Perhaps the greatest tragedy facing the Anglican Communion at this moment is the querulous insistence from many quarters, both inside and outside the communion, that provinces, dioceses, and individuals take one of two mutually exclusive stances, writes Bishop Richard Clarke.
It would seem that we are either to declare that Gene Robinson is, quite simply, not a "real" bishop (no matter how much he or the American Episcopal Church may think otherwise), or else we are to share in lavish rejoicing at the visionary and prophetic step signified by his consecration. But what about the rest of us, those who can do neither?
I write as an individual bishop within the Anglican tradition. What I write here, I have said publicly within my own diocese, but - as I pointed out in that setting - this is no attempt to pre-empt Christian conversation on the matter, but rather to encourage it. I do not have final answers, and I am left with questions. But Christian leadership surely does not imply an unwillingness to listen.
Certainly I find that my reading of the scriptures does not permit me to argue for any sustainable parallel between the relationship of those of the same gender and the relationship of man and woman in marriage. Yet I also find myself recognising that faithful relationships between those of the same gender may often bring goodness, generosity, hope and love into the lives of those around.
I cannot readily dismiss such relationships as inherently wicked, and I am not so prurient as to be greatly fixated as to what they may (or, indeed, may not) be "doing" sexually. And, on the biblical basis of "by their fruits you will know them", it is very difficult to categorise such individuals as being any more disordered than many of those who smugly ostracise them.
Again, I cannot find convincing proof from the Bible that any and all relationships between those of the same gender are only for condemnation. As is well known, the Gospels do not mention the issue of homosexuality. The Old Testament certainly appears to revile homosexual expression, but condemns a great deal else that we would now accept as wholesome. It also sanctions other practices we would regard as odious.
Some of the contexts in which the prohibitions against homosexuality are expressed seem, to many scholars, to have as much to do with hospitality (Genesis), or with hygiene or health (Leviticus), as with holiness of life per se. And Saint Paul, in his Letter to the Corinthians, appears primarily to censure heterosexuals who are choosing homosexual promiscuity for the self-gratification of sexual variety. Few would argue against such a prohibition.
In addition, we find that there are truths to which the Bible seems to have directed us, but only in the totality of its message; for example, to the unacceptability of slavery and the inherent parity of women with men. But both slavery and the subjugation of women are tolerated (and more than tolerated) within the direct text of scripture itself . . .
I am aware that the posing of such questions on my part may lead some to presume that I sit lightly on the promise made at my consecration that I "believe and accept the holy scriptures as revealing all things necessary for eternal salvation". Such an accusation could not be further from the truth. No, what is required now is a widely shared and generous study of scripture, not the continuing shouting of loveless slogans from opposing factions.
But what of Gene Robinson?
Bishops are called, with all their human flaws and moral imperfections, to be a focus of unity, not merely for their own dioceses but for the Christian Church as a whole. In this task all of us fail, miserably and humiliatingly, but there is a profound sense in which a model of life, a structure of life, which is - of its character - dis-unifying in the wider community, cannot be compatible with the calling of a bishop.
I believe that the American church showed huge arrogance and a total lack of respect to the wider Christian Church by doing as it did. Any bishop is a bishop for the whole church. The attitude presented to the rest of the world from New Hampshire was that this was a matter only for the American church and that, in any case, the rest of us will, sooner or later, catch up with their more mature approach to the matter.
For me, Robinson's consecration was (whatever its technical validity) improper, in that it was calculatedly divisive beyond the immediate context in which it was undertaken. I would wish to add that, for precisely the reason that Canon Jeffrey John did voluntarily change his model of life (so that it need not be a cause for disunity and disorder), his consecration should never have been a matter for anger and destruction. The refusal to countenance the consecration of John was a tragedy and, for many, a scandal.
And what can the Anglican Communion now do?
When in doubt, set up a committee! I have no wish to pre-empt what may come from the work of the commission, set up to find a way forward from the current chaos, other than to comment that any notion of institutionalising greater canonical authority around the person of the Archbishop of Canterbury would seem to be folly itself.
There is already too much talk of authority and structures, and little enough of grace and service. The Lambeth Conference of 1930 affirmed that the communion was bound together "not by a central legislative and executive authority but by mutual loyalty".
One cannot legislate for loyalty. The Anglican Communion is neither colonial nor curial in philosophy, and should not seek to become so at this point in its history. Such a remedy might be infinitely worse than the disease.
I believe that there now needs to be a holy space in which we accept the damage that has been done and allow for some deliberate "distancing" between those provinces of the Anglican Communion that are now at such fundamental variance with one another. To hear the concept of "communion" being used as an ecclesiastical truncheon to wreak spiritual damage on others is truly heartbreaking.
This is not a time for pretending that what happened in New Hampshire was trivial, or that everyone else will "come around" to it. It was not trivial and everyone else may well never accept the validity of what occurred. But nor is it a time for seeking to fragment and unchurch the American Episcopal Church. That is a road to pharisaic self-destruction. Certainly, to hijack words such as "orthodox" or "inclusive" for particular viewpoints within Anglicanism is to subject the Body of Christ to PR sleaze.
To instate one of many resolutions of the 1998 Lambeth Conference, the famous Resolution 1.10, as a touchstone for orthodoxy, cannot be the path forward. In the first place, this is not how the Lambeth Conference has understood its role. The conference is not a magisterium and, even if it believed it were, the Articles of Religion (to which many Anglicans attach particular significance) make it clear that councils of the Church can and do err.
We should recall also that the Lambeth Conference of 10 years earlier, 1988, was asked to show forbearance to a number of the African provinces who, because of local cultural patterns, believed that they could not ostracise those in their churches who were in polygamous relationships. Such forbearance, which is not the same as a pretence that there is complete concurrence, must now reach out in both directions.
This is a time for deliberate but generous "distancing" between different provinces of the Anglican Communion, but also for mutually respectful conversation. It is never the time for unchurching or for triumphalism. Neither bullying nor trivialisation can ever be the way of Jesus Christ.
Most Rev Richard Clarke is Chuch of Ireland Bishop of Meath and Kildare