No broadband?
Instead of reading pages online, open the ones you want in quick succession. Then go offline, call them up with the "History" button (Explorer] or Ctrl+H [Netscape], and read at your leisure

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two equals four. 
If that is granted, all else follows. [1]

The Church of England is approaching a perilous territory. Ahead, if events continue as they have recently begun, lie deep quicksands and bottomless chasms. Worse still, its planned course is likely to draw other Christian groups into the same danger.

I refer to the draft Measure debated in July, 2004, by the Church of England's General Synod. The Measure was contained in the Clergy Discipline (Doctrine) Report of a working group set up by its House of Bishops in 1999 [2].

The Measure proposed a draconian set of laws designed to prevent Anglican clergy communicating heresy to the general public in England [3]. It was narrowly defeated when put to the vote.

Its antecedents go back decades. The most recent was a report produced in November, 1996, entitled Under Authority. Its subtitle referred to its purpose as "reviewing clergy discipline and the working of the ecclesiastical courts".

The report asserts that the clergy should be disciplined differently from laypeople. This is because

• they are officially allocated certain roles;
• they must represent the Church to the rest of society;
• they must practice what they preach;
• they must minister to vulnerable people.

That this discipline should cover

• performance of allocated duties;
• style of life and conduct; and
• the maintenance of high professional standards when ministering to the vulnerable

is no doubt right and good. The working party asserts that there are boundaries "acceptable to the Christian community". But it dodges the issue of where the lines should be drawn, stating that

We do not see it as within our remit to identify where the acceptable boundaries are to be set in the contemporary church.

I find no reason to question the principle that the Church of England should discipline its clergy. It has every right to impose censorship on its clergy - and that is exactly what the defeated draft Measure does.  

It is the feasibility of doing so with which  I take issue. I question that

adherence to the Faith as the Church understands it

as the final area of discipline is defined, can be tested at all. Three pivotal questions arise. First, is it possible to determine what "the Faith" is? Second, what is meant by "the Church"? Third, by what authority are these two established as sources of right doctrine?

The Faith
The working party claims three sources from which "acceptable boundaries" of "the Faith" can be derived:

[1] The Scriptures - by which is meant the Old and New Testaments (though which version prevails is not addressed). 

It is as though three centuries of dedicated scholarship have never happened. The Bible as a clear indication of what God has communicated to humanity through a process of inspired revelation no longer stands. Or if it does stand, it is on perilous, decayed stilts above a marsh of contradiction and misconception.

The Bible is now thought of as a collection of documents reflecting various theologies of long-dead religious people. Those theologies have changed and mutated over the ages. So also has the way religious people understand the world. 

Whatever else they are, the nature of the scriptures is such that they cannot be an unchanging source of standards upon which to base  "adherence to the Faith".

[2] Christian tradition - as enshrined in the Canons of the Church of England, which are derived from Canon Law in Western Christendom. It hardly needs arguing that legal definitions are written by lawyers. Laws do no more than establish a snapshot of priorities at a particular point in time. They are in constant flux and subject to human error and manipulation. The rules of behaviour we call "laws" are changeable and situational. They make a poor measure against which to judge a cleric's "adherence to the faith" and upon which to rest judgements which can destroy a person..

[3] Historic Formularies of the Church [of England] - as captured in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, and the ordinals of authorised liturgies. The Articles were an attempt to define a dogmatic position in relation to controversies of the 16th century. They are

... short summaries of dogmatic tenets, each article dealing with some point raised in current controversies and laying down in general terms the Anglican view ... Much variety of interpretation has been put upon them without straining the text, and probably this licence was deliberately intended by their framers. [4]

That a cleric's self-esteem, good reputation and livelihood might be cut to ribbons on this basis is little short of preposterous and very far from just. The ordinals are similarly flawed. Their purpose is ritualistic. They were not written to state clearly and unambiguously (if that is possible at all) matters of doctrine upon which the fate of person might hang.

All three are, it seems to me, fatally flawed as standards by which to judge a cleric's "adherence to the faith".

Even more disastrously, they assume that there is such a thing as "the Faith". If Church historians have established anything over centuries of study, it is that "the Faith" has altered radically over the lifetime of Christendom. It is a fudge to assert that we merely "interpret" unchanging basics differently in each successive age. I know of nobody who has asserted the existence of "the Faith" without also ignoring or discounting a very wide consensus to the contrary.

The Roman Catholic Church, for example, asserts that its doctrines are necessary to salvation. By this is meant that anyone (not just the clergy, and including Anglican bishops) who does not hold to its doctrines at a deep intellectual and emotional level  cannot be regarded as headed for heaven. 

The Roman Catholic Church is far larger than the Anglican; it has a far longer history; it has far greater scholarly resources; and its bishops far outnumber those of the Church of England. And "the Faith" it espouses can't be matched with that of the Church of England. Which should prevail to a disinterested external observer?

Again, the doctrine of the Church of England is not in practice homogenous. It is frequently described as a "broad" church. That is, it contains greatly varying versions of "the Faith". In such a situation, what stratum of the broad variety of espoused Anglican doctrines is going to allowed, and which prosecuted? There exists a distinct possibility that a minority claiming to hold to "the Faith" will set out to make life difficult for the many who differ from their definitions.

Not only that, but some of the doctrines of the Church of England may (and in fact appear to) differ substantially from the many other churches with which it is in communion. How can it hunt down and prosecute its own heretics while remaining in communion with clerics of other churches who are heretics in terms of this Measure?

All-in-all, if the Church of England claims authority to smell out heresy, it cannot be on the grounds of being "the Church".

The argument is this:

# Certain designated persons (bishops and councils) have authority to definitively state the right doctrines to which clergy should adhere in the depths of their beings.

# An absolutely central doctrine they uphold is that the Bible and Christian tradition (including certain legal formularies) contain and set forth the right doctrines of the Church.

# From where do they get the authority to assert these things? From the Bible and the tradition of the Church.

The bulk of the report deals with the legalities of enforcing a disciplinary system. But without a sound argument to establish a valid source of authority for that system, even the sensible practicalities suggested are without any but legislative foundation.

As if the edifice the working party attempts to build were not shaky enough, it slides ever further down a slippery slope by failing to make a crucial distinction. In a section concerning specific issues to be faced, the report says:

We are persuaded that the time has come to introduce a new and essentially simpler system. We are, therefore, proposing one procedure, to be common to all disciplinary cases. It will cover cases involving doctrine, ritual and ceremonial.

On what grounds can doctrine be rightly lumped together with ritual and ceremonial? Further, on what grounds can it be dealt together with (as the 2004 draft Measure proposes) morals, professional standards and even criminality?

It seems to me that doctrine differs radically from the other concerns. Let me illustrate by considering Western democracies. Laws in such social systems are the result of a social contract between members of a nation. Specific laws are drafted, received and applied by an elected government which can be dismissed. 

Such laws are applied only to behaviour. Any law which attempted to control the privately-held convictions of citizens would receive short shrift. And rightly so, since to do this would strike at the very core of democracy itself. The proposed Church of England legislation fails to appreciate this important distinction. In effect, it is proposing a form of thought control.

By all means discipline the clergy in matters of behaviour. Force them to say only certain words during rituals and liturgies. Require that they do their work with due diligence. More controversially, require that their morals conform with certain standards (such as those concerning divorce or even homosexuality). And penalise them if they don't conform.

Communicating doctrine to the public of England is a behaviour. Such communication presumably reflects a cleric's conclusions about "the Faith". 

I think I would be hard-pressed to find a Church of England bishop would not agree that integrity is an important consideration in this respect. It should be assumed that what a cleric writes and says is, at least in intention, congruent with his or her convictions. Clerics are selected in part precisely because they are able to think about what being a Christian today means for them and for others.

To require, as a matter of law, that a cleric keeps to "the Faith" regardless of his or her convictions is to pervert the nature of truth itself. This is not to say that no bishop does this. Indeed, I think I am correct that the present Archbishop of Canterbury has stated that this, or something very similar, is his position. Perhaps this partially explains why the Measure has gone as far as it has.

My assumption is, further, that no two Christians agree exactly about what "the Faith" is. It follows, I think, that many of the clergy - and probably a large majority - will discover a degree of conflict with any official formulation of doctrine. So if this legislation eventually goes through (as is likely) every cleric will potentially be at risk. Bishops will be especially at risk, since they are supposed to be arbiters of correct "faith". They face the prospect of being relentlessly hunted down if they step out of line.

If the draft Measure is eventually passed, clergy will be faced with several options. They can merely parrot official doctrines while keeping their personal convictions to themselves. Or they can recognise the conflict and leave the ministry to preserve their integrity. Or they can speak out and face prosecution.

It is not merely frivolous to suggest that if the Church intends to pursue clergy who transgress foggy, imprecise, out-of-date doctrinal norms, a number of practical implications follow:

1. A formula of words which conveys with clarity and accuracy what "the Faith" is must be devised. To prosecute anyone on any other basis would be unjust. If this proves impossible the Measure should be voted down.
2. The formula must obviously be held with absolute conviction by all, without exception, who claim authority to enforce it. Anything less would be grossly hypocritical.
3. Official enforcers should be appointed. It is dangerous and foolhardy to leave regulation of "the Faith" to amateurs. The enforcers should be highly trained about right doctrine, about methods of sniffing out wrong doctrine, and about how to persuade those in error to recant. In short, an Anglican Inquisition should be established. In this connection, the Roman Catholic Church has much to teach the Church of England [5].
4. It is clearly not enough to require "assent" to the formula (as at present to the Thirty-nine Articles at ordination). Assent is not the same as commitment. The form required of the clergy must demand a clear, unambiguous public confession of conviction if it is to be the later occasion of severe penalties. This would hopefully exclude those who at present enter the clerical fold as wolves among the sheep.

There are, however, good reasons why it is almost certainly impossible to assemble a satisfactory formula for "the Faith":

• Words are by nature ambiguous. It is impossible to put them together in a form which means the same to everyone. Not even the creeds can validly function in this way. They are today widely recognised as a form of assent, or as a way of acknowledging the past.
• People change. Few retain the same outlook on the world throughout life. It is unjust to expect the convictions of a young cleric to be absolutely constant into old age (though it is possible that this may occur). To prosecute a person on such grounds would be less-than-just.

Finally, the Under Authority report suffers from an underlying flaw which is not immediately obvious. The flaw is that the very concept of authority it depends upon is incompatible with the foundations of a democratic society.. 

The traditional Church uses a model accepted by all societies before ours. On this model it is possible for a truth, once asserted, to remain incontestable for ever. According to this model, "the Faith" is that which was established by the authors of the Bible and the first Christians. It is a "once and for always" faith. It is by definition "top-down" in execution. The authority both pronounces the norm and judges the default.

Authority is now perceived as deriving not from the past or from persons, but from reasoned consensus. Thus the authority of governments is gained by a form of consensus (free and fair elections). Scientists require a particularly rigorous consensus before any person or theory is given authority. Other disciplines, such as history, archeology, geography, literature and even theology, require demanding discussion and a broad consensus of validated experts before anything is regarded as authoritative.

To summarise: The forms of authority upon which the draft Measure of 2004 is based are too weak to sustain it. Further, the concept of authority used by those who drafted the Measure is no longer, as it once was, the foundation of Western society. [6]

The Church of England is attempting to contain its clergy in an intellectual ghetto. In it they will be bound by insubstantial, inexact concepts. They will be required, whatever their private convictions, to adopt a false public persona.

Not only does the draft Measure fall far short of justice, but it compromises the integrity of all its clergy.
____________________________________________________
[1] Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell, Penguin, 1954
[2] See Into the Unconscious
[3] The Church of England is an established Church, unlike the [Anglican] churches of Wales,  Scotland and the rest of the Anglican Communion. The "public" appears to  include anyone living in England, regardless of religious affiliation.
[4] The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Ed. F L Cross, OUP, 1997
[5] See the Regulations for Doctrinal Examination of the Roman Catholic Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
[6] See Clergy Discipline for a summary of the legislation until 2004

[Home] [Back]