General Synod is probably the longest running most expensive talking shop in the history of the church. Archliberal Giles Fraser himself describes it as a gabfest 'full of Anglicans in shorts trying to outdo each other with niceness. But really we're all waiting for some aggro in the bar,' he writes. General Synod is also the most unproductive merry-go-round of words in the history of Christianity. The eschatological outcome is that there is no outcome. The 'shared conversations' are not meant to bring about a resolution of the homosexual debate. Andrea Williams, a member of Synod, says she is frustrated because: "The resolution is that there will be no resolution."

If we believe in a religion of revelation then we do not look for theological novelty. We are called to 'contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints' (Jude 1:3). The Greek word hapax (once for all) is definitive. When framing doctrine we are not called to listen to 'stories'--however essential such a procedure may be pastorally. We are called to 'preach the word in season and out of season 'for the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths' (2Tim 4:2-4).

The 'facilitated conversations' project at General Synod 2016 is not suited to a religion of revelation but is tailored to fit the garments of a postmodern religion of relativism. That is why there can be no resolution because there is no absolute truth. Truth is a matter of preference and perspective. It is the ultimate triumph of postmodernism in the Church of England. Imagine Augustine having 'shared conversations' with Arius over salvation by grace or works or Athanasius having 'facilitated conversations' with Arius on the divinity of our Lord Jesus; or Martin Luther having 'good disagreement' with Pope Leo X over the efficacy of indulgences.

What facilitates the current round of conversations is not biblical truth but the creation of a new vernacular of relativism dressed up in the gaudy vestments of Welby-speak--sensitivity, generosity, listening, story, journey, experience, pain--and a whole range of sub-Christian psychobabble. The most valuable word in this mushy vocabulary is, of course, 'openness.' But 'merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid. Otherwise, it could end up like a city sewer, rejecting nothing,' as Chesterton pointed out, prophetically anticipating General Synod 2016. Openness is the ultimate virtue of our times. The true believer is the real danger. All other truths, virtues, doctrines, methodologies and beliefs must ultimately obsequiously acquiesce to this one great commandment of openness.

'Facilitated conversations' is the tool of Machiavelli in a mitre forged to paralyze, immobilize and silence the true believer. Hence it is a tool of power. The battle cry of postmodernism is that truth claims are in reality power claims in disguise. It is actually the reverse. It is relativism that makes the ultimate claim to power but reducing everyone participating in a discourse to abject powerlessness. If there is no ultimate truth there is no point in anyone saying anything. But even more insidious is the Orwellian insight that moral relativism always leads to Totalitarianism. Because in a morally relative age, power alone can settle any question, as historian Paul Johnson masterfully demonstrates in Modern Times.

When lecturing to my philosophy class at Liverpool Hope University I would begin by asking my students a question. 'Was it right for the British colonial administration to ban suttee while they were ruling India?' I would explain that this barbaric practice required a Hindu woman to jump onto her husband's burning funeral pyre and immolate herself if he died before her. It was Lord William Bentinck, Governor General of India between 1774-1839, who banned suttee. Bentinck was profoundly influenced by the Christian missionary William Carey who waged a relentless battle against suttee for 25 years before it was banned in 1829.

This is how my students would respond: SILENCE. Their education, i.e. indoctrination, had persuaded them that there was no 'right' or 'wrong.' Morality and truth were culturally relative. I would then make the debate personal. "My ancestors come from a Brahmin Hindu family in India," I'd say. "I am grateful to the British Raj for its moral courage in putting an end to suttee. They saved the lives of many of my foremothers. What would you do?" I would prod them to answer. Again, silence. During one lecture one of the lads finally said something, "If I were in Lord Bentinck's place, I would give the women a choice," he said, exposing his über-liberal feminist human rights activist bleeding heart. The liberals who are engineering the discourse at General Synod 2016 would stand and applaud. After all, that is what they are saying to the Church of England.

The Rev'd Dr Jules Gomes is pastor of St Augustine's Church, Douglas, on the Isle of Man. He completed his doctoral studies under Prof Graham Davies in Old Testament studies from the University of Cambridge. He taught Biblical Studies at Liverpool Hope University, the London School of Theology and the United Theological College, Bangalore. He also served as Chaplain to the Old Royal Naval College in Greenwich and as Dwelly Raven Canon at Liverpool Cathedral. Jules enjoys motorcycling, reading, rifle shooting, playing an occasional round of golf and making friends.