If 40% or less of the Church of England’s governing body identify as orthodox, is that really a cause for celebration?
by Julian Mann and Andrew Symes, Anglican Mainstream:
Rev Peter Ould’s rather complacent take on the theological orthodoxy of the new General Synod includes too many unknowns.
Writing on the Psephizo blog run by re-elected Synod member, Dr Ian Paul, Rev Ould declares on the basis of his analysis of candidates’ election addresses that 40 per cent of the House of Clergy are orthodox and would oppose a new service of blessing for same-sex couples; 42 per cent are revisionist and would favour it; but the view of 17 per cent (34 members) is unknown.
On the House of Laity he pronounces 37 per cent orthodox, 35 per cent revisionist and 28 per cent (55 members) unknown.
This large number of unknowns surely throws into question his optimistic conclusion:
‘There has been a small but significant stream of orthodox clergy who have left the Church of England over the past few years, bemoaning the liberal drift and arguing that innovations like same-sex blessings are a foregone conclusion. The election results prove such a position to be incorrect.
‘The results show us that there is still a substantial orthodox presence in the Church of England that has to be taken into account by the bishops, not just as a small minority (like in Wales or Scotland) but as a significant and influential group – and a group that arguably keeps the church afloat financially in many dioceses.’
On Rev Ould’s Synod membership figures, which do not seem to include co-opted members, if just 15 of the unknown clergy supported a new same-sex blessing service, that would make half of the clergy in favour; 30 of the unknowns among the laity would have the same effect.
That would not provide a two-thirds majority for the change but it would register significant support and surely create strong momentum.
Orthodox think tank Anglican Futures has predicted that the Bishops will produce a same-sex blessing service in 2023 without a Synod vote.
But such episcopal high-handedness could lead to a bizarre alliance between revisionist and orthodox Synod members in backing a private member’s motion to force a debate followed by a vote on the new service. This might not result in two-thirds support for the change, but more than 50 per cent in the Houses of Clergy and Laity would make it virtually impossible for the orthodox to get the Bishops to withdraw the service.
It would therefore be a risky strategy for the orthodox to back such a private member’s motion but at least they would get a debate.
There are three factors that Rev Ould does not seem to take into account.
Firstly, he assumes that a church which offers the ecclesiastical equivalent of a “hung Parliament”, is the best possible result for theologically orthodox Anglicans. If the current situation doesn’t change, we’ll see constant see-sawing between what Bishop Michael Nazir Ali has called ‘conflicting interpretations of Christianity’.
Complete capitulation to liberalism may be blocked for the next few years, but there will be no clear direction in terms of a definitive account of the truth for church and society. Phil Ashey’s description of ‘a communion that is fully confessional and fully conciliar led by those who are determined to be a voice for biblical faithfulness within the larger Anglican Communion’, ie Gafcon, is surely preferable.
Secondly, Rev Ould ignores the very real threats of secular culture. This subtly shapes the views of many who would currently call themselves ‘orthodox’. It acts more overtly using the instruments of state to control Christian belief and practice – for example in proposals about ‘conversion therapy’, in promotion of anti-Christian beliefs in education curricula, and in harassment of public preachers. Is General Synod really such a bubble as to be immune from this?
Thirdly, there is the impact of determined revisionist leaders over time. The Bishop of Dover, Rose Hudson-Wilkin, is clearly the front-runner to be new Archbishop of Canterbury after Justin Welby. She seems to be as articulate and administratively capable as any of the current Bishops and is probably more strong-minded. She was a very popular chaplain to the Speaker of the politically-correct House of Commons.
As the sole black woman in the House of Bishops, she would meet the aspiration for greater diversity which the recent report by the CofE’s Governance Review Group, commissioned by the Archbishops, has set for the leadership of the Church.
She and the Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, would form a powerful alliance for the revisionist stance.
It is difficult to see how they would not eventually get their way in the 2026-2031 General Synod term, if not in the current one.
Julian Mann is a former Church of England vicar, now an evangelical journalist based in Morecambe, Lancashire.
Andrew Symes is the editor of Anglican Mainstream.
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
