My recent blog post on the topic of disaffected Anglicans in Oxford writing to their bishops seems to have struck a chord. I queried whether the 100+ clergy and laity who signed the letter on behalf of ‘Concerned Anglicans’ spoke for anyone beyond themselves. This letter could be understood to be the work of a small group which was then circulated to others known to them through social media. Numerous virtual communities like this exist on the internet. Many people are happy to add their names to a protest, particularly if it does not involve them in any work themselves. In short, I believe that this was a small group of politically minded church leaders who then appealed to other members of their internet tribes. Certainly, there seems little evidence of the protest reaching the lay people in the parishes. One anonymous lay person wrote to this blog, claiming that no attempt was made by the clergy of his church to consult or even inform the wider congregations of an intention to sign.
My curiosity about the conservative forces at work in the Diocese of Oxford has led me to look more deeply at the signatories to have a better understanding, how these networks work, particularly if they are bypassing, for the most part, parish congregations. This examination has proved fascinating and as far as I am concerned, it severely weakens any claim that the Diocese of Oxford is facing a grass-root challenge to its leadership or authority. I have tried to examine the evidence of the signatures, being as objective as I can.
The first concern I have is that there are a cluster of organisations in the Oxford area which are, arguably, not Anglican. It is unclear to me whether an organisation which is founded, financed and presumably directed sometimes from abroad by a non-Anglican can ever be said to be working in the interests of the Church of England. Such an organisation may have Anglican staff working for it, but an Anglican director does not, to my mind, necessarily create an Anglican institution. I noted among the signatures of retired clergy the name of Chris Sugden, who used to head up the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies. As an Anglican with a general License from the Bishop, he obtained a place on General Synod where he forcefully represented the concerns of REFORM and the interests of conservative evangelicals for many years. I wonder how many of those who voted for him understood the source of finance which has kept his Centre going for over twenty to thirty years. It was not money raised in this country. According to Stephen Bates, the Centre depended largely on American money. One of the funders is the well-known Howard Ahmanson who has placed millions into trusts to promote ultra-conservative causes, religious and political. Money from the same source has been linked to the setting up of a subversive group which did much to undermine the Lambeth Conference of 1998. Ahmanson’s concerns are about as far away as one can imagine from main-stream Anglican ones. He is committed to the ideas of ‘Reconstructionism’. This, following the ideas of Rushdoony, seeks to rebuild society after the models of Old Testament law. Reconstructionism would involve the death sentence for gays and adulterers. Ahmanson has always maintained direct contact with the Centre by placing one of his employees to sit on the management team of the Centre. Meanwhile his foundation will be ensuring that its money furthers any and every group that supports similar rightist conservative Christian causes.
A second organisation appears on the list with considerable financial resources, represented by the signature of its director, Paul Bolton, of the Titus Trust. This signature is in addition to the five or six other names identified as former campers at Iwerne Minster. The Titus Trust is a group that currently organizes these camps for public school boys. The Trust is anxious to locate itself outside the Church of England and preserve a separate legal identity. Since the emergence of the Smyth scandal, many journalists and others have started to take an interest in this organisation and its history. All the Trustees officers and campers, past and present are members of the Church of England, so it is hard to think of the organisation as anything other than Anglican. The published accounts for the charity suggest that it is extremely wealthy, but it is not clear why such large sums are needed or where they come from. Any organisation which handles large sums of money is naturally going to be regarded with a certain degree of concern. The legacy of the Smyth scandal and the way that criminal behaviour was buried within the organisation for thirty years is still a continuing unhealed wound for the organisation. Money, social influence and secrecy are a toxic mix. Until the organisation comes clean over its past, it will continue to attract conspiracy theories as to whether any of this wealth is being used for ‘political’ purposes within the Church of England.
The final group on the edge of the Church of England is the so-called Latimer Minster network. From a reading of its web-site, this seems to be a cluster of church plants, based on one in Beaconsfield. These operate under a Bishop’s Mission Order (BMO) but their structure is unusual by Anglican standards, if not unique. What makes the Minster different from other such plants is that it was founded by the initiative and enterprise of a single family rather than an existing congregation. Initially, at any rate, the Orr-Ewing family seem to have drawn on considerable funds from somewhere to get the church under way. Frog Orr-Ewing and his wife are also networked with various other conservative organisations in and around Oxford such as the Ravi Zacharias Trust and the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics. Money never seems to be a problem for any organisation where the preservation and propagation of strict conservative theology is practised. As with the Titus Trust and the Oxford Centre for Mission studies, money (from foundations?) seems to flow into such groups without any obvious fund-raising efforts. The Latimer church plants do not have permanent buildings but the headquarters at Beaconsfield conducts worship, ministry and instruction in a large tent. The numbers of staff serving the various centres is impressive. The potential problem of a single family having done so much to bring a new church into being is that they will likely insist in managing every part of its life and stamp not only their personality but also their theology. One has to wonder how the oversight of bishops will continue to function well in what feels like an independent church set-up. Even if it retains its recognition from the Oxford diocese as a BMO, it will have to conform to at least some of the disciplines and boundaries that already exist for serving clergy. Latimer Minister does not seem like a place where, on the face of it, such limits would be easily managed.
I have mentioned three organisations represented on the list of signatures that are around the margins of Anglicanism. One is a part of the formal Anglican structure while the other two are independent. As conservative groups with strong ties to conservative theology they all share the ability to attract wealth to themselves with apparent ease. This combination of fundamentalist beliefs, wealth and power is the challenge that the more moderate parts of the Church of England have to face. As long as conservatives seem able to attract wealth they will always, at one level, appear strong. But, I would maintain, the moment groups or individuals buy into this fundamentalist gospel, they betray the Anglican genius for tolerance, inclusion and love. I query whether we should allow Anglicans who serve an organisation outside the oversight of bishops the privilege of sharing the Anglican name. But it is not up to me to express an opinion as to who is and who is not Anglican. I merely observe that the church men and women who rage against the eirenic letter of October 2018 from the four Anglican bishops in Oxford seem to have somewhere lost that moderation and equanimity in favour of an intolerance and passion against what they do not like. Rage, passion and scapegoating are not Anglican qualities. I have said many times that Anglicanism works best when it is able to be inclusive, tolerate difference and promote generosity towards those it disagrees with. These are not the values of these groups or the signatories of the letter. Oxford bishops are being challenged by groups of Christians who would like to be identified as Anglican. Just because rage and intolerance somehow attract wealth, that does not make them right.
‘Frog’ Orr-Ewing built on some strong foundations when he ministered in Peckham, All Saints’. The problem was that when he departed, the leaves from the mysteriously abundant money tree that financed a huge stipendiary staff team [lay and ordained] no longer fell on the parish, and his [excellent and thoroughly Anglican Evangelical] successor had the unenviable task of organising redundancies and severe cost cutting before the church could again achieve equilibrium.
Thank you Nicholas for this very helpful anecdote and the image that goes with it. It helps to re-emphasise my point that contacts and the right sort of conservative belief structure do seem to be able to tap mysterious sources of wealth. That is never going to be healthy in a church set-up. I should have titled this piece ‘The power of money in the church!’
This is so depressing. It’s corruption in my opinion. I’m glad you’re highlighting these things, Stephen.
I have no problem with Anglican clergy (or laity) working for organisations outside the Church, or on the perimeter of it. Plenty are employed in education or chaplaincy in various settings, or have secular employment. That doesn’t make them less Anglican or priest. Nor would I like to see a situation where such involvement was policed by diocesan bishops or central Church structures.
For some years I was a member of a ‘new monastic’ community and on the whole it contributed greatly to my spiritual life, and sustained me in my ministry. The Church has been enriched, too, by mission societies and organisations such as UCCF, SPCK, the Fountain Trust, Acorn Trust, MOW, and any number of other organisations rooted in any and every wing of the Church.
I would be very reluctant, too, to label any person or organisation as ‘not Anglican’ just because they aren’t like traditional clergy or parishes. The last few years have seen some creative and enterprising forms of mission and ministry, including Bishops’ Mission Orders; pioneer ministry; Messy Church; Forest Church and so on. More power to their elbow.
However I do think that where such organisations attempt to exert influence on the Church’s policy and/or doctrine, we need clarity regarding their aims, objectives, staffing and – perhaps most of all – their source/s of funding. So while I’m not really bothered whether the signatories are pukka Anglicans, I think you’ve done valuable work, Stephen, in raising questions about the networks behind the Oxford Letter and where they get their money from.
Remembering of course that the mainstream church from which the four Bishops come is in part funded by hosting conferences supported by weapons companies at Church House and greedily grabbing back land with ore rich deposits underneath.
Where things come from may be interesting but not so important as the arguments themselves. The root argument is around sexual immorality in the Church, what is acceptable and what is not.
I know what you mean. But it isn’t the only thing. Those televangelists who preach a very Biblical line, but amass great wealth. It’s all important. We are supposed to live out our faith. Someone may never have stepped out of line sexually, but made money immorally, that’s important, too. I agree that CofE clergy need broad interests. But if they act as though they really belong to another church, while being paid, that’s wrong. As for homosexuality, I wish the teaching was better. Sermons tend to focus on speaking against prejudice and even violence. Fine, quite right too. But how to deal with the hair raising bits of the Bible? We were all told about those. If we are to look at them with new eyes, shouldn’t someone be tackling that?
There has been plenty of work done on the ‘hair raising bits of the Bible’ – for instance here file:///Users/janethfife/Desktop/Resources/Romans%201:26-27:%20A%20Clobber%20Passage%20That%20Should%20Lose%20Its%20Wallop%20•%20Unfundamentalist.webarchive. Other material can be found on the Thinking Anglicans site, which frequently covers the theological arguments re. same-sex relationships.
However, that is not what this blog is about, as Stephen has often said. Surviving Church is primarily about abuses of power; hence his interest in the powers behind the Oxford letter which threatened that some churches might seek alternative episcopal oversight if their own bishops didn’t come to heel.
You’re quite right Janet. I meant in sermons in churches where ordinary church goers can hear it. And yes, it wasn’t the main point, but it was mentioned, and people worry about it.
Yes, there should be more sermons on these scripture passages. I think many clergy tend to avoid anything contentious in church – which is understandable but, I think, mistaken.
I had a long-time policy of preaching on whichever of the set readings was most difficult, because I figured that’s what people needed help understanding. I also once preached a series on ‘The Banned Bible’ – some of the bits left out of the lectionary. But if you’re already getting flak from some in your congregation, it does take courage to preach on something controversial you think they might disagree with. Which takes us back to power, its uses and abuses!
“There was almost a weariness with interested readings of certain key texts, which tortuously attempt to repudiate the writer’s clear intention to condemn behaviour as bad. The Bible, when it occasionally takes up the subject of same-sex activity, presents it as a wrong choice.” – “A Challenge to Unity: same-sex relationships as an issue in theology and human sexuality.” C of S Report 2007.
There was no great money behind that report.
Jesus was supported by wealthy women – is it important to look into their wealthy background to look at Jesus? Do you see what I mean? I agree, immorality of whatever kind, financial or otherwise, needs to be looked at but at present we are looking at sexual immorality.
Are we?
Yes: on reading the letter and noting the signatories (including the vicar and Associate vicar of my own church and many others I have known in the past), two strong influences rang out; Iwerne Minster and Anglican Mainstream. Bash made celibacy a preferable choice (to David Watson when the latter told him that he was engaged ‘How are the mighty fallen!’). Anglican Mainstream, I think, has a hard ring to it in general.
I’m not familiar with the Anglican Mainstream, but I had noticed the Iwerne strand. There’s a strong Wycliffe Hall connection, too, and there’s a handful of parishes that crop up again and again in the histories of the signatories.
I know a number of those who signed, and most of them are nice enough chaps. I have nothing against them, although I differ with their views on this matter. I’m a little puzzled that they signed at all, since in my experience they have been reasonable and fairly moderate. Which is where we come back to what influences have been at work behind the scenes here.
I trained alongside several Iwerne men, have known Iwerne men in other contexts, and served a curacy at St. Michael-le-Belfrey (though that was after David Watson’s day). Iwerne teaching certainly does not seem to have prepared young men for healthy relationships and sound marriages – at least not in Bash’s time.
This Bulverism (“he said that because he comes from such-and-such a background”) is rather wearying. There is nothing wrong with exercising one’s strongly held beliefs in trying to hold the Church to its traditional and ecumenical faith. Prominent Evangelical Anglicans used their wealth and network of kindred spirits, family and friends to swing the Church around to their way of thinking in the past and no-on calls them out for their tactics now. Who were they? The Clapham Sect and William Wilberforce.
Leslie, I’m curious. If you’re wearied by SurvivingChurch’s continuing analyses of what power dynamics lie behind behaviours in and by Churches, why do you continue to read it?
Perhaps I can say how I came to this blog. I arrived at it because of my involvement in the investigation by a number of concerned evangelicals into a man called Tony Anthony – any interested can find him on Wikipedia as Evangelist or the Author of “Taming the Tiger”. I went to Trinity Church Brentwood to hear him speak and having my interest sparked in that place I came across Stephen’s blog and his support of those who wished to bring to light its abuses of truth and power.
I have followed the blog from time to time but have found that its contributors seem to be only on one side of the contemporary sexual behaviour debate in the Church, that side being contrary to the traditional and orthodox view which I share. I have found that my side of the Church has tended to be more targeted as where issues of power and abuse are to be seen and the more hidden but equally virulent strains on the other side have not been seen. I have been aware too that what I have said has not always been welcome and I do take note of what you say. Not being a kindred spirit with your outlooks and feelings perhaps it’s time to take a break from this community but in saying that may I add that I do feel good and important work is being done by you, particularly with Stephen’s persistence.
I think we need to hear your voice, Leslie. We, I hope can accept that we differ. I hope you know that.
Athena – My interests are more in issues in the Church not in persons whereas Stephen’s blog is about abuse in the Church and therefore necessarily about persons. I came to the blog through the abuse subject (see my previous contribution) but subsequently when I have contributed it has usually been because I thought traditional and orthodox Christianity was in danger of being unfairly associated with abusive situations and I wanted to defend it – sexual immorality invariably cropping up. Standing firm to the Church’s traditional teaching is not abuse of homosexual people. However this is not a blog designed to argue about truth and falsehood in homosexual behaviour but it does certainly have a place in speaking for the care and protection of homosexual people. Maybe my flag has flown for long enough and I should depart in the meantime.
Stephen, may I make 2 left-field observations which may or may not shed light? Firstly here, second one later. Who remembers the Sheffield Nine O’Clock Service disaster? Am I alone in getting the strong scent of Deja Vu in Bishops Mission Orders generally, non-standard ones in particular? I thought that there were professional analyses of multiple aspects of the whole thing, but I’d like to believe that Bishops and hierarchy are aware of what went wrong, and how easily and how fast. My recollection is that leaving strong charismatic individuals without visible and EFFECTIVE supervision was at the heart of it. This seems to chime with some of your observations, alas …
Oh, I remember! I couldn’t figure out how anyone could be so naive! How did they do nothing for so long?
Several women reported their abuse to the archdeacon responsible for overseeing the project, and he did nothing. This being the Church of England, he was in no way penalised for mishandling the matter, but was later promoted to bishop.