In a previous article I explored the rationale and method of episcopal oversight that led to the Report from the House of Bishops on “Marriage and Same Sex Relationships after the Shared Conversations” (GS 2055). But what about its substantive proposals? Might they offer us the way forward?
The reactions since the report’s release, most recently the intervention of retired bishops, are not encouraging. The report seeks “to work toward mutual love and understanding on these issues across the Church” and establish “a fresh tone and culture of welcome and support for lesbian and gay people, for those who experience same sex attraction, and for their families” (29). Instead it has revealed just how deep our differences are, how powerfully, personally and painfully its subject matter impacts so many people, and the wide range of ultimately irreconcilable hopes and expectations engendered by the Shared Conversations. Some of this may be due to how the report sets out the bishops’ vision and some of its weaknesses noted in my earlier piece. But it appears to be at least as much about what the report proposes (“Interpreting the existing law and guidance to permit maximum freedom within it, without changes to the law, or the doctrine of the Church” (22)) and especially what it explicitly rules out.
The current and unchanged doctrine of the Church 1 A fuller discussion is here
The report’s statement in para 26 that there is to be no change to “the Church of England’s existing doctrinal position on marriage and sexual relationships” (italics added) lies at the heart of the critical and polarised responses. It has led to the assessment summed up by Andrew Davison that the report offers “a position of complete inflexibility (with better window dressing)” not “a creative accommodation between traditionalists and progressives”. But, as a reading of Canon B 30 (and the 1999 bishops’ teaching on marriage quoted in the legal advice para 9) makes clear, “you cannot detach the Church’s existing law and teaching with regard to marriage from its teaching about sexual relationships” (as Martin Davie has argued). It is not just a matter of “three words” in a report otherwise focussed on marriage as Davison implies. The bishops also say all clergy should understand that the Church’s teaching is that sexual relations are “properly conducted only within heterosexual marriage” (54). This, at least as much as how we define marriage, is the great divide among us. Reaffirming this teaching and expecting clergy, “to expound it with confidence as the Church’s teaching” (61), to be faithful to it “in their own lives and in their ministry to others” (64), and “not directly and publicly undermine” it (65) is why so many are so upset. And yet, realistically, any move away from this would lead to at least as vehement and pained a reaction from evangelicals and other traditionalists here and across the Communion.
This division means that the proposed Teaching Document is going to prove very difficult to agree and will almost inevitably provoke similar strong reactions as this report. Its exact form and content is unclear (and para 34 raises concerns, especially its failure to refer to Scripture). However, many now clearly believe that the church’s teaching it will seek to explain in a “clear and sensitive” way (29) simply cannot communicate welcome and support to the many people inside and outside the church – not just those who identify as LGBT – who are living outside that teaching.
Pastoral freedom to create a new culture within this doctrine and law 2 A much fuller discussion of various areas is here
The bishops’ hope is to enable welcome and support through their other main proposed document - “guidance for clergy about appropriate pastoral provision for same sex couples”. This will “permit maximum freedom” (22) within church doctrine and law. There will also likely be much disagreement on the guidance’s content, clarity, precision, status and force. To use various terms from the crucial para 65, one person’s “legitimate diversity” and “freedom” in the writing, interpretation and application of guidance could well prove to be a libertine “undermining” of our “unambiguous position on doctrine” for others. Although “pastoral accommodation”, so prominent in Pilling and Shared Conversation materials, is not used anywhere in the report its principles (discussed in some detail here) will need to be carefully and consistently thought through in the new guidance.
The guidance is likely to focus more on private pastoral care and prayers than public liturgy. This is because “the distinctive relationship between doctrine and public worship in the Church of England…requires that what happens in our services consistently reflects” the Church’s teaching (61). Here the legal advice gives clear constraints. It rules out any form of service which “either explicitly or implicitly treated or recognised the civil marriage of two persons of the same sex as equivalent to holy matrimony” (legal advice, 7). Again showing the link between our doctrine of marriage and of sexual relationships it also rules out any service which “implicitly or explicitly” conveys “the idea that the Church was sanctioning or condoning a sexual relationship between” two people whose non-marital relationship was being celebrated (legal advice, 8.c.ii and 9). Such a service would not “edify the people” and probably also be “contrary to, or indicative of a departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in an essential matter”. In other words, our teaching in this area is essential, not a matter of adiaphora. That is also why, although the bishops plan to develop new guidance “about the nature of questions put to ordinands and clergy about their lifestyle” (23), it seems clear that it will remain the case that any clergyperson living in a sexual relationship outside heterosexual marriage is not fulfilling their ordination vows and thus liable to discipline.
What happens next: The way forward?
On Wednesday the General Synod will decide whether to “take note” of the report. Voting to do so does not signal support for it but many want Synod to refuse to take note.
Conservative reservations about elements of the report, though less prominent, need to be made and heard but joining with those who favour changing church teaching to oppose it is very strange as Martin Davie has argued. To do so would fail to acknowledge that the bishops’ proposal commits the Church of England to biblical and Communion teaching, provides the opportunity for a clear and confident statement of this, supports the approach of creating welcoming and supportive churches, and affirms pastoral freedom for clergy in their ministry within limits set by church teaching. It also fails to consider how the report’s defeat will be portrayed or its likely consequences.
Most of those committed to traditional teaching are therefore likely to be supportive but almost all those seeking change seem unwilling to see what changes they might yet secure through working with the proposal of “maximum freedom”. Assuming there is no objection to “maximum freedom”, this suggests the objection must take one of two forms but it is unclear which one. Is it that the current doctrine and law could and should allow some of the changes explicitly rejected by the bishops and the legal advice and, if so, why is the report wrong? Or is it an objection to not changing either law or doctrine in relation to both marriage and sexual relationships? If, as it seems, it is ultimately the latter then this is the fundamental and irreconcilable (without repentance on at least one side) division within the church. Yet, although the people’s real pain and anger is clear, it is unclear what specific changes to law and doctrine are sought, whether they are achievable at present (as Malcolm Brown has highlighted), or what their implications would be for the church’s unity.
Facing unremitting criticism from some and a fair amount of caution from others, it is clear that if we do attempt the bishops’ proposed way forward the road is far from smooth. We need to name and face the challenges which include at least the following.
First, the bishops are clear “some people will feel unable to accept” their proposal and “will therefore keep seeking to move towards a different conversation that attends to different possibilities” (27). How will the bishops respond if this encompasses almost all who are not personally convinced about the church’s doctrine?
Second, if the doctrine is reaffirmed, what is the place for “good disagreement” (language strikingly missing from the report)? Do we perhaps need to consider instead what it might mean for there to be “good dissent” about church teaching and practice (rather than constant disorderly conflict and ecclesial disobedience)? The hope was that the Shared Conversations would lead to some sort of settlement and a new framework within which we would continue to live with our disagreements at a lower level of conflict and a renewed shared focus on evangelism and mission, even if a minority felt they could not stay in the church. If, in fact, the number of dissenters is significant and they stay and fight by disobeying the bishops' teaching and guidance then at what point, in order to secure greater peace and unity and uphold church teaching, will we need either effective church discipline or the creation of some alternative structures to give space for those unwilling to accept the church’s teaching?
Third, the report’s proposal of “an unambiguous position on doctrine” while “enabling a generous freedom for pastoral practice” (65) requires a significant amount of trust. The reactions and declared intentions of some clergy make it very difficult to cultivate the necessary “fundamental trust in the clergy to know and be faithful to the teaching of the Church, in their own lives and in their ministry to others” (64). Paul wrote, “You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbour as yourself.””. The alternative to this appears a horribly accurate warning of what we risk entering into: “If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other” (Galatians 5.13-15).
Fourth, the bishops do not think our continuing disagreements “make some kind of major fracture in our Church inevitable at this point” or that now is “time to start planning for division” (59, italics added). Responses to the report, however, must unsettle such convictions which will appear very shaky indeed if Synod rejects it. But any alternative involving changing doctrine or abandoning the principle that “what happens in our services” (61) should consistently reflect church teaching would be a major volte-face and lack credibility. It would also result in an equally strong negative reaction from the wider Communion and within the Church of England.
Initial reactions reveal we are still far from “continuing to work toward mutual love and understanding on these issues across the Church” with some even claiming the report – and the attitude of evangelicals supporting church teaching - reflects a similar approach and outlook to that of the abusive John Smyth. All this sadly suggests that the apparent good fruit of listening in the Shared Conversations has quickly turned bad. It also raises the question whether the theological and practical commitment central to the bishops’ deliberations and essential to finding a way forward is present:
We want to continue to ‘walk together’, to use the phrase from the Primates’ Meeting a year ago, in a way that is based on a common commitment to biblical truths but recognises our continuing disagreement with one another. We want to maintain and indeed deepen the communion we currently have with one another across our serious disagreements on this issue, a possibility to which some involved in the Shared Conversations would testify (59).
This may now simply prove impossible without structural changes or we may be discovering that, as the Primates’ also acknowledged, our different reactions to the report and its outworking will “create a deeper mistrust between us” and therefore result “in significant distance between us”. But is there really no possibility that the bishops’ framework could contain, even lessen, such pressures to fracture?
If we attempt to work within that framework in good faith through the coming months then, although set within some definite boundaries, there remain major areas to explore and debates to be had. It would be foolish – particularly given the strong reactions against it – to believe the report’s path will prove easy. Even determining how the work will proceed faces major challenges: how will the voices of LGBTI Christians be heard and fully included if they conscientiously reject church teaching and are working towards undermining rather than securing the report’s stated goals? Sufficient agreement may yet prove impossible even if we all try to work within this option. The framework could well prove too broad for some and too narrow for others once work is begun to put flesh on its bones. But personally I find it hard to see how any other way forward could work any better. If, therefore, we are committed to the apostolic call in Ephesians 4 then we surely must try to move through the polarisation, pain and polemics immediately engendered by the report during the last fortnight. If we cannot even at least try out its framework, how else can we seek to be biblical and “to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace”?
GOOD DISSENT
Andrew Goddard has suggested that a possible way forward on the same sex debate might be found in using the term Good Dissent.
I wonder if the former attitude to Remarriage of Divorced persons shows how this might work. Until Synod altered the regulations, Convocations in the 1930s made it clear that remarriage after divorce was not permitted in church, but a service of prayer after a civil ceremony was apparently alright. (This struck me as being ecclesiastical humbug!)
However there was a legal loophole which made it legally possible for a full marriage ceremony to be conducted in church. A minority of clergy, including myself, took advantage of this loophole, although there were occasions when my bishop was distinctly discouraging. At least one diocesan bishop, Mervyn Stockwood, told his clergy that they could ignore the ruling, and one leading Anglican, Bryan Green, also took advantage, but was warned by Archbishop Fisher that if he did so he could expect no preferment in the church.
This situation could be described as dissent, although to describe it as good might be optimistic!
I wonder therefore whether this points to a possible way forward now. Synod could say that services asking for prayer and blessing be authorised for use by clergy who wish to use it, without any suggestion that all must do so. Couples could then be referred to a priest who might be willing.
As for the marriage of same sex couples this, for me at any rate, would be going too far. What way forward, if any, could be offered for them?
Jimmy Hamilton-Brown
How would that differ from the status quo implied in the report of which Synod has refused to take note?
If I understand the sexual identity lobby, they desire full affirmation; they do not want and will not have anything less. They will continue to protest while there remains any shadow of criticism, any suggestion of censure, any room for people to believe theirs could be a lesser way. Quite simply, they want the Church to change its doctrine, not to make some minor adjustment to pastoral practice.
For one side, this is not about what they do, but who they are, and they feel rejected and persecuted while they are not fully affirmed. Unless the Church repudiates all who disagree with them they will continue to feel rejected. For the other, it is about freedom of conscience, freedom of doctrine, discipline and the credibility of Truth. They will be so disillusioned if the Church gives in that they will probably lose their faith. Neither side can accept compromise; there is simply too much at stake.
Even my suggestion that the Church recognises a diversity of opinion on this and withdraws from definitively siding with either view, simply recognising people differ, will not fully satisfy either side, because it will allow what one side sees as an offensive rejection to be legitimately held, and what the other sees as a travesty of faithful witness to truth to be practised. It would create, at best, an uneasy truce. It might buy time. It wouldn’t work as a final answer for anyone.
But if the Church splits on this issue, both sides will be defined by it, and I could not belong to a Church defined by something so essentially trivial, however great the implications.
Andrew
I know I must sound like a cracked record, but I hope you are not too exasperated when I restate what to me is the blindingly obvious: this whole disagreement has lacked the essential common ground of agreement that we are all born with a nature which is inclined to evil – the doctrine of Original Sin as stated in Article 9. The Church needs to go back to the drawing board and have a painful, candid and open debate about that doctrine. This would strike far deeper than the same-sex disagreement, important thought that disagreement is. I would be pleased and humbled to learn that all the Bishops believe ex animo that that doctrine is true.
Phil Almond
We have just entered Lent. Our whole liturgy centres around our Sin and Penitence. Today’s readings were about the Fall of Adam and the obedience of Christ. Nobody I know of in the English church would question this doctrine. It is utterly at the heart of the Salvific event to which we look back.
I cannot speak for other parts of the world, where the cultural focus might be different, and the connection with the past less strong, but in England, where this debate is taking place, this simply isn’t an issue.
Ken
‘Nobody I know of in the English church would question this doctrine’ (Original Sin).
I hope and pray that you are right. But my experience of debating over several years on the ‘old’ Fulcrum does not convince me that you are right. I recognise that it is an argument from silence, but despite several challenges to the Fulcrum Leadership Team, I don’t remember any occasion when any of them stated explicitly that they agreed that the doctrine of Original Sin is true. This is odd, given that as you rightly say: ‘It is utterly at the heart of the Salvific event to which we look back’.
But given its importance, and given its connection with the wrath of God which we all face from birth onwards, I find it even odder that elsewhere you have stated (if I have understood you correctly) that for the Archbishop of Canterbury to publically preach on the wrath of God would be a ‘hate crime’!
Phil Almond
What we are dealing with here is a huge cultural shift with respect to popular anthropology, which makes it very difficult to communicate the Gospel and Biblical values to our contemporary society. The traditional Christian approach is basically from a behaviourist position, whereas contemporary politics teaches an identity position – hence the widespread use of the LGBT… etc initials. It’s unclear how any of this relates to truth at present. Many of us are mystified as to why identity should be based on something so small, but that seems to be what people are taught now.
Clearly, there is no prospect of agreement between the two sides, and no room for a compromise when the perspectives are so different, so the only workable solution is to extend the principle of Anglican comprehensiveness to cover it, at least until things become clearer.
We need to reaffirm our position on such things as the Scriptures and Authority while recognising within that the liberty of interpretation on which all enquiry depends. Any teaching document needs to reflect that, and so does ecclesiastical law.
Thank you, Andrew, for your courteous response I agree that we are in a frightening position. Of your three options, I think that the third is perhaps the least worst way to go. I agree that perhaps for the first time the Bishops are having to face up to their differences and the implications of this. We are facing a crisis of authority in every walk of life but I do not think that the Bishops realise what that means for them in our contemporary society. When I began undergraduate teaching in 1966, I had an accepted authority merely from the fact of being a lecturer whereas when I stopped teaching in 2008 any authoirity that I had had to be earned. I think that is the situation that the Bishops are now in. They certainly need to re-establish trust. People didn’t necessarily enter into the Shared Conversations expecting that there would be immediate change but they did expect to be listened to by the Bishops. Professor Helen King’s blog entry “So what was that all about” is a good example of the disillusionment.
My reason for suggesting that the report be withdrawn is that reports like this which are in effect working documents have a habit of too quickly becoming policy documents, a tendency the Bishop of Norwich alludes to in his presentation to Synod. I do not think this is any basis for a teaching document, especially if the Bishops aspire to it having any traction outside the church. I think the Bishops are fetishising collegiality at this point. If they had taken on board some of your suggestions about the nature of the document they were writing and been up-front about the differences between them, they would actually have shown leadership and we would now be in a better place. The document we do have is intellectually null. Did they not anticipate the nature of the response? I also think the church is fetishising small group work. What is needed now is careful debate not simply making people feel good. We need to know something about the range of opinion across the membership of the House of Bishops even if they feel uncomfortable about coming out.
I think Ken Petrie’s final comment is very apposite: “We need to reaffirm our position on such things as the Scriptures and Authority while recognising within that the liberty of interpretation on which all enquiry depends” – though finding a common position might not be easy! What gives me heart is that I, an affirming Catholic – or that dirty word ‘a liberal’ – am almost singng from the same hymn sheet as you. Thank you
Thanks for this. I’ve just added footnote links to fuller discussion especially of pastoral guidance. I don’t see withdrawing this as helpful but think your comment about “minority report” as we move on is interesting and we may be heading into that sort of scenario. It feels like the bishops are finally having to face how wide and deep the differences are even among themselves and that is not easy and all their instincts – rightly – are to hold things together and conserve what is good and move very slowly and together rather than quickly and apart.
The other options are frightening – (1) stick with the report and produce a teaching document which in expounding the church’s teaching will again hurt and anger those objecting to the report and a pastoral guidance that although it could bring us together also risks pleasing very few, or (2) move to allow greater open diversity in teaching and practice among themselves and within current structures and risk similar backlash from those who have welcomed this report here and abroad (who see it as at or even beyond the limits of what they can accept) or (3) recognise that we cannot healthily manage our differences within current structures and need those with oversight to help us see how we can hopefully not divide but somehow differentiate between the two irreconcilable views on sex and marriage so that each can flourish rather than fight or fear how their attempt to flourish will hurt those who fundamentally disagree with them.
Although I do not share Andrew Goddard’s theology, I have found the careful analysis in his two articles on the Bishop’s report very helpful. I think the most sensible thing to do would be to announce before any vote is taken to that the report would be withdrawn and revised in the light of the comments made while recognising the constraints imposed by the CofE’s doctrine and canon law. At the very least, a revised document needs to acknowledge the Shared Conversations and explore the possibilities of ‘good disagreement’. As it stands the report doesn’t attract widespread assent, is proving to be very divisive and contains too much handwringing about how difficult it all is. Trust in the Bishops is at rock-bottom. Andrew has made some excellent suggestions. The Reflection Group needs theological strengthening and should contain at least one LGBTI person. In the current febrile situation, the Bishops should not be afraid of a minority report. If it was acceptable for Pulling, why not now.