I have now let the House of Bishops’ proposals for ‘Prayers of Love and Faith’ and the legal advice sink in and reflected on them. This has refined but not fundamentally altered my initial response which was one of deep dismay.
Since Cranmer our patrimony includes a beautiful
use of the English language and an ability to find words on which people of
somewhat different persuasions can agree. This has perhaps on occasion
degenerated into a studied ambiguity which made us settle on words which people
of different convictions are able to use because they read them differently
rather than because they have found a consensus. Now we are at risk of
playing with words instead of seeking genuine accord.
I delight in the generous orthodoxy of our
Reformed Catholicism but it grieves me that the Church of England also includes
clergy who scoff at parts of the Scriptures, even declaring them toxic, or who might
laud Paul and the writers of the Gospels as people who made magnificent
attempts in their time while urging us to move on from their failures, as we
discern a gospel beyond the Gospels.
My comfort has been that clergy who care little
for the Thirty-nine Articles or the Book of Common Prayer are usurpers and that
the Church of England does not truly belong to them. I feel that this comfort
is in the process of being taken away from me.
The ‘Prayers of Love and Faith’ may have been
carefully crafted not to fall foul of the Church’s doctrine in the eyes of
canon lawyers but they were not presented with a sufficiently clear,
transparent and honest explanation of how they apply the Church’s teaching to
various pastoral situations. No theological rationale was offered for
continuing to uphold Church teaching. The morality of extra-marital sex appears
to have been moved to the adiaphora. Several bishops, while welcoming the new
resources, expressed their desire for a change to our doctrine and ethics.
Phrases like ‘at the present time’ in the accompanying document clearly suggest
that far from drawing our various listening exercises to a conclusion the
debates are set to continue. And given that pronouncements like the booklet
published by Steve Croft show little awareness of the discussions and research
of the last few decades, we must assume that the debates will continue without
making progress. Unlike our Archbishop I find no joy in this kind of diversity.
Doctrinal differences of the kind that relate to
our formularies should be a source of grief for us. We must continue to make
every effort to re-establish sufficient common doctrinal ground rather than
make ourselves believe that we can still walk together, as if these differences
did not directly impact on how we exercise Christian discipleship and pastoral
care and how we proclaim afresh the good news of Christ in our generation. We
cannot walk together if we seek the deeper unity for which Christ prayed in
different directions. In words from the Book of Common Prayer we must long
for ‘the spirit of truth, unity and concord’ and therefore petition God to
‘grant that all they that do confess thy holy Name, may agree in the truth of
thy holy Word, and live in unity and godly love.’
I want to put it to you that while there are these
divisions among you, you can be certain that you are not led by the Holy
Spirit. Compromise is not a dirty word. But true Christian unity is not found
in the attempt to appease different factions while sidestepping proper
theological reasoning. We are at grave risk of becoming an ecclesial community whose
participation, as a body, in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church is suspect.
I urge you to reconsider the wisdom of the current proposals and to strive for
greater clarity and integrity.
Yours in Christ,
Thomas
