a new reformation?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/jul/18/homosexuality-church-anglican-episcopal

In a brave assessment of the decisions made at the Episcopal Church's General Convention in Anaheim, Canon Jim Naughton is fair, I think, in his comments both about Nigel Wright and Rowan Williams. Earlier in the week in the Guardian, Stephen Bates quoted a bishop accusing Archbishop Rowan of being 'too Christian' with the conservative wing of the Church. I suppose I can only reflect my own deep disappointment in the position that Rowan has taken in all this. When the announcement of his appointment was made, I remember the sheer joy with which it was received by people in the progressive part of the Church. Even those of us in traditions other than Anglicanism were hopeful that a man like Rowan could move the debate on for all of us. He was an exceptional theologian and had spoken and written about sex, sexuality and relationships in a way that opened the dialogue and didn't foreclose debate.

Yet, here we are, these years later, more deeply mired in the mud than ever, with less clarity about a way forward and the Church deeply polarized. Worse than that, the rift between church and society, already substantial, is widening to a chasm. Priests are now accosted in public as homophobes, church members cease to use the term 'Christian' for fear of the negative reactions such a term elicits from others, whilst some of our more conservative brothers (and occasionally sisters) bask in the limelight of controversy.

Whilst I consider myself a catholic in terms of spirituality, in terms of ecclesiastical politics, I am firmly in the Protestant camp. All those years ago, men and women of faith in England, ironically, as well as Germany, France, Switzerland and Scotland, gave their lives for the possibility of going their own way when prompted by the demands of the Gospel. There was then as now, deep fears about the end of the Church and the loss of everything Christian in Europe, fears that were not substantiated. A principle was established then that Christians must discern the Spirit's promptings for themselves and then seek the grace and courage to follow those promptings - whatever the cost, personal or institutional.

The question might be why homosexuality? Surely that is to miss the point. The issue is, at most, a symbol, a catalyst, or a final straw. The gay debate has, underlying it, many deep issues about authority within and beyond the Church, the engagement of faith with the worlds of science, politics and law, ideas of gender, relationships and human society. All societies are struggling with issues of equality and human rights, the construction of the public space and, basically, what constitutes the 'good society', and is experimenting with laws and freedoms. There is a real sense, I believe, that we have not yet got it right, that a new orthodoxy or consensus is yet to be established.

It is my contention that the Church therefore faces a set of choices about whether and how it is to respond to these challenges. I am inspired by the bravery of ECUSA for making a decision at all, and for pushing in the progressive direction; it might be wrong, but then at least we shall know. They have followed the pioneering work of the United Church of Canada and some of the Scandinavian Lutherans in responding to the changes in their societies in this way. The lesson of the European Reformation is that so-called 'schismatic' decisions end up changes all parts of the institutional church - every reformation leads to a counter-reformation. Let is hope that this is indeed the case now.