Should evangelicals be participating in the current ‘Facilitated Conversations’ in the Church of England about sexuality or not?
Many people I greatly respect have argued strongly that even to take part is to legitimise dialogue with false teaching and therefore should not be considered – full stop.
The CEEC (Church of England Evangelical Council) asked Martin Davie, a theologian, to review the materials that form the basis of these conversations and his thoughts were recently circulated by campaign group Reform.
Given up on guidance
Among other things, he argues that the whole process ‘means that the authorities in the Church of England who have produced the shared conversations material have effectively given up on trying to give guidance to the Church of England on the issue of human sexuality. They are prepared to let the conversations take their course and see what comes out of them, but they will not try to shape this outcome in any particular direction.
‘Providing the process of reaching this outcome has been a good one, and providing the fallout from any decision is handled well, then they will be content. The problem with this approach is that it is incompatible with the Church of England’s existing official position on sexuality.’
You can read his analysis in full at http://www.ceec.info/critique-of-shared-conversations.html and he certainly makes a strong series of arguments which could be considered compelling.
And yet, at the same time, there is a counter-argument that most problems in life (including things that are wrong) are not helped if people don’t even talk to one another. Can it be argued that in this particular case the conversations may not only give an opportunity to contend for the faith (Jude v3) but also to embody v22/3 of that same letter? Is it also reasonable or unreasonable to suggest that not taking part in the discussions does somewhat rob people of moral authority to comment on their outcome?
I once unexpectedly met the Revd Richard Coles – presenter of Radio 4’s Saturday Live. He is a celibate gay vicar but an enthusiastic revisionist when it comes to changing church teaching. This is what he has written on the blog of the pressure group Changing Attitude about his own experience at recent facilitated conversations in the East Midlands: ‘I learned... that just as I go into these discussions clenched for battle, so do my opponents, who feel more like victims themselves, rather than aggressors, and if you feel victimised your capacity for sympathetic imagination is limited.’*
He continued: ‘One delegate, representing conservative evangelical opinion, was notably willing to hear – in as direct a form as possible – the problem people like us had with people like him, and like a lion in a den of fierce Daniels, listened while a queue formed to do exactly that. He gave a gracious and thoughtful account of his own position too, and that was impressive and valuable. From these encounters offers were made and accepted to continue the conversation; again, valuable.’
Richard Coles added: ‘There were also two empty chairs, left unoccupied for two delegates on the conservative evangelical side who were invited but felt unable to come. I’m not sure this was a meaningful or effective gesture, but I can report I accidentally sat in one at a session and may have slightly turned the debate in a direction the absentee would not have. Better to turn up, surely?’
