Reform, as a grass roots movement, envisages action coming from members who have thought, studied, discussed and agreed. Discussion papers such as this one are written by individual members for the council of Reform and the wider church. The author alone is responsible for the paper. This paper may be copied freely. Though the author is not a member of Reform he is grateful for the way his paper will be made more widely available through their network. He also acknowledges the helpful contributions of some of his colleagues in the Guildford Diocese in the initial compilation of this response.
A Response to the Address of the Bishop of Guildford at Southwark Cathedral in November 1996
Julian Henderson
This article arises out of private meetings and then correspondence with Bishop John Gladwin on the subject of his sermon in Southwark Cathedral last November. While I am all in favour of dialogue and stand with him in his concern for the disadvantaged and marginalised, his presence has been perceived by many as giving episcopal approval to a movement whose statement of conviction declares: "It is entirely compatible with the Christian faith not only to love another person of the same sex, but also to express that love fully in a personal sexual relationship".
The Bishop of Guildford has frequently stated his view that the homosexual issue should be debated openly and presumably encouraged the publication of his Southwark address in the December Diocesan Herald to stimulate that discussion. It is with reluctance and diffidence that I feel obliged to make a public response and suggest that his sermon instead of clarifying the issues actually blurs some very important distinctions.
Scripture and Tradition
The sermon laid out four boundaries which give shape to the homosexual debate and enable the Church to hear the voice of God. The first of these was tradition and experience. While I am intrigued that there is no reference to reason, historically one of the main areas of appeal in the Anglican tradition, I regret that no specific mention is made of Scripture as a boundary. This is determininative for many within the Church of England. The clergy are committed to it by their declaration of assent at ordination and in the thirty-nine articles. Furthermore, Canon A5 declares "that the doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said scriptures."
Surely it cannot be right to subsume Scripture under the heading of tradition? Is not the voice of God heard through the humble and careful study of those Scriptures, with tradition, reason and experience bringing their wisdom to bear on its interpretation?
Sin and "good experience"
The sermon states: "All serious Christian thought about the meaning of good and evil is born of the encounter between tradition and experience". But human experiences vary greatly and cannot therefore serve as a reliable benchmark for resolving ethical dilemmas. Too great an emphasis on experience leads to a pragmatic approach (put simply, if it feels good and works in experience, it must be right) and this surfaces several times in the sermon. It refers to gay and lesbian people finding something "good and creative" in same sex relationships and the need of space for gay and lesbian people to be more open about their dilemmas in forming and sustaining "wholesome human relationships".
Is it not possible for a relationship, whether heterosexual or homosexual, to feel extremely good, but at the same time be entirely wrong in the sight of God? Has not sin been recognised through human history as often very pleasurable without making it right?
Unity and Truth
While the sermon's commitment to both unity and truth is commendable, it does not maintain the balance between them. Unity is stressed far more strongly. Should they not be held together in equal balance in order to avoid the extremes of no absolutes on the one hand and no love on the other? Does not Christian unity arise out of a submission to Scripture as the supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct, guided by the interpretations of the Creeds, Councils and historic formularies of the Church, and expressed in obedience to Christ's new commandment to love one another?
In practise this means that it is the duty of the Christian Church not only to affirm and endorse but also to correct and rebuke certain forms of belief and behaviour.
Inevitably the the Pauline emphasis on speaking the truth in love is unwelcome in those areas where a call to repentance is made, but the moral standpoint of the Church must not be sacrificed on the altar of unity.
Church and Community
The sermon's appeal for an inclusive Church justifiably has widespread support. One of the privileges of the Anglican Church is its commitment to public acts of worship, to which all are invited and welcomed. However, this does not mean that the way of life for all who attend those services is affirmed uncritically. One of the central aspects of almost all Anglican worship is the confession, which expresses a sorrow for sin and a desire to turn away from what is contrary to God's commandments. The ministry of Christ in His Church is to encourage change towards godliness in thought, word and deed in every area of life.
The New Testament makes it clear that God has expectations of those who call themselves Christians and particularly those who serve as Christian leaders. Did not Jesus teach that they were to be a distinct community within the wider community as both salt and light? In fact Jesus taught that there was little point in His followers being the People of God if they were no different in thought, word and deed from those who did not believe and with whom they lived on a daily basis. Of course it is unhelpful to create unnecessary barriers between Church and community, but the gospel, although it is Good News, is an unpopular message because it calls for "newness of life".
Is not this distinction between the community of faith and the world too blurred in the sermon? Would not the current debate be less confused if the gospel's call for repentance featured more prominently?
Public and Private Morality
It is good to hear the sermon's affirmation that "self-deception, delusion and humbug are no respecters of sexual orientation" and that the Tabloids have created an unhealthy interest in the private lives of certain individuals. But the assumption must not then be made that what people do in private is of no account. If it is suggested that what a person does privately, which includes what they do in their bedroom, is nothing to do with godliness, important boundaries have been removed and all practice becomes acceptable as long as it harms no-one, is discreet and tolerates all points of view.
Surely an individual's private way of life is a matter of concern generally, and particularly within an organisation such as the Church? Why should what is done privately, including sexual activity, be considered only a private matter? Is not God concerned about the choices that are made in private, and even the thoughts of the mind? Are there not corporate consequences to personal choices?
If as the sermon suggests there is too great an interest in sexuaI matters today in the Tabloid press, doesn't the answer lie with clear teaching on the subject by the Church rather than a policy of either keeping quiet or trying to keep everybody happy? Is it right to hope that the issues will eventually fall off the agenda of public concern and so allow moral dilemmas to get resolved by consensus?
Orientation and Practice
By not differentiating a person's sexual orientation from practice, the sermon either was intended to be ambiguous or it was thought that the distinction was unimportant. But homosexual orientation must be differentiated from homosexual practice. It is one thing to be inclined to a certain way of life, it is quite another to pursue it. Sexual inclination and desire, whether heterosexual or homosexual, have to be controlled in all of life's circumstances. Orientation does not give license to practice. For example, when a heterosexually orientated unmarried person who lives a celibate life refuses to allow feelings for someone else's husband or wife to develop, they are to be commended. Similiarly, the married person who has to live a life of sexual abstinence because of their partner's ill health is to be encouraged in that control of sexual desire. The Christian tradition has reinforced this exercise of control by teaching that the person who practices any sexual activity outside the boundary of heterosexual marriage should hear a call to repentance, since it falls short of God's ideal, and they should experience compassion from those who make that call.
The argument that an individual must be allowed to do what is natural to them takes no account of the sinfulness of human nature. Does not Scripture and the Christian tradition say that the old nature must he denied and put to death? Surely Christians have always acknowledged that the way man is by nature is not the way God intended him to be or to remain? Are we not to work at the restoration of the image of God through the regenerating and sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, rather than to rejoice in our fallen humanity?
Homophobia and disagreement
I agree with the Bishop in deploring the homophobia which has often led to the persecution and victimisation of the gay and lesbian people and wish to make it clear that this article does not arise from any such motives. I share his strong empathy for those experiencing pain and am similiarly moved by stories of rejection. But is the picture painted in the sermon of a persecuting society and the defenceless gay community entirely accurate? And is its language about scapegoating too strong? It is possible to say that homosexual practice is sinful in the sight of God without being homophobic. Frequently in Scripture God is appalled by human sinfulness while at the same time deeply loving His creation. The address did not draw this distinction and gave the impression that all statements against homosexual practice were evidence of an intolerant and homophobic attitude. Nothing could be further from the case, as witnessed by the many friendships between heterosexual and gay people and the many Christian organisations caring for homosexuals and AIDS victims.
Penitence and celebration
Honesty was one of the boundaries set for the debate by the sermon. Was it accurate to claim that the service at Southwark had a vital penitential and reflective note? It seemed that those who were present found it mostly to be a celebration. This was conveyed by some observers and was confirmed by the Everyman programme on November 17th. The whole occasion was marked as a triumph; not only had the event taken place in a Cathedral but a diocesan Bishop had been the preacher. And the general Secretary of LGCM ended the Everyman programme by stating that the next big occasion might see an Archbishop present. Irrespective of what Bishop John said his presence gave an implicit stamp of approval to the movement and helped to make the service a celebration.Marriage and same sex relationships
I welcome the affirmations in the sermon about the uniqueness and importance of heterosexual marriage and the statement that same sex relationships cannot be turned into marriage. However, the sermon failed to apply those statements and challenge the central tenet of LGCM that love between people of the same sex can be expressed in a "personal sexual relationship". For it was precisely such homosexual genital acts which were overwhelmingly declared by General Synod in 1987 (GS 700) to fall short of the ideal and "to be met by a call for repentance and the exercise of compassion". The sermon appeared to want to keep marriage as the norm for sexual relationships but to allow a group of people to express their sexuality within another kind of relationship. As the text is not clear, is it right to assume that this is the agenda? If the distinction between marriage and same sex relationships becomes blurred, it must be asked what sexual activity will be next in line to seek the approval of the Church?
Salvation and social need
The Bishop stated that the occasion of November 16th for him was "all about people". While it is essential to relate to each other and while we will find each other's stories enriching, the concern of the Christian is primariIy to be in relationship with God through Jesus Christ by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The social message of Christianity is not opposed to the gospel of a restored relationship with God, for the former can precede and flow from the latter; but an agenda which is focused too exclusively on meeting human needs will lead people away from concerns about eternal salvation.The Church must never lose sight of the great commission to make disciples while at the same time addressing the social ills of its day. Church history warns of the dangers of losing this balance. Is not human nature as it ever was, despite the optimism and so called progress of the twentieth century? Is not the Christian gospel still the key to resolving the human dilemma? Is not the human heart restless till it finds its rest in God?
Conclusion
Cumulatively, the blurring of distinctions in these ten areas create a substantial concern with the sermon. The confusions in the debate arise out of some of the things the sermon says, some of the things it does not say, and also, and perhaps more importantly, the way it tackles the issue. The issue of sexual behaviour must be discussed more openly in the Church without fear of reprisal and with a clearer and more consistent use of words and ideas. Perhaps this article expresses something of the argument of those who wish to see the biblical and traditional teaching of the Church not only believed but practised today.