Coekin wins appeal

In what must count as a big embarrassment for the Bishop of Southwark, Tom Butler, Richard Coekin has won his appeal against his loss of licence. Bishop Butler has been rebuked for his 'seriously flawed' procedure in a judgement that says 'summary revocation was a disproportionate outcome in the circumstances of the case.' There are some links below filling out the background to this complex story but briefly, last November the Bishop of Southwark revoked Coekin's licence after Coekin invited a Bishop from the Church of England in South Africa to ordain three curates. Butler had refused to ordain them but Coekin was also protesting at Butler's stance on civil partnerships. Had Coekin lost his appeal, he would have become a martyr of the conservative right in the current battle over homosexuality. The appeal was heard by the Bishop of Winchester, Michael Scott-Joynt. As I write this, Scott-Joynt and Butler are ensconced in a meeting of the House of Bishops in Market Bosworth, Leicestershire. How I would love to be a fly on the wall at that meeting right now, partaking of their undoubted brotherly civility as they discuss matters of episcopal import, matters thought to include civil partnerships. You can read my original blog on this here. And you can read Stephen Bates' anti-evangelical and anti-Rowan polemic here. Archbishop shafts Bishop of Southwark is the thrust of it...Although as Andrew Goddard indicates in this Fulcrum article, the decision might not be quite so clear-cut in favour of Coekin as it first appears. A summary of the legalm arguments on both sides can be found here on the website of the Co-Mission website of Coekin's Dundonald church.

In his report, Winchester recommends that Coekin must give some undertakings, namely not to become involved in any more ordination services and, more importantly, 'strictly to abide by all general or specific directions given by the Bishop of Southwark concerning church planting or initiatives.'  Dr Rowan Williams says however that he will not require any specific promise from Coekin because these undertakings are implicit in his ordination vows. He also says in his determination that Coekin's conduct 'merited censure'. You can see my original story on this debate here. Here and here are some useful links from the Thinking Anglicans archives and here is the Church Times story on the appeal. Here is the Anglican Mainstream statement from the time and also the Fulcrum discussion on the issue. This photo shows Richard Coekin, on the right, with Andy Fenton, one of the three curates ordained in the service that resulted in the revocation. My story on this for Times Online is here.

The Archbishop of Canterbury's statement is here . Dr Williams said: ‘My hope and expectation for the diocese of Southwark and for the ministry of Dundonald church and its minister, the Rev Richard Coekin, is that they will now all be able to draw a line under the episode examined so thoroughly in the bishop’s report, and commit themselves to renewed collaboration in the mission of Christ in the months and years ahead.' The full report and Dr Williams' determination are also published on his website.

In his determination, Dr Williams says: 'The Appellant must, however, understand that the restoration of his licence as a minister in the Church of England carries its own responsibilities. It leaves him bound to submit to the Respondent’s episcopal authority and accountable for his actions to the wider Church. It remains only for me to emphasise the commitment of the whole Church of England to its mission as the national Church. It is right that this commitment should be worked out in a variety of forms within our dioceses (as the forthcoming Dioceses Pastoral and Mission Measure will emphasise), and inevitable that tensions will arise as different emphases emerge within the rich pattern of our life together.'

This prefigures the increased flexibility that is being brought to bear on the structures of England's parochial and diocesan system. The measure has been through revision committee and is going back to General Synod next month.

The judgement and the Archbishop's response also indicate clearly how Dr Williams' thoughts are progressing in his attempts to maintain the unity of his Church. The judgement as a whole gives room for hope that schism may not, in the end, be inevitable.

However,  different interpretations are already being spun, and spun 'outrageously' according to one source. Dr Williams indicates in his statement that the reason the appeal succeeded was because 'the summary procedure followed by the Bishop was technically flawed.' But in the judgement itself, the phrase used is 'seriously flawed'. Attention is given to Coekin's 10 years of 'dedicated and energetic' ministry in Southwark. Winchester says that even taking into account Coekin's disregard for Butler's responsibility for decisions on ordination and his complicity in a breach of canon law, 'summary revocation was a disproportionate outcome in the circumstanes of the case.'

However, Coekin does not escape censure. Bishop Scott-Joynt indicates how, in their pleadings, both the warring parties muddied the waters. '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.'  In church law, doctrinal motives cannot be invoked to justify breaking the law. Scott-Joynt continues: 'On the respondent's side, matters were pleaded relating to the appellant's work in relation to church planting, which was said to have involved breaches of Canon Law.'

Winchester decided to exclude such 'collateral issues' that featured in the initial pleadings. I love the use of the word 'collateral'. Truly this is a Church at war.

And as for the curates, it would appear from the report that they are validly ordained, but not into the Church of England. They are ordained into the Church of England in South Africa. The CofE recognises the orders and ministry of Cesa but is not in communion with it. So now we have, in Wimbledon, a small number of curates which I am strongly tempted to dignify with the title of: 'Church of England in South Africa in England.'

My suggestion to Bishop Butler is that he be the one to ordain these three men to the priesthood in the Church of England. Victory through defeat and all that. He's already saved All Saints, Battersea by giving it a priest and he's a bit of a hero of mine for doing that. When I said to him at the appeal: 'Come on bishop, you've saved All Saints, can't you save this one too?' he looked distinctly unimpressed. Now's the time for him to prove his truly broad, liberal Anglican heart, by welcoming Coekin back into the fold. And my advice to Coekin is that he gives a little something back to Southwark. It is shocking that the parishes pay nothing at all in quota. Parsimony is not a vice I traditionally associate with evangelicals.

But since when did anyone take any notice of what I think?

Comments

[Paul Dawson]

Ruth, regarding your statement that “it is shocking that the Co-Mission congregations don’t pay any parish quota.”

Perhaps as one of the ministers at Dundonald Church I can help explain the situation here.

When Dundonald Church was planted in 1990 it was as a ‘proprietary chapel’, the same status in Anglican terms as its parent church, Emmanuel Wimbledon. This means Dundonald and all the plants from it are entirely self-financing. We receive no money at all for staff salaries, no houses, no buildings from the diocese. Providing all these for our growing congregations has been a massive financial burden met with extraordinary generosity from the lay people of the congregations.

Not being parish churches, receiving no money from the diocese we are not required to give anything to the diocese. However we are providing eight fully-funded thriving congregations (currently totaling over 600 adults and 150 children, with the vast majority of the adults aged under 40) at no cost to the diocese.

In addition we give away around 20% of our income to missionary and mercy ministries and training projects both in the UK and overseas and to other churches in less-well-off areas in this country.

[Mike Homfray]

So I take it that Coekin is now willing to be under the authority of his Bishop, Tom Butler, who has not changed his views on civil partnerships, and is neither expected nor required to?

Think Stephen Bates got it about right - as the only logical thing to do with religious evangelicals and conservatives is oppose them, or at least ensure their influence only stays in the Church, which most people don't care about anyway. As long as they have no influence in the running of the country.

[Phil Craig]

Hi Ruth,

Thanks for some interesting thoughts on all this. I'm not sure I agree with your final point on parsimony though: there are two sides to the coin.

As I understand it, the eight congregations within the co-mission network do not pay money to the diocese, but they have received little or no support from the diocese (financial or otherwise).

The diocese gets eight flourishing congregations that are entirely self-funding. Doesn't sound bad to me. Of course, there is clearly room for warmer relations on that front--but I wouldn't lay the blame for the financial situation solely at the co-mission network's door.

Phil

[Nersen Pillay]

Sorry - main point I meant to make to Terry was that Coekin and other "evangelicals" are perfectly at home in the CofE because its roots are Biblical even if it has been hijacked by a "liberal" group.

The fact that evangelcals staying has strengthened the CofE and that evangelcal churches flourish within the CofE despite the disproportionate influence of "liberals" in the hierarchy, shows that faithful Christian people were right to stay in and, given the roots of Anglicanism are in the Bible, there is no need to leave it to people who have made up their own religion.

[Nersen Pillay]

Terry Hamblin writes: "Had evangelical Anglicans heeded the call of Martyn Lloyd Jones in the 1960s to come out from among them the church in England would have been immeasurably stronger."

Terry - not sure you are aware of the facts but even in the Church of England, the strong, growing, large churches are "evangelical" - whether "conservative" or "charismatic."

Without "evangelical" churches, the CofE would be in a terrible position since the "liberal" churches have small, dwindling nos and are subsidised by the evangelicals.(Maybe this is why they do not start their own church with articles they can agree with?)

Why do you think Rowan Wiliams is trying so hard to keep the evangelcals in the CofE if you are right and the church would be stronger without evangelcals?

Look at the facts of where the people and growth are in the church of England an you will find that the "inclusive" (non-evangelical" churches include fewer people all the time because they have a very weak, made-up religion but those churches which base their teaching firmly on the Bible have been growing strongly in England for decades.

Had evangelical Anglicans heeded the call of Martyn Lloyd Jones to leave the CofE in the 1960s, the Church of England would be much weaker than it is today since there is no growth or strength in the "liberal" churches (just deficits).....but there would have been more, large, independent evangelical churches.

[Terry Hamblin]

As an evangelical, I have mixed feelings about this outcome. The Overseer of Winchester has given the Overseer of Southwark a bit of a bloody nose over a petulant piece of spite, but only in defence of the Anglican Church's claim to be a broad unmbrella under which everyone may shelter. Had evangelical Anglicans heeded the call of Martyn Lloyd Jones in the 1960s to come out from among them the church in England would have been immeasurably stronger. In South Africa the evangelicals established a separate church which is now planting evangelical islands in that sea of authoritarian liberalism that is Southwark.

Surely, Mr Coekin would be more at home among Free Evangelicals, Baptists, Methodists and Brethren than among the ritualists and liberals who control the Church of England.

[Nersen Pillay]

http://www.southwark.anglican.org/news/pr308.htm

Very interesting statement from the Bishop of Southwark on the ABC's decision - were it not for a grudging few words mentioning the reversal of his actions, it almost sounds as if Tom Butler was described as wise and correct in his persecution of Richard Coekin.

Sad to see bishops bringing the CofE into disrepute and causing internal strife and discord....and then lacking the grace to repent when the ABC has to reverse their pernicious actions.

A bishop is supposed to be a figure of unity and not make unwise decisions, persecuting his own ministers, which damage the reputation of the church.Tom Butler - are you sure you are in the right job?

[Roger Pearse]

It is disturbing that in the 21st century a Church of England bishop should engage in all this legal stuff. Would he have been satisfied, gleeful even, if Mr Coekin had simply declared UDI and yet another free church had resulted? Is talk of tolerance and Christian unity meaningful when bishops start trying to expel their parishes? Mr Coekin clearly is devoted to the CofE. Since he has been a curate for 10 years, it would seem such devotion serves those who feel it ill.

But the Bishop of Winchester has saved the situation, by failing to support the actions of the bloodthirsty Bishop of Southwark. Few would have predicted such an outcome, given Dr Scott-Joynt's liberal credentials (and isn't it sick that in our age 'liberal'='persecutor'). With a bit more wisdom of this kind, such situations should never arise.