Conclusion to Chapter 3.
As this paper has argued thus far, the next step in the LLF process must be to set it on a proper theological and canonical footing, so as to discern the mind of the Church and the promptings of the Holy Spirit (we pray) through that discernment. Returning to the First Council of Nicaea in this its 1700th anniversary year, both Creed and Canons remain essential for maintaining the truth, unity and discipline of the Church.
The recently mooted idea that the liturgy surrounding a proposed ‘Festival of God the Creator’ should go through the full B2 process whilst the most controversial and divisive liturgy in a generation (or more) should bypass it, highlights the point more starkly, and is extremely hard to defend. There are also severe governance issues surrounding the idea that a thin majority in Synod can simply decide that the ‘mind of the Church’ should be similarly bypassed, against all canonical precedent in matters of this seriousness.
Adopting Canon B2 as the way ahead will next lead to a proper discussion about where we go from here: whether we pause at the place we have reached, with commended Prayers of Love and Faith but no further developments for the time being; whether we find sufficient agreement to inch our way forward; or whether we need to work towards a creative settlement, with the House and College of Bishops holding the tension of that development within their shared, if impaired, life together. Whatever option we come up with here, of course, will need to be deeply bathed in prayer and the most careful pastoral handling in matters which touch our human experience quite so deeply and personally. It will also need to recognise that these are issues we have debated for decades, giving us a realism about their significance and sensitivity.
Should we opt for the settlement approach, discussions will then need to take place as to the nature and cost of what is envisaged but will do so on the basis of a new realism, given the need for a negotiated solution not an imposed one. This paper is not the place to suggest just where those conversations might lead, except to point out that the Church of England has a long history of responding to deep division, and needs to learn from that history – both the times when the Church has failed to accommodate the needs of the substantial minority (as with the tragic departure of the Methodist movement in the 1790s) and the times when she has largely succeeded in doing so.
There is much that we take for granted about some of the accommodations that have previously been made to resolve the difficulties or tensions of the past, given that many are deeply rooted in our history as a Church. We are used to the idea, for example, of having two provinces within the Church of England, linked by a joint legislative body, and even to the idea of two Anglican provinces covering the same region, as with the Diocese in Europe. We are accustomed to royal peculiars and monastic communities with episcopal visitors, who may or may not be bishops within the diocese in which the community is placed. We take for granted that area and suffragan bishops share substantially in the episcope of the Diocesan: indeed, the institution of suffragan bishops in the Church of England reaches right back to the Suffragan Bishops Act of 1534 and belongs to a tradition much older than that. And we are used to societies and networks within the Church, both formal and informal, 21 and to the idea that bishops might belong to them alongside their broader diocesan duties.
Other provinces within the Anglican Communion have developed their flexibility further. The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, for example, has created a three-person primacy based on different cultural streams – though their radicalism fell short of using that model to help resolve their sexuality debate, so resulting in the loss of some of their most youthful and energetic congregations. Meanwhile discussions surrounding the ordination of women to the episcopate led to the Church of England adopting similarly radical measures, on grounds that are well-articulated in GS Misc. 1406: to quote from that paragraph:
‘In papers leading up to the settlement over the ordination of women as bishops, it was openly admitted that what was being proposed had less ecclesiological coherence than more consistent (and stark) alternatives… Introducing impaired communion into the episcopate would undermine, to a degree at least, episcopal collegiality and thereby compromise a basic tenet of Anglican (catholic) ecclesiology. Similarly, parishes’ ability to petition for and receive extended episcopal oversight at least qualifies the historic understanding of monoepiscopacy and the identity of the geographical diocese. These ecclesiological anomalies could only be avoided however either by not admitting women into episcopal orders of by de facto expelling traditionalists; and both of those alternatives were considered intolerable by majorities in the House of Bishops and Synod as a whole’. 7 Chapter 3 Living in Love and Faith: Discerning the Mind of the Church 22
Each of these precedents has its areas of complexity and sacrifice, and this paper (I repeat) is not designed to prejudge the outcome of any settlement agreement – though I, for one, would wish to explore the idea of ‘three spaces’ further, which emerged from the Leicester working groups but was never properly fleshed out. Should the Church decide that a settlement is the right way to proceed, though, it should first be agreed:
- That clarity will be essential to any final proposal, especially in areas such as safeguarding and finance.
- That any arrangement will need to be secured with proper legal backing, given the trust deficit and its impact on vocations in particular, rather than being either discretionary or temporary.
- That any discussion ‘must proceed from the basis of acknowledging and accepting that, for a large proportion of those who disagree, the disagreement is of first- or second-order significance’ 8 , and
- That every effort should be made towards ‘cultivating unity as far as possible, enabling as many as possible to stay within the Church of England, and equipping the Church’s mission to the nation’ 9 – even if that requires further ‘ecclesiological anomalies’ along the way. 23
Finally, those who have argued for Canon B2 have regularly been accused of wanting to sabotage LLF or kick it into the long grass – and there will be some for whom that is true. But for many, the motivation is not sabotage but an essential reset, in line with Jesus’ parable in Luke 14:28-30:
‘For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not first sit down and estimate the cost, to see whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it will begin to ridicule him, saying, “This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.”’
It seems to many, at least, that this is where the LLF process has gone wrong: that skirting around our commitment to discern the mind of the Church has not provided us with any real attempt to plan together and estimate both the scale and the cost of whatever is decided before the foundations are laid and the building built. And the danger of simply pursuing the same course regardless is precisely laid out in the parable, as the tower proves an eyesore (from whichever angle you look at it), and the result is widespread ridicule. It may take a little more time to do this properly: but how essential that we do so, especially given that the task in hand is not so much the building of a tower but rather a tending to the wellbeing of the Body of Christ.
Living in Love and Faith: Discerning the Mind of the Church.