Revd Dr Bączyk-Bell divides a deanery while calling for 'unity'
Regular readers of this blog will be well aware that the Church of England is currently in the middle of electing a new General Synod. It is probably one of the most organised, and partisan, elections in the Synod's relatively short history. When the results come out (by the 19th October) many will be looking to predict how they impact the future of the Church. Any budding analysts should not ignore the events that took place this week at the North Lambeth Deanery Synod before coming to any conclusions.
The North Lambeth Deanery is diverse, gentrified and home to the 'nones'. Stretching south from the Thames, it includes Waterloo and parts of Lambeth, Kennington, Clapham and Brixton. It is made up of twenty churches and eighteen benefices, served by twenty-eight clergy. It is also where two key figures in the battle over the future of the Church of England reside. Revd Dr Bączyk-Bell, a trustee of the liberal grouping Together for the Church of England, is based at St John the Divine, Kennington and Revd Jago Wynne, a director of The Alliance, is the vicar of Holy Trinity, Clapham.
Not only that, neither man holds his theological position in isolation. The Revd Dr Bączyk-Bell is joined in the deanery by Revd Giles Goddard, Revd Sally Hitchiner and a number of others who serve in 'Inclusive Churches'. While on the orthodox side, Holy Trinity alone has three curates and a self-supporting minister and there are at least two other churches in the deanery which would describe themselves as evangelical. This would suggest the make-up of the deanery synod offers an informed testing ground for controversial topics.
Turning to the events of this week, when Revd Dr Bączyk-Bell placed a long and complicated motion before the deanery synod.
Using partial quotes from historic reports produced by ecumenical bodies and officers of the Anglican Communion, Bączyk-Bell suggests that it should be possible to treat the further inclusion of LGBQTIA+ people in the church in a similar way to that of the ordination of women. He uses the ecumenical concept of 'Open Reception', to justify his approach. This is an idea, championed in the Church of England by Revd Dr Paul Avis, which suggests that the apostolic faith is continually developing to meet new circumstances. This requires a time of experiment, or as he would say, a, "gradualness, active discernment, responsibility, unpredictability and the real possibility of non-reception”. In an ecumenical context this allows disputed doctrines, such as bishops or women's ministry, to be discussed in a more positive way. In his own inimitable way, Justin Welby told the World Council of Churches in 2017, "It turns negotiated frontiers into open borders..".
While this language may sound portentous, Bączyk-Bell is really just arguing again for 'good disagreement' or 'walking together', on the basis that blessing same-sex marriages, or marrying same-sex couples in church, is a matter on which "loyal Anglicans" can disagree.
Over on the Psephizo blog, the Revd Dr Andrew Goddard has done a pretty comprehensive job of explaining why he believes the issue of same-sex marriage and women's ministry can not be conflated in this way. Goddard then assumes that the orthodox will maintain a blocking minority, after the elections, thus preventing any doctrinal change. On that account, he dismisses Bączyk-Bell's call for 'Open Reception' on the basis that it can only take place once 'formal action' has occurred.
This is helpful, as far as it goes, and it highlights the need for proper process for any further innovation to take place. The real problem, however, is that Bączyk-Bell refuses to acknowledge that there is a substantial minority in the Church of England who believe that the issue of same-sex marriage is not one which can be dealt with in this way. Instead, it is one where difference in theology requires ecclesial or apostolic separation. This is where using ecumenical concepts within a single denomination or ecclesial body, breaks down. Roman Catholics can be encouraged to view Methodist innovations (lack of an episcopacy, female 'priests', same-sex marriage) as being part of a period of 'Open Reception' because the ecclesial (and perhaps apostolic) separation is already in place. The Roman Catholic Church do not have to compromise their own beliefs to accept a period of experimentation. Instead they graciously offer the Methodists the opportunity to return to the fold, the Roman Catholic Church, once they accept their error and bring the time of Open Reception to an end. The same is not tue within the Church of England.
The motion put forward begins with a commitment to maintain the, "overall unity of the Church of England, including the unity of each diocese under the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop." This rules out any ecclesial separation and is a direct challenge to the position taken by The Alliance. In a letter dated the 22nd October 2024, and signed by Revd Jago Wynne, they wrote:
"If we are to continue to play a meaningful part in this vital gospel mission, we have identified six essential criteria that will enable an ecosystem for us and future orthodox generations to flourish in. These six criteria can only be met through the powers of the ordinary of an orthodox diocesan bishop. Only orthodox diocesan episcopal oversight can fulfil these criteria, and delegated oversight on a regional basis will not work."
Dr Andrew Goddard notes this and gives good and cogent reasons why Bączyk-Bell is wrong to ignore the concerns of The Alliance. He even quotes a recent report from the Church of England's Faith and Order Commission which said:
"Those who dissent from the majority view or decision get to define the nature of their disagreement: if it is widely held that such-and-such a belief or practice calls into question apostolic communion or ecclesial communion, then the disagreement simply is a first- or second-order disagreement, regardless of whether the majority think it merely strains communion (third order)."
But despite all this - the motion passed. 25 voted in favour, 19 against and there were 2 abstentions.
Of course, this is only a deanery synod and the vote would not have reached the necessary two-thirds majority for any major change - but it still passed. Whether those present were unaware of Goddard's careful arguments, ignored them, or just disagreed with them, the majority of the clergy and laity gathered in North Lambeth voted in favour of Bączyk-Bell's motion.
This is significant for two reasons. The first is that appeals to 'unity' and 'openess' tend to gain traction, winning over those in the middle. The second is that the majority will always, in the end, trample on the conscience of the minority. In his comprehensive analysis of the reception of women bishops in the Anglican Communion, the Revd Dr Stephen Noll wrote:
"The irony of “open reception” is that while it begins by appealing to openness and dialogue, it always ends in a demand for uniformity and submission. There is indeed a process but it goes only one way in accordance with what is called [Richard John] Neuhaus’ law: 'Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed.'
It is not a coincidence that at the same time as promoting this motion, the Rt Revd Bączyk-Bell is campaigning for a "review" of the structures put in place to honor the consciences of those unable to accept the ministry of women bishops. He writes:
"It is clear to me from conversations with women clergy that the Five Guiding Principles are not working for them – and therefore for the wider church – in the way that was intended or that enables their ministry to flourish. They are supposed to be principles, not tablets of stone, and it is clear the way they are working – or not working – needs to be properly reviewed. I would strongly support such a process in General Synod. I affirm the ministry of women in all orders and offices, and believe the church has a long way to go in both realising the fulness of the gifts that women bring to the church, and in rooting out structural misogyny."
The Alliance would do well to learn from the experience of their complementarian brethren. Any 'settlement' that is offered in order to get the necessary majorities to introduce same-sex marriage will be "reviewed" and "rooted out" within a generation.
Main Image: Geoff Crawford/Church Times
Anglican Futures offers practical and pastoral support to faithful Anglicans
If you would like to hear more:
subscribe to our regular emails
Comments