Monday, 5 February 2007

Inclusive Church views the future

From the Church of England Newspaper

Turbulent Times: Continuing our series in which campaigning groups outline their future for the Church. This week: Inclusive Church.

Why it is time to focus on the positive aspects of the Church
by Brian Lewis

The Anglican Communion is a truly remarkable phenomenon, an extraordinary kaleidoscope of churches each embodying its own particular history and engaging with its local community in its own distinctive way. The existence of the Communion has meant that churches that are very different from each other have been able to work together as partners, partners in mission sharing spiritual gifts, and partners in material assistance and development.

Inclusive Church hopes that through the work of the Primates’ meeting and the actions of the other “instruments of unity” the Anglican Communion will come to a renewed understanding of its worth and a deeper historical perspective on its differences. There is much talk of the fractures in the Communion but not enough recognition of the works of partnership and the expressions of unity that still go on in very many places; churches from “the North” (including TEC) and “the South” (including in Africa) are still working as partners in mission, poverty relief and development. We hope for a communion that recovers a broader perspective on the issues of the current day and we dare to hope that the Church of England will contribute to this by developing its own understanding of what it means to be an inclusive church. The Church of England will, by a more honest and tolerant recognition of the divergent views within itself, contribute to the wider Communion discovering ways to hold differences without irrevocable division.

When we speak of our hope for an inclusive church we mean a church that will live out the promise of the Gospel. A church that will celebrate the diverse gifts of all members of the Body of Christ, and in the ordering of our common life open the ministries of deacon, priest and bishop to those so called to serve by God, regardless of their gender, race or sexual orientation. The just ordering of the Church’s common life will strengthen its proclamation of the Gospel. Our failure to be inclusive is a real barrier between the church and the wider society we seek to serve and evangelise.
A theology of inclusion is not in opposition to theology that values conversion and sanctification. For us inclusion means that we recognise that God desires salvation for all regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation and that we are all called to lives that are faithful, honest, other enriching and socially responsible again regardless of our race, gender or sexual orientation. It is the church’s task to help the Christian discern a pattern of holy living in response to that Gospel challenge. That response will be based on the serious reading of, and attending, to Scripture in a way that does not confuse the Gospel with either the presuppositions and exclusions of the first century, or an uncritical acceptance of the mores of the culture of today.

The ordination of women to the priesthood is not the church giving up obedience to God and following the culture of the day, it is the church joyfully recognising the leadership gifts God has given to women as well as men and bringing that into the life of our church in our world today. We believe that Scripture teaches us God intends men and women to work in partnership, a partnership expressed in ministry, lay and ordained. This is not a departure from biblical truth it is the church coming to understand it more fully over time, a process encouraged and authenticated by women responding faithfully to God’s call as the church has increasingly opened its lay and ordained ministries to women.

The society in which we live and proclaim the Gospel accepts the right of women to full participation at all levels. So deeply is this part of our society that we have legal sanctions to prevent individuals or organisations denying women the opportunity to advance to all levels of leadership. Yet we have only managed to hesitantly and conditionally recognise what women in the priesthood have brought to the church. Our failure to move easily and speedily to bring women into the episcopate has made us appear strange, irrational, and frankly unwell to the society we hope to evangelise.

We hope for a church that will have the courage to say Yes to women in ministry and leadership. We believe that when our church finally admits women to the episcopate in a way that does not diminish the fullness of that ministry this will not change the essential nature of the episcopate but rather remove an artificial cultural barrier that excludes those whom God has called. It is an uncomfortable truth that some of reactions to the election of Katharine
Jefferts Schori to the position of Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church revealed how superficial the Communion claim to agreement on women in the episcopate is. Women bishops in the Church of England will be an encouragement to those parts of the Communion where this is not yet a reality and strengthen the place in the Communion of those churches in which women already take their rightful place.

If attitudes to women bishops (especially primates!) are one apparent challenge to the Communion’s unity, differing approaches to homosexuality seem to be an even greater threat. Then again we are told that the principal cause of division is not homosexuality but the proper place of Scripture in determining the theology and ethical position of the Church. But first let us note that the same level of division has not come from divergent views of how the Bible should determine the church’s position on other issues. For example some churches in the Communion allow those previously divorced to marry in their churches, others regard that as a betrayal of the clear teaching of the Bible but there is no talk of dividing the Communion over it. We are left with the question of why the issue of homosexuality has produced the visceral response, the violence of language and the depth of division that it has.

The issue of homosexuality is not new - not even to the bishops of the Anglican Communion. Nearly thirty years ago, in 1978, the Lambeth Conference resolved:

“While we reaffirm heterosexuality as the scriptural norm, we recognise the need
for deep and dispassionate study of the question of homosexuality, which would
take seriously both the teaching of Scripture and the results of scientific and
medical research. The Church, recognising the need for pastoral concern for those
who are homosexual, encourages dialogue with them.”

With the notable exception of a few (the Churches in Canada and the USA for example) this study has not been carried out and where it has the results have been ignored in the other parts of the Communion.

The Lambeth Conference of 1988 resolved

“This Conference:

1. Reaffirms the statement of the Lambeth Conference of 1978 on homosexuality, recognising the continuing need in the next decade for “deep and dispassionate study of the question of homosexuality, which would take seriously both the teaching of Scripture and the results of scientific and medical research.”

2. Urges such study and reflection to take account of biological, genetic and psychological research being undertaken by other agencies, and the socio-cultural factors that lead to the different attitudes in the provinces of our Communion.

3. Calls each province to reassess, in the light of such study and because of our concern for human rights, its care for and attitude towards persons of homosexual orientation. “

Could a Lambeth Resolution have been more carefully and studiously ignored?

It is in the context of these resolutions and the complete failure of the Communion to respond to them that we should see the more widely quoted resolution 1.10 of 1998.

We are however, where we are, and Inclusive Church is determined to journey in hope. It is not too late for the Primates to listen to each other with a greater spirit of generosity than they appear to have found in the recent past. The “Windsor process” might achieve greater success if it is broadened to involve the whole Communion at deeper levels. At present it seems to depend on the Bishops indeed the Primates alone. The Lambeth Commission was mandated to report to the Archbishop of Canterbury in preparation for the meetings of the both Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council. It was perhaps a lost opportunity that the Primates acted at Dromantine without waiting for the ACC to meet and bring its wisdom to the table. Their call for members of the ACC to voluntarily suspend their own membership was particularly damaging. The ACC is after all the duly constituted representative body of laity, clergy and bishops in the Communion. When the ACC did meet with the “voluntary” self-suspension of the North American churches it was notable that the suspension was confirmed by a margin less than the votes of the excluded provinces. The Primates decision to exclude would not have been confirmed by the ACC if it had met with its properly constituted membership. May we hope that the Primates will seek ways of acting that are less about determining who may come to the ACC and the Lambeth Conference and more about listening to what might come from those bodies if they are allowed to have their own integrity and purposes.

If the ACC has been somewhat sidelined, how much more the Church of England. With the Archbishop of Canterbury engaged in his delicate role as the “fourth instrument of unity” and choosing to exercise that role in the manner he has, the Church of England has been effectively voiceless. The recent decision to add the Archbishop of York to the Primates meeting may help but it is late in the day and with due respect to the Archbishop of York he was not the one chosen by the due process of the Church of England to represent it.

It is our hope that the Church of England will make a more positive contribution to bringing reconciliation to the Communion by modelling a more irenic and constructive model of debate than we have seen within the Communion to date. At its next meeting General Synod will consider a private members motion that calls for recognition of the diversity of views within the Church of England and the honest and sincere nature of those views. It is a serious attempt to set the ground for a genuine intelligent conversation within the Church of England about the nature of homosexuality, how we read and attend to scripture and how we proclaim the gospel afresh in the society in which we are set. This is not a naive expression of the view that if we can just talk to each other we will discover that we all really agree. We might, but its also very possible we won’t. If we can not come to agreement we still owe it to the people of the church and to the mission of the church to get past caricatures of each other and come to a deeper understanding of what it is the other is really saying. We do not yet know what we might achieve by sitting down to understand the others context, nor should we imagine that we have already heard all that the other has to say, or that we each understand what the other means by the language used. This is not a romantic call to sentimentality it is an invitation to the hard work of dialogue.

The Archbishops’ Council report “Into the New Quinquenium” (General Synod Feb. 06) speaks of the life of the Church being expressed “in its transforming engagement with the society in which it is set”. We journey in hope to the day we become an inclusive church, ordering our common life with justice and celebrating the gifts God has given all his people; while we remain hampered by the cultural presuppositions of a previous age we can not hope to engage and speak to the society in which we are set.

The Rev’d Brian Lewis is a member of the Inclusive Church Executive, a member of General Synod, a parish priest and chairs the Newham Faith Communities Forum.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Monday, 5 February 2007 at 8:00am GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: InclusiveChurch

An inspiring piece, that brings clarity from the history of what has (and has not) happened and an analysis born of deep, constructive faith. I feel uplifted.

It is very encouraging that the Church of England newspaper are sharing it with their readers. It may be the start, the seed of something new in sharing and listening. There are so many good people on all sides. So many 'seeking the consolation of Israel' (if I may so put it at this Candlemass)and not sure which way to turn or what to do for the best.

I regret my own intemperate words which though perhaps born of pain and frustration, were of ego and perhaps unhelpful. Though I believe all these errors and unskilfulnesses may be used, redeemed. I do belieeve in my heart that the Lord of Light may use all, and melt all our hearts.

'forgive our foolish ways
re-clothe us in our rightful minds...'

'O Sabbath rest by Galilee
O calm of hills above..'

Such sanity and calm in the Whittier hymn.
And in Fr. Faber's hymn so much, but especially,

'the Heart of the Eternal is most wonderfully kind...'

all holy work, however mundane or small, must surely make a diffference to our world letting in the light, the Shekinah ......
lets make more chinks for her to shine thru !.......


Posted by: laurence on Monday, 5 February 2007 at 12:17pm GMT

The article makes the comparison between divorces and homosexuality and wonders why the spleen is greater over the latter.

I suppose in the case of the first there can sometimes be innocent parties. It is possible to be caught up in a divorce and simultaneously to have (unlike one's spouse) obeyed the NT from A-Z. Whereas with homosexual practice every practitioner is knowingly disobeying it. As if that were not bad enough, they then claim that their own idea of what constitutes a sin is superior to that of the NT.

In other kinds of divorce case, I have no idea why it would be seen as a less important matter than homosexuality. That doesn't seem logical to me either. If anything, more lives are negatively affected in the case of divorce.

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Monday, 5 February 2007 at 1:38pm GMT

Naivety is all over this piece. There may well be poverty relief and development between Anglican Churches, but the mission side has become aggressive and a dead duck, as has any sense of a united ecclesiology. He writes as if you can set up bishops, priests and deacons, and all will be well.

To me, whether it is Affirming Catholicism or Inclusive Church, the inclusive role of the Broad Church is somewhat finished. It does not do that function any more. The charismatic evangelicals do not want it, the liberals are more distinct, the Open Evangelicals are the split point and nor can they persuade the dogmatic evangelicals. And the Nigerians are aggressive and imperialistic regarding dogmatism and power.

The argument about cultural assumptions, as though we just clear them away to let through objective truths, like women bishops, and presumably gay bishops too, does not wash with many. They regard these as cultural innovations, not removals. The delusion is that there is some objective norm anyway, as if it was not cultural in the past, or will not be cultural in the future (after a few more reforms). This is the liberal delusion, the continued reasonableness of inclusion, that they might agree with us. No they don't, and with good grounds.

The fantasy world is this objectivity to be found under the next reform. It is this idea that the others might come around to see this point of view. No they won't - so then what?

Posted by: Pluralist on Monday, 5 February 2007 at 3:19pm GMT

A superb document which deserves a close reading.

Posted by: John Henry on Monday, 5 February 2007 at 4:51pm GMT

Christopher Shell,

It might be that homosexuality is such an emotional issue for many conservatives is that it is the ONE sin they know they won't commit.

Divorce is a regulated sin where God gives constraints to limit its effects. That doesn't make it right nor does it reduce the effects to nothingness. Other sexual sin doesn't have this regulated space and the line is drawn in a different place. You and I agree that divorce is probably the more important issue, but same sex marriage does have issues when we consult Scripture. Of course this is predicated on the idea Scripture we don't want to hear is valid....

I hope all churches are inclusive, allowing all Christians to exercise their gifts and reaching out to society. However, I think there is a liberal canard that inclusion and granting qualification for leadership are the same thing. The standard for leaders is higher. I also hope all churches hold their leaders to the standards God gives in Scripture and examine them as the Bareans examined Paul.

Posted by: Chris on Monday, 5 February 2007 at 8:49pm GMT

Without getting diverted by Christopher Shell's response, I mean whilst, I really do warm to the attempt to be inclusive and including in as many as possible - one reason why I am trying to get some contributions included on Fulcrum about Goddard to Goddard, when they get added - there is an argument in the Inclsuve Church approach that won't impress the side it must appeal to and, I suggest, does not stand up.

Inclusive Church is saying that secular society has moved on, and women have full equality, but the Church has not and identifies a cultural past to be removed in order to achieve an objective orthodox present. They say, no, the Church was right and this is now a cultural innovation. So many will not buy this. And they certainly won't over homosexual equality within Church ministry.

Read a book, even a liberal one, in the 1970s. They still refer to "men" and there is little demand for full female equality in ministry. Then and before many liberals did not agitate that orthodoxy was incomplete. Homosexuality is little mentioned, and remember the Man Alive programme in the secular world about an objective disorder and sad lives lived by people to pity.

Well it was cultural, but so is the move to be properly inclusive - properly because it is a preference that constitutes more to their good and the good of all than not doing so and this is what we see and what we prefer. And many do not.

Culture changes all the time, and changes how the Bible is read, and how doctrines are regarded, even if liturgies seem to reflect some sort of argicultural feudal past. This is what is changing.

Posted by: Pluralist on Monday, 5 February 2007 at 10:10pm GMT

Hi Chris-
Aha, you think all people's views have psychological roots. When they claim they are based on facts and statistics this is a smokescreen, possibly a knowingly decepticve smokescreen.
CS Lewis dealt with this in his Theory of Bulverism. (He also mentioned that - as you quite corerctly and importantly point out - this is one sin that many are not remotely tempted to commit. The only other one in his case was gambling. Alas not in mine. I lost a whole pound of 10ps just like that in Keswick in 1981.)

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Tuesday, 6 February 2007 at 12:23pm GMT


Actually, I'm not being clear in my statements and what I wanted to communicate didn't get through.

I actually hold a fairly conservative view on homosexuality and think an active relationship is not compatible with leadership in the church (even a levels far below Bishops) - just as other sexual sins and other lifestyle sins are not compatible.

What I'm suggesting is the severity of reaction against homosexuality has a psychological root. Why is does this sin get so much attention when a relatively small number of people are tempted by it and issues such as substance abuse, pornography and divorce have wider affects?

That may still be considered Bulverism, but I'm looking for an explanation for reacting to a fact and not trying to change a fact.

BTW, can you give the lay person's definition of what you mean by "statistics?" Assuming its analysis of how often something occurs in Scripture.

Posted by: Chris on Tuesday, 6 February 2007 at 4:55pm GMT

IC wrote: "A theology of inclusion is not in opposition to theology that values conversion and sanctification. For us inclusion means that we recognise that God desires salvation for all regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation and that we are all called to lives that are faithful, honest, other enriching and socially responsible again regardless of our race, gender or sexual orientation."

As the English HoB recently commented, such liberal statements are too vague. In my view they are just an attempt to claim the high ground by trying to sound as if the other "side" doesnt believe what they just stated. Whereas in fact BOTH sides in this debate could make exactly that statement!

And if IC liberals were to "win" we would soon see that inclusion also exlcudes those who aren't inclusive enough -- as TEC has already shown, and the UK government is now revealing in the regulations that it is making!

The difference between liberals and conservatives is not that one is *necessarily* any more inclusive than the other in absolute terms, but that each decides who is to be included or excluded on a slightly different basis.

Posted by: Dave on Tuesday, 6 February 2007 at 7:51pm GMT

"It might be that homosexuality is such an emotional issue for many conservatives is that it is the ONE sin they know they won't commit."

But do people ordinarily get emotional about sins to which they have no inclination themselves?

Posted by: Fr Joseph O'Leary on Wednesday, 7 February 2007 at 3:39am GMT

Chris - there would be just as strong a reaction to ordaining people who taught it is ok to steal or lie.....

Posted by: NP on Wednesday, 7 February 2007 at 12:18pm GMT

Hi Chris
On the side issue, what I mean by statistics is usually what anyone else means by it - the newspapers, scientific journals, or what have you. Namely: surveys of large numbers of various people in order to determine proportions.

On the main issue, I have no doubt that people's reaction to homosexuality sometimes (or even often) has a psychological root. I say this because people's reaction to most things is (unfortunately) experience-based rather than being more objective.
There are plenty of other good reasons for having a negative view of homosexual practice which are not psychological or emotional: in my case, the main one is the study of the relevant statistics, without which study it is impossible to have any worthwhile opinion of any kind.
The reason homosexuality has been singled out by Christans is quite simple. It is (to my knowledge)the *only* case where something regarded as sinful (in fact, very sinful) in the NT is being regarded as positively good by Christians. No-one thinks divorce is actually good. Let alone lying, murder and the others. And even the NT does not treat slavery as good. (Of course, there are various congregational regulations in 1 Corinthians which may fall in the same category, but these seem less basic matters: errors of procedure which would never appear in the main roll-calls of sins that are scattered through the NT gospels and epistles.) So no wonder homosexual practice is in a special category, and treated as such.

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Wednesday, 7 February 2007 at 1:30pm GMT

You are confusing 'homosexual practice' --what ever that is*, with lesbian and gay relationships. No wonder your thinking (?) is in such a mess. well virtually non-esistent.

*Please do not regale me with what your fevered imaginings. there is such a thing a decency still. Isn't there ? Speaking of which, there is something somewhat indecent about your contributions here --but that will probably only encourage you...
Why does the protagonsit's mother in bleak House come to mind ?

Posted by: laurence on Wednesday, 7 February 2007 at 4:24pm GMT

NP:"there would be just as strong a reaction to ordaining people who taught it is ok to steal or lie....."

Really? Martyn Minns seems to have had no difficulty getting ordained as a bishop and here he is just a few months later organizing the theft of historic churches from TEC. That plus the repeated insidious lie of apostacy on the part of TEC makes it seem as if the willingness to steal and lie is an absolute requirement for ordination in some circles.

Posted by: ruidh on Wednesday, 7 February 2007 at 8:09pm GMT

"It is (to my knowledge)the *only* case where something regarded as sinful (in fact, very sinful) in the NT is being regarded as positively good by Christians. No-one thinks divorce is actually good. Let alone lying, murder and the others. And even the NT does not treat slavery as good."

What about taking oaths (condemned in the Sermon on the Mount)?

Posted by: Fr Joseph O'Leary on Thursday, 8 February 2007 at 3:10am GMT

Hi Joseph-
The point about oaths is as logical as you can get. If someone says 'I really mean that', one is uncomfortable lest everything else they said tehy did *not* really mean. 'Let your yes be yes and your no be no' is the only sensible princilpe on this matter I have ever heard.

Lawcourts highlight the dishonesty of the whole thing. The whole question is whether people are going to 'plead' guilty or not guilty. What about Gandhi? He didn't 'plead' anything. When he *was* guilty as charged he said so, and when he was not he said he was not. The whole 'plead' thing is everything to do with tactics and nothing to do with truth.
The lack of truth-orientation of lawcourts is seen in so many other ways. One can defend a client while believing them to be guilty, or prosecute them while believing them to be innocent. One can let off someone known to be guilty on a mere technicality (we didnt know which particular white powder Kate Moss was snorting. Doesn't it occur that *whichever* powder it was would have merited some fine?). In all these ways truth is removed from the centre of the picture. And oaths contribute to the same thing: we have an assumption that people will not tell the truth naturally.

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Thursday, 8 February 2007 at 12:40pm GMT

"each decides who is to be included or excluded on a slightly different basis"
I actually agree on this, Dave, though I would argue with the word "slightly". Claiming that you can, and ought to be, excluded till you have changed your life so as to make yourself acceptable to God, which has been claimed explicitly as well as implicitly by some on "your" side of the fence on these pages, is quite different from claiming that you are acceptable to God because He says you are and the fruit of that acceptability is to seek always to draw closer to Him and pattern your life after His teachings. The latter is pure Incarnational Christianity, the former is Justification by Works, and, as far as I understand it, Pelagianism. Grace is not won through obedience, obedience is in response to Grace.

And Christopher, I've seen where your "statistics" come from, you can't argue for honest discussion of science and then quote those who dress propaganda in scientific clothing. The "science" Gagnon cites is highly suspect, though I suspect you knew that, hence your reluctance to give references.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Thursday, 8 February 2007 at 1:29pm GMT

Ford Elms wrote: ""each decides who is to be included or excluded on a slightly different basis" I actually agree on this, Dave, though I would argue with the word "slightly". Claiming that you can, and ought to be, excluded till you have changed your life so as to make yourself acceptable to God..."

Dear Ford, I'm glad you agree. I'm continuously amazed that most liberals think of themselves as more "inclusive" in absolute terms... I would argue that what they are thinking of, when they say that, is that they are more liberal!

ps I certainly don't think that anyone "ought to be excluded until they have changed themselves to be acceptable to God". We are always going to fall far short of the Holiness of God in this life! However, I do think that unrepented sins exclude us from the Kingdom of Heaven. And that pretending that something is not a sin doesn't make it so - at least not if you believe in a real God, rather than just some sociological construct! Everyone is included by God's grace, through faith, if they repent and seek forgiveness. If anyone hangs on to a sin - whether pride, lust, lying, fear or same-sex sex - they "exclude themselves" (to use a nice liberal phrase)

Posted by: Dave on Thursday, 8 February 2007 at 11:47pm GMT

Hi Ford-
Not a single one of my stats comes from NARTH, Gagnon, Satinover, Focus on the Family, Anne Atkins, Cameron, DeYoung, or even Mary Whitehouse. They all come from social-scientific research.
The above authors - and anyone else - are free to cite this social-scientific research.
They - and we, and you - are also free to cite other social-scientific research which counteracts it. This has so far not happened. The question is: why?
The wider and more scientific the survey, the better the information. Even if it is the case that the figures may not be exact, they are just as likely to be inexact in one direction as in another. They are not going to conform to our wishes, because wishes play no part in research.

That was the bit I enjoyed about research: not knowing what the conclusions would be till the end.

How, in any case, can one treat *all* the main available statistics on homosexuality as if they were all of a piece? They would need to be assessed individually.

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Friday, 9 February 2007 at 12:43pm GMT

Well, despite repeated requests that you cite a study, any study, that backed up your claims, the only name you gave was Gagnon, so I must assume that is where your ideas come from. If not, cite a source other than Gagnon. Yes people are free to cite social scientific literature, but if they cite "studies" that are of dubious scientific validity as though they are valid, one must consider the possibility that they do not know how to evaluate the validity of a study, which calls into question their academic ability, or that they are willfully quoting misinformation to back up their previous prejudices. I cannot comment on Gagnon's biblical scholarship, but that's not what we're talking about. All the same, Goran seems to think he's a bit off the mark on that one, and he certainly has more academic cred in that area than I.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Friday, 9 February 2007 at 1:39pm GMT

Neither I nor anyone else could possibly get statistics 'from' Gagnon, since Gagnon never does more than cite the statistics of others. He has produced none himself.

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Monday, 12 February 2007 at 1:17pm GMT

So where DOES your information come from?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Tuesday, 13 February 2007 at 3:34pm GMT
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.