Presidential address for the Synod of the Diocese of Liverpool
June 28, 2003
The reignited debate about homosexuality in the church is a painful and pitiful affair. It gives offence to gay people who feel their identity is being challenged. It gives grief to those including some gays who find themselves demonised as homophobic just because they are trying to be faithful to the sexual ethics of Christian Orthodoxy.
Each side feels that the playing field is not level. The liberals in the church feel that the surging ranks of evangelicals have exercised too much influence in the Anglican Communion especially at the Lambeth Conference. The Traditionalists feel misrepresented and pilloried in the debate by the secular media which show greater sympathy with the cause of gay liberation.
Over the last ten years the House of Bishops has successfully held the Church of England together by "Issues in Human Sexuality". In spite of criticisms from both sides it has offered that typical Anglican via media which has enabled Bishops of all persuasions to stay friends and in communion with each other. "Issues" accepted the reality of gay relationships within the laity but insisted, as does the Bible, on exemplary conduct from those in ordained leadership namely the clergy. The scriptural ideal is that sexual intercourse is God's gift for marriage and that clergy should live out that example.
We all know that there are clergy marriages which are deeply flawed and there that are gay relationships which reflect the virtues of faithfulness and sacrifice. What the church is called to do is to discern the mind of Christ for each generation with due regard to the authority of scripture, to the lessons of tradition, to the voice of reason and to the reality of contemporary experience.
There is a primacy to Scripture in that four-fold reference. This is the major issue that people beyond the church do not fully appreciate. Around the world millions of Christians seek to live their lives in obedience to God's Commandments praying in the words of the hymn "May the mind of Christ my Saviour live in me from day to day".
How do we find his mind? Scripture has an authoritative and uniquely formative role in matters of faith and conduct. Interpreting and applying Scripture is what lies at the heart of this debate however mystifying that is to people outside. Indeed, the degree of incomprehension to which the Archbishop of Canterbury referred in his letter to the Bishops is another sign of the de-Christianisation of our culture.
The Lambeth Conference committed the churches within the Anglican Communion to an on-going dialogue on human sexuality. You will know that over the last two years under direction from me after discussion in this Synod I set up a Theology of Friendship Group with a membership across the spectrum to look at issues of friendship and sexuality. The work is completed. I shall be receiving their report shortly. Soon the Bishops of the Church of England will be producing a guide to the debate while agreeing at the same time to continue to hold the line drawn by "Issues in Human Sexuality".
The difficulty of Dr. John's appointment to Reading is that in spite of the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent assurances it feels to many as if this delicately-drawn line is being rubbed out without reference to the General Synod whose official position of 1987 is much more hard-lined. The Bishop of Oxford is perceived by many to have acted unilaterally in breaching the line by appointing an openly gay priest and to have undermined the Bishops collegiality. I believe that Canon John, whose integrity and merits I do not doubt, has been placed in a distressing situation. Canon John's recent comments in the media about his past and present intentions already place him at odds with the House of Bishops on issues of human sexuality. The Catholic understanding of a Bishop is that he is a focus of unity. Canon John values this unity highly. And yet it seems that his appointment will undermine that very unity, and possibly cause great schism in the Anglican Communion and Church of England.
In his statement the Archbishop of Canterbury says that when he was informed of Canon Jeffrey John's candidacy he was told that it was "acceptable to the Diocese". It is now clear that that acceptance is far from universal even among those with whom the Bishop consulted. The Archbishop of Canterbury says in his statement "it is clear that serious questions remain in the Diocese". He commends the Diocese of Oxford to our prayers as it "struggles with this and tries to find the right discernment".
The sexual mores are changing before our eyes. We need wisdom greater than Solomon's to discern the mind of Christ and how to apply the word of God in contemporary culture. We need to understand that debates about sexuality go to the very core of our being and stir the deepest emotions. All of us need to exercise great restraint while being honest in our arguments. We need to respect the integrity of each other's consciences and refuse the temptation to demonise those with whom we disagree.
If this is to be a genuine debate within the church then we need to be open to at least two possibilities.
On the one hand, the mind of the church might well change along the lines that Dr. Jeffrey John is arguing. To enter into genuine debate must admit of this possibility. On the other hand, we must be prepared for the alternative scenario which is that after a period of discernment Christians conclude that this issue is a watershed in the history of the relationship of Christianity with Western Culture and that in sexual ethics the church must continue to be distinctive from the rest of society by emphasising that sexual intercourse is God's gift for marriage.
I have begun to wonder what might flow from any decision either implicit or explicit to overrule the General Synod and the House of Bishops guidelines found in Issues in Human Sexuality. As the Archbishop is already aware it would put the Anglican Communion under the greatest strain. In two weeks I shall be going to Nairobi for the International Conference of the Evangelical Fellowship of the Anglican Communion which will, no doubt, reflect on the serious implications of the appointment for the Anglican Family worldwide.
It may lead to some parishes withdrawing their voluntary contributions to the Diocese which I fear in the end would adversely affect poor urban parishes.
It may also I think have a disastrous effect on the number of ordination candidates. Over the last twenty years the largest number of candidates have come from the evangelical and charismatic traditions of the Church of England. However much other traditions within the church may dislike evangelicals the fact is that it is the numbers of evangelical ordinands coming forward that is sustaining the Church of England in being able to maintain stipendiary ministry in its network of parishes. Such a unilateral decision about human sexuality will encourage more of these potential ordination candidates to move to the community churches where many young disaffected Anglicans already find a home. No commentator has addressed the seriousness of this for the future of the Church of England.
For all concerned this is a matter of conscience. The Anglican tradition has a noble history of respecting conscience. Although I personally do not think this is a comparable issue to the priesting of women, we know that that decision was marked by an agreed process of discernment and financial provision for those who in all conscience could not accept the decision of the church.
No such process is here being followed; no such provision is being made.
I urge you to read the Archbishop of Canterbury's statement. I am having it circulated with the minutes of this Diocesan Synod. The media interpretation of it actually does not accord with my own understanding of what he said. He urges us to keep the Diocese of Oxford in our prayers and not to override or pre-empt what is obviously a painful and complex process for them. I commend our sister Diocese to your prayers and all those implicated in this episode especially Jeffrey John and his partner. I look forward to receiving the report from our own Theology of Friendship Group and to deciding with the Bishop's Council how best to take the report forward within the Diocese.
Meanwhile, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, let us behave towards one another with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience - making every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. And let us pray that we are soon in a position to move on to address the many other important issues that threaten the future of God's world.