St Helen's Bishopsgate, asking questions, and the danger of metaphors

A recent comment piece in Evangelicals Now suggested that while questions are 'generally good', 'we would be wise to be careful before rushing to critique St Helen’s [Bishopsgate] for their recent Commissioning Service' of lay leaders for roles that will involve Bible teaching and informal sacramental ministry.

Three metaphors were used to justify silencing those who have raised such questions: the confused picture a flotilla of boats can give when tacking; the danger of friendly fire; and the need to break eggs when making an omelette.

Now, it is true that any metaphor will break down when pushed too hard, but it is perhaps worth examining each in turn, to decide whether silence is necessary.

The first related to a flotilla of boats moving along a river, suggesting that despite heading for the same place, some may appear to the untrained eye to be moving in different directions. Thus, the boats represent the different churches and approaches in the Church of England – each will tack at a different time – and although it may look chaotic, if you are ‘in the know’ you will recognise that all is well.

In fact, as experienced sailor, and blogger, Thomas Creedy, has said, for those who do understand the way boats move this metaphor raises more questions than it answers:

'The danger of this metaphor of a racing flotilla/fleet is that each boat is encountering different conditions by definition (indeed, the boats at the back of the fleet are in a worse position upwind, because the boats upwind cast a "wind shadow", making it harder for those at the back to get to the front – perhaps an analogy could be that St Helen’s has done what it has done, but now that they’ve done it, they may make things harder for some other "boats" with less resource, and less able crew)'

If it is true that the actions of St Helen’s will make it harder for smaller churches, then questions surely need to be asked about the wisdom of their actions? What happens if evangelicals who wish to be ordained in the Church of England find their path to ordination blocked, because dioceses now fear that having had their training paid for, they too will opt out of a normal curacy and instead be ‘commissioned’ to work in a church which can afford to pay them directly? What happens if this causes the number of ordained evangelicals in the Church of England to fall? Where will smaller churches, who are dependent on the diocese for part of the stipend find their next minister? What happens if the bishops interpret ‘informal sacramental ministry’ as ‘lay presidency,’ something that would break the canons of the Church of England? What if this discourages the bishops from offering evangelicals greater ‘structural provision’ for fear that evangelical bishops will allow such breaches to become commonplace?

The second metaphor inferred that any critique of St Helen’s, including asking questions like those above, amounts to “friendly fire”, which might “damage the shared purpose of those contending within the C of E.” How can this be? If the answers to the questions that have been raised about the commissioning service are uncontroversial, then the questions only offer the opportunity for clarification, so disagreement or division among those contending will be avoided. If, on the other hand, the answers reveal that the original action was more controversial than first thought, then it is hard to understand why anyone would think that it is those who asked the questions who caused the division.

The final metaphor, used by the Evangelicals Now commentator, was the age-old idea that ‘You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs,’ and readers were encouraged to ‘let more eggs be broken’.

The use of this metaphor assumes that radical acts, like that of St Helen’s, will force the bishops to see all the broken eggs and decide to use them to create a ‘structured provision omelette’, that better suits the taste of evangelicals. CEEC have been clear that the bishops’ plan for delegated episcopal oversight (being offered an extra bishop) is not sufficient – and they are looking for something akin to transferred episcopal oversight (when a parish swaps their unorthodox diocesan bishop for an orthodox one).

This may sound simple, but eggs were broken in America, Canada, Brazil and Australia, and requests for similar omelettes were made in Wales, Scotland and New Zealand, and yet, in every case, no omelette has appeared. History relates that not one House of Bishops, anywhere in the Anglican Communion, have agreed to create the kind of structure that St Helen’s are calling for.

While it is true that you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs, it is not true that breaking eggs will make an omelette, particularly when you are dependent on someone else to take the broken eggs and follow your recipe. The reality is that breaking eggs can just create an enormous mess.

So, before any more boats are floated, bullets are fired or eggs are broken, perhaps it would be helpful if there was a little more transparency amongst evangelical leaders. If people are being asked to follow the example of St Helen’s, Bishopsgate, they deserve to know what they getting involved with.

Thomas Creedy suggested that rather than using the ‘flotilla’ analogy, it might be better to think of evangelical Anglicans as the crew on a large boat – each playing a different role as they work together to get the boat over the line. Under such circumstances, he says, criticism, or ‘coaching’, is both helpful and necessary, as it is in the church:

'I think that it can be very easy to say something is beyond criticism, but the danger is that this becomes "trust us", in a similar dynamic to how the Church of England Bishops have been saying "trust us", without deserving that trust. We need to be able to ask questions, perhaps especially uncomfortable questions, otherwise we will fall (back) into some unhelpful and unhealthy cultures.'