Thoughts on Calvin Robinson?

[meatbasedbreakfast]

Long time lurker, stepping out the darkness to ask this.

Was asked today by a friend who knows I'm GC what my thoughts are on Calvin Robinson. Apparently he's becoming a face of GC views?!

I was shocked. He is anti abortion (in all cases), doesn't think same sex marriage should be legal, and isn't a feminist in any sense of the word.

I'm genuinely concerned that our movement is being picked up by people like him, who couldn't care less about women. When he says biological sex is real, he couldn't give a damn about how that leads to discrimination/violence. It made my blood boil and I want to know what other people think.

Remember the key tenets include the 39 articles:

www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/articles-religion#XX

Which includes

XX. OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH

THE Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.

CRT would come under ‘controversies of faith’ so while you might argue that it is unlawful (within the CoE) as contrary to ‘God’s Word written’ that would be an internal matter.

ironically, these 39 articles were partly a response to Calvinism

The church would have to show it was necessary to believe in CRT to be ordained. Not a chance.

Necessity of listening to the authority of the church on matters of faith?

Love really isn't a feeling in Christian theology. I don't see that as particularly open to interpretation, it's basic.

This would not have been straightforward as the Church of England is allowed to require its ordinands to hold particular beliefs. I guess he would have to show not only that he had a belief that was protected in the ordinary course, but also that that belief did not conflict with the core tenets of beliefs required by the Church of England.

It would be quite difficult to show a belief in systemic racism or CRT is integral to Anglican thinking. I don't even know where you'd start.

The church would have to show it was a genuine occupational requirement for its priests to have a belief in CRT. Otherwise (and assuming that a lack of belief in CRT met the Grainger test) it would be unlawful discrimination for them to refuse to ordain someone on those grounds.

If the church believed that CRT was a necessary part of faith for ordinands then that is sufficient. The courts do not dictate what a church may or may not believe.

Then they would need to include it in their articles. They can't just make it up as they go along.

The courts do not dictate what a church may or may not believe but nevertheless churches are not above the EA. A judge would want to see evidence that it was a genuine occupational requirement.

Had they done this, had CRT ever been a necessary belief for CoE priests then it would have come up in CR's ordination training, which he successfully completed.

Also they would have told him this was why he was not being ordained instead of pretending they had just run out of parishes.

Timewasting bobbins.

Then they would need to include it in their articles. They can't just make it up as they go along.

The reason Calvin brought it up was because it was incorporated into its governance reports and the running of the CoE . As for making it up as it goes along - when faced with new theories/discoveries/information the church is entitled to ‘make up’ a response to that as they go along. That is not to say I agree with the CoE on this - I very much don’t. But such a law would also mean Calvin’s new church could not object to ordaining a priest who was a fervent believer in CRT despite, as Calvin explained, bwlieving it went against the Bible.

The reason Calvin brought it up was because it was incorporated into its governance reports and the running of the CoE

That is very different from including it in the Canons!

Of course the church will formulate responses to new discoveries, information etc. but unless it's in the canons my understanding is that clergy are still allowed their own opinions.

But such a law would also mean Calvin’s new church could not object to ordaining a priest who was a fervent believer in CRT despite, as Calvin explained, bwlieving it went against the Bible.

Yes, what's wrong with that? Why shouldn't there be a diversity of political beliefs within a church?

what's wrong with that?

because they believe it is in conflict with the Bible.

But much more fundamental than that is you are suggesting it is ok for the state to dictate what churches/synods/mosques/etc can set as their beliefs, and how they can respond to matters arising in society. That is in direct conflict with the right freedom of belief and manifestation of those beliefs.

CR believes that and fwiw I think he makes a good case. Nevertheless, other priests obviously see no contradiction. The church should allow freedom of thought and expression to its clergy on matters which are not relevant to its core beliefs.

Not at all. Religious organisations can set whatever beliefs they want but they can't just arbitrarily change it on the fly and expect to avoid discrimination claims. Churches are part of society and are subject to all the usual employment and discrimination laws. Religious and occupational exceptions require justification, just as much as sex based exceptions do.

The most famous discrimination case against the CoE was Pemberton v Inwood.

Very briefly, Pemberton was an ordained CoE priest who married his partner when same sex marriage was legalised. Because of this, his Bishop revoked his permission to officiate, so Pemberton went to ET claiming discrimination on the grounds of marriage/civil partnership and unlawful harassment.

You can read the EAT judgment here:

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/564.html

The judge went through which documents were relevant (slightly confusingly, Pemberton was Reverent Canon Pemberton so the first use of 'Canon' in this paragraph refers to the appellant):

17. Although the status of the various sources of teaching of the Church of England were the subject of some debate before us, and Mr Jones QC and Mr Gau on behalf of the Canon submit that the "doctrine" of the Church of England is unclear, and at the same time restricted, ultimately it is accepted that the Church itself states that its doctrine is contained, in particular, in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal, the latter of which is concerned with the ordination of bishops, priests and deacons: Canon A5 of the Canons. It is also not in dispute that the Canons are part of the law of England and Wales and together with ecclesiastical common law and Measures (which are a form of legislation) form the body of Ecclesiastical law. The Canons can only be implemented if they are proposed and passed by the General Synod of the Church of England. Under Article 7 of the Constitution of the General Synod contained in Schedule 2 of the Synodical Government Measure 1969, any legislation "touching doctrinal formulae or the services or ceremonies of the Church of England" before being passed by the General Synod must have first been referred to the House of Bishops. It has the right to amend the legislation before it is placed before the General Synod for final approval.
(my bold)

So that's a clear piece of case law setting out what judges should be looking for in deciding whether an occupational exception has been correctly used by the CoE.

And the reason I have that case bookmarked is because it's potentially a very useful case for us.

Pemberton tried to claim it was harassment for the church to use the religious exception that allows them to not employ priests who are in same sex marriages. He lost, of course.

The original ET judge said 'We conclude in the context of matters, given that the Church via the Respondent acted lawfully pursuant to schedule 9 and is therefore not liable pursuant to s53, that it would be an affront to justice if we were to nevertheless find that what occurred constituted harassment.'

One of the appeal judges said, 'It seems to me that in the context of this case, unless there are "aggravating features", it cannot be reasonable for unwanted conduct which otherwise falls within the defences in Schedule 9 paragraph 2, to have had the effect proscribed in section 26(1)(b). To conclude otherwise would make a nonsense of providing the defence in Schedule 9 in the first place.'

TL;DR: We have case law that says that the lawful use of an EA exception cannot in itself amount to harassment. Worth remembering next time a TRA claims it's harassment to be excluded from a single sex space or service.

Harassment in the EA is unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic that violates your dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for you. IMO the main purpose of the single sex exceptions in the EA is to prevent unlawful harassment on the basis of sex.

This case law means the TRA can't just turn around and say 'well you're harassing me by not letting me in.'

The weird thing about CR is that he was apparently offered a curateship at St Alban the Martyr in Holborn - it's very Anglo-Catholic and an all-male preserve. They are already under Alternative Episcopal Oversight, served by a 'flying' Bishop who makes sure they don't have to have any contact with girl cooties.

How much of an extremist is CR that even they withdrew the job offer?

He's certainly not GC - I think he quite likes gender if his God says half the population should be submissive to him.

Still doesn't make transwomen women though.

Of course he's not 'GC'! 😂He's a conservative christian. Do keep up!

He's not a feminist, he's not our leader or 'a face of GC views' or whatever. We don't need to worry about what he thinks or what he says because he's nothing to do with us.

He's part of the 'free speech' lot who are by definition a motley assortment.

I think freedom of speech is incredibly important. That means I don't have to agree with a single thing CR has ever said to think he nevertheless has a right to say it.

How much of an extremist is CR that even they withdrew the job offer?

Without providing St Alban's reasons for withdrawing their offer, this is very unfair.