Theology — liberal and too liberal?

From the Revd Professor Steven Shakespeare

Sir, — I was delighted to see the 40th anniversary of the Revd Don Cupitt’s The Sea of Faith TV series and book marked so fully (Faith and Features, 28 June).

Many of us are grateful for Mr Cupitt’s kindness and inspiration as a teacher and friend. But the importance of his work should also be recognised.

His opponents dismissed him as an atheist, a wrecker. They misunderstood, perhaps too comfortable in their own certainties. His project was always constructive. He sought a way to live with religious seriousness while critiquing all illusions and authorities.

Today, our church theology is too often bland and uncritical, or obscurely specialist. One has only to follow debates about sexuality in the Church of England to see this; it is as if biblical criticism never happened. Everywhere, new orthodoxies are created and appeased. And yet many in the churches wrestle with the same doubts and challenges that Mr Cupitt explored.

We need people like him.
STEVEN SHAKESPEARE
1 Ingledene Road
Liverpool L18 3HJ

From the Revd Professor Ian Bradley

Sir, — I feel the need to stick up for liberal theology as it has come under attack in the Church Times in recent weeks.

First, there was the Revd Bernard Minton’s comment (Letters, 14 June) that “liberal theologians of various sorts over the past 100 years” have abandoned a belief in God as anything other than a figment of the human imagination. Then, two weeks later, Professor Catherine Pickstock asserts in her interesting article on the Revd Don Cupitt (Features, 28 June) that he “broke with the musty hypocrisy of most Anglican liberal theology”.

I find nothing musty or hypocritical in liberal theology, Anglican or other, but, rather, an honest, humble, and forward-looking openness. Nor have the liberal theologians that I read and know (and among whom I count myself) abandoned a belief in God as having a real and objective identity, although we may lean towards the apophatic and the language of mystery in what we feel able to say and write.

I appreciate that liberalism in theology, as in politics, is out of fashion now, but I and others still rejoice that it has not altogether disappeared from the Church of England, and believe that it still has something important to say in an increasingly polarised and intolerant culture.

IAN BRADLEY
4 Donaldson Gardens
St Andrews
Fife KY16 9DN

From Canon Roger Arguile

Sir, — I know I am getting old, but what on earth or heaven was Professor Catherine Pickstock on about? The Revd Don Cupitt’s thought, as she outlined it, moved over time, and it is difficult to track it, but two things strike me as being both clear and wrong. Post-modernism, the conviction that reality, whatever that is, is a mental construction will not influence any bus conductor considering whether the lorry in front is real nor, more broadly, when the rest of us are considering what to do with the day. Feeding people seems a good idea.

The second idea, that Darwinism in its modern form has randomness at its heart, has been exploded at a scientific level by such as Dennis Noble, but by any seeing person who notices purposiveness or, if you like, teleology in the behaviour of every living creature. “Mind” is everywhere evident. That is not to say that the Churches have responded well to the ways in which our world has changed; there are huge questions, particularly those raised by developments in psychology and artificial intelligence, little of which seems to figure in church teaching, even though some of the answers lie in front of our noses.

But, finally, on this feast of St Peter and St Paul, I ask what this famous duo would have made of her probable answer to the question put to them in different ways “What can we do to be saved?” Or, as John Baker put it many years ago in his lovely book The Foolishness of God, “the question is not “What will Jones swallow?” I am Jones wanting something to eat.” I know we need professors, but really!

R. H. W. ARGUILE
10 Marsh Lane
Wells-next-the-Sea
Norfolk NR23 1EG

Diocese of Sheffield and a case of ‘gay exorcism’

From the Bishop of Sheffield

Sir, — In your report “Probe upholds complaint of ‘gay exorcism’” (News, 5 July), you state that the report of the independent investigation “was published by the diocese of Sheffield on Monday evening, after it was leaked to the BBC”. This creates the impression that, when we chose to publish, our hand had been forced by the BBC. That is not the case.

When I met the complainant on 11 June, I was able to assure him of our commitment to publishing both parts of the report, Stage 1 (completed in November 2023) and Stage 2 (completed in February 2024). Within a week of that meeting, the three key stakeholders involved in agreeing the Terms of Reference for the investigation (the diocese of Sheffield, the Yorkshire Baptist Association, and the Trustees of Network Church Sheffield) had agreed the necessary redactions. Before publication, however, we also required the “sign-off” of Barnardos (the investigating body), and this took almost a further fortnight to achieve. We heard from the investigators on Thursday 27 June that their own proposed redactions would be with us by “late on Monday” 1 July.

I was contacted by a journalist from the BBC in relation to this story on Friday 28 June, asking for a statement by 5 p.m. on Monday. I suggested that the journalist might prefer to wait until the following day, since we expected to publish the report on the Monday, but was told that there was no scope to move the deadline. The first time I became aware that a copy of the report had been leaked to the BBC was when their article was published on Tuesday 2nd. I have to assume that it was a complete coincidence that the deadline given to us by the BBC corresponded so closely to our own timetable to publish.

PETE SHEFFIELD
Bishopscroft, Snaithing Lane
Sheffield S10 3LG

Synod’s workings in regard to the sexuality debate

From Mrs April Alexander

Sir, — The Alliance has issued a warning to the Archbishops ”that if a further departure from the Church’s doctrine takes place, it will have no choice but to establish a ‘de facto parallel Province’ within the Church of England and take further actions to protect and secure orthodoxy. . . The Alliance will take action, with immediate effect, to create a new pre-ordination stream for potential ordinands, in partnership with Orthodox Bishops” (post on the Church of England Evangelical Council’s website, 27 June) (News, 5 July).

Helen King, on the Via Media blog, pointed out that it is her understanding from recent discussions on the matter that the Evangelicals still want to participate in the General Synod. Of course they do! They have been over-represented on the General Synod for years, and that is why the rest of us are caught up in this unedifying conflict in which, the Council points out, they, for their part, cannot “agree to disagree” or to “disagree well”.

If they form a “parallel Province”, this participation would appear difficult to achieve; no other Province has members of General Synods who are not from the Church of that Province. If this wish is granted none the less, however, there should be three provisos for which remaining members of the Church of England’s General Synod should strive.

Evangelicals, as a separate Province, with representation in the General Synod of the C of E, should be allocated a particular number of seats proportionate to their numbers (or the number of their parishes or priests), and they should run their own separate elections to fill those seats and not participate in the elections of others (and vice versa).Currently, they claim 2000 priests, while the Church Of England counted 20,000 C of E ministers in 2020.

This would give us a never-to-be-repeated opportunity to have an Evangelical representation in the Synod (especially in the House of Laity) which is commensurate with the respective numbers rather than the gross over-representation that we have seen of late.

For “in-Synod” elections — e.g. Church Commissioners, Pensions Board, Crown Nominations Commission (CNC) — Synod members from the parallel Province should be able to elect an appropriate number of representatives (see above) from among themselves and not be free to vote for other representatives (and vice versa).

Finally, for a move as momentous as joining a parallel Province, these Evangelicals should be obliged to seek the assent of the whole parish at the APCM rather than a secret ballot of the PCC of which the congregation at large may be totally unaware.

APRIL ALEXANDER
Member of the General Synod (2000-21) and CNC (2008-13)
59 High Street
Bletchingley
Redhill RH1 4PB

From Mr Steve Vince

Sir, — The General Synod undoubtedly can change the Church’s doctrine on sex and marriage. Whether or not it should do so is a matter for debate (which I would look forward to). But the point is that it has not done so; and, unless and until it does (and that must mean the Canon B2 process), it cannot lawfully authorise liturgy, or clerical conduct, contrary to the current doctrine — and neither can the House of Bishops.

STEVE VINCE
13 Selwyn Close
Wolverhampton WV2 4NQ

The Light in St Paul’s

From Canon Nicholas Cranfield

Sir, — William Holman Hunt painted three versions of The Light of the World, the first two of which hang in Keble College Chapel, Oxford, and Manchester Art Gallery. He completed the third version in 1904, which he called “Sermon in a frame”. It was first sent around the Empire, to Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, and Australia, and then bought from the artist by the ship owner Charles Booth (1840-1916).

Booth, who is famous for his survey of London poverty, donated it to St Paul’s Cathedral on condition that it be made freely accessible to visitors.

For some years, the work has served as an altarpiece for the Middlesex Chapel in the north aisle, but this summer the painting and its frame are being restored, and it is planned to put it back in the south nave aisle where it had been previously.

I understand that funding is being drawn from a number of City interests, and I hope that they encourage the Dean and Chapter to ensure that it is “freely accessible”. For most of the day, it will be behind a £25 pay wall.

My own experience of worshipping in the cathedral (whether in a clerical collar or not) is that stewards officiously discourage worshippers pausing to look at any of the art or monuments on the way in or out. Not what the social reformer Booth had in mind.

NICHOLAS CRANFIELD
10 Duke Humphrey Road
London SE3 0TY

Geza Vermes and the cleansing of the temple

From the Revd Andy Roland

Sir, — I read with great interest the article on Gaza Vermes (Faith, 21 June). Vermes’s work has been the cornerstone of my understanding of Jesus for more than 40 years.

There is, however, one key verse that he missed: Mark 11.16. After expelling the traders “he would not allow anyone to carry trade goods (skeue) through the temple.” Since the temple had the only eastern gateway in Jerusalem, it was a critical intervention. The only way he could have done it was to have enough of his followers at each gateway to outnumber the temple police, and so it was possible only at Passover. It was not a demonstration: it was an occupation, one that lasted to at least the following day (Mark 11.28) and probably the whole week.

In my book Jesus the Troublemaker, a historical reimagining that sets Jesus/Yeshua firmly in his Jewish context, it was a direct challenge that set in motion the final confrontation with the Temple authorities.

Why did Jesus engineer his death? We have the answer in his own words: “This is the new covenant in my blood.” (The phrase “for the forgiveness of sins” is a Matthaean addition). Did Jesus have in mind Exodus 24.8 in which Moses used blood sacrifice to create a new covenant people of God? That is you and me.

So, unlike Vermes, I contend that Jesus died for doing the right thing, in the right place, and at the right time.

ANDY ROLAND
100 Philbeach Gardens
London SW5 9ET

Decision-making on the Commissioners’ funds

From Dr Brian Hanson

Sir, — I moved a motion on behalf of my deanery synod in Chichester diocesan synod which proposed that the creation of a fund by the Church Commissioners of £100 million to mitigate their fund’s connection with the slave trade should not be implemented without prior debate and approval in the General Synod. That motion was carried in the diocesan synod and sent to the Commissioners’ Board.

My deanery took the view that the assets of the Church Commissioners are the assets of the Church of England, but we gained the impression that the Commissioners’ attitude is that it is their money and, out of their generosity, they make grants to the Church of England — and elsewhere.

The Commissioners gave the diocesan synod full and transparent charts and papers, from which it transpires that moneys are allocated by the Board of Governors (33 people) and the Archbishops’ Council (19 people). The recommendations on allocations, however, come from the Triennium Funding Working Group, made up of 11 people: five bishops, three clergy, and three laity.

In my view, it is not appropriate that decisions concerning large sums such as £100 million should, in effect, be decided by 11 people rather than the General Synod, with representatives elected from every diocese.

BRIAN HANSON
Lay chair, Storrington deanery synod
Garden Cottage, Steyning
West Sussex BN44 3AG

Hold on to your assets

From Mr Anthony Jennings

Sir, — Andrew Brown’s apparent misunderstanding of finance (Press, 5 July) illustrates where the dioceses have also gone wrong. You do not restore your finances by “selling assets”, as he suggests. If you sell an asset, you no longer have it; so you must then invest the proceeds in another asset, or your capital will erode.

Since the war, the Church has sold off more than 8000 parsonages, which would, at a conservative estimate, be worth £8 billion today. This has generated great wealth for private owners, but not for the Church.

ANTHONY JENNINGS
Former Director, Save Our Parsonages
Flat Z, 12-18 Bloomsbury Street
London WC1B 3QA