The Church of England has issued a press release on the role of the Bishops of Ebbsfleet and Beverley; it is copied below.
Independent Reviewer examines roles of Bishops of Ebbsfleet and Beverley
23/09/2025
The Independent Reviewer, Canon Maggie Swinson, is recommending extra support for two bishops who provide extended episcopal oversight to parishes with a conservative stance on the ordination of women.
In a report published today, Canon Swinson explores the workload and geographical spread of the ministries of the Bishop of Beverley, Stephen Race, and the Bishop of Ebbsfleet, Rob Munro.
Bishop Stephen – one of the Church of England’s Provincial Episcopal Visitors (PEVs) – is responsible for providing extended episcopal oversight to traditional catholic parishes across the North of England.
The report notes that the number of parishes under his remit increased following the retirement of the former Bishop of Wakefield, who had previously provided oversight to a number of traditional catholic churches in Yorkshire.
Bishop Rob serves complementarian evangelical congregations across the whole of England singlehandedly. The report notes that he has not only seen an increase over time in the number of parishes formally under his care, but that he also provides informal support to some others.
Canon Swinson notes that, as well as having more parishes under their care than many other bishops, the two bishops also travel much greater distances and the report explores the particular pastoral challenges of such a dispersed ministry.
She also notes that, unlike the PEVs who provide cover for each other in some cases, Bishop Rob currently has no one who can deputise for him.
Canon Swinson concludes that both bishops need extra support. She recommends that, as an interim measure, they could receive support with work which does not need to be carried out by a bishop, while longer term solutions are found.
Why can no one deputise for Bp Rob?
There are no other currently-serving Complementarians in the Church hierarchy: No other bishops, no Archdeacons, no Deans, no Cathedral Canons. I’m not even sure there’s a rural Dean who’s a Complementarian.
And why does it matter that a person deputising for him is a complementarian? Why does s/he have to share his exact shade of opinion on women’s ministry?
Isn’t that what was promised? Shouldn’t we keep our promises?
I agree with you that women’s ministry is a second order issue, but Canon Swinson’s report says that Bishop Rob is looking after 196 churches with a total average Sunday attendance of 33,000 people. That’s nearly 6% of the ASA of the whole Church of England.
The only diocese with a larger ASA is London, but London has seven bishops. The Diocese of Leicester has an ASA of 5,500 and two bishops. It seems reasonable for Canon Swinson to believe that we are asking rather a lot of Bishop Rob.
It was never promised that we could all have a bishop to cater for our own particular permutations of opinion. Why can’t the Bishop of Beverley deputise for the Bishop of Ebbsfleet, and vice versa? And when are women whose bishops don’t agree with women’s ordination get their own bishops?
I seem to remember in the days of resolutions ABC some conservative evangelical parishes put themselves under a flying bishop( Knutsford for example and Ugley in Essex who provided sacramental care . It seemed to work then
It’s not about opinions, it’s about doctrine.
It was never promised that we could all have a bishop to cater for our own particular permutations of
opiniondoctrine.About male headship? Tell that to Martha and Mary, and Mary Magdalene. First to see the risen Jesus, was Martha the first to identify Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God?
Seems like a headship thing to me, to have a female tell the other disciples that Jesus was risen.
Another example of being hamstrung by limping on with two opinions. The more ‘pick your own’ we become about oversight, the more and more (costly) apparatus we will need. And the more different spheres of oversight we create, the more they communicate and interact, argue and negotiate, expending ever increasingly greater amounts of time, money and energy. Until we expire, exhausted, under the intolerable weight of the superstructure we have created.
This is what ‘pick and mix’ ecclesiology leads to. The Anglican tent is so broad it is unworkable.
I agree. The last 50 years in the C of E has seen greater polarisation/ fragmentation. The “traditions” have moved further apart and split within themselves. I grew up thinking there was a more or less recognizable Anglican tradition in which anglo- catholic, evangelical and liberal/ broad were emphases not discrete ” traditions”. No more. The result ( in a situation of decline ) is the Church becomes more introspective, groups fighting each other and more and more energy is expended maintaining a semblance of unity and a rather desperate attempt to keep the show on the road.
It gets harder and harder to see exactly what the C of E has to commend it….
Still in its way stands for moderation and consensus
A good example of why clear separation of structures is needed.
The Bishop of Ebbsfleet has responsibility for 196 parishes with an average attendance of 131 over 18 and 31 children, and 18 churches over 300, one with 1350 – and this over 36 000 square miles, about half the area of England. This looks like the equivalent of the workload of three dioceses, spresd over half the country without a suffragan.
Quite impressive really, considering that “male headship theology” wasn’t even acknowledged by the CofE as a permissible theological conviction before it became grounds for a bespoke bishopric.
There are more evangelical bishops than I can ever remember and surely some of them can take some of this burden from him? The ‘complementarian’ issue is not so major that it affects everything else and renders other conservative evangelicals who accept women’s ordained ministry unacceptable. And even if the clergy are ‘complementarians’ it doesn’t mean that all the members of their congregation will be – there’s a long tradition of clergy of conservative catholic or conservative evangelical views suggesting that their whole congregation agrees with them and understands the theology when clearly that isn’t always the case.
Only ‘egalitarian evangelicals’ have been appointed as bishops – because of the closed shop way bishops, deans etc are appointed. But Anglo-Catholics have been appointed, so it has not been fair.
It would be interesting to find out how many of those attending those churches actually share “headship” theology, and how many don’t even know that their leaders believe it.
It was a matter of a PCC resolution. What congregations think is not the issue.
I agree in terms of the formal decision: it’s for the PCC to decide and for the vicar to use their authority very carefully so that they don’t insist on a particular outcome. Nevertheless it would be interesting to know what wider congregations think and why. I should have been clearer in my previous comment: I think the complementarian-inclusive debate about priestly ministry is very important indeed and involves some fundamental issues. Otherwise why require separate bishops? But I observe that within evangelicalism it’s sometimes regarded as an area we can happily disagree about and still stay in fellowship with… Read more »
FWIW, I suspect that many evangelicals in the C of E have a pretty loose ‘ecclesiology of ordination;’ i.e., they could happily be (and sometimes are) Baptists or free church charismatics, and are not that much concerned about formal ordination as opposed to personal gifting and faithfulness as a preacher. It doesn’t matter much to them who ‘celebrates’ communion (why not a lay reader?), although it certainly matters who preaches; but they want a male vicar because thy sense that men need to be spiritually led by men, and that a female-led church will become even more feminised than it… Read more »
“men see the Christian calling as combat against evil and the need for personal discipline and preparedness, women see it as building a family and home.”
_Some_ men and women may hold those views, but I think I can safely say that _none_ of the men and women I know in churches hold either of them!
You need to get out more, Gordon! 🙂
Gordon, I suspect those views only exist (if they exist at all in the UK) in complementarian churches. Because that’s what is taught in those churches. And those who differ may not feel free to say so.
The more I think about it, the more those views have in common with the German empire slogan Kinder/Kueche/Kirche than with any recognisable Christian theology. The CofE could do with being more forthright about such perversions.
What congregants think starts being an issue when you bring up the number of them to justify more bishops of that persuasion. If many or most of a congregation couldn’t give two hoots about their bishop’s views then maybe the PCC need to reconsider imposing their views on the parish.
Most church folk don’t care what their bishop thinks provide they never see or hear him/her. They basically want to be left alone. It is bishops who think of dioceses as their fiefdoms who run into conflicts – like withholding appointments or demanding parish share money before they’ll consent to things.
My experience, in a number of parishes over several decades, is that congregations love having the bishop come to their church.
Please let us not waste additional funds on propping up a schism
So repealing the “Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure 2014”?
Throwing out all the ordained women and all the people who support them would certainly be a major schism.
I’m not advocating for it, but it would certainly mean we could reconcile with the rest of the Church.
Given that the Roman Catholic Church does not recognise the orders of our male priests, it isn’t obvious why abandoning women priests would make much difference to any prospect of unity between the RCC and the CofE. Anyway, one could just as well argue that Rome should drop its opposition to women clergy and that would make reunion easier.
Two errors here.
Oh, so by “reconciliation” you mean “re-ordination”. Good luck with that one. As for your second point, time will tell.
With Rome everything’s impossible – until it’s compulsory.
Priests / deacons joining the ordinariate have to be reordained if they want to be priests / deacons in that branch of the RCC.
Clergy who join the Ordinariate or become R.C diocesan priests are reordained and lay people re- confirmed.
The Orthodox don’t accept Anglican orders, their view is more nuanced. See Timothy Ware ‘Orthodox Church”
The rest of the Church? It would horrify Methodists and Lutherans, with whom we are in communion, as well as Presbyterians and many Baptist, Pentecostal, Quaker, Salvationist, and other denominations.
We are not in communion with Methodists, a few number of episcopal Lutheran churches, one of which takes the traditional view on orders.
Which one is that, George?
Anglican / Methodist covenant?
And there’s a long tradition of Anglicans and Methodists working together locally and holding joint services.
The Covenant is a commitment to work together and towards inter-communion and mutual recognition of ministries. We have not yet reached full communion. Individuals may choose to accept eucharistic hospitality with each other — as I do, for one — but that isn’t quite the same.
It’s not just individuals, it’s parishes, churches, and local ecumenical projects. We’re in de facto communion, if not formally and officially.
Not quite de facto. That will only happen when Methodist presbyters preside at Anglican Eucharists.
Anglican and Methodist clergy have been taking joint services together for decades; and in LEPs taking turns presiding. Does it matter whether those services are Anglican, Methodist, both, or neither?
‘Services’, no it doesn’t matter. Eucharist, yes it does matter – other than to those who don’t see our divisions as calling for repentance. Pretending something is plainly what it’s not helps nobody and is one reason why the ecumenical movement has run out of steam. [PS I have received Communion at Methodist celebrations.]
Some of the shared services In LEPs (local Ecumenical Projects) are eucharists. I don’t know if any LEPs are still functioning, but a friend of mine used to be an Anglican minister in one, in a new town. It was set up so that Anglicans and Methodists from the start needn’t build separate churches, but would function as one. Other LEPs were similar. I don’t see how that’s pretending something is what it’s not. If repentance is turning round and facing in a different direction, doing things differently is repentance. We celebrate our unity in Christ. Incidentally in my parish… Read more »
Yes, that’s about full mutual recognition of ministers, which is usually seen as the corollary of full communion. And we haven’t got there yet, except in a limited number of cases (various united churches in the Indian subcontinent and the Mar Thoma church in India; full communion with the Scandinavian and Baltic Lutheran churches and with the Old Catholics of the Union of Utrecht; and also I think some of the continuing Anglican groups).
Baptist minister using an Anglican Eucharistic rite with the bishop’s blessing? I’ve been known to defend bishops on TA, but (if that was the case) not for sowing outright ecclesiological confusion! Pretending something is what it isn’t. I’ll explain myself with this true story, Janet. Two RC priests were at Sarum College for a week long seminar. Every lunchtime we’d go across to the Cathedral for Eucharist. One would never receive at a Proddy altar, the other always did. Midway through the week they decided to swop their practices. Both were moved by this in different ways. But it was… Read more »
We obviously look at this very differently. In my view, the eternal reality is that all believers are one in Christ Jesus. We honour that reality when we prioritise it above mere earthly and organisational obstacles. Repentance means pointing in a different direction and doing things differently – not continuing to be divided in practice.
Incidentally, my Baptist friend was eventually ordained as an Anglican deacon and priest, and became the parish’s minister after I moved away.
“All believers are one in Christ” – who would want to argue with that! Yet every church tradition has its way of ordering things – ecclesiology. They all fall short of the glory of God, with Protestantism’s abiding sin being its fissiparous tendencies. Maybe your Baptist friend followed the logic of eucharistic presidency using an Anglican rite. Incidentally, I regret the breakdown of the Anglican/Methodist unity scheme over 50 years ago – a failure of imagination if nothing else. But why did both churches invest so much in this scheme if their ecclesiologies amount to no more than “mere earthly… Read more »
Because we – and especially ecclesiocrats – get obsessed with earthly and organisational details. Witness any number of discussions on TA where a matter of theology or principle is soon derailed into a debate on what is or is not allowable re liturgy, liturgical dress, or canon law.
Someone has suggested on the Created for Love thread that it would be a good to read the book before posting. As one Anglican priest to another, may I suggest reading, say, Anglican/RC and Anglican/Reformed reports before posting?
I wasn’t suggesting the ecumenical discussions were only about trivial details. That was merely an illustration of the way we humans tend to fail to see the spiritual reality of our unity in Christ. I’ve often worked in ecumenical teams, and usually found that with goodwill we can work together despite what might seem major doctrinal differences. It’s usually eh structures where power resides which present problems.
Agreed. I think theologians and church bureaucrats tend to think in terms of structures and traditions. But meanwhile much of the western church is in rapid decline, and in many parts of rural Canada it’s simply impossible for us to continue unless we’re willing to get past our differences and come together as Christians. And this is happening, as ordinary church people participate in worship and ministry with each other, whether or not our ecclesial structures are set up for it.
We are in full communion through Poorvoo with all the Northern Lutheran Churches. Only the relatively small Lithuanian Lutheran Church doesn’t ordain women. There is partial communion with the German Evangelical Churches by the Meissen Agreement
Not to mention most of the rest of the Anglican Communion.
So promises aren’t worth anything, and people ask why legal protections are needed for LLF?
I would think that no General Synod can bind a future Synod (much like Parliament), and that would necessarily include any institutional structures that are set up.
Be careful how you label people: “a schism” is exactly what the Church of England has been since the days of Henry VIII.
What a lot of nonsense. A complete waste of time and money on a report to find out that we need more bishops because these bishops do so much more than the other bishops. Well how about getting rid of all the suffragan bishops so that the diocesan bishops do as much as the flying bishops which is clearly possible.
Not sure exactly what these bishops provide. For the high Anglicans there are areas which The Society already controls (in Chi we have two – Diocesan + Lewes), and the complementarians seem to have minimal interest in bishops.
This is a good report that answers all the exam questions. I struggle with the Five Guiding Principles but this is an important, if tangential, contribution. I was struck by two things: firstly the different levels of diocesan involvement (HAB etc); and secondly by the fact (guess it’s not a surprise) that some parishes which would not ordinarily be resolution parishes – and certainly not complementarian – are seeking oversight for reasons of LLF, despite that not being in +Ebbsfleet’s mandate. It will be interesting to see how the House of Bishops responds.
Such nonsense. The CofE needs to abolish these posts not sustain them. 30 years on from women’s ordination and the sexists are still being given succour.
30 years on and the Church of England has halved in size. Not exactly what we were promised, is it? Time to think again, not to label people.
I think you need to think about the counter-factual. Nothing has stopped men coming forward to ordination since 1995. If the CofE had decided not to (albeit grudgingly) allow women to pursue their vocation, then there would be 30% fewer priests today, and so there would be more parishes without ordained ministry or even bigger parishes/pastorates for those that remained. I suspect that would have meant a steeper decline in attendance/association.
Actually we don’t know that. Nor do we know how many man have given up on the C of E because of its leftwing drift. Charismatic churches have not declined in the past 30 years, by and large.
Women’s ordination was supposed to ‘revive’ the C of E and bring in ‘more gifts’. But it hasn’t revived the Church at all.
If there were a sizable number of such men, I suspect you would be able to detect them in trends in other denominations (and that you can’t).
Well, up to a point I can. The Co-Mission Network has established about 20 congregations across South London. The largest of these, Dundonald Church, has now left the C of E. In Hull, the growth has been in the former parish of St John Newlands, which left the C of E. And the AMiE network has been growing.
If it wasn’t for those irritating women wanting to become priests instead of staying where they belonged in the pews the CofE would have continued on its upward trajectory & would be thriving. Absolutely, blame the women for everything.
Obviously not what I was saying. The Church of England has been declining since at least the 1960s. But the trend of decline accelerated after the ordination of women and the push to affirm same-sex relationships. The statistics on this are stark and contradict what we were told would happen in 1992: a new infusion of life and gifts in the Church of England. This didn’t happen. Decline continued.
What about trends of growth or decline in denominations not ordaining women? Correlation is not causation.
Correlation is not *always* causation. But sometimes it is and it takes time to establish a causative link (e.g. smoking and cancer). Most Protestant growth I am aware is among African immigrant churches, AMiE and Co-Mission, and the HTB network. Most of the African churches look like fundamentalist, charismatic churches to me. I don’t know what they think of female leadership. African churches are not usually keen on this. Maybe there are independent Pentecostalist women out there, leading churches. In my limited experience, some of these independent churches can end up in a wacky place. AMiE and Co-Mission are usually… Read more »
Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, which do not ordain women, aren’t noticeably doing any better than the C of E.
But had there not been women priests, would fewer Anglican clergy have joined the Roman Catholic church?
It’s quite clear that traditional catholics and conservative evangelicals are not being given mutually appropriate resources for their flourishing. Despite that, the Bishop of Beverly confirms more individuals than most northern Dioceses, including those who have several suffragan Bishops. Mutual flourishing has only been one-sided so far and involved praying for traditionalists of both stripes to die off; instead, our churches go from strength to strength by holding firm to the truths of the faith.
” strength to strength”? Not in the Canterbury diocese at the trad cath end. In 1994 there were 12 ( I think) parishes that became ABC all with full time incumbents. Now there are 5. Two are now vacant ( one having advertised twice) , two are house for duty and the one full time post has a small congregation and will likely become HfD next time. And trad cath ordinands? Not that many I think. And looking at the website sites of the flying bishops there seems to be many vacant parishes and priests looking after 2,3 or even… Read more »
The situation is very similar in the Diocese of Birmingham.
There were a large number of society candidates ordained this year, the average age being far below the average diocese. It is true in some diocese, like Canterbury, where traditional Anglo-Catholics have been purposefully sidelined, parishes intimidated to rescind resolutions by Archdeacons and pastoral re-organisation used as a weapon by liberals. However, the overall picture is far healthier than that of those who have tried to discriminate against traditionalists could have ever imagined. The Holy Spirit is at work in some of the poorest parts of the country and PEVs do more confirmations than most dioceses. Vacancies have come down… Read more »
Are you commenting on the Diocese of London, or the Church of England as a whole? There are currently 3 vacancies out of six ‘Society’ parishes in Birmingham.
Sorry, make that 4 out of 6. Only 2 Oswestry parishes in Birmingham have priests.
How large a number out of interest?
Just looked it up. 12 Society deacons were ordained in 2024. 5 by +Fulham , presumably for London/ Southwark. Interestingly 4 were ordained by their diocesan bishop who had ordained women. I wonder what their stricter brethren thought of that?
According to C of E statistics 370 deacons were ordained.
Sorry. Meant 12 Society deacons ordained this year ( 2025) 370 deacons ordained in C of E in 2024 ( last available figures)
That decline in Canterbury diocese is also matched in ‘central’ or liberal catholic churches which have female vicars. I understand parishes in Canterbury city have amalgamated and a once (more of less) thriving parish of c. 115 is down to about 30 on a Sunday and has lost its vicar, depending now a retired clergyman. The fall in youth and children’s work in Canterbury diocese is very noticeable.
Your sources have let you down James. But although you have clearly looked me up in Crockford you don’t give your surname ( if you are in it? perhaps not?) so I will not bother to correct you
I grant that there is a great deal of travelling involved for +Ebbsfleet in particular (less so for +Fulham). However, I wonder if there is the same amount of grunt work in being a flying bishop as a diocesan or suffragan. The burden of safeguarding falls on the diocesan, as does much of the burden of administration, e.g. working with the Diocesan team on the budget and looking at deployment of clergy. The flying bishops are not called upon to sit on or chair the plethora of committees and working groups the dioceses seem to spawn. Also, the flying bishops… Read more »
Interesting. The flying bishops don’t need any extra support. Why? Because the parishes they minister to actually like them
Easy to be liked if someone else does all the heavy lifting and owns the hard messages about deployment.
Judging by the comments of Fr Butler, they are being confronted by the hard messages of deployment. I agree, they don’t have the heavy burden of sitting in the House of Lords, and that sort of thing.
If there were more mainstream diocesan and suffragan bishops of Anglo-Catholic or complementarian leanings, would the need for the PEVs reduce, if not cease? Consider the following: +Philip North was consecreated to the See of Burnley in 2015, and Will Hazlewood to that of Lewes in 2020 – a gap of five years. In the last five years, there have been several new Evangelical bishops (whether or not complementarian), several new women bishops, and several ethnic minority bishops. How many Anglo-Catholics have been consecrated in the last five years? Answers on a postcard, please. (Of course, many Anglo-Catholics left the… Read more »
‘Many’? According to Wikipedia there are 1950 members of the Ordinariate, compared to about a million worshipping in the CofE. No doubt someone has better numbers, but it’s hardly a mass movement.
How can a bishop serve a diocese with ordained women is he doesn’t think women should (or even can) be ordained? How can a man who is on record as saying women shouldn’t/can’t administer the sacraments then licence women to do just that? It’s ecclesiologically incoherent, even by CofE standards.
It may be ecclesiologically incoherent, but if you were an evangelical and living in the Lewes episcopal area, would you be happy to be on the receiving end of the ministry of an Anglo-Catholic bishop? And if, a while ago now, you were an Anglo-Catholic living in the same area, would you have been happy with the ultra conservative evangelical Wallace Benn as your bishop?
I might not be happy but I wouldn’t doubt they were canonically ordained bishops. Surely Article 26 applies.
I am an evangelical and was entirely happy to serve under the authority of Anglo-Catholic bishops like Vicars Short (Saskatchewan) and Victoria Matthews (Edmonton). I always assumed that was what it meant to be Anglican.
A woman can wash Jesus’ feet, but not administer sacraments?
What about lay people? if they can preach, why can’t they administer sacraments? What possible justification for this discrimination?
Any licensed layperson can administer the sacrament.
Depends on what you mean by “administer”. In the Declaration of Assent “administration of the sacraments” means presiding at the service (and in particular, I suppose, saying the Eucharistic Prayer at such a service); it doesn’t mean distributing the consecrated elements. Any licensed layperson can distribute the sacrament.
Nigel Goodwin clearly means ‘presiding’. Otherwise his question would be pointless.
Indeed. But the follow-up question implied “distributing”.
I was simply using the same word as Jo B above, but of course I mean presiding. I think I, non-ordained, helped administer once or twice.
Actually, on reflection, it does raise a question. Do complementarians allow a woman to even administer sacraments? or to be an organist/choirmaster and lead the worship/music? Or read the gospel? Or be head of Sunday School?
Of course they are not allowed to preach.
I don’t care who preaches so long as it is interesting, relevant, and is addressed to thinking adults (except of course in a ‘family’ service). Some relationship to scripture is often a good starting point.
No doubt there is a range – but what do these bishops believe?
It is incoherent for someone who is not validly ordained or cannot be validly ordained a Bishop, and whose ministry cannot be received by those who hold to the traditional teaching of the Church to be a Bishop. We have a messy settlement sadly.
Thing is, if you hold that position, contrary to the teaching of the CofE for longer than I’ve been alive, there is provision for you. No such provision is made for a diocese saddled with a bishop who thinks a third or more of its clergy are not actually clergy.
You mean holding to the teaching of the Church before it was changed for political ideology? Yes we need more Bishop’s who reject the apstolic teaching of the Church, it’s gone so well.
The C of E believes that women can be ordained and have been – that is our official position as seen in the 5 GPs. You are free to think we should not have done it. You are not free to claim it has not happened.
There are only two Anglo-Catholic Archdeacons in the Church of England, and no residentiary canons. It’s clear mutual flourishing is one-sided.
‘Anglo-Catholic’ by your definition of the term?
By the definition of the term.
Expand please. There are quite a number of women priests who would describe themselves as Anglo Catholics. Are they mistaken?
Of course if they were Catholic they wouldn’t claim to be something which is impossible according to Catholic teaching.
It is impossible according to Catholic teaching to claim to be an Anglo Catholic? Isn’t an Anglo Catholic, according to Roman Catholic understanding, a Protestant who pretends to be a Catholic?
“The Society” does not represent all or even most Anglo-Catholics. The SCP likely outnumbers them.
This untrue, SSC is vastly larger than SCP. Anglo-Catholics are those who uphold the Catholic view of the sacraments, those who depart from that are liberals not catholics.
As a member of SCP I can tell you that we do uphold the Catholic view of the sacraments, although perhaps with a little less lace and backbiting.
No you do not, SCP do not have a catholic perspective on ordination or holy matrimony. Plenty of backbiting from my experience.
Do SSC priests refuse to marry couples who are not baptized? That’s what a Catholic perspective demands and a canonical norm in, for example, the Anglican Church of Canada. But not in the CofE where pastoral and missional perspectives dilute the pure milk of catholicity in this case. If you’re going to throw stones …..
Not quite correct. It is possible for the couple to be married, at the discretion of the bishop, if only one of them has been baptized. ‘The Form of Solemnization of Matrimony in the Book of Common Prayer is provided for the marriage of Christians. No minister shall solemnize matrimony between two persons neither of whom has been baptized. If two persons, one of whom has not been baptized, desire to be so married, the minister shall refer the matter to the bishop of the diocese whose order and direction shall be followed.’ (Canon XXI of the Anglican Church of… Read more »
Thanks, Tim. But I did write “canonical norm”. What intrigues me is the theological justification for solemnizing marriage with one person unbaptized, but not when both are unbaptized. Is it 1 Corinthians 7.14 – an unbelieving spouse made holy by his/her believing spouse?
I don’t know if I can give a watertight answer to that question. I have a vague memory of a study session with someone from Church House decades ago, in which he expanded on the statement that the wedding service is predicated on Christian commitment. How do you define a Christian? The simplest definition, he said, was ‘someone who has gone through Christian baptism’. But I don’t know the full rationale.
A catholic perspective on ordination? SCP members are ordained using the same rites as SSC members and all other ordinands.
George, I think if you added a few words to your comments, they might be less easily misinterpreted. For example, in your comment above ‘Of course if they were Catholic…’ who do you mean by ‘they’? Do you mean the women priests who would describe themselves as Anglo Catholics, whom Matthew specifies? Do you distinguish between Catholics, Anglo-Catholics, and catholics? You use all these terms.
Confused. Not sure if I want to be unconfused.
That’s the certainly view about what constitutes a true anglo-catholic around here. when a Suffragan decided that he no longer opposed female ordination he became an “unperson” to his colleagues.
Philip North is terrified that the same might happen to him, which is why he holds the totally inconsistent position that he does.
Have you got figures to demonstrate that, George? I have never been a member of either so I wouldn’t know.
George, respectfully the SSC looks to me like a cult. It hides behind a concealed website, its rule looks positively pre copernican obscurantist and its resistance to publishing safeguarding on its website until very late in 2018 was highly concerning. It is virtually impossible for secular researchers to find out about who is an identified member . The fact that in Australia its leader had been defrocked over safeguarding made researchers identify the SSC as potentially an extreme hot zone. In its rule highly concerning passages show clericalist attitudes. The potential misuse of confession similar to Opus Dei in the… Read more »
Sorry to be the ignorant foreigner – what is the ‘SSC’? Google suggests ‘Statistical Society of Canada’, ‘Superconducting Super Collider’, ‘Shared Services Canada’, ‘Specialist Services Committee’, and ‘Swedish Space Corporation’, but I suspect it’s not one of them…
Society of the Holy Cross. What I don’t understand is why, given that they are so out of step with most anglicans, they don’t become Roman Catholics.
Why should they? The Church of England claims to be what its name says, the Church for all English people. People can choose to leave, but if someone is prepared to accept Anglican polity then why should they leave?
(and SSC = Societas Sanctae Crucis)
Indeed. I was once asked why Anglo Catholics didn’t leave the C of E and become Roman Catholics. I responded by asking why liberal Anglicans didn’t go and join the Methodists. Apparently, it was rude of me to ask such a question.
Interesting question. What criteria makes one worship in one church rather than another? When i was working in Houston, I had two large very active local churches, next door to each other. Grace Presbyterian church and Ascension Episcopal church. They both are scriptural Grace says the bible is the unrivalled authority …rooted in biblical integrity, ascension says ‘faithful study of scripture’, knowing the congregations I don’t; think either is fundamentalist or unthinking). Both have regular communion services. i happened to go to the Grace church, more by chance than by choice. They are both in a fairly middle class area… Read more »
Well, I suspect that some of them may find that the reality of the modern Roman Catholic church is rather different to the model they cherish, and that they get more freedom to practice in the way they consider faithful and well-ordered within the CofE than they would within the Roman Catholic church.
I agree. As the bishopric of Durham – one of the senior episcopal posts – is currently vacant, how about filling it with a traditionalist Anglo-Catholic? With ++York being a liberal catholic and +London a woman, that would show that all tastes can be catered for, and that mutual flourishing could be seen to be two-sided.
However, that would mean that the diocese of Durham would have to accept a bishop who would not ordain lots of the candidates for the priesthood in the diocese. There are not many dioceses that would be prepared to accept that, and the six diocesan representatives can prevent the nomination of such a person. Indeed, the diocesan Vacancy in See Committee would likely write into the diocesan Statement that the incoming bishop must be someone who will ordain men and women. Several recent Statements have additionally specifically said that the incoming bishop may be either a man or a women.
I agree that such a Bishop of Durham would not ordain some candidates for the priesthood, and that the statement of needs might specify someone who will ordain both men and women, but firstly, such candidates could be ordained by the Bishop of Jarrow, and secondly, as an earlier correspondent on this thread has said, some congregations don’t bother what their bishop thinks. I am not familiar with congregations in the diocese of Durham to know whether they would be cases in point. For the record – I agree with the ordination of women, but I do feel that opponents… Read more »
A diocesan Vacancy in See Committee is entitled to specify that the next diocesan bishop should be someone who will ordain both women and men. Successive Statements (no doubt noting what previous statements have said) seem to have tried hard to ensure that this is tightly worded. Dioceses generally do not want a diocesan bishop who thinks that half their clergy are not suitable material for ordination and aren’t really priests.
As a matter of interest – and I don’t know the answer – do all the bishops who do not ordain women take that stance as a matter of principle, or of choice? To illustrate the latter point, there are pieces of music which I, as a musician, choose not to perform. I don’t begrudge others the right to perform them, but am merely choosing to not do so myself.
That’s a disingenuous representation of the Traditional Catholic position. Most vacancies in the See committees are politically filled based on partisanship, hence mostly discriminating against any possibility of a traditionalist. Rarely do they actually focus on what Godly qualities a Diocese is looking for in a Bishop.
What’s “disingenuous” about it? I refer to your reply to Jo B, which seems to explicitly express this position.
Additionally, if there were any politics involved (and perish the thought that we might think that the Holy Spirit ever worked through politics), it’s likely to work both ways.
Your insinuating a position I haven’t stated on behalf of traditionalist Bishops who I don’t represent. The Bishop of Blackburn has been very clear on his position, which is deeply misrepresented by your statement. Very unsurprising from an Admin of this forum that happily posts CEEC statements but ignores Forward in Faith, as if it doesn’t exist. Such a good representation of mutual flourishing.
George, you yourself wrote “someone who is not validly ordained or cannot be validly ordained a Bishop”. That may or may not represent your own view, but it’s hardly insinuation on my part to think that it does represent your view.
That statement does not align with your mischaracterisation of the current diocesan Bishops who are traditional catholics, and the anti-traditional catholic stance taken by Thinking Anglicans, who refuse to publish statements by Forward in Faith and The Society. I personally support mutual flourishing and respect the ministry of those I am not in communion with, do you?
‘Rarely do they focus’ … can I ask how you claim to know this? Have you read the profiles prepared by the diocese at such times where their vision is stated? You are not describing any I have read. Rather they all speak of the need for a bishop who will minister to the whole diocese with its range of traditions. But the CofE, without excluding any particular group, has come to the conviction that the qualities looked for can be offered by women as well as men.
have you served on one? I have. We wanted the right person for the diocese and discerned that meant they had to willingly ordain women. We discerned other things too.
Once again, it seems that there is a need to point out that being a woman is not the same as holding a particular theological view point. Equating all women with those who do not agree women should be ordained is not equating like with like, and “ balancing” numbers of women who are bishops with those who will not ordain women is a fallacious view of how to enable all to flourish.
Of course there is no representation for the many women, like those in my parish and movement who are traditional catholics.
What is your movement?
There aren’t very many though, are there, really?
A lot of the women ordinands I teach feel their vocation is regarded scornfully by many of those who do not agree with there being woken priests.
‘With ++York being a liberal catholic and +London a woman…’
Wow. I’m glad neither of my daughters reads Thinking Anglicans.
A cursory reading of G.R. Balleine’s ‘A History of the Evangelical Party in the Church of England’ (first published in 1911) makes it clear that the early evangelicals never lost any sleep about who their bishops were.
They did after the Gorham case and when Anglo-Catholicism kicked in. For a long time, worship was identical in the C of E, strictly according to the BCP. Also you had no female bishops in the 18th and 19th centuries, no advocacy of homosexual relations and no socialism among bishops. Further, many parishes never saw a bishop from one year to another. So hardly a surprise.
Female ordination and homosexual relations are two entirely different issues. I’m not sure where socialism comes in.
You have missed the point. I was explaining why Latitudinarian churchmanship among bishops in the 1780s didn’t bother Evangelicals then, when Balleine begins (much of) his story. It all changed with the Oxford Movement.
OK, sorry, read it too fast, you were referring to 18th and 19th centuries. It just seemed an odd juxtaposition.
James, the point is that in the ecclesiology of the eighteenth century evangelicals, bishops just weren’t that important. Joseph Butler accused John Wesley of a ‘horrid thing’ when he ‘pretended to extraordinary visitation of the Holy Ghost’. The Bishop of London consented to Lady Huntingdon catching a ride to Clapham Rectory in his carriage, on the condition that the carriage not park outside the Rectory, so that no one would thing the bishop was in any way associated with the Clapham Sect. Evangelicals just took that sort of thing for granted; they never lost any sleep over it.
Tim, I think the point you are missing is that 18th century bishops were not actually promoting new doctrines about sex and marriage, so they didn’t arouse accusations of heresy. Even Charles Simeon would go to pay respects to his bishop. The Evangelicals did not fault them for false teaching but for lack of zeal and convertedness of heart.
No, they were promoting deism.
I do not think they were promoting deism as such, because no less a figure than Joseph Butler, Bishop of Durham, wrote his ‘Analogy’ against deism, at the same times as condemning Wesleyan ‘enthusiasm’. But Latitudinarianism was certainly the regnant outlook in the Church of England in the 19th century, one that easily leads to religious indifferentism and the replacement of justification by faith with moralism, and no doubt this is soil in which deism will grow. But the Established Church was not Unitarian, a heresy that had its own churches in the 18th and 19th centuries (think of Priestley,… Read more »
I meant to write ‘the Church of England in the 18th century’. Evangelicalism actually became more prominent in the Church of England in the 19th century, notably through the efforts of Charles Simeon, while high church and Anglo-Catholic influences became stronger in the latter part of that century. I think evangelicalism went into something of a decline at least in the hierarchy of the C of E in the first half of the 20th century as liberal central churchmanship and a kind of Anglo-Catholicism became prominent after c. 1930. The evangelical revival in the C of E began after 1945,… Read more »
Is Unitarian Christianity (as distinct from other forms of unitarianism) a “heresy” ? If so, Bishop Colenso in the 19th century and the Revd Dr G.W.H.Lampe in the 20th,for example, were close to being heretics – and the Jewish Jesus (to whom we are closest in the first three Gospels) and his Jewish disciples, believing simply in one God, would be on the outer altogether ! – just a note from a near 90 year old, literally eccentric, idiosyncratic, latitudinarian, broad church, through- a-glass-darkly watching, evangelical liberal, culturally conservative, constitutional monarchist, Bible and BCP-loving, conservationist, Scripturally trinitarian, theologically unitarian, deacon… Read more »
No speech marks about it, unitarianism is a heresy. But I think you knew that already in this 1800th anniversary year of Nicea. I don’t know what Colenso believed about the Trinity; I have read that Lampe was pretty much a unitarian and said so in his ‘God as Spirit’. The divinity of Jesus is clear to anyone who reads Mark’s Gospel. Pop along to St Andrew’s Cathedral for their Christianity Explored course and you will see what I mean. Still time ‘to be a pilgrim’!
“this 1800th anniversary year of Nicea” — presumably a typo for “1700th”. The other important Christological statement of orthodoxy is the Chalcedonian Definition. The affirmation of a Trinitarian God — Father, Son, and Spirit — is perhaps the core definition of orthodox Christianity. Others are heterodox, but personally I’d hesitate to use the word “heretical”.
‘Heretic’ is the correct word for denying the Trinity, including Arianism. This is not a moral judgment on persons: some of the nicest and most moral people I have ever met are Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses. Orthodox belief doesn’t guarantee one has a loving and gracious character.
If heretics are nicer and more moral than those holding to ‘orthodox’ belief, isn’t that an indication that heresy is a superior religion?
I’ve read St Mark’s Gospel and I don’t think it’s clear. In 14.61, which I think you may be referring to, Our Lord admits to being the Christ, but not to being God. The Quran refers to Jesus as Christ, but emphatically refutes any notion of his divinity. ‘The Christ’ was just the usual title of the prophet predicted in Deuteronomy 18.15.
No, I was thinking of the total presentation of Christ in Mark’s Gospel – sent from the Father (1.2), forgiving sins as only God can, filling his disciples with wonder at his authority over nature (‘Who is this whom even the wind and sea obey?), eliciting faith from a centurion at his death. See also Simon Gathercole’s book “The Pre-existence of the Son’. The Quran adds nothing to this question The prophet of Deut 18 was not known as ‘the Christ’ among Jews.
Once you have a theory, it’s easy enough to read a text in accordance with the theory. It clearly is not obvious to Jehovah’s Witnesses reading St Marks gospel that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. The Deuteronomy prophet was known as Christ among the Samaritans.
To take just the forgiving of sins – Jesus makes it abundantly clear that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins (Mark 02:10 // Matthew 09:06). Paul declares that there is one God, and one mediator between men and God – [the] MAN Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 02:05). Jesus asserts that it is the Father who is the only true God and that Jesus Christ is His Shaliach / Apostle / Agent /Plenipotentiary (John 17:03). There is no ambiguity about this in the New Testament : God is one, and is the Father; and Jesus is… Read more »
On socialism and the 19th century, did the christian socialism of F D Maurice have no influence among bishops? Unsure but wouldn’t be surprised!
At the end of the. 19c with the Christian Social Union
Having taught church history I think you are right Tim. Evangelicals are not concerned – until they are – some trigger issue/controversy awakens us. Underlying this is a long unresolved relationship with authority and therefore an essentially pragmatic approach to ecclesiology. This does not make its relationship with the wider church at all when conflicts arise. It is also a tradition with a long history of fracturing and dividing within its own ranks at such times. So this is a tradition that still has theological work to do – while telling the wider church the problem is theirs.
The tendency to split is inevitable not just in the evangelical tradition but the whole Protestant world because the Bible is not self interpreting and there’s no universally recognised human authority to say definitively what it teaches. To recognise such a body would be to place an institution above the Bible as the primary locus of authority and clearly that can’t be allowed. So there is recourse to concepts such as ‘the plain sense of Scripture’ or ‘the perspicuity of Scripture,’ neither of which are themselves biblical. So there’s no way to resolve the dilemma – authority is always going… Read more »
Thank you – well put.
My same question to you, David – if you agree with Tim’s analysis, why don’t you agree with John Henry Newman and become a Roman Catholic?
Well, Tim, you have just articulated why John Henry Newman abandoned Anglicanism and became a Roman Catholic – because you need an ultimate source of authority, ie. the Papacy. Why aren’t you a Roman Catholic, then?
James, you write, ‘You need an ultimate source of authority.’ I don’t but maybe you weren’t referring to me. But did you read the final sentence of my comment? ‘the Roman Catholics have their own but different range of problems over authority and how to preserve unity in the face of modernity since the Reformation.’ Every church faces those challenges today and modern ultra-conservative forms of evangelicalism and RC Ultramontanism of the John Paul II type are two ways people have sought to avoid them. The RC Church maintains a different type of unity by strict discipline but that’s not… Read more »
“some very conservative evangelicals … join … the RC Church”
Whereas Ian Paul is someone who came the other way. He was a Roman Catholic and joined the CofE to be a conservative evangelical.
Many People brought up as Roman Catholics become evangelicals, especially in Latin America and Africa. Often it is a search for spiritual reality and vivacity that they cannot find in their local experience of Catholicism. Sometimes the quest is doctrinal in origin but younger converts are less intellectually focused on questions like transubstantiation. Often Marianism is a dividing issue, because it devotion to Mary is usually central to popular Catholicism but absent from youth evangelicalism.
Why Ian Paul became an evangelical is for him to say.
I thought there was something called an evangelical Roman Catholic? Roman Catholics may not be as homogenous as some may think.
There is the old joke that CoE Anglo Catholics are more (Roman) Catholic than Roman Catholics.
Catholics sometimes use ‘evangelical’ in the sense of ‘evangelistic’, ‘commending the evangel and the centrality of the Scriptures’ (thus the word was used in Italy in the early 16th century), whereas in the Reformation and its heirs the word came to mean stressing the necessity of the new birth and the sufficiency of Scripture over against church tradition. The fact that Catholics use (and adapt) charismatic evangelical programmes like ‘Life in the Spirit’ and ‘Alpha’ shows the great overlap. I imagine they are much less likely to use something ‘Christianity Explored’. But the days of Catholic priests warning young Catholics… Read more »
All the latter proves is how much of conservative Christian culture in the US has been suborned to conservative political activism.
Helpful again – thanks
Thanks for two informative and thoughtful posts Tim,
But what is the role of personal conscience in this. I had always thought that one of the strengths of the Church of England was the space made for personal conscience. One takes ultimate responsibility for one’s own relationship with God. But I may be wrong, and happy to be put right if so.
Would a CofE Evangelical have a different view of authority (whether personal or ecclesial) to the Liberal or Catholic branches of the same church?
I think the place of personal conscience is allowed for in the C of E and in the RC church. Otherwise we deny full responsibility as adults for what we believe and how we live.
As for the reasons why people may move either from a conservative evangelical position to the RC Church, or the other way round, I’m sure they’re many and various. But what intrigued me was that some high profile Anglican conservative evangelicals left to become RCs rather than remain Protestants and join an Evangelical Alliance church.
Thanks Tim, That’s what interests me about this. It seems that right across history high profile churchmen have been very happy to preach the necessity of submitting to authority (whether the authority of the church or scripture), but when they disagree with that authority themselves they seem happy to follow their conscience and leave the church, or criticise the authority as being misguided. The conservative RC bishops in the US come to mind, with their attitude towards Francis. Is there a certain lack of self-awareness here. We need to be careful about ideas of ultimate authority This concerns me because… Read more »
Tim, you are mistaken both in what you claim about the Reformers and Roman Catholicism. First, the Reformers did indeed claim that the perspicuity of Scripture was taught in Scripture. This is affirmed by Calvin in his Institutes and in Francis Turretin (any index of their works will confirm this). Also in John Jewel’s ‘Apology for the Church of England’. You claimed that “Scripture” does not teach this but there is more than ample evidence that the magisterial Reformers taught otherwise. You might think Calvin, Turretin and Jewel are wrong in their exegesis, but that’s for you to show, pointing… Read more »
Turretin’s teaching on the perspicuity of Scripture can be found in his ‘Twenty-One Questions on the Doctrine of Scripture’, Q.17. Calvin addresses it under the ‘Claritas Scripturae’ in his ‘Institutions’ and his teaching on this is pretty much the same as Luther’s (who didn’t write a systematic theology as such). The Reformers considered they were doing nothing other than the Cappadocians and Athanasius. The perspicuity of Scripture does not mean that everything in the Bible is pellucid but that its essential message can be discerned not through an esoteric system (like the Gnostics) but through the natural meaning of the… Read more »
Well I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this. If the meaning of Scripture was as clear as you insist it is then many fierce debates, violent arguments and church splits might never have happened, not least in our own lifetimes. And today we could all agree on fundamental issues such as the full inclusion of women in or their exclusion from ministry. That is such a key issue for some to refuse the ministry of their own bishop.My experience is that today it is sometimes those who most forcefully insist on the perspicuity of Scripture who… Read more »
The worst are filled with passionate intensity while the best lack all conviction. Yeats.
Russell also talked about the cocksure.
I think DH Lawrence also used the term. Yes, his essay cocksure women and hensure men.
I think neither Russell nor DH Lawrence may be considered unconfused when it comes to matters of feminism, sex or intimacy.
Tim: you misread me. 1. You stated above that the Scriptures do not teach the perspicuity of the Scriptures. I cited several sources from the Reformers affirming the opposite. Your dispute is with Calvin, Luther and Turretin, not me. You need to familiarise yourself first with the arguments. You can find Turretin easily on the internet. Look at question 17 of his “Twenty-one Questions on the Doctrine of Scripture”. 2. Nor did you answer my question about Anglican Bishop Tom Wright and his defence of his friend Marcus Borg, who denied the divinity of Christ and his bodily resurrection. Was… Read more »
You really do like categorizing people, don’t you, James? “You think this…therefore you are a…” Is it comforting to know what pigeonhole everyone fits into?
Tim, I will not answer your ad hominem attack on my character, but ask you again: was Marcus Borg a faithful teacher of Christian truth or in serious error? Was Tom Wright correct in his advocacy of his friend or did he fail in his duty as an Anglican vicar?
A simple answer will suffice.
It’s not a personal attack. I just find it fascinating that some people seem most comfortable when they’ve figured out what category to place other people in. You certainly present yourself on TA as one such person. Me, I’m strongly allergic to being categorized by others, and I’m aware that I respond very negatively to it. As far as Tom Wright and Marcus Borg are concerned, I found their book ‘The Meaning of Jesus’ fascinating. I thought Wright had the better side in most of their disagreements, but I was glad they were able to argue as friends. I mainly… Read more »
By the way, according to this Wikipedia page Tom Wright has never been an Anglican vicar.
As I said James, we will just have to agree that we disagree. I’m not trying to persuade you that you’re wrong, so please don’t tell me I am definitely wrong or instruct me. If your experience is different from mine that’s fine – it’s your experience and I can learn from it. None of us has a wholly clear view of things. One other observation is that just within the C of E we have different theological colleges that are all evangelical and all base their teaching on the Bible as their supreme authority – but some are open… Read more »
Tim, you can still tell me what you think of Tom Wright’s defence of Marcus Borg who denied the divinity and bodily resurrection of Christ. Are adiaphora or serious errors? Is Wright right?
Some years ago Zondervan Press in the US published a long series of volumes on the essentials of evangelical belief. Each volume focused on a core Christian doctrine/belief – Incarnation, Christology, Inspiration of Scripture, Ethics, Atonement and the cross etc. And each volume contained studies in at least 5 or 6 differing ways evangelicals have understood these – and differed from each other in so doing. There has been no time in history when evangelicals all believed one thing, simply and clearly from the bible. The Reformers themselves disagreed with each other. Thanks again.
The Reformers were never about absolute unanimity in interpretation but agreement in essentials. Turretin himself makes this clear: he states there are mysteries about God and the life to come that Scripture only hints at but does not explain. To this end he quotes Gregory the Great, as well as Chrysostom. But the point is that we have light sufficient from the Scriptures to live this earthly life in a way pleasing to God. Read Turretin’s ‘Twenty-one Questions’. Differences are not always disagreements, either, but sometimes different perspectives and emphases. Theological and moral changes within Christendom come when a part… Read more »
It is very wearying to have every contribution here corrected by you. Like Tim, I have nothing more to say. But no doubt you have.
I think that you are right about there has always been a looseness, resulting in pragmatism, about the attitude of Evangelical – I would say “Bible-believing” – individuals toward ecclesiastical establishments. As time progressed, so did the education of non-clergy, and of many of the “ordinary laity” – resulting in a knowledge, often deep and frequently aided by a knowledge of Greek, of what the New Testament actually teaches. This growing body of informed “laity” has been further driven from established ecclesiastical structures by the growing apostasy of “ecclesiastics” from New Testament truth. There are now very many – and… Read more »
With declining congregations and a crisis in vocations there’s talk of appointing more bishops? Parishes outside of the capital city face endless reorganisation and amalgamation and Canon Swinson is hinting at more of the clergy being made a bishop? Any other organisation facing the problems the CofE has would be making redundancies amongst its tranche of middle managers, not creating more of them! My parishioners were at best indifferent to the bishop. They noticed the broken promises about money, the deployment of clergy and on sexuality. They were exasperated by the waste of money on rehashed mission initiatives. A bishop… Read more »
You cannot preside at the sacraments over zoom, one Bishop for most of the northern province isn’t mutual flourishing, it’s being set up to fail.
To paraphrase: ‘All shall be bishops’- that’ll sort it. Off with heads.