I found the debate held at the Governing Body of the Church in Wales very difficult. I am not talking only about the outcome, but for what it seemed to demonstrate. There were (at least) two different understandings of the gospel, kingdom, and church on display. In the main, those speaking from either side of the hall were not speaking to each other. Debates are often sadly like that.

On the one side, there were either the defenders of orthodoxy or those who were seeking to undermine what God was saying and on the other those who were listening to what the Spirit was saying or those who were being reckless with scripture, reason, and tradition in favour of the god of experience. Neither would be fair. A handful of speakers acknowledged this.

I was concerned that not being a theologian was a badge of honour in a church that gifted Rowan Williams to the wider Communion, and how the Anglican Communion was belittled. It is my opinion that in an increasingly fragmented world we need to walk in step with our brothers and sisters from other parts of the world. The counter argument is that we need to walk with our marginalised brothers and sister here as well. I do not belittle that argument, nor do I not acknowledge that the global Communion needs to be challenged. That needs to be done carefully, Christianity is not western and to imply those in the global south need to change smacks a little of a colonial attitude.

There were times when each side was debating with a caricature of the other. Whilst for the most part courteous, most including at times myself lacked any intent of understanding the arguments of the other side. Evangelicalism is not the same as when this debate was first raised, but then nor is the liberal tradition. Evangelicals do not for example talk a lot about hell and damnation, indeed I have preached on hell only five times in the last twenty years, yet liberals seem to have lost the capacity to defend the right of their opponents to hold fast to what they believe. I remember the NT scholar, Leslie Houlden reading one of my papers, and declaring it to be wholly wrong, but he would die in the trenches to defend my right to say it.

In short, my understanding is that we did not engage with each other. There was no conversation and no common ground made. I suppose that is inevitable in terms of a yes or no question. As the Church in Wales moves forward, we need to acknowledge that there were different gospels on display; yet neither has a complete monopoly on truth. Both sides as it were locked in a wrestling match the other day, and clearly one side prevailed, the saddest part is that I do not see the victors being willing to say to those opposed to them, ‘I will not let you go until you bless me’. Nor, yet the those on the losing side willing to offer one.

The Church in Wales wakes to find itself in a place where many rejoice, and others weep, some feel included and still more abandoned. That would have been the case if there had been a different outcome. Its ability to listen deeply to each other has been called into question, and each of us have heard things that have perhaps not been said. I have heard a Bishop say that he will always put the needs, arguments, and relationships with the LGBTQI+ community over those who hold cherished evangelical beliefs within the church. I will listen and try my best not to listen to a caricature.

and to those who voted differently to me, and I could have spoken from either podium at times, I genuinely will not let you go until you bless me.