Is the ecumenical project any more than just politeness?

Oct 13, 2016 by

CEN Editorial:

The meeting in Rome between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis, was widely reported. Dr Welby gave his pectoral cross to Francis in a grand gesture of goodwill and brotherhood in the faith. But he also said that there were major differences between the two communions over women bishops and clergy, and also over ‘sexuality’. Why the Archbishop stated this latter as a disagreement is a major surprise to the people of the Church of England – as far as we know there is no difference over ‘sexuality’, neither Church approves of homoerotic sex as a basis for relationships, nor same-sex marriage, nor the ordination of gays who are not celibate. So why did the Archbishop refer to a difference on this issue?

Could it be that the Pilling Report is being given far more importance that it should have, or that the ‘facilitated discussions’ are in fact a cloak for a decision already made that a change is planned by the management, ready to be rolled out on an unsuspecting laity? Dr Welby has made dramatic statements about the church treating homosexuals badly, and has accepted Stonewall’s teaching on the homosexual state as going right back to the earliest months of life. But as the months go by the massive rise in transgender identity claims is eclipsing and questioning the Stonewall catechism – it seems that we are all fluid in our sexual potential, that culture is a deeply conditioning factor in human feelings about gender and desire.

It may be time for Dr Welby to take up the evangelical St Andrew’s Day Statement, which probes the binary divide of ‘gay and straight’ and in line with the current stress on fluidity and multi-faceted sexual potentialities.

Does the gift of the pectoral cross to Francis signify anything more than politeness and a desire to friendly? Francis may in fact wonder why, if the Church of England is serious about reconciliation, it continues to go further and further down the liberal, quasi secular pathway on sexuality? Does the gesture of the gift of the cross not conflict with the deliberate parting of ways on sex and Christian anthropology?

This does raise the question of whether the ecumenical movement now is only a shallow desire to issue kindly words and ignore the deeper issues of the moment. The international Anglican Orthodox Commission has just met, after issuing a good slim volume on Christian anthropology – but deliberately avoiding the issue of sexuality, homosexuality being impossible to baptise for the Orthodox worldwide. So again, while such meetings are fine in terms of some leading Anglican and Orthodox theologians meeting and enjoying each others’ company, is the Anglican dalliance with homoerotic sex a brick wall in terms of any deeper mutual relationship and common life together?

Surely the Churches are all called, together, to speak into the chaos and confusion of western culture on sex and gender, rather than adjust the Gospel ethic to this chaos?

Related Posts

Tags

Share This