Collegiality – the vertical dimension

In the last few days I have had reason to blog rather a lot on the subject of collegiality (click on the ‘label’ tag below for a list). As pointed out in my last post, however, this is no small matter.

Perhaps the most definitive document for the Church of England on the subject so far states that,

Episcopal collegiality exists to ensure the Church’s fidelity to the apostolic teaching and mission and to maintain the local church/diocese in fellowship – in communion – with the Church around the world today and the Church throughout the ages. (Bishops in Communion: Collegiality in the Service of the Koinonia of the Church [London: Church House Pub., 2000] 38)

Notice, being ‘in communion’ here does not mean ‘receiving the sacraments together’. That kind of ‘lowest common denominator’ approach is sometimes invoked, but according to Article XXVI of the Thirty-nine Articles, you can be ‘in communion’ in that sense with an evil minister who deserves to be deposed.

Rather, as the title of the above booklet suggests, ‘communion’ refers to the koinonia of ‘fellowship in the gospel’ – what the booklet calls the “apostolic teaching and mission”.

Furthermore, since faith, and therefore salvation , comes by hearing the word of God, collegiality is not about maintaining good manners amongst clergy but achieving what is often called the missio dei – the mission of God to the world.

And this is why the prevailing practice of ‘episcopal collegiality’, identified and largely condoned in the booklet, of bishops being free to dispute even quite fundamental doctrines, is such a serious matter.

As a result, it would seem that nothing short of ‘entryism’ is now taking place with regard to issues of marriage and sexuality. Indeed, we could find ourselves in the frankly ridiculous situation where the bishops of the Church of England are all theoretically ‘upholding’ what the Bishop of Salisbury deems the ‘current understanding’ of marriage, even whilst none of them actually believes in it personally.

It helpful, therefore, to remind ourselves that collegiality works vertically as well as horizontally. That is to say (as the same booklet briefly acknowledges), a ‘collegiality’ also exists between presbyters and the diocesan bishop.

The influential sixteenth century theologian, Richard Hooker, was a keen advocate of bishops, seeing them literally as God’s gift to the Church. Yet he was no believer in ‘my bishop, right or wrong’. Rather, in his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, he sounded this cogent, if rather long and convoluted, warning:

... bishops, albeit they may avouch with conformity of truth that their authority hath thus descended even from the very apostles themselves, yet the absolute and everlasting continuance of it they cannot say that any command of the Lord doth enjoin; and therefore must acknowledge that the Church hath power by universal consent upon urgent cause to take it away, if thereunto she be constrained through the proud, tyrannical, and unreformable dealings of her bishops, whose regiment she hath thus long delighted in, because she hath found it good and requisite to be so governed. Wherefore lest bishops forget themselves, as if none on earth had authority to touch their states, let them continually bear in mind, that it is rather the force of custom, whereby the Church having so long found it good to continue under the regiment of her virtuous bishops, doth still uphold, maintain, and honour them in that respect, than that any such true and heavenly law can be shewed, by the evidence whereof it may of a truth appear that the Lord himself hath appointed presbyters for ever to be under the regiment of bishops, in what sort soever they behave themselves. Let this consideration be a bridle unto them, let it teach them not to disdain the advice of their presbyters, but to use their authority with so much the greater humility and moderation, as a sword which the Church hath power to take from them. (Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, VII.v.8, emphasis mine)

The approach advocated in Bishops in Communion is that bishops must be free to act on individual conscience, even to the extent of disagreeing with established understandings, without this breaching their collective collegiality.

They ought not to be surprised, however, to find that this does not apply to their collegiality with their presbyters. And there is a simple reason for this.

In the Church of England, presbyters differ from bishops in the very important regard that most presbyters are responsible for pastoring a segment of the Church through the weekly teaching of the word of God. Bishops are not.

Thus, although the bishop may have a ‘go anywhere’ expectation and ministry, the presbyter will not – and must not – have an ‘invite anyone’ attitude. Who gets to preach is a very important consideration in parish life because weekly preaching is one of the key means by which the sheep are fed.

Whilst it may therefore be possible for episcopal colleagues in the same diocese to disagree amicably about fundamentals, it is not so easy for presbyters to accommodate the ‘breadth’ of views. Parish ministry includes the pulpit, and in the pulpit one ceases to be a teacher in theory and becomes one in practice.

Furthermore, to be admitted to the pulpit is, in some sense, an endorsement of the person. Article XIX defines the Church as a congregation ... in the which the pure Word of God is preached”. We are this right to be careful whom we admit as preachers. And this brings up back to the issue of koinonia and collegiality.

Collegiality is designed to preserve koinonia with the Apostolic teaching and mission. Thus the boundary of collegiality is reached when the Apostolic teaching and mission is threatened and koinonia is thus breached.

But as Hooker points out, bishops cannot ignore their presbyters in this regard, and presbyters are not under obligation to remain in submission to their bishops “in what sort soever they behave themselves”.

Yet the Bishop of Salisbury described his recent meeting with a delegation of his ‘presbyters’ as “open and robust” – and we can all guess what that means, especially when he acknowledges that one of the issues he faces with them is “profound disagreement about the definition of marriage”.

By any measure, therefore, the vertical dimension of collegiality in the diocese of Salisbury has been put under considerable strain. And we may reasonably ask whether the same is not about to happen regarding the appointment as Bishop of Croydon of a man with similar views to the Bishop of Salilsbury.

What those involved in these appointments ought to note is that whilst they may assume that horizontal bishop-to-bishop collegiality remains intact, vertical, presbyter-to-bishop collegiality may well be broken.

For this is not simply a matter of private judgement. The new bishops are consciously and deliberately in disagreement with, and prior to their appointment have been actively opposing, the established teaching of the Church.

Any presbyters who uphold the ‘current understanding’ of marriage are not setting themselves up against the bishop – rather the reverse. And if collegiality with him is therefore broken, it is the bishop who broke it.

What these presbyters then decide to do is problematic in the present circumstances. That they would be entitled to do something, however, would seem to have the tacit support of at least Richard Hooker.

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

The Confusion with Collegiality

Recent events in the Church of England have caused me to do some hunting around to find out exactly how the notion of ‘collegiality’ should be understood.

The document to read, it turned out, is an ‘occasional paper’ produced by the House of Bishops, titled Bishops in Communion: Collegiality in the Service of the Koinonia of the Church (London: Church House Pub., 2000).

As soon as one begins to read this, however, the first thing that becomes clear is that there is no such thing in the Church of England as a ‘doctrine of collegiality’, if by this one means a concise statement of what a thing is. Rather, on page ix of the ‘Introduction’ comes this important admission:

When FOAG [the Faith and Order Advisory Group] began its work on collegiality [in 1994], it was aware that ... there is no fully developed ecumenical or Anglican theology of collegiality. Though successive Lambeth Conferences have reflected on their own collegial role and authority, the subject is a relatively new one in Anglican ecclesiology. (ix)

Thus the task envisaged by the group which produced the booklet is, “in a large measure one of reflecting theologically on experience” (ibid).

In the circumstances, these are remarkable admissions: the theology of collegiality is a late development for Anglicans, it is not a coherent ‘doctrine’, but rather a way of describing current practice.

Given the tendency of bishops and councils to appeal to ‘collegiality’ as the basis for the way they work together, and in particular how they deal with difference, it is disturbing to find that rather than working from fundamental principles, when it came to ‘collegiality’ these individuals and bodies were effectively making it up as they went along.

Having admitted the difficulty, the booklet itself attempt to redress the lack of theological coherence. Unfortunately, the ‘working assumptions’ which have beset Anglican practice, and especially those which at that time were becoming prominent in the Anglican Communion, mean that the outcome, rather than replacing confusion with clarity, is a complete ‘dog’s breakfast’.

The problem that the booklet simply cannot resolve is that the desire to emphasize something special about the ministry of bishops (their ‘collegiality’) is offset by the equal desire to allow them to say and do pretty much what they like as individuals.

On the one hand, therefore, it acknowledges the serious purpose of collegiality:

Episcopal collegiality exists to ensure the Church’s fidelity to the apostolic teaching and mission and to maintain the local church/diocese in fellowship – in communion – with the Church around the world today and the Church throughout the ages. (38)

This is truly an awesome responsibility. But what if a bishop steps out of line? In an important paragraph on p43, the booklet recognizes the problem:

One sharp question is how far it is legitimate, once the college [of bishops] has come to a common mind, for any individual bishop to teach what is contrary to the consensus of the college. (43)

Furthermore, it acknowledges the seriousness of this consensus:

While the Church must make room for the prophetic voice, there is a particular responsibility on bishops to honour the consensus of the college, especially when this has been articulated after careful and prayerful reflection and consultation with the people of God.

But in the end, private judgement is effectively given free reign:

Collegiality can sometimes impose limitations on the ministry of a bishop, yet there may be occasions when, in conscience, an individual bishop feels compelled to resist the common mind.

Now of course there is some validity in this argument. Like any individual, a bishop must say what he believes to be true. But as the booklet is keen to affirm, a bishop is not just ‘any individual’. He (or she) is supposedly part of a ‘college’ of colleagues, which incidentally includes the presbyters in the diocese, and therefore does indeed have certain limitations imposed on their ministry — as do we all.

But whilst the booklet speaks in grand terms about collegiality ensuring “the Church’s fidelity to the apostolic teaching and mission”, it places few, if any, real limits on how that teaching and mission might be interpreted, even in contradictory ways. Thus we read,

It is not a sign of weakness that, in the process of discernment, different – even opposing – view are held. (43)

Yet we may reasonably ask, “If not weakness, what is it a sign of?” Once again, the Dire Straits principle can be evoked: “Two men say they’re Jesus, one of them must be wrong.” Thus if the college of bishops includes opposing views it is not a sign of strength but rather that one (or both) sides must be wrong.

Now of course, that may be a necessary state of affairs, but the booklet is too quick to embrace – indeed to encourage – the possibility, without acknowledging the divisiveness entailed and the extent to which this must inhibit the Church’s mission.

In familiar terms it continues in the same vein:

The role of the bishops is to keep the discussion open until the consensus is formed.

But in case anyone should think this means deciding who was wrong, it adds,

Consensus does not necessarily man coming to a single opinion. It may mean agreeing that for the foreseeable future different views may continue to be held with integrity until the mind of Christ becomes clear ...

Forgive me for saying so, however, but you don’t need to reach a ‘consensus’ in order to agree to differ.

Such weak and muddled thinking explains a lot about where we are at present. This is not to say that ‘collegiality’ has no potential usefulness. On the contrary, if it did indeed ensure the Church’s fidelity to the apostolic teaching and mission it would be a very good thing.

But the thinking behind the report cannot produce that fidelity because it is unwilling to envisage true confrontation, which is the only thing that can prevent collegiality descending into a fatally cosy club-like mentality, set over against the rest of the ministerial body of the Church.

Whilst considering the problem of bishops who disagree with the consensus, the booklet states,

As those entrusted with oversight, the bishops always have the possibility of calling a halt when a matter appears to be going in a direction contrary to the understanding of the college. (44)

But this ‘possibility’ ought to be acknowledged as a responsibility. Collegiality must include holding one another to real account, particularly if there has been, or may be, a breach of the very koinonia that the booklet includes in its title.

We must never forget that when Peter acted contrary to the gospel, Paul opposed him to his face (Gal 2:11). The lack of any such confrontations amongst the present bishops of the Church of England is surely not a ‘sign’ (to pick up the language of the booklet) either of strength or of clear adherence to the declared doctrinal position of the House of Bishops itself.

Many of us are watching the bishops for another sign – that someone will be willing to say “one of them must be wrong”. Unless or until that happens, the doctrine of collegiality must be regarded not as a bulwark of the truth but a Trojan horse.

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

From the Bishop of Salisbury: an "open and robust conversation" with his clergy

 The website of the Salisbury Diocese contains a summary by Bishop Holtam of points covered in what he has called an "open and robust" conversation with ten of his clergy.

What this makes clear is that there was profound disagreement. What it does not make clear is what actually was said, how matters now stand, or how they have been, or will be, resolved.

Bishop Holtam says the question was raised, "How we might go forward constructively when we are in such profound disagreement about the definition of marriage." At the same time he says he is committed to "Supporting marriage as it is currently understood."

Once again, the Dire Straits Principle ("Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong"), would seem to apply. If the Bishop disagrees with his clergy about the definition of marriage, but supports marriage as it is currently understood, then presumably they have a different view of marriage from the current one. Either that, or the reverse is true. What seems clear is that they cannot both be supporting the current view of marriage (whatever the word "current" is supposed to mean) and be disagreeing.

Here is the statement:

The Bishop of Sherborne, the Archdeacon of Dorset and I met with 10 clergy from Dorset who had contacted me following my remarks on same-sex relationships in an interview published in The Times on 3 February, and on the BBC Radio 4 Sunday programme on 5 February.

Bishop Graham and I disagree about the appropriateness of using the word 'marriage' for same-sex relationships. He expressed his concerns to me privately and in the meeting. We are, however, committed to working together creatively.

I welcomed the open and robust conversation, which covered the following areas:

· My thanks for their constructive response to what I had said

· The context of the wider interview from which the published remarks were drawn

· The state of the debate about same-sex relationships

· My intention to encourage an honest conversation

· Our understanding of what marriage constitutes and means

· The place of same-sex relationships and couples within the life of the Church and our pastoral care of them

· The nature of same-sex relationships

· The difference between contractual and covenantal relationships and their relationship to Civil Partnerships and marriage

· The appropriateness of using the language of marriage for same-sex relationships

· Our understanding of the authority of Scripture and Tradition, and their immutability

· The significance of scriptural references to homosexuality

· The Church’s relationship with the wider community and its culture

· The current discipline and practice of the Church of England

· My role as Bishop and leader in the Diocese

· Pluralism, the width of the Church and the Bishop’s relationship to it

· How we address contentious issues within the Diocese

· Our relationships with the Church in other parts of the world, especially Sudan

· Concerns for local Ecumenical relationships

· How we might go forward constructively when we are in such profound disagreement about the definition of marriage

At the end of the meeting I reaffirmed my commitment to:

· Supporting marriage as it is currently understood

· Upholding the current discipline and practice of the Church of England

· Supporting those clergy whose standpoint differs from my own



I ended by welcoming future opportunities to continue the conversation.

+Nicholas Sarum


 


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

'Collegiality' on sexuality

Given the lengthening thread of comments with regard to my previous post on this topic, I want to try to refocus the discussion afresh. I have therefore closed comments on the previous post, but people are welcome to assume others have read what they wrote previously.

Could I remind people that on this blog they are asked to give a full name and location. I know some are accustomed to abbreviations, but in a spirit of openness and ‘speaking the truth to one another’ I would invite them to consider complying with this request.

**************

In the earlier post and subsequent discussion about collegiality, Tim Chesterton makes a comment which goes to the heart of the apparent confusion in the minds of many.

He asks, “Doesn’t collegiality mean that ... bishops who disagreed ... were free to speak their mind, but not free to change their practice until the church as a whole changed its practice?”

The Church of England operates two principles which, I think I am right in saying, have some bearing on this whole business.

The first is expressed in Article XXXIV, ‘Of the Traditions of the Church’ which, whilst recognizing that “Traditions and Ceremonies ... may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’s Word”, nevertheless denies the individual the right just to ‘do his own thing’ in the particular church to which he belongs: “Whosoever through his private judgement, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.”

In this sense, all Anglican clergy are required to maintain a ‘collegiality’. They may hold certain opinions, but even if those opinions are not repugnant to the Word of God, they are not, as Tim says, free to change their practice.

It does seem on recent performance, however, that there is another way in which ‘collegiality’ has come to operate and be understood, particularly regarding episcopal collegiality. This relates to Article XX, ‘Of the Authority of the Church’, which, whilst acknowledging that, “The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies” (as per Article XXXIV), insists that it cannot lawfully “ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written” and “ought not to decree any thing against the same”.

Now regarding the presenting issue, the collective position of the House of Bishops has been (in line with the resolutions of General Synod and of the Lambeth Conference) that same-sex sexual behaviour is, in fact, “contrary to God’s Word written”. Therefore — and here’s the important bit — as an expression of collegiality, people like Rowan Williams have explicitly subsumed their personal views (in his case expressed in The Body’s Grace) to this position of ‘the Church’.

That is slightly different from the lesser ‘collegiality’ of Article XXXIV, which is a ‘what I do’ collegiality. In the second case, which has particularly applied to the House of Bishops, it has been a ‘what I teach’ collegiality — affecting personal views, not just personal practice.

Now it seems to me, which is why I am asking the questions in this post, that Bishop Holtam has explicitly declared that he will ‘break ranks’ on this second collegiality. If it is not clear to anyone what this means, look at Rowan Williams, who (whatever you may think of him as a result, and ‘liberals’ have been very explicit themselves in this regard) has consistently maintained ‘collegiality’ in both word and deed.

Unless I am very much mistaken, however, Bishop Holtam — whatever he may now say or do — has already acted differently from Archbishop Williams.

It is this that needs to be addressed. Is Bishop Holtam still ‘maintaining collegiality’ himself? If he is not (and clearly I believe he is not) then what should other bishops do?

These questions are, I think, appropriate.

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

When the House of Bishops said no to ‘benign tolerance’ on sexuality issues

Perhaps worth pondering in the present situation is the following from Some Issues in Human Sexuality: A Guide to the Debate (London: Church House, 2003), produced by the House of Bishops’ Group on Issues in Human Sexuality. If taken seriously today, it would mean that the Church of England must in the end break decisively one way or the other on same-sex relationships.

9.6.30  [...] The will of God for his people is that they should be holy as he is holy, and this means walking in obedience to his commandments [...]. This means that it is vital that God’s people should know what he requires of his people, obey it, and teach others to do likewise. To this end there needs to be agreement concerning Christian ethics. Furthermore, as we have seen, in the case of the disagreement about sexual ethics, the disagreement is about matters that go to the heart of people’s relationship with God, and which cannot therefore be treaed as subjects on which we can simply learn to live with diversity.

9.6.31  Therefore we have to say with Michael Doe:

... we cannot as Christians just give way to a ‘you believe this, I believe that’ approach to being together, or moving apart, in the Church. Nor can we be content with the rather cheap model of ‘reconciled diversity,’ meaning benign tolerance, which many Christians find an easier option to the costlier pursuit of real, ‘visible’, unity. We need to continue to struggle together for the truth, to find the right and godly balance between the call to solidarity and the recognition of difference. Nowhere is this more important – especially in the Anglican Communion – than in the area of sexuality. (Endnote 32: Seeking the Truth in Love [DLT, 2000] 111-112)

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

When bishops disagree

What should bishops do when a bishop breaks ranks and violates the collegiality of the House of Bishops?

That would seem to be the question confronting the Church of England since the Bishop of Salisbury, the Rt Revd Nicholas Holtam, apparently stated, in an interview with The Times, that he did not see any need to “sublimate” his support for same-sex marriage to the views of the Church.

Given the inevitable shortcomings of newspaper reporting, that may not be exactly what he said or exactly what he meant, but given also that there has been no refutation from him, for the moment we must assume this is the case.

When we speak about ‘the views of the Church’, however, we must take into account that since 1991 this has included Issues in Human Sexuality: A Statement by the House of Bishops of the General Synod of the Church of England, which was followed up in 2003 by More Issues in Human Sexuality: A Guide to the Debate, which was a discussion document from the House of Bishops’ Group on Issues in Human Sexuality.

Both these document took an essentially conservative line, but the first in particular became notorious as the ‘fall back’ position for bishops under pressure. Like a PoW giving just his name, rank and number, any bishop who was pressed uncomfortably on his views about homosexuality would reply, “My position is to uphold the views expressed in Issues in Human Sexuality.”

Since The Times interview, however, this is apparently no longer the situation, for one bishop is prepared not just to state his support for same-sex marriage, but to advocate the case:

“Part of responsible leadership is having the vision, the sight, to see that’s where I want to go,” he told The Times.

And presumably he hopes to take much of the Church with him. So what are the other bishops to do?

First, it would seem, they can no longer use the ‘name, rank and number’ defence of Issues in Human Sexuality on the basis of collegiality. That is to say, they cannot cite the position of Issues in Human Sexuality as being the one they must uphold ‘as a bishop’ unless they are to embarrass the other bishops. Any reporter, synod member or individual faced with that response can simply reply, “That is not what the Bishop of Salisbury does, and obviously he’s a bishop. So what do you think?”

A bishop may, of course, still say that he holds to the position of Issues in Human Sexuality, but that now has to be a personal viewpoint only — not the collegiate position of the bishops.

Secondly, other bishops may take this as a cue to express their own doubts and disagreements about Issues in Human Sexuality. These are known to exist, not least in the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has so far used precisely the defence Nicholas Holtam now refutes. But there are others in the same position. Will they go with conscience now they can no longer go with collegiality?

Or thirdly, the bishops could insist that collegiality must nevertheless be maintained. Indeed, it may well be that moves are already under way, individually or collectively, to remind the Bishop of Salisbury of this principle.

However, the omens are not good. The Bishop of Sherborne, Graham Kings, who is the theological secretary of the evangelical group Fulcrum and nearest in administrative and physical terms to Nicholas Holtam, has expressed not only his support for an old friend but his ability to live with the differences between them at this point.

In response to a direct question from blogger David Ould, whilst stating that he disagreed with his diocesan, Bishop Kings nevertheless replied as follows:

We are new colleagues but old friends. We are committed to working together creatively even when we disagree. The position of the House of Bishops and the Church of England remains unchanged.

It is, however, the latter point which is in question. How can it be said that “The position of the House of Bishops ... remains unchanged” if bishops individually are free not to uphold that position?

Of course, it may be replied that the position is unchanged, in that bishops have always been free to disagree with it and to teach otherwise than what the House of Bishops’ statements maintain. But in that case we must ask what, if anything, is the significance of such statements and why have they held sway for so long?

And we must mention a name that, for the Crown Nominations Commission, must be taking on overtones of Lord Voldemort. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you — Jeffrey John.

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