‽istis ponders, via media, the ‘via media’ (weekending April 22nd
2023)
This weekending ‽istis has been pondering ‘middle ways’: fudge,
can-kicking, ethical and linguistic contortionism – or an essential endeavour
to reconcile the seeming irreconcilable?
We are back with the Church of England (featured in a blog in February https://pistisrec.blogspot.com/2023/02/pistis-wonders-if-we-can-disagee-well.html and with the same core issue, ‘same-sex relationships’, at the heart of things) because of a letter in a UK national newspaper this week which included the phrase: ‘The proposal from the Bishops, as yet incomplete, is that a blessing will be offered to people, not a relationship.’[i]
Might this perhaps, possibly, may be a ‘classic’ Anglican ‘via media’ in a long, (even
existential?) tradition of attempts to find a ‘middle way’? Some possible examples:
·
Set up the Church of England: retain lands, power,
money, tools (carrots and sticks) to manage a lot of what goes on on earth
through the threat or promise of what may go on for the after-life – but also
allow a King to divorce and re-marry (too simplistic an explanation?, probably…)
·
Richard Hooker’s 16th century call to balance
a way through tricky stuff by drawing on scripture and tradition and reason[ii] and chart a course for the church in England through
turbulent waters of reforming Protestantism and Roman Catholicism[iii] (too simplistic an
explanation?, possibly…)
·
More recently, ‘flying bishops’ supporting
congregations who oppose women priests 30 years after the passing of the measure
allowing women to be admitted into the Church of England priesthood[iv]
·
Church of England clergy same-sex relationships: permissible
if celibate[v] (and eyes discretely
turned?)
·
A communion of ‘Provinces’ in a federated church
structure[vi]; several Primates and a 'first among equals'? (too simplistic an
explanation?, maybe…)
So, is the ‘via media’ - and the process of finding it - a way of
coping when there are very different views, competing sources of ‘authority’
and authoritarianism is rejected? Does it provide a position which may satisfy
no-one completely but enough, enough ?[vii] Is
it the result of a process which seeks to balance (albeit precariously) what for
some may be desirable, for others necessary, for others possible and
practicable?
Better fudge - than faction and friction and fighting and fracture?
Is it a way only for the Church or for other institutions also?
What ‘via media’ do we find or tolerate personally,
professionally, socially, politically, nationally, internationally, globally?
And when, how and why might we perhaps, possibly, maybe decide that we just have
to take another way, a road less travelled, via minus iter?
‽istis wonders whether it is
helpful or reckless to offer (ironically via the media of a blog and ‘socials’)
not so much a ‘via media’, but another perspective:
·
the legal nature of a relationship could perhaps
primarily be considered a state matter (marriage, civil partnership, sex or
gender similarity or difference) reflecting the law in a particular place and time
(and how that is arrived at and enshrined)
·
the quality of the relationship could possibly primarily
be considered a sacred matter concerning itself mostly with love. Love that, in
Christian terms, may comprise:
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonour others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.[viii]
Surely we would wish and want and will to bless and celebrate this - wherever it is to be found.
And ‽istis is
chastened - for if these qualities more characterised our relationships and the
ways we travelled together, well just imagine what else might be different‽
©‽istis
NB: further reflections and comments linked to this week’s theme and
past blog entries to be found on Twitter: replies, retweets (which don’t
necessarily indicate approval, sometimes the very opposite!) and ‘likes’:
@Pistis_wonders. ‘Follows’ and respectful comment and dialogue welcome...
[i] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/17/clarity-on-c-of-e-blessings-for-same-sex-couples
& https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/10/anglican-same-sex-blessing-church-of-england
[iii]
See also John Henry Newman’s tract c.1834 https://www.newmanreader.org/works/viamedia/volume2/index.html
[iv] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/11/discrimination-against-women-church-of-england-women-priests
[vi] The
Anglican family consists of tens of millions of Christians who are members of
45 different Churches. These make up 40 Member Churches (also called Provinces)
and five other national or local churches known as Extra Provincials, spread
across the globe https://www.churchofengland.org/about/anglican-communion
& https://anglicanalliance.org/about/
[vii] “The
bishops’ proposals neither satisfy those who want to see equal marriage in the
C of E, nor those who want to maintain the biblical and historical position.” John
Dunnett: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/10/anglican-same-sex-blessing-church-of-england
[viii]
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2013&version=NIV
