Updated Monday and again Tuesday
We reported earlier on the service held at All Souls Langham Place, organised by the Church of England Evangelical Council: CEEC commissions Overseers.
Another service took place on 24 July at St Helen’s Bishopgate. A video published by that parish discusses the service.
Anglican Futures has published an article critiquing the service: “Public Commissioning”: Ten Questions. It begins this way:
“Yesterday evening a service took place at St Helen’s Bishopsgate in which 7 men from 4 dioceses were publicly commissioned for Christian leadership in Church of England churches.” So, begins, the latest video from St Helen’s, Bishopsgate, which has been circulating on social media.
The video is 26 minutes long, with an introduction by the Rector, Revd William Taylor, followed by sixteen interviews with retired bishops, clergy and laity, all of whom appear to support the actions taken by St Helen’s.
The video raises many questions and appears to misrepresent the work of the Church of England’s Evangelical Council (CEEC) in two significant ways. It is hoped that in the spirit of transparency, which Revd Taylor seeks from the House of Bishops, answers to the following questions will be forthcoming.
- Does Revd Taylor understand that CEEC can only offer ‘alternative spiritual oversight? If so, why does he call on churches to “recognise formally… that those diocesan bishops who voted for the faithless LLF proposals have broken partnership with faithful Anglican Christians and the true Churches of Jesus Christ,” by seeking the “alternative oversight” provided by the CEEC?
- Does Revd Taylor understand that the Ephesian Fund,“provides PCCs and individuals with a way to give their parish share to the Diocese in support of similar churches”? If so, why does he call on churches, “to cease paying any parish share to the Church of England” by suggesting that it is possible to “divert parish share into the Ephesian Fund or a local Good Stewards Trust to pay for it?”
And there are a further eight questions.
Updates
The Church Times reports: Conservatives commission seven men to lead, teach, and preside at ‘informal’ eucharists, This contains additional information about the participation of the former Bishop of Maidstone, Rod Thomas.
The statement from Affirming Catholicism mentioned in that report can be found in full here.
The Church Times article has been updated on Tuesday to add:
A spokesperson for Church House said: “The lead bishop for LLF, alongside the LLF staff team, are in conversation with different networks in order to bring further detail to proposals to the House of Bishops in October.
“We are seeking to move forward as one church. That will require grace, realism and a recognition that, as Christians, we hold a variety of views on these questions, all of which are held with integrity and all of which deserve respect.”
Helen King has written The c-word: what happened in those London churches?
Anglican Futures do a “hit job” on William Taylor but the facts are rather different.
Chaos and confusion will now reign. Nobody should esteem themselves because they can spot contradictions.
It is not Taylor’s fault. The blame rests with the bishops.
Nice to see you back, Peter, I was afraid we’d put you off.
But are you saying that William Taylor bears no responsibility for his actions?
You are right, Janet. Taylor is responsible for his actions.
He is not responsible for the dissonance that now exists between the proto Province and the Provinces of York and Canterbury
Surely all parties bear some responsibility for the dissonance?
Good questions from Anglican Futures, but what is their position? Please would someine explain? Are they linked with CEEC?
It’s a blog run by Susie Leafe. That’s all
I think I’m correct in saying that they would identify theologically with the CEEC, but those who run AF have already left the Church of England and joined the Gafcon-supported networks existing outside the C of E.
Anglican Futures Trustees are a mixed bag and so are those we serve – some have left the CofE, as you say. Others are committed to remaining.
Hi Julie – Anglican Futures is an independent charity – our statement of faith is Gafcon’s Jerusalem Declaration but we offer pastoral and practical support to a wide range of Anglicans – both lay and clergy. We are not linked to CEEC (because we are not a membership organisation and we are neither just “Church of England” or “Evangelical” http://www.anglicanfutures.org
This month will be remembered for being when the Conservatives lost a lot of seats. There will be PhD theses from now until the end of time about the how and why and who, but it is an undeniable fact that the Tories are out of office and currently tearing themselves to pieces. There is an iron law of politics: united parties may not win elections, but divided parties lose them. Always. In that light, given that the CofE faces an existential loss of members and therefore money, is tearing lumps out of other factions really a productive use of… Read more »
I think the Leadership election to elect a Successor to Rishi Sunak the Former Prime Minister, will lay bare even further the deep divisions within the Conservative Party and could both in the short long term have the affect of delivering to Sir Keir Starmer our Present Prime Minister a Second term in Office after the next general Election in 5 years time from now Jonathan
I live in a part of Berlin that was formerly the territory of the “German Democratic Republic (DDR)”. In fact East Germany was very far from being democratic.
We have to be very careful about what institutions claim to be. Very often the reality is the opposite of what is claimed.
Likewise “Orthodox Anglican Christians” are more accurately described as “Intolerant Anglican Christians” who have lost sight of the love that fills the Gospels. In fact they are very far from being Orthodox because they seek to construct a God in their own intolerant image.
These are very pertinent questions- from another group which does not accept same sex partnerships. It looks like John Dunnett, William Taylor et al have opened up another grouping apart from CEEC. as someone once said of Protestants generally , they are inherently Fissiparous!
What mischievous nonsense, Charles.
It has always be crystal clear and publically declared that “a thousand flowers will bloom”.
There is not the slightest need for or plan to achieve a monochrome outcome.
There will be as many different forms of new beginnings as there are groups who join it.
Oh come on, Peter! You are just avoiding the issues now. CEEC has gone down a route which involved the All Souls commissioning service. This event at St Helen’s seems to want to be seen as in continuity with that and also to be doing something new. It is ill thought out (though in other ways very clearly planned.) susie is asking sharp and pertinent questions of the latter event which deserve clear answers. There is nothing mischievous in asking these questions.
The bishops have created the mess. Not CEEC, Taylor et al.
Susie Leafe chooses to blame William Taylor for the irregularities which now arise.
Her inference that Taylor has to answer her questions is a nonsense.
“a thousand flowers will bloom”. A little historical literacy will see that that is a phrase used as a distraction prior to one of the largest mass killings in history. It was a hundred, not a thousand, and it was a ploy to encourage opponents to show themselves prior to their annihilation. Later: Some say this is a conspiracy. We say this is an open strategy. Because we informed the enemy in advance: only by allowing the monsters and demons to come out of their lairs can we exterminate them; only by letting the poisonous weeds emerge from the ground… Read more »
A little historical literacy and you would have rendered your quote in Mandarin.
English vocabulary was not the property of Mao
That is true, but you would have to be particiularly insensitive to use the phrase “final solution” with regard to, well, anything, even though it’s a translation of Endlösung. It is in the way of catastrophe to mark out and take control of its language, even in translation.
I acknowledge your general point that literary provenance does matter.
“A thousand flowers will bloom” does not, I suggest, bear the weight of diabolical infamy that place the term “final solution” outside the scope acceptability.
As a former DDO I’m wondering if these young men have recently trained at theological colleges ( presumably at C of E expense) and were due for ordination and have taken this route. I notice as Anglican Futures does that they haven’t been named nor the four dioceses they are going to.
I think that’s likely, Perry. There were 78 ‘orthodox ordinands’ (some in training, some in discernment, some deacons) who signed a letter to the bishops last year, https://anglican.ink/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Orthodox-Ordinands_-letter.pdf
My instinct is that the 7 come from this group.
1.First, listening to William Taylor’s speech is incredibly sad. I feel sad both for the Church, but also for William and his past, and the background of his Christian life, which makes him a victim of a particularly ‘manly’ culture. It makes me want to pray for him, and also for the Church – because it doesn’t have to be this way. We really can live and let live. Love, not ideology, is the heart of the Christian message. Opening to love and grace. The delivery of William’s talk just ached with pain and anger, and sense of stolen identity.… Read more »
I very much appreciate your tone and share much of the concern you express in point 1. My concern regarding point 3, so far as abiding by Synod goes, is that this depends on good faith debate and abiding by established protocols—as you say. The impartial observer would surely have to say that there are legitimate questions about whether / to what extent those protocols are really being followed by the powers that be, whether in matters of safeguarding, PLF, clergy discipline or anything else. Would we be in such a mess if protocols had been followed in good faith… Read more »
The complaint that established protocols have not been followed by Synod is becoming a rather tired argument from those who can’t accept the outcome of three major Synod votes on LLF. It sounds very much like if you can’t win the argument, attack the process. There has already been a huge amount of process in LLF. Wide consultation, repeatedly checking back with Synod on this point or that. The only piece of process which has been lacking so far has been implementation by the House of Bishops. I hope that comes soon. Two of the central aspects of LLF, being… Read more »
The deceit is around a trial that turned out to be not a trial, but a permanent move to implement something that has no theological basis. Bishops have asked to be trusted to conjure up something, but a significant minority is no longer listening because trust has broken down. If this is not a failure of process I don’t know what is.
I think a failure of process is a minority sticking their fingers in their ears, closing their eyes and ignoring that the majority in Synod has voted three times to accept the proposals brought by the House of Bishops. You may not like those proposals, but they have been thoroughly debated in Synod (and discussed/blogged/dissected out of it), votes have been cast under due process of Standing Orders and the House of Bishops’ decisions have been welcomed, encouraged and approved. I find the breaking of trust is by those who cannot accept that a vote (actually three votes) has passed… Read more »
“Unless you wish to make a case that it is C of E doctrine that there can be no good qualities whatsoever in a relationship between two people of the same gender,”
They may not have the nerve, or the ability, to make a case, but that is what the opponents of inclusivity believe in their hearts. There is no compromise to be had with people for whom the only acceptable position is total refusal to change. The CofE’s governance structures have voted; after a while, those that disagree have no option other than to leave.
“The CofE’s governance structures have voted; after a while, those that disagree have no option other than to leave.” There is also the option to accept the decision, recognise the concessions made by progressives in stepping back from equal marriage, acknowledge that there is no requirement for any priest to use the PLF (so there is no material change in day to day ministry) and also thank the bishops for the generous agreement to delegated regional pastoral oversight. A generous space has been created, there is room for all at the table. The only question is whether conservative Christians are… Read more »
A group of radicals are seeking to capture the institution by manifestly unlawful means.
The claim is that doctrine is not being changed whilst public liturgy that is an affront to doctrine is promulgated. It is an absurdity.
Windy talk about “governance structures and votes” is a tissue covering a shambles.
The Church of England is not the property of a few dozen radicals who have got themselves on Synod.
“Synod has welcomed all of this, time for the House of Bishops to finish the job and we can all move on.”. Im sorry Nic but if this were true then there wouldn’t be a problem. The truth is nearly half of Synod didn’t welcome the proposals which is why we are in the mess that we are in.
I’m sorry Simon, but people can’t simultaneously complain that process isn’t being followed at the same time as trying to ignore Standing Order 36 on the numbers required for a vote to be carried. The process of Synod is that questions are put to a vote and a majority of Synod voting in favour (or a majority in each House of Synod if requested under SO 37(4)) gives an affirmative answer. Standing Orders do not say “a majority in each House plus a little bit more if some aren’t happy”. 50% plus one. That is our process, there is no… Read more »
Thank you Nic. I was not contesting the process although there is a strong argument for Canon B2 being applicable. My simple point is that we do not have a consensus. If we did we could move forward as we did with the ordination of women and consecration of women bishops.
You’ve stated this view many times before.
In reality a substantial portion cannot in good faith smiply agree to disagree on this and feel that this is a first order salvation issue.
Repeating that you don’t consider this to be a big deal doesn’t solve anything.
It looks like the CEEC will just crack on with building the parallel structures they feel they need and it sounds like they will be doing ordinations in due course which is interesting.
The only question is what will the House of Bishops do in response?
Amen to that, Susannah – not being that familiar with monasticism, I presume that ‘enclosure’ means something similar to a retreat, into some form of religious order? May I wish you a profitable and blessed time while there. What strikes me about the statement is the claim that those of us who hold to a different view are ‘faithless’, no longer ‘true Christians’ and otherwise ‘not the ticket, old chap.’ That isn’t faith, or Christian love and tolerance. There’s another word for it – bigotry. Now I’ll admit my own affiliation to the Anglican organisation is at best a loose… Read more »
I should very much like to agree with proposition 3, but given that the CofE has already effectively established a parallel hierarchy based on a certain view of holy orders, I should think that horse has long since left the stable.
The Archbishops and College and House of Bishops need to step up to bar and call out this thuggery and bullying for what it is; schism. If people do not like the decisions General Synod has made over LFF then the answer is simple: leave.
And no they cannot take their church buildings, vicarages or funds with them.
A line has indeed been crossed. If you don’t agree with the direction of travel, please leave. Quietly. And soon.
No, thanks
CEEC is part of a very different world to the one I have lived in for many decades. Steeling myself, I listened to the piece from S Helen’s Bishopsgate and found the effect rather emetic. It is grim to know that this sort of religiosity is gaining major traction in the Church of England. The self assured arrogant tone is astonishing.
Anglican Futures is a con evo site hosted by Susie Leafe. That site has hosted several blogs like this one challenging conservative leaders to think through much more carefully what they are after. This is good news. In my experience the moment things may change is when strident dissenting groups are challenged from within, by their own friends and allies. Leafe does not sound impressed with William Taylor. A previous AF blog on the Alliance statement was similarly sharp.
The difficulty, David, is that the Anglican Futures piece is just not well written.
Susie Leafe might have something interesting to say, but she will need to get better at saying it.
For example, if you read the first “question” in the article it does not actually make sense.
If you want to cheer her on for having a go at William Taylor, go ahead if that is your thing. The first question still makes no sense.
The first question makes sense to me. Taylor appears to be using the word ‘overseer’ to mean structural/organisational, where CEEC recently used it to mean a form of ‘spiritual’ support or guidance (though even they were not very clear). She is right to question this. If you have questions about what she has written you need to take this up with her.
I cannot help but think that the Bishops of the Church of England have failed. I don’t agree with Mr Taylor at all and I stand in a very different place to him. However, there Is a very clear failure in leadership by bishops in the church of England. They are the chief Shepherds. They should correct clergy who go on wrong paths. They should encourage what is right. They should speak up with courage and integrity. This they have failed to do. Yes, we can Criticise here the actions of churches like Saint Helens Bishopsgate, but ultimately the failure… Read more »
‘Art bishops’? This sounds intriguing. Can you explain?
Typo for archbishops?
Ah, I should have guessed that. Sadly, it doesn’t sound nearly so interesting.
I know that Bishop Pete Broadbent has commented on this blog and is featured in the video. Pete – I am assuming that only male were acceptable as commissioned leaders. Are you now able to offer support to male only leadership structures?
All of the people commissioned as public leaders at St Helens were men.
The commissioning of overseers at All Souls included the commissioning of women to the role
Peter – I don’t think that you are Bishop Pete? As I understand it for St Helen’s male leadership is a first order issue and one where compromise is not favoured. I was wondering if Bishop Pete’s strong support included his support for male only leadership.
You referenced a matter wider than Pete Broadbent’s particular position.
It is perfectly reasonable for anybody to comment on a general assertion you choose to make.
This is a public blog, not a private conversation between you and Pete Broadbent.
Sure, I was just checking if Pete was using just his first name, I should have realised this is not the case. I was asking of Pete because he is on the video supporting St Helen’s.
Perhaps you would like to address this Peter (or anyone else):
For St Helen’s male leadership is not adiaphora – it is essential. It is an issue every bit as significant as blessing gay unions. This has been made clear on numerous occasions.
Pete and friends have advocated for women in leadership.
Can the compromise of CEEC last?
Phil,
Sorry, I was needlessly sharp in my response to you.
St Helen’s is, of course, complementarian. However, they do not reject communion with egalitarians. A similar set of issues arises around the Lord’s Table.
The Alliance includes churches with a range of views on women’s ministry and the Eucharist.
They are putting those differences to one side and I see no reason why that should not continue.
I think you’ll find that the five guiding principles commit us all in the CofE to supporting those churches for whom male complementarian leadership is very important! But evangelical Anglicans do not (as I think you also know) believe complementarianism to be a first order issue. That is why we are co-belligerent on the LLF/PLF stuff, which we do believe to be a first order issue. CEEC and the Alliance are indeed coalitions.
Even though the (very few) Bible verses that mention homosexuality are consistently anti, there is no way that anyone reading the Bible in order to discern its central message could possibly conclude that that was anything to do with sexual ethics. So why is it a first order issue? What this exposes is that evangelical beliefs do not in fact come straightforwardly from the Bible as is claimed but from the evangelical subculture. And one of those beliefs is that all the rest come straight out of the Bible. Wrong again.
An important distinction. The bible does not know of ‘homosexuality’ – the word itself or its modern usage. It only speaks of expressions of same-sex sexual activity. These are always condemned – and rightly so, because they are always examples of abusive, male-centred, violent, coercive, idolatrous behaviour. We condemn them too.
You’re right of course, David, about ‘homosexuality’ being a recent word, and I did consider acknowledging this in my post, but decided against it because it doesn’t affect the point I was making- that whatever you think on the issue itself, to claim that it is ‘first order’ (“We cannot agree to disagree”) reveals nothing other than eisegesis (imposing your beliefs onto the source material)- and this from the people who claim to honour the Bible!
David, the issue of homosexuality and the Bible is nuanced and complex, but if you are to speak out on this issue can you please do so with nuance and complexity yourself. And can you please pay attention to academic scholarship. A lot of work has been carried out the last 20 or 30 years in this area and I see no sign of that in this post or other posts that you have made recently. Firstly with regard to the word homosexuality. I think Dairmaid MacCulloch calls it right, and as an out gay professor of Christian history at… Read more »
The use and (more often) misuse of the word ‘homosexual’ to translate a variety of ancient words, phrases and activities in the Bible matters greatly. Getting this wrong has caused great damage and fuelled prejudice. I thought we would be in agreement on that? In my book ‘Love means Love’ I devote a whole chapter to this issue. As I am sure you know the word was first coined in 1869, by the German writer Karl-Maria Kertbeny, concerned to find a more neutral term for those drawn to same-sex relationships – to replace others in common use, many of which… Read more »
David, thank you for taking the time to respond. In my complaint about your post I said “the issue of homosexuality and the Bible is nuanced and complex, but if you are to speak out on this issue can you please do so with nuance and complexity yourself.” Your second post about the use of the word “homosexual” contains exactly that nuanced complexity. Because of that there is much that I can agree with, and where I disagree I can see where you are coming from. Thank you. I only wish that when you said the Bible “only speaks of… Read more »
An important discussion, but I would be interested to know whether there is any counter argument to my point (to which the above are posted as replies)- that while the prohibition of homosexuality can legitimately be argued from scripture, the promotion of such to a first order issue cannot, and therefore reveals an inconsistency in the oh so self-assured argument of con-evos. This is super relevant, it seems to me, because it’s the assertion that “on this we cannot agree to disagree” that is leading to schism, not merely the fact of disagreement. To repeat the argument: no one coming… Read more »
What happens to money put into the Ephesians Fund? Is it passed onto the diocese? Is it allocated to other churches by decision making trustees? Can I have some? Please can someone explain.
It is distributed according to the wishes of the donor.
It’s not difficult to understand.
I
Well the 2nd of the 10 questions seems to insinuate that it is given to the diocese, doesn’t it? (It is not well written but seems to me to imply that and the to in to the diocese is underlined. ) Are you saying that might not be true?
You need to listen to Taylor’s statement.
He points out that parish assets were transferred (perhaps confiscated would be closer to the truth) by the Dioceses in exchange for an agreement that parish share became a voluntary matter.
Taylor appeals to congregations to stop giving money to the Diocese and give it to the Ephesian Fund.
The idea this contradicts anything CEEC have said is a mischievous invention.
Well I am as wise, or foolish as ever. Or rather as ignorant as ever. I think the Second question is wrong in implying Ephesian Fund passes money to the Diocese. It may not be difficult to understand but if information is being circulated with or without mischievous intent, it is difficult to know who anyone is nor what they are saying.
Can you just tell me please whether or not Ephesians Fund passes money to dioceses? As you are a well-established poster and knowledgeable.
It is a legally registered charity. Like every such charity it will use funds in accordance with the wishes of the donor – as long as those wishes fall within the scope of the charity. (In other words, if your sympathies lie in the direction of animal welfare, for example, the Ephesian Fund cannot help you). If a PCC gives money to the Fund with the specific purpose that it is then given to a particular Diocese that is what will happen. Unlike the PCC, The Ephesian Fund can impose restrictions on the donation to the Diocese and say the… Read more »
‘Unlike the PCC, The Ephesian Fund can impose restrictions on the donation to the Diocese and say the money can only be used for a specific purpose – orthodox ministry’ Back in the very early days of my own change of heart on LGBTQI+ inclusion, one of the significant steps was when I admitted to myself that my affirming colleagues were every bit as committed to the Catholic faith as I was. They said the creeds without crossing their fingers behind their backs, they believed and used the authorized liturgies of our church, they were obedient to the authority of… Read more »
I am just providing an accurate answer to a question, Tim.
The Ephesian Fund is a registered charity. It will only distribute money to orthodox ministry. It defines orthodoxy in its organisational articles.
That is just a set of facts. They are not “my facts”.
You haven’t provided an answer to Tim’s points that
a) in his observation, most supporters of LGBT relationships are as orthodox as he is (and, by implication, as orthodox as you are), and
b) you have frequently been told that your use of the term ‘unorthodox’ to describe any faithful Christians who disagree with you, is very hurtful.
However the Ephesian fund defines orthodoxy, you have a choice about how you use words like ‘orthodox’ (making the rest of us into heretics) and ‘faithful’ (so the rest of us are unfaithful). We all know stories of people who have taken their own lives because their church’s attitude to their sexuality was so harsh and uncompromising and has brought them to a state of despair. Others who have not taken that step have become quite seriously ill as a result of the emotional stress they endure every day. The names of Vicky Beeching and Lizzie Lowe come to mind,… Read more »
That’s interesting. Thank you.
So do the diocese have to account separately for monies received from the Ephesian Fund.
Also, is there a way of preventing the diocese giving money from Ephesian to St A church but then deducting the same amount from what they would otherwise have given, leaving all the same?
I know given isn’t really the right word. Am I right in thinking that when glebe land and endowments were taken over by dioceses the promise was that parishes wouldn’t have to pay clergy at all?
Ephesian Fund donations must be used in accordance with the donors wishes by the Diocese. The Diocese could refuse the donation if they believed its conditional receipt was to the detriment of the Diocese. That would be “taking the gloves off” by any measure. The Diocese would certainly be free to make its own decisions regarding its own disbursements. Yes, assets were transferred from the parishes to the Dioceses as you described (confiscated, some might say). My understanding is that the deal was parishes would be invited to make a voluntary contribution to the Diocese which correlated to the clergy… Read more »
I think if parishes start trying to use money or its withholding to force dioceses into supporting their views the dioceses should seek avenues to remove the clergy and PCC involved. They should absolutely refuse “conditional” donations of this kind and the church commissioners should release interim funding to ride out this attempted abuse of power.
On what grounds exactly ?
The money belongs to the PCC. They are under no legal obligation to give it to the Diocese. If they want to give it to The Ephesian Fund or another equivalent body that is entirely within the scope of their legal powers.
There is no possible basis for seeking the removal of trustees (PCC members are trustees) under such circumstances.
They’re failing in their duty to the parish and the mission of the whole church in breach of charitable objectives – they’re using church funds for “party” purposes and are engaging in manipulative behaviour bordering on blackmail.
They are doing nothing of the sort.
The fact you do not agree with them does not mean they are in breach of their charitable objectives and engaging in behaviour bordering on blackmail.
Clergy deployment used to be calculated both on the size of the congregation and the population of the parish. I hope it still is. The C of E is there for everyone living within parish boundaries, not just those attending church; and working only with the congregation makes mission impossible.
Janet, thank you.
You make an important point. The cure of souls is spoken of too little these days
To be honest all this was foreseeable. I dont condone the splits that are occurring but this is the end result of the relentless pursuit of LLF by our senior bishops over the last 7 years at huge expense and endless hours of Synods time. All this despite the serious misgivings expressed by almost half of Synod. I sometimes think the Church of England on all sides is becomingly increasingly becoming inhabited by some very big egos. Thats not what I see when I look at Jesus and his humility.
I don’t see LLF as being dragged out by the bishops, but by the conservative minority (a substantial minority, but minority none the less) on Synod who cannot accept the results of the February 2023 vote. There has been huge time and energy put by the CEEC under the leadership of John Dunnett into contesting Synodical decisions, forcing Synod to have to go over old ground, work through minutiae and spend more and more time justifying decisions already made. Take a look at the questions submitted at the last few Synods on LLF, they largely come from those of a… Read more »
Hi Nic Thanks for your comments and I hope that we can agree to disagree amicably. All this will be played out at parish level in the coming months Im sure as incumbents and PCCs (or church memberships as a whole) grapple with the decision about whether to opt into the prayers and stand alone services. I shall be attending the induction tonight of a new incumbent in the parish in which I live (and the neighbouring parish to the one I attend) who has a strong revisionist stance. Even though I strongly disagree with her over LLF I want… Read more »
Thanks Simon, and I also hope we can agree to disagree amicably. I currently worship in an evangelical church where the incumbent does not wish to use the PLF, and I completely back him over that – even though I have put much energy into allowing their use within the C of E by those clergy who would wish to. I completely support clerical conscience in this, and hope that laity and clergy can continue working together for the good of the church. My own experience is that good relationships at a local level overcome a lot of problems. As… Read more »
We seem to have a short memory. Forward in Faith, or the Society, as it is now called, seems to have followed a similar path after the decision to ordain women, and was equally misanthropic and “right”, and exclusive. I remember the abuse levelled against those of us who accepted women priests, (which still goes on in the shadows!). We seem obsessed by power and “right” thinking rather than love and acceptance, as were some of the Apostles, with whom Jesus vehemently disagreed The church was already divided before the end of the first century, and people like St Augustine… Read more »
The silence from the House of Bishops and the two Archbishops is very loud.
Yapping away about William Taylor and St Helen’s is all very well and certain to continue.
Anglican Futures joins a pretty sizeable group who occupy themselves with that particular eccentric sport.
What actually matters is that a new Province is taking shape. It will not be ignored. It will not be defeated.
It is not going away.
Peter, you very well know that it will take parliamentary legislation to create a new Province and there are years and years of work that would be necessary to get there. So these folks can feel that they are creating change but it is just not that simple.
What would be simple is for them to leave the CofE and create their own denomination then they can follow whatever path they choose.God loves a tryer I hear.
What would be simple would be for the bishops to honour their consecration vows.
God loves a faithful bishop
All the more reason for these few to cut the cord and keep themselves pure
Shades of Kruschev – “we will bury you”. The new province won’t happen. It’s an ecclesiological and logical absurdity. No amount of stamping of feet is going to make it happen. Sore feet will eventually lead to a modestly enlarged Free CofE and a lot of chuntering when people realise that schismatic posturing comes with costs as well as benefits.
Brave talk, Jo.
Your are confusing what you want to happen, with what is happening.
If you think the bishops are going to crush the dissenters – the only action consistent with your analysis – you are deluding yourself.
The bishops may have abandoned the apostolic faith, but they are not stupid people. They are not going to incinerate the institution, however much a small minority might hope they do so.
The New Testament indicates that the apostolic faith included a commitment to non-violence and pacifism. This commitment was almost universal in the early Christian centuries, ’til the Roman takeover of the church necessitated the development of the revisionist just war theory.
Have your orthodox lot recommitted themselves to non-violence and pacifism? If not I guess they’ve abandoned the apostolic faith, too.
The creation of a third province requires active support and considerable legislation. I fully expect the bishops to procrastinate and kick the can down the road, but they’re not going to support a third province.
We are in complete agreement, which is a pleasant surprise. The bishops will resist a third province at every stage. It will come down to the numbers. The HTB network on its own is the size of a rural Diocese. Yes, I know, not everybody in HTB thinks the same thing and HTB are a separate network to St Helen’s and CEEC. The fact remains that HTB is clearly part of The Alliance, along with many other networks. Once the Alliance gets into its stride you will see dissenting structures that are on a scale equivalent to multiple Diocesan structures.… Read more »
The last few weeks have seen an increasing trickle of people who have been worshiping at a local member of the HTB Network start to worship at a nearby affirming church – as they realised the position that it took on the matter of same-sex relationships (something they only worked out by deduction and making connections themselves, as the matter has not been open for discussion within the church). Their self-expressed feeling is one of the truth of this position having been withheld by silence from those in positions of leadership, and a feeling that others have the same feeling… Read more »
For clarity, I worship in a church where those in leadership roles hold a diversity of personal opinions, but hold that praying and worshiping together despite these differences is a greater calling than being divided by them. A lived-out example of people of different views travelling together.
I didn’t update myself with the news on Thinking Anglicans until this morning that another commissioning service (What! Another one!?) took place on 24 July at St Helen’s Bishopsgate. At first I couldn’t be bothered to watch the video, reading the 30-odd comments instead. Eventually, despite the warm sun and blue sky beckoning me to the garden, I watched. By the end of the video I felt sick. These people (some of whom, Pete Broadbent for example, should know better) demand a church (well, that’s not quite right – are unilaterally setting themselves apart as a separate church) that is nevertheless… Read more »
Colin, my thoughts and prayers are with you. The Devil must be a very happy whatever-he – is today .
And of course there isn’t a senior bishop in sight trying to mitigate the harm
LGBTQ people should feel flattered that the CofE has spent years discussing them, regarding them as the most influential people on the planet. Their very existence has caused untold anxiety to confused evangelicals who, happily, may leave the church to wallow in their own bigotry. We should be grateful to the LGBTQ community for helping to cleanse the church of a group more obsessed by gay sex than anyone on Grindr. Goodbye happy-clappys!
Speaking as a sympathetic straight, I believe its safe to say that LGBTQ people, far from being flattered by being discussed are a bit fed up with it – talked about, talked at but rarely talked with – and usually from a pre-assumed position of self righteous condemnation. On a personal level, as I said earlier, having started as a rather immature literally minded evangelical who, by nature and conditioning could only see things in black and white, I came to value the broad tolerance of the old Anglican tradition, which the CEEC are seemingly determined to destroy. And yes,… Read more »
I assume that the reason sex is considered important by God is that it is the one thing we do that has a share in his work of creation. Thus, it has to be used with great care and discretion. Hence the 7th commandment. Activity that does involve potential creation is a totally different issue and should be considered on its merits, not unilaterally condemned.
Isn’t that an argument for being relaxed for same sex sex but having restrictions on heterosexual sex?
It is.
Sorry, Typo! Should have read Activity that does not….
A simple case of a frog in a pot. If the Bishops wait patiently, those who really want to leave will eventually do so without being pushed, and those who can’t bear to leave because remaining part of the Establishment is too appealing will stay and slowly fall in line. In other words, they’ll boil themselves.
If it is true that divisions over LLF have made it impossible to fill two diocesan sees, and if such divisions make it impossible to fill further sees, I wonder which frogs will come to the boil and go ‘pop’ first.
Mercifully, we remain a national church and subject to Parliament. I eagerly await their intervention.
Your frogs will have boiled dry before that happens. Don’t kid yourself that any more than a handful of MPs give a hoot about the C of E.
True to some extent Father. But there is an Ecclesiastical Committee and at the time of the ordination of women they played an important part in the arrangements that followed not least regarding the compensation package. I think they would be very interested in such a structural differentiation as a Third Province which would be a considerable alteration to the National Church
I’m aware of that, but the Ecclesiastical Committee acted in response to an initiative taken by Synod. I rather doubt that Parliament would intervene in Church matters on its own initiative. If it were minded to do so, I would rather it took a long hard look at C of E safeguarding.
The Anglican Futures article is being elevated to a level at which must assume its “Ten questions” will soon be nailed to the door of Exeter Cathedral. The fact is that Susie Leafe is engaging in politics, not ecclesiology. I do not speak for William Taylor or St Helen’s Bishopsgate, but before all sense of proportion is lost, I summarise below ten immediately obvious answers to her ten very superficial questions. Question 1 – Alternative spiritual oversight is alternative oversight. Question 2.- The Ephesian Fund is not the same as The Church of England. Question 3. – William Taylor is… Read more »
What has Exeter Cathedral got to do with this discussion?
The Leafes are resident in Exeter diocese.
I think Truro actually
Ah, yes. The Victorian diocese carved out of Exeter.
IIUC, Fowey is in Cornwall and Truro Diocese.
However, the views of the current leadership in Exeter Diocese and of the Bishop Designate of Exeter may be thought relevant to a possible posting of protestations in regard of current issues 😉
A diocese in which Rod Thomas is an associate bishop.
I’m pretty confident you understand the allusion to nailing interrogatory documents to cathedral doors.
I’m sure your deflection is unintended.
Aren’t they 83 complaints short if that’s what you mean?
My question was why Exeter? Anglican Futures, like Susie Leafe, is based in Truro Diocese. And since the questions are directed at William Taylor they need nailing to the door of St Helen’s I would have thought.
If Herr Dr Luther is being referred to there would, I think, be 85 missing. Exeter Cathedral is where His late Majesty King William III worshipped after landing at Torbay in 1688.
Also, traditionally, where the first Orange Lodge was founded.
Peter, if you’re unhappy with Susie Leafe’s Ten Questions, how about nailing a selection from ’95 Theses 95′ to the door of Exeter Cathedral? 4. You taught me to worship a god who is like you, who shares your thinking exactly. 5. You have taught me to feel shame and disgust about my own body. 6. You have taught me the fear of becoming lost, which has killed the pleasure of curiosity and discovery. 7. You have taught me to fear strangers and their illicit designs, robbing me of easy companionship, making me a very suspicious friend. 8. You have… Read more »
You are jumping on somebody else’s bandwagon.
Susie Leafe is in a muddle on St Helen’s Bishopsgate, but she is orthodox.
She would not align herself with your critique
Peter, I apologise for including Keillor’s 4th thesis. The rest I stand by. Why? Because in my experience of parish ministry they are the baleful outcomes of that ConEvo theology which denies gay people the intimacy that I and others can take for granted.
I am heartened that no attempt is made to maintain the conceit that there is any ecclesiology behind the Anglican Futures “questions”.
Peter – I do agree with you on this. There is no ecclesiology of substance. Canon Phil Ashey is a trustee of Anglican Futures and he designed the constitution of The Global South Fellowship of Anglicans. He is their key ecclesiologist. I believe his ecclesiology is seriously flawed and unbiblical. He is also a serious player in GAFCON and Susie is closely associated with GAFCON. Without GAFCON Anglican Futures is nothing. I can see a pattern of a failed ecclesiology in both. However, it is GSFA and GAFCON that William Taylor says he is in line with. What is going… Read more »
Anglican Futures is – to put it generously – a sideshow. Congregations look to their leaders for direction – not to bloggers.
St Helen’s is one of the most influential churches in the Country and has been for decades.
I therefore do not, myself, buy the idea William Taylor is driven by ambition.
I suspect he would prefer to be on a farm looking after cows rather than inviting national opprobrium on himself.
Part of the issue at General Synod is that the words “structural solution” imply a structure, and a structure implies an ecclesiology. The dissenters on the consecration of women as bishops had a recognisable ecclesiology – proponents might not have liked it, or the implications behind it, but they could understand what it was.
You may find this article on ‘Surviving Church’, in this link, interesting reading: https://survivingchurch.org/2024/07/27/an-elite-church-network/ It may well go a long way to explaining a great deal about the Smyth conspiracy, which doesn’t seem to be too strong a word, if all this is true. I presume neither Hattie or Stephen would publish it if it wasn’t. All I will say is that I feel a profound sense of betrayal, of trust, faith and integrity. James 4 and 5 seem particularly appropriate. Well, if this ‘pure elite’ who think that God will bless the work of their hands, so be it.… Read more »
More HTB nonsense. When I attended an HTB church I was involved in helping out at night shelters and food banks.
PS. How is it that ‘the same mighty power that raised Christ from the dead, and is at work in our mortal bodies’ is seemingly totally helpless in the face of organised cover-ups and corruption? Was it Michael Ramsey who once said that ‘God was like a weak old woman, who could do nothing without us’? I remember some of these folk deriding him for saying that. And what happened to the message of those genuine, first generation charismatics who truly believed that holiness and righteousness exalted a nation or church, and looked for integrity? No wonder God hasn’t answered… Read more »
Listening to William Taylor I am struck by his eucharistic theology. Clearly in the Calvinist tradition the key thing is remembrance, but not only that – it is remembering ‘the death of the Lord Jesus Christ’. No mention of resurrection or of the anticipation of the Lord’s return. I have no doubt that he believes in both, but the death is the key focus. The death is remembered. I wonder if the reason for sensitivity around this is the compromise that has been made in the wider movement where they were criticised for the promotion of lay presidency in the… Read more »
I’m not convinced Calvin’s view of the eucharist is so one-dimensional. Institutes 17.2, to give but one example, provides a rich understanding of what confidence the partaker may receive from the sacrament. One hopes Mr Taylor and other Calvinists might believe so as well! ‘Pious souls can derive great confidence and delight from this sacrament, as being a testimony that they form one body with Christ, so that everything which is his they may call their own. Hence it follows, that we can confidently assure ourselves, that eternal life, of which he himself is the heir, is ours, and that… Read more »
I would like to amend my post. The clear emphasis of the Calvinist/Reformed Anglican tradition places an emphasis on remembrance and this includes remembering the resurrection and hopes for the coming of the Lord. William Taylor just talks of remembering the Lord’s death. I don’t doubt he believes in both the resurrection and second coming, but it is indicative of his emphasis. The reform tradition does expect change in us by the remembrance rather than change in the elements (and that would be my belief) but just remembering the death of Christ is insufficient without the Easter hope. I wonder… Read more »
Phil, I suspect it’s because he’s echoing 1 Corinthians 11: ‘For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.’ Resurrection is not mentioned in this verse (tho’ return is).
It isn’t Calvinists. Calvin’s eucharistic doctrine is far higher. For a modern exposition see B Gerrish’s fine study ” Grace and Gratitude”. Eat, drink and remember is often thought to be Zwinglian ( though that is probably unfair to Zwingli) It certainly falls far short of the teaching in the BCP Prayer Book catechism and certainly the ecumenical convergence to be found in the dialogues Anglicanism has had with Reformed, Lutheran, R C. and Orthodox. I have often felt that the teaching of Church,Sacraments and Ministry in some training institutions has been inadequate .
Thank you.
AP, am I correct in my vague memory that Calvin was on record as approving the Eucharistic theology of the 1552 BCP?
I do not know. I somehow doubt it. 1552 was a very tough year for Calvin, perhaps his lowest in Geneva. He was also fighting the ‘libertines.’ Think puritans. I’m not sure how much he was tracking affairs in England. (Cranmer was keen on tracking things on the continent, but how much it went the other way would depend on the degree of civil peace that obtained). This is the kind of thing Brian Gerrish would know. With P. Butler above, throwing the word ‘calvinist’ around is usually a marker of not knowing very much about his actual theology. And… Read more »
Thanks. I thought I had read it somewhere, but I can’t now remember where.
I’ve read only a small amount of Calvin’s Institutes, enough to make me aware that I should never try to pose as a Calvin expert.
I often think that when people throw around ‘calvinist’ what they could just as easily say is ‘augustinian.’ Even the Jesuit effort to drive a wedge between Augustine and Aquinas on matters dear to the later Calvin (free will etc), were so much legerdemain.
It is always easy to throw around names, but to make them the ultimate definition of being true follower of Jesus is something else entirely. I have listened to the St Helen’s tirade and find it incredibly arrogant and un-Christian. It reminded me of the episode in the Gospels where the disciples were wrangling about who was the greatest among them. They got short shrift from Jesus. The people Jesus most strongly condemned were the dogmatists and legalists. If these people believe that the church is in a state of heresy, then they must leave immediately, shake the dust from… Read more »
Would you mind explaining why St Helen’s should leave ? They are the Church of England.
It is the heretics who should leave.
Of which heresy?
I am sure Thomas Reilly will be happy to explain his use of the term
You said that the heretics should leave, Peter. I was merely echoing your use of the word.
They are doing the excluding.They see themselves as the only true church, like the Donatists Only they are the true believers, (in their eyes.). I wonder if they are, in Jesus eyes. Their priorities seem very different from those of Jesus, who spent time with sinners, eating and drinking, and listening, and loving. The good observant people, in the meantime, conspired against Him, because His vision of the Kingdom differed from theirs, and they were no longer in command.
By the way, they are in the Church of England; they are not the Church of England.
Teaching of Church, Sacraments and Ministry is indeed inadequate in many places. I’ve had conversations with newly-ordained deacons who struggle to understand why, having been ordained (or commissioned) they can’t “break bread” or why they would need to undergo a further ordination in order to do so. And the whole confusion around what did or didn’t happen at St Helen’s, Bishopgate, and what sort of services those who were commissioned there might be leading must in part be a consequence of a decline in any understanding of the nature of order and ministry.
Yes- this frustrated and concerned liturgy teacher agrees. Some residential colleges now teach no liturgy at all. And William Taylor is probably Zwinglian in his eucharistic theology. I have grown to appreciate Calvin ‘s eucharistic theology as the years have gone by.
There are echoes of Calvin’s emphasis on Christ’s high priestly ministry in Prayer E (one of the better EPs in CW for my money), which finds expression in the notion of “pleading” Christ’s sacrifice. This seems to have found a way around the problem of eucharistic sacrifice, one which is acceptable to Evangelicals while being more dynamic than the anodyne “making the memorial” which struggles to get us past Good Friday.
Charles, it’s not just now; I don’t think I received any liturgical training, either theological or practical, except for funerals at my residential college and that was nearly 40 years ago.
Church Ministry and Sacramento used to be a while paper in the General Ordination Exam when it existed. Why look to Calvin? Or Zwingli? Or the 1552 prayer Book which was authorized for a very short time and whose Eucharistic doctrine ( along with the sacramental doctrine of the 42 articles) were significantly altered in 1559-1570. I recommend to ordinands The Mystery of the Eucharist in the Anglican Tradition by Henry McAdoo ( late Abp of Dublin) and Kenneth Stevenson ( late Bishop of Portsmouth).
Perry, your point of view was heard loud and clear in the 1985 Canadian BAS, in which Cranmer’s theology of the Eucharist was banished to the ‘service in the language of the 1962 BCP’, and all the contemporary prayers expressed an Anglo-Catholic view. Some years later this omission was recognised, and a little-known supplementary resource was issued, which included an alternative prayer which expressed ‘reformed theological conscience’ (written, so I’ve been informed, by three Anglo-Catholics spending the weekend at the Priory in Edmonton!). So yeah, I’d be very grateful to have the legitimacy of a Cranmerian theology of the Eucharist… Read more »
I don’t know enough about the Canadian situation Tim. Of course there is a lot of debate about what Cranmer’s theology really was and he was dead before the 39 Articles and the sacramental questions in the BCP catechism which were added in James’s reign. Cranmer seems to have believed in “eucharistic parallelism” ( see the footnote in D MacCulloch’s Life for explanation) a belief he shared with Bucer and Peter Martyr. Following the catechism anglicans were broadly agreed that those who receive with faith the consecrated elements thereby received the Body and Blood of the Lord but the relationship… Read more »
Cranmer wrote a book about his Eucharistic theology which I actually found quite lucid.
So at this point in proceedings, I don’t entirely understand why the CEEC wants to be a part of the Church of England. They seem to think that the majority of the bishops are heterodox, that possibly quite a lot of the clergy and laity are, and now Bishop Rod has carried out this sort of not quite ordination for people who may or may not be laity to perhaps preside at Holy Communion. Like if the concern is to “remain faithful to Jesus and his teaching” – as Mr. Taylor is quoted in the Times – then why are… Read more »
In short: money and buildings.
If they were to leave the C of E, they would have to leave their church buildings. Their clergy would have to leave their vicarages. Any new denomination would have to make fresh provision for pensions.
A cynic would also point out that staying in the C of E enables them to stay under cover, so to speak. Being an independent denomination would leave them wide open to being labelled the Homophobic Church.
Can’t fault that logic. They seem not truly to have the confidence of their convictions and prefer to hang on to their comforter being the CofE rather than break free and be entirely honest, Perhaps they have also realised that there aren’t actually congregations that will follow them down the road to the school hall. Or they just aren’t willing to test the theory of the notional 50%
They are more concerned with continuing the churches mission and being faithful to their calling than thinking about money and buildings. I don’t think they mind what they are called as long as they believe they are being faithful. Worse things have happened.
The bit you are missing is that St Helen’s is a Church of England congregation. They are not going anywhere and there is no reason at all why they should.
Why are you persistently provocative and antagonistic? You don’t reply to sensible comments, except to reiterate your opinion as if it were fact.
I believe the technical term is ‘troll.’
If you would care to look at my comments you will see a significant number are simply replying to questions actually put directly to me.
The technical term for that is answering the question.
I apologise for being intemperate. It’s been a long and unpleasant day.
Thank you. I appreciate your personal decency
What are you talking about ? I was replying directly to an assertion that St Helens should just leave the Church of England.
How much more provocative and antagonistic can you get than telling faithful congregations to leave the Church of England.
If people would stop making such inflammatory statements people such as myself would not be commenting
I grew up in a denomination far more conservative than the Church of England. More so as a group, in fact, than those at Bishopsgate. Any hint of heterodoxy was cause for separation. Was it always warranted? Probably not. Was it considered to be ‘Biblical’? Absolutely. 2 Corinthians 6.17 was in rather constant use. It’s not at all unrealistic or inflammatory for people to suggest leaving as the best option, given the rhetoric they may have heard or experienced, as I did, in other contexts.
I respect your personal experience and entirely agree that orthodoxy can become a form of self righteousness.
I do not think that is the case in regard to the current turmoil
Yeah I mean boss, I get that. But if this is such a big deal that a bishop has come in to sort-of ordain people, it feels like there’s a way of doing that which would require much less aggro.
I have no idea what you are attempting to say
Given that the leadership of St Helen’s have made it abundantly clear they’re not willing to be in communion with those who disagree with their take on same sex relationships they’ve already declared themselves outside the CofE (and the Anglican Communion, for which one must necessarily be in communion with the ABC); all that remains is to remove them from the church property and livings in which they are squatting. If they had a shred of integrity they’d do it themselves.
Integrity works both ways.
St Helen’s have declared themselves outside of the Church of England ? And the Anglican Communion ?? – for which it is necessary to be in Communion with the ABC ???
I think we both know that those three assertions have no contact with reality.
The ABC is Primate of All England and one of the instruments of communion in the Anglican Communion. It follows that if one declares, as the third provincials have done, that one is not in communion with the bishops, including the ABC, who are endorsing PLF that one is not part of the CofE or the Anglican Communion. Not my fault if neither you nor the St Helen’s leadership are able to follow the logical consequences of the pronouncements being made.
What you are missing is the oath made at ordination, which you are telling them to break.
Note that the Church Times report has been updated to include a response from Church House, Westminster.
A spokesperson for Church House said: “The lead bishop for LLF, alongside the LLF staff team, are in conversation with different networks in order to bring further detail to proposals to the House of Bishops in October. “We are seeking to move forward as one church. That will require grace, realism and a recognition that, as Christians, we hold a variety of views on these questions, all of which are held with integrity and all of which deserve respect.” A statement that says absolutely nothing, especially about the unashamed bid to force a third (homophobic) province on the C of… Read more »
Helen King fails to mention the mystery surrounding Rod Thomas’s travel arrangements on the 24th July. He may have arrived at one of a number of different railway stations that morning.
There is then eccentric and probably unlawful decision by Revd William Taylor not to wear robes. Canon lawyers are surely needed to clear up the questions.
Anonymous sources have also suggested Rod Thomas has been known to visit a beach near Exeter to paddle in the sea stretch his legs.
Much to ponder.
If you are correct Peter then Bishop Thomas has certainly risen in my estimation.
Unlike a certain Diocesan who, when I checked if he knew the way back to the station, looked at me in disgust and said his chauffeur was waiting round the corner.
Anglican Futures have done an interesting and much better article on ministry in a time of limited resources.
I think I now see their perspective regarding irregular public ministry.
I do not necessarily agree with the analysis, but it makes some sense.
If they would shed the “chip on their shoulder” they have regarding William Taylor, they could make a useful contribution to debate.
Interesting to read all the discussion of what happened at St Helen’s and of the questions raised by Anglican Futures. I thought I ought to clarify… all blogs on our website are unattributed to try to encourage people to engage with the issues they raise, rather than moan about the author. It has also given a voice to many who otherwise wouldn’t be heard.. those working on estates, or small parish churches, lay people etc. Most blogs are written by more than one person. This one was a collation of questions that came from a variety of sources. The blog… Read more »