The Bishop of Coventry, Christopher Cocksworth, who is also the Chair of the Co-ordinating Group for Living in Love and Faith published an open letter a few days ago offering some relections on where things currently stand in the LLF Process. Bishop Cocksworth signed a letter defending the Church of England’s actual teaching on marriage, and acknowledging that:
many Christians in the Church of England and the Anglican Communion, together with Christians from across the churches of world Christianity, continue to believe that marriage is given by God for the union of a man and woman and that it cannot be extended to those who are of the same sex.
His most recent letter is a masterpiece of diplomacy, recognising serious problems, but holding out the hope that they can be resolved. It is optimistic (I think overly!) about the prospect for the future, whilst trying to grasp the obstacles that threaten now to derail the entire LLF project. It remains however, an incredibly troubling read.
First is the persitent sophistry and casuistry that bedevils much of the official language about the Bishops’ Proposals. We are told there is a difference between praying God’s blessing of something, and praying His blessing for it… that the prayers ask for God’s blessing on the people, not the relationship… and we are reminded that the propsoals are ‘neither contrary to nor indicative of any departure from the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter…’. The trouble is that no-one apart from the Bishops themselves seem to accept the legitimacy of such subtle distinctions… more specifically, no-one apart from the Bishops of the Church of England, as witnessed by the GSFA Primates and numerous statements rejecting such distinctions as playing with words. Being told something is not indicative of a departure from the Church of England’s doctrine sounds disingenuous when the same Bishops are explicitly styling the Proposals precisely as a step towards the change of that doctrine; or to cite Bishop Cockswrth’s letter itself, which speaks of ‘communications of individual bishops welcoming probable, in their minds, future changes to teaching practice including, in the not-too-distant future, to marriage’. The line between subtlty and obfuscation is so thin many aren’t sure whether it is there or not. Indeed, many are feeling that, from some quarters at least, there is a deliberate attempt to deceive and to confuse. This is hardly characteristic of the godly leadership we hope for from our Bishops.
Then there is the tacit admission that the House of Bishops seemed unaware of the depth of opposition to this move throughout the Church of England and wider Anglican Communion. Such disconnectedness from the Church they are seeking to lead is deeply troubling. The implication that ‘some evangelical bodies’ would have opposed anything resulting from LLF is an unfortunate misrepresentation. But that aside, the sense that the Bishops were clueless as to the ‘suspicion, bewilderment, consternation and … rejection’ caused by their Proposals from across vast swathes of the Church suggests a leadership culture that is dangerously unrepresentative of, and unconnected to, the wider Church. This has to be addressed. The question of how the Bishops will respond now that they are growing in their awareness is one that needs to be urgently answered.
And as if that isn’t enough… I actually welcome the frank recognition that the process of LLF has resulted in confusion both in the House of Bishops and then, inevitably, at Synod, and throughout the Church of England. Bishop Cocksworth acknowledges the ‘systemic disruption’ that has resulted. There is something refreshing about someone recognising that the fall out from General Synod and the behaviour of some of the Bishops has been dangeorusly close to toxic. I was equally appreciative of the admission that something went wrong with the Ecclesial process. I don’t think the admission went far enough, limiting itself to the rather tentative question as to whether things might have been a bit rushed. I’ve written in a previous blog about my own feeling that the House of Bishops have ridden roughshod over the strucutresof governance in the Church, and the very ‘pastoral principles’ they themselves propounded during LLF; and that their behaviour at Synod came perilously close to an outright abuse of power… remember the sutatined applause when Stephen Hoffmyer raised his point of order!?? But the Bishop’s musings do recognise the erosion of respect and trust the House of Bishops has sustained. He hopes that it can be re-built and that lasting damage can be avoided. This seems to reflect the same disconnectedness I lament earlier… although I pray my own cynicism here will be confounded!
But the best (worst?) comes towards th end of the letter, when Bishop Cocksworth lists out a (representative?) list of questions that need to be answered before Pastoral Guidance is published in July. Forgive me simply re-producing them en masse here, but they have to be seen to be believed!
There are legal questions:
Is the provision genuinely consistent with the doctrine of the Church of England, and does it pass the strict canonical test it has set itself?
Is its distinction (novel for the Church of England) between civil marriage and Holy Matrimony secure?
There are practical questions:
How is the conscience of clergy and parishes who find themselves unable to use some or all of the liturgical provision to be respected?
What level of pastoral provision will be needed for those who could not use them, and should it involve, as many are arguing and as the Archbishop of York conceded in the debate, serious forms of structural differentiation?
Will clergy of the same sex be free to enter into civil marriage?
There are theological questions:
Can the distinction between blessing a couple as people before God, rather than their relationship, carry the theological weight that is placed upon it?
What is the provision saying or implying about the permissibility or otherwise of sexual intimacy in relationships of the same sex, and in opposite sex relationships that the Church does not recognize as marriage, and what is its theological case?
How will the Church of England explain to other churches of the Communion, and its ecumenical partners, and the other major religions of its land, what exactly it is commending and provide the necessary theological reasoning?
Ecclesial questions are raised about how, in exercising leadership, the bishops tend — as they did in the first two phases of LLF — to the ecology of the church of which their order is only one part.
You might want to read those again carefully. The fact that any one of these questions remained to be answered before they Bishops' Proposals were brought to Synod is deeply disturbing. The fact that none of them have been answered is surely a negligence of such catastrpohic proportions that it must torpedo the credibility of the entire LLF project. Are we actually being told that the House of Bishops produced these prayers without having established any theological or doctrinal foundation for doing so? Bishop Cocksworth comes frigtheningly close to admitting that the Bishops don’t yet know whether: "the provision [is] genuinely consistent with the doctrine of the Church of England?" Are we being told by the Bishop overseeing the LLF process that this was brought to General Synod, and voted on, without the House of Bishops having agreed on answers to these most basic of questions?
So, having spent 6 years on this (and at what financial cost??) the Chair of the LLF Co-ordinating Group raises the concern that as things stand, ‘the use of the provision faces legal challenge, the implementation of the proposals risks pastoral chaos, and the reception of the provision in the Church of England, the Anglican Communion, and the worldwide Church of God will be confused’.
And that is the most positive spin we can put on the situation as it now stands.
