Salisbury and Oxford
Slowly but surely the Ad Clerums are coming.
The Bishop of Salisbury asks the clergy and laity of the Diocese to note the pastoral guidance which was agreed at the House of Bishops meeting on 13th February 2014. It supports lay people who enter the new possibility of same-sex marriage in civil law and it should be expected that some will want the pastoral support of Christians in prayer that their joyful covenanted relationship be loving, faithful and lifelong.
The pastoral guidance notes the conflict created with Canon Law. Therefore if a person in holy orders contracts a same-sex marriage a complaint could be made against them, which would result in discipline for which the full range of penalties are possible.
This pastoral guidance allows theÂ Church of EnglandÂ to begin the facilitated conversations that have been agreed following the recommendations of the Pilling Report without any predetermined outcome. The Bishop asks for the prayers and understanding of the Christian community at this time.
And here’s Oxford.
This is a very difficult part of the letter to get right. I know that what I write will be unacceptable to gay clergy who despair of the Church of England, and to conservatives who will see compromise looming. But I canâ€™t not write about theÂ Pastoral Letter and Appendix on Same Sex MarriageÂ which emerged recently. I wish I could talk individually to everyone in order to engage properly and personally, but we all know this is impossible. I sit amongst many different loyalties and seek to honour as many of them as possible.
First I apologise for the tone of the letter (or rather the Appendix). It was written by committee and that is always bad news. This is a deeply personal issue, indeed a visceral one, and every word and inference is capable of harm. I hope itâ€™s common ground that we are part of a Church which is called to real repentance for the lack of welcome and acceptance extended to gay and lesbian people. Nor have we listened well to those whose voice has not been heard, including the experience of those called to celibacy, those in committed same sex relationships, and clergy who have lovingly and sensitively ministered to gay couples over the years.
It was never going to be likely that the House of Bishops would change two thousand years of teaching during a day in February at Church House Westminster. The intention was to respond to a new legal situation in the context of a longer conversation in the Church about an issue which has theological, biblical, ethical, missiological and ecclesiological implications. This longer conversation is what the Pilling report has asked us to do and to which the College of Bishops is committed.
The House was also aware of a huge level of interest and concern from other parts of the Anglican Communion, and from other denominations and faith traditions. The Archbishop told us how in the previous few days, literally in the midst of corpses and tales of systematic rape, he had been quizzed by his African episcopal hosts about the Pilling Report, such was their anxiety.
The resulting letter and appendix is supposed to be a holding statement on the logical position of the House in the new situation, given the Churchâ€™s history and teaching â€“ while the longer conversation goes on. The fact that this was done in a way which has caused dismay is a source of huge regret to me but thatâ€™s back to my first point above.
The longer conversation is one on which David Porter, the Archbishopâ€™s Adviser on Reconciliation, is to give advice in three or four months, having worked on the task with a well-chosen group.
I appreciate that some are unwilling to participate in this process on the grounds that they believe the scriptural position is perfectly clear and â€˜facilitated conversationâ€™ can only mean an intention to change, while conversely others will be wary because they believe that to have participated in a process that didnâ€™t in the end change anything might expose them to adverse treatment by bishops and/or others. Nevertheless, I dare to ask that we do enter the conversation with integrity and trust because we do need to seek Godâ€™s mind and heart, and we canâ€™t do this without all of us being round the table and being honest with each other.
I also know that many will be reluctant to examine the biblical material yet again. But the Bible is our core authority and issues of both exegesis and hermeneutical method are crucial. Let me be absolutely honest here. I donâ€™t expect that many people will change their mind through this biblical exploration. I hope some might, because we must have the highest loyalty to truth, but in reality I donâ€™t expect many to change their basic position.
What I do very much hope, however, is that we can getÂ to a point where we can respect the integrity of the biblical interpretation of others.Â I hope we can come to understand deeply why others take a different view, and to respect that conviction even though we disagree, perhaps profoundly. None of us is taking a cavalier attitude to biblical authority, but thoughtful, honest people can thoughtfully, honestly disagree.
The task then becomes twofold: to discover how much we can agree on, and to learn how to disagree well on what we canâ€™t agree on. Archbishop Justin often uses that phrase â€˜disagree wellâ€™. So then the third question becomes whether we want to affirm that spectrum of honest belief or detach ourselves from it.Â I dearly want to keep intact the range and scale of the Church of Englandâ€™s theology, and we will be grievously hurt by the loss of any from the richness of our calling and our reach in the nationâ€™s life.
As you will know fromÂ my statementÂ on the website in December 2012 I have been very happy to affirm civil partnerships as a positive development which gives same sex couples the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples. As that statement says, such relationships â€˜are capable of the same level of love, permanence and loyalty as marriage, and I believe God delights in such qualitiesâ€™.
Nevertheless I believe that to say that civil partnership is the same thing as marriage is a category confusion. To use a musical image, nature has its â€˜theme and variationsâ€™, both part of the music, but not the same thing. I have therefore looked for different ways of recognising two different patterns of relationship. I realise that that puts me at odds with most people on both â€˜sidesâ€™ of the argument! And society has largely gone past that argument now anyway. The issue has become same sexÂ marriage, though some may still want to opt for a form of civil partnership.
So where do we end up? Thatâ€™s just the point â€“ we donâ€™t know. TheÂ Pilling ReportÂ urges us to talk, and although it makes at least one recommendation about the recognition of a same sex relationship in a public service, its main recommendation is to talk and listen so that God may be heard. And that voice of God will undoubtedly be a gracious, gentle and challenging voice, just as I trust our conversations with each other will be marked by humility and grace.
Itâ€™s quite clear that these conversations take place in a wider context of deep sexual confusion in society with everyone making up their own script, and the result is much chaos and pain. We have a responsibility to model something better in the way we handle principle and practice, disagreement and hope.
As I wrote at the start, Iâ€™m sorry that the attempt by the House of Bishops to hold the ancient borders while the conversation goes on has proved so divisive in itself. The train crash was probably inevitable; the only question was when, where and involving how many. But be sure of this â€“ there will be no witch-hunts in this diocese. We are seeking to live as Godâ€™s people, in Godâ€™s world, in Godâ€™s way. And we do that best as we stand shoulder to shoulder and look together at the cross, and at its heart see an empty tomb.
If you hear of any more., please let me know.