IN A world wounded by an apparent addiction to polarisation, at the expense of mutual understanding across divides, Christians often fail to consider the treasures within our own tradition when it comes to the facing of our inevitable differences. Throughout its history, the Church has not given the same priority to loving unity as is repeatedly and consistently urged by biblical writers. This is clearly not a “unity at all costs”, and the need for orthodoxy is frequently restated. But the ease with which Christians fail to prioritise this loving unity is memorialised in our multiplicity of denominations and factions.

The promised Messiah comes to his people “full of grace and truth” (John 1.14), embodying two qualities that we too easily regard as mutually exclusive. If our pursuit of orthodoxy excludes grace, it risks becoming legalistic and exclusionary. If it relativises the pursuit of singular truth, it offers people less than the distinctive fullness of the Christian call.

Within his cultural commentary in The God Who Is There, Francis Schaeffer wrote: “There is nothing more ugly than a Christian orthodoxy without understanding or without compassion.” My suggestion is that a path of intentional “compassionate orthodoxy” can help to guide the Church through times of complexity and conflict — remaining faithful to both the truth and the compassion of Christ.

THERE is a danger (or, possibly, a strength) that the notion of “compassionate orthodoxy” pleases no one. It calls those defining themselves as orthodox, and seeking structural separation, back to a visible unity. It also invites campaigners to exhibit the compassionate qualities prized in Colossians 3 — the “kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience” that are too often absent from these debates.

I understand why the “Alliance” of Evangelicals and traditional Catholics has been formed (News, 28 June 2024), and its work has importantly highlighted key shortcomings in the synodical process. But my personal conviction is that, had more energy been invested in the promotion of mutual understanding rather than the planning and development of new separate structures, the unity of the Church might now feel less precarious.

At the same time, “compassionate orthodoxy” restrains those progressives who are campaigning for innovations that would clearly split the Church. Indeed, this means that there should be frank honesty from those who do seek to redefine orthodoxy, particularly as it relates to sex and marriage.

Within the life of the Church of England, there are established procedures to effect such a change, which would involve gaining two-thirds majorities in the General Synod. Such a high bar exists to preserve the unity of the Church when contentious developments are proposed. But does this simply mean — as some have suggested to me — that, in practice, “compassionate orthodoxy” merely seeks to maintain the status quo, offering nothing meaningful to LGBT Christians?

IN THIS regard, I rather lament that the Prayers for a Covenanted Friendship within the Prayers of Love and Faith have been too swiftly overlooked. These prayers are designed to celebrate and affirm those qualities within same-sex relationships which should be reasonably uncontroversial for any English Anglican. The question is whether such prayers could form the core of a “stand-alone” service for same-sex couples.

In my own view, this approach could only logically be consistent with the Church’s teaching hitherto if it was available only to couples in a civil partnership. Such a service could, like the marriage service, include a preface explaining the Church’s understanding of what is being celebrated.

Even if silent on questions of sexual intimacy, it could include a general confession of sin. In the preparation for such a service, the local minister would be exercising the same pastoral sensitivity as they routinely show to a couple preparing for marriage. It would be a question of local discretion how, or whether, specific questions about sex formed part of that preparation; thus this settlement would offer an echo of Elizabeth I’s stated desire that the Church of England should not “make windows into men’s souls”.

In the contemporary Church of England, a commitment to doctrine as received is facing a particular challenge in relation to marriage and sex. That challenge and others like it in other contexts are ones that could be faced more effectively, I suggest, through a shared commitment to the notion of compassionate orthodoxy, which remains faithful to the existing teaching of the Church while embodying the compassion of Christ.

As someone who seeks to cherish the integrity of the one vine on which we all hope to remain, I offer “compassionate orthodoxy” as a framework for a narrow way forward in unity, hoping and praying that the Church in our generation can avoid the distracted desolation of division and unfaithfulness.

The Revd Dr Christopher Landau is the director of ReSource. This is an edited extract from “Compassionate Orthodoxy” and Sexuality: Seeking grace and truth in disagreement (Grove Book iD 16, £4.95; 978-1-78827-443-2). He was invited by Grove to develop the idea of “compassionate orthodoxy” after proposing the concept in the Church Times last year (Comment, 19 April 2024).