CofE NEEDS TO BE FLEXIBLE IN FACE OF NEW ORTHODOX FELLOWSHIP

This article by Cranmer's Curate appeared in last week's Church of England Newspaper:

A predictable result of the launch of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans in the UK on July 6th in Westminster will be more irregular ordinations.

The Covenant for the Church of England, promoted by Anglican Mainstream in 2006, starkly made the case for them: ‘We can no longer be constrained by an over-centralised and increasingly ineffective control that is stifling the natural development of ministry. If the local Bishop unreasonably withholds authorisation, we will pay for, train and commission the ministers that are needed, and seek official Anglican recognition for them.’

Irregular ordinations have already been happening at the grass-roots and they raise urgent questions:

· How objective are those sponsoring such ordinations? Reform, for example, is to a significant extent a network based on friendships. A friend wants colleagues ordained for his thriving church planting network. The needs of ministry demand more hands on deck. An orthodox overseas bishop is duly parachuted in. But how rigorously have the candidates been checked? Is there not a danger that these friendship networks may be prone to be too hasty in the laying on of hands?

· What next for those who are ordained as assistant ministers in the church planting networks? If official Anglican recognition is not forthcoming, then what happens to those who have the gifts to lead an established parish church into growth? Will they ever be given the opportunity to use their God-given gifts in a turnaround parish church serving Christ in a local community?

These are very real concerns for a denomination that is facing grave numerical and financial challenges. At the risk of sounding presumptuous, the bishops would be well-advised to adopt a flexible approach rather than a strictly institutional response. What is achieved by putting excessive institutional obstacles in the way of the deployment of a potentially good incumbent for a parish just because he has an irregular ordination on his CV?

The undesirable secrecy surrounding such ordinations due to the fear of injunctions - a secrecy that gives the network leader undue control and prominence - is surely best countered by a generous institutional response.

A Conservative Evangelical flying bishop would undoubtedly help to build accountability and wider authorisation into these ineluctable grass-roots pressures towards irregular ordinations. An ideal candidate would be Reform trustee the Revd Jonathan Fletcher, who is already exercising a de factor episcopal ministry in this constituency. He is supportive of church planting but his public statements reveal a willingness to act as a restraining influence on its excesses; he is a passionate advocate for the socio-economic diversity of the Church of England and is a strong supporter of the smaller church; he is also trusted by the Evangelical Charismatic constituency, which gives him a broader base.

The House of Bishops is going to need to be creative and flexible in the teeth of the challenges posed by the launch of the FCA in the UK. There is no merit in defensive institutional responses.

Long-term, a vibrant stream of future ministers for a diversity of local churches could be cut off at source and a constituency with much to offer the wider Church could retreat into a sub-cultural ghetto.