So the Archbishop has spoken out concerning the inflammatory action of the Episcopal Church in America in voting to allow active homosexuals to enter holy orders. I must say my heart sank the second I looked at this response, the sheer length convincing me that what lay ahead was the usual Anglican tactic of fudge and gobbledygook in an attempt to paper over cracks. I was right.
If nothing else we Anglicans have become masters at using lots of words to say nothing much within official responses that can be interpreted in multiple ways. Sadly though this woolly approach is no longer going to pacify within a church stretched to breaking point. The Christology of orthodox and liberals is not only different these days, it is diametrically opposed. What one believes actually negates the other expression of faith and no amount of kindly words and generous actions will change that.
So what we need is clarity and authority. The Church of England must decide what it wants to be. A part of the Universal Church preaching the faith in sympathy with Christians elsewhere and in obedience to an orthodox understanding of scripture. Or else a radical Church of the West that seeks to redefine faith for a new generation, willing to re-interpret where the Spirit is believed to be leading. Now is the time for decision. It is one or other not both for, as scripture warns, a house divided will fall.
But sadly such decisive leadership is not to be found in ++Rowan. Once again the duality of his message appeases nobody and he is left looking like a kindly old school master struggling to cope with the rigours of modern life. I am sorry to attack his post today, as I genuinly think he is a good soul struggling to make something out of a terrible mess, but this latest statement simply will not/cannot do.
So what IS ++Rowan proposing? Well rather than admonishing or congratulating the Americans, Rowan goes for a slap on the wrist and an act of appeasement. What we are offered is a bewildering (and totally unprecedented) vision of a ‘two track’ church. On the first track will exist those Christians who hold traditional views on sexuality and on the other those who wish to embrace the more radical view. Both are to be seen as loyal Anglicans, though the first stream more so than the second (eh?), and both must be commended for living out their faith in the way they feel called. In my opinion this farcical fudge comes across as being as desperate as it is unworkable and weak.
What about our ecclesiology, the theology of the church which teaches that we are to be one? And what about truth? Christ did not, to my knowledge, die for the sins of the world in a manner that called people to follow through the choice of different tracks!
Then in a lesser way we might ask how it is to manifest. Because sexuality is not the only issue over which their is disagreement and a chronic lack of clear leadership. What of the huge difference of belief regarding women’s ordination? Are we opponents sat on the first or second track…or may both pro and anti WO people choose the track that fits best according to their views on sexuality?? What of the congregations where some are first track and some second, who will minister to them? The whole thing is a total shambles and a farce and today I am lamenting the fact that I am an Anglican. I am embarrassed and confused by what my church is teaching.
Surely everyone, regardless of belief, can see that this represents nothing more and nothing less than total anarchy. Believe what you will but please remember we are family! That is not good enough for a church with a mission and a purpose. We need to seek the truth and witness to it in love.
Either it is God’s will that active homosexual clergy can be ordained or it is not. Either women may share this calling or they may not. So the Church of England must decide; either embrace these innovations and compensate those unable to follow or discipline those who acting without authority and who are thus preaching heresy, no matter how sincere their belief. Both those paths lead to a parting of the ways but in reality that happened long ago. No amount of papering over cracks can hide the deep rift that now exists and I fear that an unwillingness to follow either path could lead to a collapse of the whole operation. A house divided cannot stand and a Church without an agreed set of beliefs cannot possibly hope to convert and inspire.
All I can discern at the heart of the Archbishops writing is a willingness to accept pluralism due to a deep desire for unity. But truth is not a matter of opinion and the Archbishop of all people should know that.
Only a complete fool could deny the deep damage that accepting WO and the consecration of active homosexuals has done to the Anglican Church. The schism which ++Rowan fears is not held back by this statement it is worsened. Synod be warned, a church preaching the Catholic faith will not belong on track one or track two. It will belong in a different church.
