Reform, as a grass roots movement, envisages action coming from members who have thought, studied, discussed and agreed. Discussion papers such as this one are written by individual members for the council of Reform and the wider church. The author alone is responsible for the paper. This paper may be copied freely.
The Reform of the Episcopate and Alternative Episcopal Oversight
David Holloway
The Reform National Conference 1996
(revised 1998)
A) BACKGROUND and ASSUMPTIONS
Historical statements
Our forefathers - the
Anglican Reformers - did not believe that episcopacy was essential to the being
of the Church. Whitgift's thesis, for example, was clear:
it is plain that any one certain form or kind of external government perpetually
to be observed is nowhere in the scripture prescribed to the church.
And Article XIX (of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England) says
nothing about a particular form of ministry being essential to the Church. True,
a “godly” bishop was seen as perfectly acceptable. But he was acceptable
and in a proper succession not by virtue of consecration and his being established
in a see, but because of his doctrine. So Bishop Jewel can say to one of his
opponents:
Succession, you say, is the chief way, for any Christian man to avoid antichrist.
I grant you, if you mean the succession of doctrine.
Not unreasonably, therefore, the base unit for our Reformers in practical terms
was not the diocese, but the parish congregation. The Church of England was
a federation of congregations committed to mere Christianity to use Richard
Baxter's phrase (borrowed by C.S.Lewis). Unlike independent congregationalists
it was an ordered federation where ordained ministry was validated through a
wider connection. Unlike the Roman Catholics it was not theologically rooted
in episcopal dioceses and bishops, but as Article XIX says:
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which
the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according
to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to
the same.
As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also the
Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies,
but also in matters of Faith.
Distinctions
Our forefathers made many fine distinctions when discussing "the Church".
Hooker summarised those distinctions in a much quoted (and brilliant) way when
he said this:
For lack of diligent observing the difference, first between the Church of
God mystical and visible, then between the visible sound and corrupted, sometimes
more, sometimes less, the oversights are neither few nor light that have been
committed.
We always need to keep in mind the difference between the Church mystical and
the Church visible. The Church of England is not the Church mystical. It is
part of the Church visible. Bishop J.C.Ryle used to call it (and any denominational
church) "the scaffolding" that supported the true Church of Christ
- the Church mystical.
These distinctions are important for the question of episcopacy and for the
definition of "the Church". And so is Article XIX. Article XIX allows,
and encourages, a minimalist definition of the visible Church as the Anglican
definition; and it only defines the visible Church and not the Church mystical.
That mystical Church is defined in the Book of Common Prayer where it says the
"mystical body of thy Son" (in the service of Holy Communion) is “the
blessed company of all faithful people."
So Article XIX is defining a "visible sound" Church where "the
pure Word of God is preached" and "the Sacraments be duly ministered".
However, at the same time it also acknowledges the mixed nature of the visible
Church. Serious corruption, it implies, does not mean that an errant Church
ceases to be part of the visible Church. "The Church of Rome hath erred"
- but it still can be called a "Church". Error does not automatically
exclude from the visible Church, even error "in matters of Faith"
or morality ("in their living") according to the implication of Article
XIX.
Discipline
That leads us on to Article XXVI. This touches on the issues of a mixed Church
were there is immorality or heresy, even among senior leaders (i.e. Bishops):
Although in the visible Church the evil [a strong word] be ever mingled with
the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of
the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own
name, but in Christ's, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may
use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving of the
Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their
wickedness [another strong word], nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from
such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them;
which be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise, although they
be ministered by evil men.
This article clearly contradicts those who argue that a corrupt visible Church
is quite invalid; and that nothing good whatever can come from such a church
where "the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and
Sacraments." On the contrary our Reformers argued that it was perfectly
possible for an "evil" minister to minister what is true. At the lowest
level, the truth of the Bible does not depend on the moral or theological probity
of the reader. In Cranmer's day even a heretic could read one of his homilies.
Such a person did not automatically make invalid its arguments. (The article,
of course, was probably trying to allay succession and independency).
However, the Article is not simply affirming the "validity" of evil
ministry, as some seem to suggest. That is just "part one". And part
one has credibility only in the light of “part two”. Part two is what
is relevant for us at the end of the 20th century. For the Article continues
like this:
Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry
be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge
of their offences; and finally being found guilty, by just judgement be deposed.
Anglican polity, therefore, presupposes that while the visible Church is both
"sound and corrupted, sometimes more, sometimes less", discipline
must be exercised in an effort to make it more sound than corrupt. There is
no assumption that the Anglican Church is happy with the comprehension together
of the sound, the less corrupt and the more corrupt. Far from it.
Yes, its ecclesiology is comprehensive but not in comprehending a doctrinal
or moral free-for-all. It is comprehensive, first, in that it sees the visible
Church not as coterminous with its own church order, but catholic (or universal).
Secondly, it is also comprehensive in that it acknowledges that those who are
disciplined for heresy or immorality (by excommunication or impairment of communion)
are still within (or "comprehended" by) the visible Church. And, thirdly,
it is comprehensive in that it knows that some of its senior bishops and clergy
may be "evil", and that such “wickedness” does not invalidate
all that they do. But - and this is a vital "but" - it presupposes
that disciplinary action will be taken with such people so that the mixed and
doctrinally comprehensive visible Church becomes more "sound" and
less mixed.
Indeed, the clergy of the Church of England are duty bound, according to the
1662 Ordinal, "with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away all
erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's Word." Even the new Alternative
Service Book Ordinal speaks of "upholding the truth against error."
At the revision stage of the new service that phrase was included as short-hand
for the 1662 Ordinal’s "banish and drive away … strange doctrines".
The Word of God and the Church
According to the wording of the Ordinal "erroneous and strange doctrines"
are those that are "contrary to God's Word." That is the test for
orthodoxy for all clergy. So how are we to understand “God’s Word”
and how are we to use it as such a test?
The supreme Word of the Father is "the Son ... begotten from everlasting
of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father"
who "took Man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance"
(Article II) - incidentally ruling out denials of the virginal conception. The
articles, however, are mostly referring to "God's word written" (Article
XX) - Holy Scripture. And Article VI says:
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever
is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any
man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite
or necessary to salvation.
Nor does the Old Testament contradict the New. Christ is the one through whom
even in the Old Testament "everlasting life is offered". And while
the Mosaic rules "as touching Ceremonies and Rites do not bind Christian
men" today; nor do you have to follow all the "civil laws"; "yet
notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience
of the Commandments which are called Moral [italics added]."
But is the Church “the authority behind the authority”? What is the
relationship of the Church to the Bible? Who decides when there are differing
interpretations? The Articles say that the Church is like a library - it is
"a witness and a keeper of holy Writ" (Article XX). However, while
the visible Church obviously can and must order itself and make judgements over
doctrinal issues,
yet, it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary
to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that
it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and
a keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the
same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for
necessity of Salvation.
An Anglican hermeneutic, therefore, has limits. The assumption is that God's
Word written has to be seen whole. The message of an individual author cannot
be expounded in such a way as to contradict other authors. Nor is that obscurantist.
Nor does it encourage forced harmonisations. It simply means what it says. If
"one place of Scripture" is expounded "that it be repugnant to
another" it does not mean that a clearly inadequate but non repugnant explanation
is to be accepted. It simply means that more homework needs to be done. As Augustine
would say, for the time being it has to be put on the shelf.
Anglican hermeneutics
And the Anglican hermeneutic says that there is a "perspicuity" to
Scripture. That is to say, the essential message is clear and capable of being
understood. At least that is what our Reformers taught. Cranmer himself was
forthright. In his Prologue or Preface to the Bible he said this (quoting
St John Chrysostom):
Peradventure they will say unto me, "How and if we understand not the
deep and profound mysteries of scripture?" Yet can it not be but that much
fruit and holiness must come and grow unto thee by the reading. For it cannot
be that thou shouldest be ignorant in all things alike. For the Holy Ghost hath
so ordered and attempered the scriptures that in them as well publicans, fishers
and shepherds may find their edification, as great doctors their erudition.
For those books were not made to vain-glory like as were the writing of the
Gentile philosophers and rhetoricians, to the intent the makers should be had
in admiration for their high styles and obscure manner of writing, whereof nothing
can be understand without a master or an expositor. But the apostles and prophets
wrote their books so that their special intent and purpose might be understanded
and perceived of every reader, which was nothing but the edification or amendment
of the life of them that readeth or heareth it.
Who is there that reading or hearing read in the gospel, "Blessed are they
that been meek, blessed are they that been merciful, blessed are they that been
of clean heart," and other like places, can perceive nothing except he
have a master to teach him what it meaneth? Likewise the signs and miracles
with all other histories of the doings of Christ or his apostles, who is there
of so simple wit and capacity but he may not be able to perceive and understand
them? These be but excuses and cloaks for the rain and coverings of their own
idle slothfulness.
"I cannot understand it." What marvel? How shouldest thou understand,
if thou wilt not read nor look upon it? Take the books into thine hands; read
the whole story; and that thou understandest, keep it well in memory. That thou
understandest not, read it again and again. If thou can neither so come by it,
counsel with some other that is better learned. Go to thy curate and preacher.
Shew thyself to be desirous to know and learn. And I doubt not but God, seeing
thy diligence and readiness (if no man else teach thee,) will himself vouchsafe
with his Holy Spirit to illuminate thee, and to open unto thee that which was
locked from thee.
So much, then, for background and assumptions. These provide the ground rules
and the context for our thinking about reform of the episcopate and alternative
oversight in the Church of England.
B) THE EPISCOPATE
Resolutions
At the REFORM National Conference 1995 (on the 23 March 1995) the Conference
passed a resolution requesting ...
the Council to initiate action leading to the reform of the episcopate.
After a considerable number
of years and some serious debate there is now widespread conviction that more
is needed than discussion. The REFORM council has been mandated to "initiate
action". What is the action that is needed?
What have others said about this on other occasions? The Nottingham Statement
of 1977 said: "We consider that the current Anglican practice of episcopacy
ought to be reformed." At the Anglican Evangelical Assembly of 1990 there
was a call for a "reformed and wider episcopate". Stuart Blanch, the
former Archbishop of York called for new "patterns of episcopacy".
And the Covenant of REFORM speaks of "the need radically to reform the
present shape of episcopacy and pastoral discipline."
But why? For two reasons. First, there is now too frequent heresy in the episcopate.
Interestingly this was a motivator in Newman’s thinking and acting in the
last century. For Newman developed his key doctrine of the consensus fidelium
on discovering the heretical episcopate of the 4th century. For the record this
is what he said: "During the greater part of the 4th century ... the body
of Bishops failed in their confession of the faith ... I fairly own, that if
I go to writers, since I must adjust the letter of Justin, Clement, and Hippolytus
with the Nicene Doctors, I get confused; and what revives and reinstates me,
as far as history goes, is the faith of the people."
Then, secondly, there are practical problems. The bishops no longer give much
support to the clergy. The Gallup Survey of clergy for Faith in the City found
that in answer to the question "Who, if anyone, gives you real support
in your ministry?" the answer was: wife and family 75%; church wardens
50%; individuals in the parish 48%; the diocesan bishop was only 26%. If the
genuine well-being of the clergy is a priority rather than maintaining a partisan
ecclesiology, at a time of scarce resources the parishes should be built up
rather than the diocesan centres. It is amazing that since the end of the nineteenth
century we have seen an increase in the number of bishops together with a decline
in the number of clergy. The bishops have quadrupled while the lower clergy
have halved.
Definitions
But we must define our terms. What today do we mean by "a bishop"?
- the presbyter-bishops of the NT with apostles in the background or the post-apostolic
monarchical bishops of the second and third centuries, distinguished now from
presbyters, but still presiding over a single congregation? No! Anglican bishops,
through no fault of their own, are post-Constantinian Prelates with little
to do either with New Testament or essential Catholic order. Surely the time
has come for a deprelatizing of the Church of England.
The Orthodox bishop, Kallistos Ware, argues that we need to get back to that
earlier "catholic" model: "Now we are moving into a 'post-Constantinian'
epoch, we have much to learn from the era before Constantine." The Anglican
bishop, A.C.Headlam, had earlier said the same thing: "it is not the mediaeval
bishop but the catholic bishop of the primitive church that the present time
needs." And the 1878 Lambeth Conference declared: "We gladly welcome
every effort for reform upon the model of the Primitive Church." In the
17th century Archbishop Ussher wanted such a primitive episcopate. He wanted
a 'first among equals' in a local setting.
The problems of the 17th and then the 18th century led, sadly, to an entrenchment
of prelacy; and then the 19th century saw not only Tractarianism but also the
ex-Unitarian F.D.Maurice. With all the extremism of a "convert" he
declared that "the episcopal institution" [which in reality was a
prelatical institution] was "one of the appointed and indispensable signs
of a spiritual and universal society." After Michael Ramsey validated Maurice,
it became very hard to deny the liberal-catholic myth of a "prelatical-episcopate".
It has huge plausibility but no substance.
Two orders not three
Classical Anglican doctrine on the episcopate is not prelatical. Classical Anglican
doctrine is minimalist. It recognises two orders not three in the Church - a
presbyteral and a deaconal order. Bishops (as Jerome, Peter Lombard and the
Lateran Council acknowledged) are part of the order of the presbyterate. The
Preface, therefore to the 1662 Ordinal does not say there are "three Orders"
but "these Orders of Ministers ... Bishops, Priests and Deacons."
In the rubric of both the "Making of Deacons" and the
"Ordering of Priests" there is the requirement for a sermon "declaring
... how necessary that order is in the Church of Christ." There
is no such requirement in the Consecration service. Secondly, the headings to
the pages in the 1662 Ordinal are respectively, "The Ordering of Deacons",
"The Ordering of Priests" but "The Consecration [not "The
Ordering"] of Bishops". Similarly in Article XXXVI it speaks only
of "the consecration of archbishops and bishops" but "the ordering
of priests and deacons". Thirdly, any order a Bishop has (according to
the Ordinal) is political rather than ecclesial. A priest is "called ...
according to ... the order of this Church", while the bishop is
"called ... according to ... the order of this realm." This
is most important.
That is why it is fair to say that classical Anglican doctrine recognises two
orders, not three, in the Church. In the words of Dean Field (writing in the
17th century): "that wherein a bishop excelleth a presbyter is not a distinct
power of order, but an eminence and dignity only."
For our Reformers, therefore, the bishop was a senior presbyter with a jurisdictional
role and an ordaining role. Certainly confirmation for them was not essential
to episcopacy. So Hooker can say: "I make not confirmation any part of
that power which have always belonged only unto bishops, because in some places
the custom was that presbyters might also confirm in the absence of a bishop."
Our Reformers, following Jerome, saw bishops as "a remedy of schism"
(Hooker) or "for the avoiding of schisms and factions" (Field). Both
Hooker and Field are clear that bishops are not essential to the existence of
the Church; and they both recognised the possibility of presbyteral ordination.
Bishops today
So what about the world of today? It is so different. There is now a decline
of "denominationalism" - people choose a church when they move house
for the preaching, the music, the pastoral care, or the youth work. The denomination
is often low down the list. Denominations and so dioceses are now seen as "para-churches".
Interestingly, Hooker only ever viewed the diocese as that. He saw the cathedral
as the church "where the bishop is set with his college of presbyters about
him"; "the local compass of his authority we term a diocese".
The diocese never was his "church".
And what about the Bishop today? Today he is more of a deacon than a presbyter.
He is, in reality, a para-church officer. Cardinal Villot, the former Vatican
Secretary of State, looked at the bishops' files on his desk and exclaimed:
"In the best periods of the life of the Church, nobody would have thought
such duties were even those of a presbyter, but only a deacon." For all
their protestations about being "missionary bishops", bishops are
overwhelmed with synods and committees. The centralism that has grown since
the 1970's and the advent of Synodical Government, together with the liberal-Catholic
ideology of prelacy, strangles even the best of men and turns episcopal presbyters
into deacons.
There must be major reform. As R.A.Norris says: "little energy has been
devoted to the examination of the actual workings of episcopacy ... claims are
made for episcopacy which are not justified by the practice of the Anglican
Church."
In the Ignatian period the bishop was the senior pastor of a larger church.
That is why he was a focus of unity with "one eucharist". Everyone
went to the same service. The bishop's diocese was one parish. Visiting Jerusalem
in the 380s, the pilgrim Egeria found that despite the large number of pilgrims
and local Christians, there was still only one eucharist on each Sunday, celebrated
by the bishop and attended by everyone.
But our modern prelatical bishops are unrelated to congregations. In the Church
of England in South Africa all the bishops are in parishes. This, surely, is
the direction we must go in this country. The bishop would then be in touch
with the consensus fidelium. We must de-prelatize the Church of England.
Cathedrals and their futures are up for discussion. Over 100 years ago it was
suggested that the office of bishop and dean/provost should merge. The diocesan
bishop would then be the pastor of a large church on the Ignatian model. Indeed,
a criterion of being a "bishop" must now surely be the competence
to lead and oversee a growing church if our concern is for mission not maintenance.
Gone must be the competence to accommodate to an ever increasing bureaucratic
synodical machine and the espousal of a "lowest common denominator theology"
as the main criteria. Along with this must go the right for all the parochial
clergy to confirm. In management terms this would be vital. Roman Catholic clergy,
it is reported, have already gone down this road. It is time for us to do the
same.
Senior pastors as bishops
In the pluralism of the present Church of England, we must now explore the possibility
of senior pastors of larger Anglican churches being given authority (or consecrated)
to "ordain" (along with other presbyters, of course). If we are to
re-evangelise the nation and see men and women converted to Jesus Christ there
must be the training and sending out of competent new leaders. The present system
has failed us. Numbers of stipendary clergy are falling. Younger and able evangelicals
are getting disillusioned with the Church of England and are not offering for
full-time ministry. Too many report the theological colleges and courses as
weak. Already larger churches are developing their own training programmes.
The requirements for ordination can, of course, still be those of Canon C7 -
"a sufficient knowledge of holy Scripture and of the doctrine, discipline,
and worship of the Church of England as set forth in the Thirty-nine Articles
of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal."
Prelacy has confused us. We think of bishops in terms of palaces and purple.
No! Clergy given authority to ordain - new alternative bishops - can
stay with the same stipends, houses and dress. Current episcopal paraphernalia
has little to do with Christian theology and much to do with the British Constitution.
We need to think the unthinkable. It was Dean Field who said at the beginning
of the 17th century: "Neither should it seem so strange to our adversaries
that the power of ordination should at some times be yielded unto presbyters,
seeing their chorepiscopi, suffragans, or titular bishops, that live in the
diocese and Churches of other bishops, and are no bishops according to the old
course of discipline, do daily, in the Romish Church, both confirm children
and give orders." Surely a bishop like the former Bishop of Chester, Michael
Baughen, was more of an Ignatian bishop when he was at All Souls' Langham Place
than when in the see of Chester. It is time we explicitly recognised that.
But to talk of reforming the episcopate is to raise huge questions in a number
of people's minds. Is it conceivable? Is this not "cloud-cuckoo land"?
How on earth can any action be initiated?
C) PROBLEMS
The monarchy
There are a range of reasons behind the doubts over reforming the episcopate.
For some there is a false doctrine of the Church that promotes episcopacy by
grounding the Church in the episcopate. As we have seen this is not authentic
Anglicanism. It captured, however, the high ground in the first half of the
20th century. It therefore has a level of "plausibility" at a sub-rational
level.
This is the view with which many have, in effect, been indoctrinated. Until
taught otherwise this is felt to be axiomatic - ubi episcopus, ibi ecclesia
(“where there is a bishop, there there is a church”). Our Article
XIX says, as we have seen, the church is where or "in the which" there
is preaching of "the pure word of God" and where the Sacraments be
“duly administered". The whole debate has also been confused by the
issue of Prelacy.
That problem was surfacing at the 1930 Lambeth Conference. The assembled Bishops
admitted: "It is hard to recognise the successors of the Apostles in the
feudal Prelates of the mediaeval Church, or in the 'peers Spiritual' of eighteenth
century England". The ‘peers Spiritual’ of the 20th century,
however, are still in that prelatical structure.
But "prelacy" has been a factor because of the association, in England,
of Episcopacy with the Monarch. It was James I who said, "No bishop, no
king." And as we have seen the bishop has an "order" that is
political, "an order of this Realm". This concept has been
more powerful than many of us realise. Hooker, for example, could describe bishops
as
the temperature of excesses in all estates, the glue and soder of the public
weal, [and] the ligament which tieth and connecteth the limbs of this body politic
each to other.
That, of course, bears no relationship to present reality - constitutional or
otherwise. But our Anglican episcopate has been shaped for that constitutional
reality not for the present day. Hence the need for action.
The association with the Monarch stirs, quite reasonably, deep feelings. "Touch
not the Lord's anointed" means that for many in the Anglican tradition
which includes a strong Royalist tradition, Queen and Bishop have a special
sacrosanctity. But the present sorry state of the Royal Family means that change
in the monarchy is not at all unlikely.
We, therefore, need to be ready for the future by initiating our own changes
in the episcopate before a range of panic measures is forced upon us. Respect
for the Queen however, means that no action can be taken unless there are pressing
and watertight reasons. There are pressing and watertight reasons. But our remarkable
British history will mean that there is a great deal of inertia to overcome
before significant change is possible.
Another reason for inaction is the general ignorance among church people - clergy
and laity alike - of even the elements of Church of England law. This results
in a nervousness in dealing with anything legal.
Church law
Church law was not a primary concern of the Reformation. Indeed, Luther saw
ecclesiastical law as so often strangling the gospel, while in England Church
Law was a vehicle for papal not royal supremacy. Before the Reformation, Church
or Canon Law was determined in Rome, though of course applied locally.
The Reformation cut the knot with Rome. Attempts at legislation relating to
the clergy were made during the formative period of the Reformation in the 16th
century. Only in the reign of James I were the canons of 1603 (or 1604) passed
by the Convocations. The reaction to these canons in subsequent years became
almost a symbol of the English attitude to Church Law. And it still persists.
A previous Bishop of Durham, Hensley Henson, wrote this about these canons:
Let any candid and loyal churchman be at the pains of reading through the
Canons of 1604 (which form the bulk of our canonical code) and let him consider
how he could reasonably and usefully make them his rule of action. He will certainly
rise from his study with a feeling of dismay, so remote are they from the circumstances
of his life, so harsh their tone, so frankly impracticable are many of their
practical requirements.
In part this led to the relatively recent reform of Canon Law. In May 1947 Archbishop
Geoffrey Fisher said:
The reform of Canon Law is, I believe the first and most essential step in
the whole process of Church reform ... Because we have no body of Canons to
turn to, the Church has lost its sense of obedience to its own spiritual ordinances.
The next two decades in the history of the Church of England were taken up with
Canon Law revision and the setting up of Synodical Government. Fisher seemed
to believe that you could legislate and organise for spiritual life. Some think
that his programme of Canon Law revision was a disaster. Sadly, his predecessor,
Archbishop William Temple, died prematurely just after setting up the Commission
on Evangelism that reported under the title Towards the Conversion of England.
Fisher ignored this when he became Archbishop. He revised the Canons instead
and set up Synodical Government.
The new Canons were completed by 1969 when they came into force. The General
Synod now has the power to modify these Canons, which in general are only binding
on clergy. The laity, since the passing of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure
1963, are generally no longer subject to Church Law. This, of course, is a matter
of the greatest significance in terms of reform. The laity have unrestricted
freedom.
Canonical obedience
The clergy swear "canonical obedience" to their bishop, as do bishops
to the archbishop. This does not mean the bishop (or archbishop) has carte
blanche to order the clergyman (or bishop) to do anything he may wish. Not
at all. The clergyman only swears obedience in all things "lawful and honest".
The bishop, therefore, can only ask a clergyman to act "according to the
canons". A refusal would then justify the church courts in disciplinary
action. However, if the clergyman denied that the Bishop was being "lawful"
either party could only decide the dispute by recourse to the courts. Also the
Bishop is only entitled to request compliance in things that are "honest".
With so much manipulative politics taking place at deanery, diocesan and central
levels, it would be surprising if even good bishops were not being forced to
request much that is "dishonest". This certainly seems to be the case
with respect to the suspension of livings in some dioceses.
And very little can be done even if you go to court. The distinguished Canon
Lawyer, Garth Moore, said this on the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963:
when [you] turn to this Measure, designed very largely to simplify an outdated
and complicated system, [you] will find, in place of the old system, a new one
in many respects so cumbersome and unpractical that it is doubtful whether,
in some of its aspects, any attempt will be made to use it more than the one
time necessary to convince even its authors of its unserviceability for many
of the purposes for which it was designed.
But it is under this measure that any discipline against distortions of doctrine
or immoral behaviour has to be carried out. For example the former Bishop of
Durham was in clear contravention of Canon C18:
Every Bishop is to uphold sound and wholesome doctrine and to banish away
all erroneous and strange opinions.
Under the Canon, "wholesome doctrine" is defined by Canon A5. That
says:
The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures,
and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are
agreeable to the said Scriptures.
In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of
Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.
The virginal conception and the empty tomb of Jesus are positively affirmed
in the authorities cited in Canon A5. The former Bishop of Durham was, therefore,
clearly teaching contrary to the canons and so in that respect being “unlawful”.
But the only way of ensuring his "canonical obedience" which he himself
swore, was by recourse to this Measure of 1963. Those at the time involved and
concerned decided, quite reasonably, that this was not a way to go. So not only
the action of the former Bishop of Durham but the reasonable inaction of his
opponents brought the Church Law process into further disrepute; or rather it
proved that it was not the way to solve real problems or reform the church.
As a guide-line and standard for those who want to keep to historic Anglicanism,
the canons have been helpful. But beyond that, they are ineffective.
Another way
With many bishops and clergy not necessarily defying but tacitly rejecting the
implications of the doctrinal Canons, orthodox parochial clergy are in a difficult,
if not impossible, position. Another way forward needs to be discovered. It
is not that the juridical way has been tried and found wanting. It has not even
be tried, because it cannot be. There are fatal flaws; and it is hugely expensive.
Many are now sympathising with Luther. He found strictly "legal" reform
impossible. Luther was facing a similar situation to ourselves. In his view
the visible Church was corrupt and collapsing. This was vigorously denied by
his opponents. So Luther wanted to confront these opponents, and in particular
the Pope, head on. He said this:
When the pope acts contrary to the Scriptures, it is our duty to stand by
the Scriptures, to reprove him and to constrain him, according to the word of
Christ, Matthew 18: "If your brother sins against you, go and tell it to
him, between you and him alone; if he does not listen to you, then take one
or two others with you; if he does not listen to them, tell it to the church;
if he does not listen to the church, consider him a heathen." Here every
member is commanded to care for every other. How much more should we do this
when the member that does evil is responsible for the government of the church,
and by his evil-doing is the cause of much harm and offence to the rest! But
if I am to accuse him before the church, I must naturally call the church together.
But, as with many in REFORM, Luther had a problem. He was not entitled to call
the Church together. But that did not stop him. He asked this question, which
indicates his thinking:
Would it not be unnatural if a fire broke out in a city and everybody were
to stand by and let it burn on and on and consume everything that could burn
because nobody had the authority of the mayor, or because, perhaps, the fire
broke out in the mayor's house? In such a situation is it not the duty of every
citizen to arouse and summon the rest? How much more should this be done in
the spiritual city of Christ if a fire of offence breaks out, whether in the
papal government, or anywhere else! The same argument holds if an enemy were
to attack a city. The man who first roused the others deserves honour and gratitude.
Why, then, should he not deserve honour who makes known the presence of the
enemy from hell and rouses Christian people and calls them together?
There is the equivalent of Luther's fire and enemy as far as the Church of England
is concerned. Something must be done.
D) KOINONIA
Eames and “impaired communion”
Anglicanism is now moving away from the juridical way of dealing with conflict
and problems to a new way. Or at least it is trying to look at conflict and
problems in a different light. This has been forced on us by the Episcopal Church
of the United States of America (the Anglican Church in the US). This Church
has defied rules and restraints in its insistence not only on securing women
a place in the episcopate, but also in some bishops openly ordaining homosexual
clergy. What then is this new "way".
It concentrates on the category of communion not jurisdiction. The watchword
is koinonia (the Greek for “communion”). In short it argues that we
may all have to live with our profound disagreements. All this will result in
impairments of communion. There will be, because there already is, "impaired",
"restricted" or "incomplete communion". And given the fact
that no juridical authority now can command universal agreement, the disputes
will have to be settled not immediately but after a period of time by the consensus
fidelium.
These conclusions and this language is that of the Eames' Commission (the Archbishop
of Canterbury's Commission on Communion and Women in the Episcopate). This Commission
first met in 1988. All three of its reports were published in 1994 under the
signature of the Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey. Importantly, the new
Archbishop of York was a member of this Commission and so party to its proposals.
The first report dealt with koinonia. Its thesis was that:
The basis of the Christian Church is that spiritual reality of koinonia which
is a sharing in the life of God the Holy Trinity. In the Anglican Communion,
this mystery manifests itself in visible elements of the Church's life many
of which Anglicans already share with other ecclesial bodies. There is the common
confession of the apostolic faith expressed in the living Tradition of the Church
in continuity with the normative record of Holy scripture, the celebration of
the sacraments of baptism and eucharist, a single interchangeable ministry which
is apostolic both in terms of fidelity to apostolic teaching and in terms of
apostolic succession. The fellowship of Anglicans is expressed in a commitment
to pray for one another, in mutual responsibility and care, in a sharing of
resources and goods and a commitment to mission. Such elements are common to
the 29 Provinces of the Communion, all of which are in communion with the See
of Canterbury and recognise the Archbishop of Canterbury as the focus of unity
in the Communion.
“Freedom and space”
The report goes on to argue that theological disagreements are resulting in
reduced "opportunities to participate in each other's ministry" and
"interdependence and communion thereby suffer some restriction." This
of course first came about by Anglo-Catholics simply saying that they do not
recognise, nor will they receive, women priests or bishops.
The report goes on to say the following, however:
as in the wider ecumenical debate Anglicans ought not to suggest that such
restrictions result in their being "out of communion" with one another.
Much more unites them within the one Anglican fellowship than divides ... To
take the step of declaring that communion is broken, or to describe the position
as no longer being "in communion", would be to do less than justice
to the concept of communion as we now understand and experience it.
So how do you solve problems? You don't. You let the people decide:
it has always been recognised that councils not only may, but have, erred.
Conciliar and synodical decisions would still have to be received and owned
by the whole people of God as consonant with the faith of the Church throughout
the ages professed and lived today.
In the continuing and dynamic process of reception, freedom and space [italics
mine] must be available until a consensus of opinion one way or other has been
achieved. The Lambeth Conference, 1948, indicated "... the authority of
doctrinal formulations by General Councils or otherwise, rests at least in part
on their acceptance by the whole body of the faithful, though the weight of
this 'consensus' does not depend on mere numbers or on the extension of a belief
at any one time, but on continuance through the ages, and the extent to which
the consensus is genuinely free." (Report of the Committee on the Anglican
Communion, III, Lambeth Conference, 1948).
The model of the Church assumed here is not totally different to that of Hooker.
Hooker had this clear concept of the visible Church sound and corrupt, sometimes
more, sometimes less. And he knew that "error and fault, heresies and crimes"
corrupted the Church. Indeed, "they also make a separation from the visible
sound Church of Christ." But even "the act of excommunication, it
neither shutteth out from the mystical, nor clean from the visible, but only
from fellowship with the visible in holy duties."
Hooker does not see sacramental communion - sharing in Holy Communion - as the
defining mark of the Church's communion. Someone may be "excommunicated"
but they are not shut out "clean from the visible church"; they simply
are excluded from certain "holy duties".
Never “out of communion”
In a similar way Eames says:
In our discussion about the nature of communion, it is clear that a juridical
notion of simply being "in communion" or "out of communion"
with another church has been shown to be insufficient. In our discussions with
other churches within the ecumenical movement we are learning that a real communion
has never been entirely destroyed, even though this cannot yet be expressed
in the shared eucharist which gives visible sacramental expression to communion.
This has been officially recognised between the Roman Catholic Church and the
Orthodox. This is also a common understanding amongst other churches which allow
mutual eucharistic hospitality as the appropriate expression of partial communion.
A real degree of authentic communion is entailed from the common recognition
of baptism among separated churches. It follows that no Province or individual
bishop still less priest or lay person, can meaningfully declare themselves
to be categorically out of communion with another Province or bishop.
According to Eames no baptised believing Anglican can really be "out of
communion" with Canterbury whatever they did, for "no individual ...
priest or lay person can meaningfully declare themselves to be categorically
out of communion with another Province or bishop." So whatever REFORM (or
another group) decides to do - say, in securing the consecration of a parallel
episcopate, - they cannot be declared by the Anglican authorities as "out
of communion" with Canterbury or with existing Bishops. However, Eames
then goes on to concede "impaired" communion.
At the same time, integrity prompts the recognition that, at the level of
ecclesial communion, which has always included the mutual recognition and interchangeability
of ministries, there is an actual diminishment of the degree of communion [italics
mine] amongst the Provinces of the Anglican Communion. The Lambeth Conference
terminology of "impairment" may be used or other language such as
"restricted" or "incomplete" may be preferred. In either
case, communion is less full than it was.
That, of course, is true at a diocesan as well as at a Provincial level.
E) REFORM
The “reality”
So there is a distinction between viewing these matters juridically and viewing
them from the point of view of reality. Eames tried to do the latter.
The Eames Commission has decided that the only way forward is to start, so to
speak, from “reality”, and then work up towards the theory of the
law. Surely that is worth trying.
What is the reality at the moment in the Church of England? Many parishes and
many people are already in impaired communion with a number in senior positions.
In Newcastle (to speak of just one local situation) Jesmond Parish Church is;
so is St Oswald's, Walkergate and St Stephen's, Elswick. REFORM certainly is.
At a simple level many are already in impaired communion with certain Bishops
following the reports The Nature of Christian Belief and Issues in Human
Sexuality.
Nor do we have "interchangeability of ministries". De iure,
of course, there is "interchangeability" but there is no de facto
or "true" fellowship or koinonia with many in the Church of
England. I would not allow the former Bishop of Durham to preach in Jesmond
Parish Church. There was nothing personal. We simply judged him (now an assistant
bishop in Ripon) to be in grave error.
There are other diocesan, suffragan or assistant bishops (including Scottish
bishops) who REFORM members would not invite to preach in their churches for
doctrinal reasons. There is another assistant bishop of Ripon, Bishop Rawcliffe.
We have directly had to oppose him for openly advocating homosexual relationships.
I know of the great distress he caused to people in the diocese of Ripon. Nor
are they exhibiting an irrational “homophobia” but a rational
fear. They believe he is in error and is thus an inappropriate person to “confirm”
the faith of new Christians. The same goes with a number of dignitaries and,
of course, many of the other clergy. In the words of Eames, "integrity
prompts the recognition that, at the level of ecclesial communion, which has
always included the mutual recognition and interchangeability of ministries,
there is an actual diminishment of the degree of communion" amongst the
parishes and people in the Church of England.
And we must be committed to increasing that distance until there is change.
That goes back to Article XXVI. The last part says that discipline is required.
We cannot bring that discipline about juridically. Therefore there have to be
more informal ways.
We now have to go beyond recognising the facts. It appears the time has come
to make provision for the realities of the impaired koinonia that is
being experienced by many in the Church of England. Nor is it relevant how many
are experiencing this impairment. It would be important even if it were only
a few. Thousands, if the laity are taken into consideration will be involved.
But there are a few dioceses where the problems are pressing. Nor is it envisgaged
that all REFORM parishes and clergy will need help, but only where it is necessary
and desirable.
Parallel networks
The concerns of Hooker were for the establishment of a "sound visible Church".
That surely must be our concern. It is not our concern to establish the Church
mystical here on earth. But we need to develop, without initiating public
secession, parallel networks of congregations and ministries that are not
"out of communion" but with "restricted communion". This
will, of course, be in respect not of all but only of some other parts of the
Church of England. Situations will vary. Nor is this a "a church within
a church". Nor are such parallel networks new.
On the one hand there is the ecumenical experience. We cannot continue to live
as though the Act of Uniformity of 1662 is still relevant; that was a very long
time ago. Since then acts of toleration have meant that the visible Church in
England is made up of "assemblies" or "congregations" that
have parallel jurisdictions. There are Methodist, Catholic and Anglicans ministering
in the same geographical areas. Then on the other hand, and more importantly,
there are in reality parallel Anglican churches already ministering in the same
geographical areas. That is certainly true in Newcastle upon Tyne. The advent
of the motor car and urban mobility have made the parish, in many areas, very
insignificant in terms of community. The modern urban community is pluralistic.
There are many communities overlapping in one place. And these communities depend
not on where someone sleeps but on their various "networks of communication."
Anglican ministry takes place accordingly. And theological differences and convictions
help shape some of these networks.
We are not arguing that parallel jurisdictions (parallel parishes, parallel
episcopates) should necessarily last in parallel for ever, although were
some parallelism beneficial for evangelism, it should be encouraged. A reform
of the whole Church is our prayer and our hope. However, for the immediate future
we are just saying that to follow this way of solving problems is, in the words
of the Eames Commission, "a necessary and strictly extraordinary anomaly"
but it would be "in preference to schism."
Nor is parallel jurisdiction necessarily "schism". There is no schism
on Continental Europe where there are Church of England and ECUSA overlapping
episcopal jurisdictions. Some may wish this was otherwise. But they are not
speaking for the bulk of the faithful who would reckon that if there are lively
US episcopal churches on the Continent and lively English churches, that is
good. There is certainly no evidence of schism (if words mean anything) on Continental
Europe.
Of course there will be those who disapprove of these initiatives. Conflict
is inevitable. But reforming the Church will never be easy. The status quo
is always an easier option. As in previous history, those in the visible corrupt
Church will never be pleased with either the views or the proposals of those
wanting a more "sound Church" - (not a perfect church but merely a
less corrupt church). Therefore, I submit that the Anglican way forward, in
the words of Eames, is for some of us to have "freedom and space"
to develop new ways of doing ministry in England and to see if God is leading.
The words of Gamaliel are relevant to our proposals:
Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of
human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop
these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.
Again to quote Eames, there needs to be a "continuing and dynamic process
of reception" where there is "freedom and space ... available until
a consensus of opinion one way or other has been achieved."
This is not to say that everyone else who cannot follow this course of action
is wrong. No one should judge others. It is just that many now in the Church
of England in conscience have to take some action.
The proposals
But what then are we proposing?
The starting point is Canon C17.2. This imposes a duty on the Archbishops of
Canterbury and York to "supply the defects of other bishops".
At present there are "other bishops" that are defective doctrinally
and so in their pastoral oversight. Many bishops, of course, are hard working
and well meaning. But given modern synodical centralism, even REFORM members
appointed as diocesan bishops might be hard pressed to provide what is needed.
And at best they would only benefit their own diocese; at worst they too could
be defective. The current episcopal structure and system is calculated to destroy
or undermine even the best of people. That is why the reports on the Nature
of Christian Belief and Issues of Human Sexuality are only what we must
expect - both ambiguous, all-embracing statements that by definition validate
heretical positions. We should not be surprised. But they mean that for a number
there is impaired communion with the "House of Bishops" as such, if
it is viewed as an abstract "college". Hence the need for fundamental
reform.
A remark was made about Something to Celebrate, the report from the General
Synod that appeared to bless “alternative families” (which also was
under an episcopal signature). It was this: when most of a cup consists of 95
percent good coffee but there is a teaspoonful of strychnine added, the whole
cup has to be thrown away. That illustration can be applied to the current episcopate
viewed in a juridical way and as a synodical entity. Not everything or indeed
most of what our episcopal leaders as individuals do is wrong or bad;
far from it. But there are now elements of "strychnine" that are poisoning
the body of Christ. We can no longer risk the hazards. We submit that there
are "defects" that the Archbishops, under Canon, must supply.
On that basis under Canon C17.4 we need to ask the Archbishops of Canterbury
and York to "confirm the election" to the episcopate of appropriately
elected men committed to Canon A5, interpreted in a common sense way as outlined
in the REFORM covenant. This would result in a situation not unlike that currently
existing with religious orders where there is already alternative oversight.
The jurisdiction of these "bishops" should extend throughout England
where congregations opted for them. There would thus be “opted out”
parishes. These would be those REFORM parishes and clergy (and perhaps some
others not committed to REFORM) that saw alternative oversight as necessary
and desirable.
In practical terms something like the following would probably be necessary.
There would need to be a light-touch management structure, which possibly could
be exercised by a body like the Church Pastoral Aid Society (CPAS) or a new
REFORM charity. Churches and clergy requesting alternative pastoral oversight
from such a bishop from then on would not receive their current diocese's augmentation
for stipend or, if the clergy were not incumbents, the current stipend from
the diocese. Annual contributions to the Church Commissioners’ pension
fund would have to be paid by the parishes at the pro rata rate for charities.
However, equity would suggest that a contribution, by some mechanism, should
be received from the Church Commissioners towards the stipends of “opted
out” clergy. This would be pro rata with the diocesan or national stipend
augmentation - that is, while regular dioceses still received Church Commissioners’
subsidies.
The functions of the local diocesan parsonage board in respect of “opted
out” parsonage houses could be transferred (in time) to another competent
body acting as "a REFORM parsonage board". Local congregations would
be encouraged to be more responsible for their own parsonage houses, but subject
to proper standards and quinquennials. In time, legal arrangements also could
be in place for any necessary transfer of properties and the inspection of Churches.
If necessary, local planning law probably could be used instead of the Faculty
Jurisdiction Measure to ensure responsible building alteration and development
during interim arrangements. (The Hindu temple in Neasden and the Regent’s
Park Mosque do not come under the Faculty Jurisdiction Measure.) It is not supposed
that such new arrangements would be agreed or legislated for easily. But with
goodwill, some from REFORM, together with a law officer of the General Synod,
could suggest draft proposals.
Any training initiated under these new arrangements would be funded independently
of the finances of ABM or its successor; naturally those subsequently ordained
would not qualify for diocesan augmentation unless they were licensed or instituted
by a "regular diocesan" bishop to "regular" parishes. Existing
patronage would remain, except that where the diocesan bishop was patron of
an "opted out" church, the alternative bishop should act in his place
(patrons of non-opted out parishes would of course still be free to invite clergy
from "opted out" parishes to consider their livings). There would
be some loose ends. But with the diocese having no financial responsibility
for the parish, parson or parsonage, responsibility for institution and induction
surely could be transferred. New churches would be planted where appropriate.
It goes without saying, that there would be no further “diocesan quotas”
to pay. Local congregations would be encouraged to be self-supporting. There
would need to be a REFORM “pastoral aid” charity to receive gifts
to help genuinely needy churches and for training purposes.
However, all such practical arrangements are secondary. Christian common sense
can solve practical problems. The principles are what matter. Once principles
are established, then the church's law needs to ensure its "true function"
which in the words of Sir John Owen, the Dean of the Arches and Auditor of the
Chancery Court of York, "is to provide the oil" for the efficient
running of the church, "rather than the grit which will inevitably produce
concern and may even cause a breakdown."
A "dual" system
What is envisaged is a "dual" element in the Church of England with
the new "alternative" element still, of course, in communion with
Canterbury (and York). It would parallel in many ways the recent arrangement
of "opting out" for schools to be grant maintained in our educational
system. This was to enable schools, among other things, themselves to control
their own budgets, be their own employers and determine matters with regard
to their own ethos and property, subject to standards set by the Department
for Education and Science. It was to free them from the bureaucracy and sometimes
ideology of Local Education Authorities. (Interestingly at the same time there
has been a profound effect on the entire system, generating a structural reform
in education such that all schools now, even under New Labour arrangements,
are more in control of their fate and fortune and so more responsible, and more
responsive to needs.) But grant maintained schools (now "foundation"
schools) are not independent of the whole system. They are not "independent"
schools. They are still part of the whole and have benefited the whole by the
challenge they have presented.
If the Archbishop of Canterbury or York "confirmed the elections",
the appropriate Archbishop should then be invited to consecrate the candidate
in the parish church with which the candidate was associated. If the Archbishop
could not confirm the elections, consecration should be sought abroad in other
Anglican Provinces.
It would be entirely possible for the new bishops to be missionary bishops from
those Provinces or Dioceses. No doubt there are other possibilities. Subsequent
ordinations by such men in England would be regular or irregular depending on
the good will of the local English bishop. These new "alternative"
bishops could relate to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York as overseas bishops
already relate to them. Yes, it would no doubt be anomalous, but not impossible.
These would then be bishops of the Anglican Communion. They would be in communion
with Canterbury through their overseas Province.
Since the 1998 Lambeth Conference there are already new moves afoot. In the
diocese of Pittsburgh the Anglican Bishop, Bishop Robert Duncan, has given his
blessing to a congregation in Pittsburgh to come under the oversight of a Ugandan
Anglican bishop, Bishop Turumanya of the diocese of Bunyaro-Kitara. This is
described as a "missionary relationship". The African Bishop has written:
"I am sure that we can establish a history-making arrangement between Christ
Church and Bunyaro-Kitara, one that may point the way for other churches to
remain within the worldwide Anglican fellowship without compromising their biblical
beliefs." The Bishop of Pittsburgh does not believe this is without precedent.
He noted that when the Episcopal Church abolished parish boundaries 60 years
ago, many people predicted chaos. But today, he said, "people seem to be
better served by being in the congregation that better feeds them spiritually,
not just the church that happens to be in their neighbourhood." He added
that jets may do to diocesan boundaries what automobiles did to parish boundaries.
"There are dangers in it. But what we have chosen to do here is to attempt
to be kingdom builders and not to be as concerned about which bishop is in charge.
If I can't support a congregation, but there is another bishop who can, why
wouldn't I give them a bishop who can bless them?" Once there are a number
of congregations "under" African oversight, it is a short and reasonable
step for there to be an extra-territorial bishop (or misssionary bishop) helping
those congregations residing not in Africa but the USA.
And there are already parallel "cultural" jurisdictions in the Anglican
Communion, for example, in the diocese of Aotearoa in New Zealand, the Order
of Ethiopia in Southern Africa, and the Navajo land Area Mission in the USA.
In Europe the two Iberian Churches are extra provincial to Canterbury, while
the [English] diocese in Europe is organised quite separately as a diocese "within"
the Province of Canterbury.
The 21st century
We must be ready under God for the 21st century. The role of the denominations
(world-wide and in England) is diminishing. Current leaders of denominations
often were "formed" in their thinking at the time when denominations
were at their most influential (the 50s and 60s). Such leaders' mind-set is,
therefore, too frequently conditioned by what the denominations "used to
be like". Then they were great, significant and supportive of the life
and work of the churches. Now they have changed into merely regulatory agencies
organising pensions and telling the churches what they can and cannot do.
Mature adults, especially mature younger adults, do not take kindly to bureaucrats
from a distance giving them orders at the same time as they ask for their money.
Since the church, in organisational terms, is a voluntary non-profit organisation
and since the laity are not under legal obligations, the omens for the survival
of the bureaucratic centre of the visible Church are not good. That is why,
to the younger generation, denominations are more and more irrelevant.
And that is why we need to be prepared and as flexible as possible to meet the
challenges of the 21st century. We need to encourage the setting up of larger
biblical churches in all our metropolitan areas that are truly regional churches.
We need to encourage the growth of middle sized and small churches. The goal
is that our nation, so desperately in need of spiritual direction, should hear
the good news of Jesus Christ in fresh ways without altering the fundamental
message. But we are not wanting to be “independents”. We are wanting
to be in full fellowship or koinonia with others committed to the faith
of our Anglican forefathers - the great Reformers, the Evangelical leaders of
the 18th century, Simeon, Ryle and many who are faithfully working away in the
parishes of England today. And that is the reformed Western Catholic tradition.
It is not Gnostic. It is not sectarian. We are committed to this tradition as
we believe it reflects more faithfully than others the teaching of the Bible
and therefore of Jesus himself. Where it is shown to be unfaithful, we seek
to reform it. A light-touch alternative episcopal oversight with an appropriate
network would be a focus for us of that fellowship and mutual dependency. At
the same time it might, under God, be a prophetic challenge to some outside
that network in the wider church. Also, we submit, in this way the parishes
would be taking back real responsibility for the Church of England.
Much of this may seem radical; but it is simply a trade-off. It is a trade-off
from the decision, endorsed in the Church of England for 30 years by the House
of Bishops and the church at large, that undisciplined doctrinal and moral comprehensiveness
is a primary value.
Every thing has its price.
*************
Appendix
The above paper, in a first draft, went out at the 1996 REFORM Conference.
After two years consideration many members were asking for action. The following
is the speech and proposal from David Holloway at the 1998 REFORM Conference.
The proposal was endorsed by the Conference at the Open Session on Thursday
15 October 1998.
"The Reform covenant refers in clause e) to:
the need radically to reform the present shape of episcopacy.
At the March 1996 conference, now two and a half years ago, we passed a motion
that:
The council should continue to ask both Archbishops to secure at least 3
evangelical bishops who will minister to our whole constituency in accordance
with biblical and reformed standards.
We had another motion that referred to, I quote:
the process of our commitment to the reform of the episcopate.
Nothing happened in terms of the Archbishops appointing at least 3 evangelical
bishops to minister to our whole constituency.
At Christmas - December 1996 - the issue was taken up in the light of the fact
that nothing seemed possible from the Archbishops - who to be fair on them have
to act not as George Carey and David Hope but in their Archiepiscopal office.
After much discussion and a thrashing out of views and very careful attention
to the precise wording, a statement was agreed by the Council that covered many
issues - as a mid-term statement - but especially in response to the motion
of the March national conference. All Reform members received this statement.
Let me remind you of what was said:
[At one point it referred to the gay celebration at Southwark and then said]
Along with other serious issues of faith and morality this has led to an increasing
loss of confidence in some of the bishops.
And it then went on:
Our national conference mandated us to secure the reform of the episcopate.
This also relates to the recruitment and training of men for the ministry. In
our tradition bishops are involved in selection, training and deployment.
And after some other comments it then went on to say - and this is important:
That is why we now see the need for an episcopal oversight that holds to
historic biblical faith and morality. And that is why the following three strategies
are being planned to help where necessary and when requested [not everywhere
but "where necessary" and not always but only "when requested"
by parishes] ... [so - the following three strategies are being planned to help
where necessary and when requested]:
1. the employment where necessary, desirable and possible, of retired or other
godly bishops in good standing with the church.
2. the employment where necessary, desirable and possible, of the PEV's ("flying
bishops") already consecrated or a future evangelical PEV, as already requested.
3. [and this is now important - and this was decided two years ago] the election
and consecration, after due process, of bishops from the Reform constituency
who can be employed where necessary and desirable.
All three of these strategies are our brief. In Newcastle we have employed strategy
1 over the past year. But that, as Ed Moll explained this afternoon, has only
solved one problem. It hasn't resolved the problem of alternative oversight.
At best strategy 1 is ambulance action.
Strategy 2 can be used for those parishes that vote Resolution C; but it cannot
be used by a parish that while against the ordination of women will not go "ballistic"
at that point, but draws the line at a bishop endorsing gay sex. That is why
Strategy 3 is necessary.
I believe that the Steering Committee now needs to bring forward specific proposals
in respect of "the election and consecration, after due process, of bishops
from the Reform constituency who can be employed where necessary and desirable"
- which is what the Council have told the constituency it is already planning.
It is planning that - but so far it has just been talk. If Reform is to have
credibility with its membership and especially the younger membership something
now must be done. And so the steering committee should bring forward proposals
to the December Residential Council.
No, it won't happen over night. Clearly there has to be an electoral process.
But it would be perfectly possible for someone like a retired clergyman who
had time on his hands and who was widely respected and thus was a focus of unity
but had great teaching gifts as evidenced on the platforms of all sorts of conventions
- I am not going to mention any specific names - but such a man could, for example,
be proposed for consecration by three bishops in the historic succession. This
would be irregular, but it would be pastorally helpful for those of us who need
alternative oversight. Others would not need his ministrations. Of course, it
would be perfectly possible that while this course of action was being pursued,
the Church of England's episcopate might prefer to seek to find a way of "regularizing"
what was planned. That decision would be theirs not ours. As T S Eliot said:
For us there is only the trying: the rest is not our business.
Eames said this in his report:
in the continuing and dynamic process of reception freedom and space must
be available until a consensus of opinion one way or other has been achieved.
All we need is that freedom and space.
We do not choose to leave the Church of England as by law established. But once
bishops break the law by defying Canon C 18.1, and once we have decided that
we are not going to engage in court action over doctrinal matters - something
else must be done."
[This proposal had the assent of a clear majority of the meeting. On that basis
it was followed up at the Steering Committee on 3 November 1998. The Steering
Committee now has specific proposals for the residential Council meeting on
10-11 December 1998]
*************
7 March 1996 (revised 23 November 1998) David Holloway
David Holloway is vicar of Jesmond, Newcastle upon Tyne
This paper may be freely photocopied