Last week\u2019s College of Bishops meeting was described by one unnamed evangelical bishop as a \u2018bruising experience\u2019. Out of it emerged a statement from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York apologising for the House of Bishops\u2019 statement on civil partnerships in which it had set out the orthodox position of the Church of England.<\/p>\n
The Archbishops wrote: \u201cWe\u2026 apologise and take responsibility for releasing a statement \u2026 which we acknowledge has jeopardised trust. We are very sorry and recognise the division and hurt this has caused.\u201d<\/p>\n
Predictably, of course, this apology has done far more damage than the original statement. Liberals took it as a pseudo-apology along the lines of \u2018sorry for offending you\u2019, or \u2018sorry for being caught out\u2019. Many others took it as an apology for the actual statement and therefore a rejection of the Church of England\u2019s teaching on marriage. Others took it as a clever bit of spin in which the Archbishops could head off liberal outrage, while still maintaining faith with evangelicals and traditionalists. That latter interpretation does the Archbishops no favours at all because it portrays them in similar terms to Iannucci\u2019s Thick of It as spin doctors desperately and incompetently triangulating to win their nihilistic game of power politics.<\/p>\n
The Bishop of Edmundsbury and Ipswich, Martin Seeley, is the latest Diocesan Bishop to break ranks with the Bishops\u2019 pastoral statement on civil partnerships. He revealed that he and other colleagues had asked that the document be withdrawn but a majority of bishops decided against this course of action. From this insight, it is clear that we are beginning at last to see a bit of an honest open \u2018fight\u2019 in the House of Bishops. This is about time too. And I also hope that this division is openly revealed in the General Synod as it meets this week.<\/p>\n
If we have this aim of achieving \u2018good disagreement\u2019 let us at least be open about it rather than hide it behind closed doors. It cannot be \u2018good disagreement\u2019 if it is hidden behind the superficial smiles representing faux Anglican \u2018niceness\u2019.At the moment suspicions are festering and we in the Church of England are in that anxious and fretting place \u2013 the calm before the storm.<\/p>\n
The problem with processes such as Living in Love and Faith is that most of the debate and discussion takes place behind closed doors in a process that many of us simply don\u2019t trust. I have always believed that this process is in place simply to kick the can down the road rather than leading to a place where a decision can be made about the future direction of the Church of England. I am much more likely to be convinced if this was an open discussion in the Church of England.<\/p>\n
It would be much more honest to recognise the profound differences we have over human sexuality and decide how the two sides in this debate are going to co-exist \u2013 if they ever can \u2013 in the same Church.Does the future now lie in some kind of formal distancing of relationships from which different networks and forms of oversight can emerge?<\/p>\n
–This column appeared in the Church of England Newspaper, February 7, 2020, edition (subscriptions are encrouaged)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Last week\u2019s College of Bishops meeting was described by one unnamed evangelical bishop as a \u2018bruising experience\u2019. Out of it emerged a statement from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York apologising for the House of Bishops\u2019 statement on civil partnerships…<\/span><\/p>\n