The good thing about blogging is that the conversation forces me to think through what I think I think in the light of other people’s perspectives on what they think I think. I have been critical of the launch of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans in recent posts and – as I don’t believe in playing games with words – have offered what have clearly been considered to be ‘robust’ observations. For that I do not apologise. Indeed, one of the things I get fed up with as a bishop is the generalised criticism that bishops don’t ‘lead’ or don’t ‘speak out’. Of course, what usually lies behind these criticisms is an assumption that a bishop ‘leads’ by saying loudly what ‘I’ want to hear (and, by implication, does not lead if taking a different view from ‘me’) and is only ‘speaking out’ when loudly agreeing with ‘my’ view on things.
But, given that I am happy to say what I think and take the flak, how do I respond to Andrew Carey’s response to my critique of FCA? Here is what he said:
However your posts on FCA will be perceived as pretty insulting really by your targets. There’s no qualification of what you’re saying. I always try to use the terms ’some’ and ‘many’, for example when imputing views to groups such as ‘evangelicals’ or ‘liberals’ because there’s always diversity. So it’s unfair to make implications about the honesty or integrity of people in FCA by extrapolating from a situation you were close to. Furthermore the idea that FCA supporters view you as unChristian or dodgy might be true of some but not others.
But you yourself also said that people tend to be more suspicious of those close to them (ie the same tradition). Does that explain your hostility and defensiveness as well as that of some of the FCA people you have encountered).
The unity thing is a serious question, given the fact that you’ve accused them of ‘fracturing’ the Church despite their denials of that. Answering a question with a question is all very well, but I’m not a bishop, and don’t have the specific gifts, responsibility and calling to the Church you have. You’re entitled to think me a hypocrite, though I don’t concede that I am on this particular issue, but I think that you and Graham Kings now both have an uphill struggle in your ministry with FCA-types now.
Is FCA a distraction? Well at a time when the views of someone like +Michael Nazir-Ali are seen as extremist when they were entirely acceptable only a decade or so ago, then there’s definitely a need for movements/organisations of this kind. I support loyal but robust protest in response to some trends both in society and the Church. FCA has the potential to a focal point for that. If they ever become separatist they’ll leave me behind.
Andrew has a point about me generalising and tarring all FCA people with the same brush – a brush shaped by particular experience of certain leading FCA people. I know there were many who went tothe FCA launch out of curiosity and that many of those present do not deserve the accusations of dishonesty that I have levelled. So, Andrew is right to draw attention to the generalised nature of my polemic and I plead guilty. There are many evangelicals who do not behave as others and who are not as arrogant or economical with the truth as others.
But it is important to understand where I stand. I am an evangelical bishop whose concern is to equip, encourage and resource my clergy and parishes to learn, believe and promote the gospel of Jesus Christ. This means engaging robustly and with a confident humility in the public space, representing and arguing for the truth of God in Jesus Christ. But I also believe that the church is there to create the space in which all people can find (in different ways and at different paces) that they have been found by God. The glorious Diocese of Southwark is one in which this mission is promoted, defended and in which I have had nothing but encouragement in the six years I have been here.
My experience in the Diocese of Southwark has, however, taught me that there are those who claim to be ‘biblical’ whose behaviour is not. These same people talk down the Church of England and the Diocese of Southwark all the time. They also are not hesitant about behaving in ways that cannot be described other than as dishonest. Consider, for example, the way the ‘irregular ordinations’ were planned for and executed a couple of years ago – raising questions that were never pursued by outsiders as they should have been. And, the lot of the Bishop of Southwark? He played (and continues to play) a completely above-board straight bat in the face of what looks to me like subterfuge. So, he waits three months for a response from Richard Coekin on (a) processing Coekin’s curates for ordination and (b) regularising the Co-Mission (known locally as ‘the Diocese of Dundonald) church plants within our church-planting guidelines… only to get a letter giving him two weeks’ notice (conveniently ending at the launch of FCA) and threatening him with consequences if Tom didn’t agree to Coekin’s demands.
Now, how would you describe that?
So, I hope that explains my personal anger in the face of what then seems to me to characterise a driving element in FCA. Does this blind me to other elements? Possibly, yes. And I will give further thought to that.
And maybe that is why I consider FCA to be ‘fracturing’ of the church and do not believe their denials. I see it at close quarters and I don’t like what I see. If I didn’t take the Bible so seriously, I wouldn’t have so many problems with those who claim the loudest to be ‘biblical’. But, to be on the receiving end of criticism with such blatant hypocrisy is, I think, worthy of exposure. So, I don’t retract my criticisms of FCA, their direction or what lies (politically) behind them, but I do accept the criticism that I have generalised where I should have been more nuanced.
I don’t accept that Graham Kings and I have any more uphill battle with ‘FCA types’ now than we did before. I would further note that in terms of ministry in this diocese no distinction is made between clergy of any ecclesiological complexion. I visit every parish on the same basis – whether they be liberal catholic, conservative evangelical, charismatic, ‘anglican’, Forward in Faith or anything else. I look to resource, encourage, etc without distinction and regardless of my own views on their stances on particular issues. I also make myself available to them without discrimination.
But, it needs to be noted that many ‘ordinary’ evangelicals keep asking for leadership against the FCA types. Evangelicals do not take kindly to finding churches planted in their parishes on the basis that ‘there is no Bible-based ministry there’. How should I respond to these requests from evangelicals? I would be interested to hear advice – when the bishop is called to be the focus of unity (among other things).
As for Michael Nazir-Ali, I have known him for a long time and have massive respect for him. I don’t agree with him on some issues, but his integrity is never something I would question. I don’t agree with his stance on FCA and associated matters, but that is a difference of view and not a dispute about integrity.
This has got long enough. I can amplify other matters separately, if anyone is interested. But I hope this is an adequate response to Andrew Carey and provides a little more background to my own position.
July 10, 2009 at 12:55 pm
For goodness sake – as an ordinary member of a congregation, who is Andrew Carey please?
Jesus said “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another”.
I know all human institutions and organisations become ‘political’ but couldn’t those in the highest ranks of the church occasionally spend a day or two just sitting at the feet or Jesus and come back to basics.
Anne.
July 10, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Andrew Carey is a journalist with the Church of England Newspaper and son of the former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey.
I’m afraid bishops cnanot avoid politics becasue politics is essentially about people and their relationships. Frustrating, I know…
July 10, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Well said, Nick. Thank you.
July 10, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Thank you Nick. As ever, a voice of sense and a message of inspiration.
July 10, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Well I think that your posting was acceptable and fair comment.
As a Bishop, you were exercising the leadership role and voicing concerns which many share.
Having a robust view on things and voicing it or writing them down, is not a crime, Yet!
July 10, 2009 at 4:49 pm
I am sure there are many out there who share the exasperation you describe. I know I do.
July 10, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Dear +Nick,
Am I missing something? I have re-read your last 5 posts on the FCA and can find nothing that can stand up to the accusation of extrapolation or even over-generalisation. Rather comment on (very) public comments by FCA leaders and your own personal experience.
Suurely if FCA leaders are going to make such bizarre statements about Satan and incorrect statements about the Queen, they must expect comment, particularly from within the ‘Evangelical’ stable?
An an ‘Affirming Catholic’ I enjoy and learn a great deal from your perspective, as I do from the Fulcrum website. Please don’t fall on your sword of apology too easily.
Erica
July 10, 2009 at 9:49 pm
I think that we need voices like yours and Graham Kings’ to help us discern how much notice we take of the implied charge that we, faithful Anglicans, content to affirm the three moritoria, respectful of Rowan’s lead, with his emphasis on listening and indaba, are loving Jesus just as much as the FOCAs and not preaching an alternative gospel, for these implied charges hurt like Hell and quite frankly voices like those of + Broadhurst are positively frightening.
Thanks for your openness Bishop Nick
July 11, 2009 at 11:29 am
Hi Nick,
Thanks for the clarification of your views I can see where you’re coming from much more clearly. It’s just a shame that open and conservative evangelicals are both involved in such a destructive conflict.
Just a couple of observations. Firstly, I lived in the ‘glorious diocese of Southwark’ for about 10 years. There’s far too many dying, moribund churches for it to deserve that description.
Secondly, I seem to recall that the Bishop of Winchester’s investigation didn’t exactly give the diocese or +Tom Butler a clean bill of health in the local difficulties with Coekin et al.
Yours,
Andrew
July 11, 2009 at 11:55 am
Dear +Nick,
Thank you for your comments regarding the FCA. I was for a very long time a member of a Reform church – I can’t really call it Anglican – and your experiences with CoMission et al are hauntingly familiar, all the way down to the lying and subterfuge.
I have (until recently) refrained from calling their behaviour into question in public, as I’ve been doing it in private: GAFCON was the last straw as even a simple pew-warmer like me could tell that this unlikely alliance was both schismatic and fissiparous.
I have it on good authority that the game plan is: gays first, then women, then catholics. And no, I don’t think it’s any more nuanced than that. The Anglo-Catholics are only just beginning to wake up to the fact that they are being used as ‘useful idiots’ by the CEs: while there is still the belief that the FCA will save them from women bishops, I’m guessing that some of them will hang in there. But their turn comes next.
As to Andrew Carey: don’t let him distract you. It is perfectly fair comment to call into question the veracity of public comments made by people you know to be liars. Fool me once, shame on you: fool me twice, shame on me.
There is a lot of heat being directed by FCA-types on more moderate evangelicals, and I think the reason is this. By our mere existence, we prove to the rest of the church that we can co-exist in grace and love – that renders their arguments hollow and shrill, and they hate us for it.
I didn’t mean to go on for so long! Apologies.
July 11, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Andrew, thanks for avoiding responding to the content of what I wrote. And, for the record, I think your column in the CEN contributes to the ‘destructive conflict’ you cite.
You might have lived in the Diocese of Southwark for ten years, but I don’t remember you having the responsibility of leading a church here? Am I wrong? Please do name the moribund and dying churches – especially in areas where we are the only churches remaining and holding out a Christian presence. The I’ll tell you about conversations with our Wimbledon friends about mission in places like Brixton.
Winchester went for a technicality and avoided the content. As you well know.
July 11, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Hi, Nick – I’m gonna try & take a summer sabbatical from commenting (OK, you can stop cheering now), as I find blogs don’t often help my slow growth in godliness, & distract me from my paid employment. I appreciate your straight talking, so can you permit this outsider a couple parting remarks?
First, I’ve seen the Anglican TV/FCA videos of Peter Jensen & Greg Venables, & I think they’re faithful godly evangelicals who take ‘the long view’ about the Anglican Communion. (I’ve met Greg Venables & was mighty impressed, & I’ve read Peter Jensen’s excellent book on revelation. No slouches, these two, who are relentlessly attacked in the secular media. Same for Michael Nazir-Ali, who has a very sharp mind & has suffered for speaking it.) Maybe they can see things that goldfish in the bowl can’t? If “Fulcrum” is a movement (& not just a website for 10-12 guys & gals in midsized churches), it’s pretty clear that self-styled “open evangelicals” are moving to embrace homosexuality as a godly Christian option, & to castigate opposition to WO as beyond the pale. But at that point, “evangelical” will just be mood music, not doctrinal commitment. It will go the way that the formerly evangelical music festival “Greenbelt” in England seems to have gone – now featuring Gene Robinson this summer, it appears…
Second, how does publicly attacking FCA help you to relate to people like Paul Perkin of St Mark’s Battersea & other church planters?
ave atque vale – charis kai eirene soi
July 11, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Mark, sorry to see you go quiet.
First, I have also heard Jensen and venables and have come to a different conclusion.
Second, I think that is a question that should be put to Paul Perkin et al who have been publicly questioning ‘us’ for a long time without response. Regarding church planting, we have good examples of church planting and ‘FCA types’ (as someone called them) do not have a monopoly on them.
You’ll be welcome back when your ‘growth in godliness’ permits it. In the meantime, thanks for being frank and open with me. I appreciate the way you have engaged, even if we don’t always agree. And who now will comment in German or Latin?!
July 11, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Hi Nick,
Hope the rain held off at Kew, it’s been tipping down all day where I am.
You criticised me for not responding to the substantive points you made. Sorry for that. It seems to me that the points you made were:
Firstly, some conservative evangelicals behave far below the biblical standards they claim to uphold. That’s just not news to me. But I’ve seen poor behaviour in every part of the Church.
Secondly, you consider FCA to be a ‘fracturing’ of the Church. Well, I disagree. Let’s just wait and see.
Thirdly, I’ve not come across the situations you describe in which ‘ordinary’ evangelicals are asking for leadership against FCA-types. I can’t really comment.
You asked me whether I had the responsibility of leading a church in the diocese of Southwark. No, because I’m a layperson. I’m sure you’re not saying that only clergy can criticise or comment.
Finally, Winchester’s investigation found that +Southwark’s action was unfair and disproportionate. This was not a mere technicality.
Yours,
Andrew
July 11, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Andrew, thanks – but it poured all night, getting worse by the minute! But it didn’t stop us.
July 15, 2009 at 7:51 am
Dear Nick,
I’m part of Dundonald Church. What you write of Dundonald church is untrue and unfair. Let me respond to just one point though: if you did know that the most recent church plant was in an urban priority area, then why the comment about Brixton? If you didn’t know, then why didn’t you check your facts before firing off disparaging blogs? And if you’ve got any opportunities to plant in Brixton, the good people of Dundonald would be delighted to prayerfully consider getting involved.
Phil.
July 15, 2009 at 11:15 am
I departed from the church some four years ago, and find the sheer hatred expressed by some (Carey being an obvious example) against people like me makes me very glad that I did so.
Essentially, if one cannot be gay, in a relationship, and Christian, then I cannot be Christian. There comes a time when banging one’s head against a brick wall no longer makes sense
July 15, 2009 at 2:41 pm
[…] Bishop Graham Kings has responded to this matter in relation to FCA and covers some of the concerns I have also raised. […]
July 15, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Phil, thanks for your comment. I am tempted to reply with, ‘Well, now you know what it feels like to be misrepresented.’ Unfortunately for you, I not only know the facts, I was involved for three years as Archdeacon of Lambeth with seeking places for plants from Dundonald on the basis that we were dealing straight with each other. You need to get a bit more history – probably not from the perspective of Dundonald.
July 15, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Dear Nick, thanks for the reply. I too have been around a while, and sat in on the planting discussions, and saw the letters seeking permission that were posted, etc. There are of course things I do not know, but it grieves me to read so many comments and articles in Church Times, Fulcrum, etc. from those who know what happened, but are happy to misrepresent and continue to circulate untrue allegations.
I hear from friends in those organisations some of what is said at Inclusive Church and Fulcrum about Dundonald, so I hold no great hope for diaologue and engagement – there’s too much heat and hatred. If Coekin was to fling himself in front of the bishop of Soutwark to save him from an assassin’s bullet, Coekin would be castigated for trying to make a martyr of himself…
July 15, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Phil, I think you have this wrong. Do you understand why Coekin is not trusted outside of his own circles? And you haven’t commented on why Coekin took three months to respond to +Tom’s letter – only to reply giving +Tom a two-week ultimatum, conveniently ending with the launch of FCA. I genuinely would be interested to hear.
We all have an interest in the proclamation of the good news in this diocese and the wider world. I have no other reason for doing what I do. You need to understand why people who are passionate about the gospel feel constantly undermined by Coekin and do not trust. We should be able to work together with respect, but when we are constantly told we are not ‘faithful’, not concerned about mission (see the sermon that dissed Christ Church, New Malden and its vicar), not ‘biblical’, etc., how are we to proceed?
July 15, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Nick, don’t think me rude if this is my last post – I’m about to head off for the evening and then on holiday.
I know about the timings of the letters. As you’ll know from the letter Richard apologised for taking so long to reply. We spent an age discussing things at this end and thinking and praying it through. He did indeed ask +Tom to reply before the FCA meeting – so that we knew where we stood, but there was no sinister reason behind giving only 2 weeks to respond. People at the meeting were bound to ask where things stood with us, so it was useful to know by then.
The sermon you comment on was not preached by Richard or any of his staff. It was preached by an elder at a free church – I had not realised that a free-church elder criticising a CofE vicar was such a shocking event – they’re always criticising us Anglicans…
But how did Stephen Kuhrt respond? Did he talk to the minister of that church? Did he speak to Richard to check his involvement? No, he circulated the sermon in the deanery and sounded off in the Church Times. Is that really a Christlike way to respond?
On the one hand, I keep reading open evangelical articles basically claiming the centre ground and graciousness and humble engagement, and lamenting the politicking and brutality and criticism of others that they perceive in conservatives. But on the other hand they seem to think they can dispense with even normal decency when dealing with those conservatives, and save their sharpest criticism for those critical conservatives… Point it out, and the response comes ‘but you’re worse!’
I’m not sure when our paths might cross as I’m still not ordained, but I’m good for a coffee if you’re ever at a loose end in Wimbledon area.
July 15, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Phil, thanks for your response. I hope that by the time you read this you will have had a good holiday and come back refreshed.
I am afraid you are naive about this letter business. Richard’s apology appears disingenuous at the very least. Why did he not give +Tom three months to think and discuss and pray? I am afraid your account will simply not appear credible to anyone outside your own circle. It does look ‘sinister’.
Who was the elder at which free church and in which church was his sermon preached? Your explanation is at variance with my understanding.
You have to realise that Stephen Kuhrt’s response to this was probably conditioned by our experience of Richard’s handling of these matters. Experience does not lead to trust, but has demonstrated time and again the ‘scheming’ (my word, not Stephen’s) that characterises his dealings. The letters mentioned above are a good example of this.
I really do not believe that any of this has to do with theology. It certainly raises serious ecclesiological questions, but the problem I am trying to address is ethical. I don’t expect you to agree with me or to see the situation through ‘outside’ eyes, but I think you need to try. I worked hard for three years to support and facilitate Dundonald’s ministry and, in the end, felt entirely misled. That caused me not pleasure, but grief.
I would be very happy to meet you for coffee, but I rarely get over to Wimbledon. If you want to meet up, give me a call later in August (when I am back) and we’ll fix something up.
December 31, 2019 at 9:09 am
[…] all that, I do occasionally see things that make me question my certainty on the topic – and this post from Nick Baines is one such. Perhaps being a Bishop is not the muzzle that I perceive it to […]