Back in the days when I used to work at Church House, London, I was told a story about a visit by a former Archbishop of Canterbury to an Anglican province in Africa. During this visit, the archbishop gave a sermon in English with a translator provided to give the archbishop’s message in the local language. According to the story, the archbishop gave his sermon in four sections, and it was noted that after each section the translator gave a single short sentence and then stopped. Curious about this, a member of the archbishop’s staff enquired as to what the translator had said. Eventually the embarrassed locals explained that the first time the translator said, ‘He hasn’t said anything,’ the second time he said ‘He still hasn’t said anything,’ the third time he said ‘He isn’t going to say anything,’ and the final time he said ‘I was right, he didn’t say anything.’
I was sadly remined of this story when I read GS 2346, Bishop Martin Snow’s new paper from the House of Bishops for General Synod, ‘Living, in Love, Faith and Reconciliation.’ [1]
The paper is in four parts.
The first part ‘outlines ten draft commitments through which the whole Church can continue to pursue the implementation of the motions previously passed by Synod on Living in Love and Faith.’
The purpose of these commitments is: ‘1) cultivating unity as far as possible; 2) enabling as many as possible to stay within the Church of England; 3) equipping the Church’s mission to the nation.’
The commitments are as follows:
‘1. Humility and repentance – we will seek to embody the apology we have already made to LGBTQI+ people. We will call out homophobia and actively challenge it. At the same time, we will devote ourselves to Holy Scripture with an openness to all the Holy Spirit is saying to us through God’s word, acknowledging that at times this will be deeply uncomfortable and challenging for us all.
2. Honesty and transparency – we will ensure a transparent, honest process for LLF which fully includes the Houses of Laity and Clergy in General Synod and (as far as possible) Diocesan and Deanery Synods, as well as PCCs. We commit to listening to voices which are often absent from our discussions – in particular the voices of LGBTQI+ people, those of children and young people, and GMH people. We will seek the maximum possible level of transparency regarding legal advice given to the House of Bishops (acknowledging the complexities of such advice). We will ensure that LLF does not dominate agendas of the House / College of Bishops or Synod.
3. Reconciliation – we will prioritise reconciliation as our primary witness to wider society at this time. We will commit to being a ‘learning Church’ and to embodying the ‘habits’ of reconciliation (be curious, be present, reimagine). We will learn from other parts of the Anglican Communion where there have been serious splits (in some cases now deeply regretted). We will seek to appoint an interim “Independent Reviewer” as soon as possible, to monitor the practical outworkings of the bishops’ commitment to value and respect different theological understandings, to advise us, and to reassure those concerned about their future place within the Church.
4. Breadth – we will recognise the gifts of the different traditions within the Church. We will actively reflect on how these gifts are exchanged such that power is acknowledged and everyone – those who use the PLF and those who don’t – are afforded an honoured place within the Church. We will draw fully on the LLF Resources and the expertise of FAOC (allowing them time to do their work well). We will do everything we can to ensure that no-one feels pushed out of Church. We will seek a commitment to avoid using the civil courts to settle our disputes.
5. Freedom of conscience – we will ensure freedom of conscience in relation to PLF for all clergy and lay ministers. We acknowledge the complexities within this – society is not always tolerant of differences and therefore clergy and lay ministers will come under pressure from within and outside the Church. We will ask all bishops to commit to supporting all clergy and lay ministers whether they use the PLF or not.
6. Prayers – we are committed to the experimental use of standalone services of PLF, with legal protection and support for those who opt-in to using them as well as those who don’t. This includes completing the Pastoral Guidance and Pastoral Reassurance work before enabling the use of the standalone PLF.
7. Same-sex marriage – we will not begin any discussions about same-sex marriage in this quinquennium, and we make no commitments beyond this quinquennium. Rather we will learn from the use of the PLF and allow General Synod to decide when and if to begin any discussions about SSM.
8. Ministry – we commit to exploring the process for clergy and lay ministers to enter same-sex civil marriages. We recognise that not all bishops would be content to ordain or licence such ministers, and bishops must be allowed freedom of conscience in relation to LLF in the same way as clergy (point 5). This inevitably means that there may be different approaches across dioceses until such time as changes to Canons are considered (acknowledging a change of doctrine). In this scenario, bishops would need to commit to being transparent with candidates for ministry about their own personal approach and commit to exploring alternative national approaches for candidates who they, in conscience, could not sponsor. Bishops would also need to agree to resist attempts to use disciplinary processes to force deviation from these commitments.
9. Episcopacy – we will explore an approach to episcopacy which enables us to live well with difference and provides pastoral reassurance to all across the spectrum of views on LLF. We are committed to learning from the ‘1994 settlement’ and the ‘2014 settlement’, where (in the latter case) it was only the pain of the 2012 crisis that forced more serious cooperation across divides. We seek this cooperation now, and therefore we commit to exploring the minimum formal structural changes necessary to enable as many as possible to stay within the Church of England.
10. Communion and unity– we commit to seeking the highest possible degree of communion between ourselves, other Provinces of the Anglican Communion, and our ecumenical partners. As we seek a settlement within the Church of England, we will explore the idea of ‘degrees of unity’, recognising that there are ways of staying in relationship and working together even where there are fundamental disagreements.’
There are also three Annexes, A, B and C.
Annex A: ‘provides a summary of the differing Canonical routes that have been requested to be explored as a means of introducing PLF in Standalone Services. It summarises the processes these require and an assessment of primary advantages and disadvantages.’
Annex B: ‘outlines considerations around removing restrictions for clergy to enter into samesex civil marriages. It summarises background information previously discussed in the LLF process and highlights additional work that has already been called for to support discussions and decisions in the House of Bishops on this, and related, matters.’
Annex C: ‘summarises the workstreams in the next phase of implementation of LLF. This overview illustrates the inter-connected and interdependent nature of this work that the commitments invite continued action to pursue. An updated indicative timetable is included.’
The reason the paper reminded me of the story about archbishop’s sermon is because having read it I was left feeling that nothing of real significance had been said.
In specific terms, this is because there are three key issues that the paper fails to address.
The first issue is whether the issues covered by Living in Love and Faith are adiaphora. The unstated assumption underlying the paper is that they are. Issues concerning marriage and human sexuality, it appears to say, are ones on which faithful Christians can legitimately agree to disagree, the only question is whether they disagree well or badly.
However, as the Anglican Communion’s Windsor Report of 2004 explains, it is not legitimate to simply assume that a matter upon which there is disagreement can be placed into the category of adiaphora.
To quote paragraphs 87-89 of the Windsor Report:
‘As the Church has explored the question of limits to diversity, it has frequently made use of the notion of adiaphora: things which do not make a difference, matters regarded as non-essential, issues about which one can disagree without dividing the Church. This notion lies at the heart of many current disputes. The classic biblical statements of the principle are in Romans 14.1-15.13 and 1 Corinthians 8-10. There, in different though related contexts, Paul insists that such matters as food and drink (eating meat and drinking wine, or abstaining from doing so; eating meat that had been offered to idols, or refusing to do so), are matters of private conviction over which Christians who take different positions ought not to judge one another. They must strive for that united worship and witness which celebrate and display the fact that they are worshipping the same God and are servants of the same Lord.
This principle of ‘adiaphora’ was invoked and developed by the early English Reformers, particularly in their claim that, in matters of eucharistic theology, specific interpretations (transubstantiation was particularly in mind) were not to be insisted upon as ‘necessary to be believed’, and that a wider range of interpretations was to be allowed. Ever since then, the notion of ‘adiaphora’ has been a major feature of Anglican theology, over against those schools of thought, both Roman and Protestant, in which even the smallest details of belief and practice are sometimes regarded as essential parts of an indivisible whole.
This does not mean, however, that either for Paul or in Anglican theology all things over which Christians in fact disagree are automatically to be placed into the category of ‘adiaphora’. It has never been enough to say that we must celebrate or at least respect ‘difference’ without further ado. Not all ‘differences’ can be tolerated. (We know this well enough in the cases of, say, racism or child abuse; we would not say “some of us are racists, some of us are not, so let’s celebrate our diversity”). This question is frequently begged in current discussions, as for instance when people suggest without further argument, in relation to a particular controversial issue, that it should not be allowed to impair the Church’s unity, in other words that the matter in question is not as serious as some suppose. In the letters already quoted, Paul is quite clear that there are several matters – obvious examples being incest (1 Corinthians 5) and lawsuits between Christians before non-Christian courts (1 Corinthians 6) – in which there is no question of saying “some Christians think this, other Christians think that, and you must learn to live with the difference”. On the contrary: Paul insists that some types of behaviour are incompatible with inheriting God’s coming kingdom, and must not therefore be tolerated within the Church. ‘Difference’ has become a concept within current postmodern discourse which can easily mislead the contemporary western church into forgetting the principles, enshrined in scripture and often rearticulated within Anglicanism, for distinguishing one type of difference from another.’ [2]
Furthermore, to quote paragraphs 92-93 of the Windsor Report:
‘Even when the notion of ‘adiaphora’ applies, it does not mean that Christians are left free to pursue their own personal choices without restriction. Paul insists that those who take what he calls the “strong” position, claiming the right to eat and drink what others regard as off limits, must take care of the “weak”, those who still have scruples of conscience about the matters in question – since those who are lured into acting against conscience are thereby drawn into sin. Paul does not envisage this as a static situation. He clearly hopes that his own teaching, and mutual acceptance within the Christian family, will bring people to one mind. But he knows from pastoral experience that people do not change their minds overnight on matters deep within their culture and experience.
Whenever, therefore, a claim is made that a particular theological or ethical stance is something ‘indifferent’, and that people should be free to follow it without the Church being thereby split, there are two questions to be asked. First, is this in fact the kind of matter which can count as ‘inessential’, or does it touch on something vital? Second, if it is indeed ‘adiaphora’, is it something that, nevertheless, a sufficient number of other Christians will find scandalous and offensive, either in the sense that they will be led into acting against their own consciences or that they will be forced, for conscience’s sake, to break fellowship with those who go ahead? If the answer to the latter question is ‘yes’, the biblical guidelines insist that those who have no scruples about the proposed action should nevertheless refrain from going ahead.’ [3]
Like previous papers emanating from the House of Bishops, what GS 2346 fails to explain is either (a) why issues of marriage and human sexuality can rightly be placed in the category of adiaphora, or (b) why it might be legitimate to go down the route of allowing the blessing of same-sex sexual relationships, marrying same-sex couples, and ordaining those in same-sex sexual relationships given that a large number of Christians in the Church of England, and a large majority of those in the Anglican Communion find this ‘scandalous and offensive.’ Until a convincing explanation can be given on both these points the approach taken in GS 2346 lacks theological legitimacy. Simply treating issues as if they are adiaphora does not make them so.
The second issue is that GS 2346 fails to explain how allowing the blessing of same-sex sexual relationships, marrying same-sex couples, and ordaining those in same-sex sexual relationships is in line with Church of England doctrine, or if it is not, why that doctrine needs to be changed.
Read it all at Reflections of an Anglican Theologian
