A bishop said something significant at General Synod last week. I promise you. Something that might even herald a new era of straight-talking, from which revival might spring. We’ll get to this surprising utterance shortly.
First, less surprisingly, the Archbishop of York opened proceedings with a predictable pudding of pious evasion. Unity is a sacred thing, and so the disunity of Christians is an unholy scandal, he said, quoting Pope Francis to this effect. This sounds like harmless ecumenical piety, but in the context it is pretty unhelpful. In fact it’s defeatist. In effect, he was saying that the Church of England is in the position of global Christianity. Its unity is not to be expected before Christ’s return.
The context is this. The Church of England has drifted into an Orwellian relationship with the concept of unity. Maybe next year the bishops will unveil the magic principle that can save the tradition: ‘Separation is Unity!’
To the outsider, the Church’s problem is that it’s divided over sexuality. But the problem goes deeper: it has lost the will to unity. Another institution such as a political party might split over an issue, but it will come to a decision, due to its will to remain a credible political force. It will do so by any means necessary – if its internal constitution is blocking reform, it must be changed. The Church has convinced itself that there is something nobly Christian about staying divided.
One problem is the Anglican Communion. The Church of England feels that it must remain in communion with all the different churches of the Communion – even at the cost of its own division. This smells like a suffering Messiah complex. Other churches might need to reach a decision on contentious issues, but we are different, special, we are willing to be crucified for the good of all.
An even bigger problem is that the Church has diluted the authority of its bishops. Thirty years ago it decided to ordain women as priests, then became worried that the robust implementation of this policy would be a nasty worldly thing to do. So it allowed the traditionalists to stay, with their own bishops. This was defended on the grounds of avoiding a split, of course, but also on the grounds of preserving unity with other churches, especially the Catholic Church. Ten years ago, when it voted for women bishops, it decided to renew the fix, set it in stone.
And so the Church is programmed to address the crisis over homosexuality in the same way: to reassure the evangelicals that their conservatism is fully accepted. If they say they need ‘differentiation’ in the form of their own bishops, precedent makes it hard to refuse.
Who needs a recap? In February, Synod approved blessings for gay couples, and the bishops suggested that the texts would be published in the summer, along with ‘pastoral guidance’ on homosexuality – which liberals hope will lift the ban on actively gay clergy. Now November is the due date for both.
The evangelicals are crying foul, with some reason. In effect the blessings open the door to an approval of gay marriage, and the pastoral guidance is likely to mark a major shift on sexuality. And yet the matter was not voted on as a matter of doctrine – which would have required two-thirds majorities in all three houses of Synod, rather than simple majorities. The bishops seem to be trying to introduce major change on the sly, amid a barrage of warm words about listening and walking together, most of them dispensed by the former chief nurse, Sarah Mulally, bishop of London.
And a third pronouncement is promised for November: on the extent to which dissenters will be allowed their own structures, an issue dubbed ‘pastoral reassurance’. Perhaps this is the most important issue. If the evangelicals are granted their own bishops, it is hard to see what is left of the Church’s unity or authority. The existing form of ‘alternative episcopal oversight’ is at least limited in size. A very small proportion of parishes is opposed to female clergy; the issue is semi-ignorable. Far more would join a dissenting network over homosexuality, including many of the largest and richest.
Might the bishops come up with a compromise that staves off such a crisis? It’s narrowly possible: the pastoral guidance might rule out gay marriage for clergy, and that might be enough of a sop, but it would surely be temporary. Alternatively, might they back down, agreeing that such reform is indeed a doctrinal matter that needs the full backing of Synod? The admission of impotence would be disastrous.
Some insiders feel that a drift to further episcopal disunity is highly likely
Some insiders feel that a drift to further episcopal disunity is highly likely. Welby is determined to get something through before he retires, says one, and anything that looks like progress will do, whatever complications it brings. But others feel that there’s real reluctance among the bishops to take this course. Especially among the female bishops, more aware of the downside of episcopal disunity.
Which brings us to that significant episcopal utterance that I promised you. It came from Rose Hudson-Wilkins, the bishop of Dover. She was responding to the bishop of Guildford, Andrew Watson, who is in charge of the working group on ‘pastoral reassurance’. He indicated that a separate episcopal structure for evangelicals was very much on the table, and might be the only way forward. When she rose to speak, the bishop of Dover declared herself angry. ‘I find it difficult to hear my brothers and sisters speaking so glibly, as if it’s normal, that we’re going have to have differentiation again, as we did with women bishops. Actually, the women bishops thing ain’t working, and we’re paying the price for it.’ That blunt ‘ain’t’ changed the atmosphere in the chamber.
Anglican clergy are not meant to say this, let alone bishops. When women bishops were introduced, everyone had to promise not to speak against the awkward fix. There are explicit rules about it, called the Five Guiding Principles. Enough, the bishop of Dover was saying. Enough of this assumption that disunity is our destiny. There’s no point in having a church that drifts into new divisions, as if it’s noble, or at least inevitable. We must seek unity, not managed division. We must seek unity, come what may. Her angry speech could be a turning-point.
Comments