Can the C of E ever bridge its differences on sexuality?
Andrew Goddard writes: 2 years agone, equally I headed to bed just gone midnight on January 23rd, I sent an e-mail to colleagues involved in Living in Honey and Organized religion (LLF) saying, "Am rather surprised to see this this evening on Twitter…I imagine it may cause a bit of a stir….".
The document concerned was Pastoral Guidance from the House of Bishops apropos Ceremonious Partnerships. Information technology was, in one sense, uncontentious. It basically restated received Church of England teaching and applied a 2005 statement to the recent introduction of contrary-sex civil partnerships in British constabulary. It was, therefore, an encouragement to those in the church who believe that education and oft wish it was more clearly affirmed by those in senior leadership.
However, at the commencement of the year in which the LLF resources were to be released information technology was to cause much more than than "a bit of a stir". Within 48 hours there was an open letter from leading advocates for change in the church's didactics expressing "anger and disappointment", some bishops distanced themselves, and protests grew (run across discussion past Ian Paul here with wider links here). A week later, on January 30th, subsequently a two 24-hour interval meeting of the whole College of Bishops discussing LLF and because how best to respond to the reactions to the Pastoral Guidance, the Archbishops issued a joint statement. Although non withdrawing the guidance it recognised serious failings and apologised:
We as Archbishops, alongside the bishops of the Church of England, apologise and take responsibleness for releasing a statement last week which we acknowledge has jeopardised trust. We are very sad and recognise the division and injure this has caused.
At our coming together of the College of Bishops of the Church of England this week we connected our commitment to the Living in Love and Faith project which is about questions of human identity, sexuality and wedlock. This procedure is intended to help us all to build bridges that volition enable the hard conversations that are necessary as, together, nosotros discern the way forward for the Church of England.
3 weeks ago I had like concerns virtually "a bit of a stir" developing as a issue of something I saw on Twitter – this tweet from Charlie Bell linked to a report in the Church Times:
https://twitter.com/charliebelllive/status/1479080793024643074
The appointment besides is, in i sense, uncontentious. Stephen Knott, the man appointed as the new Archbishops' Secretarial assistant for Appointments who volition oversee episcopal and other senior appointments, is a widely respected church civil servant who has been serving in Lambeth Palace since 2013. He has been Archbishop Justin'south Deputy Chief of Staff, under David Porter, since 2016. As the tweet makes clear, his date has been an encouragement to those in the church who support same-sex wedlock and wish to see the Church of England's current educational activity and practice — which prevents such a marriage ceremony, this one took place in the Scottish Episcopal Church — changed.
At the start of the yr in which the discernment and controlling process based on those LLF resources will enter it decisive final stages, it remains to be seen whether or not this also "may cause a bit of a stir". There is no open letter or mass protest expressing "acrimony and disappointment" on social or other media. It would be a mistake though to think that this comparative silence is due to the absence of concerns. Already information technology is clear that questions about the procedure of the appointment are being prepared to be asked at General Synod next month and some of these have also been raised in a letter of the alphabet to the Church Times. Articles by David Bakery and Ian Paul and Ed Shaw have signalled that there is meaning concern, particularly given that Archbishop Justin recently told Full general Synod that Caroline Boddington, the previous holder of this post, was "indeed the most powerful person in the Church building of England". The lack of wider public protests arises more from the difficulty of responding to an action which risks unfairly placing the focus on ane private and from the restraint of those who, though hurt and confused by the Archbishops' activeness which has significantly "jeopardised" their trust, do not wish to damage the LLF process or cause further "division and hurt".
What's the trouble?
The nature of the problem, in addition to whatever focussed on due process, is articulated well past the supporters of the appointment on the original Twitter thread I saw. Asked to explain why Knott's sexuality or marital condition are relevant Charlie Bong replies:
https://twitter.com/charliebelllive/status/1479107205878091781
Jeremy Pemberton, the first but non but clergyperson who has constitute that entering a same-sex marriage means that you lot are barred from moving to a new job requiring a bishop'southward licence as a clergyperson in the Church of England, responded:
So I'm a pariah, merely this is fine? Give me a interruption…
— Jeremy Pemberton (@JCBPemberton) January 6, 2022
These 2 statements summarise what the Archbishops and whole House of Bishops are currently committed to upholding in relation to aforementioned-sex union as expressed in their 2022 Pastoral Guidance. They demonstrate the difficulties this stance causes, given the beliefs and actual practice of many, and explain the response of Dame Averil Cameron, former President of the Ecclesiastical History Society,
Don't really understand how his same-sex wedlock is at present OK in Welby's church simply this must be a major breakthrough. Merely thinking of other clergy friends not and so lucky.
— Dame Averil Cameron (@19Averil) Jan vi, 2022
Clergy are "not so lucky" equally Stephen Knott (though it is unclear whether a clergyperson applying would accept been considered suitable for the Appointments Secretary post as it does not require a bishop's licence) because of the church'south education on wedlock.
The position of the church, as defended by the Church building of England in an Employment Tribunal brought by Jeremy Pemberton, is that the church has educational activity on marriage and this has implications because clergy have a canonical responsibility (Canon C26) to "be diligent to frame and manner his life and that of his family unit according to the doctrine of Christ, and to brand himself and them, every bit much every bit in him lies, wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ" (quoted in para 23 of the 2022 Pastoral Guidance). This means that although Stephen Knott has been appointed past the Archbishops to play a primal role in the appointment of bishops, they and all bishops would not exist able even to consider him every bit a candidate for ordination if he believed that ordained ministry of some form was God's call on his life (though existence a licensed lay reader is apparently more than of a grayness area):
The House is not, therefore, willing for those who are in a same sex marriage to be ordained to any of the three orders of ministry building. In add-on information technology considers that it would non be appropriate conduct for someone in holy orders to enter into a same sexual practice union, given the need for clergy to model the Church building's teaching in their lives (para 27).
Reflecting the Church building of England's wider reticence almost discipline of the laity and the much-contested and much-misunderstood and mis-represented distinction between clergy and laity established back in 1991 in Issues in Human Sexuality, the statement on same-sex marriage decided confronting calling on lay Anglicans not to enter same-sex marriages. It was though clear that "the same standards of deport practical to all" (para xv) and that
Getting married to someone of the same sex would…clearly be at variance with the teaching of the Church of England (para 26)
Clergy are therefore not only prohibited from marrying same-sex activity couples simply from offering "services of blessing" for them. Although "more informal kind of prayer" is permitted the bishops assume that, in relation to the couple, clergy will make certain that "any prayer will be accompanied past pastoral discussion of the church building'due south teaching and their reasons for departing from it" (para 21). It is not clear if information technology would be right to assume similar give-and-take was part of the selection process for this appointment.
It is therefore irrefutable that the House of Bishops, as a torso, view the newly appointed Archbishops' Appointments Secretary (who will be instrumental in replacing them) as, in Bell'south words, "living in directly contradiction to the instruction of the Church building of England". It is also clear that his marital condition was widely known. This is not only because of it being an internal appointment but because when his wedding occurred, just over 6 months ago, his married man, Alastair Bruce of Crionaich, Governor of Edinburgh Castle and a journalist and TV reporter, tweeted about it existence a church building wedding allowed in Scotland (eliciting Twitter congratulations from Knott's colleagues at Lambeth). The spousal relationship gained meaning media publicity including in the Daily Mail service, Daily Mirror reporting a GMB interview, and The Times. It is also articulate that this contradiction relates non to some esoteric affair of doctrine but to the currently nigh hotly contested elements of church education. Elements of education which are in a procedure of discernment led by the Archbishops and bishops where it is known from biting feel that actions which may in 1 sense seem uncontentious easily "jeopardise trust" and cause "division and hurt".
What is less clear is what weight, if any, was given to these factors by the Archbishops and others involved in the date process. It as well remains to be seen what the brusk, medium and long term consequences of the appointment will exist especially within the LLF procedure as we seek "to build bridges that will enable the difficult conversations that are necessary as, together, we discern the style forward for the Church of England".
In enabling hard conversations in this context it is important to step back from the immediate and pressing question of i appointment (and the tensions it once again raises and highlights) and consider afresh where the CofE now finds itself, how it got here, where at that place is agreement and disagreement, and what future options need to be explored in this year of discernment and decision.
Where do we agree and where do nosotros disagree? Teaching and Practice
There is, it appears, growing understanding on two fundamental elements in diagnosing the challenges nosotros face in the Church of England and both of these are evident in the two examples explored above. One of these relates to didactics and one relates to do.
First, we all now recognise there are deep differences and incompatible convictions which are sincerely and oft deeply held within the CofE particularly apropos how the church building should respond faithfully to LGBT people, especially those in ceremonious partnerships and same-sex marriages. It is also increasingly recognised that these differences relate to wider disagreements on sexual ideals more generally and ascend from deeper theological differences on a range of issues. These include our understanding of the nature and say-so of Scripture and its teaching on sexual ethics, the pregnant and significance of being made in God's image every bit male person and female person, and what in human experience we view as a marker of God's proficient cosmos to celebrate and what we view every bit a sign of our fallenness in need of redemption. I believe the LLF resource are very helpful in enabling us to understand these differences better.
Secondly, at that place is information technology seems increasing consensus that the electric current practice of the CofE is lacking consistency and coherence and increasingly fails to pass tests of both intellectual and moral integrity. This is evident both in relation to seemingly contradictory practices and in relation to how practice is (or is not) guided past educational activity. This is all also oft intertwined with what amounts to institutional duplicity and hypocrisy and, as Ed Shaw has powerfully written, all this places a detail burden on gay Anglicans (whatever their own convictions). This is experienced by some gay and lesbian Christians when they observe their local church believes official teaching and then cannot accept how they take understood God's call on their lives and limits their opportunities for leadership in the congregation. Others observe they cannot explore ordained ministry building or experience they accept to be less than honest and transparent if they do so. Others find that their ain commitment to teach or to alive according to church instruction is being undermined by leaders whose statements and actions oppose that teaching.
Sadly, though, we are far from agreed on how to respond to these ii inter-related problems. For some, the root problem is the current teaching of the church. This, for them, is what leads to bad practise and we can merely reach good practice once that teaching is changed. For others, the root trouble is not the current instruction but the failure to clear that teaching positively and well, to permit it shape and guide our practice every bit a church building, and to be a church which enables people to live out that educational activity. To change the didactics, for them, volition therefore just make matters worse. Instead we need to be more than faithful to that teaching and allow it to bring coherence and consistency to how we lodge our life together.
What are some possible responses faced with this agreement on some major problems but such different analyses of their causes and how best to address them?
What options are at that place moving forward?
In considering how to move forward it is worth reflecting on how we take got here. The differences over pedagogy and practice were evident in the 1979 Gloucester Report whose proposals were merely published alongside "Disquisitional Observations of the Board for Social Responsibility on the Study" and never implemented. The publication of a Dissenting Statement inside the Pilling Report in 2013 and the defeat of the Firm of Bishops' Proposals (GS2055) following the Post-Pilling Shared Conversations in 2022 have all conspicuously demonstrated the lack of consensus continues decades later. The last attempt to find an agreed way forrard was now over thirty years ago with the publication of Issues in Human Sexuality in 1991.Although the bishop who chaired that grouping gave a lecture publicly dissenting from its conclusions five years later and we now live in a very different lodge, this remains the formal expression of the didactics of the Church building of England.
The response to these differences has been broadly to follow the path the bishops again recommended in 2022 – no change to police or doctrine or liturgy which must still shape guidance from the bishops but besides a desire non to be as well prescriptive in that guidance. GS2055 set out the theological rationale for this:
That balance of a clear framework for doctrine and practice that does non prescribe more is necessary, with trust in those who place themselves within it to make decisions with prayerful responsibility, applies to the life of the Church of England every bit a whole, and non just to clergy. Moreover, it is arguably a defining characteristic of Anglicanism from the later sixteenth century onwards and the way it has enabled space for legitimate diversity. To maintain an unambiguous position on doctrine in this matter while enabling a generous freedom for pastoral practise that does non directly and publicly undermine it is entirely consistent with our traditions and is a perfectly coherent arroyo to accept (para 65).
It was acknowledged that this was in large part a compromise between two other options which are broadly those outlined above – some bishops "would be inclined to seek more far-reaching changes in the direction of e.grand. affirming married same-sex couples inside the life of the Church" while others "would like to see the sinfulness of any sexually agile relationship exterior heterosexual marriage more consistently upheld" (para 56). In 1991 in Issues this compromise had taken the class of drawing distinctions betwixt clergy and laity just the contempo engagement has once again highlighted the difficulties with how this is often now (mis-)understood and implemented in exercise. In reality, actions which only make sense on the basis of another educational activity (which has support in the church simply contradicts church teaching) are increasingly being taken under the guise of "generous freedom" and and so are seen past many to "direct and publicly undermine" official education.
These two alternative options to GS2055 take their stiff advocates but few uncertainty that they will also create their own major problems and are probably impractical. Especially given the established principle that doctrinal and liturgical innovation require more than a simple majority information technology is hard (peculiarly given the recent Synod ballot results) to see in that location being sufficient support for a change in these areas. It is also unclear as to exactly what the new teaching would be in relation to sexual behaviour (every bit discussed hither) although it at present seems articulate that the ultimate goal of those wanting change is to follow the American and Scottish churches and modify the doctrine of marriage. If this is the ultimate goal and so information technology would seem that a high level of conflict will continue until that destination is reached and so, realistically, anything short of this is likely to prove only a temporary and a rather unstable settlement.
Any change in teaching volition obviously atomic number 82 to a change in practice but it is not clear what this would involve or how information technology could exist applied across the whole CofE. Although freedom of conscience is ofttimes appealed to, many are clearly seeking to bring about change with simply a limited room for personal conscience, thus making it very difficult for those convinced by electric current didactics to remain. This is in part because an expansive definition of liberty of censor (beyond not being required to officiate personally at services one believes wrong) is likely to result in continued, possibly increasing, inconsistency and incoherence in practice. Information technology is in part because "full inclusion" is viewed as a fundamental thing of justice and equality required past the gospel. Then many, though they may non say information technology as starkly, take much sympathy with Colin Coward who has recently written
I call up the pragmatic arrangements made to tolerate dissent on the ordination of women accept enshrined an utterly unchristian intolerance and prejudice in the life of the Church building. We now take legalised enclaves of abuse and misogyny. I have no wish to allow evangelical parishes to refuse to marry lesbian and gay couples. We should have the right, equal to heterosexuals, to be married in every Anglican parish church and edifice in England.
On the other hand, applying existing guidance more consistently and rigorously, while in ane sense resolving the 2d problem of the disjuncture between instruction and practise, and having the support of many (particularly evangelicals), will pb, as evident from the response ii years agone on civil partnerships, to an outcry both in the church and more widely. If this is attempted then information technology would be seen equally narrowing the diversity of practice now embedded within the CofE and some may even look to Parliament to stride in and force the established church to "get with the program".
Back to GS2055?
So, are we left having to return to the central proposal of GS2055 and what might that wait like?
Here the difficulty is that making no changes in educational activity or constabulary will be very difficult to accept for many. Furthermore, almost, perhaps all, of the practical changes sought (eg in relation to public services for aforementioned-sex activity couples or the requirements expected of clergy) inevitably involve either irresolute pedagogy or further widening the integrity gap between official practice and official teaching.
Some, similar Neil Patterson and the Baron move he has co-sponsored, appear to think that liturgical development is possible within the current teaching. However, especially in the calorie-free of the legal advice annexed to GS2055, many are unconvinced by this. Information technology looks to them as though this mode forward both fails to take our doctrinal differences seriously (often simply appealing to "compromise" and "agreeing to disagree") and will make the church's practise even more incoherent and inconsistent. By requiring either a change in teaching or blessing of practices even more in contradiction of that teaching than at present it also represents a pace besides far for those committed to current church teaching.As the recent example of Wales shows, it is unlikely to convince them and is probable to exist just a step towards changing marriage doctrine.It fails, in other words, to offer a solution to either of the two problems widely recognised every bit needing to be addressed.
An alternative approach would exist to see whether, in the lite of the LLF discernment process, there may be some new insights and a possible new consensus in relation to education which, equally a outcome, opens upwards new paths for agreed practices consistent with that education. The most fruitful selection here is I suspect in relation to the church building articulating its own pattern of committed aforementioned-sex activity relationship which information technology could recognise and gloat rather than simply working out how to respond to the categories of "civil partnership" and "marriage" offered in law. In a presentation to the Pilling Group nearly 10 years ago I sketched what this might involve in these terms:
[I]t would need consensus as to the pattern of life to be commended, particularly the nature of the relationship and the responsibilities within it. Here the question of sex inevitably will arise and fundamental differences will therefore notwithstanding need to be addressed and may prove intractable. This arroyo may, yet, analyze whether there is any possible pattern of relationship – a celibate covenanted friendship – which can be commended with theological integrity and take the support of a pregnant number of both those committed to traditional teaching and those seeking a more than positive approach to committed same-sexual activity relationships.
This path forward was also acknowledged in GS2055 where the bishops wrote:
While moral questions remain for the Church of England near the status of sexual relationships between people of the same gender, the House of Bishops has affirmed that stable, faithful homosexual relationships can "embody crucial social virtues" of fidelity and mutuality. I challenge is therefore to explore how that affirmation in the case of both celibate and non-celibate relationships might exist more fully articulated in our theological ethics and better communicated in our pastoral and missional practice, while maintaining the current doctrine of the Church of England on marriage and relationships. Nor can this challenge be separated from the Church'due south response to the prevalence of stable, faithful heterosexual relationships other than marriage in our guild (para 63).
Sadly, as I said in 2012, "I am non confident that there is a style of squaring this circle, of finding a path that volition keep us together and able to alive with theological integrity and coherence and less tension and disharmonize". But that does not mean it is not worth trying and the LLF procedure and Pastoral Principles for Living Well Together may have fabricated this avenue more than promising than it was previously.
Maybe though the very public controversy of two years ago and that at present bubbling away under the surface in relation to the new Archbishops' Appointment Secretary are just 2 among many other signs that the time has come to face the primal trouble:
Although we accept a long-established received pedagogy (and do based on this) in relation to marriage and sexual ethics, one yet held by most, only not all, Anglican and other Christian churches, this no longer has the confidence of a significant (just unknown) number within the Church of England, including amid its bishops and clergy. For virtually half a century we have been deeply divided and there is no sign that we are any closer to approaching one mind. The current teaching at present seemingly lacks sufficient support to shape our practice across the church building (which has itself as a result become incoherent and inconsistent) simply neither has any alternative didactics emerged which has sufficient consensus.
To take the imagery of Jesus at the cease of the Sermon on the Mountain when he talks near the need to put his didactics into practice (the focus of study in the first session of the LLF class): in working out what we demand to do as a church faithful to Jesus, many of us are happy to go along edifice on what nosotros believe is rock and are increasingly concerned about usa seemingly building on sand; others of us believe that what we are currently edifice on is unstable making what nosotros build perchance uninhabitable and dangerous for many, and that the foundation Jesus is calling united states to build on requires our teaching to be something unlike. It requires u.s. to build on a rock which the first group can only view as sand.
What and then are our options? Nosotros could, as in many ways we take been doing, keep saying we are building on the rock of current teaching just increasingly expand the scope of our actions then as to exist building on what many view equally sand (while occasionally reminding people about the rock we say we are building on). But that will solve neither of the problems nosotros increasingly concur that we accept and is likely to lead only to the multiplication of the sort of tensions illustrated earlier.
We could, like the Methodist Church has recently done, simply extend our current applied incoherence into our educational activity. We could move to a position where, as a church, we land that nosotros uphold and back up contradictory teachings. This would as well fail to address either problem and appears to ignore Jesus' stark warning after in Matthew (and also in Mark and Luke) that "if a business firm is divided against itself, that house cannot stand".
We could, and should, through the LLF discernment process, make one more than endeavor to meet whether we really can find some agreement as to what would be the stone on which we should be building, whether something that has not previously been recognised by the church as rock might however be a solid foundation we tin all recognise equally faithful to Jesus.
It may though be that, lamenting our lack of mutual mind, and renewing our commitment to keep seeking such a mutual listen, we have to begin to consider seriously what changes our collective double-mindedness renders necessary in how nosotros structure our mutual life.How can we create sufficient infinite or distance to enable each view to find expression in an episcopal structure which has some form of agreed teaching that in turn authorises consistent practice and so has intellectual and moral integrity without generating the level of conflict now sadly and then common?How can we permit each grouping of Anglicans to build on what they believe to be the stone and to avoid building on what they believe to be sand?
Considering nosotros are here dealing with competing and contradictory visions of faithfulness to Christ, of the holiness to which we are chosen in Christ, of our created human being nature, and of the ground on which we are to build communities of disciples, this is a much greater claiming than that we have faced and struggled with in relation to women priests and bishops. And because our received ecclesial structures are those of episcopacy within a geographically ordered national church and a global Communion this is a much greater claiming than the ecclesial questions faced by the URC and Baptists and others with a different church construction. The sad history of Anglican provinces and the Anglican Communion over the last 20 years confirms how great a challenge it is. But it is a challenge which we must perhaps now face and, every bit far as possible, face up and seek to resolve together, across our differences.
Revd Dr Andrew Goddard is Assistant Minister, St James the Less, Pimlico, Tutor in Christian Ethics, Westminster Theological Centre (WTC) and Tutor in Ethics at Ridley Hall, Cambridge. He is a member of the Church building of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) and was a member of the Co-Ordinating Grouping of LLF.
Come up and join me for a Zoom teaching afternoononThursday tertiary February to explore all the issues effectually the 'end times' and finish of the world.
We volition look at: t he background to this language in Jewish thinking; Jesus' didactics in Matthew 24 and Mark 13; t he Rapture—what is information technology, and does the Bible really teach information technology; w hat the New Testament says near 'tribulation'; t he brute, the antichrist, and the Millennium in Rev xx; the significance of the land of Israel.
The cost is £x per person, and you can book your tickets at the Eventbrite link here.
If y'all enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If y'all have valued this post, y'all tin brand a single or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Good comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful debate, can add real value. Seek first to sympathize, and then to be understood. Brand the well-nigh charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view argue equally a conflict to win; accost the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/can-the-c-of-e-ever-bridge-its-differences-on-sexuality/
0 Response to "Can the C of E ever bridge its differences on sexuality?"
Post a Comment