How not to handle the Word of God correctly “Shared Conversations” and déjà vu I have just returned from a two-week holiday and a graduation in the UK, mindful of the Church of England’s General Synod. While there, I disciplined myself to avoid comments and to simply enjoy my time away with my wife and friends. But, towards the end, my attention was drawn to an article written by the Rev. Dr. Ian Paul, reporting as a participant in the “Shared Conversations” on human sexuality, as part of the reception of the Pilling Report (which seems to recommend to the Church of England, in the end, “pastoral accommodation” in the form of the blessing of same sex civil partnerships). For those of you who may not have heard of the Rev. Dr. Paul, he was from 2005-2013 Dean of Studies and lecturer in New Testament and Practical Theology at St. John’s College Nottingham (an historically evangelical college for those training for ministry in the Church of England). He did his PhD on Paul Ricouer’s hermeneutic of metaphor and the interpretation of the Book of Revelation. He has been a member of the British New Testament Society since 1991 and has convened its Revelation seminar group since 2004. He is also a founding member of the Grove Biblical series editorial group (since 1994) and served as its Chair/Managing Editor from 1994-2004. You can find his full CV here and his blog, Psephizo, here. I would like to quote at length from Dr. Paul’s July 13 post because it seems to me that he has addressed the issue of paramount importance in all of these conversations—indeed, in the life of our troubled Anglican Communion today. That issue is nothing less than the clarity and authority of the Holy Scriptures for our lives today. While he had some positive things to say about the process of the conversations and some of the people he engaged, it is clear from his comments that the Bible is being seriously mishandled in the process: “The worst plenary session of all was the first one, and it was very telling that what many view as the most important theological question—what does Scripture say and how should we make sense of it—was the one most badly misjudged. I don’t think it is an exaggeration to describe it as an absolute travesty of process. There were three speakers, one of whom supports the current teaching position of the Church, the other two arguing for change. The first person stayed within the brief, and spoke for seven to eight minutes; the second appeared to ignore the brief and spoke for 17 minutes, without intervention from the chair; the third spoke for 12 minutes. So we were offered 8 minutes on the Church’s current and historic teaching, and 29 minutes on why this was wrong. And the dynamic of putting the ‘orthodox’ position first meant that, as in all such debates, the advantage is handed to the others. Added to that, the first speaker, whilst eminently qualified in other ways, was not a biblical scholar, whilst the next one advocating change was. There was no voice from a Catholic perspective, engaging with the reception of Scripture within the tradition, and the ‘orthodox’ view was repeatedly labelled not as the Church’s teaching, but as ‘conservative’.” An absolute travesty of process—déjà vu: Biblical clarity and authority is presented as one option among many. It is set up as a conservative minority view, a “straw man” to be demolished by “experts.” There is not a fair allocation of time and speakers. There is no opportunity for serious engagement back and forth, or for rebuttal. Those in charge of the institutional process do not observe due process and fair play. Often, the most qualified speakers for the Church’s historic teaching on the clarity and authority of the Scriptures are not chosen to speak. As Dr. Paul goes on to observe: “It is hardly a coincidence that (in the forthcoming Church Times article) all those pressing for a change in the Church’s teaching thought that it was very fair, and that we had heard the biblical arguments. It wasn’t, and we didn’t. After two years of planning, the ‘orthodox’ speakers were only finalised in the previous week.” As one who participated in some such “conversations” on human sexuality in The Episcopal Church (TEC) in from 1985-2005, I recognize these tactics and processes very well. Click here for the rest of the article: https://americananglican.org/current-news/handle-word-god-correctly/