"Peter, my counterplans to your proposals usually argue that a centre could hold if a basic deal is struck--
(a) Traditionalists near the centre should agree that the gospel has not been and is not now served by the marginalisation of sexual minorities. Revisionists near the centre are most galled that pockets of conservatives still dream of a cordon sanitaire protecting the 97% that necessarily marginalises the 3%. This concession precludes that dream, at the cost, no doubt of some traditionalists far from the centre who cherish it.
(b) Revisionists near the centre should agree that revisions should be limited to the minimum necessary to accommodate persons morally certain (eg from probable but not perfectly conclusive evidence) that their attraction to the same sex is exclusive and biologically determined. Traditionalists near the centre reject sweeping proposals to replace all received teaching and practice in human sexuality with a fashionable novelty, but empathise with the plight of those who struggle in good faith with the Church's traditional teaching. This concession builds on that good will, but probably alienates those far from the centre who oppose the sexual binary for other reasons.
I understand this set of pertinent observations to mean that we ought to attend more to finding
"common (theological) ground" than a "(synodical) compromise" - the latter being what I am proposing!
I both agree and disagree with Bowman ...
My agreement is that in an ideal world we would work and work and work at finding that common theological ground and only then ask what that might mean in practice. In particular, as a conservative, I would want to work at avoiding the "marginalization of sexual minorities". I am far from convinced that much conservative Christian talk about sexuality does this.
My disagreement is that we do not live in an ideal world, certainly not an ideal Anglican world! What we have in ACANZP is a synodical deadline: something must be done, something must be decided and General and Diocesan Synods are those decision-making bodies.
I still think my proposal has much to commend it ... not least because I think it allows for continuing search for theological common ground to take place.