Sexuality, the C of E and the myth of Christian unity

c-of-e-sexuality-debateAnother week has passed with painful and damaging arguments within the Church of England. The Church’s governing body, the General Synod, voted against ‘taking note’ of the Bishop’s recent report on sexuality. The report followed three years of ‘shared conversations’ about how the church views gay relationships.

The argument between influential blogger Ian Paul and the Prolocutor of Synod, Simon Butler, is a sad microcosm of the dispute.  Butler, a gay clergyman, told Paul of his sexual orientation many years ago when they were at college together.  Now in positions of influence on either side of the polarised stand-off, they have been trading public accusations and counter-accusations on social media.

It reminded me of the dispute in the film Ben Hur between Judah and his former childhood friend Masala. Personal relationships, broken by conviction, ambition and tribal loyalty, have led to bitter enmity.

What is clear is that the whole church is diminished by such public conflict.

Toxic deceit

I have previously written on the need for honesty in these discussions because, alongside the disagreement, there has also been such widespread deceit. The accusations of lies add a bitter toxicity (and irony) to discussions about human and divine love.

After yet more talks and meetings, the Bishops have come up with a report which angered liberals and concerned many conservatives. The divides are deeper than ever and I believe are institutionally unbridgeable.

The myth of unity

Of course, everyone knows that the different denominations and traditions have different perspectives on all kinds of theological and pastoral matters. What makes the disputes in the C of E so painful is the denomination’s lingering ambition for national unity – or the pretence of national unity on this issue.

Anglican ecclesiology has ambitions beyond what is possible. It would be more honest to accept that much of the church believes one thing about gay relationships and another part of the church believes something else. Conformity to one approach will not be possible.

But I don’t believe that conformity on this issue has ever really existed. There have always been many, many gay clergy whatever the institution was decreeing from the centre.  And because Bishops have been complicit in maintaining the deceit it has made the situation all the worse.

Pyrrhic victories

The sexuality debates flow from fundamentally different theological traditions which have always deeply divided the C of E. Many conservative evangelical congregations have little to do with more liberal churches, despite them both having ‘Church of England’ on the noticeboard outside.

But the ambition for conformity on a matter like this leads to deeply unpleasant politics. Genuinely held convictions are fused with the desire to control resources in an unholy alliance.

There will be no winners from these conflicts. It will lead to many more years of bitterness with occasional Pyrrhic victory for one side or the other.

Unity in action

My dislike of a false myth of unity is because I have experienced such a different form of unity which can cross the divisions in the church.  Being involved in initiatives which bring congregations together in local mission such as Love Streatham has been a fantastic experience. In my previous job with the Shaftesbury Society, I worked with similar initiatives in Bradford, Eastbourne, Leeds, Brighton, Southampton and many parts of London.

In my work now with West London Mission, I Chair the Westminster Churches Night Shelter which brings together 13 local churches (plus a synagogue) to help homeless people come off the streets. The generosity and enterprise shown by these vastly different churches shows the power of Christian unity.

Focus on outreach

A focus on outreach and mission helps our perspective.  Often the local community are neither interested or understand the theological differences between the congregations. But they are interested when they see churches working together to make a difference they understand.

And it is not that theology is not important. But these forms of unity in action accept the kind of diversity that will always exist and allow people of different views to make a distinctive contribution.

And through working together on the frontline, they appreciate and understand each other better. Quite the opposite of how things have looked in the C of E this past week.

About Jon Kuhrt

Jon Kuhrt works with people affected by homelessness, offending and addictions at the West London Mission. He, his wife and three children are part of Streatham Baptist Church and he is a member of the Christians on the Left. He likes football...but loves cricket.
This entry was posted in Theology & Church. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Sexuality, the C of E and the myth of Christian unity

  1. Ian says:

    Jon, thanks for these observations…but could I make a couple of things clear (since you mention me)?

    First, I totally agree with you about not conducting these things in public. I have urged that we resolve them privately, but when I am accused of things in the public context of synod, making my own statement in public is the only way of responding to these accusations which are a matter of public record.

    Secondly, I feel neither ambition, nor tribal loyalty, nor bitter enmity towards Simon. I have not changed in the attitude that Simon himself records—of prayerful support and a willingness to journey with him. But I am also committed to an honest discussion of this issue, and for the Church of England to stay true to its own stated doctrine and formularies, and I know this can make for uncomfortable reading for some.

  2. Ian says:

    I should also add that I agree with you focus on unity in action, and have continued to work with Simon in the business of both Archbishops’ Council and the House of Clergy Standing Committee.

    • Jon Kuhrt says:

      Thanks for your comments Ian and its good of you to respond. I realise that I am some way off from the discussions so am just writing from how things seem from my perspective. I do feel that something in the exchange between you and Simon has something extra-tragic about it due to the mix of personal discussions and prayerful support which are now become the subject of such public discussion. I don’t know Simon at all but that this can happen to people who have your history and have journeyed together just shows how impossible it seems for these discussions to be held in a way which can lead to a positive outcome. I hope and pray that both of you can find enough grace coming out of this conflict to repair relationships and ensure you can work together effectively on the bodies you mention.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s