What Should Have Happened at General Synod

The focus of the past Church of England General Synod, and of coverage of it, was sex and gender issues.  And as deplorable as the measures passed in those areas are, what is more deplorable is what General Synod did not do.  To me at least, the silence is deafening.

General Synod, to my knowledge*, spent not one minute addressing the Philip North affair.  The Synod, along with the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, bent over backwards to make gays and transgenders welcomed and affirmed.  Sentamu was particularly loquacious in that regard.  But where was the welcome affirming inclusion for traditional Christians?

The North debacle sent the strong message that when it comes to diocesan bishoprics, traditionalists need not apply.  Oh, traditionalists are welcome . . . to stay in their ghettos.  But forget about moving on up.

There was perhaps not a more urgent matter for General Synod but to counteract that message, to make clear that what happened to North should not have happened and will not happen in the future.  A censure of the Dean of Christ Church Oxford would have been appropriate, too, but I am really dreaming there.

But instead, nothing.

People can put up with a lot if they know they are welcomed and appreciated.  But if given the opposite message, if treated like third class citizens, most people will eventually walk away.  The Church of England should not be surprised if traditionalists of both Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical stripes soon walk away in greater numbers.  And the Church of England and General Synod will only have itself to blame.

*I’ve searched and searched for any mention of the North affair at General Synod and have found none.  If I missed something, feel free to let me know in the comments.

Gavin Ashenden on the Philip North Affair

Studies and other responsibilities continue to restrain my blogging.  But I must direct your attention to two excellent posts on the Philip North withdrawal and its aftermath from Rev. Dr. Gavin Ashenden, former Chaplain to the Queen.  The Ashes of Cranmer has graciously hosted both posts here and here.

A segment from the second post stands out.  I will excerpt it and run:

The three-card trick that Professor Percy [The Dean of Christ Church Oxford who led the attack on North] and his cultural fellow-travellers play is to refuse to exclude anyone except those who don’t agree with them. You only get to be included in the equality stakes once you have accepted their moral and political presuppositions. So, of course, they do actually discriminate between anyone who shares their basic world view and those who don’t.

They pretend they are relativists by claiming that all views are equally legitimate, but become absolutists if you challenge their relativism. In other words, their ideas of equality and relativism are actually practised by placing their value above those who disagree with them, and discriminating against anyone who has the audacity and moral turpitude to dissent.

Meanwhile, they claim the higher moral ground by pretending to be something that they are not – outlawing discrimination while practising it.

This is, of course, hypocrisy – that is, saying one thing while doing another.

What happens when the hypocrisy is challenged, as with the attempt to include a bishop who embodies an older more traditional view in an inclusive non-discriminatory Church?

Well, we just saw what happens, haven’t we?

And, yes, Justin Welby is still silent about it.

++York Decries Attacks on Philip North UPDATED

In the aftermath of Bishop Philip North’s decision to withdraw from consideration for the See of Sheffield, the Archbishop of York’s statement stands out.

He is frank, to say the least:

…What has happened to Bishop Philip clearly does not reflect the settlement under which, two and a half years ago, the Church of England joyfully and decisively opened up all orders of ministry to men and women. It also made a commitment to mutual flourishing: that those who ‘on grounds of theological conviction, are unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests, will continue to be within the spectrum of teaching and tradition of the Anglican Communion, the Church of England remains committed to enabling them to flourish within its life and structures; and pastoral and sacramental provision for the minority within the Church of England will be made without specifying a limit of time and in a way that maintains the highest possible degree of communion and contribute to mutual flourishing across the whole Church of England.’

There will be continuing debate in the coming days and weeks of lessons to be learned, how that learning might inform and inspire us to act as a Church in our dealings with one another and how, when we disagree, to disagree Christianly, remembering at all times that our identity is in Christ alone.

It is now time – during this season of Lent - that the Church spends time in penitence, repentance and reflection. If we are serious about our commitment to loving one another and to mutual flourishing within the Body of Christ, there must now be time for us all to reflect and recognise in Bishop Philip’s own words ‘The highly individualised nature of the attacks upon me have been hard. If as Christians we cannot relate to each other within the bounds of love, how can we possibly presume to transform a nation in the name of Christ?  I hope though that this conversation can continue in future without it being hung upon the shoulders of one individual.’ I agree with him entirely.

I think this is about as close as an Anglican archbishop gets to being angry in an official statement. 

Although he does not use the term, what ++ York is decrying is the con game of Bait-and-Switch libchurchers play oh so well.  They promise tolerance, space, and “mutual flourishing” to those who disagree with their innovations.  But once they lie to get their way and have enough power, libchurchers throttle the orthodox faithful.  Oh, those mossback orthodox laity are fine as long as they keep the money coming.  But if one of those bigots try to become a diocesan bishop…. 

And, of course, the day will come when traditionalists won’t be able to become any kind of bishop.  Then they won’t be able to become priests.  We’ve seen this sort of thing in the Episcopal Church already.

So far, there is no statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury.  Where’s the “radical inclusion,” Your Grace?

MORE:
Susie Leafe, Director of Reform has issued a brilliant statement that also calls out Bait-and-Switch:

I have lost count of the number of times conservatives have been asked to trust that we can flourish in the Church of England, but without solid evidence that there is an equal future for conservatives in the Church of England (beyond that of dhimmitude) it becomes harder and harder to convince talented young men and women to offer themselves to serve in this denomination or to persuade congregations to continue to finance the work.

And still no statement from Justin Welby.

@JustinWelby Your Grace, your silence on the Philip North withdrawal is getting well nigh deafening. Where's your "radical inclusion" now?

— WannabeAnglican (@WannabeAnglican) March 10, 2017