One of the features of the bishops’ proposals and the reactions to them is that everyone is now acknowledging that we clearly and deeply disagree. In the words of the Bishop of London to General Synod,
“As bishops we have been seeking the mind of Christ in the uncomfortably sharp disagreements that we have about same-sex relationships.”
Despite this, and the oft-repeated recognition that the proposals go too far for some and not far enough for others, remarkably little has been said about the nature and the implications of our disagreements.
There has, however, already been much work done on disagreement within the Church of England, notably the 2016 FAOC report on Communion and Disagreement, summarised in the LLF book (pp. 230-4), made the focus of its final conversation, and central to the fifth and final session in the LLF course. This work has acknowledged that conversations often get stuck and it becomes “very difficult for those involved to hear and respond to one another” because “people disagree not only about the issue at hand, but also about the category of disagreement that they are having” (LLF book, p. 231). It also recognises that the issues we are now seeking to make decisions on are exactly this kind of disagreement: one “where we can’t even agree on how deeply our disagreement cuts into our ability to be church together” (p. 232).
In the light of this work on disagreement we could now acknowledge that
“all Christians would probably agree that there are some disagreements that do impair our ability to live and work together—disagreements that require some kind of practical differentiation even if we remain in a single church together…”
and
“…most Christians would probably agree that there are some disagreements that push such impairment to breaking point (p. 233).”
We could even also recognise that we are perhaps now finding ourselves in one of these two situations in the Church of England in terms of responses to LLF. The recent Kigali Commitment shows that both GAFCON and the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans (GSFA) view the Anglican Communion as clearly in one of these two places due to the Church of England’s actions.
Instead, however, these matters are, it seems, the proverbial elephant in the room. We avoid talking about the nature and implications of our disagreements by means of repeated calls to “walk together” in the midst of and despite our disagreements. Indeed, one of the arguments advanced for what the bishops are proposing is that this is the best, perhaps only, way to “walk together”. To quote the Bishop of London again:
In proposing our way forward as bishops, what we have done is chart a path that navigates the realities of the disagreements among us in a way that enables us to walk together – acknowledging its discomfort and ensuring that individual conscience is protected. One way of describing this way forward is to see ourselves standing in different places – and finding a point that each of us, by stretching out our arm, can touch and reach the fingertips of the other. It will be uncomfortable for everyone, but it is about creating a space for the Holy Spirit to move among us and to continue to guide us and shape us into the likeness of Christ.
What are our disagreements?
There are, as LLF showed, multiple theological disagreements which feed into these discussions. For example, concerning how we read Scripture and view its authority and also how we interpret particular experiences and patterns of life in the light of our understanding of God’s good purposes in creation and redemption and the effects on humanity of the Fall and our sin. At present, the focus of these disagreements relate to what our doctrine should be in relation to marriage and, as part of that or derived from it, what patterns of sexual relationship should be viewed as a way of holiness fitting for a disciple of Christ. Here those pressing for change wish the church to embrace two new understandings:
(1) a doctrine of marriage as a gift of God that opens marriage up to two people irrespective of their biological sex rather than restricting it to one man and one woman and/or
(2) a doctrine of marriage that does not view marriage between a man and a woman as the divinely intended pattern of relationship for sexual intimacy.
These are the two central issues on which we are currently divided as we seek in the LLF process to navigate different responses among Christians to changing patterns of sexual relationships in society and in particular the introduction of same-sex marriage.
The bishops’ declared intention not to change the church’s doctrine of marriage or marriage liturgy so as to include same-sex couples has removed (1) from the current discussion in terms of the church’s formal teaching. It has, however, not in any sense foreclosed ongoing debate on this within the church. In addition, the question of our understanding of marriage has now become refocused on a new question:
(1a) can the church commend, celebrate and bless civil marriages between two people of the same sex (perhaps claiming that it is only blessing the people in such civil marriages rather than their relationship or legal union) and
(1b) can the church, given those ordained affirm they will “endeavour to fashion your own life and that of your household according to the way of Christ, that you may be a pattern and example to Christ’s people”, allow clergy to enter same-sex civil marriages and treat them simply as legal unions?
In relation to (2) the question can be framed as
(2a) can the church cease speaking of all sex outside marriage as falling short of God’s purposes (or, in other words, as sin) and instead commend, celebrate and bless non-marital, including same-sex, sexual relationships, if they embody certain qualities (again perhaps claiming that it is only blessing the people in such relationships rather than the relationship itself or its sexual aspect) and
(2b) can the church, given the canons require that a “clerk in Holy Orders shall…at all times be diligent to frame and fashion his life and that of his family according to the doctrine of Christ, and to make himself and them, as much as in him lies, wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ” (Canon C26.2) allow clergy to live in such relationships?
These have now become the focus of contention: are these developments consonant with the church’s doctrine? Or are they indicative of a departure from that doctrine and so either cannot happen or require a change in the church’s doctrine of marriage (or canons and liturgy relating to ordination) before they can be approved?
It would appear therefore that the focus is shifting away from what our doctrine should be to what our doctrine actually is and, closely related to that, what actions therefore indicate a departure from our doctrine.
The disagreement is, in other words, now being presented more as a matter of interpretation and application of existing doctrine than a fundamental disagreement over the substance of doctrine. But that is, of course, at best a partial truth. At worst it is a deception sitting uneasily with the pastoral principle of admitting hypocrisy given the underlying fundamental disagreements that clearly exist over what the church’s doctrine of marriage should be.
The challenge is that those who are pressing for changes (1) and (2) in doctrine (and the consequent sexual ethic), having failed to achieve this in relation to marriage as a male-female union, are now arguing that previously prohibited actions are, in fact, not really prohibited by the unchanged doctrine and so can legitimately be introduced into the church.
Thus it is claimed in relation to (1) that the doctrine of marriage has no bearing on the question of entering the status of a same-sex civil marriage. The answer to (1a) and (1b) is therefore that, contrary to all previous legal advice and episcopal statements, the church can now authorise blessings of same-sex marriages and permit clergy to enter them. Similarly, in relation to (2), it is claimed that the restriction of sexual intimacy to marriage is not, contrary to past episcopal statements, actually part of the doctrine of marriage but has always been some lower level category of current episcopal teaching or guidance. The answer to (2a) and (2b), it is therefore being claimed, is that liturgically celebrating non-marital sexual relationships and allowing clergy to enter these is not contrary to or indicative of a departure from that doctrine; these innovations can be introduced simply by the bishops changing their past episcopal teaching or guidance.
What are the practical options going forward?
As the wording of these questions makes clear, these matters lie at the heart of the work of two of the three new working groups: that examining the wording and rubrics of the proposed draft prayers has to consider (1a) and (2a) and that working on the promised new pastoral guidance has to consider (1b) and (2b). How, in the light of our disagreements, might it be best to proceed?
Clarifying doctrine
The most obvious solution is to clarify what our doctrine is, decide whether or not that doctrine should be changed in some way, and then determine whether or not any of the proposals are indicative of a departure from the doctrine.
If the doctrine is to change this is something which the bishops cannot do simply on their own (though it is less clear what the situation is if is claimed that what is happening is simply a reinterpretation and new application of the current doctrine even when that means the working, de facto,doctrine is changed in significant ways). Leading canon lawyer, Professor Norman Doe, explains in his Legal Framework of the Church of England (Chpt 9 at p. 258) that although the bishops have particular responsibilities in relation to doctrine due to their episcopal ordination, they cannot unilaterally alter it:
Read it all in Psephizo:
