The Return of the Pamphlet Wars
- Anglican Futures
- 7 minutes ago
- 9 min read
The pamphlet ‘Assertio Septem Sacramentorum’ published in 1521 and attributed to Henry VIII is credited with earning him the title “Defender of the Faith”. It was a response, of course to perhaps the most powerful of all such publications - Martin Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses.
The Tudor king was an ‘earlier adopter’ of the power of the pamphlet and during the rest of the century pamphlets appeared on all manner of topics - political, religious and social. From the middle of the century Elizabeth I was frequent writer of pamphlets, not least on issues of gender.
The invention of the printing press and increasingly literacy were followed by intense and often heated exchanges of ‘Pamphlet Wars’. In the late 16th Century the ‘Marprelate Controversy’ saw the fight being taken, including by John Milton, by way of pamphlet to the Church of England in general and Archbishop William Laud in particular. Apparently 2,200 pamphlets were printed between 1600 and 1715 alone, in England alone. Amidst a panoply of subjects, the ‘hot takes’ of the day - the Civil War, execution of Charles I, Free Will, Judaism, Christology, nonconformity, Catholicism were key themes. Many pamphlets of the period were brutally sarcastic, witheringly satirical or simply wrathful polemics worthy of the worst of Twitter/X.
Later the French Revolution became a pamphlet debate enjoined by, amongst others, Thomas Paine, William Godwin, Edmund Burke and Mary Wolstonecraft.. The USA’s own most influential ‘pamphlet war’- what became the ‘Federalist Papers’ - was being waged around the same time. Many other pamphleteers such as Daniel Defoe and later Jonathan Swift became celebrated writers.
What Caxton did for the Bible, novel and pamphlet the internet has re-energised. The electronic pamphlet- the e-book and the like has revived the genre.
And, of late, the Church of England has not been found wanting in the field. Not, it has to be said in coarse language, cartoon mockery or blatant untruth, but in the number who have wanted to be heard on the ‘hot take’ of the day - inevitably the Living in Love and Faith process (LLF) and the Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF).
The Right Revd Steven Croft, Bishop of Oxford’s September 2022 pamphlet, “Together in Love and Faith” was perhaps the opening salvo, eliciting, as it did, “Together in Love and Faith?: A Response to the Bishop of Oxford” from one of his clergy and member of General Synod, Canon Vaughan Roberts.
Having become sole lead bishop for the Prayers of Love and Faith process, Right Revd Martin Snow decided to also contribute a pamphlet- “Can we Imagine a Future Together?”.
Now has come, “Living in Love and Faith: Discerning the Mind of the Church” - 23 pages of attractively presented e-book from the Bishop of Guildford, Rt Revd Andrew Watson.
And, in the modern extension of the pamphlet war, each new publication is surrounded by other responses on blogs, vlogs, YouTube channels, Substacks and all the rest of it. That includes, not least, this blog which has already commented on various exchanges and has itself hosted responses when requested to do so. [See Anglican Future’s review of Bishop Martyn Snow’s pamphlet and his response]
As the title suggests, Bishop Watson’s new work advances as its key proposition that the PLF/LLF processes have failed in what he asserts is the necessary task of setting the LLF process, “…on a proper theological and canonical footing, so as to discern the mind of the Church and the promptings of the Holy Spirit (we pray) through that discernment”.
According to Watson such discernment requires two elements. They are:
That any development towards 'standalone services', and more so, “the clear change of -doctrine implicit, say in relaxing the discipline on clergy in relation to same sex marriages - or explicitly in revising Canon B30 [the marriage canon] altogether…” must be:
a) categorised as “…of first-or-second order significance.” That is to say as a disagreement “…which threatens apostolic communion [or] ecclesial communion”. This point is cogently argued - to not allow a significant minority to define what is the nature of the disagreement for them and instead to impose on them how significant the disagreement is would be, “…a failure of Christian love…”;
b) introduced via the procedure set out by Canon B2 because, “Adopting Canon B2 as the way ahead will next lead to a proper discussion about where we go from here: whether we pause at the place we have reached, with commended Prayers of Love and Faith but no further developments for the time being; whether we find sufficient agreement to inch our way forwards; or whether we need to work towards a creative settlement, with the House and College of Bishops holding the tension of that development within their shared, if impaired, life together”.
This can only mean that any development, if it is meaningfully opposed by a significant minority, either (a) cannot happen or (b) if it does happen will be of such an order of significance,to necessitate a ‘settlement’ if sufficient agreement cannot be found.
It does not go un-noticed that this pamphlet has been written at a time of synodical deadlock. Those wishing to introduce standalone services for same-sex couples and allow clergy to enter into same-sex civil marriages do not have sufficient support to reach the two-thirds majority required by Canon B2. Those who, "fail to accept that a change in the Church’s inherited teaching on marriage and sex is warranted on the basis of their reading of Scripture" make up less than 50% of Synod and have therefore been unable to stop the process itself from continuing. Those numbers are unlikely to change before the quinquenniel synodical elections in Autumn 2026, and there is a chance that there will still be a 'blocking minority' until 2031 or beyond.
Bishop Andrew describes how those leading the LLF/PLF process have sought to bypass this blocking minority:
"By moving the proposals forward one by one, rather than as a complete package – and by doing so on the basis of a series of shifting (and often conflicting) theological and legal justifications - simple majorities in the Houses of General Synod could generally be secured by thin majorities and the argument advanced that each step, in itself, was relatively insignificant."
However, later he warns that attempts to circumvent the Canon B2 process have not only heightened the, "theological complexities" and "raised the theological and emotional stakes" but have also increased, "the probability of successful legal challenge." He goes on to spell out that such a risk, "may well fall on individual clergy or on their Diocesan Boards of Finance."
Another problem that has dogged the synodical process is a lack of agreement as to what kind of 'disagreement' is taking place. Christians sometimes speak of first, second and third order issues - if these terms are unfamiliar this article may help explain them. Quoting the Faith and Order Commission's Report (GS Misc 1046), Bishop Andrew proposes that, "If there is to be any meaningful ongoing dialogue about what to do in the face of profound disagreement, it must proceed from the basis of acknowledging and accepting that, for a large proportion of those who disagree, the disagreement is of first- or second-order significance."
Thus the need for a "creative settlement" that offers "a negotiated solution not an imposed one", which recognises the "impaired" nature of future relationships. In respect of such a ‘settlement’, the bishop protests that his booklet is, “… not the place to suggest where those conversations might lead…”, however, he goes on to reference not just when the Church of England has failed to do so but also how it has embraced such arrangements as royal peculiars, monastic communities, two provinces covering the same geographical region, episcopal visitors, suffragan bishops and in so doing so, in the case of women bishops, reduced, “…ecclesiological coherence” and introduced, “impaired communion to the episcopate…”
In conclusion, Bishop Andrew uses Jesus' Parable of the Tower (Luke 14:28-30) to justify the need for a settlement to be agreed before the Church takes any further steps down the Living in Love and Faith pathway, so that the Church of England can "understand both the scale and the cost of whatever is decided," before it is too late.
It is unsurprising that this pamphlet has been warmly welcomed by many of the orthodox in the Church of England. Watson's argument echoes the demands of the Church of England Evangelical Council for a "legally secure structural settlement, without theological compromise", he describes the Alliance, as "overseeing some of the most energetic and youthful churches within the Church of England" and suggests the Church of England is, "dependent on the life and energy of the evangelical movement to help foster evangelism, church planting and vocations, and drive our three national priorities of missionary discipleship, mixed ecology and youth and diversity." Many will be very grateful to Bishop Andrew for setting out their concerns and arguing their case.
Yet, the question arises whether in reality this pamphlet just brings too little too late to the 'war.'
It is too late because the House of Bishops have already commended the Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF) for use by a minister in exercise of his or her discretion under Canon B 5 of the Canons of the Church of England. The rubric to these prayers states:
"The Prayers of Love and Faith are offered as resources in praying with and for a same-sex couple who love one another and who wish to give thanks for and mark that love in faith before God. To celebrate in God’s presence the commitment two people have made to each other is an occasion for rejoicing... . These materials can be used in private prayer and conversation as well as in weekday or Sunday worship regularly offered by a church,"
For over a year, same-sex couples have been able to invite their friends and family to join them at church on a Sunday morning (or at a Saturday evening service of Compline or a mid-week Eucharist) to celebrate their commitment to one another. It is said that the service should not be, "designed primarily" around the Prayers of Love and Faith, but considering that the second 'commended' prayer is an Introductory Bidding...
"Dear friends in Christ, we gather with N and N to celebrate with them their love, faithfulness, and commitment. We come to hear God’s holy word, and to surround N and N with our love and prayer as they seek the blessings of God’s kingdom in their life together."
... one may struggle to tell the difference.
Not all the bishops have commended the prayers, one diocesan, Rt Revd Paul Williams, the Bishop of Southall and Nottingham, wrote to the clergy in his diocese after the PLF had been commended, explaining why he had voted against commending them and why he was, "unable to advise that the commended PLF be used in public worship at this time." Church of England polity means he cannot forbid their use, but in a strongly worded letter he set out his view that the prayers represented a change in doctrine and in his view should not be used unless introduced using Canon B2.
In contrast, the Diocese of Guildford merely published the decision of the House of Bishops and twice in this pamphlet Bishop Andrew appears to be relatively content with the use of the PLF in this way, describing it as "arguably adiaphora."
Such a position, at least partially, undermines his argument for a settlement. If, as Watson postulates, the principle of 'lex orandi lex credendi (the law of what is prayed is the law of what is believed) is true, then it is difficult to advocate that on the one hand the use of an episcopally-commended prayer asking God to fill a same-sex couple, "with the grace to rejoice always in their love for one another, and to follow the Way of holiness and hope revealed in your Son Jesus Christ," during a service of Holy Communion is adiaphora, but on the other, should such a prayer be uttered in a standalone service then it suddenly represents a change in doctrine and a settlement which requires "further 'ecclesialogical anomalies'".
And it is too little, both globally and locally.
Bishop Andrew laments the, "lack of serious engagement with our Anglican colleagues throughout the LLF process," and recognises, "the accelerated numerical decline in every province and denomination that has embarked on [the course of same-sex marriage], demonstrating a serious misjudgement as to the depth and extent of the division," but he is still looking for a 'different' outcome for the Church of England. Similarly, Watson mentions the "fractured Communion" but does not engage with the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans' or Gafcon's commitment to fellowship based on a shared understanding of God's word, instead he simply puts his trust in the ecumenical "post-colonial reset" for the Communion suggested by the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order (IASCUFO).
Closer to home, the Bishop of Guildford says he is aware that some will consider his proposals are an attempt, "to sabotage LLF or kick it into the long grass." That would be unfair, but if there is to be, "any real attempt to plan together" he will need to bring more to the table than the oft-repeated dream of clarity and legal protection whilst maintaining the highest degree of unity possible. It is not enough to say, "I for one would wish to explore the idea of ‘three spaces’ further", without giving any indication of what that means or how it might 'work'.
The truth is that the greatest challenge facing the orthodox in the Church of England at the moment is not explaining why the PLF represent a change in doctrine, and nor is it setting out the need for a 'settlement' if the impasse is to be overcome, instead it is the hard work of agreeing together what the Alliance will 'settle' for and what they will do if their 'settlement' is rejected.
If that ever happens, it will be a pamphlet which is worth reading.
Anglican Futures provides practical and pastoral support to faithful Anglicans.
To that end a blog was published sixteen months ago setting out a possible 'settlement':
What do you think? Could you live with it? Would it work?
Comment below