There has been a certain amount of speculation in recent times about advice given to the Crown Nominations Commission concerning human sexuality and the question of same-sex relationships. The issue has become acute for several reasons. Firstly, Anglican churches in many parts of the global-south have made same-sex relationships a 'red line' of orthodoxy over which they will not compromise. This puts pressure of the Church of England not to pick men or women as bishops who either live in a same-sex relationship, or who support such relationships. Secondly, the Church of England is in the process of going through a series of facilitated conversations on this subject. A group of the Salisbury Diocese are at this very moment engaging in such conversations. There is pressure on the Crown Nominations Commission not to choose a candidate who is not thoroughly orthodox as it might rock a very unstable boat. Thirdly, it is reported that the Dean of St.Alban's, Jeffrey John, was one of the candidates for several recent diocesan vacancies, but failed to be selected as diocesan bishop. He abides by all the rules and restrictions imposed on him, but still he is not selected to be a diocesan bishop. The argument goes that he could never be a focus of unity for a diocese, because he so obviously represents one side of a deeply divisive division, which somehow has come to be seen as the litmus test of Christian Orthodoxy.
We should all despair that one particular ethical question should have become the hallmark of faithful Christian witness. Or perhaps it is not so much this issue, but rather the way in which we interpret and discern the will of God as expressed in Holy Scripture. But is our interpretation of scripture really what defines a Christian? Surely what should define us is that we have somehow been touched by God, through the life of Jesus Christ, and have found ourselves drawn to that Divine presence in response. What unites us should be the common experience of being drawn into the fellowship of a pilgrim people, who find ourselves placed in one another's company as a result. We have much to talk about, as we seek to interpret scripture on our shared road. What defines us is not whether we yet agree on everything, but that we find ourselves as people who have had the same transcendent experience of the risen Christ in our midst. Like those who discover a life-long sense of comradeship through sharing in the battlefield together, we find in one another just such a comradeship as people who recognize in one another a shared experience of healing and transformation through the person of Jesus Christ.
It is for such a diverse and motley group of people, who walk together, yet so often strongly disagree on the finer points of scriptural interpretation, that bishops are called out to act as a focus of unity. The current arguments over human sexuality, with the need not to have as bishops those whose views might somehow rock the boat, highlight a deep misunderstanding over what being a focus of unity might mean. We seem to have gone down the path of suggesting that, to be a focus of unity, bishops must act and speak in such a way that everyone agrees with them. If disagreement among the pilgrims is deep enough (such as in the question of the ordination of women to the episcopate) then the accepted solution seems to be to have bishops taken from both sides so that at least everyone has a bishop who agrees with their views. But suppose that being a focus of unity does not involve agreement. Suppose I neither like or agree with my bishop in any way. Can I not still accept the charism and gift of her ministry as being something that God has given as a means of holding me of a shared path with my fellow pilgrims? The bishop's task then becomes one of enfolding me in the love of God so that I can keep going on the road. Remaining with these pilgrims ceases to be a personal judgement as to whether I consider my bishop to be in agreement with me. Indeed we might profoundly disagree. Yet in accepting her ministry, as a God-given gift to me, I find my place as a pilgrim and I find myself in the company of people whose shared exuberance of response to God is one within which together we dare to disagree, to debate and to search for that clearer vision of the truth that will only finally be revealed in the world that is to come.
My conclusion is that someone who abides by the teaching of the church in his personal life, but seeks to present a different point of view, can still exercise the charism of being a focus of unity. Accepting such a ministry is accepting God's gift to be part of the Church he is building. The alternative, that we will only walk in the company of a bishop we agree with, is a sign of a broken church which has lost sight of its calling and, in the place of Christ, has elevated our own choices of orthodoxy to be what defines our separate journeys.
We should all despair that one particular ethical question should have become the hallmark of faithful Christian witness. Or perhaps it is not so much this issue, but rather the way in which we interpret and discern the will of God as expressed in Holy Scripture. But is our interpretation of scripture really what defines a Christian? Surely what should define us is that we have somehow been touched by God, through the life of Jesus Christ, and have found ourselves drawn to that Divine presence in response. What unites us should be the common experience of being drawn into the fellowship of a pilgrim people, who find ourselves placed in one another's company as a result. We have much to talk about, as we seek to interpret scripture on our shared road. What defines us is not whether we yet agree on everything, but that we find ourselves as people who have had the same transcendent experience of the risen Christ in our midst. Like those who discover a life-long sense of comradeship through sharing in the battlefield together, we find in one another just such a comradeship as people who recognize in one another a shared experience of healing and transformation through the person of Jesus Christ.
It is for such a diverse and motley group of people, who walk together, yet so often strongly disagree on the finer points of scriptural interpretation, that bishops are called out to act as a focus of unity. The current arguments over human sexuality, with the need not to have as bishops those whose views might somehow rock the boat, highlight a deep misunderstanding over what being a focus of unity might mean. We seem to have gone down the path of suggesting that, to be a focus of unity, bishops must act and speak in such a way that everyone agrees with them. If disagreement among the pilgrims is deep enough (such as in the question of the ordination of women to the episcopate) then the accepted solution seems to be to have bishops taken from both sides so that at least everyone has a bishop who agrees with their views. But suppose that being a focus of unity does not involve agreement. Suppose I neither like or agree with my bishop in any way. Can I not still accept the charism and gift of her ministry as being something that God has given as a means of holding me of a shared path with my fellow pilgrims? The bishop's task then becomes one of enfolding me in the love of God so that I can keep going on the road. Remaining with these pilgrims ceases to be a personal judgement as to whether I consider my bishop to be in agreement with me. Indeed we might profoundly disagree. Yet in accepting her ministry, as a God-given gift to me, I find my place as a pilgrim and I find myself in the company of people whose shared exuberance of response to God is one within which together we dare to disagree, to debate and to search for that clearer vision of the truth that will only finally be revealed in the world that is to come.
My conclusion is that someone who abides by the teaching of the church in his personal life, but seeks to present a different point of view, can still exercise the charism of being a focus of unity. Accepting such a ministry is accepting God's gift to be part of the Church he is building. The alternative, that we will only walk in the company of a bishop we agree with, is a sign of a broken church which has lost sight of its calling and, in the place of Christ, has elevated our own choices of orthodoxy to be what defines our separate journeys.
