What is the future for complementarians in the CofE?

The Bishop of Ebbsfleet, the Right Revd Dr Rob Munro, has written to the complementarian clergy for whom he provides extended [1] episcopal oversight under the House of Bishops Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests, concerning the impact of the nomination of Sarah Mullally as Archbishop of Canterbury.

The missive is described as, “A Theological Reflection on upholding Complementarian Integrity with a female Archbishop”.

Dr Munro is a bishop of great integrity, not least when it comes to all things Anglican in polity and order, which makes it all the harder to concur with the position he has set out in his reflection. As has been recently independently recorded, the role of the Bishop of Ebbsfleet is a very difficult one, for reasons beyond those mentioned below, and nothing in this blog is meant to make it any harder. That being said, the now longstanding issues set out in this piece, complex, yet practical, as they are, must be resolved if complementarian integrity is to be upheld.

Munro starts by commending the Archbishop designate’s commitment to honouring, while Bishop of London, “The Five Guiding Principles” that apply to the arrangements created in 2014 for those who on grounds of theological conviction cannot accept the episcopal (or priestly) ministry of women. He is satisfied, indeed, optimistic, that she will continue to do so at Canterbury.

He then, however, makes the following statement to complementarians:

“There is a distinction in canon and scripture between the spiritual and legal authority of a bishop/archbishop- so you are not necessarily under +Sarah’s spiritual ‘headship’.”

He says that this distinction is founded on Canon law and also found in scripture. This blog investigates whether that claim is sustainable.

Arguments from Canon Law

Canonically, Munro begins by citing a purported difference between the (arch)bishop’s 'legal authority' or 'legal responsibility' under Canon C17.2 and C18.2 and the (arch)bishop’s 'spiritual authority' or 'spiritual responsibility' under Canon C18.1. He goes on to say that the distinction is explicit in Canon C19 and Canon C20.

From this supposed distinction he suggests that it is possible to be in 'impaired' 'spiritual' fellowship with the (arch)bishop while the 'legal' relationship between laity/clergy and (arch) bishop remains unimpacted.

To many this will immediately strike them as, if not just simply special pleading, impossible in its purported complexity. That is understandable given that the Canons of the Church of England appear, in fact, to describe a very simple arrangement:

“The Church of England holds and teaches that from the apostles' time there have been these orders in Christ's Church: bishops, priests, and deacons…” (Canon C1.1).

“According to the ancient law and usage of this Church and Realm of England, the priests and deacons who have received authority to minister in any diocese owe canonical obedience in all things lawful and honest to the bishop of the same, and the bishop of each diocese owes due allegiance to the archbishop of the province as his metropolitan.” (Canon C1.3).

With the caveat that 'lawful' means according to canon law and perhaps ecclesiastical law but not 'biblical law', the relationship between clergy and bishop and bishop and archbishop could scarcely be less complicated. That simplicity is seemingly underlined in Canon C17 and Canon C18:

Canon C17

“1. By virtue of their respective offices, the Archbishop of Canterbury is styled Primate of All England and Metropolitan, and the Archbishop of York Primate of England and Metropolitan.

2. The archbishop has throughout his province at all times metropolitical jurisdiction, as superintendent of all ecclesiastical matters therein, to correct and supply the defects of other bishops, and, during the time of his metropolitical visitation, jurisdiction as Ordinary, except in places and over persons exempt by law or custom.

3. Such jurisdiction is exercised by the archbishop himself, or by a Vicar-General, official, or other commissary to whom authority in that behalf shall have been formally committed by the archbishop concerned.

4. The archbishop is, within his province, the principal minister, and to him belongs the right of confirming the election of every person to a bishopric, of being the chief consecrator at the consecration of every bishop, of receiving such appeals in his provincial court as may be provided by law, of holding metropolitical visitations at times or places limited by law or custom, and of presiding in the Convocation of the province either in person or by such deputy as he may lawfully appoint. In the province of Canterbury, the Bishop of London or, in his absence, the Bishop of Winchester, has the right to be so appointed; and in their absence the archbishop shall appoint some other diocesan bishop of the province. The two archbishops are joint presidents of the General Synod.”

Canon C18

“1. Every bishop is the chief pastor of all that are within his diocese, as well laity as clergy, and their father in God; it appertains to his office to teach and to uphold sound and wholesome doctrine, and to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange opinions; and, himself an example of righteous and godly living, it is his duty to set forward and maintain quietness, love, and peace among all men.

2. Every bishop has within his diocese jurisdiction as Ordinary except in places and over persons exempt by law or custom.”

On the face of it, there is considerable difficulty reading into those comprehensive statements any ambiguity as to where any authority of any sort, lies. Given the 'plain reading' of the Canons to which evangelicals are hermeneutically committed, there would need to a powerful argument to ignore what is otherwise, apparently, clear.

In his letter, however, Bishop Munro appeals to Canon C18.1 and says that it,

“…expresses a spiritual oversight expressed in faithful teaching and discipline, holy living and peace-making: ‘it appertains to his office to teach and to uphold sound and wholesome doctrine, and to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange opinions; and, himself an example of righteous and godly living, it is his duty to set forward and maintain quietness, love, and peace among all men.’ So in broad terms, their spiritual authority describes ‘what a bishop can do’, their jurisdiction describes ’where a bishop can legally do it’!”

He then says that the latter (the jurisdiction) is set out in Canon C17.2 and C18.2.

This distinction of legal oversight and spiritual oversight is, however by no means, explicit or even implicit. Simply putting the matters in separate canons certainly does not create such a division. This is made abundantly clear in Canon C17 where no such distinction is made because there is no need to do so in the case of someone with metropolitan jurisdiction. In short, as a matter of drafting and interpretation, if the Canons had the intent Dr Munro suggests, that which he relies on, as set out in Canon C18, would also be set out in Canon C17.

Rob Munro also refers explicitly to C17.2 (and Canon 18.2 which, for these purposes, is to the same effect). In fact, Canon C17.2 does not make any distinction between legal and spiritual matters, save in the event that, in some, very limited, situations, some legal permissions are, for historical reasons and only in certain contexts, exempted. The Canon sets out when ("in places and over persons exempt by law or custom") legal matters do not require the permission of the Diocesan. It does not suggest that there can be circumstances when spiritual responsibility can rest in anyone but the Diocesan. In fact, it tends to the opposite - what the Canon does is emphasise the norm, not the very limited exceptions. Finally, the exemptions are permissive not prescriptive, not the other way around.

Perhaps by way of acceptance that the distinction is not explicit in Canons C17 and C18, the Bishop of Ebbsfleet continues by saying it,

“… is explicit in Canon C19 which directs how ‘spiritual jurisdiction’ is managed distinct from ‘jurisdiction by the laws’, and Canon C20 which describes how any jurisdiction or episcopal power of a suffragan bishop is delegated by their diocesan bishop, while their spiritual oversight belongs to their consecration (ie they remain bishops even if not licensed).”

Canon C19 deals with the specific situation where the archepiscopal ee or bishopric is vacant. In such circumstances the “spiritualities” which normally appertain to them are held by the Chapter of the metropolitical or cathedral church respectively. This draws a distinction between the 'temporalities' and 'spiritualities'. It is suggested by the bishop that this is the “explicit” division between "spiritual” and “legal” authority.

Temporalities are, historically, the property and possessions of the church. Hence why, when a new incumbent is instituted, it is the archdeacon who, "on receiving the directions of the bishop, induct[s] any priest who has been instituted to a benefice into possession of the temporalities of the same", by symbolically handing over the key to the church building (Canon C22).

The distinction between 'temporalities' and 'spiritualities' is a discussion going back at least 1,000 years. It investigates the respective roles of the secular power (typically the king) and the ecclesiastical power (typically the bishops). The question arises precisely because both the 'temporalities' and 'spiritualities' often rested in the same person(s), giving rise to the issue of where their loyalties lay in a particular position of responsibility, and, not least, who appointed them. The conflict between King Henry II and Thomas à Becket centred on the rights and privileges of himself as Archbishop of Canterbury and those of the monarch.

Most obviously, this discussion goes to the heart of the issues between King and Pope, which gave rise to the distinct existence of the Church of England, and it is impossible to ignore that when understanding 'temporalities' and 'spiritualities' in the Canons. What is not suggested is that it is possible to divide a prelate in two - a 'spiritual' half and a 'temporal' half - but, if anything, the opposite is true and that is the issue.

The problem with the Right Revd Munro's argument in this regard is that the 'temporalities' and the 'legalities' are not the same thing. This is not difficult to see - Bishop Munro himself refers to the diocesan bishop as the person who oversees the,

“… licensing of clergy to their legal responsibilities in parishes…”.

But licensing, which is by his definition a 'legality', is not a 'temporality' for the purposes of Canon C19.

Lastly, the bishop refers to Canon C20 - the Canon which deals with the role and responsibilities of suffragan bishops - such as himself. In particular he cites that,

“Every bishop suffragan shall endeavour himself faithfully to execute such things pertaining to the episcopal office as shall be delegated to him by the bishop of the diocese to whom he shall be suffragan”.

This, he says,

“…describes how any jurisdiction or episcopal power of a suffragan bishop is delegated by their diocesan bishop, while their spiritual oversight belongs to their consecration (ie they remain bishops even if not licensed).”

Regrettably, this conclusion is not supported by the Canon. The proper distinction is not between 'legal'/'temporal' and 'spiritual'. Rather, it is between the suffragan bishop’s 'orders' and their 'office'. The 'orders' to which they have been duly consecrated, and of which, by virtue of Canon C1.2, they can never be “divested”- a bishop is a bishop is a bishop - and, as described in the Canon, the “episcopal office” of the diocesan. When the suffragan bishop is exercising their orders, they do so by way of full delegation from the Ordinary. There is nothing to suggest that every suffragan bishop in the exercise of the delegated powers of their Ordinary is only exercising the latter’s 'spiritual' (or only 'legal') authority.

Again, the point is not difficult to illustrate. While Dr Munro suggests in his paper that ordination is (at least in part) a 'legality' there can, whether or not, there is any possible distinction, be no doubt that when he ordains, he is carrying out the (deeply profound) 'spiritual' and 'legal' responsibility of the diocesan. To put it even more simply - if Munro would not ordain someone, the diocesan could - but if the diocesan would not ordain someone, Munro could not. Thus, when Bishop of Ebbsfleet ordains someone in a diocese with a female diocesan bishop, the diocesan retains at all times her own orders and office and all that pertains to them, and as a suffragan, the Bishop of Ebbsfleet can act on her behalf by virtue of the exercise of his own orders, but does not takeover, even temporarily, any part of his/her office.

Furthermore, Canon C1.4 [2] makes clear that, contrary to the bishop’s suggestion, it is because of their orders that a suffragan remains under the authority of an Ordinary even if they are not exercising those orders at all. They remain accountable “spiritually” even if they are not doing anything at all episcopally by way of exercise of their orders. The accurate position, therefore, is, again likely, the inverse of that suggested in the paper.

Accordingly, there is nothing in the suggestions relating to Canons C17-C20 to displace the plain reading of those canons and Canon C1. Rather, there is more to suggest that the plain reading is correct and all is consistent.

Arguments from Scripture

The other arguments martialled by Rob Munro are from scripture.

He states that the spiritual and legal/temporal divide, “…is echoed in Scripture in Acts 23:5 where Paul recognises the legal authority of the high priest, while resisting his spiritual authority.”

The verse says,

“And Paul said, I did not know brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people’.”

The parallel between Paul before the Council and the situation of complementarians in the CofE is not immediately apparent. Moreover, it has to be said, Paul at most expresses respect for an entirely unchristian 'office' and what he rejects outright is the character/behaviour of the present holder. Given, especially, that it is expressly said that Paul acted inadvertently and at an informal occasion, and then went on to throw a verbal grenade that succeeded in turning the court into something like “a rioting mob” (vs 10), it is a stretch to say that is an important and timeless expression of the possibility of a 'spiritual' and 'temporal/legal' divide. Even to suggest an 'echo', however faint, of the same might be overdoing things.

The Bishop of Ebbsfleet moves to John 19:11, where Jesus tells Pilate,

“…You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.”

Rob Munro says that here Jesus, “… contrasts the guilt of failed judicial power with that of spiritual responsibility.”

The purported import of this contention is hard to discern. Jesus' point is that all authority is divinely given and subordinate to God’s Will and that believers are therefore to respect the civil magistrate. But that does not inform the debate at hand at all.

Further, clearly the Lord references two different people with different roles and culpabilities - Pilate and another - probably Caiaphas. He does not suggest a temporal/spiritual divide in a single person or office, for to do that would be to deny any sin in Pilate, which he explicitly does not do, or any sin in the 'temporal' action, which is emphasised by the physical 'handing over'.

The Right Revd Munro’s greatest appeal to Scripture, however, is to Matthew 23:1-3, about which he says,  

“Jesus calls for his disciples’ obedience to those who ‘sit in Moses’ seat’ – that is, publicly reading and teaching Scripture; but not to follow them in their disobedience to those Scriptures – because they don’t ‘practice what they preach’. We are to honour their office in the law, but not their unfaithfulness in spiritual ministry in it”.

The text reads,

"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “'The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.'"

Obviously, Jesus’ assertion is one of spiritual hypocrisy. The 'crowds' can practice the teaching of the Pharisees because it is orthodox what they cannot do is follow the practice of the Pharisees - which is heterodox.

So then, what is meant in this context by the Bishop of Ebbsfleet becomes very unclear.

If Munro is suggesting that the bishops he serves under are orthodox in teaching but hypocrites in practice that would be extraordinary, but furthermore, would not justify his role - which is based on the egalitarian convictions/teaching of the (female) bishops.

Or perhaps he is saying that the bishops are 'spiritually' heterodox but 'legally' orthodox. That, however, isn’t possible either, because it is the teaching of the bishops that is the problem, which Bishop Rob regards as their primary 'spiritual' oversight.

His summary, “We are to honour their office in the law, but not their unfaithfulness in spiritual ministry in it,” is not what the Lord is teaching - which is simply to be faithful to the scriptures both in hearing and obeying them.

In conclusion

All in all, it is difficult to see how the canons or texts cited do much at all to set the foundations for the Bishop of Ebbsfleet's assertion that,

“…this distinction between legal and spiritual oversight lies at the heart of the arrangements under which I express my episcopal ministry.”

First, the distinction is flimsy at best due to the paucity of support for it and second, such an understanding is unique to his See. Those he seeks to divide into having separate 'spiritual', 'legal/temporal' authority/responsibility do not agree with him. And, as has been seen, canonically, it is their interpretation, not his that matters, and governs. That rejection is surely because no such division in the same person has ever been part of Anglican order, thought or polity, it is not biblical and it is not, unsurprisingly therefore, not functional in practice. This blog looks at those subjects in more detail Anglican Myth 7: The Temporal/Spiritual Divide.

Dr Munro’s summation that,

“…being under the legal authority of a bishop or archbishop whose episcopal ministry you cannot receive, does not require you to be under (ie in obedience to) their spiritual authority. The former is a matter of canonical obedience – submission to governing authority (Romans 13:1-5); the latter is an expression of spiritual obedience – submission to God expressed through biblical authority (eg Hebrews 4:12f). Therefore, you can faithfully minister under a bishop with whom you are in impaired fellowship, by remaining faithful to your calling to serve your flock, while not receiving the ministry of those who are in spiritual error. This is explored explicitly in Article 36, which speaks of how to rightly relate to ‘evil ministers’ in the church.”

is not recognised by those who delegate responsibilities to him. When they do so they regard him as standing, with their permission, in their shoes. For all the reasons that have been seen, they do not agree at all that when they delegate a task to him their 'spiritual oversight' of that function of the diocese ceases to be theirs and becomes, at least to the recipients, of Bishop Rob’s ministry, his alone. The Ordinary does not accept that because they do not accept it is possible, and it isn’t. Delegation means just that - the suffragan is the diocesan’s representative undertaking such ministry as the diocesan determines. That is what a delegate, or commissary, is.

So, when the Bishop of Ebbsfleet, via this arguably, tortuous path, states that,

“When fellowship with a bishop is impaired, it is primarily their spiritual ministry and authority that is impacted, their teaching, discipline, example and ability to make peace that is compromised. It is those aspects of oversight that a minister and parish require from an alternative bishop, to whom the suitable delegation of jurisdiction is made. Where spiritual ministry has been delegated, it is to that bishop that spiritual headship belongs.”

the bishops that he serves would depart from him at (at least) the following points:

• That 'impaired fellowship' is more than mere assertion or sentiment and exists in any important practical sense - the relationship with the diocesan both personally and to the office - is unchanged by Bishop Rob’s permitted intervention.

• There is not actual or even possible separation of 'spiritual' and 'legal'/'temporal' ministry such that one is 'impacted' or 'delegated' and the other not.

• The Bishop of Ebbsfleet exercises such ministry both 'legal' and 'spiritual' as the diocesan bishop delegates - no more and no less - and it is her ministry carried out by him.

• If the same is implied, Bishop Rob is not an 'alternative' to the suffragan, he is an extension of her ministry.

• The bishop has no 'ministry' of his own - he, albeit personally and as for all purposes as a 'real' bishop, carries out the ministry of another.

Much of this may seem rather esoteric, but when the Archbishop of Canterbury is a woman under whose 'headship' Rt Revd Munro would sit as a suffragan, it all becomes very practical. Of course, if Munro had some 'spiritual' 'headship' of his own independent of her office, it may not matter much, but, as has been seen, he does not.

Bishop Rob knows and is embracing this. In his letter he says,

“It [the nomination of Sarah Mullally] is most relevant for my own ministry, in that in line with my role description, I will not receive the ordained ministry of women presbyters or bishops. As a suffragan in Canterbury Diocese, that will require some special arrangements to be made for my role to have integrity, so that it is clear that I am not under the archbishops [sic] spiritual oversight- but I have every expectation that this will be forthcoming.”

“This will be especially complex for me personally, but as long as a clear public legal delegation of my spiritual oversight is made, I should otherwise be able to continue, even with a legal title in Canterbury”.

Writing for The Gospel Coalition, the Revd Dr Lee Gatiss, the Director of the Church Society has recognised the issue too:

“He [Rob Munro] will need to seek alternative spiritual oversight for his own role, however, now that the Archbishop is to be a woman”.

On The Pastor’s Heart podcast the Revd Canon Vaughan Roberts, a key member of The Alliance of orthodox networks, commented on the topic that (at 29:45),

“Bishop Rob is a very wise man and a man of great integrity, and I know that will be a huge thing he will need to engage with, clearly that is a problem, we need male oversight- that will have to be sorted”.

Canon Roberts’ solution is a wide one encompassing other issues including same-sex blessings. He and his allies seek the wholesale reorganisation of the Church of England to provide, “a triple O system”- "Orthodox-Original-Oversight”- a jurisdiction for people like him. Ironically, many who would want such a jurisdiction with respect to issues of sexuality would absolutely reject a jurisdiction that did not permit women to have Ordinary jurisdiction. How it would work in other ways is also highly confusing, not least that, if it sat under one of the existing archbishops, and that was Canterbury, it would solve nothing. If it had its own archbishop, it is a new Province, even a new church. Some of the confusion that arises has been considered here A Unicorn Made of Fairy Dust?

That solution apart, it is far from easy to see how Bishop Rob’s ministry will function in the future. It seems improbable that Sarah Mullally will accept both that 'spiritual oversight' can be separated from other 'oversight' and that she has no 'spiritual oversight' over one of her own suffragans. To do so would create a precedent for everyone in the Church of England both lay and ordained alike - that they could receive 'alternative' episcopal 'spiritual oversight' entirely independent of their Diocesan.

The expectation of “…a clear public legal delegation of my spiritual oversight…” seems to set a high bar. Any possibility of delegation, 'as of right' or 'in law' or of the creation of 'alternative episcopal oversight', has been clearly and firmly rejected in both the debates about the consecration of women and those about same-sex blessings etc. In relation to the latter, 'delegated episcopal ministry', whatever that may mean in practice, is off the table too.

All law can be changed by proper authority, but once established, it is supposed to apply in all relevant circumstances, for all relevant purposes and to all relevant people, until it is changed. In other words, 'legal' means created by proper authority and universal rather than personal.

It would be theoretically possible for Rob Munro to move his canonical residence to the Province of York but that would require him to be translated to a vacant see or one to be 'revived' for the purpose. And, in any event the same problem could arise in short order because the Archbishop of York retires in less than three years.

Anything that leaves Bishop Munro under the oversight of a woman would leave an already tenuous arrangement lacking any credibility amongst complementarians at all.

Since before the women’s ordination Measure in 1992, and especially since Rt Revd Libby Lane's consecration in 2015, the day when there would be a female Archbishop of Canterbury has been coming. In all that time there have been numerous opportunities to address how that would affect complementarians, particularly the 2014 arrangements, which have been spurned. It now lands, rather personally, and perhaps unfairly, on Bishop Rob, for it, to quote Canon Roberts, to be, “sorted”.

As was said at the start of this blog, the Rt Revd Rob Munro is a man of great integrity who is faced with a very difficult task. There can be no doubt that he is a man who is doing his best to meet the needs of those he is called to serve but the viability of that may not be in his hands. He has made a bold request to the Archbishop of Canterbury-designate, but if he does not receive “…a clear public legal delegation of [his] spiritual oversight,” the responsibility for the crisis that will then face complementarian clergy and laity should not be laid on him.

[1] Crucially - extended oversight, not alternative oversight - Bishop Rob is not ever a substitute for the Diocesan but always offered as an addition to her.

[2] Canon C4.2 - Where any bishop, priest or deacon ceases to hold office in the Church of England or otherwise ceases to serve in any place he continues to owe canonical obedience in all things lawful and honest to the archbishop of the province or the bishop of the diocese (as the case may be) in which he resides for the time being.