I’ve been asked a number of times over the last couple of days what I think of the v-logs released by our Bishops, in which they seek to explain how they have arrived at their conclusion that the Church should change its teaching, so that the Church of England would extend Holy Matrimony to same-sex couples.
If you haven’t seen them, they can be found here, https://www.cofesuffolk.org/deepening-faith/everyday-faith/living-in-love-and-faith/living-in-love-and-faith.php
I’ve watched the videos a number of times now, and will try and respond to them, as well as to the wider situation developing at Synod, over the next few days.
So, first: where do I agree with Bishops Martin and Mike…
The main area where I found myself in sympathy is with regard to their critical reflections on the uncritical (evangelical?) faith of their younger days! On this we share common ground. I totally agree with +Martin that Scripture Union notes, and the like, are not a good way to read the Bible, and I agree with +Mike that a faith that is not challenged, or interrogated is hopelessly vulnerable. I found myself saddened by both their stories as they recounted the destabilising experience they had at University, and how their youthful, but un-critical faith left them unprepared for the challenges of rigorous theological, philosophical and hermeneutical challenges they were exposed to in later life.
This seems to me an honest and important point to highlight, and we should be grateful to our Bishops for their transparency here. It underlines the urgency and importance of ensuring that those in our Churches, and those who are growing up through our Churches are invested with a rich, informed, well-resourced, and intellectually rigorous faith, that is able to engage well with the questions that are asked of it. We will have moments when our faith is challenged, but we can be much better equipped to navigate those moments. We, and our children and young people, are facing increasingly challenging questions as Christians, and we have a responsiblity to make sure that we and they are adequately prepared. Our Bishops have laid down a mandate for teaching and discipling at a much greater depth than we are used to!
The second major area of agreement is the Bishops’ own assessment of their videos. Towards the end of the last video, we are reminded that their v-logs haven’t been intended as arguments, deployed to change anyone’s mind. They are far more autobiographical, simply reflecting on how they have arrived at the position they now share. Indeed. They are however articulating at least some the reasons that they have personally found persuasive. I’ll look at those arguments and explain why I, and many, many others both inside and outside the Church, are less persuaded.
Yet a compelling argument for introducing change in any form to the Church’s teaching and discipline on marriage and sexuality (and yes, they do signify a change in spite of all rhetoric to the contrary), is really what we need. One of the common observations raised about the whole LLF process is that no such argument was forthcoming. I’ll try and show in a later post that there remains an apparent lack of any convincing theological, pastoral, missional or canonical justification for this extraordinary development … though this does perhaps explain why the changes are being forced through with seeming disregard for process, and for the concerns of those on Synod who have deep misgivings about the course that being set for the Church.
Unless it were being live streamed, it is unlikely that anyone would believe the behaviour of some of the Bishops. There is widespread condemnation of what is being described variously as disingenuous (see here: https://www.anglicanfutures.org/post/who-do-you-think-you-are-kidding evasive and condescending (see here: https://www.christiantoday.com/article/this.week.at.general.synod/139809.htm and arrogant sophistry (see here: https://mbarrattdavie.wordpress.com/2023/02/07/on-not-blaming-god/ There is a great deal of concern that the House of Bishops are simply abusing their power. This was captured in the debate itself when Stephen Hofmeyr made a point of order: the fact that we were, on every amendment, taking a vote by houses meant that the bishops could veto everything, and indeed were doing precisely that, somewhat undermining their apparent commitment to listen to Synod. The point of order was met with loud and prolonged applause, signalling widespread discontent...
I strongly recommend that you watch some of the interactions in Synod and decide for yourself (see here: https://www.facebook.com/CCFON/videos/514972150783085/ . I was particularly struck by Rebecca Hunt’s being so flabbergasted by one answer that she asked for it to be put in writing. It risks a staggering loss of trust in the House of Bishops and in the integrity of the processes of governance and accountability within the institution of the Church of England. Their blatent disregard for the Pastoral Principles the Bishops themselves have advocated throughout the LLF process, and that subsequent loss of trust, will remain an issue irrespective of the outcomes of General Synod. This is particularly unfortunate, because trust is precisely what is needed if we are going to walk together through these tumultuous times.
Whilst I agree with the priority of a Christ-centred unity to which our own Bishops return again and again in their videos, it is becoming increasingly clear that some of the Bishops speaking at General Synod are critically undermining that unity. Whilst we are so grateful that our own Bishops are speaking words of grace, and have publicly committed themselves to continuing to support, encourage, resource and appoint across the spectrum of views, they risk being drowned out by their colleagues.
