Call My Bluff

“We are committed to remaining within the Church of England and hope that the bishops will come to the table to negotiate an acceptable settlement.”

Such have been the consistent expectations of the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) and their co-belligerents in the broader “Alliance” of orthodox groupings- extensive negotiations and an acceptable settlement.

In an interview this week with the Australian podcast 'The Pastor’s Heart', a leading light of both CEEC and the Alliance, Canon Vaughan Roberts reiterated what 'acceptable' means. He confirmed that what was sought was a 'settlement' where, “…the conservatives, the Bible people and the traditional Catholics won’t come under the jurisdiction, or if you like the false teaching bishops, but will come under a separate Province, separate episcopacy…” and that  “…first order difference requires first order differentiation…”

As consistently as CEEC/the Alliance have made such demands, so they have been rejected out of hand, just as consistently, by the bishops to whom they are made. In fact, so comprehensively so, that in their latest communication last week the Alliance lamented that, “To our disappointment none of our criteria for flourishing have been taken into account or integrated into the deliberations of the Leicester groups [convened by Bishop Martin Snow of that diocese] nor by the House of Bishops at General Synod. Even the concept of having “three spaces” within the Church of England which was proposed by the Leicester groups was dismissed by the House of Bishops”.

CEEC have got nowhere near bringing the bishops to the negotiating table and they have got nowhere at all in securing the type of 'pastoral provision' they describe as essential. And so, in the interview Canon Roberts said,

“… there’s still ongoing discussion- like the House of Bishops have always said we’ll need to give some kind of provision for those who in conscience can’t go along with this, but that process has really not got anywhere so even though we’re still charging down the direction of blessing for same sex unions a clear trajectory towards same sex marriage for clergy and standalone services, kind of pseudo-marriage services for same sex couples we’ve not had any real details about settlement and some kind of offer.”

“And anything that’s been on the table that the Bishops have discussed has been very much of a second order, so basically they’ve dismissed it. Many have said ‘look you don’t really represent very many, it’s just a few leaders and most people don’t really like this. You’re going to get much, much less, if anything it will be second order differentiation, so I don’t think they’ve really heard how many of us are out there and how seriously we hold this. We can’t accept less than we’re asking for.”

“Ongoing discussion”- but a process that has not got “anywhere”, with no “details”, and no “offer”. As the interviewer (Dominic Steele) said it was almost as if the bishops hadn’t received anything from CEEC/the Alliance and that they were, “basically ignoring you”.

It is hard not to think that the CEEC/Alliance strategy has failed. And that becomes all the more obvious as last week the Archbishops of Canterbury and York “de facto” (as CEEC/the Alliance would say) change the teaching of the Church of England, and as “standalone” services and the acceptance of same-sex marriage for clergy are introduced in 2025 still without a single minute at the negotiating table.

There are many reasons for the failure of the strategy but at least three are evident just from the Roberts interview.

First, as set out above, the CEEC/Alliance position is that, “We can’t accept less than we’re asking for” and Mr Roberts later said the organisations would “…always be willing to negotiate but it will be on the terms of what we have set out…” That is not a negotiation, except, perhaps on details, it is an ultimatum. Of which more shortly.

Second, what CEEC/the Alliance are demanding is not possible. In discussing what the two groups have done in the face of the lack of responsiveness from the bishops Vaughan Roberts describes how,

“Before General Synod last July, the Alliance wrote a letter saying, ‘if this direction of travel is continued with, the Alliance will be forced to set-up what we call a de facto Province’ and there’s been some discussion- what does that actually mean? It means we can’t set up a legal Province - that’s something only General Synod and the Houses of Parliament can set up, but we can say we’re going to function as if this was the case…”

And in that there is common ground between the Alliance/CEEC and the bishops- “the terms” the former seek would require legislation and the agreement of General Synod and Parliament. Even if, in current circumstances, it was a justifiable use of parliamentary time, the idea that Synod and/or Parliament would agree to the creation of a separate CofE jurisdiction for people who reject blessing same-sex relationships is, to say the least, fanciful.

Third, Roberts, CEEC and others have attempted to suggest that the reason the bishops 'have' to negotiate is the spectre of what happened over the last couple of decades in The Episcopal Church of the USA,

“Some of us have been saying ‘look across the Atlantic - we’ve got to avoid an Episcopal style train crash which has led to a complete split with… a very large grouping of Orthodox Anglicans who are no completely separate from the Episcopal church and the cost has been massive emotionally, spiritually, missionally and there’s been to many who said that would never happen here but actually there’s a stronger Orthodox grouping here in the Church of England..”

Vaughan Roberts suggests that there is an irresistible imperative for the bishops,

“…to discuss with the Alliance and enter serious negotiation about how we can ensure that there is a distinct Orthodox grouping that remains with integrity otherwise we’re heading for a major split which I don’t think anyone wants. It would be disastrous for us not least missionally.”

But, as the Canon, surely knows, England would not be like the USA where there was seemingly endless litigation about assets. The reason for that is that the US church buildings were indeed assets, often valuable ones. It is difficult to see, even if it were possible, (which is unlikely) why many congregations would commit much money to litigating to retain an ancient monument which is, in reality, an impractical liability. Instead, the position would be much more like that in New Zealand/Aotearoa, the Diocese of the Southern Cross in Australia and the Anglican Church of Brazil - leaving the Canterbury aligned structures means sacrificing property, retaining property means staying in the structures.

The cost of the split in the USA was undoubtedly “massive emotionally”, and it may have been so “spiritually” but “missionally” it has only been “disastrous” for the heterodox. For at least a decade the new Anglican Church in North America has operated to the mantra of now former Archbishop Foley Beach, “Forward. Always Forward. Everywhere forward” and its members would see it as a great missional success.

And all that is before the idea that there isn’t “anyone” who “wants” the orthodox to leave the CofE - the good Canon obviously does the wise thing for his sanity of avoiding “Anglican Twitter/X”.

The supposedly irresistible imperative is empty.

Finally, there is what is unsaid in the interview and in all the CEEC/Alliance communications. And that might well be the most important reason of all why the bishops disregard the expectations on the CEEC/Alliance so casually.

Nowhere is it said that if their demands are not met, they will covenant together to leave the Church of England taking their wealth and numbers with them. In the Anglican Network in Europe (the Gafcon-authorised and GSFA-recognised alternative jurisdiction) the global Communion have given CEEC/the Alliance all the leverage they could need to bring the bishops to the negotiating table and to negotiate from a position of strength. The spectre of an ACNA on their doorstep might have brought the bishops to the table, but without such a consensus, despite their apparent unity, the orthodox cannot deploy that considerable leverage.

There really is little point in issuing an ultimatum without a consequence - it will simply be ignored, as the bishops have proved. Going to the negotiating table without being willing to simply walk away is always liable to be revealed for the bluff which it is.

As things stand at the moment, the bishops have well and truly called the CEEC/Alliance bluff.

---

Anglican Futures offers pastoral and practical support to all faithful Anglicans,

particularly those struggling to work out where their future lies

and those who have suffered from church hurt.

If we can help you in any way. Please get in touch.