Episcopal Jenga

The bishops then reverted to their original plan and proposed to this July’s Synod that “standalone services” now simply be commended. This was described as being “for a trial period,” but that makes no sense given commendation is an episcopal judgment the prayers are already legal, and it was admitted during the Synod that once commended they were highly unlikely ever to be withdrawn. This is now likely to happen shortly after February 2025, despite this liturgical change being so far from “common worship” that it will require delegated episcopal oversight for parishes that object to their bishop supporting the prayers and for parishes wishing to use them whose bishops oppose them.

The main reason for objection to PLF is that it is now clear that the bishops are also pushing, increasingly strongly, a second brick in the wobbly Jenga tower: doctrine. This is a major development. When the prayers were introduced, it was clearly stated that they were compatible with the church’s doctrine of marriage and there was no intention to even touch this brick. This was passed by Synod in February 2023 (what is known as the Cornes amendment) and restated by the bishops in July (“The bishops are upholding the Doctrine of Marriage and their intention remains that the final version of the Prayers of Love and Faith should not be contrary to or indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England,” GS 2303, para 20).

By November, however, the bishops acknowledged the prayers did not pass the latter “indicative” test, although they claimed that due to new insight into doctrine they were nevertheless within the canons’ looser doctrinal test (GS 2327, Annex A, Para 17 and para 26). It is now clear that the doctrine brick will probably need to be pushed even further if (as most bishops want) clergy are to be allowed to enter civil same-sex marriages. The July 2024 paper (GS 2358, paras 36-46) and the motion passed by Synod call for theological work “to provide clarity around how doctrine can develop or change within the Church of England,” and the lead bishop acknowledged a number of bishops are now willing to change or develop the church’s marriage doctrine.

This doctrine brick is now being pushed because of another crucial, third brick: the church’s understanding of holy orders. The Church of England has repeatedly been clear that its doctrine of marriage means clergy should not be in any sexual relationship other than marriage between a man and a woman and they should not enter a civil same-sex marriage. The February 2023 motion made clear that the existing Pastoral Guidance (from 1991) would be replaced but not its content and a draft incorporating changes to the current discipline was drawn up last summer. In October 2023 the House of Bishops voted “that further work be done on part 3 (Ministry) of the Guidance for issuing as soon as possible with the intention that it remove all restrictions on clergy entering same-sex marriages, and on bishops ordaining, licencing and granting permissions to officiate to such clergy.”

There has, however, been no further progress due to a growing realization that this creates major problems (set out most fully to the February General Synod in GS 2346 Annex B) given the church’s current doctrine. It’s also clear a significant number of bishops are unwilling to accept this change and likely to refuse to move from the current discipline. A decision by the bishops is now likely to be brought to the next General Synod in February 2025.

These episcopal differences over clergy in same-sex marriage highlight a fourth Jenga brick: episcopal collegiality. The first sign of this brick being moved came early in discernment in October 2022 when, while the bishops sought an agreed path together, the Bishop of Oxford published his proposal in favor of change. Then, in January 2023, the bishops’ decision was leaked to the BBC before it was announced (there have since been several further leaks), the Archbishop of York went far beyond what had been agreed, and a statement defending the received doctrine of marriage was released by 14 bishops.

Despite these developments, in the February 2023 Synod the bishops were almost 90 percent in support of the proposals (voting 36 for, 4 against, with 2 abstentions). Private letters from bishops expressing opposing views were leaked in July and, following a meeting of the House on October 9, 12 of those present issued a dissenting statement. That meeting also overturned — at the request of the Archbishop of Canterbury — the wishes of the majority of the wider College to authorize standalone services experimentally (using Canon B5A) alongside using Canon B2. Shortly afterward a group of 44 bishops from the wider College issued a statement supporting same-sex marriage for clergy. By the November Synod, bishops were proposing competing amendments to the House’s motion, most bishops reversed their October vote to move straight to B2, and in the final vote the House of Bishops was reduced to 70 percent support, with the majority falling from 32 to 13 (23-10-4).

Earlier this year, the bishops were so divided about the proposed “reset” presented to the February Synod that the motion could not come in their name. In June there followed statements expressing concern from 11 mainly evangelical bishops and the bishops of the Society. At Synod, in both questions during the presentation and the debate, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, who had not previously publicly critiqued the process, made clear he was now opposed. In the final vote, the bishops’ support fell below two-thirds to a majority of only 10, with 17 unable to support the House’s motion (22-12-5).

The fifth Jenga brick also relates to episcopacy but is one which, until now, the bishops have been unwilling to apply any pressure to at all, while those pressing for change insist it needs to be moved quite significantly if episcopal pressure on the other bricks is not to lead to total collapse. During the February 2023 Synod debate it was acknowledged (most powerfully by the Archbishop of York) that there would need to be “pastoral reassurance” for those opposed to the changes, and this provision became one of the three key elements (alongside PLF and Pastoral Guidance). It is, however, one the bishops have been most reluctant to consider, and the most recent proposals were resisted by many bishops. The plans were only passed by the House because of changes removing (see para 10) the previously highlighted development of “three spaces, one church.” The Synod paper notes that whether and how much to move this brick will be a major question, with calls for transferred episcopal jurisdiction should clergy enter same-sex marriages (para 27).

Current proposals for delegated oversight (of an unclear scope and having no secure legal basis) have been rejected as insufficient by those to whom they are being offered. In the words of Helen Lamb in the Synod debate, for them “that the power that the Bishops hold as ordinaries is non-negotiable whereas the doctrine of the Church is negotiable is a hard thing to hear from our bishops.”

There have also been repeatedly raised concerns about a sixth feature: the way bishops have been seemingly willing to disregard constitutional, legal, and other aspects of due process. This has been a central feature of the concerns raised by a new network of networks called the Alliance, whose letters speak of “the illegitimate and unconstitutional nature of the process.” The 12 bishops’ October dissenting statement said “we believe that bishops must have due regard to the obligations of good and proper governance.” At the heart of this is the initial refusal to use the Canon B2 Synodical process, now reinstated after being modified in November.

In February it became clear that legal advice drawn up in September was not shared with the bishops until December, despite meetings of the College, the House, and the Synod during those months making key decisions related to it. Legal and other advice has not been published, with Synod members receiving only the bishops’ selective summaries. Earlier legal advice in 2016 (in Annex to GS 2055), never withdrawn, made clear the constraints on proceeding with the sort of developments now being proposed, and this has made many concerned that legal advice is either being ignored or subtly adapted in order for the bishops to do what they want, on policy and political grounds, to do.

There is also widespread disquiet that it only became clear in February that very significant decisions relating to the process and its intended outcomes (in relation to same-sex civil marriage and clergy) were taken by the House of Bishops in the October 2023 meeting but concealed from General Synod’s November meeting. These process failings, particularly the repeated failure to fulfill promises to treat all three elements of prayers, guidance, and provision together (critiqued in this Synod by Alianore Smith) seem to be endemic even after the “reset,” as shown by the significant criticisms of the process leading to the latest proposals by 11 members of the Working Groups supportive of current teaching and practice.

The relationship between the bishops and General Synod and the lack of a strong consensus is a seventh Jenga brick. General Synod has now three times passed motions relating to LLF/PLF, but those motions have only selectively been implemented (most notably the disregarding of the Cornes amendment) and the majorities have been small among the clergy and laity and diminishing among the bishops. The crucial amendment that became the basis for abandoning the use of Canon B2 was passed by a majority of just one in the House of Laity. Between February and October 2023, the majorities in each House fell by over half (from 32 to 13, 26 to 7, 11 to 4) to be only 51.8 to 48.2 percent among clergy and 51 to 49 percent among laity (compared to 57-43 and 53-47 in February). At this latest Synod, the aim had been to avoid a repetition of these narrow margins by presenting a motion that would gather greater consensus and enable some settlement. Instead, support among bishops fell and the division among clergy and laity remained almost unchanged (52.9 to 47.1% among clergy and 51.1 to 48.9% among laity). Many in Synod asked what bishops would do faced with a cleric continuing to press controversial proposals in a parish when faced with such deep division. They suggested most bishops would be concerned about the lack of wisdom being shown and the real danger of complete pastoral breakdown.

These seven “Jenga bricks,” indisputably significant for securing the cohesion and stability of Church of England structures, whatever one’s views on LLF/PLF, are being pushed about in order to secure the predetermined outcome desired by the Archbishops and a majority of bishops. For most opposing that outcome, the proposals also represent an attempt to remove an even more important and foundational eighth brick in the Anglican tower: Scripture’s authority.

The imagery of the church as a building is biblical: we are “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord” (Eph. 2:20-21). The seriousness of the situation is evident from the fact that the canon at the center of the controversies (Canon B30) is the only one claiming its content is “according to our Lord’s teaching,” making disregarding it in practice or changing its statement as to the teaching of Christ of the highest significance. Much opposition to the changes is based ultimately on the conviction that they can only be viewed as pushing away the foundational brick of the teaching of the apostles and prophets. This inevitably has implications, not only for the Church of England but also for the wider “whole building” to which it is joined, particularly the Anglican Communion.

Many did not know whether to laugh or cry at the title of the latest proposals: “Moving Forward As One Church.” That this was far from the reality became crystal clear when an open letter to the Archbishops from leaders of the Alliance stated that

If the further departure from the Church’s doctrine suggested by the Synod papers does go ahead, we will have no choice but rapidly to establish what would in effect be a new de facto “parallel Province” within the Church of England and to seek pastoral oversight from bishops who remain faithful to orthodox teaching on marriage and sexuality. We will encourage all church leaders who are in sympathy with The Alliance to join the parallel Province.

Synod’s voting figures confirm that even if we limit “One Church” to the Church of England, we are very far from moving forward together as one. The serious effects on the wider church were already clear last February, when a dozen Primates stated that “The GSFA [Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches] is no longer able to recognise the present Archbishop of Canterbury, the Rt Hon & Most Revd Justin Welby, as the ‘first among equals’ Leader of the global Communion.” The implications of the latest developments are also clear: after Synod, GSFA signaled its support for the Alliance statement, and so it seems that not only the Church of England but the wider Anglican Communion is being pushed to the brink of total collapse by Church of England bishops, led by the two Archbishops.

The opening session of the LLF Course encouraged reflection on Matthew 7:24-29, with its warning about building on sand rather than rock: “The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell — and great was its fall!” Many cannot in conscience do anything other than oppose the proposals because they see them as a call to move from building on the rock to build instead on sand. That understanding is, of course, rejected by those supporting the changes. The question the image of episcopal Jenga raises, however, is how anyone can seriously think it wise for the bishops to continue pushing and pulling at each of these major Jenga bricks that contribute to Anglican identity and unity, or believe that doing so can lead to any other outcome than a similar “great fall” for the Church of England and wider Anglican Communion.

EPISCOPAL JENGA

By Andrew Goddard
THE LIVING CHURCH
July 23, 2024

Reflecting on the July session of the Church of England’s General Synod and considering where we now find ourselves on the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) questions of sexuality, marriage, and identity, I was struck that we seem to be engaged in a game of episcopal Jenga.

The current situation in the Church of England can be viewed as a rather precarious tower of Jenga bricks: falling attendance, giving, and vocations, a massive trust deficit, multiple safeguarding failures. In this context, the LLF story resembles bishops pushing with varying degrees of force at eight Jenga bricks, essential structural elements within the Church of England’s identity and crucial for its cohesion, stability, and unity.

The first brick the bishops decided to push was that of liturgy, proposing Prayers of Love and Faith in GS 2289 in January/February 2023 with the support of Synod. By July, however, it was clear (in GS 2303) that the planned commending of prayers faced major problems, and so authorization was being seriously considered instead. In October the bishops agreed that while they would commend the prayers for use in regular services, in which the prayers would not be the focus, what they now called “standalone services” would need to be approved by General Synod under Canon B2, requiring two-thirds majority in all three houses in order to be authorized. This proposal (GS 2328) was opposed by those wanting change and in November 2023 Synod passed an amendment asking that the House of Bishops “consider whether some standalone services for same-sex couples could be made available for use, possibly on a trial basis” without having to wait for Canon B2.