The Church of Ireland Bishops invited groups and individuals within the Church to submit their views on Human Sexuality, as part of a listening process within the church.
Representatives of EFIC met with the bishops in December 2004 as part of that process and were courteously received. The following was our submission:
A Submission on Human Sexuality to the House of Bishops by the EFIC Committee
As representatives of the Evangelical Fellowship of Irish Clergy, we are grateful for this opportunity to meet with the bishops and to present the views and concerns of our membership in relation to the debate on Human Sexuality current within the Church of Ireland.
1) Pastoral issues
We believe that the current debate on sexuality with its popular definition of the Gospel primarily in terms of inclusion owes more to the political ferment of the 1960s and its associated rhetoric than it does to the Holy Scriptures. The biblical gospel certainly is about inclusion within the Kingdom of God but by the exclusive means of repentance and faith in the "one God has sent" – Jesus Christ.
While we would never wish to define people primarily by their sexuality, it is probably unavoidable with regard to the terminology of this debate. We would not wish to discriminate against homosexual people, by giving the impression that homosexual activity is a ‘bigger’ sin – or an unforgivable sin – in comparison with others. We regret that this has often been the case and would wish to denounce all violence or harsh sentiments against homosexual people.
We recognise all people face temptations of various sorts and that as clergy of the Church of Ireland, our pastoral role is to help, rebuke and encourage with Scripture as our foundational guide. Within this framework, there is no justification for treating sexually-active homosexual people any differently from heterosexual adulterers or gossipers, for example. We would hope that ALL people would find a welcome in our parishes and we take seriously the need to attain to what we desire in this regard.
Since the gospel is for ALL sinners, we hold that it is actually discriminatory to preach that same-sex activity should be accepted and not repented of, as it excludes a group of sinners from the hope of forgiveness and transformation offered to all through the gospel of Jesus Christ.
- Can the bishops agree that active, unrepentant, deliberate homosexual acts exclude people from the Kingdom of God?
- If not, on what Scriptures do they base their idea that it is otherwise?
If the Church were to decide that homosexual activity (within whatever kind of relationship) is to be affirmed, we would again see this as exclusive and discriminatory against certain homosexual people in particular – those who as part of their Christian discipleship refrain from homosexual temptation and seek to live celibate lives. What message would we have for them - that their discipleship has been a ‘sham’? Does the bishops’ process of listening include hearing from celibate homosexual Christians?
2) Biblical and hermeneutical issues
Questions inevitably rise about the place and function of Scripture. Does the Bible function as merely a possible record of God's action or is it God's word to his world? While we appreciate much of what the Windsor Report said about the Bible, we are disappointed that it fell short of using the classical Anglican definition: God's Word written (Article XX).
If we accept the Bible as God's Word written, then we must further ask does it speak authoritatively about reality? If (as we believe) it does, then a passage such as Romans 1 is stating in reality that homosexual activity is one of many examples of humanity’s rebellion against God, inviting and revealing his wrath. Regarding the definition of natural in verses 26 and 27, we would ask, from the context of the passage, who can rightfully and accurately define what is natural – the Creator God or fallen, rebellious humankind?
Secondly, it means that 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 does state in reality that those who are arsenokoitoi and malakoi are not part of the Kingdom of God without repentance and faith. We note the good news of 1 Corinthians 6:11 for all sinners everywhere – ‘such were some of you’ – that this exclusion need not be permanent and can be a thing of the past. We do not wish to be accused of selective ‘proof texting’ at this point, but we consider these to be some of the key passages in the hermeneutical debate. (For a fuller treatment of the biblical material see Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, Abingdon Press, 2001.)
We regard the current understanding of the Biblical texts as affirming homosexual practice to be a late twentieth-century innovation. What cannot be denied, surely, is that throughout the Bible, homosexual activity is never promoted nor portrayed in a positive light. This is consistent across the various genre of the biblical corpus. Those within the church who advocate the acceptance of homosexuality have a mammoth task to prove otherwise, and no change should be made to the Church’s current teaching until that case can be conclusively made.
Nevertheless, we are not obscurantist; we do welcome hermeneutical debate in order to deepen our understanding of Scripture and the listening process in order to learn of the experience of homosexual people.
We would not like to see the debate captured by the emotive voices of experience rather than based on the careful consideration of Scripture. An over-reliance on experience and testimony would tend to ‘personalise’ the debate in a very negative way and indeed could drown out the authoritative and decisive testimony of Holy Writ.
- Do the Bishops agree with us that Scripture is the central and final arbiter in this debate?
With regard to what is termed the nature/nurture debate, we would ask has there been an over-reliance upon the 'gay gene' theory? What would the consequences be for the Church and its message if this theory were applied to other (non-sexual) sinful activities?
3) Communion Issues
Within Ireland:
We are grateful that the Windsor Report declares the 1998 Lambeth Resolution I.10 to be the normative teaching of the Anglican Communion. We are concerned with the sneering attitude towards Lambeth I.10 in some quarters of the Church of Ireland and hope that this is not replicated within the House of Bishops. The EFIC certainly do not consider this resolution to be Holy Scripture, but we accept its scriptural content. We feel it is significant that the recent motions passed at the Clogher and Down & Dromore Diocesan Synods affirmed ‘the biblical teaching on marriage and sexuality’ expressed in Resolution I.10. (Italics ours).
We would wish to ask the bishops:
- How will discipline be exercised within the Church of Ireland in the light of Lambeth I.10’s declaration that a homosexual lifestyle is not compatible with Christianity?
- What steps will they take to maintain this teaching in the life of the Church?
We are concerned that the debates surrounding the Windsor Report have given the impression that difficulty and division only arise when a non-celibate homosexual is appointed a bishop, and that somehow homosexual activity is deemed acceptable amongst the laity and non-episcopal clergy.
Within the Bishops’
target=_blank>Pastoral Letter of September 2003, the ministry of homosexual clergy was affirmed.
- Did that affirmation extend to sexually active homosexual clergy? Indeed, did that affirmation constitute a tacit admission that certain bishops had knowingly ordained a practising homosexual?
We also have concerns about how matters of human sexuality are taught at the Church of Ireland Theological College (CITC). We feel there has been an imbalance of teaching on this subject within the College syllabus. In recent years, for example, we understand that Jeffrey John’s booklet Faithful, Stable and Permanent was the only officially-sanctioned text to be read. What does this say about the principles of academic freedom and inquiry as exercised at Braemor Park? In this regard, we commend paragraph 60 of the Windsor Report: “Biblical scholarship needs…to be constrained by loyalty to the community of the Church across time and space.”
- How will the Bishops ensure a full and accurate representation of what might be termed the ‘traditional position’ on human sexuality within the syllabus of CITC?
Within the wider Anglican world:
We would again wish to voice our concern at the continued link between the Diocese of Limerick and New Hampshire. While we appreciate that there may be a certain protocol attached to such inter-diocesan relationships, can an assurance be given that this relationship will not be renewed when the current period expires?
We are also unclear as to the status of Gene Robinson’s ministry if he were to come to Ireland. It does not suffice to declare that there are no legal or canonical irregularities when the theological and moral irregularities remain unresolved!
It seems to us that despite the best efforts of the Windsor Commission, there may yet be realignment within the Anglican Communion. Much of ‘Western’ Anglicanism has declared its preference; so too the greater part of the two-thirds world. Where does that leave the Church of Ireland should such a scenario emerge?
- How will the bishops support Church of Ireland parishes that now see themselves out of communion with those parts of Anglicanism that do not accept the traditional biblical teaching on human sexuality (e.g. ECUSA, New Westminster)?
- In what practical ways would the bishops demonstrate Church of Ireland support to other Anglican provinces that have chosen to disassociate themselves from ECUSA and New Westminster?
There are grave questions that face us all. Are we to remain with the materially rich yet dying Anglicanism in the West that affirms all sin except the sin of ‘intolerance’? Or will we build ever-closer ties with those Anglicans who seek to be faithful to Scripture in deed as well as in word, and who have much to teach us about being faithful and distinctive for the Gospel’s sake, even in the face of secular and cultural pressures?
- Do the bishops realise how our failure to take a clear biblical position will be detrimental to the mission of the Church?