Five Guiding Principles for the Prayers of Love and Faith?

Since the 2013 settlement with respect to the consecration of women as bishops, the Church of England has committed itself to Five Guiding Principles, concerning the ongoing ministry of those unable, on theological grounds, to receive the ministry of female bishops. These five principles are often summarized in the phrase ‘mutual flourishing’. That is to say, people of the minority (complementarian) viewpoint should be able to flourish within the Church of England as much as women and egalitarian men. In theory, there is no glass ceiling. And since all concerned should have accepted the reality of this settlement, there should be no need to continue the polarising debates which led up to it.

More than ten years later, the debates have moved on to the subject of same-sex relationships, with respect to the Prayers of Love and Faith and the restriction on clergy forbidding them from being in a same-sex marriage, or in any same-sex sexual relationship. Once again, the church is divided, and it seems clear that no consensus is achievable. It is not surprising, therefore, that the possibility of a similar settlement has been suggested.

The Archbishops’ Standing Commission for the House of Bishops’ Declaration and the Five Guiding Principles has been asked to give its input into the discussions. And so, as a member of the Standing Commission, I have been giving it some thought. As you might expect, there are a number of serious problems in applying the same ‘solution’ to this very different problem.

1. Numerical

There are around 152 parishes which have passed a resolution to receive ministry from the Bishop of Ebbsfleet, with a usual Sunday attendance around the size of an average diocese. There are substantially more Society parishes, though with a much lower average congregation size. By contrast, The Alliance represents around 1600 parishes with well over 45% of the total church attendance. This is not a constituency which can adequately be served by a handful of flying bishops operating outside normal diocesan structures.

2. Practical

Under the current provision for the Bishop of Ebbsfleet, he can only minister at the discretion of each diocesan bishop. Of the 42 dioceses, fewer than a third have so far made him an honorary assistant bishop, which is what is recommended, so that he can be covered by the diocesan safeguarding policies. This has to be renegotiated each time there is a new flying bishop or a change in the diocesan bishop: the agreements Rod Thomas had did NOT automatically transfer to Rob Munro (for example, two dioceses who licensed Rod have yet to license Rob). This creates a lot of administrative work, with the result that many resolution parishes do not benefit from the bishop’s ministry in the way that they should. If the number of parishes concerned multiplies tenfold, this becomes even more of a logistical headache for everyone.

3. Variability

This situation also means that, inevitably, provision for complementarian parishes varies substantially between dioceses. The implications for ordination, deployment, and oversight are real and serious. In a handful of dioceses, there are clear guidelines on how these and other issues will be handled, leading to much better working relationships. In most places, there is only confusion and frustration. And in a few places, there is explicit opposition to the flourishing of complementarian ministry. While this is very frustrating for those of the minority complementarian view, it would be utterly unworkable when considering a group that includes almost half the church.

4. Authority

If a similar settlement were applied to the issue of same-sex relationships, it would mean that diocesan bishops would have the power to decide what alternative episcopal provision to allow. In the case of orthodox diocesan bishops, they may well not be able to permit any provision for revisionist parishes, on grounds of conscience. And in the case of revisionist diocesan bishops, they may well feel the same. In any case, there would be no guarantee of provision, or of the nature of that provision.

The fundamental problem is that not everyone will be able to agree to the mutual aspect of mutual flourishing. For some, this was also true with respect to the ordination and consecration of women, and those people did indeed leave the Church of England. But in most cases, it is possible to wish for and work for the flourishing of gospel ministry, even if you think there are irregularities or misunderstandings about the person doing that ministry. It is not possible to wish or work for the flourishing of a ministry that you believe is leading people towards death rather than life. It would be foolish in the extreme to leave things to the discretion of individuals when the disagreements are of this nature.

5. Longevity

It is just over ten years since the first consecrations of female bishops and already there are public calls for the settlement to be revoked, even from bishops. Some people were misled into thinking the settlement was always intended to be provisional and now feel let down because it is still in place (despite Principle 5 which makes it clear this was not the case). Others believed the promises of flourishing at every level in the church and so are frustrated that these have not been fulfilled, with no ‘normal’ diocesan or suffragan bishops representing the minority evangelical complementarian viewpoint at all (there are, of course, traditional Anglo-Catholic complementarian bishops). Those who are currently tasked with implementing the principles were not necessarily part of the debates which led to them, and therefore have less sense of their significance and nuance. It is hard to continue to maintain this settlement, even where there is good faith, because the differences are still real and painful for many.

There seems to be no evidence at all that a settlement made around same-sex relationships would result in a lasting peace. Feelings are high, consciences are tender, and the divisions are sharp. Whatever is being agreed by slim General Synod majorities now is unlikely to last long in practice.

6. Ecclesiological

While the current arrangements under the Five Guiding Principles are enabling the ministry of complementarians to flourish, at least to some extent, they are in no way adequate for the questions the church is now facing:

1. Delegated episcopal authority leaves too much to the discretion of the diocesan bishop to ensure adequate provision;
2. Delegated episcopal authority leaves the authority with the diocesan bishop, in a way which is unacceptable to those with different viewpoints on this issue;
3. For many people, including bishops, it will not be possible to commit to mutual flourishing on this issue;
4. For many people and churches, it is not acceptable for dioceses to share finances in a way that crosses the divide on this issue – that is, they will not be willing for financially support churches which promote the alternative view;
5. For many clergy, it will not be possible to continue in fellowship and communion with those on the other side of this divide, because they regard each other as false teachers;
6. For many clergy, it will not be possible to make oaths at ordination or licensing to a bishop with whom they disagree on this issue;

The principles for mutual flourishing are designed to hold together two groups within one church. But the disagreement over same-sex relationships is essentially a disagreement about the gospel itself. And therefore, it needs a settlement that allows the expression of two churches, which may be linked legally and administratively, but are not linked episcopally and ecclesiologically.