The Church of England\u2019s \u201cShared Conversations\u201d\u009d 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 \u201cGrace and Disagreement\u201d\u009d. The first of these booklets, subtitled \u201cThinking through the Process\u201d\u009d, 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 \u201cConversation\u201d\u009d meetings which begin after Easter, and the questions those taking part are going to grapple with on our behalf.
\n……
\n
……
\nthe 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 \u201cneutral\u201d\u009d 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 \u201cGood Disagreement\u201d\u009d and model it to a world where bitter and even violent conflict is often the default position.
\n…..
\nThere is a positive reference to discussing the suggestion in the Pilling Report of \u201cPastoral Accommodation\u201d\u009d, whereby the Church would retain its traditional understanding of marriage, but allow services of prayer for Dioceses and congregations to \u201cmark\u201d\u009d 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 \u201cmixed economy\u201d\u009d, 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 \u201cthe warmth of shared faith\u201d\u009d (Pilling), unity in the institution can be maintained.<\/p>\n
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 \u201cContinuing Indaba\u201d\u009d 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 \u201cconversation\u201d\u009d 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:<\/p>\n
\u201cwe reject the process of \u201cIndaba\u201d\u009d as it is being implemented. Rather than seeking true resolution, it has been consistently manipulated only to recruit people to unbiblical positions. \u201cIndaba\u201d\u009d as currently practiced, is a fiction advancing human desires that are not informed by Gospel truth.\u201d\u009d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This recent history has been airbrushed out of the \u201cGrace and Disagreement\u201d\u009d document.<\/p>\n
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…<\/p>\n