A great deal has been written to date on the conduct and fall-out between Revd Richard Coekin and the Bishop of Southwark. I do not propose to go over old ground, and there is much material which can be found elsewhere. Furthermore I do not wish to plough over the legal ramifications which have already received a careful treatment from Andrew Goddard on this website.
There are, however, a number of issues which will need to be addressed by more than merely Mr Coekin and his bishop if the ongoing mission within the Diocese of Southwark is not to be further impaired by ongoing rancour. The written understandings of the judgement both have issued do not bode well for conciliation, and we must hope that now the immediate posturing is concluded there may be a genuine and prayerful attempt to seek an understanding for mission that the Bishop is content to oversee, and Mr Coekin is keen to promote.
It might be assumed, given the court case just past, that the major issue to resolve was the relationship between these two. This would, however, be a considerable over-simplification. Another important factor in all of this has been the reaction of the diocese. The bishop received the backing of synod for his action at the time, implicitly if not by actual vote, and this should weigh in the mind of Mr Coekin as he, no doubt, works through future church planting initiatives. Furthermore, whilst the bishop might expect to receive the support of his synod, the unexpected factor was the support from a large number of evangelical clergy within the diocese, a group which the outsider might naturally have expected to sympathise with Mr Coekin. Furthermore this evangelical support for the bishop has not dissipated with the outcome of the case, as a letter sent this week to Bishop Butler demonstrates. Whilst there will be those that will wish to suggest the group of evangelicals have, in some way 'sold out', this would appear not only to be a gross over-simplification of the group involved, representing much of the Southwark DEU, but also to be avoiding the issues in favour of personal deprecation.
It is the ongoing support of this evangelical group that suggests that something is amiss in a far more substantial way than the simple case between bishop and priest indicates. At the heart appears to be a serious difference of opinion concerning the Co-Mission church planting initiatives, for which Mr Coekin has been responsible. A number of clergy, evangelical and otherwise have complained quite seriously at what they see has been a major lack of consultation. There is a body of evidence which supports this view. On the other hand Co-Mission's supporters have argued that in parishes where less than two percent of the population attend church this should not be a concern. They will argue that there are clearly plenty of souls to seek out, and that the fears of existing parochial clergy that they will be poaching members is groundless. The question as to whether it is possible to pool resources and work together does not always seem to have been seriously addressed. The fact that there is a diocesan strategy for church planting which expects such co-operation makes this apparent omission all the more inexplicable. The only way in which this can be judged is of course by the fruit which emerges from these plants, and whether they impact negatively on the church communities already in place. It appears that it is this that is at the heart of evangelical challenges to Mr Coekin and Co-Mission, that its plants have caused significant disruption to existing church communities, and that is a fundamental issue which its leadership must address, whether it is real or perceived, if there is to be reconciliation with evangelical colleagues.
Added to this is the fact that whereas parish churches pay a considerable share of income to the diocese, much of which covers the cost of ministry in seriously deprived parts of the diocese, the Co-Mission churches make no payment towards this at all through diocesan structures, leaving them the option of retaining resources for their own locally controlled ministry, or for direct payments to external mission projects which they are able to 'own' in a way that diocesan projects often do not allow for. Understandably the difference of approach can cause significant resentment, with the accusation being levelled that Co-Mission churches 'contribute nothing to the diocese.' This is almost certainly a harsh and unfair judgement, but one which I have heard on several occasions, and one which the Co-Mission churches would do well to dispel if at all possible.
On the other hand it is in the nature of parochial ministry to be, well, parochial, and this can sometimes lead to an unwillingness to accept that others can share in the work of the vineyard. Where church attendance is often so low it is surely obvious that considered mission and church planting could assist in the fundamental task of propagating the Gospel. But it must be ordered properly in order to avoid the tensions and disputes outlined above. It is precisely for this, within the Church of England, that diocesan structures exist, and why the oversight of a bishop is necessary. That is Anglican ecclesiology, and those who choose to be Anglican must, of necessity, acknowledge it.
I suspect here that this is a mindset that does not sit easily with the Co-Mission leadership, who are, I sense, at heart evangelists first and foremost. This is their strength, but also their weakness, for evangelism is a spiritual gift which often does not sit easily with other ministries. To the evangelist the matter is simple. Put simplistically there are souls to be gained, and all else must be set aside in pursuit of the harvest lest it be destroyed first. But the body of Christ also has its administrators, healers, teachers, prophets, apostles and pastors, and more, all of whom are needed, as are their ministries if the body is to function as God calls it. Whereas it is my experience that those granted many of these ministries can manage the necessary diplomacy of running a church, the evangelist, like the prophet, finds it sending them round the twist with frustration. I sympathise, but the mix is often explosive, as it appears to have been in this case.
All that said I believe there are a number of things which would greatly assist the reconciliation needed for effective mission. These are, in no particular order:
- A willingness by Bishop Butler actively to support and encourage church planting, even where local initiatives appear risky, or even sometimes strategically inconvenient.
- A willingness of Mr Coekin to set aside his reservations over Bishop Butler's theological views. This could be signified by an invitation to visit a Co-Mission church.
- A commitment by Co-Mission to work with existing church communities in supporting initiatives which Co-Mission will not ultimately control, and an acknowledgement of the spiritual authority of the incumbent of a parish into which they plant.
- A willingness of evangelical clergy to engage in joint projects with Co-Mission within the diocesan church planting scheme.
- A commitment by all parties to review any planting initiative and to take concerns expressed seriously, even when, in extremis, this might require the closure of a plant.
- A commitment by Co-Mission to acknowledge its place within the diocese by the token of making some real contribution towards the common diocesan fund.
- A promise by all parties to say nothing publically, but to meet and pray together regularly for at least a year, and hopefully much longer.
None of the above are simple matters, but their resolution would profoundly serve the cause of the Gospel in south London.
Simon is the Team Rector of Bridgnorth Team and Morville Group and a member of the General Synod.