CofE's first female Bishop and what business is it of yours?

It cannot have escaped your notice that the Church of England have just appointed their first female bishop. Details can be found here, here or at any other newspaper you prefer. Rev'd Libby Lane has been promoted to the vacant post in the See of Stockport. Greater Manchester will no doubt see this as something of a coup, maintaining it's reputation as a liberal, progressive region. Two comments from opposite ends of the spectrum can be found here (by the Archbishop Cranmer blog) and here (from Reformation 21).

As I commented here, quite the cause of the hoopla is beyond me. Irrespective of my own position on the matter, I can entirely understand the internal machinations of Anglicanism determining this as "a time for change". I can fully comprehend those within the church wishing to see their own personal views worked out within the church itself. I can also understand the strength of feeling on both sides of the debate and the difficulties this will cause to those currently within Anglicanism who do not share the view this marks a momentous step forward. I can even grasp why those Christians outside the Anglican church would take an interest on the basis that which affects Anglicanism will affect the rest of Christendom. The idea that the little Independent Evangelical Church will in no way be affected by the decisions from within the Anglican communion is nonsense.

However, what I cannot get my head around is the desire of people outside the Anglican church - those who have no attachment to Anglicanism, involvement in other denominations who will face knock-on effects, nor even identify as Christian - who insist upon a say in church matters. It seems such people believe a church to which they don't belong, which they deemed an irrelevance long ago and for whom their decisions will have not the slightest effect on their life, ought to do what they want. It is the ecclesiastical equivalent of a Spaniard, who has never left Spain and has no link to the UK, insisting on the right to determine Home Office policy in Britain. They neither suffer nor benefit from the decision, they have no right to make that decision and yet they insist their voice must be heard in the decision-making process and, more than that, should prevail above all. Maybe I am missing something but, to me at least, it seems totally crackers!

I have no doubt there are strong, and probably majority, voices pressing for such changes within Anglicanism. Such are entitled to their position. For those less inclined to the new direction, they too are entitled to voice their views and (certainly now) face a decision as to whether to remain within the communion or to jump ship. But, of course, the predominant fanfare has come from neither of these quarters. Much has come from the mainstream media and those with little to no connection to the church, or Christianity, at all. 

At last, those underrepresented voices - the many who neither identify as Anglican, have any love for the church nor belong to other denominations for whom such decisions have knock-on effects - can rest safe in the knowledge that an institution for which they ordinarily care not one jot has finally come into line with their views. What a relief this news will be for them!

What do the Scottish Independence referendum and the Anglican Church have in common?

To the great relief of some and the consternation of others (on both sides of the border), Scotland have voted "no" in the independence referendum. The status quo is maintained and we remain the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Whether it was fear of the unknown (or, fear of troubling knowns), the lack of a positive vision for an independent Scotland or simply that many Scots are more conservative than they let on, it is clear most did not share the belief of the Scottish National Party that Scotland is better as an independent nation. Sadly for those seeking independence, a referendum of this order comes around once in a lifetime and, for them, it seems the boat has sailed.

It occurs to me that discussion within Anglicanism mirrors, on some level, the Scottish independence debate. Calls for a mass exodus of bible-believing evangelicals from the Anglican communion have certainly been around for decades (possibly centuries). Yet, evangelicals within Anglicanism - despite their own growing discontent over an increasing number of issues - continue to hold fast their denominational allegiance.

Perhaps, like Scotland, it is a lack of any positive vision that is the stumbling block. It is one thing to heed the voice of Martin Lloyd-Jones and remove oneself from Anglicansim but it is quite another to do it without any positive vision of what to do thereafter. Breaking ties with all one has ever known is not as straightforward as one may think. There are a handful arguments advanced for remaining within the denomination which, without similar positive reasons to leave, mean making the break is not the no-brainer it seems to those of us in the Free Church.

Maybe it is simply a fear of the unknown (or, certain concerning knowns). Not only is it unclear what some would do after their disassociation but there are some known problems associated with leaving. Buildings, land and stipends are often tied up with being part of the wider Anglican communion. It would be no small step of faith to remove oneself from the denomination and trust that buildings, land and stipends (not to mention a raft of other things) will follow suit.

Alternatively, the issue may be one of timing. Many evangelical Anglicans I meet speak of "now as the right time" to begin making a stand on X, Y or Z issue. What is rather unfortunate is that Lloyd-Jones encouraged evangelicals to leave Anglicanism decades ago based on a commitment to the gospel. Today, discussion centres on issues of headship, female ordination and homosexuality rather than the gospel itself. Like it or not, even if evangelical Anglicans now decide the church has taken a step too far, it will be cast as a separation on the current issues, not on theological concern for the purity of the gospel.

As with Scottish Independence, the opportunity to make a stand on the right issue tends to roll around but once. Unlike Scotland, evangelicals within the Anglican Communion could still leave the denomination if they so choose. What is less likely is that they will be able to do so on both the issue, and the terms, they might like.

Why on earth are evangelical statements of this kind treated differently?

I was surprised to read in today's Guardian two particularly good comments, within the same article, by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Here, Justin Welby outlined the difficult position in which the Anglican Communion finds itself regarding gay marriage.

The first comment, which really outlines the difficult position, was the headline of the article. Welby suggested that African believers will be killed if the CofE accepts gay marriage. He told of the mass grave he had seen in Nigeria of 330 Christians who had been killed by their neighbours. He said this atrocity was justified by those who committed it this way: "If we leave a Christian community here we will all be made to become homosexual and so we will kill all the Christians".

Welby went on to say "I have stood by gravesides in Africa of a group of Christians who had been attacked because of something that had happened in America. We have to listen to that. We have to be aware of the fact". If the Church of England celebrated gay marriages, he added, "the impact of that on Christians far from here, in South Sudan, Pakistan, Nigeria and other places would be absolutely catastrophic. Everything we say here goes round the world".

Welby is right to outline this issue. The Anglican Church does not operate in a Western Liberal bubble and its pronouncements are felt across the world. Moreover, it is not only those who subscribe to Anglicanism who are affected. All Christians will feel the brunt of their decisions and statements, irrespective of whether they themselves are Anglican communicants. Most people do not have enough theological nuance to differentiate between denominations and theological views. Typically, whether believers like it or not, Anglicanism is seen as the authentic voice of Christianity across the world. As such, not only do CofE pronouncements affect Anglican believers, they have knock-on effects for all Christians, especially those in countries in which Christianity is less than welcome.

However, the far more interesting part of the article came later, almost as an aside. The article stated:

Welby also condemned homophobia in England. "To treat every human being with equal importance and dignity is a fundamental part of being a Christian," he said. Although he continued to uphold what he called the historic position of the church, of "sex only within marriage and marriage only between a man and a woman", he agreed with the presenter, James O'Brien, that it was "completely unacceptable" for the church to condemn homosexual people more than adulterous heterosexual people.

This is the closest statement to the scriptural position on gay marriage I have seen from the Archbishop and it was this that caught my attention. 

As a caveat, I appreciate there are some fundamentalist, and fewer evangelical, churches who would not frame the Christian position in this way. There are those who would major on homosexuality in a thoroughly unhelpful (and unbiblical?) way. I also appreciate there are those who, though they would make similar comments, say and do a series of other things that rather undermine their stated position. Again, however, I think these churches are in the minority within both fundamentalist and evangelical circles.

This was the thing that interested me most. The Guardian, the paper most likely to cry foul play on this issue, reported fairly that the Archbishop "condemned homophobia". They rightly stated the scriptural position that all people should be treated with dignity and respect - irrespective of whatever sin they may have committed - as "a fundamental part of being a Christian". All of this was stated alongside the clear view of the Archbishop that sex is for marriage between a man and a woman but that it is nevertheless wrong to condemn homosexual behaviour more than adulterous heterosexual behaviour. All of that, I completely endorse.

Why then, given the Archbishop of Canterbury was deemed - by the Guardian no less - to have "condemned homophobia", do evangelicals who make exactly the same case get castigated as homophobic? Almost every evangelical church I have known (with few exceptions), would state the position of scripture and their individual, independent churches in almost exactly those terms. 

Recently, evangelical writer and rector of St Ebbes, Oxford - Vaughan Roberts - expressed precisely this view in an interview for Evangelical Now, as well as in his book Battles Christians Face. In both interview and book, he bravely spoke of his own personal struggle with same-sex attraction. Other evangelical writers have written similar articles and books making much the same case. It simply beggars belief that this statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury can be deemed to condemn homophobia whilst nigh on identical statements from evangelical quarters are roundly condemned as homophobic.

If the scriptural position stated by Justin Welby is recognised as condemning homophobia, continual claims of evangelical homophobia need to be addressed. If it be homophobic to call homosexual acts (whilst still respecting the rights and dignity of those attracted to people of the same-sex) sinful, in precisely the same way as calling adulterous heterosexuality (whilst still respecting the rights and dignity of those people) sinful, then it is hard to see how Justin Welby's comments escape this charge. If, however, the scriptural view is not deemed fundamentally homophobic - that all people irrespective of the particular sins they commit (of which, we all commit some) are worthy of dignity and respect but that any sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage does amount to sin - then Justin Welby, the CofE and the majority of evangelical churches cannot, and should not, be labelled uniformly homophobic.

I would love it if this signals a change in media reporting. I would be delighted if this means the genuine nuances of the scriptural view, and majority position within evangelicalism, are reported fairly. It would be great if Christians are not simply denounced as homophobic when they differentiate the choice to commit homosexual acts from the homosexual people who do not choose to be attracted to people of the same-sex. This is exactly the same as the differentiation between the heterosexual people who do not choose to be attracted to people of the opposite sex but do choose when, and with whom, to engage in sexual activity. 

When evangelicals speak of homosexuality as sinful, they rarely mean same-sex attraction is of itself sinful, intentional and chosen. I hope these nuances are reported fairly and this marks a sea-change in the way evangelical, and broader Christian, views of homosexuality are seen in the media and the public square. I hope this is the case but I shan't hold my breath.

Rowan Atkinson to face enquiry for Comic Relief sketch

The Guardian has reported Rowan Atkinson's Comic Relief sketch, which prompted more than 2,200 complaints to the BBC, is to be investigated by media regulator Ofcom. 

A quarter of the complaints lodged against the sketch were understood to be about religious offence prompting the BBC to apologise and remove it from iPlayer. Ofcom is understood to be investigating the programme on grounds of offensive language and generally accepted standards.

Frankly, the language hardly feels offensive. Far worse language is used in plenty of other pre-watershed programming where there are no complaints to be found. As for meeting 'generally accepted standards', one struggles to grasp of which standards the sketch fell foul. All in all, it was a fairly tame performance.

The key areas of consternation appear to be the statement that prayer "doesn't work", a supposed comparison of One Direction to the Disciples and a faux attempt to deal with a particularly crass interpretation of "Love your neighbour".

Let's be clear, this was a parody of a 'trendy vicar' type who had become Archbishop of Canterbury. One only needs to look at the Anglican Church to see that such persons exist and, with the departure of Rowan Williams, it was perfectly legitimate to imagine that one such person could take his place. 

As for the statements that seemed to offend, there are plenty of communicants and clergy in the Anglican Church who do believe that prayer "doesn't work". Whilst there may be many who disagree, perhaps even a majority, this doesn't take away the fact that such views do exist. To get upset that a fictional Archbishop articulated a genuine belief of many Anglican clergy seems somewhat foolish. More to the point, the joke only works because this is something that most people think an Archbishop wouldn't say (though might possibly believe). That seems like a perfectly legitimate observation to me.

The supposed comparison of One Direction to the Disciples is really no comparison at all. The joke is the parody, sadly all too often the case in reality (not only in Anglican Churches at that), of the vicar/minister desperately trying to appear 'relevant', 'in touch' and 'up to date' when they themselves are no such thing. The joke is that this fictional Archbishop is not up to date and therefore tries to shoehorn pop culture references into theological statements that simply do not stand. More to the point, the comment neither suggested that One Direction were in any way like the Disciples nor was it actually drawing a comparison. The "Archbishop" was making a reference to appear 'in touch' which simply did not follow and thus he was the butt of the joke. 

Similarly, the "love your neighbour" comment was a legitimate parody of the balancing act between usurping some language in a bid to appear 'trendy' whilst shunning other language as too vulgar. Again, it is an observable phenomenon in churches and therefore a perfectly legitimate target of observational humour.

In reality, Christians aren't doing themselves any favours in complaining about this sort of thing and it is always worth asking what exactly we are hoping to achieve. Of course, if you were genuinely offended then, as a license fee payer, you are entitled to voice that opinion to the BBC. However, aside from the apparent lack of anything which could be reasonably considered offensive, surely there are more important battles to be fought than bleating about an innocuous parody of a frankly all too observable type of clergyman?

The historical, religious and political ineptitude of the current government

How does one show their appreciation for an outgoing, influential world figure whilst simultaneously ingratiating oneself to those under their charge? Of course, it is through the giving of a special, and particularly thoughtful, gift. In this, David Cameron and Baroness Warsi have truly excelled themselves. For, the outgoing leader was Pope Benedict XVI and the special, most thoughtful, gift was a copy of the King James Bible. And, indeed, one is certain that the special thought - almost certainly lost on Mr Cameron - would have been noted by the Bishop of Rome.

One does not need a particularly brilliant grasp of history, politics or religion to know that the King James Bible was not exactly a triumph for British-Papal relations. Indeed, the Preface and Translators Introduction of 1611 is littered with less than complimentary language about the Catholic Church (see here for some choice excerpts).

Cranmer comments:

Accepting, of course, that neither the Prime Minister nor Baroness Warsi would have wished to so offend the Pope of Rome, one can only conclude that certain officials in the Foreign Office decided to convey this rather insensitive message. They do, after all, have some form in this.

However, whether this is a Foreign Office gaffe or a civil service botch is neither here nor there. The buck stops with the Prime Minister - he should have picked this up long before he gave it the green light. Wherever the plan may have originated, the the harsh reality is that the Prime Minister is historically, religiously and politically ignorant.

Some brief questions on the ordination of women bishops within the Anglican Communion

Several things have confused me about the recent Anglican vote on the ordination of women bishops. They are as follows:

1. Why do so many, unconnected to the Anglican Church, feel strongly one way or the other about this issue?
2. Why do so many feel they have any cause or right to voice an opinion and, more to the point, for it to be heeded on matters within an institution to which they are otherwise entirely unconnected?
3. Why did recourse to scripture feature so little on either side of the debate (irrespective of the side of the debate to which one falls)? 
4. Why are those in favour of female bishops so concerned with appearing 'in-step' with the feelings of the country when plethora of other views held, even within the liberal wing of the church, are out of step with modern British culture?
5. Why are those against female bishops bothering to mount any sort of case when the argument, to all intents and purposes, was lost with the ordination of female vicars?
6. Why do those against the move draw the line at ordaining women bishops? Is it not arbitrary to accept female vicars but not female bishops? If the issue is one of authority, why not accept the move and draw the line at Archbishop or the see of Canterbury itself?
7. How can those against female bishops consistently assent to the Queen as head of the Church?

Disestablishment: Part III

My initial post re disestablishment of the Church of England was never supposed to become an ongoing theme. Alas, the national press, other bloggers, the Anglican Church and even the Prime Minister appear to conspire in keeping the issue rolling. Yesterday, it was the Prime Minister's interference in the matter which prompted disestablishment: part II. Today, it is the turn of the Anglican Church itself to inadvertently forward the case for disestablishment via this morning's offering from Archbishop Cranmer. It was reported some time ago in The Telegraph:

...the plan to abolish the Act of Settlement was quietly shelved after the Church raised significant objections centring on the British sovereign’s dual role as Supreme Governor.

Church leaders expressed concern that if a future heir to the throne married a Roman Catholic, their children would be required by canon law to be brought up in that faith. This would result in the constitutionally problematic situation whereby the Supreme Governor of the Church of England was a Roman Catholic, and so ultimately answerable to a separate sovereign leader, the Pope, and the Vatican.

...A spokesman for the Anglican Church said that although the Act of Succession appeared “anomalous” in the modern world, while the Church of England remained the established religion, the monarch and Supreme Governor could not owe a higher loyalty elsewhere.

He went on: “The prohibition on those in the line of succession marrying Roman Catholics derives from an earlier age and inevitably looks anomalous, not least when there is no prohibition on marriage to those of other faiths or none. But if the prohibition were removed the difficulty would still remain that establishment requires the monarch to join in communion with the Church of England as its Supreme Governor and that is not something that a Roman Catholic would be able to do consistently with the current rules of that church.”

It was reported that the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, 'is said to have been persuaded that the difficulties raised by the Anglican Church were insurmountable'.


Indeed, all the above arguments advanced by the Anglican Church are correct and do truly represent a constitutional problem. However, buried within their own statement is the simple answer to the issue. The spokesman for the Anglican Church stated (emphasis mine) 'while the Church of England remained the established religion, the monarch and Supreme Governor could not owe a higher loyalty elsewhere'. From this, the argument is put forth that it would be constitutionally untenable for the Monarch to owe a 'higher loyalty elsewhere' - and indeed it would be!


Yet, as the Anglican Church spokesman helpfully highlights, this state of affairs only exists so long as 'the Church of England remained the established religion'. If the Monarch were not the Supreme Governor of the Church of England the possibility that the head of the Anglican Church could be answerable to a separate sovereign leader could not exist. Therefore, the answer to this constitutional conundrum appears to be simply disestablishing the Church of England. This would mean the Monarch could hold whatever religion they cared for, and marry anyone of whatever religion they cared for, without having a higher loyalty to some other. Indeed, the Monarch would no longer be the head of the established Church for no such Church would exist.


It strikes me that royalists and Anglicans alike are rather missing the obvious answer.

Disestablishment & Discrimination

I happened to write yesterday regarding the disestablishment of the Anglican Church in England. By some happy coincidence, Archbishop Cranmer today picks up the topic of David Cameron's proposal to reform royal succession laws. The Guardian reports:

This rule is a historical anomaly – it does not, for example, bar those who marry spouses of other faiths – and we do not think it can continue to be justified," Cameron wrote. Cameron is also proposing that Catholics should continue to be debarred from being head of state, but that anyone who marries a Catholic should not be debarred. The family would be entitled to bring up their children as Catholics as long as heirs do not seek to take the throne as a Catholic.

 Cranmer correctly notes:

How on earth does this dog's breakfast of a proposal rectify the ‘historical anomaly’? If it be offensive to Roman Catholics that the Monarch may neither be Roman Catholic nor married to one, how does the repeal of half of the prohibition resolve the injustice? If it be bigotry to bar the Monarch from marrying a Roman Catholic, it must a fortiori be bigotry to bar them from the Throne.

 However, he goes on to comment:

Of course it is ‘unfair’ and ‘discriminatory’ that the monarch may not be or marry a Roman Catholic, but the very act of choosing a religion manifestly necessitates discrimination against all the others. It is also ‘discriminatory’ that the Pope may not be Protestant, and even more ‘unfair’ that he may not marry at all. But there are sound theological and historical justifications for the restrictions upon both the King of the Vatican and the Monarch of the United Kingdom, and none of these amount to a violation of their ‘human rights’. Prince William’s heir is perfectly free to marry a Roman Catholic should he (or she) so desire: that it is his (or her) human right. But the Heir is not then free to be King and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. But to be King or Queen is not a human right; it is the gift of Parliament.

Cranmer is right to note the inherent discrimination - as existent for the Protestant in respect to the Vatican as the Catholic regarding the British crown - and justified in linking this with the role as head of the established church. However, this rather brings us back to the issue of the established Church of England.


Surely, but for the establishment of the Anglican Church, none of this need be an issue. Neither discrimination against Romans Catholics in respect to the British crown nor the glaring conflict of interest inherent in a communicant of Rome acting as head of the Anglican Church in England would cause any problem were the Anglican Church disestablished. If the Anglican Church placed itself solely under the rule of Christ, as opposed to the Monarch, what should it care if a Catholic succeeds the Throne? For those outside the established Church, it makes little difference who wears the Crown; it will almost certainly not be a representative of their own tradition.


So, I quite agree with Archbishop Cranmer, Cameron's proposal will do nothing to address the issue of discrimination against Roman Catholics succeeding the Throne nor should it whilst such a role incorporates position as head of the Church of England. Nevertheless, were the Anglican Church disestablished in England such discrimination need neither occur nor matter for all parties involved.

Anti/Disestablishmentarianism

Anti/Disestablishmentarianism, aside from being an unnecessarily long word, is an issue that seems to trouble very few. Interest on the matter seems confined to left-wingers with a penchant for constitutional reform, atheists with a particular aversion to anything tinged with religion in public life and the handful of bishops currently nesting in the Lords.


Interestingly, this is an issue with which modern Evangelicalism has had relatively little to say. Of course, there have been the standard calls from dissenting churches for Evangelical Anglicans to flee the nest and the counter-arguments that Anglicanism is a 'good boat to fish from'. However, this has less to do with the establishment of the Anglican church in England and more to do with issues of Evangelical purism e.g. autonomy of the local church and perceived countenance to the edicts of a largely non-Evangelical hierarchy. However, what of the establishment of the church itself?


It is the view of this blogger that the established church should no longer be. That is not to say the Anglican church should no longer be nor a call for Evangelical Anglicans to remove themselves from their denomination; an issue of conscience and preference for those within Anglicanism not a matter of any concern to those outside. Rather, this is an issue of whether any church should be established and hold a special place within Britain (or in this case, England specifically (1)).


David Ceri Jones notes:

After a long and bitter campaign, the Church of England was disestablished in Wales in 1920. Despite the fears of many, that did not prove to be the death knell to Welsh Anglicanism. Rather the Church in Wales, as it very consciously became, redefined itself as the ancient church of the Welsh people, rather than the imposed Anglican establishment it had once been perceived as being. The rapid decline in Welsh nonconformity in the twentieth century has enabled the Church in Wales to become the single largest, and therefore influential, Christian body in Wales. Disestablishment has been positive, even the making of Welsh Anglicanism! 

Thus, disestablishment of the Anglican church in England need not represent the end of English Anglicanism but rather, may see it grow further by setting itself as simply a church under the rule of Christ, as opposed to the rule of the monarch.


In history, the issue of establishment was certainly more pronounced than it is today. As Derek Tidball notes:

The major difference between Evangelical Anglicans and the nonconformists [in the 19th century] lay in their civil and political positions. Civil disabilities were not finally removed from the nonconformists until after the middle of the century and consequently they were much preoccupied with the quest for freedom. Many leading minister were ardent protagonists for disestablishment, which was seen to go hand in hand with political equality. (Who Are the Evangelicals, 1994).

The special place held by the established church, and those therein, marked a point of contention across Evangelicalism. Indeed, Tidball goes on to note 'Dissenting Evangelicals were looked on suspiciously and, in turn, looked suspiciously at Evangelicals in the established church'.


Such civil and political differences between nonconformists and Anglicans have, largely, long since gone. However, in Northern Ireland, the belief that religiously inspired principles, especially in light of the high numbers of Free Presbyterians within the ruling DUP, have influenced government policy very much remains. However, Steve Bruce notes:

It is often assumed that only secular liberals wish to separate church and states, or religion and politics, or morality and state law; that the purpose of recognizing [sic] two distinct spheres is to diminish the power of the church. But the same divisions can be appreciated by those who view the problem from the other end, whose primary concern is to safeguard religion. As the people faced with the dual responsibility of serving the church and their electors, the clergy who were involved in the DUP could appreciate, better than lay Evangelicals, that they had to keep their roles separate (Paisley: Religion and Politics in Northern Ireland, 2009).

Similarly, the American separation of church and state stems from this same conviction. Whilst secular liberals may wish to keep church and state separate to minimise the influence of the Church in matters of State, so too many Evangelicals want the same separation to avoid undue influence of the State in matters of the Church.


So what of the matter of the established church in England? Constitutionally, it seems profoundly undemocratic for unelected members, who represent a small proportion of the country, to have such a place enshrined in the House of Lords. Nevertheless, for the Church (in it's widest sense), a greater issue exists. If we want the State to take a hands off approach to the Church and grant freedom in matters of religion, we too must forego a special place in parliament and take a hands off approach in the matters of State.

Notes

1. Of course, the same argument may apply to the established Presbyterian Church in Scotland