We need to be so careful when discussing the Church of England.
We live in an era of social media where too often facts are replaced by assertions and accusations, even in Christian circles. And assertions and accusations – if repeated – can then be assumed to be true, even when not. Here are some statements I believe to be true.
1. The CofE’s aim of ‘mutual flourishing’ for those on both sides of the debate about women bishops is not really working at the moment. Since the legislation on women bishops, 14 women have been appointed as bishops, and two suffragan bishops who do not ordain women have been announced, but no diocesan bishops who are comple-mentarians have been installed. That said, I understand two conservative evangelicals are in the ‘leadership pool’ from which many, if not all, bishops are picked.
2. The CofE has not changed its stance on sexuality. Rod Thomas wrote recently: ‘Despite the ways some seek to change church doctrine by pressing what is permissible to the limit, the fact remains that the current doctrine and liturgy of the Church is entirely orthodox. This means we can continue to operate with integrity – and there is much to encourage parish congregations as they do so.’ That said, the 2014 House of Bishops ‘pastoral guidance’ on same-sex marriage – even if only guidance – states in relation to married same-sex couples that ‘neither they nor any children they care for should be denied access to the sacraments’.
Tolerating heresy?
Here, by contrast, are two assertions:
1. ‘All the parachurch organisations that represent conservatives in the CofE now commend some form of tolerating the CofE’s heresies.’ This statement (published in September en) is an assertion. It’s a big thing to accuse the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC), Church Society and ReNew of commending the tolerance of heresy! But I am not aware of a single fact to back up the assertion. It is just an assertion.
2. In the same article it is suggested that Anglican evangelical ‘leaders, organisations and churches are frightened even to debate the issues impartially’. It stated that three times, when the writer was due to engage in a debate, others pulled out. But the writer has confused people not debating with him with there being no debate at all.
In fact, discussion goes on all the time – in diocesan ReNew groups and evangelical fellowships, in the councils of evangelical organisations, etc. There was a Church Society/Fellowship of Word and Spirit study day in May, with open discussion on secession. Rod Thomas, Lee Gatiss and Andy Lines were present. CEEC discussion this year resulted in a paper, ‘Gospel, Church and Marriage’, and further work is underway.
Moreover, the assertion that evangelicals are ‘frightened’ because they fear losing a ‘remuneration package’ of about £65,000 is surprising: there’s no evidence anyone is ‘frightened’ like that, and the £65k figure, however calculated, will surprise clergy like me whose stipend was £21,549 last year. Yes, we get pension contributions and NI paid, and live in a vicarage rent-free, but two of the three houses I’ve had have been poorly maintained and the third we’ve shared with rats. When I started, an Archdeacon warned me to expect ‘genteel poverty’ in retirement.
There is a kernel of truth in the en article containing these assertions. The writer is 100% right that ‘we are less well prepared for future events than we could be’. But we’ll all be better equipped to undertake the planning he quite rightly encourages if we focus on facts – not assertions.
