circumstances, and may itself be altered by the House of Bishops.

This is dilution to homeopathic percentages.

John Richardson

2 Duty of diocesan bishop to make arrangements

(1) The bishop of each diocese shall be under a duty to make and publish a scheme containing arrangements in his or her diocese for the exercise by way of delegation to a male bishop who is a member of the House of Bishops of the diocesan synod of that or another diocese of episcopal minishy which appears
to the bishop of the diocese to relate to-

(a) the celebration of the sacraments and other divine service in parishes which request such arrangements in accordance with section 3, or

(b) the provision of pastoral care to the clergy and parishioners in those parishes.

(2) Within the period of 12 months from the commencement date the bishop of the diocese in office shall make the scheme under subsection (1), except that, if there is a vacancy in the see on that date, the bishop appointed to fill the vacancy shall make the scheme as soon as practicable and, in any event, within
12 months from the date on which his or her election to that see is confirmed.

(3) A scheme made under this section may include such additional arrangements for the exercise of episcopal ministry as the bishop of the diocese thinks fit.

(4) If the scheme made under this section does not include a statement by the bishop (if a man) that he will not, on grounds of theological conviction (whether of himself or of other persons in his diocese), ordain women to the office of priest, it shall be presumed, for the purposes of this Measure, that he will ordain women to the office of priest.

(5) Where a scheme made under this section includes a statement by the bishop that he will not ordain women to the office of priest, the scheme shall make provision-

(a) for the ordination of female candidates for the office of priest, and

(b) for the support of the minish-y of clergy who are women and their pastoral care.

(6) The bishop shall review a scheme made under this section every 5 years and may, at any time, amend it or revoke it and replace it with a further scheme.

(7) A scheme in force under this section shall continue in force after another person becomes the bishop of the diocese but that bishop shall review the scheme as soon as practicable and, in any event, within the period of12 months from the date on which his or her election to the see is confirmed.

(8) Where the bishop of the diocese reviews the scheme under subsection (7), the period of 5 years referred to in subsection (6) shall begin with the date of the review of the scheme under subsection (7).

(9) When making, amending or reviewing a scheme made under this section the bishop shall, without prejudice to section 6, take account of the Code of Practice issued under section 5 and consult the diocesan synod of the diocese.

3 Parish requests

(1) A parochial church council of a parish may pass a resolution in the form of a Letter of Request stating that, on grounds of theological conviction (whether of members of the council or of other persons), the council requests that episcopal ministry and pastoral care should be provided by a male bishop to the clergy
and parishioners in the parish in accordance with the scheme under section 2.

(2) A Letter of Request under subsection (1) shall be in the terms set out in Part I of Schedule 2.

(3) Where-

(a) a notice of a vacancy in a benefice has been sent to the secretary of the parochial church council of a parish belonging to the benefice under section 7(4) of the Patronage (Benefices) Measure 1986 (1986 No.3), or (b) subsection (4) applies, the parochial church council of a parish belonging to the benefice may pass a
resolution stating that, on grounds of theological conviction (whether of members of the council or of other persons), the council requests that only a male priest shall be appointed as the incumbent of or priest in charge for the benefice.

5 Code of Practice

(1) The House of Bishops shall draw up, and promulgate, guidance in a Code of Practice as to-

(a) the making of schemes under section 2,

(b) the exercise of episcopal ministry in accordance with the arrangements contained in such schemes,

(c) the exercise, by those involved in the making of an appointment of an incumbent of and a priest in charge for a benefice, of their functions in that regard where a Letter of Request is issued under section 3(3),

(d) the matters referred to in section 2(5), and

(e) such other matters as the House of Bishops considers appropriate to give effect to this Measure.

(2) A Code of Practice may make different provision for different circumstances, including different provision for different persons or groups of persons and for different parishes.

(3) The House of Bishops may amend or replace any Code issued under subsection (1) by a further Code of Practice issued in accordance with this section.

(4) A Code of Practice which contains provisions falling within Article 7 of the Constitution of the General Synod set out in Schedule 2 to the Synodical Government Measure 1969 (1969 No.2) shall be laid in draft before the General Synod and, after it has been considered by the General Synod, it shall be referred, with any amendment, to the House of Bishops to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 and the Standing Orders of the Synod relating thereto and subsections (5) to (8) shall not apply.

(5) A Code of Practice which does not contain provisions falling within Article 7 of the Constitution of the General Synod shall be laid in draft before the General Synod and, if it is approved by the General Synod without amendment, the Code shall be issued by the House of Bishops.

(6) If the Code has been approved by the General Synod with amendment, it shall be referred to the House of Bishops.

(7) Where a draft Code of Practice is referred to the House of Bishops under subsection (6) then the House of Bishops may either-

(a) make the Code as so amended, or

(b) withdraw the Code for further consideration in view of any amendment by the General Synod,
and the Code shall not come into force until it has been approved by the General Synod and issued by the House of Bishops.

(8) Where the Business Committee of the General Synod determines that a Code of Practice which does not contain provisions falling within Article 7 of the Constitution of the General Synod does not need to be debated by the General Synod then, unless-

(a) notice is given by a member of the General Synod in accordance with its Standing Orders that he or she wishes the Code to be debated, or

(b) notice is given by any such member that he or she wishes to move an amendment to the Code,
the Code shall, for the purposes of subsection (5), be deemed to have been approved by the General Synod without amendment.

6 Duty to have regard to Code of Practice

Any person who exercises any functions, whether episcopal or other functions, shall be under a duty to have regard to any Code of Practice issued under this Measure.

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Why Resolution C is still the issue for REFORM

Over the last few days and weeks, I have listened to leaders of the Conservative Evangelical constituency demanding (and there are good reasons for their demand) that ‘proper provision’ (that is the usual phrase) must be made for their constituency in the event of the introduction of women bishops in a few years time.

Indeed, as part of this, the Church of England Evangelical Council has been asked to sponsor a ‘following motion’ to be put to diocesan synods on their behalf, as this is one of the few legal ways in which the legislation which will come before the General Synod can be radically amended at this late stage.

The question is, ‘proper provision of what’?

And the answer on the table at the moment is ‘proper provision of a scheme very similar to the present resolutions A, B and C which Conservative Evangelicals have largely ignored as a constituency over the last seventeen years’.

The details of the provisions can be read here in a pdf document of the draft Measure which will go out to dioceses for discussion. Unfortunately, a ‘cut and paste’ copying of this is not possible right now, and time literally prevents me labouriously typing it out, so interested parties will have to read it for themselves. But basically it offers much the same as is presently available.

A Parochial Church Council will still be able to request that only a male priest be appointed as priest-in-charge or incumbent, and it will be able to request that episcopal ministry be provided by a male bishop.

The provision is, indeed, nowhere good enough. The PCC has to apply to the bishop by a ‘Letter of Request’. (Try sending something like that to officialdom anywhere else, and you will begin to get a sense of the problem.) Those responsible for appointments are only required to “take account” of such letters (3:9 — I myself am not above ‘taking account’ of people’s objections, but not changing my position). There is no doubt that the whole thing is a watered down version of what is available now, and is open to further dilution in the future.

There are many other criticisms that could be made of the ‘provision’ now on offer. But that is not the issue for the likes of Reform who are demanding that the provision should be ‘proper’.

As readers of this blog and others will be well aware, I have been arguing for several years now that all Reform parishes ought to have passed ‘Resolution C’ — the petition for episcopal ministry to be exercised under the Act of Synod 1993. I was even there at the Reform conference a few years ago when Phillip Jensen told those assembled that they should all go away and pass Resolution C, if only to make it clear that they did not want women bishops.

Nothing was done.

Various reasons were given for this, but two stood out. The first was that petitioning parishes would have to accept an Anglo-Catholic bishop, which was simply not true. However, on this I must offer my own mea culpa for not seeing it clearly enough at the time and not refuting the falsehood.

The second, however, is more pernicious, which was that PCCs could not be persuaded, either of the urgency or of the need to pass such a resolution. Either they had bigger things on their agenda or they simply were not united enough.

And here is the problem. Let us assume that the present campaign succeeds (it is unlikely, but still possible). Essentially, this would mean that what is currently being proposed would be backed up by stronger legislation than a ‘code of practice’.

The point is, PCCs would still have to pass appropriate motions to petition for a male incumbent or priest in charge and for oversight from a male bishop.

In other words, those clergy who have not urged, or been able to persuade, their PCCs to pass Resolutions A, B or C, will nevertheless have to get those PCCs to pass the new equivalent.

Now at this point, further to my article yesterday, I am very tempted to do some ‘naming and shaming’. Instead, I will content myself for the time being with pointing out to those who have not raised these issues with their PCCs that now would be a good time to begin doing so. Indeed, it is, of course, still possible for a PCC to pass Resolutions A, B and C. Indeed, it would be right in principle, it would be good practice for the future, and who knows what will actually happen when General Synod meets again to discuss this issue?

I wonder, though, whether our Evangelical leadership has actually grasped this point? My impression is that whilst they have rallied to the ‘cause’ of proper provision, they have not grasped the small print of what this would mean in practical terms — basically that they will have to do in a few years time what they have resolutely not done for the last decade and a half.

Meanwhile, watch this space. It is where the equivalent of the Society for St Wilfred and St Hilda will soon emerge. No prizes, but is that Canterbury or Hippo?

John P Richardson
14 October 2010

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Why has Reform failed?

Next week sees the annual conference of Reform. Established in 1993, in the wake of the decision by General Synod to ordain women, Reform describes itself as, “a network of individuals and churches within the Church of England ... committed to reforming the Church of England from within according to the Holy Scriptures.”

Reform was founded in an outburst of concern and enthusiasm, and in the early years its membership grew, its meetings attracted considerable numbers and they generated lively interest and debate.

In all the years of its existence, however, it is arguable that although Reform has kept the Conservative Evangelical flag flying, it has not, as an organization, achieved a single specific ‘victory’. (One only has to look at the list of recent highlights to see that this is so.)

Unsurprisingly, some early members have given up on Reform entirely, and numbers had been in decline. Apparently, however, the next conference is fully booked, and with the twentieth anniversary of its founding hoving into view, it is a good time to ask why Reform has not succeeded in the past and how it might succeed in the future.

The first problem is quite simply the nature of Reform itself: is it a political body, a club, a pressure group, a mission society, all of the above, or none?

I have personally been, and remain, a member of Reform because it is the only Conservative evangelical group with which it is possible to identify. But even I am unclear about exactly what we exist for. It is all very well having high aims, but there need also to be clear goals and distinct and definite steps in place to achieve those goals.

The nearest the Reform website gets to defining this is the following:

Reform members are working to identify practical ways of reforming the Church of England to enable the clear proclamation of the gospel that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Given almost seventeen years of existence, we ought by now to have some idea what those “practical ways” are. Yet it seems that at every opportunity, Reform as an organization has failed to adopt any practical measures or in any effective way to commend them to its own constituency.

One of the problems here is the nature of Reform’s leadership. At one level it is constructed along completely standard organizational lines. There is a central Council which does the official business, which invites people to join its ranks and which determines who will be the Chairman. And then there is a membership which looks to the Council for a lead. But unfortunately, to quote a well-known advert, it doesn’t quite work like that.

On the one hand, the Council is not only self-selecting but quite select. Members are required to sign the Reform Covenant, the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, and since it matters to the thrust of this article I will simply point out that I personally fell at the first hurdle (but that is another story).

The problem is not really with who is on the Council, but with how the Council relates to the agenda of the organization. For in terms of ‘management style’, Reform likes to describe itself as a ‘network of networks’, such that effective action is devolved to the local level.

Now that is all very well, provided that such effective local action is given priority and the central body encourages this both in word and deed.

Unfortunately, what actually happens is that the Council does not direct and the local groups do not initiate, whilst (seemingly) each looks to the other for a lead.

Some of my more depressing moments at Reform gatherings have been when someone on the platform has announced, along with the latest suggestion for a course of action, that it will be entirely up to individuals to decide whether they want to go along with it or not. It mystifies me that a body with so many ex-military personnel does not grasp that if you are going to shout ‘Charge!’ it is no good adding, ‘When you’re ready.’

But it is not all the fault of the Council, for at the local level things are no better. In fact, after seventeen years, there are only eleven diocesan Reform groups in the whole of England. Here, the difficulty is that people do not see their local Reform group as a means to getting things done. Instead, the prevailing Anglican parochialism, combined with clerical busy-ness, conspire to push Reform into second place (if that). Nor, which is surprising given that we are supposedly a ‘network of networks’, is there any coordination with, or awareness of, other local groups.

This lack of local organization and leadership is surely another reason why Reform has made so little impact. But we need to ask serious questions about why an organization that claims to be decentralized in principle has so manifestly failed to decentralize in practice.

A further problem is, not surprisingly, Reform’s lack of a coherent ecclesiology. The clearest instance of this is its collective failure to mandate its own membership to pass ‘Resolution C’, the petition for provision under the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993. In my view, this is simply incomprehensible, and the failure in this regard has been culpable.

Of course Reform comes from that Anglican evangelical stable that disregards both bishops and episcopacy and relies on the local congregation as the key unit of organization. But we belong to an episcopal church, and we only have to look around the global Anglican communion today to see the significance of bad and good bishops. In England, our appointments process means that the mass of the Church can have very little impact on the selection of bishops. To have passed up the opportunity to have a closer relationship with bishops of our own convictions was just mad.

But again, the passing up of the opportunity is itself symptomatic of an endemic problem in Reform, which is the conviction of many in leadership rôles (not just on the Council) that they can ‘go it alone’, that they do not need the wider Church or the other congregations. And this manifests itself in a not-very attractive adulation of outward success, whereby to be a ‘senior’ clergyman equates to being the leader of a big congregation.

In short, our ecclesiology is defective — not in the way that is often alleged, in terms of ministry and sacraments (although some of the latter is bad enough) — but in terms of existing and acting effectively within the institution to which we all belong.

Reform is not about to fall apart. It is too well-established for that, and in any case there isn’t any other game in town at the moment for Conservative Evangelical Anglicans. But it is time that a serious look was taken at its failure to achieve anything of note, despite the strengths of its membership and its commitment to such laudable goals.

Perhaps it is time for repentance, as well as for renewal.

John Richardson
13 October 2010

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Christianity and the 'values of the left'

George Monbiot is not usually a writer I enjoy, but a phrase in the headline to his latest contribution to The Guardian caught my eye: “the left has to start asserting its own values.” Always curious to know what values there are on the left (and where, exactly does ‘left’ start?), I found myself reading an article with which I felt a great deal of agreement.

Monbiot is clearly frustrated by what he sees as the passive acceptance, not only by left-wing activists but those whom they support, of policies which undermine their aims. We are seeing the “punishment of the poor for the errors of the rich, the abandonment of universalism, the dismantling of the shelter the state provides” and yet “apart from a few small protests, none of this has yet brought us out fighting.”

What can be the cause, he wonders? And the answer is found in an aspect of human psychology identified in a paper written for the World Wildlife Fund by Tom Crompton. Apparently, he problem lies in “progressives” (Monbiot is prone to such polarizations of humankind) holding to what Crompton calls an enlightenment model of human behaviour, according to which people build their lives around rational decisions based on facts.

In reality, however, people actually live on the basis of a social identity and its accompanying values. Presenting people with ‘facts’ intended to produce change may actually have the opposite effect.

The key to addressing this, then, is to understand the difference between ‘extrinsic’ and ‘intrinsic’ values. Monbiot summarizes thus:

Extrinsic values concern status and self-advancement. People with a strong set of extrinsic values fixate on how others see them. They cherish financial success, image and fame. Intrinsic values concern relationships with friends, family and community, and self-acceptance. Those who have a strong set of intrinsic values are not dependent on praise or rewards from other people. They have beliefs that transcend their self-interest.

Unsurprisingly, given that this is an article about the values of ‘the left’, it turns out that left-wing people are more ‘intrinsic’, with a strong sense of self-acceptance, and hence “have more empathy and greater concern for human rights, social justice and the environment.”

Right-wing, ‘extrinsic’, people, on the other hand, “strongly value financial success ... have less empathy, stronger manipulative tendencies, a stronger attraction to hierarchy and inequality, stronger prejudices towards strangers and less concern about human rights and the environment.”

However, people are not ‘intrinsically’ intrinsic or extrinsic:

We are not born with our values. They are shaped by the social environment. By changing our perception of what is normal and acceptable, politics alters our minds as much as our circumstances.

And what is true for politics is true also for social policy, advertising and the media. The latter have a particular impact:

Their fascination with power politics, their rich lists, their catalogues of the 100 most powerful, influential, intelligent or beautiful people, their obsessive promotion of celebrity, fashion, fast cars, expensive holidays: all inculcate extrinsic values.

Apparently though, according to Crompton’s paper, the answer is simple. The left should,

... stop seeking to bury our values and instead explain and champion them. Progressive campaigners, it suggests, should help to foster an understanding of the psychology that informs political change and show how it has been manipulated. They should also come together to challenge forces – particularly the advertising industry – that make us insecure and selfish.

Enter (stage left) Ed Miliband. Monbiot quotes him as telling the Labour conference that he “‘wants to change our society so that it values community and family, not just work’ and ‘wants to change our foreign policy so that it’s always based on values, not just alliances’”. Above all, “‘We must shed old thinking and stand up for those who believe there is more to life than the bottom line’”.

But there’s a problem. Politicians, Monbiot notes, must be driven by ambition. Hence:

Those who succeed in politics are, by definition, people who prioritise extrinsic values.

As a result, Monbiot concludes, change must be driven from elsewhere:

People with strong intrinsic values must cease to be embarrassed by them. We should argue for the policies we want not on the grounds of expediency but on the grounds that they are empathetic and kind; and against others on the grounds that they are selfish and cruel.

“In asserting our values,” Monbiot concludes, “we become the change we want to see.”

Now it would be easy — very easy — to mock, beginning with the notion that the secret to the human future has been revealed in a paper written for an environmentalist group. It would also be easy to take issue with Monbiot’s division of the world into ‘left-good, right-bad’ people, or indeed morality into ‘intrinsic-good, extrinsic-bad’ values. It is a curiously black and white world that Monbiot inhabits, despite his recognition that “Few people are all-extrinsic or all-intrinsic.”

There is, moreover, the question of whether Monbiot is really taking on board his own recognition that people are driven by a mixture of rational and non-rational impulses. Surely if the enlightenment assumption has failed, the way to save both our race and our plaent is not by explaining things to people but (as Monbiot asserts the ‘right’ have been doing with increasing success) by manipulating them at the level of their irrationality.

Yet there is a point at which Christians would entirely agree with much of what Monbiot says. Leaving aside his left-right, intrinsic-extrinsic polarizations, for example, we would surely recognize the presence of good and bad impulses in human nature. We would also recognize the tension between our natural desire for outward blessings and the importance of inward contentment.

And though we would take issue with the idea that the more ‘inward focussed’ someone is, the better a person they will become, we would also acknowledge the need to be free from a desire for wealth, fame, possessions and so on.

Again, Christians would endorse the values of concern for others, especially the most needy.

Moreover, there is surely something to applaud in critiquing a political message that, in the end, is mere materialism, whether dressed up as free-market economics or state-provided comforts for all.

Monbiot’s ‘polarizing’ glasses may prevent him seeing this, but in the end politicians of both left and right tend to offer the same thing. Christians would agree with Miliband when he says there is “more to life than the bottom line”. But there is also more to to life than the free-market benefits of the right or the state-provided benefits of the left.

Above all, we would agree with Monbiot that real social change can come from those who hold true values being unembarrassed by them and arguing openly for them in the public forum, promoting the good and opposing the evil.

In fact, Monbiot’s programme for change is exactly what Christians have, in the best of times, also pursued. And we could surely argue that sauce for the secularist goose is sauce for the Christian gander — in other words, that we should be just a free, and willing, to push and promote our values as anyone else.

The real difference between Monbiot’s agenda and the Christian agenda, of course, comes down what is to be valued and why. The Christian would again agree with Monbiot’s suspicion of the enlightenment approach. But it is this approach which, increasingly unfettered by other considerations, has done most to devalue humanity, even whilst advocating what many would call ‘humanism’.

We cannot really know what human beings ought to think, or how they ought to behave, much less what they ought to sacrifice their own lives for, until we know what human beings are. In the end, Monbiot and the most right wing of extrinsic secularists will agree at this point: that we are chance conglomerations of atoms, aware, for a brief moment, of our own existence before disappearing into nothingness.

It is that faith which is now predominant in Western cultures. What Monbiot sees as an increasing triumph of the ‘right’ is arguable simply the triumph of a common sense response to that viewpoint: “Let us eat and drink,” you say, “for tomorrow we die!” (Isa 22:13).

Tell people why that should not be so, and you may give them another way to live.

John Richardson
12 October 2010

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

A blast (literally) from the past

It has been a difficult couple of weeks in the Richardson household, not helped by re-carpeting the place and re-tiling the kitchen floor (think 'moving house but without a furniture van to put stuff in').

The one compensation has been finding stuff I thought I'd lost (eg a wallet for my SatNav inside an unused fish-kettle donated by someone else, and now gone to a good home thank to FreeCycle).

One of the real joys was to find a cassette copy of a recording made whilst I was at St John's College, Nottingham, of the one and only performance of scratch jazz band 'Prohibition'. Thanks to modern software (specifically Audacity), I was able to take out some of the noise and enhance the sound a bit, and here, for your pleasure (or at least, amusement) is the first track.

I don't need anyone telling me it isn't great. It wasn't meant to be great, it was meant to be fun - probably the most fun I've ever had. For the record (excuse the pun) the line-up is Bev Martens (violin, vocals, piano), Pete Howard (trumpet, piano), Ian 'Bud' Gemmell (drums), John 'Mind, He's Strictly Rhythm' Richardson (guitar).

Bev went with her husband Jim to work in India. Pete Howard is in Norwich diocese and, I think, Rural Dean of Norwich East. I thought Bud Gemmell was in Leicester, but now I'm not sure. And of course you know where I live. 

For some real class, listen to the second track with Bud's drum solo. You'll understand why he was nicknamed after the incomparable Buddy Rich.

Get this widget |      Track details  |         eSnips Social DNA

Get this widget | Track details | eSnips Social DNA

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Happy Birthday, Tutu

All together, now:

Happy Birthday, Tutu
Happy Birthday, Tutu
Happy Birthday, dear Desmond
Happy Birthday, Tutu.

The former Archbishop of South Africa is 79 today.

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

General Synod Elections: make sure you've voted

There are, I think, just a couple of days left to vote in the elections to General Synod, so if you haven't done it yet, fill in your voting paper and return it asap.

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Facts on the ground will change the Church of England

Last week I was able to spend a couple of hours in the library at Oak Hill College where, amongst other things, I read some of the transcripts of the Synod debate conducted in November 1993 concerning the introduction of the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod.

We have heard a lot from proponents of the consecration of women bishops in the last few years about how the Act was a ‘fudge’ and a ‘hasty’ improvisation which damaged the Church and set back the cause of progress.

What is clear from the record of the debate, however, is that (as one would expect) the debate was actually carefully conducted, with sensible and intelligent contributions from all sides.

What is also clear is that the majority will of the Synod was not only to maintain the maximum of unity possible, but to seek to embrace those who now found themselves in a minority. Moreover, without that will, it is also clear that Parliament would have had serious questions about the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure. The Rt Hon Michael Alison MP (the Second Church Estates Commissioner) commented early on,

... it was an act of faith on the part of the Ecclesiastical Committee that you [the General Synod] would give our cherished minority this Act of Synod in good faith and in good heart and with sweeping and heartfelt approval and support.

There was also an awareness that without such provision, as the Manchester Report similarly observed more recently, the Church of England would become more narrow at a point where Christian opinion was recognized to differ. Thus John Sentamu offered the opinion:

At the end of the day the doctrine of the Church is what we hold to and, if we are not very careful, we can begin to suggest that there is another strand of belief that we must hold if we are to remain part of this Church. I would find that distasteful. I do not want the ordination of women, then, to become another test of true doctrine, true belief and true trust.

Well, Synod, as proponents of the consecration of women bishops have also been at pains to remind us, has moved on and changed its collective mind. The sad result of that has been played out over the last two years, and we are now at a very different place from where we were in 1993.

A not-insignificant reason for this, it must be pointed out, is that the composition of the House of Clergy has been changed by the sheer fact of introducing women priests, so that it is naturally more difficult now to be elected to the General Synod if one is opposed to women’s ordination. The result has not been a more generous spirit to those who are not only a minority but, increasingly, a minority with neither a voice nor a vote in the governing bodies of the Church.

It is thus perhaps not surprising that we are now seeing moves which represent a different ‘tone’ from opponents of women’s ordination and consecration corresponding to the altered tone of Synod.

Back in 2008, when Synod revealed its colours in this regard, I was strongly advocating that the Anglo-Catholics should, in effect, announce an intention to rebel. Specifically, I argued, their should have announced that they would under no circumstances abandon the people committed to their care, whatever the Synod might decide.

With the establishment of the Society of St Wilfred and St Hilda, something of this sort seems finally to have happened (though I can take no credit for this). In effect, the Anglo-Catholic rump within the Church has said they will no longer simply take what is being dished out to them.

This has provoked an interesting response from WATCH and others, who have complained about the possible ‘illegality’ of such moves and its flying in the face of Synod.

I am rather reminded of the episode of The Young Ones in which it was voted (by three to one) that Neil, the morose hippy, would do the washing up. When Neil not unnaturally complained the response was not dissimilar to that now being thrown at Forward in Faith: “What’s the matter, Neil? Don’t you believe in democracy?”

Well, of course, we all believe in ‘democracy’, but as we are repeatedly being told, it is in how a society treats its minorities that its true values are shown. What ought to be clear from what has happened is that Synod, and others within the Church of England, have over-stepped an important mark.

It is all very well to poke fun at ‘The Society of St Hinge and St Bracket’ (though I rather hope the name, like ‘Christian’ or ‘Puritan’ is adopted willingly), but it is quite another to realize that real people, indeed Christian brethren, have been pushed to this point.

As to illegalities, it is worth remembering that in the USA (and, as I recall, in Australia) the first ordinations of women were conducted ‘illegally’.

And meanwhile, we have another impending ‘fact on the ground’ in the shape of the Anglican Ordinariate. Many have rather written this off, in view of the fact that it is likely to be small. But on reflection I personally doubt that will matter very much in the long term. What really matters is that something which previously did not exist — a Roman Catholic haven for former Anglicans — will now be part of the religious landscape in this country.

The reality is that the Church of England has often been changed most dramatically by principled radical action. Think of the Oxford Movement itself, which incidentally embraced illegality with gusto! Every member of Affirming Catholicism today is indebted to that heritage.

This is not to say that such actions are necessarily right or necessary. But they will always be provoked where there is either inertia or perceived injustice on the part of an institution. Where we are today is surely not where anyone wants to be, but the radical actions of some may just prevent things getting worse.

John Richardson
4 October 2010

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Climate Change: Kill a few to save the rest

You couldn't make this stuff up, really.

"Doing nothing about climate change is still a fairly common affliction, even in this day and age. What to do with those people, who are together threatening everybody's existence on this planet? Clearly we don't really think they should be blown up, that's just a joke for the mini-movie, but maybe a little amputating would be a good place to start?" jokes 10:10 founder and Age of Stupid film maker Franny Armstrong.

But why take such a risk of upsetting or alienating people, I ask her: "Because we have got about four years to stabilise global emissions and we are not anywhere near doing that. All our lives are at threat and if that's not worth jumping up and down about, I don't know what is."

"We 'killed' five people to make No Pressure – a mere blip compared to the 300,000 real people who now die each year from climate change," she adds. Read more (and watch the video)

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Fantastic Day at the Chelmsford Anglican Bible Conference

I have just returned from a particularly good day at the tenth Chelmsford Anglican Bible Conference, where the speaker, dealing with various themes from John’s Gospel, was Don Carson.

Carson, as those who have heard him will know, has an unusual ability to combine immense scholarship with a pastor’s heart, which means that he can preach as well as teach. It was thus both a mentally stimulating and spiritually refreshing time.

The aim of the CABC has always been to put Bible teaching at the heart of the life of our diocese. And after ten years, it does just begin to look as though this may be happening, with our largest attendance yet.

Recently, we have enjoyed the personal attendance and interest of the Bishop of Barking, David Hawkins. But today, we were also pleased to welcome our new Bishop-elect, Stephen Cottrell, who received a warm round of applause when it was announced that he was in the audience. He stayed for much of the morning and seemed very pleased with the event.

Evangelicals sometimes seem to lament that ‘nothing can be done’ to change the Church of England. For my own part, I cannot believe that is true. Looking around the world, I do not see that the various offshoots of Anglicanism are uniformly disappointing and ineffective. And if that is the case here, then something made it so — it is not, surely, an inevitable feature of any formal manifestation of Christ’s kingdom.

So to those across the country who wonder what can be done, may I suggest they follow our example, and start their own Anglican Bible Conference? Yes, it is hard work. And it has taken us ten years and some disappointments to get where we are today (plus, recently, the extraordinary contribution of our conference organizer, Carolan).

Twelve years ago, I sat in a Diocesan Evangelical Association committee meeting, listening to people bewail the lack of biblical input on an official diocesan conference and asked why we didn’t do something ourselves. And here we are today.

For those who feel the same about their own diocese, my response is the same: “Why don’t you follow our example? Who knows what you might achieve? And it might take you far less than our ten years.”

John Richardson

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.