Crumbs of Comfort: Standing together for Standalone Services

Canon Simon Butler was for some years one of the most senior priests in General Synod and a member of the Archbishops' Council. He is Rector of Holy Trinity & St Mary’s Guildford .

The crumbs of Living in Love and Faith (LLF) are meagre. Institutionally-speaking, the Church of England is almost as unwelcoming to those LGBT+people who wish to celebrate their life-long commitment before God as it was before LLF began. Whatever happened to “radical new Christian inclusion”?

Personally, it is deeply disillusioning. Once more, my work as a priest has been undermined by the actions of the House of Bishops, my calling questioned, our classic Anglican welcome to all compromised. The bishops forever tell us to be hopeful, to keep faith, and always disappoint, often diminishing my sense of vocation into a job. Their decisions this week will have the effect of doing this for many, condemning the Church to a morale-sapping war of attrition.

But however passive-aggressively hostile the Church of England remains for same-sex couples, at the local level things are often different. At Holy Trinity & St Mary’s, Guildford, I have used Prayers of Love and Faith(PLF) in two standalone services since they were permitted and would welcome further enquires (check the website!). They have been simple occasions of quiet joy. The pastoral task laid upon me by my ordination vows and the mission of God in this community is more important than allowing an illegitimate request from the House of Bishops to get in the way.

Illegitimate? Absolutely. Throughout the LLF process in General Synod, I asked the House of Bishops repeatedly what prevented me from using the PLF resources in standalone services. The response was always the same request: please don’t. Now, with the news that the bishops want clergy not to use PLF resources in standalone services until General Synod has achieved a two-thirds majority, is this anything more than a reasonable request? I say that it is. I say it is an illegitimate piece of overreach by our bishops that clergy are at liberty to ignore.

At my licensing, I made a solemn affirmation of canonical obedience to my Bishop (I don’t swear oaths on conscience grounds). In granting me his licence, my Bishop gave me the liberty to exercise my ministry within the bounds of the doctrine and Canons of the Church of England. It’s a quid pro quo: clergy minister within those boundaries, our bishops give us freedom to minister according to our consciences to the fullest extent of those boundaries. (I note in passing the widespread disobedience to the Canons by Evangelicals and Catholics that is never challenged. Liturgical illegality is endemic among Charismatic Evangelicals^[1]; bishops wave monstrances at Benediction without a second thought).

When the House of Bishops published and commended the PLF resources they declared that there was nothing in them contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England. They permitted them to be used in existing authorised services, but not in standalone services. This was a liturgical innovation for our Church – worship resources that can only be used in certain services and not in others. Ironically, such a change may itself require a two-thirds majority in General Synod!

When I have offered standalone PLF services in the past two years, following a unanimous PCC decision, I have done this because the Canons of the Church of England permit it. Canon B5 (On the discretion of ministers in conduct of public worship) is quite explicit: “The minister having the cure of souls may on occasions for which no provision is made…use forms of service considered suitable by him [sic] for those occasions and may permit another minister to use the said form of service.” They must be “reverent or seemly” and shall “be neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter.” In short, I am using the discretion given to me at my licensing to exercise pastoral ministry within canonical boundaries. I understand that the legal and theological advice the House has recently received says nothing that would contradict this view.

I would go further – something the bishops have accepted throughout LLF despite the objections of conservatives: that there is legitimate disagreement about what is an “essential” matter of doctrine. With such latitude, faced with a simple request not to use the resources in standalone services, I believe I am free to say, with politeness and respect, “you ask of me something you are not at liberty to ask.” Less politely put, “wind your necks in.”

Some clergy will be worried about being disobedient to their bishops, but I hope this makes it clear that this is a matter of canonical freedom that already exists for clergy, and that it would be an illegitimate use of episcopal power, if not a matter of discipline, for a bishop to threaten those who do with any repercussions. It is time to challenge the bishops here, especially as they have so clearly buckled to the threats and deep pockets of The Alliance.

But perhaps the bishops aren’t saying quite what we think. I think it is possible to interpret the bishops’ decision on standalone services as simply saying that it would require a two-thirds majority in Synod in order for them to become an authorised liturgy; and not that clergy should desist from exercising their existing discretion in the Canons to conduct standalone services. I shall be continuing to do offer such services, and would welcome the opportunity to challenge the legal basis of any attempt to prevent me.

When the Gospel was preached in synagogues by the early followers of The Way, it often faced opposition. The response of the disciples was to turn to the Gentiles. Faced with the inability of the institutional church – led by its bishops – to allow the good news of God’s love to be available to all who love well and with holiness, perhaps it falls, despite the inevitable postcode lottery, to the parochial clergy of the Church of England to do what the bishops are clearly unable to do.

^[1] In his most recent Ad Clerum a diocesan bishop writes “I would love to see every church re-establish a communal confession and absolution.”  I would expect a bishop in the Anglican tradition to require it!