Christian Today reports that an amendment to a Synod motion on faith and prisons was defeated this week. The original motion celebrated the part faith has played in the rehabilitation of prisoners. The amendment from Matt Beer commended,
“the effectiveness of courses such as Alpha and Christianity Explored in helping prisoners and detainees come to faith in Christ and transform their lives so that they can make a positive contribution to society”
The main motion was accepted by the amendment was defeated. Christian Today reports that this was “after two members branded the amendment “partisan” and “sectarian”. So, in what way was the amendment “partisan.” One will note that the wording was not exclusive. The two courses were named not as the only methods but as examples, the key phrase being “such as”.
Now, it is possible that the objectors saw the courses as partisan because they focused on faith in Jesus Christ. That raises additional questions which we will come to shortly but I don’t get the impression that this is what was meant. The objection was that the courses were partisan because they promoted particular parties within the Church of England. This would be a fundamental misrepresentation of those courses, of Rico Tice, Nicky Gumbel and all involved in the production and use of them.
It’s worth noting that Alpha in particular has been used across a range of traditions outside of its original Charismatic Anglican context, including for example into Catholic churches as well as other protestant and evangelical denominations. That’s hardly partisan. The intention of the courses is not to win people from one stream of Christianity to another but to introduce people who don’t know Jesus to him.
Now, some people have suggested that the vote result may not have been down to the two objections but was due to a lack of evidence provided by the mover. However, the problem with that argument is that the amendment was welcomed by the original proposer of the motion and normally in Synod, such an amendment would be accepted. You see, an amendment can be seen as hostile, intended to defeat the purposes of the original or a friendly attempt to help improve it. If the latter, then in effect, then all of the arguments and evidence provided for the original motion can be seen as supporting the amendment. The mover is saying “Yes, that’s my argument, that’s what I was trying to say. You’ve helped me say It better.”
This is important because when you look at the original wording, you might be left thinking “that’s a bit vague.” What exactly is faith? The word could refer to belief in a variety of religious views including those associated with cults and some of the worst conspiracy theories going. If a prisoner develops a belief that Vladimir Putin is the true saviour of the world, a messianic figure called to purify the West, is that to be welcomed?
You would expect a church to be affirming, specifically faith in Jesus Christ and the good news of forgiveness for sin, justification, the deposit of the Holy Spirit and the hope of resurrection that follow from that faith in him. It seems that this is what the original mover intended and the amendment helped clarify that by pointing to examples of how prison ministries have helped many people engage with the good news and come to faith in Jesus.
Now, here is the problem. We are to some extent left second guessing why the amendment went the way it did. However, if the original mover was happy for the amendment to be included, then Alpha and Christianity Explored along with a whole load of other courses were implicitly included in the original intent. By rejecting the amendment, Synod in effect re-amended the motion and did not reset it to the original because we are now left with the impression that those things are implicitly excluded from Synod’s approval. Ironically, the result was itself partisan.
Faithroots 