Fulcrum's 'listening ear' to AMiE's concerns

I must admit to having laughed out loud (though not in a good way) having read the full statement on Fulcrum’s website criticizing the establishment of the Anglican Mission in England when I saw that it ended with these words:

We therefore call upon those evangelicals who have started down this new path to talk with Fulcrum and the full breadth of evangelicals who share many of their concerns but who question their strategy. We believe that only in this way can those who have launched AMiE hope to secure what they claim they wish to find, a goal to which Fulcrum is also committed — a way forward together in mission as evangelicals within the Church of England.

I am frankly not sure how, following events since the launch of Fulcrum at a fringe meeting at the 2003 Blackpool NEAC 4 (organized behind the scenes and sprung on the leadership with just three days notice), anyone from the Fulcrum Leadership Team could seriously address evangelical conservatives in such terms. Perhaps the first step might be an apology!

Nevertheless, in a bizarre way, I am reminded of the appeal of the entertainingly psychopathic Don Logan, Sir Ben Kingsley’s character in the eccentrically brilliant Sexy Beast: “Talk to me, Gale, I’m here for you. I’m a good listener.” (The rest of the dialogue, unfortunately, is unprintable — at least here.)

The thing is, for a moment Don really does believe he is a good listener, and presumably someone who drafted this paragraph really did believe Fulcrum could, in their own words, somehow help AmiE "secure what they ... wish to find" (which itself overlooks the behind-the-scenes official dialogue elsewhere which has so far led to a dead end, and is despite the assertion in the same breath that this is only what AMiE "claim" they wish to find).

One may reasonably wonder how Fulcrum — or even ‘the full breadth of evangelicals’ (whoever they are and however one would identify them) — expects to deliver on such a dialogue. There is not even a clear support for the CEEC ‘following motion’ on women bishops, so what sort of ecclesiological rabbit would be pulled out of the hat?

Nevertheless, we must remain positive! So if anyone wants to offer a way forward with such a dialogue, feel free to start the ball rolling here.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

(Why) is God calling older women and younger men?

My nostalgic moment about Ember Lists yesterday got me thinking about the figures on the CofE website, which seem to confirm something which experience suggests, namely that when it comes to full-time stipendiary clergy in the Church of England, the women basically tend to be older than the men.

Now I would be the first to admit that statistics are tricky things and my analysis may be off. Nevertheless, several interesting things can be observed.

First, the actual number of male assistant curates peaks at 35-39 (206). This is also the point at which they are the greatest total percentage in their gender-group (3.5% of all male clergy, compared with 2.5% for those five years older and 2.9% for those five years younger). However, the balance of incumbent-status clergy and assistant-curates in this age group is about the same (52% and 48% respectively are incumbent-status or assistant curates).

By comparison, women assistant curates in this age group total 57 and represent 3.3% of all female clergy, which is not dissimilar to the men. However, the balance of incumbents to curates in the age group is strikingly different, being 43% and 57%, respectively. Moreover, whilst the percentage of those five years younger is lower (and is higher than that for the men) at 3.2%, the percentage of curates for those five years older is 4.4%, and for those aged 45-49 is 7.2% of the female total.

In fact, the number of female assistant curates peaks at 50-54 (116), at which point they represent 7.6% of all the female clergy. Moreover, the percentage of women incumbents in this age group is still only 67% of the total, whilst a third (33%) are assistant curates. By contrast, 92% of the men in this age group are incumbents and only 8% assistant curates. The same ratio amongst women is only reached at 60-64, although by this time the actual numbers are very small (200 incumbents compared with 14 assistant curates) and the statistics may be correspondingly less reliable.

Rather harder to show in a blog post, but just as telling, is the ‘quinquennial’ rate of percentage change in the clergy who are assistant curates in each age category.

Age                 % of Men        % of Women

                        in curacies      in curacies

25-29              92                    100

30-34              70                    67

35-39              48                    57

40-44              22                    46

45-49              12                    40

50-54              8                      33

54-59              4                      16

Similarly, we may compare the increasing percentage of incumbent-status clergy:

Age                 % of Men        % of Women

                        as incumbents as incumbents

25-29              8                      0

30-34              30                    33

35-39              52                    43

40-44              78                    54

45-49              88                    60

50-54              92                    67

54-59              96                    84

Just to reiterate, these are figures for stipendiary, parochial, clergy. They do not include non-parochial posts, part-time or self-supporting clergy, or ‘dignitaries’. Nevertheless, they seem to indicate two clear trends. One is that male and female clergy differ in their age profiles related to incumbent-status or assistant curate posts. The second is that a higher proportion of male clergy are in incumbent status posts at an earlier age than is the case for women. Conversely, a higher proportion of women clergy are in assistant curate posts at a later age than is the case for men.

To put this in plainer English, but slightly more tendentiously, it looks as if men get ordained younger than women, and therefore tend to become incumbents at an earlier age than do women.

Now my question is this — and it may not be the one people are expecting — but if it is true that (a) male clergy are typically younger than female clergy and (b) getting ordained is dependent on God’s call, why would God be calling older women and younger men?

And for what it is worth, here is my answer: God is far less involved in this process than we like to think. Actually, the age differences can be accounted for by issues of sociology at least as much as theology. My guess — and it is a guess — is that far more women feel the ‘call’ after their children have grown up and left home than do men, and that accounts for the key age difference and all the other phenomena we observe.

But this then raises a question in my mind, which has actually been there for some time, as to whether we have really got it right when it comes to ‘calling’.

The selection process, and indeed the Book of Common Prayer, lays a great deal of stress on the ‘inwardness’ of calling: “Do you think in your heart that you be truly called, according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the order of this Church of England, to the Order and Ministry of Priesthood?”
But what is a ‘true calling’? In my own day it was understood to be a special sense from God that this was what he wanted me to do. In Scripture, however, I find very little emphasis on inward feelings and an awful lot on outward, observable, competence and the decision of the Church to recognize that (eg Titus 1:6-9). Jesus’s ‘calling’ of the disciples, in particular, seemed to owe nothing to them feeling they should become apostles, and everything on his appointment of them (John 6:70).

Arguably, then, the Church should be fingering people and telling them they jolly well ought to be considering the ordained ministry, not waiting while they wait to see if they have ‘a call’. And that being the case, I would have thought we want to get people in their prime, when they are young enough, and free enough of other ties, to be able to give time to training, and then themselves to ministry wherever they might be needed. (That, at least, was something we were getting right forty years ago.)

But that being the case, ought we not to be seeing far more young, and doubtless single, women going into training — just as we currently see quite a high percentage of young, single men?

On the other hand, if we’ve got this ‘calling’ business right, I come back to my earlier question — what is it about God’s plans and purposes such that, if men and women are ‘equal’ in their endowment for ordained ministry, he seems to call them at such very different times in their lives?

John Richardson
25 June 2011

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

The past and future of ordained Anglicanism

In my study is a file I rarely look into, but which contains a substantial section of my past. Today, however, I dug out some of the old Ember Lists from my old alma mater of St John’s Nottingham.

The reason was that I had just been sent the Ember List for 2011, and I couldn’t help making a mental comparison — but time can be a deceiver, so I wanted to remind myself of what we looked like back then.

The short answer is, very ’70s, but also very young and, as regards the ordinands of course, very male — although there are several female students.

Back in 1974, for example, whose alumni included Richard Inwood, the other John Richardson (and a Jill Richardson), plus Chris Sugden, there were, as far as I can count, thirty-four ordinands.

Not only were they all male, however, they were also astonishingly young by today’s standards. At present, the Church of England deploys just a handful of clergy under the age of thirty (currently 86 out of over 11,000 - which is actually an improvement on the last five years). Back then, Richard Inwood was just 28, and some of the others were even younger. Across the Church of England as whole, you would find hundreds of young men in their twenties.

As one whose graying hair is here for all to see on the internet, I hope the present members of the Nottingham Ember List will forgive me saying they are generally of more mature years.

But why should that matter? After all, God is interested in the old as well as the young, is he not? Well, yes. But the fact is that in ministry you tend to reach those similar in age to yourself. It is not impossible, but it is relatively rare, for youth ministry, for example, to be successfully driven by people in their fifties. And are we not always being told of the need to reach ‘the youth’?

In the 1970s, the ordained ministry of the Church was undoubtedly more representative of the national age spectrum than it is today — something which was surely to be applauded.

As to gender, my own views on the subject are reasonably well known (though I am emphatically not, as has often been alleged ‘opposed to women’s ministry’). However, my immediate concern is the apparent decline in male ordinands. I have not checked (though I have on file) the Ember lists for ’76 and ’77, so there may have been fewer graduates in those years. But if God has simply increased the number of vocations by calling women to the ordained ministry, then in fact the number of male ordinands in 2011 compared with 1974 represents a decline of almost 60%, from thirty-four to fourteen (along with a similar increase in age).

Altogether, it is another good reason not to be revisiting the past. Discovering that the Church into which you were ordained with such enthusiasm thirty-five years ago has, as resulted of your collective efforts, become smaller and older, is not a recipe for a happy retirement.

My one consolation is a conference I am running for Junior Anglican clergy next month which has attracted about two-dozen attendees. As far as I am concerned, my generation blew it, and the generation below us suffered the consequences. The hope for real Anglican revival must lie in a generation yet to emerge as leaders. In the 1970s we thought we were it. We weren’t. Hopefully there is still an opportunity to put some things right.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Obama’s Afghan surrender will follow us home

It took thirty years for the British army and security forces to bring the situation in Northern Ireland to the point where terrorists were willing to give up fighting before becoming part of mainstream politics.

During that time there were many calls to abandon the province, the ‘Troops Out’ movement being just one voice amongst many. Even in the general public on the mainland, there was widespread disillusionment about the worthwhileness of the military commitment and the cost in money and lives.

Fortunately, not just for those on the mainland but for the people of Ireland, there was just enough determination to see the worst of the conflict through to a solution.

There were many misunderstandings and mistakes on the way. English politicians, in particular, never really ‘got it’ regarding Ulster Protestantism, and there was no Canon Andrew White around to spell out the real importance of religion in the situation. Had this been appreciated, I personally believe the conflict could have been resolved ten or fifteen years sooner.

In the end, however, sheer stubbornness and the growing skills of the security forces, combined with a communal weariness over tit-for-tat killings, all combined to make the conflict something everyone wanted to bring to an end. That, and the fact that we didn’t have Wootton Bassett.

The efforts of the people of Wootton Bassett to honour the returning war dead from Afghanistan are entirely commendable. Unfortunately, in the post-Diana era, they have created an emotional flash-point which simply cannot coexist with the kind of determination necessary to bring such a conflict to a satisfactory conclusion.

It is the job of soldiers to kill and, as they remind themselves with typical humour, Afghanistan is a ‘two way range’. The enemy shoot back and sometimes they kill in return. An acceptance of this and the willingness to tolerate the consequences is part of what is known as ‘morale’, and morale is an essential element in victory. It is not guarantee of success, but its absence is a sure guarantee of failure.

And in both Iraq and Afghanistan, morale has generally been good. The modern soldier is much less like those who fought in Vietnam. There are no demonstrators in the colleges chanting, ‘Hell, no, we won’t go!’, for example. Indeed, the modern soldier is unlike any in this country since the introduction of conscription in the First World War and the ending of National Service in the 1960s. For the equivalent, you would have to go back to the professional armies of the nineteenth century. And a professional army accepts risk in a way that a conscript, however brave, does not.

Thus it is not the soldiers who are asking to be brought home (read the British Army blog linked from this blog). Rather, it is the politician, who is sensitive to public pressure.

That is why President Obama’s announcement of a dramatic pull-out from Afghanistan has to be seen as tantamount to surrender. There is still the rhetoric of reaching a successful conclusion, but it is a clear signal of the absence of will. Imagine if, in 1984, following the Brighton bombing, Margaret Thatcher had announced the intention that all troops would be withdrawn from Northern Ireland by 1990? Now you can imagine how the Taliban must be feeling today — ‘it is only a matter of time’.

And the reality of the situation can be gauged by responses in the media here — not just the actual articles, but the comments, most of which seem to be along the lines of ‘about time too, we were stupid to get involved in the first place’. Above all, the perception of many seems to be that this will finally bring the conflict to an end.

Nothing could be further from the truth. This is not a conflict from which we can walk away, because it is already present in our own Western communities. Rather what it will do is embolden globally those who are committed to armed jihad.

The place to look, I think, will not be the comments sections of the Guardian, the Independent or even the Telegraph and Times, but the jihadi chat rooms. There, I suspect, the doom and gloom following the death of Osama bin Laden is being replaced by a new optimism. Just when it looked like America indeed had the will and the determination to pursue its enemies to the ends of the earth, light has appeared at the end of the Afghan tunnel.

But remember, those chat room participants do not, by and large, live in Afghanistan. They are not even confined to Pakistan, or the Middle East. They live in Bolton, in London, in New York and in Sydney. And their view will be, ‘We almost beat you in Iraq, and we’ll beat you in Afghanistan. Next we’re going to beat you on your home territory as well.’

As one writer put it yesterday, “America is no longer capable of being the policeman of the world, and may retreat to its historic isolation. Across the Channel, the debt crisis is wrecking the European dream. History is moving faster than ever, and taking us into a new and formless world.”

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Is the Synod's 'legal advice' on Civil Partnerships strictly legal?

Readers of this blog will have noticed a request for information (now tracked down) about the content of what is known as a ‘Civil Partnership Schedule’.

This is the actual document the signing of which formally establishes a civil partnership, and the content is therefore important in expressing the nature of the relationship, just as marriage vows express the nature of marriage.

I point this out because the recently-issued legal guidance regarding the Equality Act and its impact on the appointment of bishops makes at least one highly questionable statement about civil partnerships, when it describes them as “forming an exclusive, lifelong bond with someone of the same sex”.

Apart from the personal details of the partners themselves, however, the Civil Partnership Schedule contains only the following statement:

I declare that I know of no legal reason why we may not register as each other’s civil partner. I understand that on signing this document we will be forming a civil partnership with each other.

Indeed, a footnote even points out that “Civil partners may choose to speak these words to each other, but doing so is not a necessary part of their civil partnership.” All that is necessary is to sign the document in front of witnesses. Certainly there is no statement such as ‘til death us do part’, which would express a lifelong commitment. Similarly, there is no requirement of ‘exclusivity’, other than the exclusion of entering another civil partnership or a marriage.

Now there are, of course, many actions and words that have been added on to enhance civil partnership ceremonies as they are conducted by Registrars. One county council, for example, includes vows of lifelong commitment, an exchange of rings, etc. But the point is that none of these are a legal requirement (though that is not clear on the website). Nor do they necessarily follow from the legal nature of a civil partnership. Rather, civil partnership is, in some important regards, what the partners choose to make of it.

This is why the legal guidance given to the General Synod is able to state that a civil partnership may conform to the Church of England’s requirement of celibacy. No such requirement could be made of a married couple because sexual intercourse is intrinsic to marriage. But a civil partnership is basically what it says on the tin — or rather in the Schedule — and therefore a sexually celibate civil partnership is neither more nor less such than a sexually active civil partnership. You can have partnerships with sex or without.

Similarly, you can have partnerships that are ‘exclusive’ and partnerships that are not, since civil partners are not required to declare that they will “keep only unto” each other. They may choose to do so, or they may choose not to do so, but it is no less a civil partnership for all that.

Now this is not to imply that civil partners are typically less sincere or less committed to one another than married couples. Nevertheless, such personal sincerity or commitment is neither required nor suggested in the underlying contract. All that is expressed in actual words is (a) there is no impediment to the partnership and (b) that each party intends to enter into a civil partnership with the other.

What the legal advice given to the Synod has done, unfortunately, is to conflate the public perception with the legal position. Hence the above statement in context continues,

... a civil partnership, even if celibate, ... involves forming an exclusive, lifelong bond with someone of the same sex, creates family ties and is generally viewed in wider society as akin to same-sex marriage.

The ‘general view’, however, is not the same as the legal reality. This may seem mere pedantry. Some might argue that ‘civil partnership’ is what society perceives it to be and treats it as. Nevertheless, lawyers cannot afford to be so casual, and the lawyer’s reaction to some of what is said above about what is formed by a civil partnership has to be ‘Oh no it does not’.

It was, after all, precisely this ‘pedantry’ which enabled the bishops to allow clergy to enter into civil partnerships in the first place, since such partnerships are formally not “akin to same-sex marriage” and a requirement for celibacy could therefore be imposed. That being the case, however, the same clarity ought to be retained in the discussions now being undertaken about the significance of such partnerships for church appointments.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Civil Partnerships - request for information

Does anyone out there know where I can find the actual wording for a Civil Partnership Registration Schedule?

I have hunted high and low and although I can find many references to it, I can't find the wording anywhere.

Just post a comment below if you can help.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

When I behold the heavens ...

Sometimes it is good to get things in perspective. Here is a photo of the constellation Orion, taken from my back garden and then processed a bit to bring out the detail. You're looking at the 'belt' (the three stars in a straight line at an angle) and the nebula on Orion's sword. Zoom on the image to check out just how many stars there are, most of which you can never see with the naked eye and yet which are just a tiny fraction of those that would show up in a telescope.

This was shot using a digital slr camera on a tripod - nothing more fancy than that. Below is a wider angle image of the same. Two thirds of the way up, on the left, is my favourite star, Betelgeuse, a red supergiant which is so big that if it replaced our Sun, we'd be orbiting inside it. I should just point out that the round dots are not the surface images of the stars. Even Betelgeuse is too far away to show a 'disk'. This is just an illusion cause by slight movements of the tripod and, mostly, atmospheric distortion.

The colours are true colours, but exaggerated by increasing the 'saturation'. The red at the bottom of the picture is not sunset but sodium street lamps!


Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

The radical freedom of the gospel

Sermon for 19 June 2011 - 1 Corinthians 10:14-11:1

Introduction

For the last few weeks we’ve been looking at the same passage from 1 Corinthians. Beginning in 8:1, Paul started to address the issue of food offered to idols, and in chapter 10 he still dealing with it.

So what is it about this issue that takes him three chapters to achieve? And what has it got to do with us, given that we don’t have the same issues today?

A clue to the answer, and an indication of its importance, can be found in chapter 9. Paul might appear to be going off at a tangent about being an apostle and getting paid for it. If we look carefully, though, this is not a tangent at all, but essential to the same argument.

Compare, for example, 10:29 with 9:1. In 10:21, Paul asks,

... why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience?

Notice he says, “my freedom”. In 9:1, however, he asks, “Am I not free?” The question about his apostleship has something to do with the exercise of his freedom.

Or again, 10:31, he says:

... whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.

Compare this with what he says about himself in 9:23:

I do all this for the sake of the gospel ...

And especially, look at 10:32-33, and what Paul says about his own ministry there:

Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— ³³ even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

And again, compare this with 9:19-22

... I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. ²⁰ To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. [...] ²¹ To those not having the law I became like one not having the law ... so as to win those not having the law. ²² ... I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.

The Nature and limits of Personal Freedom

And all this comes back to what we read in 10:23-24:

“Everything is permissible”—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible”—but not everything is constructive. ²⁴ Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.

In fact, the phrase “Everything is permissible” has already come up twice before in the letter, in 6:1:

“Everything is permissible for me” — but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible for me” — but I will not be mastered by anything.

And the first thing to notice is that although Paul disagrees with some of the application, he never disagrees with the basic principle. What is at issue is not whether everything is permissible, but what we do about it. So in 10:23 he says, “‘Everything is permissible’ — but not everything is beneficial.”

But then in 10:33:

I am not seeking my own good [NIV, Gk ‘benefit’] but the good of many.

Or again in 10:23,

“‘Everything is permissible’ —but not everything is constructive” — literally, not everything ‘builds up’

But this was how he began this section, back in 8:1:

Knowledge puffs up, love builds up.

And we’ll come across the idea of ‘building up’ again in chapter 14, where it is central to the life of the Church, so in 14:12 he writes

Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church.

So the theme in chapters 8-10, and the reason why it takes up so much space, is this: the Christian has a radical freedom: ‘everything is permissible’— but our freedom should be used in the service of others, and especially other believers with whom we are united in the body of Christ.

The many and the one

And this is why going to the meals in the temples is so wrong. It is not just that idolatry involves wrongdoing — though it does. It is not just that it is spiritually false — though it is. It is wrong, Paul says, because it is a betrayal of the community that ought to be our first concern. Look at 10:14-17,

Therefore, my dear friends [he concludes], flee from idolatry. [But then he continues:] ¹⁵ I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. ¹⁶ Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? ¹⁷ Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

What he is talking about, of course, is the community meal of the Church — what we would call ‘Holy Communion’. But this communion is not just a matter between us and Christ, it is a fellowship with one another, which he brings out in v 17,

Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

The sharing of one loaf in the Lord’s Supper is a symbol and reminder of the one body that we belong to. So in 12:27 we read,

Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

The meal in the temple divides you from the community of Christians. Look back at 10:18:

Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar?

People who offered a sacrifice would eat the meat of the animal, and so they would identify with the sacrifice. But in the Lord’s Supper there is also an identification with the body of the Church.

Now what happens if you go to the temple of idols and take part in meals made up of sacrifices to idols?

Do I mean then that a sacrifice offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? ²⁰ No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants [fellowship] with demons. ²¹ You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons.

“Is Zeus real?” Paul’s answer is no. “What about Mercury, the messenger of the gods, or Venus, the goddess of love?” Paul’s answer again would be no.

But behind these false idols is a spiritual reality which deceives people and turns them away from the true God. Table-fellowship with that is wrong, even if the idols aren’t real. And if you do otherwise because you deny the reality of idols you are pushing your luck:

Are we trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

The issue of freedom

But this is not just about idols — which is why it is so important to us. It is about freedom and it is about fellowship, as vv 23-24 remind us:

“Everything is permissible”—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible”—but not everything is constructive. ²⁴ Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.

However, we really need to hear both sides of this, because we generally get both wrong. First, it really is about freedom, which Paul brings out with two applications. First, in vv 25-26:

Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, ²⁶ for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”

And then secondly, in v 27:

If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience.

This is the true freedom of a Christian! “Everything is permissible for me.” So we can eat anything.

Now you may think this is no big deal. But why can you eat anything? After all, the Old Testament Law has numerous restrictions on what you can eat. The typical Christian answer comes down to this: “Because since Christ died, the law has changed.”

Let me say, if that is your answer it is wrong —Christ did not change the law, he fulfilled it. And since he fulfilled it, we no longer live under the law.

And that has enormous implications for us, for our life as a community and for our witness to society.

Law and Gospel

What does government today think is the job of government? It is to bring about a fair and just society. And how do they aim to do that? By passing laws preventing this and enforcing that, and so on.

But what does the gospel say? “Everything is permissible for me.” Why? Because God did not make us to live under laws. Christ has fulfilled the law — and we are no longer under law but under grace.

And so we need to say to our society today, “You are going the wrong way! You are not making things better but worse — not because your laws are bad but because your basic assumption is wrong. The law is a dead end. And the more human society is built on law, the further away it is from the kingdom of God.”

Anarchy in the UK?

But isn’t this a recipe for anarchy in the UK? No, because of the principle Paul has been arguing all the way through. Look at v 28-9:

But if anyone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience’ sake — ²⁹ the other man’s conscience, I mean, not yours.

You personally are free to eat anything — not in the temple, because that is a breaking of fellowship with believers, but certainly at home, or in someone else’s home. So Paul continues in v 29-30:

For why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience? ³⁰ If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

But here is where we need to hear the other thing the gospel says, which is that ‘I’ am not the centre of the universe, nor is my relationship with God the most important consideration. So Paul writes in v 31

So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.

But what does this mean? Vv 32-33 explain:

Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— ³³ even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

This is what prevents anarchy. “I am not seeking my own good, but the good of many.” I should do what glorifies God, and what especially glorifies God is people being saved, so Paul finishes this section in 11:1:

Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.

What is the example of Christ? In his own words,

Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. ⁴³ Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, ⁴⁴ and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. ⁴⁵ For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Mk 10:42-45)

If Jesus lived like that, how much more should we — first, for the sake of his body which is the church, and secondly for the sake of all, so that they may be saved.

John Richardson

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

My quote of the day on high cost higher education

My 'quote of the day' is from this Daily Telegraph rant about higher education because what is happening at the moment makes me want to rant about it, too.

A couple of years ago, I was involved in a consultation about a University chaplaincy (having once been one myself) and I asked one of the staff members there what they felt, overall, was the ethos and purpose of the institution. Wearily, they replied to the effect that it was basically an education industry selling people degrees.

Q Didn’t Disraeli say university should be a place of light, of liberty, and of learning?
A Unfortunately, Disraeli belongs to a period of history before 1900, which falls outside our strategic-skills, results-oriented, business-friendly, revenue-spinning definition of what higher education is for. Can I recommend a course in Baking Technology? It really does take the biscuit. All major credit cards accepted.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Episcopal appointments - from subtle exclusion to overt discrimination

Since 1993 I have chosen to belong to a church that ordains women priests, and before I retire it is likely I will belong to one that consecrates women bishops. Yet this is a practice that I believe to be mistaken, so why am I still here?

One answer is that I am committed to the Church — not to the official ‘fine tuning’ of its theology. I have often argued that the Church of England is exactly what it says on the tin: the Church of England. It is not demarcated from the Church anywhere else by anything other than geography, and therefor it ought not to be defined by anything other than what the ‘Church universal’ accepts as essential.

Now I know this is a ‘pipe dream’ at innumerable levels. But when I read Scripture I see a similar picture. One of my favourite bits of the Bible is the book of Revelation, and in the seven letters to the churches in chapters 2-3 we find ourselves in very familiar territory. There is division, there is heresy, there is immorality, there are false apostles, there is lack of love, there is indifference. It’s just like home, really! And yet each letter is addressed “to the church in ...”, and each concludes with a promise “to him who overcomes” — and I take it that part of what is to be ‘overcome’ is precisely the situation in some of those churches.

So although I have been tempted to give up on the Church of England, I feel that on principle I ought not to.

Another reason I have stayed, however, is that when the Church of England decided it would ordain women priests, it also decided that the decision was not absolute. Instead, the phrase that was coined was ‘a period of reception’, meaning that it would go ahead with a move that seemed right to the majority of its decision-making body, but without prejudice to whether this was right or not. (Incidentally, this makes further nonsense of the 1975 ‘decision’ that there were no “fundamental” theological objections to the ordination of women. If that was what the Synod really believed, it would have acted accordingly.)

What this means, however, is that every woman who has been ordained in the Church of England has done so knowing that not everyone else accepts this should (or could) have happened. Now that is tough, but there are other denominations they could have joined which would not have presented them with the same problem. Only a day or so ago, I was yet again invited to leave the Church of England by someone who thinks I should go (actually, he tends to do this quite a lot!). But why should the boot not be on the other foot? So I stay knowing that everyone knows we are a ‘mixed economy’ denomination on this issue.

And then thirdly I stay — or at least I stayed — because I and others like me were assured of fair treatment. Unfortunately, it is on this third point that problems have developed and are getting worse.

We hear a lot about equality today, and there is a widespread insistence that people are treated ‘equally’ at every possible opportunity.

In 1993, as the ordination of women to the priesthood was brought in, the Church of England similarly committed itself to treat those on both sides of the debate equally. Thus the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod (which is still in force) stated as its first principle that,

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.

Unfortunately, that commitment was never upheld, and has now effectively been overturned.

Thus in 2001, just eight years on from the original legislation, the Perry Report on episcopal appointments noted that of the thirty-one diocesan bishops appointed between 1993 and 2000, twenty-seven ordained women and two were already diocesan bishops elsewhere. Only two new bishops did not ordain women, and these were both appointed before 1995 (2:28).

More recently, in 2007 the General Synod report ‘Talent and Calling’ (GS 1650), which looked at the appointments of suffragan bishops, cathedral deans, archdeacons and residentiary canons, made the following observations:

4.6.1 While the proportion of women on the Preferment List and among those holding senior appointments is lower than the proportion of full-time stipendiary clergy who are women, we are pleased to note that action is being taken to address this.

“Quite right, too,” we may respond. But then the report added this:

4.6.2 The proportion of minority ethnic, conservative evangelical and traditional catholic candidates on the Preferment List and among those holding senior appointments would appear to be even lower.

At least regarding conservative evangelicals, that is something of an understatement. It is true that traditionalist Catholics continue to be appointed as both suffragan and (occasionally) diocesan bishops. However, the last Evangelical appointment was in — well, can you guess?

In the past year, however, the discrimination has changed from being subtle (indeed not necessarily proven) to overt. In 2010, the Diocese of Salisbury, as part of the process of looking for a new diocesan bishop, published, as it is required to, a ‘Statement of Needs’. This, however, included the following:

The Bishop will have to be prepared to ordain men and women without discrimination ... and to envisage in due time a female episcopal colleague. (Section 20)

It doesn’t take much of a legal mind to realize that this rides roughshod over the requirement of the Act of Synod that there shall be “no discrimination ... on the grounds of ... views about the ordination of women to the priesthood.”

So what happened in the Vacancy in See Committee to bring about this situation? Did no one spot that this was, in fact, contrary to the Act of Synod? Or did no one care? Discrete enquiries suggest there was some awareness of potential difficulties in this area, but the statement itself was presumably not challenged.

But then should it not have been picked up by the Crown Nominations Commission? After all, this includes some fine minds, well aware of what is legal or not — to say nothing of the two Archbishops. Did they not see a problem? Well, of course the workings of the CNC are strictly confidential (at least in theory), so you can ask (I did), but don’t expect long answers.

What seems clear is that the Salisbury members of the CNC went into the selection process having been given a mandate that contradicted an Act of Synod, which is supposed to represent the ‘mind of the Church of England’. And given that the diocese was not asked to rewrite the Statement and publicly invite a new round of submissions of possible candidates, presumably either the other members of the CNC did not spot the problem, or they spotted it but did not feel it made any material difference.

Meanwhile, we have had two new appointments of Provincial Episcopal visitors, though how long their services will be required is anybody’s guess. Despite belated lobbying from the evangelical constituency, however, both of them are traditionalist Anglo-Catholics.

So when will the next Conservative Evangelical be appointed as a bishop in the Church of England. I don’t know. But the last one — and the way things are going he might actually turn out to be the last one — was in 1997, fourteen years ago.

John Richardson

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

More traditionalist bishops or less episcopal integrity - the dilemma of the proposed legislation

On Saturday the Chelmsford Diocesan Synod debated, and approved by a large majority in all three houses, the draft ‘Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure. It also rejected the Following Motion being sponsored by the Church of England Evangelical Council that stronger provision should be written into the legislation for those who feel this development to be wrong and who would therefore want episcopal ministry from a male bishop.

Once upon a time, let us remind ourselves, this would have been the majority of ordinary evangelicals. The 1977 Nottingham Statement from the second NEAC declared that whilst leadership in the congregation ought to be plural and mixed in gender, “ ultimate responsibility” should be “normally singular and male”. Some of us still believe this, and the Anglican Church purports to welcome us as faithful fellow-Christians.

However, the focus has shifted from theological argument to practical provision. Yet it is here that further problems lie, for the proposed legislation is, in my view, bad law both from a practical and from a moral viewpoint.

It is bad morally because whilst, as I have just observed, the formal position of the Church is that all are welcome and included, the legislation places all the demands and obligations of ‘conformity’ on one party and not the other.

For example, a petition by a PCC for the provision of oversight under the Measure will only be effective for five years, after which it will have to be revisited (3.13).

One might say, “Fair enough — opinions change and people move on,” which is true. But what about PCCs that have not petitioned for such provision? If the law is even handed and if the underlying principle is that both views are valid, ought they not be required, every five years, to consider petitioning for provision — even if it is only a formality on the agenda? After all, the present legislation requires every PCC to consider Resolutions A and B (concerning only having ministry from a male priest), whenever there is an interregnum.

What we see in the proposed legislation is massive legal slippage which makes it clear who really ‘belongs’ and who does not. All Anglicans are equal, but ...

There is, however, another problem area, identified in the question time at Synod and to which there still seems to be no satisfactory answer.

Under the present legislation, episcopal ministry is provided to those parishes which request it by a bishop of what the Church of England chooses to call the same ‘integrity’. Actually ‘integrity’ is not a bad word in this case since it reflects the mood, prevalent in the 1990s, that both opponents and supporters of women priests may be moved by theological integrity rather than misogyny on the one hand or theological laxity on the other.

Under the new legislation, however, one of two things must happen. Either there must be a huge increase in the number of serving bishops opposed to the ordination (and now consecration) of women or integrity must be sacrificed by both parish and bishop alike.

The reason is this. Section 2 of the legislation (Duty of diocesan bishop to make arrangements) states that:

(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 ministry which appears to the bishop 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.

Now we must leave aside whether (a) and (b) above cover the fullness of episcopal ministry (which in my view they do not). The point to notice is that the Measure legally excludes anything like the existing Provincial Episcopal Visitors from providing such ministry.

How so? Because the bishop concerned must be “a member of the House of Bishops of the diocesan synod of that or another diocese”.

Incidentally, this also means (as we were assured during the debate) that this ministry cannot be from a retired bishop, since he would not be a “member of the House of Bishops”.

Now if integrity is to be maintained, this means that there will have to be a bishop available in each diocese — or at least in every other diocese geographically, since it would be unreasonable to expect busy bishops to be travelling much further than the odd 100 miles or so round trip — who is opposed to the ordination and consecration of women. Two cheers for the new legislation.

Unfortunately, that is not quite what the legislation requires, for it does not actually say that the bishop himself needs to be opposed to the ordination and consecration of women. All he has to be legally is male.

But this is where integrity goes out of the window. How so? (you may again ask). Because the situation would then be that at the very point at which the ministry of Bishop A was provided to Parish B, there would be disagreement.

The justification for having Bishop A (and not the female Bishop B) provide such ministry would be solely (according the legislation) the “theological conviction” that “episcopal ministry and pastoral care should be provided by a male bishop” (Section 3.1). Yet if the said male bishop did not share that theological conviction, he would in effect be saying, “The one thing that justifies me, rather than someone else, ministering to you is a point on which I actually do not agree with you.”

To say the least, this would be a very odd basis for the provision of ministry and care.

Just to make this clear, the same proposed legislation envisages that,

(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 ministry of clergy who are women and their pastoral care.

Now whilst 5.a obviously requires the ministry of a bishop in favour of women’s ordination, 5.b, technically, does not. One can provide support even for someone with whom one disagrees, as the recent Statement of Needs for Salisbury Diocese clearly envisaged when it (quite improperly and possibly unlawfully) stated that the new bishop “will have to be prepared to ordain men and women without discrimination, while sensitively engaging with the few parishes not accepting women priests or bishops”.

Nevertheless, one can imagine the problems if such a scheme under the proposed legislation appointed, for the purposes of support and pastoral care of women clergy, someone opposed to women’s ordination, rather than someone in favour.

Thus, as I said earlier, unless integrity is to be sacrificed (along with the principle of moral equivalence in the law), the existing legislation ought to require more, rather than fewer, bishops opposed to women’s ordination and consecration.

But is this the intention of the legislation? On the one hand it would seem that it is, since it is stated specifically that ministry could come from “another diocese”. Why would this even be considered, if not to ensure that ‘integrity’ is maintained?

Yet a specific question on this point (from myself) elicited the answer (as happened repeatedly) that this would “presumably be covered by the Code of Practice”. And this, of course, is no answer at all since no one knows yet what will be in the Code of Practice and the legislation is, in the end, the law that will be applied, whereas the Code of Practice will be just that — a Code covering the application of what the law says.

And the law, as it stands, says only that a male bishop will be provided, which can only mean one of two things — more bishops of the traditionalist integrity, or less integrity.

John Richardson
6 June 2011

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.