it is shocking how little theology has been done in this whole process. Bishop Stephen Croft’s recent publication, Together in Love and Faith, is a good example of this. The chapter on ‘The Case for Change’ includes sections on ‘Listening to the Pain’, ‘Faithful, stable, long-term same-sex relationships’, ‘Our culture’s moral view of the Church’s present policy’, and a concluding section on the changes he wishes to see: blessing of same-sex relationships; freedom for clergy to have whatever relationship they want, and to be able to enter same-sex civil marriage; and same-sex church marriage. Despite an occasional Bible reference, this is not a biblical or theological case. Croft’s argument is based on experience and secular culture. The following chapter does ask whether these changes would be consistent with Scripture, but note that this is a secondary question, not part of his case for making the change. His approach to Scripture is, therefore:
“…all of my pastoral instincts point to finding a way of interpreting the Scriptures that allows for greater love and support, tolerance and the blessing of [LGBTQ+] partnerships, even where this interpretation seems, at first sight, to be in conflict with some of the obvious interpretations of key biblical passages” (p27-28).
Quite.
Here’s what will happen if the Church of England adopts Croft’s changes: she will have her lampstand removed. She will have adopted a false gospel in which sin is no longer sin and need not be repented of. She will divide, she will crumble and she will fall. Christ will continue to build his church, but the Church of England will no longer be his church because she will no longer be teaching his gospel. Is this the option the bishops want to bring to the table?
Croft also raises the possibility of differentiation or division with separate episcopal or even provincial provision for those who can’t accept the changes he wants. Kind of him to acknowledge that the position held by the Church of England for almost five hundred years, and the wider church for 2000 years, remains valid. This kind of half-way house offers some advantages, but the fundamental issue remains that this would be a church with two different gospels. That is, two churches. It is hard to see how any organisation could thrive with this level of division and tension within it, let alone the church which is supposed to be growing into unity. Is this the option the bishops want to bring to the table?
Sticking to the status quo will not be easy, but I can’t see any options which are easy. If Living in Love and Faith has shown us anything, it is that the Church of England is already divided. There is no compromise solution. There has been no progress towards common ground. Whatever the outcome of next week’s College of Bishops’ meeting and February’s General Synod, the best we can hope for will be chaos and confusion, disunity and despair. There’s no point holding out for an easy option, so there’s nothing to lose by going for the good option.
So let us pray that our bishops will hold firm to the teaching of the Bible, the doctrine of the Church of England, the historic orthodox position of the worldwide church.