I found Goddard’s previous taxonomy, which Graham Kings refined or named, pointing out the differences between 1) liberals who support homosexuality yet who wish to remain in the Communion and 2) liberals who support homosexuality and don’t really think that the Communion matters to be a very helpful one over the past two years.  Goddard also points out the same differences between conservatives in the Communion.

Goddard’s voice was one of the first I heard explaining that some conservatives really long for the Communion to shatter, and discipline to not be established, for other deeper reasons.  After hearing of that and being on the lookout for it, I realized that that was indeed the case for a small segment of traditional Anglicans, some currently inside the Communion and some outside of it.

In the past, the speculations about why the differences occurred were much less than helpful, however.  For instance, some speculated that “Communion Conservatives” were so because they were somehow “catholic” . . . at least, that is what some of the more “catholic” ComCons said.  But since three Anglo-Catholic dioceses are the three of four who are currently considering leaving ECUSA and taking a risk outside of the recognized Anglican Communion province in the US, and since there are so many “ComCons” who are in fact of reformed theology [I am one of them] I have generally ignored the reasons that various people have proposed for why the four categories exist.

So I looked forward with pleasure to reading Andrew Goddard’s latest taxonomy.  Sadly this latest taxonomy is generally unhelpful, in part because he attempts to include within the description of the categories the why of the categories, making the categories largely incoherent and generall inapplicable on all sides, and in part because he seems to desire—rather transparently—to characterize the positions on homosexuality as a continuing divide between the Federal Conservatives and the Communion Conservatives.

Let’s just take the two “conservative” positions on homosexuality that he postulates—with, again, the “whys” for the positions unhelpfully inserted into the definitions of the categories—and look them over briefly.

“This effectively sub-divides each of the traditional ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ groupings into a more ‘hard’ and more ‘soft’ version. Building on the earlier model it can be seen as moving on a horizontal axis which from left to right ranges from a whole-hearted gospel-based commitment to the full inclusion of same-sex partnered couples at all levels of church life through to an unshakeable conviction that all homosexual practice is sin and suggestions to the contrary must be opposed and rejected.

As always, labels are problematic and likely to annoy as much as elucidate but I think the ‘conservative’ view has those whose stance is more one of rejection and those whose approach is more one of reassertion. On the ‘liberal’ side, there are also two broad groupings which mirror these two groups and which I’ve labelled (the more central and paralleling reassertors) reassessors and reinterpreters.”

So here is Goddard’s attempt to define the two latest “divisions” he perceives amongst traditionalists about homosexuality.

The “Rejectionist” [ooh . . . cold and mean there!] position is characterized by:

“a. showing little willingness to consider it might be wrong
b. a tendency to insist strongly that this is a ‘first-order’ and ‘church-dividing’ issue
c. interpretation of the current conflict in terms of ‘culture wars’
d. emphasis on a Christian response of ‘healing’ to enable people to experience heterosexual attraction and ultimately marriage.”

The “Reassertion” [much warmer there] position is characterized by:

“a. its focus is on offering a biblical, moral and theological defence of traditional teaching
b. it enters into genuine dialogue with those who are not convinced of this view, respecting their different view.
c. it seeks to offer a pastoral response to gay and lesbian Christians which is not so focussed on re-orientation
d. it is willing to listen to gay and lesbian Christians and learn from their experiences
e. it is often explicitly critical of those traditionalists in the first (‘rejection’) group.”

In other words “Rejectionist = Bad,” “Reassertion = Good.”  ; > )

But wait.  What if most of the “Rejectionist” position and most of the “Reassertion” position is held in one package by the vast majority of the traditionalists in ECUSA?

Let’s look at [drum roll] me, for example, a ComCon who is fervently committed to remaining within ECUSA and the Anglican Communion.

I have the following characteristics of the Rejectionist position:

Showing little willingness to consider it might be wrong—check.
A tendency to insist strongly that this is a ‘first-order’ and ‘church-dividing’ issue—check.  And in fact, this issue is not only a “church-dividing issue” but it will divide the church and not only the Episcopal church—you can go to the bank on that.
Interpretation of the current conflict in terms of ‘culture wars’—a hearty check to that.  Traditionalists are engaged in battle with those within the church who wish to accede to what culture says about the human condition, about God, and scripture.
Emphasis on a Christian response of ‘healing’ to enable people to experience heterosexual attraction and ultimately marriage—NO CHECK.  I don’t emphasize that at all, and in fact, think that most people of whatever sexual orientation will not change in general, although certainly some will.  It’s possible, in other words, but not probable.

Now let’s look at the “Reassertion” position.

Its focus is on offering a biblical, moral and theological defence of traditional teaching —check.
It enters into genuine dialogue with those who are not convinced of this view, respecting their different view—I only dialogue with non-political, non-activists “who are not convinced of this view”—“dialogue” with gay political activists is essentially fruitless since they do not hold the same foundational worldviews, nor believe the same gospel.
It seeks to offer a pastoral response to gay and lesbian Christians which is not so focused on re-orientation—a resounding check.
It is willing to listen to gay and lesbian Christians and learn from their experiences—a resounding check, except see above regarding political activists and I also believe in listening to gay and lesbian non-Christians as well.
It is often explicitly critical of those traditionalists in the first (‘rejection’) group.”—NOPE, since there is no such “group” to be “critical” of, as I suspect that most of us at this blog know; in fact, the majority of traditionalists in ECUSA can affirm most of what both artificial “groups” say above.

So let’s review—and this time, let’s just look at the small bits that I am unable to accept, just to add them up and group them.

I am:

1) not interested in emphasizing “healing” of sexual orientation.  I believe it should be an option, but not emphasized.

2) not interested in dialoguing with political activists regarding sexuality within the church, nor am I willing to “listen” to gay political activists’ experiences.  I am—and have—listened to the experiences of numerous gay people, both Christian and non and will continue doing so.

3) not interested in being “critical” of those in the made-up and non-existent “rejectionist” group.

When one reviews the above, one then comes to a resounding clarity about something truly interesting.  There are two groups of “conservatives” within the Communion and within the Episcopal church . . . but they are rather different from what Goddard describes.

The one group is called “Reasserter” and they have these characteristics:

—Showing little willingness to consider it might be wrong
—A tendency to insist strongly that this is a ‘first-order’ and ‘church-dividing’ issue
—Interpretation of the current conflict in terms of ‘culture wars’
—Holding out a Christian response of ‘healing’ to enable people to experience heterosexual attraction and ultimately marriage as a possibility that ought to be offered, but largely emphasize the challenge of the Christian walk for all sinners regarding all aspects of sexual attraction
—Its focus is on offering a biblical, moral and theological defence of traditional teaching
—It enters into genuine dialogue with those who are not convinced of this view, respecting their different view as long as such parties are not ideologically committed to another gospel or foundational worldview that is incompatible with the Christian view, yet claiming to be Christian; “dialogue” with the latter actually does not “exist” but is instead an artificial and political “process” of pretence
—It seeks to offer a pastoral response to gay and lesbian Christians which is not so focused on re-orientation
—It is willing to listen to gay and lesbian Christians as well as gay and lesbian non-Christians, and learn from their experiences as long as such parties are not ideologically committed to another gospel or foundational worldview that is incompatible with the Christian view, yet claiming to be Christian; “dialogue” with the latter actually does not “exist” but is instead an artificial and political “process” of pretence

Then there is the second category, helpfully described by Matt Kennedy as “Collaborationist.”  This includes a minority of “traditionalists” on sexual morality within ECUSA—in fact, to quote our Beloved Leader Bishop Jefferts Schori, it is “a tiny minority”.

—says that it certainly believes that sexual relationships outside of marriage are indeed unscriptural and immoral
—wants very much for this to not be a “church-dividing issue” and does not want discipline of those who do not adhere to Communion teaching to occur
—interested in dialoguing with political activists regarding sexuality within the church
—interested in listening to the experiences of gay political activists and willing to “work with” them in order to obscure the differences in the gospel beliefs and impede discipline in the Communion
—attempts to offer an illusory picture of sharing the same gospel beliefs with “communion-oriented” but revisionist activists by gathering them with Collaborationists and allowing those revisionist activists to use them to appear as if they share the same basic gospel and foundational worldview
—basically believes that issues of sexual morality are “adiaphora” and wants to “box them out” from gospel issues, denying the connections between the two issues
—interested in being “critical” of those in the reasserter category above, to the extent of creating whole taxonomies of them, dividing out their beliefs into separate groupings; especially critical of that segment that has determined that the instruments of unity within the Anglican Communion will not establish order and discipline and that they are moving on into an alternate entity that will include the order and discipline that the Communion now inescapably lacks

As a Communion Conservative who has not given up on those instruments of unity, let me just say that the lengths that Collaborationists will go to in order to caricature the positions of those who are not doing what those Collaborationists want them to is truly and breathtakingly . . . petty.

As a Communion Conservative, let me assure the Federal Conservatives who are departing the Communion that I in no way see your position on homosexuality as in any way connected with the ham-fisted “Rejectionist” category that Andrew Goddard has described.

I am quite able to disagree with Federal Conservatives and their tactics, even their eventual destination which appears to be the Common Cause Partnership, without making up out of whole cloth a category about their theology concerning homosexuality which does not in fact exist.

I suspect that most of the ComCons with which I work feel the same way.

So why would Collaborationists wish to create such categories?  I think there’s a simple strategic reason.  If one creates such large, grand, and very flawed theological categories, that allows Collaborationists within the Communion to group themselves with a much larger group of traditionalists than they otherwise would find themselves in.  After all, the thinking might go, surely no one among the ComCons will want to be perceived as a “Rejectionist”—perish the thought! 

Thanks, but I’ll stick with the Reasserters.  And I’ll take note of the Collaborationists as well.