After months of speculation and despite the House of Bishops' decision to delay, once again, a final decision on the implementation of Living in Love and Faith (LLF), the papers for next month's General Synod give considerable detail as to the way forward and where the potential sticking points remain.
General Synod have been provided with a number of documents - each of which contributes to the overall picture.
This blog is concerned with the Pastoral Reassurance that will be offered. The next will consider the question of clergy entering into same-sex marriages.
PLF and Pastoral Reassurance
When 'bespoke' (the new name for 'standalone') services to bless same-sex couples are introduced, there will be no Third Province, no separate diocese and nor will there be the possibility of alternative episcopal oversight.
Instead where there is disagreement between the diocesan bishop and a parish, or incumbent, on the use of such services, it will be possible to request (and receive) Delegated Episcopal Ministry (DEM), "from a Bishop who does not use them if their own Diocesan Bishop has committed to using the prayers—and vice versa" (Code of Practice 2.3).
The DEM will be organised through new Regional Colleges of Bishops - who will be responsible for drawing up and publishing a Regional Plan for how such ministry shall be offered. This plan will be enabled by an understanding of "shared episcopal ministry" (Code of Practice 2.32) and the commitment of all bishops in a region "to sustaining a Regional College of Bishops that reflects the diversity of traditions and provides opportunity to all traditions," (Code of Practice 2.31) and committing to the flourishing of all clergy of all traditions" (Code of Practice 3.7). If there is no serving bishop in the region who does not use the prayers then arrangements could be made to bring in a bishop from outside the region or appoint an individual as an honorary assistant bishop (Code of Practice 2.2).
PCCs will need to "engage in dialogue with their Bishops to understand different perspectives, ministerial needs, and concerns" before making a decision to request DEM (Code of Practice 2.15). They will also need to consult the Worshipping Community and consider, "the relationships with Church of England schools in the parish" (Code of Practice 2.18). Having done that, a simple majority vote of the PCC will be sufficient to request DEM (Code of Practice 2.18).
Where incumbents or priest-in-charge disagree with their bishop but the PCC do not wish to request DEM, then a request can be made for "episcopal care from a regional Bishop." This could include "provision of worship and teaching at the incumbent’s church" (Code of Practice 2.24). Similarly arrangements for pastoral support for lay parish officers or church wardens should be included in the Regional Plan (Code of Practice 2.25).
Further guidance will be available for those in multi-parish benefices and Team Ministries but the principal is that decision making over DEM should occur at the "smallest unit of formal responsibility" (Code of Practice 2.28). This also applies to BMOs (Code of Practice 2.27).
Those looking at ordination might be encouraged that "Bishops will endorse requests from ordinands for a Bishop with DEM to be a sponsoring Bishop for ordinands and for that Bishop to ordain those ordinands" (Code of Practice 3.1) however all licences will be in the name of the Diocesan Bishop.
This is where it begins to become clear that DEM is an offer of ministry rather than oversight. In fact it is striking that the phrase 'episcopal oversight' does not appear in the Code of Practice. The Bishop with DEM in a parish might be "involved in any appointment process for clerical roles", but only alongside, or as the representative of, the diocesan (Code of Practice 3.5). Clergy remain accountable to the diocesan for all discipline matters, unless a specific order is made (Code of Practice 3.6) and must engage with the diocese on all safeguarding matters.
The Code of Practice acknowledges that some may want to pay their Parish Share through the Ephesian Fund, but also makes clear that any parish that is unwilling "to contribute to the costs of their allocated clergy and Diocesan services to support mission and ministry" may find that bishops "choose not to allocate" them ministry resources (Code of Practice 3.14).
Similarly, DEM will, "have no impact on the structure of deanery synods or deanery chapters," while there is also an acknowledgement that informal networks and 'societies' may provide "mutual fellowship and support" (Code of Practice 3.21).
Taking a step back, these arrangements offer no structural differentiation but do allow clergy and PCCs to relate on a day to day basis with a bishop who does not actively bless same-sex relationships, but nontheless wants those who do to flourish. The arrangements mirror those offered as a way to bring the women bishops debate to an end, though the Regional College of Bishops ensures that the "shared episcopal ministry" is more obvious.
The arrangements are also provisional - set within a three year period of discernment providing "a period of learning for the Church in regard to how we live together in difference." (Pastoral Guidance 1.3.1).
It is no wonder the Faith and Order Commission (FOAC) describe the approach as "ecclesiologically anomolous." Their work explains carefully those things which should unite Christians and also those things which have the potential to divide. The report previous work Communion and Disagreement (GS Misc 1139) which is summarised in a helpful table on p51.
FAOC recognises that there are different views within the church about the kind of disagreement that is being had and thus the kind of solution that is required and so they suggest that, "The language of ‘provisionality’ may help" (FAOC 150) in the form of "pastoral provision in a time of uncertainty" (FAOC 151).
"It means acknowledging that those arrangements will be ecclesiologically anomalous: after all, if this is a question of apostolic or ecclesial communion, nothing short of clear, permanent, structural separation makes sense; while if this is a question of third-level disagreement (such as experienced over different models of the atonement – the example provided in C&D), no formal arrangements for differentiation would be proportionate and appropriate in the long term. A bearable ecclesiological anomaly may be a price worth paying for attempting to preserve the highest possible degree of communion for as many as possible for as long as possible." (FAOC 150)
CEEC have always been clear that the blessing same-sex marriages is a first order issue that goes against Apostolic teaching. They, and others aligned with them, will need to decide whether this provisional, ecclesiologically anomolous approach, aimed at maintaining some level of communion with those with whom they disagree, provides them with sufficient pastoral reassurance to continue in the Church of England.
It's not going to be easy.
With thanks to Anastassia Aunfrieva for the image
Anglican Futures offers practical and pastoral support to faithful Anglicans
If you would like to hear more:
subscribe to our regular emails
Comments