305. Anglicans have not always sought the final resolution of issues where the process of conversation and dialogue does not result in easy consensus. An example is the question of war – there remains within Anglicanism a strong and well-developed pacifist position and another (traditionally more influential) which emphasizes theories of the just war. Both positions are presented as scriptural and reasonable and both have long histories within the life of the church. The dialogue continues. On many issues, there is scope for profound ethical disagreement between Anglicans. But when the different ethical stances represent people and traditions and not just theories, disagreement can call into question the very identity and belonging of the protagonists.There are some obvious parallels. The key issue is an activity (waging war) which for a group of people (soldiers) is an important, for some maybe even essential, aspect of their identity. Some Christians want to bless (the people involved in) this activity in certain, carefully circumscribed circumstances ("just war"); others believe that the church cannot invoke God's blessing on this activity under any circumstances. The more "inclusive" position is in line with the majority of the population and the demands of the state, albeit not completely so, as the (futile) opposition to Tony Blair's Iraq war demonstrated.
There are also significant differences. As with a number of other issues, to some of which David Runcorn's contribution makes reference, there is Biblical precedence for the activity alongside strictures against it, so that the challenge is how to read God's Word as a coherent whole, doing justice to the different statements, principles and examples offered across the canon.
The Pilling Report arguably understates the extent to which what they term the "traditionally more influential" position is the default position in the Church of England. Article 37 of the Thirty-Nine Articles states
It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.Reasoning to support this position can be found, e.g., in Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 2.2 question 40, first article (the second article argues that it is nevertheless unlawful for clerics).
There is room for conscientious objectors within the Church of England and space to argue for a pacifist position. Pacifist priests may be able to avoid some of the most difficult liturgical situations but there is little doubt that they are operating in a non-pacifist environment which does not give the space for promoting pacifism with true consistency, as a Mennonite church would.
The opposite scenario, a pacifist church which allows for the blessing of soldiers before they go to war, is harder to imagine. Agreeing to disagree is easier in cases where the dominant position is the more inclusive one. A church that sanctions actions such as waging war cannot truly promote an ethic which disapproves of that action; it can at best tolerate people who seek to live by such an ethic.
If the supporters of the Pilling Report hope that we can arrive at a situation where we "agree to disagree" on the appropriateness of sexual acts outside marriage as traditionally understood in ways similar to how we live with our disagreements on war, it is not clear how one would move to this place from where we are now.
