The same seems potentially to be true in the noises we are hearing in relation to the Eames Commission.Īt any rate, that seems dishonest to me. In any event, we have never openly discussed THE issue during the deliberations of the international commission, and it has been implicitly forbidden. Carey’ s stated purpose, from the Kanuga Primates meeting, which was to deal with this issue dividing the church in theological terms. I found that approach unbelievable, and also not in line with Dr. The opinions themselves, on both sides of the question, were to be excluded from the discussion. Our brief, it was declared, was only to study the limits of diversity of opinion within the church. It was astonishing to me, when I joined the Inter-Anglican Theology and Doctrine Commission almost three years ago, that we were told right up front that we could not discuss theological issues related to homosexuality itself, at all, ever. In other words, it is an almost governing caveat not to want to discuss the issue of homosexuality itself in theological terms, but to go immediately to intra-church questions such as the limits of communion, the character of discipline and authority within world-wide Anglicanism, and the whole matter of how to live together when you have irreconcilable points of view.

Now, the tendency in theological discussions of our current problem is to punt them over to the adjoining field of ecclesiology.

Grace in Practice by Paul F.M. Zahl