Justin Welby’s statement last week that those who who hold to a traditional (or shall we say biblical and orthodox) view of marriage have “a full and undoubted place in the Church of England” should be cold comfort for those who have watched recent church history among revisionist denominations.
While the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury, following his comments on the immensely popular The Rest is Politics podcast were designed to put evangelicals, charismatics and Anglo-Catholics at ease, they in fact do the exact opposite.
It’s as if the traditionalists are supposed to wipe their worried brows and go:
“Phew! Thank you for welcoming affirming us. Welcoming us (so far), but at least allowing us to remain in the church that up until a few theological days ago, held firmly (at least publicly) to the biblical view of marriage.”
That the Archbishop cannot see the irony in that statement is bemusing enough. That he cannot see the trajectory of it, is another thing altogether.
That he made that statement in light his The Rest is Politics statements is instructive. The Anglican Church is, after all, a most political of beasts these days. And like all modern politics in the West, sniffs the wind before determining which direction it should run in. Which usually means running with the pack.
But for those of us who know that “Everything Is Theology” (good podcast name if you want it), we can see the problems.
For Welby’s is exactly the sort of language once used by those denominations that moved in the heterodox direction. Signing up for the Sexular Age is like a Chinese finger trap. It’s only going in one direction. Pull back from it, and it will be bloody and painful. Although necessary.
The Process
For those of you interested, here’s the progression on one side of the equation:
Step One: Welcome but not affirm those who hold to a heterodox teaching on marriage.
Step Two: Welcome AND affirm those who hold to a heterodox teaching on marriage.
Step Three: Welcome but not affirm those who hold to a heterodox practice on marriage.
Step Four: Welcome AND affirm those who hold to a heterodox practice on marriage.
And while that traffic is heading in one direction, here’s what heading in the other:
Step One: Publicly affirm that the orthodox view of marriage is the only valid, biblical viewpoint.
Step Two: Silently assume that the orthodox view of marriage is the only valid, biblical viewpoint.
Step Three: Raise the suggestion that other views may also be biblical.
Step Four: Raise the suggestion that a commitment to the orthodox view of marriage alone may not be biblical – or loving.
Step Five: Affirm heterodox views of sexual relationships that do not call themselves marriage as loving and biblically covenantal.
Step Six: Assure those that hold the orthodox viewpoint (who are protesting at this point), that they too have a place in the church life.
(that’s the step Welby has just taken. And then that’s when it starts to get interesting).
Step Seven: Ask if those who hold out on the heterodox view are really interested in the mission of the church in the 21st century. (or all that loving).
Step Eight: Affirm the heterodox view of marriage.
Step Nine: Perform heterodox marriages (and simultaneously approve of those in the clergy living in such arrangements).
Step Ten: Scold orthodox views of marriage.
Step Eleven: Take actions – both material and legal – against those who hold to the orthodox view and push back against the heterodox view on word and deed.
Simpering Our Way To Heterodoxy
Now that seems like a long, drawn out process. And it is. That’s exactly the point. You don’t jump from one to eleven without a whole lot of hoo-ha. You simper from one to eleven. You creep up on it slowly.
I recently wrote about how I loved my recently deceased dog. But here’s one thing I hated: he simpered.
“No Miloh – you cannot come onto the rug.”
And of course, he didn’t. Not at first. Not fully. It was one paw. I’d see it from the corner of my eye, and grunt. He’d pull back a bit. But not fully. Just enough to dial me down. Then the paw went further. Another grunt. Another semi-retreat. Then a fuller extension of the paw, perhaps two paws.
Simper, simper, simper.
Miloh’s trick – and dogs are brilliant at it – is the art of simpering to ensure that they eventually get what they want, and actually transgress the very rule once enforced, hoping that by the time they have simpered enough you are resigned to it, or even better, reward them by permitting what you once did not permit.
It would seem that the aim of Welby and his ilk (or “ilks” – as this is increasingly common in the progressive canker of the Christian faith), is for the dog to be the one seated at the table, master of the house, while you, the previous owner, should be grateful for the crumbs that fall your way. Hence this statement again:
“…a full and undoubted place in the Church of England”
In the furore of the podcast, Lambeth put out the statement that included that line, and also included this:
Read it all at StephenMcAlpine.com
