Abstract
Only a perverse or wilful ignorance could possibly justify someone denying that the Church of England, like the Anglican Communion as a whole, is at a perilous point in its history, beset by profound divisions over human sexuality, and seemingly incapable of finding a way to resolve these divisions without taking a wrecking ball to much that its followers hold dear. The language of unity is frequently deployed in an attempt to justify less than maximal or decisive action, or to tame and neutralize the more radical voices within the Church urging a change of direction.
Charlie Bell is rightly suspicious of this use. His latest book, written at the ‘front line’ of conflict, as it were, given his own social media profile, is an examination of the subterfuge involved in holding the unity of the Church to be the highest good while at the same time presuming that defence of an existing position which effectively treats one part of the community less well than another (and therefore rests on division and discrimination in another mode) is an acceptable strategy. Although it is addressed first and foremost to the situation of the Church of England, it draws a great deal on wider Anglican conflicts, and is a sobering reminder of the – often corrupt – interplay of power, doctrine, biblical interpretation and, frankly, emotional manipulation at work in the current conflict. But this is no mere polemic. Bell wants to stand back from the rhetoric, and ask probing questions about what real unity consists of, what is its biblical and historical basis, and what might be its implications for church life today. This is done in successive sections on the nature of the current crisis, on unity as a theological subject, and on possible ways forward.
It is an over-simplification to say that there are two main approaches to the current divisions in Anglicanism – but bear with me. One, common to both sides of the debate over sexuality, is a ‘solid ground’ argument: a certain set of data, apparently incontestable, drawing either on biblical exegesis or on experiential considerations, is advanced to establish a definite position, largely regardless of the implications for the ‘other side’. The other is a ‘tightrope’ argument, which tries to do justice to multiple concerns while at the same time emphasizing the need for change. I’d say that, ultimately, Bell’s argument is a ‘tightrope’. He is alert to the complexities on all sides, and in consequence does not seek simply to suppress or defeat the views of those with whom he disagrees (principally those on the more conservative side of sexual ethics), but to urge on them – and, indeed, on all – a re-evaluation of what we mean by unity so that the Church might genuinely grow beyond its divisions. There is a real spiritual seriousness here, and a refusal to clutch at the peremptory or the glib.
The style is clear, accessible and almost breezy, but the argument is very well buttressed by an extensive range of supporting evidence. Bell’s approach is analytic: he breaks down apparently straightforward claims into the incommensurable assumptions and assertions they frequently conceal. Unity is a devastating indictment of many of the flimsy defences and diversions commonly used in intra-Anglican conflict today. Inevitably in a short, well-written book covering such breadth, there are things with which one might disagree. Perhaps a weakness of the pressing logic deployed here is the absence of a strong sense of theological incompleteness and provisionality, that sense which Coleridge (and Newman after him) articulated so well that all attempts at doctrinal and theological formulation fall short of the fullness of truth, so that competing or even conflicting theological ideas may nonetheless themselves finally be complementary, rather than contradictory. Some readers will want to be drawn on to more detailed and sustained discussions of central issues. Others may feel, despite the passion and insight here, that nonetheless those tasked with shaping church policy, in all its complexities, perhaps need a bit more sympathy than they get. And those simply opposed to Bell’s position are unlikely to be persuaded by his argument anyway. But this is a thoughtful, insightful and fair-minded contribution to the current debate.