Dublin and the Art of Dishonest Conversation

Charles Raven
1 February 2011

Excerpt:
So if the official Lambeth institutions are no longer worth fighting for, should orthodox Anglicans now simply let history take its course, get on with evangelism where they can and hope for the best? I believe not, because the Dublin meeting makes explicit a theological shift which is even more significant than the predictable institutional changes made to enhance Lambeth’s control, such as the establishment of a Primates’ Standing Committee. The essential common interest of Rowan Williams and ECUSA/TEC becomes clear, whatever their differences over the pace of change, in the closing paragraph of the Dublin Primates’ statement where they affirm that ‘In our common life in Christ we are passionately committed to journeying together in honest conversation’.

We might well ask ourselves what sort of Communion we are in when the chief passion of the Archbishop of Canterbury and those still willing to work with him is for ‘conversation’. Why this preoccupation with interminable and inward looking dialogue? What about a passion for reaching the lost, for faithful teaching and preaching, for the glory and honour of Jesus Christ? However sincere or even passionate the Primates may feel themselves to be, this is actually ‘dishonest conversation’ which displaces the gospel and is spiritually dangerous. Fundamentally, this is because ‘conversing’ has come to replace ‘confessing’. In my book ‘Shadow Gospel’ I demonstrate how Rowan Williams’ methodology amounts to a sophisticated redefinition of orthodoxy as a process of dialogue rather than faithfulness to a deposit of faith with its associated church order and morality. As long ago as 1983, Dr Williams’ wrote:

We may need to develop an understanding of ‘orthodoxy’ as a tool rather than as an end in itself, a tool for discovery rather than control. Like any language it is unintelligible without some idea of grammar – necessary rules and regularities. But it is there essentially as something both functional to the life of the community, and necessarily bound up with – grounding perhaps – the identity of a community. (What is Catholic Orthodoxy?’ in ‘Essays Catholic and Radical’ ed. K. Leech and R .Williams p13)

In retrospect this can be seen as something of a programmatic statement and it is very clever – too clever – because it allows Western liberals to use the same terminology as their orthodox colleagues from the Global South, but in such a way that the ‘new truths’ so beloved by revisionists can gain a foothold. The cumulative effect of immersion in such a church culture is a gradual increase in the ability to tolerate the spiritually toxic – as the careers of number of formerly evangelical bishops in the Church of England sadly demonstrates. the rest

Despite the inexorable process of separation that is taking place, this ‘dishonest conversation’ must be challenged. It matters very much that as many as possible end up on the right side of the emerging divide and it matters that the faithful majority of the Communion are not portrayed as ‘schismatic’ while the real schismatics get to keep the Anglican brand.