The Church of England’s “Shared Conversations” were officially launched in a low key manner at the February Synod: the website www.sharedconversations.org/ went live, and two booklets were published under the title “Grace and Disagreement”. The first of these booklets, subtitled “Thinking through the Process”, explains how facilitated discussions around the divisions over sexuality were recommended by the Pilling Report of November 2013. We now have a clear insight into the philosophy behind these “Conversation” meetings which begin after Easter, and the questions those taking part are going to grapple with on our behalf.
……
……
the guidance given in this booklet does not seek to defend and uphold that teaching (as one might expect from an official publication) but repeatedly assumes that it is up for negotiation, and even that those who still believe in it are the minority. The booklet tries to be “neutral” in giving equal weight to different views, and moves towards the conclusion that the important thing is not whether homosexual relationships are right or wrong in the eyes of God (since apparently we cannot ultimately know this for certain), but how we reach a place of “Good Disagreement” and model it to a world where bitter and even violent conflict is often the default position.
…..
There is a positive reference to discussing the suggestion in the Pilling Report of “Pastoral Accommodation”, whereby the Church would retain its traditional understanding of marriage, but allow services of prayer for Dioceses and congregations to “mark” commitment, virtue and faith in a same sex relationship. A version of this has been agreed by the Church of Scotland, whose report is commended for further study in the companion booklet (along with other essays written from different viewpoints). The author denies categorically that the Conversations have a pre-agreed outcome or that they will be manipulated in any way. This is despite the clear steer towards a “mixed economy”, based on an understanding of church as having almost limitless diversity, because of uncertainty about truth. The whole tenor of the document assumes that no matter how far apart and incompatible the views of the participants, because of “the warmth of shared faith” (Pilling), unity in the institution can be maintained.
In terms of relating to the worldwide Anglican Communion, the document shows awareness of how a decision for example to bless same sex relationships in the C of E could damage relationships and cause mission problems in other Provinces. The “Continuing Indaba” project of the Anglican Communion Office is endorsed as a solution: it has had a clear influence on the plan for Shared Conversations. However, it was previous incarnations of this Indaba process as used by American and Canadian revisionists, promoting “conversation” while facts were created on the ground in the blessing of same sex relationships and appointment of non-celibate gay clergy and Bishops, which split the Communion in 2003. Its principles and methods have been rejected as wrong by what has become the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans or the GAFCON movement. In a recent Pastoral Letter the GAFCON Primates say:
“we reject the process of “Indaba” as it is being implemented. Rather than seeking true resolution, it has been consistently manipulated only to recruit people to unbiblical positions. “Indaba” as currently practiced, is a fiction advancing human desires that are not informed by Gospel truth.”
This recent history has been airbrushed out of the “Grace and Disagreement” document.
The deliberate lack of clarity on theological foundations underlying the Conversations will be seen by many as a denial of the truth of the Gospel and undermining the ethical witness of the Church. Many orthodox Anglicans believe that the Conversation process is biased towards a revisionist agenda, and irredeemably flawed…
I think all orthodox believers will welcome Anglican Mainstream’s contribution to the debate going on now in the Church of England.
There is disagreement among the orthodox as to whether there is any real hope of deflecting the Church of England from the ruinous course on which it seems set, but all will agree that it is essential that believers should witness publicly to the truth. Who knows whether CofE might be turned around, and even if it isn’t, who knows what individuals may be convicted of their need for personal repentance and sin during these “shared conversations”?
Sadly, Andrew Symes’ final sentence appears to be correct in its foreboding – five months ago, Canon David Porter, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Director of Reconciliation, told Malcolm Brown, CofE Director of Mission and Public Affairs:
[blockquote] “And that we develop that rapport, that capacity to disagree well, that means that when we get to the process which is beyond the shared conversations when decisions will have to be made, the way we approach the making of those decisions is done in a way that honours the fact that we are brothers and sisters of Christ” [/blockquote]
In context it seems that “decisions” can only refer to an intention to change the teaching of the Church of England on homosexuality. After all, to leave that teaching intact requires no decision at all. But Canon Porter is quite clear that “decisions will have to be made”.
Truth? What is truth? A question asked notably before.
The answer in this case is that truth went out with the bath water as being insignificant. Rather like Satan in the water liturgy-thingy. The society drives “truth” and the cOE acquieses. No need for truth when pablum is too difficult to swallow and the intolerant cannot handle milk.
In related news the bishop of Salisbury, Nick Holtam, has just discovered that he has an independent Anglican church plant in his diocese which is affiliated with the Anglican Mission in England. He seems rather vexed: http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2015/20-february/news/uk/bishop-of-salisbury-investigates-amie-church
Bishop Holtam in 2012 became the first CofE bishop to openly endorse gay marriage, and to urge the Church of England to change its teaching.
Interestingly, one of +Holtam’s suffragans is Graham Kings, bishop of Sherbourne and the new “Mission Theologian for the Anglican Communion” (see http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/58866/). So far as I am aware, despite being a noted public commentator and one who claims to be “Renewing the Evangelical Centre”, +Kings has never said one word publicly about +Holtam’s open promotion of homosexual “marriage”.
+Holtam can take comfort in one thing at least – a single independent Anglican congregation is not going to make any appreciable difference to the situation in Dio. Salisbury nor in the Church of England.
Another piece of news that relates to this: The Archbishop of Canterbury has questioned whether homosexual practice is a sin in a meeting with schoolchildren: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/archbishop-of-canterbury-justin-welby-discusses-gay-rights-with-muslim-students-who-am-i-to-judge-them-for-their-sins-10066774.html
The archbishop said: “I see my own selfishness and weakness and think who am I judge them for their sins, if they have sins.”
The first part of that sentence is what any Christian should think, but the last four words are significant. The ABC in effect asks the children: “Is homosexual practice really a sin” in the same way that the serpent asked Eve, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?â€
And the next part is even more significant:
“Marriage is between one man and one woman for life and sexual activity should be confined to marriage, that’s in the Church of England’s laws,” he continued.
Note that he does not say that the Church of England’s position on marriage is true or correct or right or reasonable, but that its in the laws of the Church. And as any of his listeners would appreciate, the laws of the Church can be changed.
What should be more newsworthy is the apparently deafening silence of other CofE bishops on this issue. As they keep silence, so the only voices of the Church of England that are heard are the pro-gay marriage bishops like Nick Holtam and Justin Welby.
This is important in England where between one third and one half of the population still identify as “Anglican” or “Church of England”, even though only 2% of them attend church once a month or more.
Just one more thing to put the Archbishop of Canterbury’s latest comments in context. His position should come as no surprise to anyone, as on 3 June 2013 he told the UK Parliament:
“It is clearly essential that stable and faithful same-sex relationships should, where those involved want it, be recognised and supported with as much dignity and the same legal effect as marriage.”
He then went on to criticize the bill before the house at that time:
“Schedule 4 distinguishes clearly between same-gender and opposite-gender marriage, thus not achieving true equality.”
No-one should be in any doubt about what changes to the laws of the Church of England will be pushed through by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the near future.
See: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/text/130603-0001.htm
And as always, there is deathly silence from the rest of the bishops of the Church of England.