It is now fairly clear what the next stage of the Prayers of Love and Faith process will be. In July the House of Bishops will propose that stand alone services for the blessing of same-sex couples (including those who have entered into a civil same-sex marriage) will be permitted under the terms of Canon B5 and will also propose that the current discipline forbidding clergy to be in same-sex marriages will no longer be applied in at least some dioceses
It is also clear that, at the moment, the bishops are absolutely intransigent in refusing to even consider the possibility of either a provincial settlement to meet the needs of traditionalists as requested by CEEC, or even some kind of non-provincial transferred episcopal arrangements for traditionalists. The maximum they seem prepared to offer is some kind of regionally arranged delegated episcopal oversight, which would still leave traditionalists under the ordinary jurisdiction of their diocesan bishops regardless of where that bishop stands on the sexuality issue.
What struck me as I digested this news over the weekend is that in coming to their current positions the bishops appear to have simply ignored four key statements made into three previous House of Bishops’ documents.
The first statement is the critique of the blessing of same-sex relationships put forward by Bishop Keith Sinclair in his ‘dissenting statement’ contained in the 2013 Report of the House of Bishops Working Group on Sexuality (more commonly known as the ‘Pilling report’) . Bishop Sinclair’s critique in paragraphs 472-482 of the Pilling report runs as follows:
‘472. I believe that while the Church must welcome all and acknowledge the good that exists in all relationships, it cannot commend and affirm non-marital sexual relationships in its teaching or practice. This is the teaching summarised in the resolution 1:10 of the Lambeth Conference 1998 to which the terms of reference refer, and to which the Working Group is asked to give attention. I have come to the conclusion with great regret that the Report if adopted will undermine this teaching both theologically and in its proposals for the recognition of permanent same sex relationships.
473. The Report undermines Lambeth 1.10 theologically when it declares in paragraph 312 that:
‘In the face of conflicting scholarship, as well as conflicting beliefs, we believe that the church should be cautious about attempting to pronounce definitively on the implications of scripture for homosexual people. We do agree that, as all Christians are called to faithfulness, exclusivity and life-long commitment in their sexual relationships, same sex relationships which do not seek to embody those aspects of vocation cannot be right. Beyond that, we wait for the Holy Spirit’s guidance and commit ourselves to finding ways for the church to continue to listen for his voice’
474. This does not show why the previous statements from the Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion (summarised in Lambeth 1:10) have been wrong to teach as they have in relation to homosexual behaviour. These statements have been clear that what is wrong with same sex activity is precisely the fact that it is same sex activity, regardless of whether or not it takes place in the context of ‘faithfulness, exclusivity and life-long commitment.’ In saying this these statements have followed the teaching of Scripture which scholars are overwhelmingly agreed is always negative about sexual behaviour between people of the same sex and says nothing at all about whether such relationships should be faithful, committed or exclusive.
475. On the recognition of same sex relationships Lambeth 1:10 said that the Conference ‘cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions’. But the Report in Recommendation 16 says that priests should, with the agreement of their PCC, ‘be free to recognise a permanent same sex relationship in a public service’. I cannot see how this can be the right way forward for at least six reasons.
476. First, the Church cannot hold a public service for a couple simply on the basis that it discerns virtues and good qualities in their relationship. It must also be confident that the pattern of relationship it is affirming is in accordance with God’s will. It expresses that confidence liturgically by proclaiming a form of life which is in accordance with God’s will and asking the couple to affirm publicly that they seek to live faithfully within this way of life. This means that as long as the Church of England continues to ‘abide by its current teaching’ it cannot with integrity offer a service for any pattern of sexual relationship other than 6marriage, even though Christians can recognise moral goods, such as love and fidelity, in particular non-marital sexual relationships and qualities of character in the partners. Good, compassionate pastoral care requires the Church to help people to respond obediently to God’s love by living rightly before Him and thus it cannot be pastoral to affirm a form of relationship which is contrary to God’s will.
477.Secondly, Paragraphs 372-379, and Recommendation 16 which follows from them, are ambiguous about the commitments and disciplines of holiness in relation to sexual life, in particular whether the proposed services would be open to those in a sexually active relationship or only to those whose relationship is a celibate one. This means that the recommendation does not fit with either the Church’s teaching, which the Report says it abides by, or with the demands for sexual exclusivity (with which not all gay couples would agree) set out in Paragraph 312. The recommendation also does not recognise that such a service will not meet the stated needs of many same-sex couples who reject the Church’s teaching. They want the whole of their relationship (including its sexual aspect) to be affirmed by the Church and, increasingly, wish their relationship to be affirmed as a form of marriage. Ambiguity will not be enough and there will thus be continuing pressure for the full acceptance of their understanding of their relationship by the Church.
478. Thirdly, Paragraphs 369-399 talk about the recognition not only of Civil Partnerships but also of same sex marriages. If the Church did celebrate in a public service the fact that two people had just entered into a same sex marriage this would be incompatible with its doctrine of marriage (which says that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman) and would inevitably be understood in both the Church (nationally and globally) and wider society as the Church of England affirming same-sex marriages even if refusing to solemnise them in church.
479. Fourthly, by proposing that priests should, with the agreement of their PCC, ‘be free to recognise a permanent same sex relationship in a public service’ the Report undermines a bishop’s authority within his own diocese, bypasses the need for formal authorisation and opens the possibility for a range of services to be offered. The Primates of the Communion in 2003 stated ‘The Archbishop of Canterbury spoke for us all when he said that it is through liturgy that we express what we believe, and that there is no theological consensus about same sex unions.’ The Report, in contrast, acknowledges the lack of consensus but then proceeds to suggest the development of new liturgies at a parish level in a manner which risks producing liturgical anarchy in this controversial area and pressure being put on individual bishops and priests to permit and offer such public services.
480. Fifthly, liturgical ambiguity and authorised diversity will lead to the cultural captivity of the Church, inhibiting her ability to proclaim the biblical and Christian teaching about sexual ethics and the power of Jesus Christ to liberate people from all sin, including sexual sin. The Church will lack credibility in declaring that sexual activity is given exclusively for heterosexual marriage, or in declaring that people can and should refrain from same sex sexual activity, once it is holding authorised services that affirm sexually active gay and lesbian relationships. Pressure is also likely to grow for liturgical recognition of non-marital heterosexual relationships.
481. Sixthly, we need to be clear that, even if what is proposed are not called blessings, that is what they will in fact be. They will be occasions when God’s blessing is invoked upon a same sex relationship. The theological reasons why we should not bless sexually active same-sex relationships in this way are highlighted in the following quotation from the Canadian theologian Edith Humphrey who asks what such blessing would mean:
‘ It would be to declare that these so-called ‘unions’ are in themselves pictures or icons of God’s love, to say that they display the salvation story, to rejoice that that they are glorified or taken up into God’s own actions and being. It would be to declare that they have a significant and fruitful part in creation, and that they are symbols of the in-breaking and coming rule of God, in which the Church now shares and in which we will eventually participate fully. It would be to “speak a good word” about this sort of relationship, explicitly declaring it to be a condition in which the way of the cross and the way of new life come together. Precisely here, the Church would be saying, you can see the love of God in human form, and the glory of humanity. It would be to name God as the one who blesses an act for which in fact repentance is required. So we would replace God with an idol, and so we would rend the Church.’
482. Earlier I quoted two Christian friends who experience same-sex attraction. Their words, along with those that follow from a third Christian friend, offer a final reason why I cannot, as a pastor, support this recommendation:
‘I would feel hugely undermined and discouraged if the Church of England was to affirm the kind of gay relationship which I believe the Bible teaches is sinful and should be resisted. Christians like me who experience same sex attraction need our church to encourage us to stand firm against the pressures of the world, rather than providing an example of accommodation. I already feel isolated in the world, holding the position I take, and I fear that any change in the Church’s teaching would make me increasingly lonely in the church as well.’’ [1]
In all the material that they have published since 2013 in relation to the Shared Conversations and then the Living in Love and Faith process the bishops have failed to engage at all with these points made by Bishop Sinclair. They have essentially adopted the recommendations of the Pilling report without bothering to explain why they have chosen to ignore his criticisms of these recommendations. They may believe that Bishop Sinclair is wrong in what he says, but they have never even tried to show why he is wrong.
In particular, the whole basis on which the bishops have defended the prayers contained in Prayers of Love and Faith is on the grounds that is right to affirm ‘the virtues and good qualities’ in same-sex relationships. Yet they have not provided so much as a footnote engaging with Bishop Sinclair’s criticism of this argument in paragraph 476.
The second statement is paragraphs 5.13- 5.17 of the House of Bishops 1991 statement Issues in Human Sexuality. Using the word ‘homophile’ when we would now use ‘homosexual,’ these paragraphs declare:
‘5.13 From the time of the New Testament onwards it has been expected of those appointed to the ministry of authority in the church that they shall not only preach but also live the Gospel. These expectations are as real today as ever they were. People not only inside the church but outside it believe rightly that in the way of life of an ordained minister they ought to be able to see a pattern which the Church commends. Inevitably, therefore, the world will assume that all ways of living in which an ordained person is allowed to adopt are in Christian eyes equally valid. With regard to homophile relationships, however, this is, as we have already explained, a position which for theological reasons the church does not hold. Justice does indeed demand that the Church should be free in its pastoral discretion to accommodate a good God-given ideal to human need, so that individuals are not turned away from God and their neighbour but helped to grow in love toward both from within their own situation. But the Church is also bound to take care that the ideal itself is not misrepresented or obscured; and to this extent the example of its ordained ministers is of crucial significance. This means that certain possibilities are not open to the clergy by comparison with the laity, something in that in principle has always been accepted….
5.17 We have therefore to say that in our considered judgement the clergy cannot claim the liberty to enter into sexually active homophile relationships. Because of the distinctive nature of their calling, status and consecration, to allow such a claim on their part will be seen as placing that way of life in all respects on a par with heterosexual marriage as a reflection of God’s purposes in creation the church cannot accept such a parity remained faithful to the insights which God has given it through scripture, tradition and reasoned reflection on experience.’[2]
Given that the Church of England’s traditional teaching concerning marriage and the limitation of sexual activity to marriage remains unchanged, if the bishops are proposing to allow clergy to be in same -sex marriages or sexually active same-sex partnerships, then they need to engage with these paragraphs in Issues of Human Sexuality and the teaching of the Bible and the Christian tradition about the holiness of life required of Christian ministers that underlies it. Thus far this is something that they have failed to do. They have not even attempted to show that the ‘considered judgement’ reached by their predecessors in 1991was the wrong one or does not apply today.
The third statement is the explanation given in paragraphs 9.6.22-9.6.31 of the 2003 House of Bishops’ report Some Issues in Human Sexuality as to why it is not legitimate to simply ‘agree to disagree’ over matters to do with human sexual conduct. The paragraphs run as follows:
‘9.6.22 Recent ecumenical theology has strongly affirmed the importance of diversity in the life of the Church:
The Porvoo Common Statement, for example, declares that:
‘Visible unity, however, should not be confused with uniformity. ‘Unity in Christ does not exist despite and in opposition to diversity, but is given with and in diversity.’ Because this diversity corresponds with the many gifts of the Holy Spirit to the Church, it is a concept of fundamental ecclesial importance, with relevance to all aspects of the life of the Church, and is not a mere concession to theological pluralism.’
Likewise the 1999 ARCIC statement The Gift of Authority argues that:
‘In the rich diversity of human life, encounter with the living Tradition produces a variety of expressions of the Gospel. Where diverse expressions are faithful to the Word revealed in Jesus Christ and transmitted by the apostolic community, the churches in which they are found are truly in communion. Indeed, this diversity of traditions is the practical manifestation of catholicity and confirms rather than contradicts the vigour of Tradition. As God has created diversity among humans, so the Church’s fidelity and identity require not uniformity of expression and formulation at all levels in all situations, but rather catholic diversity within the unity of communion. This richness of tradition is a vital resource for a reconciled humanity. ‘Human beings were created by God in his love with such diversity in order that they might participate in that love by sharing with one another both what they have and what they are, thus enriching each other in their mutual communion.’ (Church as Communion 35)
9.6.23 Furthermore, the principle of accepting and respecting diversity has come to be used, particularly within the Anglican Communion, as a way of enabling churches to live together in spite of differences of belief and practice over such issues as the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate. Thus, for example, the Eames Commission invoked the principle of diversity as a way of enabling Anglicans who disagreed over the propriety of the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate to remain together as part of one communion.
9.6.24 However, the principle of the acceptance of diversity cannot be lazily invoked as a way of avoiding conflict by tolerating all forms of belief and practice. This is because there are limits to diversity. One cannot simply say that all forms of diversity are legitimate. As The Gift of Authority argues, diversity has to be controlled by fidelity to the divine self-revelation given to us in Jesus Christ and witnessed to by Scripture.
9.6.25 For example, it would not be legitimate to deny the existence of God , or that Jesus Christ came in the flesh , or that He died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures . All these are beliefs which are central to the Christian faith, the denial of which would take one outside the sphere of orthodox Christianity altogether. It is because agreement on such matters is vital that the recent ecumenical agreements which the Church of England has entered into, such as the Meissen agreement with the EKD or the Porvoo agreement with Scandinavian and Baltic Lutheran Churches, or the Fetter Lane agreement with Moravians, have all contained statements of agreement on such matters. They are there because agreement on such things matters if we are to be a united people before God.
9.6.26 Moreover these agreements also highlight the fact that for the Church of England, as for the Anglican Communion as a whole, the areas of legitimate diversity not only exclude disagreement on the fundamentals of the faith as set out in the Bible and the Catholic Creeds but also exclude disagreement on the need to celebrate the two dominical sacraments of baptism and the eucharist or the necessity of the historic episcopate. The ‘Lambeth Quadrilateral’ which sets out the basic Anglican understanding of what a united Christian Church would look like insists that there would have to be agreement on all these areas for such a united Church to exist. Where agreement on these matters has not proved possible, as in the case of the refusal by the EKD to accept the need for the historic episcopate, the journey towards unity has run into difficulties.
9.6.27 The question that is now being raised in some quarters is whether these non-negotiables ought to be extended to include agreement on sexual morality. For example, the Montreal Declaration of Anglican essentials produced by ‘traditionalist’ Anglicans in Canada in 1994 listed as one of these essentials an affirmation concerning standards of sexual conduct:
‘God designed human sexuality not only for procreation but also for the joyful expression of love, honour and fidelity between wife and husband. These are the only sexual relations that biblical theology deems good and holy.
Adultery, fornication, and homosexual union are intimacies contrary to God’s design. The church must seek to minister healing and wholeness to those who are sexually scarred, or who struggle with ongoing sexual temptations, as most people do. Homophobia and all forms of sexual hypocrisy and abuse are evils against which Christians must ever be on their guard. The church may not lower God’s standards of sexual morality for any of its members, but must honour God by upholding these standards tenaciously in face of society’s departures from them.’
9.6.28 Regardless of whether one agrees with what this statement says about Christian sexual conduct, its inclusion in a list of Anglican essentials does raise the question as to whether fundamental ethical issues ought not to be seen as an area where there has to be agreement both within and between Churches and on which an acceptance of diversity is not appropriate.
9.6.29 The classic argument against this position is that what ought to be regarded as essential is that which makes the Church the Church, and that on everything else diversity may be tolerated. Thus, it has been argued, there has to be agreement about the basics of the faith, about the sacraments, and about the ministry of word and sacrament since without these the Church could not exist, but it is possible for the Church to continue to exist while embracing a variety of approaches to ethics. Therefore, agreement about ethical matters is not required for a united Church.
9.6.30 However this argument ignores the point which we have already made, that ethics, including sexual ethics, also matter if the Church is to live up to its calling. The will of God for His people is that they should be holy as He is holy , and this means walking in obedience to His commandments, ‘walking in the way of the Lord’ as the Old Testament puts it. This means that it is vital that God’s people should know what He requires of His people, obey it, and teach others to do likewise. To this end there needs to be agreement concerning Christian ethics. Furthermore, as we have seen, in the case of the disagreement about sexual ethics the disagreement is about matters which go to the heart of people’s relationship with God, and which cannot therefore be treated as subjects on which we can simply learn to live with diversity.
9.6.31 Therefore we have to say with Michael Doe:
‘…we cannot as Christians just give way to a ‘you believe this, I believe that’ approach to being together, or moving apart, in the Church. Nor even can we be content with the rather cheap model of ‘reconciled diversity,’ meaning benign tolerance, which many Christians find an easier option to the costlier pursuit of real, ‘visible’, unity. We need to continue to struggle together for the truth, to find the right and godly balance between the call to solidarity and the recognition of difference. Nowhere is this more important – especially in the Anglican Communion – than in the area of sexuality.’’[3]
As before, the current House of Bishops simply has not engaged with the argument in these paragraphs. They have neither produced a credible argument to demonstrate that it is legitimate for there to be a diversity of approaches to sexual ethics within the Church of England (‘you believe this, I believe that’), nor have they explored what the consequence should be of a judgement that this is not the case. If there can only be one legitimate approach to sexual ethics in the Church of England, then what should this look like and why?
What they have done instead is to declare that the Church’s existing doctrine with regard to marriage and sexual ethics remains unchanged, and then start put in place provisions for that doctrine to be ignored in practice. This means that what they have effectively said is ‘We believe this (but not really),’ which is an even worse position than that criticised by Bishop Michael Doe.
The fourth statement, which is also from Some Issues in Human Sexuality is the statement in paragraphs 9.6.41-9.6.46 of the need to be honest about the implications for Christian unity of disagreement about sexual ethics. The statement declares:
‘9.6.41 Although our unity as Christians is based on our common membership of the one body of Christ and as such is something which is invisible, this unity which we share through our relationship with Him is one to which we are called to give visible expression. Our ability to do this is, however, compromised by our inability, either internally or ecumenically, to achieve agreement over our different approaches to sexual ethics.
9.6.42 As we have previously noted, it has long been recognised in the ecumenical field that there have to be limits to diversity. This is because visible unity that is not based on agreement in truth is simply not worth having. We can only have that degree of visible unity which is justified by the degree of our agreement as to the will of God for His people.
9.6.43 Furthermore, as the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox have frequently reminded the ecumenical movement, the issue of what we believe in the field of sexual ethics cannot be left out of the picture. We have to be honest about the implications for Christian unity of our disagreements in this area as well.
9.6.44 There is no point in trying to create or sustain an artificial unity that simply papers over areas of important difference. This is dishonouring to God, because it means that we do not take issues of truth with a proper degree of seriousness. It is also counterproductive in terms of the Church’s mission because those outside the Church will not see the Church as providing an example of how to live with difference. They will instead receive the message that the Church is not worth listening to because it is as confused as the rest of the world.
9.6.45 If we find that we do disagree with others and our visible unity with them is thus impaired this does not mean that we cannot recognise them as Christians. As has been argued above, our understanding of Christian ethics, and how we behave in this area, does have important implications for the issue of whether we are living faithfully before God. However, what makes us Christians is our common relationship with Christ, which is rooted in repentance, faith, baptism and the gift of the Holy Spirit, and not the correctness of our beliefs about matters of sexual conduct or the impeccability of our own behaviour.
9.6.46 It therefore makes perfect sense to recognise someone as a Christian who we think is at fault in these areas, and to this extent there is a proper place for Christian inclusivity. What does not make sense, however, is to overlook their beliefs or their conduct or to think that these do not matter.’ [4]
The key sentence here is ‘We can only have that degree of visible unity which is justified by our agreement as to the will of God for his people.’ In the course of the discussions of Living in Love and Faith and Prayers of Love and Faith, both the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) and now the wider Alliance movement have made clear that what the House of Bishops has done, and is proposing to do, will necessarily damage the visible unity of the Church of England in the same way that the visible unity of other Anglican churches, and of the Anglican Communion as a whole, has already been damaged by similar actions of other bishops and Synods elsewhere. This is because traditionalist Anglicans believe that according to the New Testament, and the historic tradition of the Church, it is necessary to visibly differentiate oneself from other Christians, including bishops, who have departed from the orthodox faith in their teaching or their practice, with visible unity being necessarily impaired as a result.
The bishops have once again refused to engage with this point. They have steadfastly insisted that there will be ‘business as usual,’ that there will be no structural provision for visible differentiation, and that traditionalists will have to be content with being allowed to opt out of blessing same-sex relationships and receiving some form of temporary, regionally organised, delegated oversight from a traditionalist bishop.
This is in spite of the fact that the CEEC has repeatedly said that this will not do, because this is a legally vulnerable settlement which contains no guarantees for the long term and which still leaves traditionalists under the ordinary jurisdiction of diocesan bishops who have departed from orthodoxy in their teaching, their practice, or both. It is also in spite of the fact that the CEEC has explained in detail that there is an alternative solution available, that is in accordance with existing Anglican ecclesiology, in the form of the creation of a new provincial structure within the Church of England. Such a solution would model how to live honestly in the face of difference while still seeking to maintain as much unity with other Christians as possible, and would enable tradionalists to remain in good conscience within the Church of England.
Rather than being willing to sit down with the CEEC and the Alliance and discuss how this could work the House of Bishops has just dismissed it out of hand. The bishops have not even bothered to explain why they have problems with this idea. They are insisting on unity on their own terms even though they have been told that this will not work.
In summary, the House of Bishops, as a corporate body, has failed significantly in two ways.
First, it has failed to explain theologically why it is doing what it is doing and to meet the theological objections that have been made in previous House of Bishops reports to this course of action. The bishops’ action has been unjustified in the strict sense of having no theological justification. This is unacceptable because the faithful have to be sure that what the bishops are doing is theologically correct and the bishops have failed to show that this is the case. Bishops only have legitimate authority when they can show they are upholding ‘the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints’ (Jude 1:3). The House of Bishops has not currently shown this.
Secondly, the House of Bishops has failed to accept the consequences for the visible unity of the Church of England of the line of action they are pursuing and have refused to sit down with CEEC and Alliance to discuss how a viable solution to this problem that meets the needs of traditionalists might work.
My plea to the House of Bishops is that they acknowledge these failures and amend them by doing two things.
(a) Explaining not only what they intend to do, but why they can think this can be justified in relation to the theological authorities accepted by the Church of England and listed in Canons A5 and C15, namely, the Scriptures, the Fathers and Councils of the Early Church and the Creeds they produced, and the historic Anglican Formularies of the Reformation period. If they find that they cannot provide such a justification they should admit that this is the case and be prepared to rethink the whole Prayers of Love and Faith project in consequence.
(b) If they decide to persist with the Prayers of Love and Faith project, sitting down with the CEEC and the Alliance for a serious conversation about how a permanent provincial settlement might be put in place.
It is time for the bishops to get serious.
[1] GS 1929, Report of the House of Bishops Working Group on Human Sexuality (London: CHP, 2013), pp.138-141.
[2] GS Misc 382, Issues in Human Sexuality (London: CHP, 1993), pp.44-45.
[3] GS 1519, Some Issues in Human Sexuality (London: CHP, 2003) pp. 308-311.
[4] Some Issues, pp. 313-315.
Reflections of an Anglican Theologian 
House of Bishops: Demonstrating that they won’t marginalise a section of society – by marginalising a section of society.