The Church of England has had an interesting week. It has conducted countless funerals, weddings and baptisms. It has visited many in need, sat with the dying, taken acts of collective worship in church and community schools, prayed in people’s homes, offered prayers in churches, sat on church councils and the committees of other agencies. It has been behind the creation of a number of food banks and community initiatives. All of this has gone on relatively unnoticed and perhaps under appreciated; except by people who have directly been in contact with the church by law established in its various guises.
The Church of England made a statement. Suddenly everyone noticed. Peoples wagged their fingers, even some of those who thought they were the Church of England thought that the statement should not have been made.
I refer of course the Church of England response to the government’s consultation on possible legislation concerning the marriage of same-sex couples. I am an Agnostic concerning this matter. I admit firstly that some of my fellow evangelical Christians have treated gay people as less than human. I am ashamed of that. Secondly, I am aware that some Christians appear to want to jettison years of Christian doctrine, ethics, understanding our sacred texts almost without a pause for breath. I despair about that.
I am aware that many of my friends have signed the ‘not in my name’ response to the Church of England’s response to the consultation. I have not done so. It is not because the manner of the response was appropriate. It was not. It is not because I cannot try to empathise with those who long to have their relationship blessed in the sight of God; marriage in Church is what (I think) those who are gay and Christian want. For me it is because of opprobrium heaped on those who put out the report by those who did not like it.
I also struggle with the fact that we have lost the ability to disagree with grace. It may be that the Church of England’s capability of holding together divergent views has diminished. If it has been permanently lost, then I would argue that would be of far more significance than reaction to a response to a consultation. It should not surprise us that we have lost the ability to gracefully disagree; we no longer go out of way to move beyond our tribal groups. People on both sides of the debate talk at rather than with each other. In my email inbox this week, that has been the accusation made (of me) that I do not ‘get the need for justice’ and from another perspective that ‘I risk compromising my standing (what standing?) as an evangelical interpreter of the scriptures’. Without personal relationships, we will make statements that cannot be understood nor appreciated because we will never have shared hospitality with those whom we disagree with. When the Church of England can no longer provide a place to do that; it will cease to be the Church of and for England.
I realise that the consultation and its response are important. I do not belittle that. A much bigger question might be, when was the last time you sat down and spent time with, and listened to those you disagree with. There might be a gospel imperative to that from time to time.
It will always be easier to shout and write leaders columns than to offer hospitality and time to those you disagree with.
lurchersontheedge 
I am eirenic,rather than polemic, and have also spent time trying to get my head round modern physics and mathematics. These are precise subjects – yet, gosh, what extraordinary statements they make. Einsteinian physics talks of time being different when you go fast; quantum mechanics of nothing being settled until you observe it, and then something else cannot be ascertained. And the extraordinary thing is that both theories seem to fit what is observed.
The intellectual error behind many of our current theological disputes is assuming too quickly that apparently contrary facts are irreconcilable. So often our failure to understand a third and greater truth causes the division.
Many Christians have discovered the humanity and grace in their homosexual brothers and sisters, yet, like me, remain loyal to St Paul’s clear condemnation of male homosexual behaviour.
My answer is to read the rest of Paul; ‘if righteousness comes by the law, Christ is dead in vain.’
Men lying with each other is sin, but will a written code stop it? Will trying to impose a code on yourself stop it? Our freedom – bought with a price – is colossal. The main limit on it is that we ‘should not bite and devour one another,’ But does homosexual behaviour damage others?
Rarely. Adultery is very damaging, but much English homosexuality comes I believe from lack of confidence, not over-confidence, and causes few problems for others. Surely the answer is freedom, but not because the act is not a sin.
Possibly, however, we cannot accept Christian homosexual marriage. But marriage used to be a secular ceremony, and great care should be taken about how we decide to treat it now. Theoretically the secular world around us is free to do as it wants with its institution, so we shouldn’t be too shrill; however part of what the Church of England spokespersons have rather ham-handedly said is to do with the legal side, and here the Church of England has vast knowledge. Lesbians and gays should listen, because failure to do so could sink their cause. Disestablishment has surprising legal consequences, and what about matters like non-consummation, difficult to define for homosexuals? This is still grounds for annulment of an English civil marriage, but a suitable clause could sort it.
So – let’s listen to each other.
Jon