In an end of 2023 article, Nic Tall (Secretary of the General Synod Gender & Sexuality Group) presented a case that the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) has been "Plotting the Division of the Church of England" since at least 2016. Although drawing on research into the CEEC's recent activity, the piece is partial both in the sense of being incomplete and selective (whether intentionally so or simply due to the limits of research) and in the sense of not being in any sense impartial but rather clearly having an obvious axe to grind, at times bordering on developing a form of "conspiracy theory". It has, however, gained a reasonably high profile (particularly among those whose suspicions about what has been going on seem to be corroborated by the evidence he cites) and generated some lively discussion in the comments on the article and on social media more widely.
What follows is similarly inevitably partial in both senses -- I have served on CEEC throughout this time -- but seeks to help enable a more rounded picture to be developed. It is a personal perspective, offering my own observations from the inside, not a formal CEEC response. It also needs to be remembered that as in any network, whether Christian or secular, conservative or progressive, there are always a range of perspectives and motivations such that care needs to be taken about making simple characterisations that do not recognise the diversity of views held and ends sought within a group by the various people involved.

CEEC's Evolution

It is important to begin by setting the wider background. For a good number of years, CEEC was largely dominated by more conservative, complementarian, non-charismatic evangelicals. It is still often portrayed in these terms with "conservative evangelical" confusingly used sometimes in a novel and idiosyncratic way simply to mean the overwhelming majority within those who call themselves evangelicals who are committed to traditional teaching on marriage and sexual ethics. In fact, however, since a major review leading to a new constitution in 2014 it has become much more, rather than less, representative of evangelicals in the Church of England. That constitutional change has sometimes been criticised for adding two declarations (including one on marriage) taken from the Jerusalem Declaration but their inclusion was not particularly contentious at the time. It has really only become so many years later largely due to the objections of some who identify as evangelicals but have never been involved in or showed much interest in the life of CEEC in the last couple of decades or more. In EGGS (a distinct group, but one represented on CEEC) the decision noted in the article to include these affirmations caused a little more dissent but even there it was overwhelmingly carried with around 90% in favour.

CEEC's Primary Goals in CofE Sexuality Discussions

Among the early contributions of the reconstituted CEEC was to contribute to the wider CofE discussion with three significant resources:
• "Studies on the Bible and Same-Sex Relationships Since 2003" by Martin Davie,
• a February 2015 day consultation launching that publication with presentations offering responses to it from 3 contributors supportive of an inclusive position (Savi Hensman, Adrian Thatcher and Robert Song) and a range of people involved from networks holding a variety of views, including Affirming Evangelicals
• an articulation of traditional Christian teaching in relation to sexuality and marriage in Glorify God in Your Body: Human Identity and Flourishing in Marriage, Singleness and Friendship also by Martin Davie (2018) as a contribution to the LLF process.

Here, and in its encouragement for evangelicals to engage with the LLF process when it ended in 2020, alongside the central message of its film The Beautiful Story (whose critics I sought to respond to here), it is clear that the primary work of the CEEC for nearly a decade has not been to divide the Church of England. It has rather been to articulate the biblical and theological basis for the Church of England's teaching on marriage and sexuality and to seek to persuade the CofE to continue to teach this and to order its life in conformity to it.
It has, however, been clear for some time that a significant proportion within the CofE, as represented by Nic Tall, no longer accept this teaching or its implications for the church's life and want it to change and/or they disregard it in their own contexts. This raises serious questions for how we best live together. In particular, were the CofE to change its teaching or practice it was obvious to CEEC that this would clearly cause major problems for all those in CEEC, and many beyond its boundaries, who would be unable to accept such developments as they view them as a departure from Scripture and the teaching of the church catholic. The sad experience of other churches confirmed this outcome was a serious possibility in the CofE and showed that such changes could often lead to painful and costly divisions. In the light of this, the CEEC was eager to find a better way forward and one with theological integrity.

Discerning A Way Forward: The Development of "Differentiation"
Alongside its work on explaining and advocating for CofE teaching on marriage, CEEC therefore also began to do serious theological, ecclesiological and legal work on how to avoid the sort of bitter splits which developments had created in other Anglican provinces and the wider Communion. As Tall notes, the first paper to explore this was "Guarding the Deposit: Apostolic Truth for An Apostolic Church". This was produced in October 2016, discussed at the January 2017 CEEC (just before the bishops' response to the Shared Conversations was published), and made available on the CEEC website at the time (along with a shorter summary and a report of the meeting). This is hardly the actions of those malevolently plotting or making "secret plans" as an early comment on the article claimed! This paper set out why any change was unacceptable and would require some form of differentiation and it sketched out various possible forms of this that would recognise and give space for the different theologies present within the CofE.

Further theological work was then done resulting in Gospel, Church & Marriage: Preserving Apostolic Faith and Life, the fullest theological rationale for the CEEC's position but one not mentioned in the article. This too appeared on the front of the CEEC website after the 2018 Council meeting which received and discussed it but, six years on, its argument has never been seriously engaged with by those who prefer to caricature the CEEC's stance as one of "dividing the Church".

It is clear about both the real cause and the tragic nature of any such differentiation:

significant departure from apostolic teaching regrettably requires in response some degree of visible differentiation, in order formally to acknowledge and mark this distance. Moving away from 'apostolic' and 'catholic' teaching concerning what it means to be 'holy' will tragically mean we are less visibly 'one'...The potential forms and extent of such differentiation are varied and they must never lose sight of the goal of restored unity in apostolic truth... We do not wish for this differentiation, but recognise that it may become a tragic necessity.

More detailed theological and legal work was then commissioned in 2019 by CEEC, focussing particularly on the possible institutional implications of this stance which had been sketched at the end of "Guarding the Deposit" back in 2016. This resulted in a briefing paper being produced and considered by the Council in January 2020 entitled "Visibly Different". As CEEC explained in 2020, alongside noting its preparations for the General Synod elections, "Building on previous work, members received a comprehensive paper on possibilities for evangelicals within the Church of England in the years ahead. After discussion, the emergent themes were referred to the Council's Working Group for further development over the course of 2020". Part of that further development was the sharpening of the recognition that "differentiation" could take a range of forms within a spectrum at either end of which were the different outcomes of "separation" (ie leaving the CofE) and "continuation" (ie no structural provision within the CofE despite significant changes on marriage and sexual ethics), neither of which options the CEEC could advocate as what should be sought.

It was not just the need for further reflection that held back this paper's publication, in contrast to past policy of immediate release (The Visibly Different briefing paper was finally posted on the CEEC website when it was submitted to the Next Steps Group in May 2022 after the LLF consultation process concluded, along with an introduction and updating addendum). It was also respect for the ongoing LLF process (where it was still unclear initially as to whether the resources would consider such ecclesiological questions) and the beginning of private conversations between a number of CEEC members with leading bishops and campaigners (led by Bishop Steven Croft) pressing for change. These were an attempt to build relationships, trust and respect, explain the CEEC's concerns and convictions, hear and understand those of advocates for change, and seek to find some sort of consensus about what such change might mean for the ordering of the church's life and some form of differentiation. These "St Hugh's Conversations" were in their early stages in 2019-2020 and, like everything else, impacted by COVID. They were kept confidential for some time but their existence was eventually made public although they are not acknowledged anywhere by Nic Tall. This is presumably because they seriously undermine much of his argument and represent, I believe, a clear sign that the CEEC was not "plotting to divide the CofE" but rather committed to honest conversation and seeking an agreed way forward for the good of the whole church given our disagreements.

These conversations also appeared to have had some degree of success when the Bishop of Oxford, setting out his stall in "Together in Love and Faith" in late 2022, was clear that for the Church of England to move in the direction he wanted would require "Differentiation of provision and oversight for those clergy and parishes who believe that, in conscience, they need to distance themselves from the parts of the Church that welcome and affirm same-sex relationships" (p.24, also p.46) and that this would be needed for some even with proposals falling short of same-sex marriage, such as those later proposed in PLF and planned for the pastoral guidance. He was also clear, based on those St Hugh's Conversations, that simple "freedom of conscience" not to participate would be insufficient for some and "some alternative system of episcopal oversight may well be required to enable a differentiation of ministries, such as an alternative province and structure within the Church of England or a system of oversight from a neighbouring diocese" (p.47). It would appear that Nic Tall must conclude that Steven Croft was therefore to some degree at least complicit in "plotting the division of the Church of England".

One of the frustrations and concerns that I and some others had within the LLF process was that our resources although they touched on ecclesiological questions (in the book and in particular in the final session of the Course) failed to explore these sufficiently. The Next Steps Group also did not seriously consider them or ask FAOC to do so between 2020 and 2022. In fact, it would appear that it has been CEEC (almost alone) that has been doing serious thinking, publishing it, and seeking honest conversations about these theological, legal and political matters. The Anglican Communion, with the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury, is now seriously addressing what "good differentiation" might look like globally (including at IASCUFO's recent December meeting) and the House of Bishops is wrestling with possible forms of "structural pastoral provision". What CEEC has been seeking is to prevent separation (as happened in the US between TEC and ACNA) or expulsion (either dramatically or gradually) of one vision and perspective on these matters by the other. What it has been trying to think through is the development of forms of ecclesial structure which recognise our deep and irreconcilable theological differences and create some form of shared ecclesial space under the umbrella of "the Church of England" without requiring theological compromise. My view therefore remains basically that which I set out in November 2020 in part of my response to critics of The Beautiful Story:

This is not a case of "do what we want or we're leaving" but rather something like "we clearly have very different and seemingly incompatible views and so, unless we are to follow the disastrous pattern of other churches such as in North America, we need to talk about whether we can find some agreement as to how our structures will need to adapt if we are to provide space for these different views with integrity". In the words of one contributor on the film -- "no one knows the answer to this and I'm not offering a solution, I'm simply saying we may have to have that kind of a conversation in order that we can create safe, sustainable space for these clearly fractured groups across the Church of England as a whole". At present, CEEC has done more work than any other group to try and explain both why this is theologically coherent and some of the forms this might take from forms of alternative episcopal oversight (similar to but perhaps extending those already in existence in response to differences over women priests and bishops) to some form of new provincial arrangements.

The Church of England and The Anglican Communion

Another feature of the CEEC in recent years has been its deepening relationship with the wider Anglican Communion particularly through the Evangelical Fellowship in the Anglican Communion (EFAC) of which it is part and the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans (GSFA). One of the features of Nic Tall's article is its almost total focus on the CofE without reference to global Anglicanism or the wider church catholic. Rather than "plotting the division of the Church of England" one of the concerns that has driven the CEEC is preventing those like Nic Tall creating a total division between the Church of England and the overwhelming majority of the Anglican Communion who, as has been made clear since February, cannot accept the direction set by the bishops.

CEEC & The Alliance

Finally, Tall's article extends the plotting to include The Alliance but with little interest in how this relates to CEEC's work or what its recent creation and activity really signifies and demonstrates. Although CEEC leaders are part of the Alliance, as are leaders of networks which are part of CEEC, the Alliance includes significant evangelical/charismatic leaders and networks which have never been part of CEEC (such as HTB and CRT) and also Anglo-Catholics. It would appear therefore to be a sign (confirmed by such narrow votes in General Synod) that, far from being a small and unrepresentative grouping of narrow conservative evangelicals, CEEC is simply part of a much larger body of churches and networks within the CofE which (although they have not been involved in the work which CEEC has been doing) cannot simply accept what the bishops are proposing and carry on as if nothing significant has happened. The example cited from a document circulated in December far from showing a desire to divide the CofE and "proactively recruiting" people for a "split" confirms that, like the CEEC, the Alliance is seeking to find ways to reassure and keep within the CofE those church leaders and congregations who are so concerned about what the bishops are doing and how they are doing it that they are seriously considering leaving. All this could, of course, be expressed as saying that it is in fact the actions and further goals of Nic Tall and many bishops, especially if combined with a refusal to take seriously the work on the need for differentiation by CEEC, that can more credibly be described as plotting the division of the Church of England (and the wider Anglican Communion).

Conclusion

I wouldn't claim my perception is the only possible reading of the complexities of evangelical and wider church politics over recent years. I do think, however, this account does more justice to more of the evidence than that offered by Nic Tall. There are also a number of characteristics of his account and the attitudes of some who have supported it which are causes of serious concern. It would appear that he and others pressing for change have paid little or no attention to what CEEC has been openly saying and doing. They are now shocked and horrified that evangelicals have been seriously thinking about what would happen should those pressing for change succeed and have been preparing for how they can continue to flourish as evangelicals given such an eventuality. Now realising the seriousness of the situation created by PLF, there appears to be only a hermeneutic of suspicion. As a friend commented about the article, it "has interpreted every event in this long narrative in as hostile and uncharitable a manner as possible". Related to this, one of the lessons I hope I learned through the LLF process is the problem of "othering" and "talking about us, without us". It seems to me that this article is a classic example of that in relation to the leadership of the CEEC and Alliance of which it is so critical.

What CEEC, the Alliance, and the large, often growing, parts of the CofE they represent are asking for is that they are not deprived of being overseen by bishops who continue to uphold, in their own teaching and ordering of their ministries, the teaching of the CofE which they promised they believed. It is not immediately obvious that this is an unreasonable demand that can legitimately be described as plotting or engineering division. At the very least, those who find such requests unacceptable need to engage with their rationale and the deep concerns of those unhappy with the developments underway in the CofE. A failure to do so would appear to suggest that the way forward is simply one which welcomes theological and moral revisionism and development but is marked by an institutional conservatism, even rigidity, that will not flex in order to keep within the CofE fold those who cannot accept the proposed changes in church doctrine and practice. Whether intended or not, it is that approach which to me seems inevitably to create exactly what CEEC has been accused of plotting: the division of the Church of England.

Revd Dr Andrew Goddard is Assistant Minister, St James the Less, Pimlico, Tutor in Christian Ethics, Westminster Theological Centre(WTC) and Tutor in Ethics at Ridley Hall, Cambridge. He is a member of the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) and was a member of the Co-Ordinating Group of LLF and the subgroup looking at Pastoral Guidance.