2014: The beginning of facilitated schism?

Happy New Year! As we look forward to the months ahead, we want to wish each other all the best, to recall God’s intention to bless and not to harm, to hope for prosperity and well-being. Surely we hope and pray the same for the Church of England – the message of the Gospel touching more and more people, spiritual growth among those who are already churchgoers, and above all unity, an end to the conflicts over sexuality. Wouldn’t it be Scrooge-like in the extreme to say the opposite: the best thing for the Church of England in 2014 might be a split? The beginning of a facilitated conversation… to negotiate an orderly separation?

 

I need to say that this is not a policy statement for Anglican Mainstream or any other grouping. It is thinking out loud in a personal capacity. In a recent piece I noted how some Bishops are thinking: keeping the church together is paramount, and unity is dependent on the idea that all views are valid as long as they are sincerely held and peacefully expressed. But there is evidence that another view is emerging. One Bishop, writing recently to a clergyman in response to concerns about the Pilling Report, speaks of:

Might it be possible that a Happy New Year in the Church of England might see, as this Bishop sees, an honest recognition that the differences over sexuality and underlying doctrinal and philosophical systems are so great that we need to at least talk about separating? Could it be a good thing to walk apart, rather than perpetuating the fiction that we all really believe the same things? And in doing so, could this be done peacefully, with justice, fairness and mutual respect, recognizing that there are still many areas of common interest, such as good administration of buildings insurance and clergy pensions, care for the poor and vulnerable, and the need to preserve the proclamation of the Christian story in society even though we might interpret it differently?

 

 

“Walking apart” is similar language used in the Windsor Report of 2004, in response to the global crisis of credal understanding following the consecration of Gene Robinson. Despite talk of unity being maintained through covenants and Instruments of Communion, there has been a “walking apart”; both globally, with many GAFCON-aligned Provinces unable to share fellowship with the Episcopal Church, and within Provinces, as we witnessed the formation of ACNA. In that case the separation has been bitter, with tragically wasteful legal action and unChristian bullying tactics. Could we do things in a better way here, while recognizing the irreconcileable differences?

 

But why should there be a separation in the Church of England? Isn’t that a denial of Jesus’ prayer that his disciples should be one? All Christians believe in God, worship and follow Jesus as Son of God, reverence the Bible as the Word of God – isn’t this enough of a basis for unity? Here are some reasons why careful, respectful and orderly separation might be a solution that allows different understandings of the Gospel to flourish with integrity.

 

First, there are two different understandings of salvation. This has been highlighted again recently with the news of a proposed new liturgy for baptisms which leaves out the requirement for parents and sponsors to “repent of sin” and “renounce the Devil”, because these are concepts which are misunderstood in today’s society. The revised version does not replace these phrases with others expressing the same meaning, they omit the concepts altogether, because the authors clearly do not believe in them. The sharp criticisms recorded in the news stories and blogs on this subject show that this is not a minor concern such as the forthcoming Synod debate on clergy wearing robes, but a sign of an unbridgeable divide in theological understanding.

 

Underlying this, there are two different understandings about the Bible and its interpretation. Much has already been written about this in response to the Pilling Report. Wouldn’t it be better to admit that we cannot “square the circle” – some of us have one way of looking at the Bible, others have another, completely different way?

 

Then, there are two different concepts of God. Again, the Pilling Report demonstrates this. God cannot be simultaneously in favour of certain same sex sexual relationships to the extent that we can bless them on his behalf, and also against them, regarding them as sinful. Both ideas of God may be idols. Or one is. But they cannot both be the real God. In his dissenting statement to the Pilling Report, Bishop Keith Sinclair quotes Canadian theologian Edith Humphrey to say that a church which blesses what God has forbidden is idolatrous, constructing a God captive to cultural norms (Pilling Report, p141). David Runcorn in his statement does a similar thing when he accuses conservative Christians of failing to understand the Bible’s teaching about God’s love and inclusion, constructing a theology based on exclusion because of “anxious inability to cope with difference” (PR p193), and worshipping a god of evangelical tradition. It is possible, or even desirable, to maintain the fiction of unity here?

 

Both sides believe the presence of the other in the church is harming mission, because the message one side gives is muddied by the different message within the same church. “Including Christians” (to borrow Runcorn’s phrase) believe the Gospel message of radical welcome, love and inclusion is being harmed by the narrow theology of the conservatives, who in turn believe that the IC’s are downplaying or denying the reality of sin and the need for repentance. Separation would make it easier to explain what our church believes in.

 

 

Some say that we must continue to stay together in the Church; never to “un-church” each other. Jesus did however speak of putting people out of the church for refusing to repent of sin. But in Matthew 18:17 Jesus does not advocate writing each other off. Rather the true church (whichever one that is – the “includers” or the “conservers”) should treat the unrepentant “as you would a pagan or tax collector”. This means maintaining an attitude of love and prayer and respectful contact with a view to continued engagement, collaboration perhaps in social action, but not fellowship in worship or collaboration in theological education or evangelism. Similar in other words to an interfaith relationship.

 

And what about the practical implications of separation? Which side would get to keep the C of E brand, and the Queen or future King? And what about buildings, finances, administration? I don’t know the answers, but perhaps that is what should be on the table in the “facilitated discussions”, rather than doctrinal and ethical beliefs which cannot be negotiated.