TCTFG: the bad fruits of the PLF process

We need a sabbath

I am someone who is theologically persuaded that it is legitimate to bless same-sex relationships (see here, more on why at the end of this piece). Yet watching the ongoing car-crash of the Church of England's attempts to change its practice in this area leads me to think that what we most need at the moment, as a church, is to take a sabbath rest from the arguments. We need to return 'ad fontes', reaffirming what is held in common, refreshing our understanding of what it is to be a church, to be a single body, to be Anglican – most especially including what it is to be a Bishop – and in particular remembering the priority of prayer. At the moment we are locked into an internal political struggle, which has become a question of coercion, of who will win a vote, a zero-sum fight to the death. It's all very dramatic. It is, in other words, quite clearly a triumph for the enemy.

Which is why we need to pause, and pray. Specifically I would recommend that we say 'let us return to this issue in ten year's time'. We stop doing what we are doing, which is fostering such a spiritually toxic environment. Instead we have a sabbath period, a rest from the fight.

At this point the loudest complaints will come from the progressive side. The language used will emphasise the suffering of those (most especially clergy in same sex relationships) who are excluded from fully participating in the life of the church. As Rowan Williams often put it, the question is always, “Who pays the price?” For to emphasise their suffering is to say that such suffering is more significant than the suffering of those elsewhere, for example, those who will suffer from the splitting of a church, those whose new-found faith might be damaged or destroyed by the division of the church, those who will not be reached because the witness of the church is compromised. I would point out that change in this area in our wider society has been incredibly rapid, and that the blessings available for those in same-sex relationships (including clergy) have improved out of all historical recognition. It is now perfectly legal for those in same-sex relationships to be married, and for such marriages to be celebrated and publicly affirmed. Whilst there is suffering associated with the absence of acceptance of those relationships by the church, it is, to be blunt, quite niche. I am persuaded of the need to change, but I am also persuaded that we need to do things in the right way, for the right reasons, and not at the cost of excluding so many of our faithful brothers and sisters.

There are two linked problems here, which have provided the means by which the enemy has taken control of the situation. The first is that the progressive camp is using bad arguments, which encourages the conservative side that they are on the side of righteousness. The second is that the conservative camp is using bad arguments, which encourages the progressives side that they are on the side of righteousness. What we need, what I see a sabbath period as providing, is a moment for self-reflection and improvement on both sides, the result of which would be a clearer understanding of what is actually at issue.

So what is the bad argument from the progressive side? It is to frame this as a question of equality and inclusion without paying any attention to the wider context, a context in which sex has been turned into an idol, the social institution of marriage has been destroyed (causing immense havoc and suffering) and, in short, to be blithely unaware of the way in which this cause is being used as a handmaid for Mammon, reducing individuals to products of consumer choice. So much of the reasoning offered from the progressive side is essentially atheistic and secular, and this is a significant part (not the whole) of what drives the energy in reaction. These arguments seem godless – and that is because they are. The progressive side needs to use much better arguments (and there are much better arguments). The progressive side must pause and repent of the ways in which they have fallen short of Christ. If a progressive reads this and bristles I would simply say ‘this is how you are being heard’.

The conservative side is not much better and if I were to sum up my criticism of it I would say that I find it insufficiently biblical, and far too concerned with a legalistic moralism than the gospel of grace. The idea that faithful living can be reduced to the following of rules is a repudiation of the Lord. Worse, the institutional machinations, dating back at least to the Jeffrey John affair, display a surrender to worldly patterns of living that are much worse than those involved in sexual disorders, as CS Lewis once pointed out. The absence of any sense for the historic catholic ecclesiology of the Church of England, as principally displayed by the Machiavellian manipulation of the institution when it suits, is a demonstration of bad faith. The conservative side needs to use much better arguments (and there are much better arguments). The conservative side must pause and repent of the ways in which they have fallen short of Christ. If a conservative reads this and bristles I would simply say ‘this is how you are being heard’.

Both sides must recognise that the pattern of accusation and zero-sum struggle is the way of the world, and in so far as they participate in such, they are serving the enemy not the Lord.

After all my pontificating, do I have a solution?

The sabbatical from the PLF process would not be a sabbatical from discussion. What I would most hope for is an improvement in both the quality of the argument, and a renewed invitation to the Holy Spirit, to change the conversation from one that resolves down to coercion and control to one that is characterised as a shared search for truth and the mind of God, seeking 'what seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us'. I would like to see an articulation of what is held in common across the divide, not just at the level of 'we affirm the catholic creeds' but, for example, 'we affirm that there is such a thing as sexual sin'. We are a long way from that at the moment.

My solution, such as it is, is that the progressive side show a greater honesty about what they are asking for – a change in the doctrine of marriage – and that the conservative side accept that it is legitimate for the Church of England to make such a change, that the church has the power to adjust this 'matter of discipline' (NB not that the conservative side agree that it is right to make that change – that's the area where the argument needs to happen). It is the absence of honesty that is one of the marks of the enemy.

For me, what has really persuaded me to change and develop my views over time, the key element was realising that in Scriptural terms, the answer to the question 'what is sexuality for?' is 'intimacy'. In other words, it is all about the relationship between the couple. I do not in the end agree with Aquinas (following Aristotle) that the key purpose of marriage is procreation. If we look at the essential Scriptural texts about sexuality and marriage – Adam and Eve, the Song of Songs, Jesus saying 'what God has joined together' – then children are not in view. Rather, it is the intimacy between the couple, the 'one flesh' that is important. I see this as reflecting the nature of God as Trinity, that relationship is inherent to God, and that it is therefore in our relationships (love of God and love of neighbour) that we become a part of the Trinity. Marriage is simply the social institution – and it is essential to maintain, protect and support such institutions – within which such intimacy is rightly expressed, and without which sexual intimacy is not rightly expressed.

That is what we need to be discussing. Whether the intimacy within a same-sex relationship is something that shares in the divine intention for human beings (relationship) or whether it is necessarily and inevitably an abomination. Everything else follows from that. I believe we need more time, not simply to find the truth, but to repent in dust and ashes, and seek a greater purity of heart, by which to see the will of God.