Forgive the headline writers

I'm not sure that it was a good use of my time but, for my sins, I did it. I binge-watched all of the Church of England's parliament's (General Synod) two days of debate about safeguarding on Wednesday, which were summed up in media headlines in the BBC and for example the Guardian as "C of E votes against full independence for safeguarding against expert advice". 

This inevitably does not, nor could it represent, the careful and conscientious discussion of all the issues which actually took place in the debates. I noticed a number of points: one was the intense and prolonged silence that followed the relaying of comments by survivors of the abuse of John Smyth - which indicated for me the genuine engagement of the listeners with their suffering. The second was that the Charity Commission had raised problems with churches outsourcing safeguarding because trustees may not delegate their trustee responsibilities. The third was, I believe, that legal snags had been raised by the law firm, Veale Wasbrough Vizards (VWV). The fourth was the complicated situation of cathedral clergy who are also trustees with thousands of visitors as tourists, worshippers and choir schools. It's complex because cathedrals are independent from the central institutions of the Church of England and from dioceses.

All dioceses now have their own professional safeguarding advisors. The model of safeguarding which the Synod voted for (Model 3) retained this local layer, while working for Model 4 (central fully independent safeguarding). If you're interested, the relevant differences between the original (favoured) motion and as it was amended and eventually passed are shown below in paragraph (c). An additional amendment (d) was added.

9  ‘That this Synod:
(a)  thank all those involved in Church safeguarding, particularly the victims and survivors who give so generously of their wisdom and experience, often at great personal cost, and parish safeguarding officers who make sure that safeguarding is a priority in every level and all those who support them in dioceses;
(b)  affirm its commitment to greater independence in safeguarding in the Church of England;
(c)  thank the Response Group for its work for greater independence in safeguarding in the Church of England, endorse model 4 as the direction of travel, and request the lead bishop to engage with the relevant bodies with a view to implementation.’ 

9  ‘That this Synod:
(a)  thank all those involved in Church safeguarding, particularly the victims and survivors who give so generously of their wisdom and experience, often at great personal cost, and parish safeguarding officers who make sure that safeguarding is a priority in every level and all those who support them in dioceses;
(b)  affirm its commitment to greater independence in safeguarding in the Church of England;
(c)  thank the Response Group for its work for greater independence in safeguarding in the Church of England, and, noting the significant reservations around model 4 in paragraph 62 of GS 2378 and the legal advice from VWV dated 31st January 2025, endorse model 3 as the way forward in the short term and call for further work as to the legal and practical requirements necessary to implement model 4.
(d)  lament and repent of the failure of the Church to be welcoming to victims and survivors and the harm they have experienced and continue to experience in the life of the Church.’  

As is clear, the end destination of the amended motion is the same as the original; it was the question of the best road to reach it.

No one, least alone myself, can blame the headline writers for caricaturing rather than fairly characterising the discussions. However it is not fair to say that the Synod voted against full independence of safeguarding. They simply voted for staged greater independence, which obviously must feel like a failure to survivors but in my view is not. 

Andrew Brown has made an interesting comment on the debates. He comments on the flaws of the so-called best of independent safeguarding.

 PS Having watched more proceedings than I should have, I take my hat off and bow deeply to those friends of mine who have actually taken part in the arcane dealings of Synod.

What's it with Auntie and the C of E?

Occasionally, Auntie Beeb, that revered national institution, the BBC, gets a bee in her bonnet. And at the moment it appears to be concerning another national institution, the Church of England. One has to wonder why. Maybe it's to prove that the broadcaster is not the only organisation that has, or has had, failures in dealing with abuse.

For example yesterday the 'Today Programme' had another item about the Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, and his perceived failure to deal with a former school chaplain, David Tudor, who had maltreated and raped students. The item was introduced with a short extract of an interview with th Bishop of Winchester, which was part of very long feature on Monday's 'World at One'. The guts of yesterday's items was the opinions of the BBC's favourite cleric, the hyper-articulate Giles Fraser who can be relied on to voice his dogmatically provocative views. Predictably he wanted the Archbishop out. He'd already campaigned for Archbishop Justin Welby's resignatiion. While I personallly dislike the pomp and circumstance of establishment, I don't believe either servant of the church merited the trial by media and petition to which they have been subjected.

So my question is this: why does the BBC never ask someone like Andrew Brown, the journalist who probably knows more about the Church of England, than any other, certainly than their own perfectly competent, Aleem Maqbool, to comment? Are they afraid he might puncture their proudly inflated thesis about the corruption of the CofE? Which he has done effectively, in a post on his blog, The Slow Deep Hover, 'In Defence of Stephen Cottrell'. "The basis of his defence is that he had no choice in law. He had inherited Tudor from two preceding bishops of Chelmsford, one of whom had granted Tudor the freehold. Since he had twice been acquitted of the offences that no one doubted he had committed, he could not even be suspended until or unless fresh charges were brought against him. As soon as that happened, in 2018, Cottrell suspended him. He should not be blamed for failing to do what was legally impossible....

"Sooner or later someone has to blow up the insatiable shark. The Church of England cannot be run by Twitter storms and petitions on Change.org. Time, effort, and money are all limited resources for a bishop, and to govern is to choose." (Incidentally all Brown's posts about the recent news concerning safeguarding are worth reading. He doesn't minimise its seriousness but does question the resulting conclusions.)

 

The Church of England is a complex and arcane creature. It's like no other institution, certainly not like a commercial company, or even like a government. Andrew Brown refers to the curious phenomenon of 'the freehold' - which means that it is a well nigh impossible for a vicar to be removed from his or her post, and it's not possible either for a congregation to vote their vicar out, however incompetent or uncongenial they may be. Sad but true.

Certainly the CofE needs reforming - that's something which the General Synod (its parliament) needs to attend to, rather than seeking ever more scapegoats for past failures. Ultimately, being the established 'state' church, it may be a matter the Government has to sort out. That might focus everyone's minds!

The Gordian Knot

The legend of the Gordian knot concerns the former kingdom of Gordium in present-day Asian Turkey. There was an ox-cart attached by a complex knot. The oracle said that whoever was able to untie the knot was destined to rule the whole of Asia. In 333 BC Alexander the Great (from Macedonia) arrived in his military campaigns and according to the most popular version simply solved the puzzle by slicing through the knot with one stroke of his sword. Well - he did in due course proceed to conquer all Asia as far East as India and Afghanistan. 

Of course today untying the Gordian knot is a metaphor for solving a seemingly insoluble problem. As my previous post indicated, the Church of England has succeeded after many years in creating such a problem. It concerns irreconcilable differences concerning same-sex relationships, in particular those of lifelong commitment. For once this is a moreorless binary split, between those who quote individual categorical verses from the Bible condemning homosexual relations and those who believe that same Bible needs to be read within its cultural contexts and in the light of message of Jesus. Last week's General Synod's vote apparently satisfied nobody, 'progressives' considering it a fudge and 'traditionalists' considering a sell-out. As a result the CofE looks as though it's heading towards schism. 

Is there any way to avoid it? I think there is, but, as I hinted before, it's as radical as slicing a knot with a sword. It means the established church relinquishing its privileged position of solemnizing the institution of marriage and leaving all marriages to the state, preserving for itself the honourable service of those who come asking for blessing for themselves. I imagine that this would be a matter of conscience for clergy,  with some saying, "I'm sorry, I can't bless you, because...", for example, you are of the same sex, or you've been living in the same house, sharing the same bed, you've been married before etc. (To be clear, there were times when as vicar I refused marriage to divorced individuals, and offered them a service of blessing instead. Not an easy decision or conversation but in accordance with the then existing rules of the church.) Other clergy no doubt would welcome couples asking to be blessed. And this could be allowed for, as it does in other realms of the Law.

Undoubtedly such a change would require acts of Parliament and legal contortions by ecclesiastical lawyers and therefore would take a long time. Yet the prospect of both this endless diversion from the central role of the Church, to present the great good news of God's love in Christ, ceasing and the modelling of the fulfilment of Christ's great prayer for his followers, that they should demonstrate his love for world by their love for one another, beginning should surely be enough to sustain us. 

Might we one day see wedding parties going joyfully from the registry office to be welcomed by their priest and dedicating their new life together to the God whom they worship? I hope so. And might we see a humbler Church of England answering Christ's prayer for us: "I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one." I pray so. That is surely an imperative which all of us must heed.

Unholy irony

Yesterday, eclipsed by events on the domestic political stage, the whole Church of England General Synod, after a passionate address by the Archbishop of Canterbury and a shorter message from the Archbishop in Jerusalem, stood for two minutes in reverent silence praying for peace and reconciliation in Israel/Gaza. It was ironic therefore it was followed by a series of questions, some clearly barbed, on the subject of sexuality, which simply exposed how deeply and indeed bitterly divided the Church's Synod is over the issue. I suppose the people who stand for Synod, as for Parliament, will be activists by inclination, as it might be front-line warriors. Perhaps this is good for sharpening policies (to use political terminology). However I'm not sure the Church is meant to be a political body. I don't mean that it should not comment on or be involved in civil politics. But that's not its essence. That is to be a community of love, a community which models what loving and living together looks like. As its founder said, " I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another.  By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

 

Well, this afternoon will no doubt see the major engagement when the debate concerning the blessing of same-sex couples is scheduled. It's not something I should look forward to. I don't suppose many, if any, will change their views. I have my own hopes for the outcome - which is that the proposal for a stand-alone service of blessing as well as prayers for use in other services should be approved. 

 

Personally I'd like our present pattern for weddings completely shaken up and reformed. It wouldn't of course solve objections to blessing same-sex relationships, but it would create room for more flexibility for differing traditions without doing away with the joys of church celebrations. Let me explain...

 

Time was when one of our pleasures was travelling to Europe, in the halcyon days before Brexit of course. One particularly bright memory was sitting of an evening witnessing a wedding party emerging from the mairie on their way to the church for the priest to bless the happy couple. “What a good arrangement!” I thought. The legal bit done by the mayor, the religious bit left to the priest. 

 

Much as I enjoyed doing a “good wedding” when I was a vicar, I was always aware of a tension between my role as a registrar - which came with the job - and my role as a pastor. Of course the civil bit brings in a useful revenue stream for the diocese and the parish, and all the extras like the organist, bellringers, verger etc, who are all worthy of their hire. The clergy earn nothing in addition to their stipend except maybe an invitation to the knees-up afterwards. At some point in our history the Church bagged a monopoly of celebrating weddings which lasted until the last century, I imagine. I suppose it was part of its campaign to take over all the levers of power - benevolently naturally, such as the right to 26 "Lords Spiritual" sitting in the House of Lords, which was once more significant than now when absurdly there are as many as 800 peers (plus one as of yesterday). No doubt this would involve difficulties concerning Canon Law - the minutiae of which resemble, it seems to me, the laws of the scribes and pharisees about which Jesus had something trenchant to say.

 

However, now it is really time to escape the magnetic attraction of our own importance and to make real our calling to serve the society in which we are placed. And like it or not our country now solemnises marriage between couples of all sorts. We can either refuse to acknowledge the fact, or bless all those that reflect the covenant relationship of enduring love that God has demonstrated for broken humankind. After all, who would deny communion or burial or the baptism of their child to someone who had been married in a registry office?

Fear and trembling (part 2)

Max Colson/Church of England

And so, now that I've had time to reflect, what are my conclusions? Have my views shifted at all?

I suppose to be truthful they have moved. With 28 amendments, nearly all of them debated, as you can imagine, there were a lot of speeches. Sadly there's no Hansard for General Synod and so these are my aging recollections. The one speech which might have reversed my view came from a chap called Ed Shaw, a "pastor" from Bristol, who seemed to me to demonstrate the most loving approach from an opponent to the Bishops' motion. He talked about seeking to find common ground between those who want to bless same-sex couples and those who decry it on the grounds that it goes against the Bible's and the Church's historic teaching that marriage is between one man and one woman. He seemed to me to have a more positive tone than the more anecdotal or aggressive speeches of others in the debate. Unlike others whose hidden agenda seemed to be itching for a church in their own image he appeared to want a practical way to keep the Church together - which was what Jesus Christ prayed for before his crucifixion. That must surely be the priority for any who claim to follow him.

A speech which educated me came from an historian turned vicar called Miranda Threlfall-Holmes on the Thursday who effectively questioned the received wisdom that the church has always had one fixed idea of marriage. She outlined how the doctrine of marriage had developed over the years, for example the idea of consent ("I will", "I do") was a reform introduced to counter the practice of political alliances (including child-marriages). The Church, I learned, has not consistently taught for 2000 years that sex outside of marriage is a sin, and discussions about marriage have largely not been about sex, but about power. She suggested that the development of doctrine was a work of the truth-revealing Holy Spirit - which seemed to me to make sense. 

However the speech which moved and impressed me most came from Anderson Jeremiah, who describes himself as a Dalit Christian, who was ordained in the Church of South India and now lectures in Lancaster University. He was answering an amendment asking the Bishops to show more of their theological rationale before any decision was taken. If Ed Shaw's speech was a plea to be heard, and Miranda Threlfall-Holmes' a setting of the historical record straight, Dr Jeremiah's was a theological sermon. I looked it up on YouTube to see how it began and once again I was struck by its prophetic perspective: "Last Sunday I stood in the pulpit and preached a sermon on Isaiah 58. What is the meaning of true fasting, if not to address the yokes and systems of oppression right before our lives? Isaiah reminded his listeners then, and now, that we are people of exodus and that there is an ethical demand that we practise liberation and justice. I didn't tell my congregation, 'I haven't made up my theological mind yet, so please wait. I'll go and prepare a theological statement and I'll come back and preach a sermon on Isaiah 58.' Personal piety has a necessary public liberatory impulse. We as Christians, living in that prophetic tradition, are called to inhabit that intersection, to proclaim new life rooted in love, mercy and justice; to repair the breach and restore life. People in the journey, in Exodus, didn't wait for a theological rationale; they encountered God where they were. Now I readily agree with Dr Paul,... that yes, of course there needs to be a lot more theological rationale. For instance, in the entire document, the word 'justice' is missing. Somehow the fundamental Christian commitment to pursue equity, righteousness and mercy was missing. I understand that. 

"But I appreciate the desire of the House of Bishops to actually get into action what's required right now. And that's why that commitment which has come from the House of Bishops to act now will be delayed if we go back again to thousands and thousands of years of theological writing on this matter. We all know from this discussion surrounding this process, it has been divisive; it has not been convivial. This brings me back to our focus: of justice. For too long, in the name of doing theology, we have allowed misogyny, racism, slavery, patriarchy, because there was not enough of a settled theological understanding, while people suffered. We can't do that. And that is why I resist this amendment, because we do need to act now - and do theology as we pursue justice in our lives. We can't separate pursuit of justice here and now, and do theology later. The God who meets us in Jesus said, 'The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.' Jesus standing in that prophetic tradition calls us to act now, not wait for a theological rationale. Therefore I resist this amendment and accept the steps that are taken by the House of Bishops and move towards pursuing justice while doing theology - because as a theological educator there are different ways of doing theology; there's a practical theology and a political theology, and you can do theology while doing what's required. Thank you." 

Put simply, you don't put off pursuing justice on the grounds that you're still discussing the theory. Is slavery ever just? Is discriminating against people of other races ever right? Is it ever just to disadvantage disabled people like me? Is it just or equitable to refuse to bless committed couples whatever their sex? These are all historical yokes of oppression which we are clearly bound to lift and break.

Dr Jeremiah, appropriately and significantly a voice from the global south, was the most prophetic voice for me. And so after eight hours of listening and thinking, my admiration for the Bishops was augmented and my view that blessing same-sex marriage is something that the Church must countenance was strengthened, although as Justin Welby humbly said in his speech, "Each of us will answer to God at the judgement for our decisions on this matter. We are personally responsible. I am supporting these resources, not, I think, because I am controlled by culture but because of scripture, tradition and reason evidenced in the vast work done over the last six years so ably by so many. I may be wrong, of course I may, but I cannot duck the issue...". Amen to that.

 

Fear and trembling (part 1)

It was with a certain amount of trepidation that I started to watch the Wednesday afternoon's debate on prayers of blessing for same-sex partners in the Church of England's General Synod. What an arcane process! One wonders what mind devised such a weird institution to decide church affairs. What a depressing watch! So much distrust in a Christian community.

Apparently the Synod has powers to legislate in church matters devolved by Parliament - which might explain the convolutions and the politicking of speakers. It seemed an unholy spectacle of power-playing. Occasionally I had glimpses of what resonated to me as good theology. Mostly there were unsubstantiated assumptions, stated as unquestionable truths, for example that marriage always has been exclusively between one man and woman, that sex before marriage has always been regarded as wrong.

It turned out that my trepidation was justified. The members got tired and the debate extended to Thursday morning, and after 28 amendments and eight hours' discussion a vote on the motion (amended) was taken and narrowly won. The star of the show was undoubtedly Geoffrey Tattersall KC who gracefully chaired the whole thing and stuck to the standing orders much to the irritation of those who wanted to gun for the Bishops. Second to him was the Bishop of London, and formerly Chief Nursing Officer of England, Sarah Mullally. It was her job to answer every amendment which she did with reason and calmness. I was saddened by the refusal of many to trust her integrity and that of others.

There was, it seemed to me, a concerted effort by the procedural device of amendments to delay or thwart the Bishops' proposals. I had the sense of a flexing of muscles by some influential and well-endowed parts of the Church to have their own way. Well, I suppose that's the nature of democracy, but I'm not sure it's the way of Christ. There was talk of the sanctity of truth. However, I'm not sure whether it wasn't the old Hellenistic and Enlightenment view of truth, i.e. propositional reason, rather than the Christian view, that truth is relational. Hence faith and love are relational, not credal. 

Whether the Bishops will be given the grace to find what a friend describes as the way of "reconciliation – how to live with people one can’t bear – starting from oneself sometimes" remains to be seen. People of goodwill will pray so.