At the start of September 2003, in the midst of the present crisis within Anglicanism, the House of Bishops sent their Pastoral Letter on Human Sexuality to the clergy and people of the Church of Ireland. It is their much-awaited statement on the issue since Archbishop Eames announced at General Synod 2003 that the Bishops were examining the whole issue of sexuality.
This letter gives an indication of the present thinking amongst the Bishops and the future shape of discussion within the Church of Ireland. Are there signs of hope for bible-believing Christians, or will it seek to legitimise views that are far from Scripture and that are currently tearing apart the wider Anglican family? To this end we seek to consider the Bishops’ letter carefully.
(The Bishops’ Pastoral Letter is quoted in its entirety in bold print below.)
Society is experiencing the breakdown of national, community and inter-personal relationships on a scale that none of us has experienced before. The problem is made more difficult because there is no universally agreed standard, religious or secular, social or ethical, by which to order our affairs.
One aspect of life in which this brokenness is most personally and painfully experienced is in the realm of human sexuality. While this has become the area of immediate concern, it is equally a matter of concern that the sexualisation of almost every area of life in today’s world has seriously damaged the potential for deep and lasting enrichment that comes from close personal friendships between and within the sexes that do not have any sexual expression. Life today has become greatly impoverished as a result. In the case of homosexuality, social attitudes range from complete acceptance through indifference to complete rejection. Within the Christian tradition, notwithstanding the pastoral care and compassion shown by many, the attitude has more often than not been one of non-acceptance and at times harsh condemnation. At its worst this has led to the demonising, demeaning and oppression of those who, by inclination or in practice, have found themselves attracted to others of the same sex.
The Bishops are accurate in their description of the current moral confusion within society, and right to condemn the too-frequent rejection of homosexual people. However, we regret the imprecision within this paragraph. It seems that any suggestion that homosexuality may be wrong or sinful is to be covered by the term ‘harsh condemnation’. Is it harsh to warn sinners of their sin, or to tell them to desist? Why is it considered compassionate to avoid any mention of judgement? We cannot be more compassionate than Jesus! It would seem that those who accuse others of demonising homosexual people are themselves quick to demonise mainstream Christians, who seek with compassion to maintain Biblical standards in human sexuality. While we cannot expect a short letter such as this to cover every area of discussion, it does fail to make a distinction between those who experience homosexual inclination and those who practise homosexual activity, surely a key point in the ongoing debate.
This has meant, among other things, that a wholesome engagement with, and open discussion of, the issues surrounding homosexuality has for too long been sidestepped by the Churches. It is a basic assertion of the Christian faith that God has created all that is, and that in Jesus Christ he has entered fully into, and redeemed, a broken world. Despite that affirmation, it has often been people of no particular religious affiliation, or religious people unsupported or opposed by their own institutions, who have been to the fore in engaging with the issues in a way they should have been dealt with by the Churches.
This contains a very weak doctrine of creation and redemption. The Biblical witness is fuller. It is not only a broken world that Christ has entered and redeemed, but also a sinful one. Therefore it is not adequate simply to say that God has created all that is, without also recognizing that ‘all that is’ has been affected totally and cosmically by humanity’s fall. Thus while creation is good, nevertheless it is groaning in anticipation of its full redemption and liberation from the effects of human sin (Romans 8). Moreover, while humanity within that creation is made in the image of God, nevertheless that image is marred and corrupted by our rebellion and sinfulness against God.
The current debate within Anglicanism has shown that harsh condemnatory attitudes on both sides in the current debate have not gone away. There is still no unanimity on the question itself across the Churches. In trying to discern the mind of Christ, the Bishops believe that the Church of Ireland as a whole ought to address the question prayerfully, humbly, carefully and generously.
Again we have this caricature of ‘harsh condemnatory attitudes’. Surely it is possible for the Church to confront sin pastorally and compassionately in the spirit of the Lambeth 1998 Resolution on Human Sexuality. As a Church we are confident to be outspoken on the sins of racism and sectarianism, so why make a special category for sexual sin?
It is unfortunate that this quest for ‘the mind of Christ’ does not begin where it should, namely with a call for the Church to address the question biblically.
The Bishops have been engaging in this pastoral issue, both individually and corporately, in a process of consultation and research that began before the Lambeth Conference of 1998, and has been continuing ever since. The fact that little has been said collectively is an indication of the pastoral sensitivities felt by the Bishops, together with the complexity of the issue, and of a considerable range of viewpoints among the Bishops themselves.
While the Lambeth Conference 1998 is mentioned it is a shame that its resolution I.10 (On Human Sexuality) is not. The implication of this Pastoral Letter is that Lambeth is seen merely as a step along an already moving process, with little moral weight given to its findings, despite being backed by the overwhelming majority of Anglican Bishops worldwide (526 to 70). We welcome the honesty that a variety of views amongst the Bishops exists. However, we raise the related question of whether all of those existing views are consistent with the traditional position of the Church of Ireland. Indeed, do the Bishops believe that a variety of views on this issue is merely an expression of their diversity and not a point for serious division?
It is evident that no clear-cut solution will be found independently of Biblical reflection, mature thinking, and patient listening on the part of the Church as a whole. This process must involve prayerful and respectful consideration of views and insights within the Church and beyond it. The traditional Anglican concept of the consensus fidelium would seem to demand this.
Is the concept of consensus fidelium a traditional Anglican one? General Councils “sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God.” (Art. XXI). However, while the concept (of the consent of the faithful) is mentioned more recently in the 1938 report Doctrine of the Church of England, there it is envisaged as having at best a partial authority in the Church, subject to the Gospel. Moreover, the consent of the faithful is not a concept that usually (or traditionally) includes those outside the Church. Why must we go beyond the Church in order to discern the mind of the Church? In apparently bypassing Lambeth Resolution I.10 in discussion, the Bishops do not seem to consider it an important part of the consensus fidelium.
Together the Bishops:
· Affirm the centrality and authority of the Scriptures for all Christian discourse.
· Recognise that the interpretation of Scripture is itself an area of divergence among Christians.
· Hold that the study of Scripture must also engage with the God-given gifts of the cumulative insights of the Christian tradition, and of human reason.
· Remind the Church that since all people have been created in the image and likeness of God, no one should be understood solely, or even primarily, in terms of his or her sexuality.
· Encourage an attitude of respect for one another.
It is good to see the Scriptures affirmed as central and authoritative. We welcome the Bishops’ adherence to our denomination’s historic formularies.
The serious debate that has been engendered by the Gene Robinson affair is so divisive because the American Episcopal Church has chosen to disregard the source of Anglican authority for matters of faith and life, the Holy Scriptures. Scripture has been and is our agreed standard; it is our ‘bottom line’ in all matters pertaining to the Church: “It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word.” (Art. XXXIV). However, the practice of our Bishops in interpreting them, especially in the next paragraph of the Pastoral Letter, would suggest that this five-fold affirmation may turn out to be a five-stage process, whereby the first proposition is undermined by those that follow.
The Church of Ireland’s formularies go further than its Bishops in not only affirming the Scripture’s authority, but also their sufficiency and finality in matters of faith and doctrine. Moreover, the Scriptures are ‘God’s Word written’ (Art. XX), and are not merely for Christian discourse (as just a starting point in dialogue), but for Christian belief and teaching, and are as such the final authority (Art. VI).
There is a divergence of Bible interpretation within the Church that is legitimate, but we recognize also that there is a limit to the diversity of interpretation. The Church is not to “so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.” (Art. XX)
We value the insights of Christian tradition and reason, provided they do not challenge the place of Scripture as the final authority and ultimate court of appeal in matters of faith and lifestyle.
We would regard current views espoused in the Church by those promoting the acceptance of homosexual behaviour, as late twentieth-century novelties and innovations compared to the weight of centuries of Christian tradition on marriage and sexual ethics. Furthermore the interpretation of Scripture that such advocates employ seems to be contrary to any plain and natural use of language, with key texts strained to bear a weight of meaning that they cannot reasonably hold.
We would agree with the fourth and fifth points, while adding that, as the Scripture teaches, we are all sinners also, and that no-one should imagine that sexual sins are somehow more scandalous or wicked that any others.
In general, four main viewpoints may be identified within the Church of Ireland with regard to same-sex relationships. They are not so much clear-cut, isolated points of view as relative positions on a spectrum, and the views of the members of the present House of Bishops are to be found across this spectrum.
· The witness of the Scriptures is consonant with a view that rejects homosexual practice of any kind, and that marriage between a man and a woman in life-long union remains the only appropriate place for sexual relations. This must remain the standard for Christian behaviour.
· The witness of the Scriptures is consonant with a more sympathetic attitude to homosexuality than has been traditional, but this would not at present permit any radical change in the Church’s existing stance on the question.
· The witness of the Scriptures is consonant with the view that a permanent and committed same-gender relationship which, through its internal mutuality and support brings generosity, creativity and love into the lives of those around, cannot be dismissed by the Church as intrinsically disordered.
· The witness of the Scriptures is consonant with the proposition that, in the light of a developing understanding of the nature of humanity and sexuality, the time has arrived for a change in the Church’s traditional position on affirming same-gender relationships.
It is unclear whether these views are seen as arising out of Scripture, or as already-held opinions that are then taken to the Scriptures for validation. Indeed, it is unclear how the Bishops identified these four main views within the Church of Ireland. What official surveys led them to this conclusion? In what proportion are these views held? Are the Bishops simply projecting their views upon the wider church?
It is a great shame that these views were stated in this form without reference to the Bible. What Scriptures led some of the Bishops to their particular viewpoint?
Even a casual reader would understand that these views are mutually exclusive. If the Scriptures are ‘God’s Word written’, then here we have the mind of Christ, the voice of God. Can God say four contradictory things at once? Does God not even know the mind of God?
The mere existence of these varied viewpoints within the Church of Ireland (and among the Bishops) in no way legitimises them. We fear that this letter (particularly in the light of the previous paragraph’s reference to diversity of interpretation) will be used by some to suggest that all four viewpoints are equally drawn from Scripture and are equally valid within the Church of Ireland. This will lead to a theologically impossible and morally intolerable situation for the whole of the Church of Ireland.
In the fourth century Church, many Bishops followed the heretical teaching of Arius. Did that mere fact make Arianism Biblical or orthodox? Of course not! More recently we had the beginnings of a heresy trial against Andrew Furlong. Did the mere presence of Dean Furlong’s views within the Church render them sound or acceptable? Of course not!
Surely, there must be an examination of these views to determine whether they are correct and scriptural. Does the witness of the Scriptures actually point to the opinions they hold (see Acts 17:11)?
It is a matter of grave concern that men have accepted the responsibilities involved in the episcopate while by their own admission in this letter (those who hold positions two, three and four), reject the Church of Ireland’s traditional, reasoned and Biblically based understanding of family life and human sexuality. The question must inevitably follow: is this a quest for truth, with erroneous doctrines banished, or simply an attempt to accommodate as many people as possible?
There is general agreement among the Bishops that the mind of the Church must be discerned in relation to sexuality in general. The same requirement also applies to any form of new definition or new pastoral practice in relation to the question of ordination, appointments to positions of leadership, or to the blessing of same-sex unions. The quest for a common mind is not simply an academic exercise. It has long been tacitly if not formally recognised, that homosexual people have held positions of leadership, ordained and lay, within the Church. Their ministry has frequently been highly imaginative and characterised by great pastoral sensitivity that has deeply enriched the lives of those who have experienced it.
These paragraphs are inconsistent with what has preceded. The quest has changed from seeking the mind of Christ to seeking the mind of the Church. The two are not necessarily identical! To speak in terms of ‘new definition’ and ‘new pastoral practice’ suggests that there is something wrong with present definition and practice. The onus must be with those who identify those wrongs to convince the rest of us. In any age, the Church of God is not called to mirror fads in culture and society but to bear witness to the truth of God in the world of its day.
It is not clear from this whether the ministry they speak of so warmly is that of non-celibate homosexuals or of those who have homosexual orientation. Are any of the Bishops here acknowledging that they have knowingly ordained a practising homosexual and approved of their subsequent ministry?
We believe that the search for a modus vivendi for the Church is more important than the assertion of abstract and disembodied decrees. This search should be undertaken regardless of the conclusions to which the exercise may take us all.
What is meant by ‘abstract and disembodied decrees’? Do Scripture and the creeds come under this category? Is the 1998 Lambeth Resolution I.10 to be considered abstract and disembodied, even though it represented virtually every Anglican diocese worldwide (and certainly every Irish one). Some might even be as bold as to suggest that this Pastoral Letter is an abstract and disembodied decree!
We fear that making a priority of the search for a modus vivendi or manner of living could lead to a preference for unity over truth in the Church, where the lowest common denominator in doctrine would apply for the sake of a quiet and uncontroversial life. It seems that the joy of the journey is more important and fulfilling than arrival at the destination. What counts, apparently, is simply to be on the quest for a solution. Are we to be ever seeking but never finding? Is this the way of the apostles?
If the search is to be undertaken regardless of the conclusion, what will this mean, for example, for some within the House of Bishops, if their particular view as enunciated above is found to be unbiblical, unanglican and possibly heretical?
A process of understanding of these issues cannot be furthered without overcoming many of the fears and insecurities that surround this discussion. To that end, where there is discussion, it is most effectively undertaken in a safe space, where people are able to let go of their own agendas without betraying their deeply held convictions, where they are prepared to listen sensitively to one another, and where attitudes of condemnation are avoided.
What do the Bishops mean when they call us to let go of agendas without betraying convictions? Is this actually possible for any side on the debate?
Note also that the caricature is now complete. Condemnation (obviously ‘harsh’) is self-evidently a Bad Thing to be avoided at all costs. However, we don’t know exactly what constitutes an attitude of condemnation. Is it merely having the deeply-held conviction that sexual relationships outside (heterosexual) marriage are sinful? Is it confronting that sin compassionately and in the context of Church discipline, in the hope that the person would find forgiveness and salvation, freedom and new life in Jesus Christ? After all, this is a salvation issue (1 Cor. 6:9-11)!
An unclear message on human sexuality will neither be pastoral or helpful to those faithful Christians who struggle with sexual temptation in their own lives. This plurality of views, apparently legitimised by the Bishops on human sexual ethics, will simply add to the confusion of an emerging generation that has been reared on a diet of self-determining morality.
Where it is felt that there is urgency for discussion to commence within the Church of Ireland, experience has shown that it is much more fruitful to spend time on learning how to listen and to grow in understanding than to move rapidly beyond that stage in a desire to reach conclusions as quickly as possible. For that reason, the conversation surrounding sexuality is not suited, at this stage, to large legislative assemblies.
Regardless of this, debate on human sexuality is already present and unavoidable within the Church of Ireland. It is five years since the Lambeth Conference and many of these issues have since provoked much discussion and reflection in our church, albeit at an informal level. The fact that many people have already reached conclusions on the issue does not necessarily infer that they have reached them hastily. The events in England, New Westminster and New Hampshire have set an agenda that many in conscience believe must be addressed. The fact that one of our own dioceses, Limerick, has a companion relationship with New Hampshire makes this debate local and urgent.
Where there is dialogue within dioceses and between local communities, it should above all include those who are most immediately affected by the discussion. It cannot be sufficiently emphasised that the quest itself carries its own risks, and should not be undertaken lightly. This is an area of life where deeply held views, powerful emotions and the potential for causing great harm hold sway. We may have to learn how or whether we will be able to live peaceably and with integrity with very different viewpoints within the family of the Church and the household of faith.
Surely those most affected by the discussion are not just homosexual people but all members of the Church of Ireland, since this is not simply an issues of ethics, but of the authority and interpretation of Scripture. Are we to remain a Biblical, catholic, apostolic and indeed Anglican Church? The final sentence reads as a conclusion, not only to the letter, but also possibly to the forthcoming process of discussion that the Bishops have outlined. However, as we have seen, what are included amongst these ‘very different viewpoints’ are totally contradictory viewpoints, which may or may not be Biblical (and therefore Christian). It is to be wondered how such a Svengali-like effect would be achieved. Meanwhile, we have the ‘smoke and mirrors’ of a letter that does not live up to the epithet ‘pastoral’, since it has added to, and not allayed, the fears of many Biblical, orthodox and catholic members of the Church of Ireland that their Church may no longer remain Biblical, orthodox and catholic in the areas of Biblical interpretation and thence of human sexuality. While this document pays lip service to the authority of Scripture, in reality that authority is undermined at many points within it.
This letter is in stark contrast with the forthright and Biblical lead given by other Bishops in the Anglican Communion for whom this issue has caused much agony, yet for the sake of the gospel, has required clarity coupled with reluctant and painful action. EFIC urges those who wish to give clear Biblical leadership within our denomination to take confidence from the courageous stance of the many who have taken such a lead and the many within the Church of Ireland who look to them for godly direction.
Little wonder then, in view of the present crisis within worldwide Anglicanism that many faithful Anglicans are forming new working relationships and partnerships across seas and oceans in the desire to find clear and Biblical leadership.