Updated Monday
CEEC commissions first set of overseers
The Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) has commissioned its first set of overseers, in a service today at All Souls Langham Place, in London.
The introduction of the Ephesian Fund and Alternative Spiritual Oversight (ASO), followed the General Synod decision in November 2023 to approve the bishops’ proposals to change the position and practice of the Church of England with regards to sexual ethics and marriage, by blessing same sex couples as part of normal services. At a subsequent Synod meeting earlier this week, standalone services of blessing for same sex couples received General Synod support and a timetable to work towards clergy same sex marriages was endorsed. As a result of these decisions, many clergy and PCCs have lost confidence in those bishops supporting change.
At the service, the first 20 overseers were commissioned (with more to be commissioned in due course). The overseers comprise a group of Honorary Assistant Bishops, alongside other clergy from across the evangelical constituency (spanning charismatics and conservatives, egalitarians and complementarians). They will provide informal oversight to clergy and PCCs who feel a loss of confidence in the spiritual leadership of their bishop(s). This informal and temporary oversight, facilitated by CEEC, does not in any way undermine or replace the legal and safeguarding responsibilities of clergy and PCCs to their bishops and/or diocese.
The Ephesian Fund and ASO are designed to help those who hold to the existing teaching and doctrine of marriage and sexual ethics to remain in the Church of England while a permanent structural reorganisation is pursued within the Church of England…
The order of service is here.
The list of names is below the fold.
Update: I have compiled some information into a PDF about the persons named. Sources are Crockford’s and the National Register of Clergy. Please notify me of any errors that you find, and I will correct the file.
Julian Henderson
Henry Scriven
Keith Sinclair
Pete Broadbent
Rod Thomas
Rob Munro
Mike Hill*
Christabel Ager
David Banting
David Heath-Whyte
Kieran Bush
Paul Harcourt
Paul Perkin
Paul Darlington
Paul Jump*
Ian Dowsett
Anita Colpus*
Jane Morris
Angus MacLeay
Mike Smith
Mark Pickles
John Coles
Vaughan Roberts
William Taylor*
*will be commissioned at a later date
Only in the Church of England could those who object to liturgy on the basis of novelty see novel liturgy as the answer.
Reaches for the dictionary: how do you spell schism? And remind me someone: which Canon is that?
Canon A8:
“Forasmuch as the Church of Christ has for a long time past been distressed by separations and schisms among Christian men, so that the unity for which our Lord prayed is impaired and the witness to his gospel is grievously hindered, it is the duty of clergy and people to do their utmost not only to avoid occasions of strife but also to seek in penitence and brotherly charity to heal such divisions.”
None of this changes anything decided by General Synod, where decisions are made by the whole Church of England. Nor does it constitute the start of a third province, because that can only happen within the Church of England through established processes. These gentlemen (and shockingly few women) can be ‘overseers’ if they like, but they cannot self-appoint themselves as bishops. There are Church-wide normal protocols for that. If some Christians don’t like the direction and decisions of the Church, they can debate and engage, but in the end it’s the Church as a whole that will decide if and… Read more »
Evidently this is a first order issue for them and they feel a line has been crossed and they cannot receive oversight from a bishop they believe teaches falsely?
Why not try something new and see what happens?
Besides it’s pretty clear that the proper process for bringing these changes in hasn’t been followed.
Revd Ian Paul has done an excellent job of explaining how on his blog:
https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/where-does-the-c-of-e-go-on-sexuality-after-july-synod/
Clergy and parishes have been receiving oversight from bishops with whom they disagree since the Church was first founded.
Yes in respect to second order issues. In respect to first order issues the New Testament encourages us to avoid false teaching.
The question is where do we determine this boundary and why?
There are copious sources one can consult to see why the CEEC and others consider this a first order issue. I don’t think they are likely to change their minds.
I think most of us would regard the resurrection of Jesus as a first order issue, but clergy in e.g. David Jenkins’ diocese continued to receive oversight from him. It was the introduction of alternative episcopal oversight for those opposed to women’s ordination which introduced the idea that people could pick a bishop they agreed with. Some of us warned at the time that it would lead to people wanting AEO on other issues.
Prior to that, you might regard your bishop as a heretic, but you continued to receive his oversight or you left the diocese.
David Jenkins never denied the resurrection – it was deliberately misquoted by the media. He said the resurrection ‘was not a conjuring trick with bones.’ The media just took out the not. Despite this there was a lot of issue and concern before it was cleared up.
Going against the scripture is clearly a first order issue, as is the weakness of many bishops to proudly stick to scripture and not bend to the idols of culture.
Stop comparing this to women’s ordination as it is SO different.
David Jenkins did not seem confident about the Resurrection when I interviewed him for our theological college newspaper.
Interpretations of scripture differ. That does not mean those who disagree with the CEEC are ‘going against scripture’.
However, we do all go against scripture when we invest in stocks and shares or borrow money for a mortgage; when we eat meat that hasn’t been drained of blood, and so on. We just pick our issues with scripture carefully.
If it’s genuinely a first order issue and a line has been crossed (in their view) they know where the door is. That they choose not to take it says that stipends and pensions are more important than this alleged “line”. I have little time for conservative views on this but at least the likes of The Tron Church (and their forebears during The Disruption, over a different issue) had the courage of their convictions and packed their bags when they could no longer accept the position of the church.
It is not your Church, Jo.
You are not entitled to tell people “they know where the door is”
I was baptised and confirmed in the Church of England. Being no longer resident in England I am, of course, no longer a member. That does not in any way prevent me from noting and addressing the outrageous behaviour of the schismatic faction.
I think you’re in Scotland? Thankfully the Episcopal Church just left it to individual conscience on the sexuality issue, and no extra province was created. If you didn’t want to marry a gay couple you didn’t have to. If you did, then you could. Both consciences allowed. If Scotland can do that, why not England? Just live and let live, and move on to all the other love and work needing done in the parish.
Quite. The reason is quite clear – some conservatives in England think they have the numbers (and the money) to keep the rest of the church bound to their views or at least extract a favourable schism. Conservatives in Scotland accepted that their view was the minority one, mostly with good grace.
Why?
Theological liberals didn’t do this whilst actively ignoring the teaching of the church.
Surely conservatives should contend for the faith once received and stay in, particularly when their segment of the church is growing?
I don’t know many theological liberals, but in any case they weren’t demanding a third province. Conservatives can “contend” for whatever views they hold but if they can’t hold them under bishops who disagree with them then they can’t hold them in a church with a diversity of views.
To put it bluntly it could be called “Taking the Law into your own hands” Jonathan
A sort of jest of episcopacy from the looks of it. My apologies to Margaret Laurence; but in this case an ironic comparison with the erotic theme of Laurence’s novel.
Dame Sarah seems to have lost control.
These faithful shepherds will lead the people of God within The Third Province of the Church of England in living out their faith and taking the Gospel to the World.
Praise God for a day of blessing and hope as the first of our new leaders take up their responsibilities.
“Some day I’ll find you” (H.A. Williams, circa 1982). Not in the least convincing, I’m sorry to say.
I don’t understand why Harry Williams’ autobiography is being cited.
Who was Harry Williams?
He is the H.A. Williams referred to in Andrew’s post.
There is zero chance of Synod voting to allow the creation of a third province and a third archbishop.
The world does not revolve around the decisions of General Synod.
The Synod have lost control of events, Kate. They will obviously implement the changes they have in mind.
It does not therefore follow that they determine the future of the Church of England
Kate’s point still stands, however, that a formal Third Province can only be legally approved with the assent of the House of Bishops and the legal commissioning of the General Synod. Until those two bodies agree with this novelty it just remains a few people in the Church complaining and trying to find loopholes. And until those who wish to be in unofficial and unapproved informal area long anticipated by the CEEC resign their seats from General Synod, refuse their stipends from the rest of us and return any SDF funding awarded in recent years, it’s just play acting. “Bishop,… Read more »
You and others persist with this notion that “The Church of England” belongs to Synod and that people who resist Synod somehow forfeit the right to participation in the goods of the Church
There is no such legal entity as “The Church of England”. There really is no such single entity.
The Alliance is The Church of England.
Peter, why is the Alliance the Church of England? You’ve said this more than once. One of the churches of England possibly. What am I failing to understand?
The Church of England (which incidentally is not a legal entity) is the communion of those Churches which hold to the historic Anglican doctrines and practices within the parochial structures of England.(I know, there are some geographical anomalies – I suggest they are not the substantive issue, in this instance). It is, ecclesiologically, an episcopal church. It is united under the authority of orthodox bishops. It is a recent conceit of General Synod to construe itself as the origin of authority and government within the Church of England. General Synod is subject to the Bishops on matters of Doctrine –… Read more »
General Synod is the governing body of the Church of England. In what way is the Alliance the Church of England?
GS is subject by Canon to the Bible. It has departed from the Bible and therefore ceased to hold legitimate authority.
The Alliance is that group who hold to the Bible
I don’t recall seeing any forfeiture clause of this kind in the Canons or indeed in the Church Representation Rules, both of which are part of the English legal statute books. So it might well be that GS has lost its moral authority over those who disagree with its actions to that degree, but it has certainly not forfeited legal authority, which is an expression of legitimacy.
It has legal authority as defined and limited by Canon and legislation.
It does not have some kind of general category of “authority” over something called “The Church of England”.
That notion of effectively managerial rule is a myth
General Synod, the bishops, and parishes are not subject to only one interpretation of the Bible. The matter has debated for years, and many faithful Bible-believing Anglicans believe that accepting faithful same sex relationships is congruent with Bible teaching. You, and the Alliance, cannot simply redefine the C of E to be solely constituted of people who agree with you on this one matter. At least you can, but your version of the C of E has no legal standing. Whereas the C of E you seem to disown is by law established, and legislation passed by GS has legal… Read more »
The “C of E” has no legal standing for anybody, Janet.
Various Offices and bodies have a set of legal grounds for their actions and duties. However, there is nothing illegal about the actions of The Alliance. Nothing at all.
I’m afraid you overstate your position
The C of E is composed of a number of legal entities, including General Synod. C of E bishops are members of the House of Lords, a legislative body. Every parish is a registered charity. The monarch is supreme governor of the C of E, and is crowned in a C of E ceremony. So yes, the C of E is very much part of the legal framework of England, and our unwritten constitution. So much so, that the disestablishment which some of us advocate would be legally difficult and time-consuming to accomplish. By the way I don’t think it’s… Read more »
No you have this wrong. In general, people here are complaining about the schismatic act of appointing overseers, not about disagreement on the substantive matter of same sex marriage etc.. Many on both sides of the latter debate are content to live in a church where both views are accepted.
Charles,
The schismatic act took place on 8th July in York, not on 12th July in the West End of London.
I thought the Archbishop of York’s suggestion of a game of football to sort this out is a good idea. Obviously the Alliance would win because they are dominated by men.
No longer a given that the men would win. The men would think that they were all experts at football, so they would not bother to do any training or be coached, while the women would be match fit & have taken full advantage of all coaching opportunities.
So, in your world, General Synod cannot change doctrine, but a group of conservative evangelicals can create a new bunch of “honorary assistant bishops”? The mind whirls.
They are two sides of the same coin. General Synod cannot change doctrine, and private consortiums cannot appoint overseers. It doesn’t stop either of them pretending to do so.
This list, like that conservative world that drew it up, is dominated by men. To engage with conservative evangelicals on this subject is to find yourself engaging with men, about men. A particular disdain is reserved for women offering viewpoints on conservative blog sites. one of the delights (and there are many) of being part of the growing Inclusive Evangelical network is that it is at least 50/50 women and men). There will come a point when this embattled corner of the evangelical tradition will have to face the way it uses power, control and the bible to mask and… Read more »
Hear, hear!
More hear! hear! David I have appreciated your comments and reflections -which always feel as though they are not constrained by party or churchpersonship loyalties – since you commented generously on something my husband (Alan Amos) wrote back in 1982.
David,
You are better than this. The issue that divides us is our reading of the Bible.
Please do not demean those with whom you disagree by turning it into an issue of gender.
Peter
It is true that the vast majority of women on Synod have voted in favour of the the PLF, compared with a slight majority of men who have voted against. There is a gender issue here. Men have a problem with LGBTQIA+ people far more than women do.
Reading of the Bible does not take place in isolation. That the conservative milieu allows the propagation of patriarchal and misogynistic views (even if those views are not held by all or even a majority) is not news, and those already inclined to such views will find verses to shore them up.
So why are there so few women on the list of overseers? And don’t tell me you have not noticed how women get treated on certain blogs!
Charles. I deplore reprehensible behaviour towards women, including on certain blogs.
I was not involved in any aspect of the Service at All Souls. I am not in a position to comment on who has been commissioned.
We are divided over what the Bible says. It helps nobody to invent other reasons for the division.
Peter has been principled and stood up against guys who were treating me badly ‘on a certain blog’. It was obvious I was being got at and, although I hold different views to him on some things, I was grateful for his decency. I just say that to remind us all that, ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’, we are each answerable to God for things like kindness, goodness, compassion. In my experience there are good and bad people in all walks of life. Same in the Church.
Susannah, thank you, that is kind of you.
Tim Chesterton, David Runcorn and others on this blog also display a humanity and decency that is all too absent from some who hold to historic doctrine.
I deplore tribalism and would stand with yourself and others against its malign effects.
I remain convinced that God has not changed His mind on the issues that divide us.
Peter,
The ‘complimentarian’ members of this group do believe that the ‘egalitarians’ are wrong on the interpretation of the Bible and have consistently said so for many years. they sought a third province for those who would not have women as overseers. Now they can accept a couple of women as overseers.
This group of overseers are divided over what the Bible says about women as overseers.
They disagree on the issue. They do not divide over it
It seems incredible to me that people can permit the ordination of women and the remarriage of divorcees (or at least tolerate the existence of those phenomena and work closely with those who disagree) for which the Biblical warrant to resist is pretty direct, but can consider the blessing of a same-sex couple to be so verboten, on a much weaker Biblical case, as to demand schism.
Ah – what a sensible way forward. Why has no one been suggesting that?
Constantly claiming the orthodox moral high ground while patronising/dismissing the views of others is nothing to do with how you read the bible.
I do not usually comment on TA, but I cannot let the start of schism in our church pass without some comment. How sad that it is caused by a set of prayers that no one is forced to use. The reaction from CEEC churches is out of all proportion with the problem. It seems our Evangelical friends have lifted a few verses of scripture out of their historical and social contexts and applied them to a situation that the writers did not, and could not, have in mind. Then they have used this as an excuse to divide themselves… Read more »
Tim,
You are correct in one respect. The issue is The Bible.
Peter
Without this schism it’s easy to imagine where we could all be in a few years. I don’t understand why it’s not a vision attractive to all. So… “I’m in my conservative evangelical church, probably member of some umbrella grouping, where we continue to teach traditional sexual ethics, although the subject doesn’t come up very often. We’re more interested in lively worship, bible study, and running alpha and other great courses from HTB and drawing hundreds of young people to Christ. Down the road there’s an Anglo-Catholic parish where the two male clergy are in a same sex partnership (and… Read more »
“The only way for one group not to impose its views on the other is to allow freedom of conscience.”
Exactly.
Incredible, lots of those who were on the mysteriously selected appointment committee were also appointed ‘overseers’.
Yes, Lorenzo, isn’t that surprising? I wonder if they ‘stood back’ from the final decisions when it was clear they’d thrown their own hats into the ring? One would hope so.
Helen,
You seem to be under the illusion that being an overseer will have been some kind of “sought after” appointment by those commissioned this week.
It is just more work for them to do. More people turning to them for help sorting out insoluble problems.
Criticise these people for their theology if you must. The idea they are being vainglorious is risible.
Peter, I said nothing about them ‘being vainglorious’. Please stop putting words into my mouth. I was asking about process and have had a helpful answer.
“Thrown their own hats into the ring” is not a neutral process question.
Pete Broadbent may speak for himself. I would be astonished if he sought the role. Helping clergy under pressure is hardly going to be a new and exciting experience for him
Yes.
Thank you, Bishop/Overseer Pete. That’s that sort of factual information that helps.
Every dark cloud has its silver lining. “The Overseers stand. The congregation stretch out their hands towards them as a sign of prayer and commissioning and say together:” (underlining mine). While this appears to be a ‘hands off’ kind of quasi ordination, I’ve long thought that priests and laity should actually lay on hands at episcopal ordinations. However, the whole thing at a visceral level strikes me as a kind of godly play for adult fundamentalists. The gospel reading from the appendix of John is a lovely story. Given the reasons the story was probably created in the first place,… Read more »
That story was included in John because it really occurred.
When Rod Gillis described the inclusion of the gospel of John story as ironic, I suspect he is referring to the story’s inclusion in the CEEC commissioning service, rather than the story’s inclusion in the gospel text. It is ironic indeed that a story which raises all sorts of questions about LGBT narratives within the Bible was the main reading for a service set up to provide a bulwark against LGBT inclusion in the Church of England. For centuries these stories about the disciple Jesus loved have been analysed and discussed, with the perpetual question about what sort of relationship… Read more »
I guess I’m not inclined to believe that Jesus ever had sex with either John or Mary Magdalene. I’m not saying personally that it would have been wrong – and could have been beautiful if he did. But I believe he lived a celibate life. One reason is that I frame his life in the religious society of those he was interacting with. They never accused him of sex outside marriage. They accused him of claiming to be God. I feel the same about David and Jonathan. I think they had ‘bro love’ but I don’t think man-man sex would… Read more »
Thanks for the response Susannah, I happen to agree with you about Jesus. I think there is enough evidence from the Gospels to argue that Jesus followed, and wanted at least some of his followers to follow, a wandering mendicant vocation where people offered teaching and healing in return for a few nights accommodation. This was a known vocation at the time, and came with expectations of poverty and celibacy. But an expectation of celibacy cannot be used as evidence to prove the absence of a deep loving relationship between a same-sex couple. There are enough famous celibate Christian religious… Read more »
Can this fool step in where angels fear to tread? There was a custom in medieval art for young men to be portrayed as almost feminine, smooth skinned ‘pretty boys’ – that was the conventlon and, so far as I know, implied nothing of a sexual nature. (And yes, I know that ‘Florentine’ was a euphenism for gay men.) A few years ago, in Ambois,I visited the house in which Leonardo de Vinci spent his last days. On display, side by side, are two of his favourite paintings, the Mona Lisa and John the Baptist – apparently the only two… Read more »
Yes, I’m aware that some people believe that. However, I accept the argument that the story is a literary creation, probably in part by a purposeful redactor. However, whether it ‘happened’ or not, the use of it by CEEC in this circumstance is ironic. This particular story attempts in part to address issues of unity and reconciliation in an emerging and dynamic ecclesiastical setting. Its us by CEEC is suggestive of schismatic sexual politics. It is hard not to read its use here as a kind ‘in your face’ message aimed at others involved in the ministry of oversight (episcope)… Read more »
An interesting post, Rod, covering two separate topics, so I will respond in two separate posts to avoid confusion. Firstly, the laying on of hands and commissioning. I think you are right that the symbology in the commissioning service should match the process of how such a bishop or overseer is chosen. In a church with a strict understanding of apostolic succession, and where the bishops keep quite a tight control on appointing new bishops, then the laying on of hands on bishops by bishops may be the correct symbology. (You call it Godly play. I would call it power-play… Read more »
Yes, here our bishops are chosen by an electoral synod which is preceded by a nomination process open to the entire diocese. Although the bishops of the province must assent to the election. So having a representative group of laity, deacons, priests lay on hands appeals to me. ( Like wise with laity laying on hands for the ordination of presbyters and deacons as well as confirmands would be likewise appropriate. There is community based discernment for each of these as well.) But you know, a liturgical innovation can sometimes really change attitudes. Even in the C of E, if… Read more »
“But you know, a liturgical innovation can sometimes really change attitudes.” Agreed. A few years back our Rector introduced an innovation where the “people” would receive the Eucharistic bread and wine first, and then the various altar servers, and the priest him/herself last of all. This was noticed and appreciated, especially within a strong Army culture where every young officer was taught that you look after your men first, and only sort out your own food and bed when the men are settled. On John 21 – thanks – it’s always interesting that the same text can bear so many… Read more »
Now isn’t that interesting. When I was a theological student decades ago my supervising priest was in the habit of doing just what you describe, making his communion last of all. I think it was something he picked up from Lutheran practice? I have done that from time to time. One of my more conservative colleagues suggested that I ought to be receiving first in order to ‘consummate the consecration’. Now there is an idea. lol!
In evo/charismatic churches, it has for decades been common practice to commission people for almost any kind of ministry within a church service (though not usually a service convened solely for that purpose). The congregation often stretch their hands towards the person/s being commissioned, as a token they support and join in prayer for those being commissioned. It’s done relatively informally for everyone from new churchwardens and PCC members, to missionaries about to go to their place of service.
A good custom, I think.
I agree, a good and attractive custom.
I have never been to the commissioning or installation of an actual bishop. Does the same sort of thing happen there?
These Johnny come latelies are just kicking up chaff to try and undermine the will of synod. The best response is just to ignore them.
Contributors to this thread may find it helpful to read the full liturgy for the service, including the notes to the service. https://ceec.info/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Commissioning-of-Overseers-order-of-service.pdf
The notes are indeed helpful. I could fulfill the seven bullet points about the kind of person they are looking for. (So could my friend David Runcorn). Unaccountably I did not get an email asking me to be an overseer and I don’t think David did either. However, the good news is there are more commissioning services coming up later.
Charles I am baffled too. I tick every box!
Pete – can you clarify what it means as an overseer to work ‘within the Church of England’s safeguarding framework’? Does that mean that the responsibility for safeguarding remains with the dioceses or that you are setting up independent safeguarding following the same rules?
Pete, I have just had some information on this. I understand that in my diocese ‘Alliance’ churches are refusing to pay for safeguarding from the diocese – which gives the diocese a dilemma. It appears you want the services of the safeguarding teams, but not to pay for it. Is that right?
So let me get this straight. A bunch of so-called Anglicans – part of the Anglican Communion and in the Church of England, have decided they don’t like the direction of travel that the Cof E is taking, and so they have decided to set up some sort of faux ecclesia. With no agreement, no sad farewell, no agree to depart. They have just done it! Even the creation of GAFCON was more honest than this. Its a bit like a divorce where one side just leaves and shacks up with someone else! And I thought that Conservatives took a… Read more »
Wasn’t the Church of England founded on such a unilateral decision?
This is a question I put to Pete Broadbent on a previous thread that he didn’t respond to – perhaps he didn’t see it – but I think is crucial. Pete: this is a serious question. Do you think that you could formulate some way of expressing how the CofE more generally could treat LGBTI clergy more fairly than your more – how shall we say – prudish con evo colleagues would find acceptable? Do you advocate returning to ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ for example? Because the message your colleagues in ‘The Alliance’ give very clearly is that sex outside… Read more »
Am I being too optimistic or naive to wonder if in practice the issue is now resolved? i.e. the C of E is moving forward with PLF, the Alliance has its ‘overseers’ but remains part of the C of E. They can continue to say that they need a third province, and will not get one. Is that not a settlement of sorts that finally enables us to get on with other things? Or am I misunderstanding something?
But what will happen when traditionalist candidates for ordination cannot in good conscience make an oath to their bishop ordinary who supports LLF. They need to have a pathway to ensure the future of traditionalist ministry that this plan does not provide.
If they don’t agree with its theology perhaps it’s not the right church for them? I guess quite a lot of the candidates you are referring to also do not like liturgy or vestments, the Prayer Book or keeping Saints Days or robed choirs or hymns. When I look at the HTB livestream it doesn’t look recognisably C of E to me except that they’re meeting in a church building.
Surely the CofE should stop the episcopal pension of retired bishops who seek to destroy the institution…
Whether they are destroying or saving the institution is in the eye of the beholder.
Well that would be completely illegal. A pension is based on work that has already been carried out.
I have compiled some information into a PDF about the persons named. Sources are Crockford’s and the National Register of Clergy. Please notify me of any errors that you find, and I will correct the file.