Richard Coekin’s license (part ii)
There is a remarkable insight into the way the Anglican Church works (or doesn't work) in the judgment of the Bishop of Winchester in the Richard Coekin case.
At the heart of the matter was Richard Coekin's statement to his Bishop that he considered he was in “temporary impaired communion” with him, and unable to accept his oversight. This was over significant doctrinal differences. In reality, the matter of the “irregular ordination” of some of Richard's ministry staff by a Bishop from outside of the Church of England, was of very little practical consequence for the Church of England, and, whilst annoying to Bishop Butler, was a side issue.
The key issue was doctrinal differences, and what to do when a Bishop and a minister in his Diocese disagree on fundamental issues—issues of such importance that without agreement, the church's work must be seriously impaired. (As indeed, was proving to be the case.)
But the ‘judge’ (the Bishop of Winchester) refused to consider these issues:
A preliminary assessment of the parties' pleadings convinced me that both sides had strayed into areas of dispute which had no immediate relevance to the appeal. For his part the Appellant sought to embark upon a challenge, from the standpoint of evangelical theology, to the House of Bishops' Pastoral Statement concerning Civil Partnerships. The revocation of his licence was, he alleged, the result of the principled stand which he has taken against the teaching contained in that document. An appeal in respect of the summary revocation of a licence is, however, a wholly inappropriate forum for testing matters of this nature. Furthermore, in conduct proceedings under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963 it was well established that a doctrinal motive could not be invoked to justify a breach of the law.
In other words, if when a Minister is being brought to task for failing to obey his Bishop, the Minister raises an underlying concern of doctrinal failure on the part of his Bishop—a failure which makes his submission to that Bishop untenable—Anglican officials will shut their eyes to the real issues. They will instead focus on the application of the finer points of canon law and procedural fairness to a relatively trivial side issue.
Such a head-in-the-sand approach—to suggest that Ministers must continue to obey their bishops no matter how far those bishops may have strayed from traditional Anglican belief and practice—will only serve to hasten the inevitability of Ministers seeking alternative Episcopal oversight, and the breaking down of the facade that is Anglican unity.