Response to Church Society’s December 7 Statement on Stephen Sizer

In light of the judgment made in Revd Dr Stephen Sizer’s Clergy Discipline Measure case, Church Society has published this update to an earlier post about Dr Sizer:

On Tuesday 6th December 2022, the judgment in Mr Sizer’s Clergy Discipline Measure case was finally reported. The question of whether certain of his activities were antisemitic was until then sub judice. We are very glad to see that this case has finally been decided by the Church of England’s due process, and concur with the tribunal that “his conduct was unbecoming to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders, in that he provoked and offended the Jewish community”, and in one instance was “unbecoming, in that he engaged in antisemitic activity”.

For the avoidance of any doubt, Church Society — in line with the Church of England — accepts in full the IHRA definition of antisemitism, including its examples, and will take (and has taken) action against members who bring the Society into disrepute through espousing antisemitism and engaging in antisemitic activity, just as it has acted against other forms of racism (although it should be noted that this has only very rarely become necessary). It should also be noted that Stephen Sizer is not a member of Church Society, and was not a member at the time of his Clergy Discipline Measure case in 2012–2013, although it has never been our regular practice to issue public comments on CDM cases, even when people involved in them are members of Church Society.

The Stephen Sizer case is a major racism case in the Church of England. Dr Sizer belongs to the conservative evangelical grouping that Church Society represents, and he was at one time a Church Society trustee. The church he led until 2017, Christ Church Virginia Water (which continued to fund and promote his activity for several years after his departure) is a conservative evangelical church. CCVW is now led by Revd Dr Simon Vibert, who is closely involved with the ministry of Church Society. For all these reasons, Church Society has a particular duty to provide clear and blameless guidance to conservative evangelicals with regard to this important case. We are sorry to say that Church Society’s statement fails to meet those standards.

A Misleading Reference to the Sub Judice Principle

In the above-quoted statement’s opening sentences, Church Society suggests that because of the sub judice principle [material shouldn’t be published that might seriously prejudice ongoing legal proceedings], it was unable to speak out against Dr Sizer’s antisemitic activity until the tribunal’s verdict on 6 December 2022.

The tribunal’s hearings took place in May 2022. We understand why Church Society did not wish to risk speaking against Dr Sizer while proceedings were underway, but there was nothing stopping it speaking out beforehand. Indeed, Church Society actually did issue a substantial statement on Dr Sizer in July 2020 — the very statement to which its latest comments are added! So Church Society certainly could (and should) have identified Dr Sizer’s conduct as antisemitic before the tribunal’s proceedings began. Every major Jewish community group had already done so. The opportunity to stand alongside the Jewish community was available, but Church Society refused to take it.

Church Society is not simply a mouthpiece for the Church of England hierarchy: it has independent agency. Frankly, it is embarrassing to see Church Society imply that its hands were tied when they weren’t. We call on Church Society to withdraw its painfully misleading ‘sub judice’ statement.

Inadequate Earlier Criticisms of Dr Sizer

The serious flaws in Church Society’s July 2020 statement have already been examined in detail in the article ‘Church Society and Antisemitism: A Failure of Leadership’ — an article to which Church Society has never formally responded. In brief, while Church Society’s statement described Dr Sizer’s activity as ‘offensive and sometimes ridiculous’, it signally failed to identify it as antisemitic.

In racism/antisemitism cases there is a huge difference between on the one hand criticising someone’s actions as ‘offensive and sometimes ridiculous’, and on the other hand criticising those actions as racist/antisemitic. The latter criticism will rightly have major implications for a person’s career (as numerous politicians have discovered); the former criticism is much easier to overcome. In 2020, Church Society opted for the much less significant criticism instead of unambiguously condemning Dr Sizer’s conduct as antisemitic.

The antisemitic activity charge upheld by the tribunal related to Dr Sizer’s 2015 posting of an antisemitic article titled ‘9/11 — Israel Did It’. The key evidence leading to that particular verdict was already freely available in 2015, and Church Society’s Director was aware of it (see below).

We call on Church Society to apologise for its failure to clearly state in its 2020 statement that Dr Sizer’s conduct was antisemitic. It was free to do that; it had enough evidence to do that; it should have done that; it failed to do that. Is it really so hard for Church Society to admit that it made a mistake?

Revd Dr Lee Gatiss

In 2015, Church Society’s Director, Revd Dr Lee Gatiss, signalled his approval (with a Facebook ‘like’) of a comment stating, among other things, ‘I stand by [Dr Sizer’s] right as both a citizen and a minister to ask these questions and make these suggestions.’ The comment acknowledged that Dr Sizer was ‘foolish and wrong’ to have suggested that Israel was behind 9/11, but the entire thrust of the comment was to support his right to say such ‘foolish and wrong’ things as a CofE minister. The comment was thus defending Dr Sizer’s right to do precisely what the recent tribunal has determined he had no right to do as a CofE minister.

Dr Gatiss’s ‘like’ of that comment was not trivial: he was moderating a group of junior Anglican leaders, and he was the Director of the organisation to which they belonged. The Facebook discussion concerned a conservative evangelical CofE minister whose conduct was a national news story on that very day. In such circumstances, a moderator and organisation leader’s ‘like’ is a significant action. Dr Gatiss signalled to that group of leaders that he backed Dr Sizer’s continuation in ministry. On a day when countless people were calling for severe punitive action to be taken against Dr Sizer, Dr Gatiss indicated that he took the opposite view. In the context of that discussion, it is accurate to say that he supported Dr Sizer.

We call on Dr Gatiss to address his indication of support for Dr Sizer in 2015. The post he ‘liked’ made a coherent, but morally wrong, argument for Dr Sizer to be free to continue doing what he was doing. Dr Gatiss should not have given that argument his backing, and he should apologise. Again, is it really so hard for Dr Gatiss to admit that he made a mistake?

Rev Bernard Nicholas Howard Pastor, Good Shepherd Anglican Church NYC

James Mendelsohn Senior Lecturer, UWE Bristol Law School