Fergus Butler-GallieChurch TimesBeginning Lent from scratch
“Abstinence reveals what really matters, says Fergus Butler-Gallie in his new memoir about life as a young priest”
They would be free to exercise their conscience as they saw fit. That would be up to them. And more gay-affirming priests and communities would be free to exercise theirs. Or we can just pile the harm today, tomorrow, the next five years, the indefinite future… on LGBT+ people (and the harm that domination of conscience does more generally). CEEC has the right to practice what it believes. What it does not have is the right to force others with different views to submit to its conservative (and minority) view. That’s plain wrong. The Church of England needs to champion… Read more »
“CEEC has the right to practice what it believes. What it does not have is the right to force others with different views to submit to its conservative (and minority) view. That’s plain wrong.”
But that’s just it:
Conservative groups such as CEEC feel they do have the right to force others with different views to submit. Because in their eyes, those with different views are sinful and wrong, and the conservatives are “protecting children”.
Fine for those who live in a city or have cars (and can afford petrol) but on a Sunday there is often no public transport for people to travel to a different church. Essentially your proposal is that those LGBTIQ Christians who can afford it can have a supportive church and the poor just have to suffer. It’s a policy which sounds good in the abstract but which is elitist in practice.
I recognise the geographical lottery Kate, and the point about wealth differences. But would you rather NO C of E churches married gay and lesbian couples? What kind of signal does that send out?
As Christians it is totally wrong actively to seek a situation which discriminates against the poor and, if proposed, we should reject it.
Paul
1 year ago
Suspect because in Scotland it wasn’t enough churches opposed to form any meaningful objection. Hard reality in CofE is that in vast majority of places the largest churches are evangelical and wealthy so if separation comes will cause some level of diocesean trouble.
That’s a polite way of saying (some) evangelicals are going to dig their heels in and impose their conscience on others with financial threats. I’m not sure how successful they would be. The “wealth” of any parish belongs to that parish and the diocese, not to the congregation, the PCC or the Priest. The Charity Commission would get interested in a hurry if PCCs tried to siphon off CofE funds to schismatic sects. Income might be trickier, but it’s far from clear (as was the case with the ordinariate) how many people would actually jump ship if push came to… Read more »
While I dislike the threat behaviour, the money does belong to the PCC as they are the legal body. The diocese has no claim on the money as neither the priest or congregation do, and therefore what they decide is what will happen. They are the trustees and while others could bring a complaint via the charity commission they are very hard to prove when it comes to how funds match the aims of a PCC.
That of course will depend on the wording of the governing document. Some for instance rely on the “PAROCHIAL CHURCH COUNCIL POWERS MEASURE (1956)” so any attempt to separate from the Church of England could be a breach of trust. It is possible some have bespoke trust deeds but again if they give”the Church of England” as the primary purpose the PCC is constrained. If a parish council did try to secede then the Church of England has plenty of lawyers as we know. It would require research to know (and dioceses may be undertaking the research) but the sort… Read more »
I recall reading that the late Colin Urquhart had a disagreement with his then bishop on something similar to this a good many years ago. He considered that the money raised in collections taken during his touring charismatic rallies belonged to his ‘organisation’, for furthering its activities. The bishop considered otherwise – and had the legal power to enforce his opinion. (That’s a very simplified version of the story). So yes, it has been tried before, and the ‘big battalions’ clearly had God – or canon law – on their side. About 35 years ago a great many Baptist churches… Read more »
The point with trustees is that they hold assets “in trust”, not on their own behalf. They are not free to dispose of them entirely at will. The functions of the PCC are a matter of law and they would struggle to argue that giving away assets on a large scale to another church serves the mission of the Church of England.
Quite. The threats would need to distinguish between what they are actually going to do. The ECUSA disasters have in the main made lawyers rich from the legal disputes. I certainly think ideas of property etc are fanciful, but how PCC’s spend income is possible. I suspect (and having been on a PCC which did “successfully” threaten the diocese) its the withholding of the parish share that is the real stick. Certainly the reports from London diocese suggest that is what is being threatened and it would cause the diocese significant budget problems. I have heard of churches establishing separate… Read more »
Here: https://ecclawsoc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/CWs-PCC-and-Law-Booklet-2019.pdf and here: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-12/legal%20position%20of%20pcc%20members%20final.pdf It should be noted that PCCs are, in a sense, public authorities, per the late Lord Rodger of Earlsferry (a distinguished Scots judge) in his speech in the notorious Aston Cantlow case (2003): “156. The key to the role of the PCC lies in the first of its general functions: co-operation with the minister in promoting in the parish the whole mission of the Church. Its other more particular functions are to be seen as ways of carrying out this general function… The PCC exists to carry forward the Church’s mission at the local level.… Read more »
Indeed the February General Synod considered the legislation necessary to enable English Dioceses to give each other financial support from otherwise restricted funds. Without legislation such support would be unlawful. This is in part a result of the way in which the Church Commissioners have reduced the extent to which their funding/discretion is now used to compensate for imbalances in historic wealth (and/or relative outcomes of financial management in the case of Dioceses with substantial assets).
FrDavid H
1 year ago
I’d always believed, since I was ordained many years ago, the Church’s mission was to communicate the Gospel to secular society Sadly, this has been reduced to groups of Church members communicating to other Church members how horrible they are, showing to secular society how much these “Christians” hate each other. It is quite beyond me why anyone would want to join an organisation where there is so much hateful argument, when there is far more genuine love and care among ordinary, secular people who never set foot in Church.
I agree totally. Thank you FrDavid H. I see and chat to people at the gym – all sorts and conditions – who know of my priesthood. They are wonderfully open about their joys and sorrows and addictions and circumstances, more so than many church people who seem to think clergy are God’s spies. Gym rats are focussed, disciplined, helpful when asked but never intrusive. Over many years I have never met an unpleasant or surly member though appearances could possibly make one suspect otherwise (I am no oil painting either), and never have I met one who thinks that… Read more »
I agree Fr David that is what the Church should be doing. However when you talk about Christians “hating each other” you propose a kind of balance that I don’t believe is there. A vanishingly small number of people in this debate would seek to impose equal marriage on unwilling conservative parishes. However conservative evangelical parishes do seek to prevent equal marriage in those parishes that want it. It is a liberal instinct to want to see merit in both sides of the argument but in this case I don’t think this reflects reality. One side of the argument want… Read more »
I don’t believe anyone wants to impose same-sex marriage on parishes who reject the concept. A visceral hatred exists from some wealthy and influential evangelicals who regard “tolerance” as unbiblical and sinful. Their hatred is disguised as biblical faithfulness as opposed to ‘sinful’ revisionism. Tolerance used to be a byword for kindly Anglicanism. This hasn’t existed for the duration of the evangelical ascendency during which some of us are expected to be tolerant of hateful bigotry.
Sadly, father, not everyone thinks like you or I. I recall talking to the leader of a charismatic house fellowship, who openly said that they didn’t regard tolerance as a spiritual gift or virtue. I”m afraid the general ‘black and white’ attitudes of modern society have infiltrated the church.
I think we have to be careful in describing parishes as liberal or conservative. Priests may be one of those, PCCs too, perhaps even some congregations (though I suspect most are more mixed than their leaders would like to believe). Parishes I do not think can be reasonably categorised in that way, and certainly not to the extent that some people should be able to prevent others getting married in their parish church. Priests and PCC members have consciences, buildings do not. It is a legal absurdity that the right to marry in one’s parish church depends on the legal… Read more »
Susanna sorry if I misunderstood your comment. I can see no higher place to look than a Church of England that REALLY welcomes and RESPECTS everyone who lives in England: Gay or Straight, Poor or Rich, Disabled or Able Bodied and from every ethnic background. Of course we all should condemn abusive relationships but if two people love each other sexually by what right do any of us play God and condemn them because of what a fellow sinner wrote over 2000 years ago in a completely different culture? “Jesus’s harshest words, we might recall, were said to those who… Read more »
Last edited 1 year ago by David Hawkins
rural liberal
1 year ago
seeing as no one else is commenting on it, Fergus is exactly the sort of young priest that the Church can ill afford to lose. Absolutely shameful that he is no longer in his curacy. Great article.
I suppose my question for Helen would be: if Scotland can do it (allow for plural consciences) why not England?
Even if the outcome was imperfect, wouldn’t it be better than the continuing harm being done by the doctrinal status quo?
Couldn’t agree more, Susannah. But my impression is that CEEC wouldn’t be content with that.
They would be free to exercise their conscience as they saw fit. That would be up to them. And more gay-affirming priests and communities would be free to exercise theirs. Or we can just pile the harm today, tomorrow, the next five years, the indefinite future… on LGBT+ people (and the harm that domination of conscience does more generally). CEEC has the right to practice what it believes. What it does not have is the right to force others with different views to submit to its conservative (and minority) view. That’s plain wrong. The Church of England needs to champion… Read more »
“CEEC has the right to practice what it believes. What it does not have is the right to force others with different views to submit to its conservative (and minority) view. That’s plain wrong.”
But that’s just it:
Conservative groups such as CEEC feel they do have the right to force others with different views to submit. Because in their eyes, those with different views are sinful and wrong, and the conservatives are “protecting children”.
Fine for those who live in a city or have cars (and can afford petrol) but on a Sunday there is often no public transport for people to travel to a different church. Essentially your proposal is that those LGBTIQ Christians who can afford it can have a supportive church and the poor just have to suffer. It’s a policy which sounds good in the abstract but which is elitist in practice.
I recognise the geographical lottery Kate, and the point about wealth differences. But would you rather NO C of E churches married gay and lesbian couples? What kind of signal does that send out?
As Christians it is totally wrong actively to seek a situation which discriminates against the poor and, if proposed, we should reject it.
Suspect because in Scotland it wasn’t enough churches opposed to form any meaningful objection. Hard reality in CofE is that in vast majority of places the largest churches are evangelical and wealthy so if separation comes will cause some level of diocesean trouble.
That’s a polite way of saying (some) evangelicals are going to dig their heels in and impose their conscience on others with financial threats. I’m not sure how successful they would be. The “wealth” of any parish belongs to that parish and the diocese, not to the congregation, the PCC or the Priest. The Charity Commission would get interested in a hurry if PCCs tried to siphon off CofE funds to schismatic sects. Income might be trickier, but it’s far from clear (as was the case with the ordinariate) how many people would actually jump ship if push came to… Read more »
While I dislike the threat behaviour, the money does belong to the PCC as they are the legal body. The diocese has no claim on the money as neither the priest or congregation do, and therefore what they decide is what will happen. They are the trustees and while others could bring a complaint via the charity commission they are very hard to prove when it comes to how funds match the aims of a PCC.
That of course will depend on the wording of the governing document. Some for instance rely on the “PAROCHIAL CHURCH COUNCIL POWERS MEASURE (1956)” so any attempt to separate from the Church of England could be a breach of trust. It is possible some have bespoke trust deeds but again if they give”the Church of England” as the primary purpose the PCC is constrained. If a parish council did try to secede then the Church of England has plenty of lawyers as we know. It would require research to know (and dioceses may be undertaking the research) but the sort… Read more »
I recall reading that the late Colin Urquhart had a disagreement with his then bishop on something similar to this a good many years ago. He considered that the money raised in collections taken during his touring charismatic rallies belonged to his ‘organisation’, for furthering its activities. The bishop considered otherwise – and had the legal power to enforce his opinion. (That’s a very simplified version of the story). So yes, it has been tried before, and the ‘big battalions’ clearly had God – or canon law – on their side. About 35 years ago a great many Baptist churches… Read more »
The point with trustees is that they hold assets “in trust”, not on their own behalf. They are not free to dispose of them entirely at will. The functions of the PCC are a matter of law and they would struggle to argue that giving away assets on a large scale to another church serves the mission of the Church of England.
Quite. The threats would need to distinguish between what they are actually going to do. The ECUSA disasters have in the main made lawyers rich from the legal disputes. I certainly think ideas of property etc are fanciful, but how PCC’s spend income is possible. I suspect (and having been on a PCC which did “successfully” threaten the diocese) its the withholding of the parish share that is the real stick. Certainly the reports from London diocese suggest that is what is being threatened and it would cause the diocese significant budget problems. I have heard of churches establishing separate… Read more »
Here: https://ecclawsoc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/CWs-PCC-and-Law-Booklet-2019.pdf and here: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-12/legal%20position%20of%20pcc%20members%20final.pdf It should be noted that PCCs are, in a sense, public authorities, per the late Lord Rodger of Earlsferry (a distinguished Scots judge) in his speech in the notorious Aston Cantlow case (2003): “156. The key to the role of the PCC lies in the first of its general functions: co-operation with the minister in promoting in the parish the whole mission of the Church. Its other more particular functions are to be seen as ways of carrying out this general function… The PCC exists to carry forward the Church’s mission at the local level.… Read more »
Indeed the February General Synod considered the legislation necessary to enable English Dioceses to give each other financial support from otherwise restricted funds. Without legislation such support would be unlawful. This is in part a result of the way in which the Church Commissioners have reduced the extent to which their funding/discretion is now used to compensate for imbalances in historic wealth (and/or relative outcomes of financial management in the case of Dioceses with substantial assets).
I’d always believed, since I was ordained many years ago, the Church’s mission was to communicate the Gospel to secular society Sadly, this has been reduced to groups of Church members communicating to other Church members how horrible they are, showing to secular society how much these “Christians” hate each other. It is quite beyond me why anyone would want to join an organisation where there is so much hateful argument, when there is far more genuine love and care among ordinary, secular people who never set foot in Church.
I agree totally. Thank you FrDavid H. I see and chat to people at the gym – all sorts and conditions – who know of my priesthood. They are wonderfully open about their joys and sorrows and addictions and circumstances, more so than many church people who seem to think clergy are God’s spies. Gym rats are focussed, disciplined, helpful when asked but never intrusive. Over many years I have never met an unpleasant or surly member though appearances could possibly make one suspect otherwise (I am no oil painting either), and never have I met one who thinks that… Read more »
‘…there is far more genuine love and care among ordinary, secular people who never set foot in Church.’
I’m very sorry that your experience of church has been so negative.
Hear hear!
I agree Fr David that is what the Church should be doing. However when you talk about Christians “hating each other” you propose a kind of balance that I don’t believe is there. A vanishingly small number of people in this debate would seek to impose equal marriage on unwilling conservative parishes. However conservative evangelical parishes do seek to prevent equal marriage in those parishes that want it. It is a liberal instinct to want to see merit in both sides of the argument but in this case I don’t think this reflects reality. One side of the argument want… Read more »
I don’t believe anyone wants to impose same-sex marriage on parishes who reject the concept. A visceral hatred exists from some wealthy and influential evangelicals who regard “tolerance” as unbiblical and sinful. Their hatred is disguised as biblical faithfulness as opposed to ‘sinful’ revisionism. Tolerance used to be a byword for kindly Anglicanism. This hasn’t existed for the duration of the evangelical ascendency during which some of us are expected to be tolerant of hateful bigotry.
A Biblical quote I often hear from conservatives is “come out from among them.” What I think they really mean is “force them to leave.”
The CEEC in its document “Visibly Different” is actually proposing separate provinces within the Church of England rather than force anyone out.
Sadly, father, not everyone thinks like you or I. I recall talking to the leader of a charismatic house fellowship, who openly said that they didn’t regard tolerance as a spiritual gift or virtue. I”m afraid the general ‘black and white’ attitudes of modern society have infiltrated the church.
I think we have to be careful in describing parishes as liberal or conservative. Priests may be one of those, PCCs too, perhaps even some congregations (though I suspect most are more mixed than their leaders would like to believe). Parishes I do not think can be reasonably categorised in that way, and certainly not to the extent that some people should be able to prevent others getting married in their parish church. Priests and PCC members have consciences, buildings do not. It is a legal absurdity that the right to marry in one’s parish church depends on the legal… Read more »
As we approach Holy Week as Anglicans is this really as high as we can raise our eyes ?
Susanna sorry if I misunderstood your comment. I can see no higher place to look than a Church of England that REALLY welcomes and RESPECTS everyone who lives in England: Gay or Straight, Poor or Rich, Disabled or Able Bodied and from every ethnic background. Of course we all should condemn abusive relationships but if two people love each other sexually by what right do any of us play God and condemn them because of what a fellow sinner wrote over 2000 years ago in a completely different culture? “Jesus’s harshest words, we might recall, were said to those who… Read more »
seeing as no one else is commenting on it, Fergus is exactly the sort of young priest that the Church can ill afford to lose. Absolutely shameful that he is no longer in his curacy. Great article.