READERS may have heard of the “Ephesian Fund”, put forward by a group called the Alliance and vigorously promoted by the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) (News, 24 November 2023). It is intended as a “conscience fund” whereby churches can divert their giving from the diocesan pot and give it only to churches whose clergy share their particular stance on same-sex inclusion. All well and good, you might say, but is it biblical, and are there ethical considerations?
I ask the first question — is the fund biblical — as a former New Testament tutor, and because many churches attracted to supporting the fund seek, above all, to live biblical lifestyles.
Our modern-day principle of sharing wealth throughout the Church is based, ultimately, on that of the Early Church in Acts 4, and, following that, St Paul’s practice of “the Collection”. The Collection, which is referred to at various points in St Paul’s letters, was a freewill offering, but he urged his readers to set aside the first portion of their giving towards it. Eventually, he would personally oversee the safe transmission of this fund back to the “mother” church in Jerusalem.
Yet Paul was profoundly at odds with many in that Jerusalem church. He was even at odds with their officially “published” declaration regarding his Gentile mission. This declaration, recorded in Acts 15, permitted Gentiles to be included in church without having to be circumcised, but it forbade them to eat meat offered to idols and “requested” that the Jerusalem church would be “remembered” financially.
In Galatians 2, Paul speaks of “men who came from James” in Jerusalem. These men undermined Paul’s mission by saying that Gentiles should not be allowed to eat with Jewish Christians. The preaching of these “conservatives” was so strong that they even convinced Peter and Barnabas to join them. Paul was incandescent. The jury is out as to whether the visit of these men occurred before or after the declaration of Acts 15; but, either way, it indicates the make-up of this Jerusalem church. Prominent members were very much at odds with what Paul was doing.
WHEN it came, the declaration of Acts 15 was inevitably a compromise. How very Anglican the Early Church was! Paul got his basic demand, but the “food-law faction” maintained their position regarding food offered to idols. This was significant, since, in the ancient world, eating “temple food” was one of the main opportunities that most people had to consume meat.
In 1 Corinthians 8, Romans 14, and 1 Timothy 4, Paul clearly teaches that all foods may safely be eaten by all Christians, whether offered to idols or not. The only consideration is whether it will offend a fellow believer’s faith. So, we have no evidence of Paul upholding this aspect of the Acts 15 declaration, and clearly he profoundly disagreed with it. Probably, I think, he believed that their statement went against the gospel itself.
Yet he did continue with the Collection. The unity with these conservative Christians was in Christ, not in theology. We might well imagine the idea being put to him for Gentile churches to collect only for each other. Why should they give to a church that was so remote, both spiritually and geographically?
Yet Paul is adamant on this matter of unity. It simply does not seem credible that he would have supported a “conscience” collection, only for churches with which the givers were in full agreement. In fact, in his discussion of idol-meat, he pits conscience directly against unity — and concludes that conscience must take the back seat.
BIBLICAL questions aside, there are two serious ethical matters for those considering using the Ephesian Fund.
First, the fund diverts resources away from the diocese, and yet support from the diocese is still expected as well. If dissenting churches were splitting away from the Church of England — paying rent for their buildings, and so on — the Ephesian Fund would make more sense ethically. Yet its proponents claim that they are not causing a schism. The situation remains puzzling, inconsistent, and questionable.
Second, there is the question how switching to the fund is publicised in the church. Legally, a church council can use “unrestricted and undesignated” funds as it chooses. Decisions would have to be in the PCC minutes, of course, but who reads those?
If this fund is truly a matter of conscience, then, from an ethical point of view, it is essential that any move to adopt it in place of the status quo must be fully advertised and properly explained to all giving church members of the congregation.
I asked the CEEC whether there was a protocol on this, but received no reply. Such an explanation necessarily involves unpacking the issues at stake with Living in Love and Faith — but that is painful and risky. In some churches, I know that attempts at greater transparency have been made. Sometimes, the result has been that members have then diverted their personal giving to another church, so that it still goes into the central diocesan pot. In other instances, members have inevitably left — often quite painfully. The thing is, conscience works both ways.
The Revd Richard Dormandy is the Vicar of Holy Trinity, Tulse Hill, in the diocese of Southwark.