Simpering Onto the Sexular Carpet with the Archbishop of Canterbury

Welcoming and Affirming?

Justin Welby’s statement last week that those who who hold to a traditional (or shall we say biblical and orthodox) view of marriage have  “a full and undoubted place in the Church of England” should be cold comfort for those who have watched recent church history among revisionist denominations.

While the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury, following his comments on the immensely popular The Rest is Politics podcast were designed to put evangelicals, charismatics and Anglo-Catholics at ease, they in fact do the exact opposite.

It’s as if the traditionalists are supposed to wipe their worried brows and go:

“Phew! Thank you for welcoming affirming us. Welcoming us (so far), but at least allowing us to remain in the church that up until a few theological days ago, held firmly (at least publicly) to the biblical view of marriage.”

That the Archbishop cannot see the irony in that statement is bemusing enough. That he cannot see the trajectory of it, is another thing altogether.

That he made that statement in light his The Rest is Politics statements is instructive. The Anglican Church is, after all, a most political of beasts these days. And like all modern politics in the West, sniffs the wind before determining which direction it should run in. Which usually means running with the pack.

But for those of us who know that “Everything Is Theology” (good podcast name if you want it), we can see the problems.

For Welby’s is exactly the sort of language once used by those denominations that moved in the heterodox direction. Signing up for the Sexular Age is like a Chinese finger trap. It’s only going in one direction. Pull back from it, and it will be bloody and painful. Although necessary.

The Process

For those of you interested, here’s the progression on one side of the equation:

Step One: Welcome but not affirm those who hold to a heterodox teaching on marriage.

Step Two: Welcome AND affirm those who hold to a heterodox teaching on marriage.

Step Three: Welcome but not affirm those who hold to a heterodox practice on marriage.

Step Four: Welcome AND affirm those who hold to a heterodox practice on marriage.

And while that traffic is heading in one direction, here’s what heading in the other:

Step One: Publicly affirm that the orthodox view of marriage is the only valid, biblical viewpoint.

Step Two: Silently assume that the orthodox view of marriage is the only valid, biblical viewpoint.

Step Three: Raise the suggestion that other views may also be biblical.

Step Four: Raise the suggestion that a commitment to the orthodox view of marriage alone may not be biblical – or loving.

Step Five: Affirm heterodox views of sexual relationships that do not call themselves marriage as loving and biblically covenantal.

Step Six: Assure those that hold the orthodox viewpoint (who are protesting at this point), that they too have a place in the church life.

(that’s the step Welby has just taken. And then that’s when it starts to get interesting).

Step Seven: Ask if those who hold out on the orthodox view are really interested in the mission of the church in the 21st century. (or all that loving).

Step Eight: Affirm the heterodox view of marriage.

Step Nine: Perform heterodox marriages (and simultaneously approve of those in the clergy living in such arrangements).

Step Ten: Scold orthodox views of marriage.

Step Eleven: Take actions – both material and legal – against those who hold to the orthodox view and push back against the heterodox view on word and deed.

Simpering Our Way To Heterodoxy

Now that seems like a long, drawn out process. And it is. That’s exactly the point. You don’t jump from one to eleven without a whole lot of hoo-ha. You simper from one to eleven. You creep up on it slowly.

I recently wrote about how I loved my recently deceased dog. But here’s one thing I hated: he simpered.

“No Miloh – you cannot come onto the rug.”

And of course, he didn’t. Not at first. Not fully. It was one paw. I’d see it from the corner of my eye, and grunt. He’d pull back a bit. But not fully. Just enough to dial me down. Then the paw went further. Another grunt. Another semi-retreat. Then a fuller extension of the paw, perhaps two paws.

Simper, simper, simper.

Miloh’s trick – and dogs are brilliant at it – is the art of simpering to ensure that they eventually get what they want, and actually transgress the very rule once enforced, hoping that by the time they have simpered enough you are resigned to it, or even better,  reward them by permitting what you once did not permit.

It would seem that the aim of Welby and his ilk (or “ilks” – as this is increasingly common in the progressive canker of the Christian faith), is for the dog to be the one seated at the table, master of the house, while you, the previous owner, should be grateful for the crumbs that fall your way. Hence this statement again:

“…a full and undoubted place in the Church of England”

In the furore of the podcast, Lambeth put out the statement that included that line, and also included this:

Since the beginning of the Living in Love and Faith process, people across the Church of England have been studying, praying and sharing together about sexuality, identity, relationships and marriage. That process has revealed profound differences in theological conviction and biblical interpretation. But that does not change the fact that every group and every Christian has a place in the Church of England.

That’s an interesting last line. For it seems that once every group has a place in the Church of England (not merely a place, but a presiding place is what it likely means), then every Christian clearly won’t have a place in the Church of England. Not simply on the basis of personal conviction, but on the basis of being roundly condemned of all manner of unloving and unbiblical bigotry.  And worse, you may be jeopardising the mission of the church by refusing to partner with your more affirming brethren.

If you want to hear and watch a great response to it all, then can I recommend Vaughn Roberts’ interview with Dominic Steele on The Pastor’s Heart. Vaughn is sharp and incisive as always, a voice for our time.  He points out too that, just as I said at the start, it feels like all the heavy lifting is being put on those who hold to the orthodox view.

He also points out that there are not simply pastoral implications for those in the affirming position, but for those, such as he, who were pastorally – and in an orthodox way –  cared for as they came to terms with their own same sex attraction.

So Vaughn navigates the matter with pastoral concern for sexual minorities, while still holding to the biblically orthodox viewpoint. It’s clear, that unlike the Archbishop’s statement, Vaughn’s commitment to biblical and theological clarity is grounded in the authority of Scripture.

Scriptural authority is probably the bedrock issue. Once the ecclesiastical dog with the muddy paws is simpering onto that particular carpet with impunity, the rest may not be politics, but it may well be history.

Simpering : Coming to a denomination near you.