Season of mists and mellow fruitfulness,
Close bosom-friend of the maturing sun!

John Keats: Autumn

The season which we in England refer to as Autumn, Americans usually describe as The Fall.

Since I have been in both countries (Canada included) recently it seemed appropriate to head my article with this quotation from Keats, the more so because there were differing qualities about the experiences which I had in both places which reflected the meanings behind both words Autumn and Fall.

Let me explain what I mean. “Autumn” is associated with the Latin word which “to ripen” or “to come to fruition” – which is what many fruits do round about October. “Fall”, of course, derives from the falling of the leaves of many species of tree, and suggests something which is approaching its end – the onset of winter, the dying year and so forth. Of course we all hope, with another poet of Keats' generation that:

Shelley: Ode to the West Wind

But that hope must remain a hope until we have turned the corner well into the New Year (and in this case Millennium).

So what, first of all, were the things which came to fruition during that period?

This document, which has taken the best part of ten years to reach its present form, was adopted, virtually unanimously, by the Assembly. In the meanwhile it has been ceaselessly worked upon, discussed, amended, re-written, taken-apart and put-together again, during the course of which it was taken on a "Roadshow" (twice) to different locations up and down the country where it could be studied and criticized by those living in those areas at day-long conferences.

Although this has meant that the patience of some of our integrity whom nothing but “?immediate action” would satisfy, it managed to avoid some of the problems encountered by other groups, heading towards the same end, notably Reform [see below].

To understand the significance of this document it needs to be remembered that many of the novelties which various provinces of the Anglican Communion have adopted during the past few years, particularly the ordination of women as priests and bishops, have (in the words of the Eames Commission which evaluated their theological foundations) “a degree of provisionality” about them, and their rightness or wrongness in the sight of God, and indeed whether they were even theologically possible in the first place, must be subjected to a "Period of Reception" of indeterminate length during which time the matter must be considered open to doubts and the free expression of such doubts.

The fact that many Bishops in Canada and the United States have failed to respect the Period of Reception by systematically discriminating against those who express such doubts is neither here nor there. Such discrimination is wholly contrary to the Eames principles and, indeed to the very spirit of classical Anglicanism as it has been understood and practised hitherto.

It was the insistence of bodies like Forward in Faith, with the support of Parliament and the House of Bishops, which ensured that, in England at any rate, a number of Bishops should be consecrated and appointed to minister to the needs of those who hold such doubts. The overwhelming success both of the Bishops thus consecrated (The Provincial Episcopal Visitors, PEVs – or ‘Flying Bishops’? as they are sometimes referred to) has meant that it has been possible for many priests and laypeople to remain within the Church of England at a time when the number of regular worshippers has dropped dramatically, as indeed has also been the case in Canada and the USA.

The Case for a Free Province carries this process one logical stage further. If the proposals for consecrating women bishops are pursued, and it would seem logically absurd for them not to be by those who believe that this is the will of God, then the provisions so far afforded will no longer suffice. It will simply not be possible to continue the policy, which we have at the moment, of being in the care of a PEV whilst at the same time remaining part of an historic diocese with a bishop who, though he may be unorthodox, is undoubtedly a bishop, and therefore the (male) priests whom he ordains are undoubtedly priests.

However, once there are women bishops, the ministerial status of every person ordained by her will become a matter of doubt and question amongst those whose beliefs necessitated the provision of PEVs in the first instance.

The best answer to this anticipated problem, we believe, would be the establishment of a Free Province such as already exists for Anglicans in various parts of the world. There exist not just one but two such Provinces, one English and one American, for English-speaking people living on the Continent of Europe; there is a Province of Aoteroea in New Zealand for the Maoris; there is a Province for the Navajo Indians in North America; and even within the Church of England itself (and probably elsewhere) there are bishops specially appointed to minister to the particular needs of the Armed Forces and the Prison Service.

So a Free Province is not a new idea at all. What our document argues convincingly is the indisputable case for examining the legal, ecclesiastical and political processes which will be necessary for setting up such a province as and when women are first consecrated as bishops in England.

Like the Case for a Free Province the Sacred Synod was the result of many months of preparation. In the end some six or seven hundred clergy attended, though the number might have been much higher had it not coincided with school half-term for many people.

Besides demonstrating the size and cohesion of our constituency the Synod gave us the opportunity of inviting the Archbishop of Canterbury to come and meet us. He was not only given a most warm welcome and standing ovation when he appeared – and that was entirely unscheduled and unrehearsed! – but it also was the context for a most important admission on his part about the very process which necessitated the formation of Forward in Faith in the first place, namely the "provisional" nature of the orders conferred on the women supposedly ordained and the nature of the consequent "Period of Reception" which it entailed.

His admission came in the course of a question put to him by Fr Robert Beaken, a parish priest from Essex. Because it was so significant I make no apology for reproducing an official transcrpt of both question and answer in full:

Father Beaken:

Robert Beaken from Colchester: Your Grace, we are in the process of reception, which I think we all understand is likely not to be over shortly but might take many years and, if we're honest, we recognise that we may be shown to be wrong – possibly.

Yet we all come from dioceses where there are plenty of people, from Bishops to flower-arrangers, who don't seem to take the process of reception at all seriously. For them, the issue was decided by a vote in November 1992.

The question that I would like to put to you is: might you envisage – let's put it no stronger than that – that there could be a day when the bishops, the Archbishop's Council, the Synod would say "Sorry, we got it wrong. We made a mistake on 11th November, 1992. That was an error".

Your Grace, the reason I ask this question is that it would be very good for us if we could hear an Archbishop of Canterbury say "yes brothers you might be wrong – but actually you might be right"

I see no difficulty with that at all. I mean I do believe that that's a very important theological principle that has come out of our discussion. I do hope that the Blackburn group will bring that issue up.

Now, I think reception has been understood in two different ways. I want to hold the two different ways together but I fear the two different ways have separated.

There is very clearly an understanding around that reception is actually meaning: the reception of this into the Universal Church. So the movement is an inevitable consequence that is going to be adopted by other Churches, so that is somehow step-by-step.

The other understanding which you have enunciated, and which I hold, with the other one, is that we have always said and always believed that any step of this nature and may be of the Holy Spirit but may not be of the Holy Spirit.

Time will tell. And from that point of view it is, as you have said "you may be wrong, I may be proved wrong" and I think that degree of humility is terribly important.

Now, I know that there are some people in the Church who will be dreadfully offended to actually feel "Surely God has led us to this position?" and I believe He did. I believe... we prayed about it... and so on. But I think one can hold that firmly along with a view, "Yes, we still trust in God and the Church makes mistakes but we believe in God's Providence. He corrects things and we look back in Church history, both the Roman Catholic Church and we have made mistakes and we have acknowledged them as time has gone on". That's why this relates perfectly with the answer I gave to Father David [Moyer] so that to break away seems to me regrettable because we need to be there as we allow the Holy Spirit to work among us as brothers and sisters and giving the widest possible degrees of communion generously to one another in order to be able to work for the mission of God. But thank you for that.

Now, in saying this, Dr Carey was, of course, only reiterating the Eames principles. But the significance of the occasion was that here he did so in the presence of several hundred priests who could have been left in no doubt that this was the official view of the Church of England and, indeed, of the Anglican Communion as a whole – however often and regrettably these principles may be flouted or ignored, tacitly or openly by Provinces and Dioceses throughout the world. So by saying this Dr Carey implicitly acknowledged the justification for discussing such problems as The Case for a Free Province seeks to address even though he went on to express his disagreement with the specific proposals which it contained

We may now say, therefore, with perfect propriety, that, whilst the actual details of such proposals may be matters for debate, that nevertheless, whilst the Period of Reception lasts, provision must continue to be made for the continuing oversight and ministry of those who believe that the theology undergirding this novelty was in fact fatally flawed.

No suggestions have been made that the Period of Reception is anywhere near its end – an end which, by definition, can only be reached when the overwhelming discernment of those who belong to the historic Catholic Church worldwide is that the novelty of ordaining women as priests is and was in accordance with the mind and will of God.

This clarification which Dr Carey provided us has given a new impetus towards the acceptance of the Continuing Churches, especially the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) in USA, Canada, India, Australia and in other parts of the world have every bit as much right to be considered a legitimate expression of Anglicanism as Forward in Faith itself.

The difference in the case of the Continuing Churches was that they believed it to be necessary to establish a number of such Free Provinces in those parts of the world where no provision was being made for the likes of them. We may, with the benefit of hindsight, question the wisdom of that decision, but the fact remains that it was taken and acted upon, at St Louis and Denver, and their existence at this present time is due to that decision.

Several representatives of the TAC in fact attended the Sacred Synod, including Bishop Hepworth from Australia Father Aird from England and Bishop Hankin from the Torres Straits, and it was immediately apparent from the way in which they were received that we were all talking the same language. That, too, has been the result of endless patient discussion and negotiation by people like Bishop John Broadhurst, Bishop Louis Falk, Bishop Robert Mercer and Bishop Robert Crawley during the past fifteen years. So during this momentous Autumnal season another series of efforts came to fruition.

Shortly after the Synod and the Assembly, Bishop Broadhurst departed for Kampala to be Adviser to a meeting of Primates called by Bishop Moses Tay of Singapore, to consider the plea before them which had been submitted jointly by Forward in Faith America and First Promise, an Evangelical consortium about – yes, you've guessed it – the provision of a Free Anglican Province in the United States.

There were, needless to say, those who went to Kampala hoping that it would provide a "quick fix" – as people so often do. But as in the case of Forward in Faith England, "quick fixes" were not seen as providing the right answer, if only because experience, not least that of the Continuing Churches themselves in the the USA, has proved over and over again that "Quick fixes are the quickest to come unstuck"

I saw for myself the dire straits into which both the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church of the United States of America have recently fallen, and the relentless persecution which they continue to visit on those who dare to suggest that (in the words of Dr Carey, see above) they "may have been mistaken". Under such circumstances one is bound to thank God for those Continuers who, at St Louis in 1976 realized that it was essential to put a stretch of clear water between themselves and the highly unorthodox practices of ECUSA and ACC. With the benefit of hindsight we can now see that they, too, were mistaken in their belief that the provision of orthodox bishops would by itself provide a remedy for all their problems.

The Kampala meeting also recognized that a quick-bishop-fix would be a mistake – and such an idea was probably not in the minds of those who attended who might have been in a position to provide such a "fix". But the delegates from ECUSA and First Promise left with the assurance of the Primates assembled there that they would regard the provision of such a Free Province as a matter which would be high on the agenda of the full meeting of Primates of the Anglican Communion in Portugal in March, 2000.

It would be wrong to suggest that the season has been without its setbacks or that one can see clearly the way ahead on every side. There are still thick autumnal mists hanging over certain parts of the Anglican landscape, even in England

Chief amongst these, I suppose, was the brought about by the decision of the evangelical association Reform (of which I am the official Forward in Faith Observer) against proceeding any further, for the time being at any rate, with the proposals set forward by their own Working Party for the provision of a specifically Evangelical Alternative Episcopal Oversight.

The problem stems, in my view, from the lack of a cohesive ecclesiology amongst people of that tradition. Reform-type evangelicals seem to recognize that having Bishops may be a Good Thing, and they are more than happy to invite them to preach, to confirm and to ordain. But at the same time they have great difficulty in saying why they think they are necessary in the first instance.

Part of this stems from that fact that there are two very different types of traditional (as opposed to "liberal") evangelical churches in England. One type is the Big Show, often situated in or near a city centre or in some large suburb which regularly attracts hundreds if not thousands of committed Christians. I have visited quite a number of such churches and it is utterly wrong to try and play down their achievements as some people are inclined to do.

At the same time these "Biggies" are far from typical. The large majority of such churches are struggling to maintain their numbers and their ministry, often in areas which are largely unresponsive to the Gospel which they have to preach. In one sense, then, in Evangelical terms the Biggies have no need for episcopal oversight – their incumbent fulfils this role and the large staff which he oversees look up to him as the rest of us look up to our bishops. Yet these large operations are the only ones which have the possible "clout" to ensure that Alternative Episcopal Oversight is provided for the smaller evangelical churches which undoubtedly do need it if they are not to fall prey to the policy of the diocese which is to close and amalgamate as many churches as possible, both in order to save money and to make opposition to their policies more difficult to achieve.

Knowing, as I do, many of those who loyally and sacrificially run the smaller shows, it was particularly disappointing to witness the plans which the Working Party was putting forward being shot to pieces. It was as if those who were secure were saying to those who are not "We're not sure what the way forward is for you, but we're not even prepared to try something which has been found to work for our fellow Anglicans in Forward in Faith because their ecclesiology has developed far beyond ours and we're not sure whether it is sound or not. Meanwhile we will deal with problems which arise piecemeal, one by one and hope that everything works out for the best. We for our part will continue our Gospel Ministry as if nothing needed doing”.

All of that had a horribly familiar ring to my ears. Between 1960 and 1976 in the USA many Anglicans were shouting for help in the face of bishops who not only preached heretical doctrines but constantly disobeyed the canon law of the Church. At that time there were something of the order of a hundred and fifty bishops who were recognizably orthodox in holding fast the principles of Anglicanism.

Again and again the opportunity came for decisive action, and again and again the chance was missed, either because this or that “wasn't quite the right issue” or it “wasn't quite the right time”.

The electoral system which obtains in ECUSA meant that the number of bishops of this persuasion shrank consistently until now they are reduced to four or five. Because of their inaction in the past even these few remaining bishops are now beginning to realise that (to adapt Matthew Arnold's words of 150 years ago) "ECUSA as she now is no human power can save"

Well, we must wait and see what happens post-Kampala and in Portugal in the next few months. One thing is quite certain: a do-nothing strategy will get you nowhere. I am, personally, fearful for the future both of Anglicanism in the USA and Reform in England. Let us hope that my fears prove groundless. But at least it looks on the present showing that The Case for a Free Province of the Church of England is destined to run and run for a good long while yet.

Return to Rock Home Page

Return to Trushare Home Page

Return to In England Now Pages