I wrote this document in July 2018 before the proposed teaching document had been renamed Living in Love and Faith. I have made minor amendments but otherwise left it unchanged. I wrote this history of the teaching documents published by the Church of England to demonstrate to myself why I was feeling so angry in 2018. I was angry because, following Pilling and the Shared Conversations, a further delay of three years was being engineered by the House of Bishops who still lacked the guts to confront the human sexuality of LGBTI+ people and the need to radically include us as equals in the Church. I’m anticipating even more anger in July when the LLF material is published, together with a timetable for a new process of delay (called a time for educating people). It’s the bishops who need educating. If they haven’t educated themselves in the past two and half years, they need to be sent on a remedial course.
Is the House of Bishops ready to make evolutionary and revolutionary choices about the direction in which the Church of England’s teachings about gender and sexuality will evolve? Jesus was an evolutionary and revolutionary prophet and mystic. How about our bishops?
The key question about the Teaching Document (now renamed Living in Love and Faith and no longer a teaching document but a resource) for LGBTI+ members of the Church of England is: will this report achieve the radical change we now urgently need, both we who identify as LGBTI and the majority in the church for whom current teaching and practice is no longer adequate or believable?
The Episcopal Teaching Document due to be published in July 2020 will be the seventh substantive report or document on homosexuality written in just over six decades. Not all were published.
I have read through the previous six reports and GS Misc 1168 which outlines the agenda for the new Teaching Document. I want to trace the development of thinking to see if the latest attempt gives us grounds for optimism.
Inflationary tendency
With the exception of Issues in Human Sexuality and Pilling there has been a tendency for each successive report to expand in length, from 32 pages in 1967, 94 in 1979, 146 in 1987, 48 in 1991 (Issues bucking the trend), 358 in 2003, and 201 in 2013 (Pilling still the second longest). One look at the specification for the new Teaching Document suggests this will be lengthy. No previous report has attempted to cover so much territory.
The number of people appointed to previous working parties varied from a minimum of 4 to a maximum of 13. The membership of the six groups involved in producing the new Teaching Document is already in excess of 24 and will probably be over 40 if each Thematic Working Group has a minimum of 4 members (plus a bishop).
What the membership numbers don’t reveal is the lay/clergy/Episcopal make-up of each group. 1967, Gloucester, Osborne and Pilling were mixed, lay and ordained, clergy and bishops. Issues and Some Issues were entirely Episcopal. Although the working groups for the Teaching Document are mixed, the document itself will be exclusively the work of bishops (except that Church House staff will almost certainly have a hand in drafting sections of the document).
Unpredictable interventions
The Osborne report, due to be published in 1987, was torpedoed by the General Synod debate on the amended Higton motion in the same year. The result was the publication in 1991 of a statement by the House of Bishops, Issues in Human Sexuality, an anxiety-ridden, inferior report compared with the unpublished work of the Osborne group.
The work of the four bishops appointed to undertake further work, published as Some Issues in Human Sexuality in 2003 was torpedoed by the Global South Conference held in Kuala Lumpur in 1997 which sabotaged the agenda for the Lambeth Conference in 1998. Some Issues sets out pro- and anti-gay arguments at length without committing the bishops to anything beyond further sensitive discussion couched in the language of pious waffle. The deep conflicts requiring resolution in the Anglican Communion and the Church of England have not gone away.
The bishops of the Church of England and leading voices in the Anglican Communion are still engaged in tactical manoeuvres while trying to find a way to resolve the differences between two irreconcilable positions, traditionalist and revisionist. We are witnessing a dramatic conflict about authority, the authority of Scripture, the authority of God, the authority of Primates and bishops, and the authority of the experience of LGBTI+ people, our families, friends, colleagues, and congregations.
The new Episcopal Teaching Document – now Living in Love and Faith resources
The key aim of the Teaching Document as set out in 2018 is to provide guidance for members of the Church of England on the spiritual and theological importance of marriage, on options for Christians in their sexual and familial relationships, and on relationships with those who are in other relationship structures. (This aim is the reason why I and many others were so furious about the publication and content of the guidance on civil partnerships. It closed down all the options)
The Church of England and homosexuality – a history of the reports
The modern debate in the Church of England began with the publication of an article by Sherwin Bailey on ‘The problem of sexual inversion’ in the edition of the journal Theology for February 1952. Bailey discussed the moral issues raised by what he called sexual ‘inverts’, meaning those who are by nature sexually attracted to members of their own sex. He argued strongly that the Church of England ought to campaign against the law that then existed against male homosexual relationships.
Bailey’s article provoked discussion and this led to a report on the subject being produced in 1954 by the Church of England’s Moral Welfare Council entitled The Problem of Homosexuality – An Interim Report, did not accept the legitimacy of homosexual activity but held that the law against male homosexual activity ought to be abolished. It recommended a male homosexual age of consent of 21. Bailey was a member of the Council.
Below is a list of each subsequent report with these details:
the number of people appointed to each working party;
the length of each report;the subject headings,and some quotations from the report indicating the stance on Biblical teaching about homosexuality.
I leave you to compare and contrast the history and decide whether the Episcopal Teaching document
a) is likely to recommend and lead to a transformation of Church of England teaching and practice in relation to LGBTI people, and
b) b) is likely to resolve the conflict between ‘traditionalists’ and ‘revisionists’, a conflict that has dominated every report since Issues in Human Sexuality in 1991.
Report to the Board of the Working Party on Homosexuality 1967
The Archbishop of Canterbury refused to allow the report to be published. This was the year the law was changed.
6 members, 32 pages
Contents:
The Law
The People
Causes
Treatment
Ways the Church could help
Conclusions
Law and Definitions (8pp)
An Institute for the Family (5pp)
The Working Party was set up as a result of the passages of the Sexual Offences Act in 1967 to review the situation concerning both male and female homosexuality.
Section 5. 3. “We noted that there was a difference of opinion within the Church about whether all homosexual behaviour was essentially sinful whatever the situation or condition of the person concerned, and we found that this difference of opinion was reflected in the different shades of opinion on the subject held by different members of our group. We found it necessary to discuss at length the various shades of opinion centring round the concept of sin in connection with homosexual behaviour.”
Section 5.5. “There was no clear area of agreement with regard to people living a settled life, including a homosexual relationship with a steady partner.”
The report dealt with the lack of agreement by presenting two view, A – a homosexual relationship is always wrong, and B, a homosexual relationship can never be as satisfactory for a human being as a heterosexual one, but may be the best relationship that is possible. Nevertheless, “the obligation is to strive for heterosexuality rather than avoid homosexuality.”
Section 5.17. “ The community has an obligation to meet the needs of homosexual men and women in that they are brothers and sisters in Christ. Such help will be at the individual level, given by caring, well informed Christians.”
Homosexual Relationships (The Gloucester Report) 1979
The report failed to receive Synodical endorsement.
13 members, 94 pages
Contents:
Social Settings of Homosexuality
Sex, Identity and Human Relationships – A Medical View
Homosexuality: The Biblical Evidence
Theological and Ethical Considerations
A Legal Perspective on Homosexuality
Social Implications and Pastoral Care
I’m going to quote some sections from chapter 3, Homosexuality: The Biblical Evidence, to demonstrate the culture of the church in 1979 and the regressive changes that have taken place in the following years.
92. “The narrative in Gen. 19 is a variant of a widely diffused folk-tale dealing with the inhospitable treatment accorded by the inhabitants of a particular place to divine visitants whose identity was not realised. We are dealing not, it would appear, with history but with legend.”
96. “If, as we have argued, the account is not historical, it cannot be taken, as so commonly in the past, to record an instance of divine action intended expressly to condemn and punish homosexual behaviour. It is a reflection, rather than a cause, of existing attitudes and beliefs, the nature and origin of which must be sought elsewhere.”
107. “This at once raises the very large and disputed problem as to the kind of authority we are to give to Bible statements, particularly in the moral and ethical spheres. The issue is not, primarily, between those who would hold to a literal interpretation and a simple acceptance of every biblical injunction, and those who would not, because the former category does not exist in practice. Even those who would call themselves ‘fundamentalists’ recognise different levels of authority in different biblical statements.” [A report from the diocese of Sydney is cited as evidence in support of this statement.]
108. “Even when we can be confident that our text of the Bible is fixed and constant, the Church’s understanding and use of it is not, and hence the attitudes and actions which derive from this, are not.”
109. “It is important to bear in mind how many moral and ethical precepts which in the Bible are presented as the direct commands of God have been re-interpreted in the course of human history and even in some cases abandoned as guides or standards for the conduct of individual and social life.”
117. “It is at least possible to ask whether, granted our greater knowledge compared with the New Testament, of the homosexual and his condition, homosexual relationships might not in some cases, although by no means all, be as genuine expressions of love as other human relationships.”
Report to the House of Bishops on Homosexuality (The Osborne Report) 1987
The House of Bishops refused to publish the report, instead setting up a small group of bishops chaired by the Bishop of Salisbury to write the statement - Issues in Human Sexuality
7 members, 146 pages
Contents:
Christian Loyalties: Scripture and Tradition
Christian Loyalties: Experience
Critical Themes: The Gospel of Grace and Homosexuality
Critical Themes: Human Sexuality
Critical Themes: Public and Private Issues
Community Issues: Education
Community Issues: Adoption and Fostering
Community Issues: Civil and Legal Rights
Matters for the Church: Lobbies
Matters for the Church: The Exercise of Pastoral Responsibility
Matters for the Church: Dealing with Conflict
Concluding Comments and Future Tasks
Strictly Private and Confidential: The Bishops’ responses to the requests of the Working Party
The opening chapter, Scripture and Tradition, looked at the exegetical and hermeneutic task. The group revisited Genesis 19 (Sodom and Gomorrah), Leviticus 18 and 20, 1 Corinthians 6.9-11, 1 Timothy 1.8-11, Romans 1.18-32, and visited David and Jonathan. The group of seven was “frequently in disagreement, much of it complicated because we were in conflict within ourselves, always caught in the painful hope of holding on to the Christian realities of compassion and convictions. No-one was asked to dilute or compromise their respective allegiances. Yet we found that we could still live with each other.” The report was unanimously agreed.
19. “One of the reasons why we believe this is not the moment for the Church of England to appear to have reached a definite conclusion on this matter, is the difference between these two poles [explored in preceding paragraphs] and the history of the Church’s attitude and practice which lies between them.”
Issues in Human Sexuality 1991
13 members, 48 pages
Contents:
Introduction
Scripture and Human Sexuality
The Christian Vision for Human Sexuality
The Phenomenon of Homosexual Love
The Homophile in the Life and Fellowship of the Church
The section on the Biblical evidence barely touches on the proof texts, preferring to dwell on salvation history, our general world view and experience of life, attitudes to women, sin and divine law, and evolving morality. The report mentions Ruth and Naomi in addition to David and Jonathan.
2.29. “There is, therefore, in Scripture an evolving convergence on the ideal of lifelong, monogamous, heterosexual union as the setting intended by God for the proper development of men and women as sexual beings. Sexual activity of any kind outside marriage comes to be seen as sinful, and homosexual practice as especially dishonourable. As we have already noted, this ultimate biblical consensus presents us with certain problems which need to be faced.”
It is a statement by the House of Bishops intended to promote an educational process, not the last word on the subject, but published with the hope that it will do ‘something to help forward a general process, marked by greater trust and openness, of Christian reflection on the subject of human sexuality’.
Some Issues in Human Sexuality 2003
4 members, 358 pages
Contents:
The current debate on sexuality
The use of the Bible in sexual ethics
The theology of sexuality
Homosexuality and biblical teaching
Gender identity, sexual identity and theology
Bisexuality
Transsexualism
Homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals in the life of the Church
Handling some current controversies over sexual morality
Chapter 4, Homosexuality and biblical teaching, is introduced with ‘four voices from the debate’. Only one of the four is the story of a person unconflicted by the relationship between their sexuality and Christian faith. The chapter reviews in detail commentaries on Genesis 19, Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13, Deuteronomy 23.17-18, Romans 1.24-27, 1 Corinthians 6.9-10, 1 Timothy 1.10, the example of Jesus, Acts 15, and Romans 11.24. Some Issues takes 15 pages to set out five possible responses. The Osborne report listed 4 broadly similar responses, with brevity, in one paragraph. Some Issues concludes that “while there is room for a legitimate debate about the interpretation of the texts concerned . . . nevertheless the hermeneutical principles and the consensus of biblical scholarship still points us in the direction of the Church’s traditional reading of the biblical material.
Some Issues ends on p.319 with the hope that “as each reader comes to the end of this guide, she or he will be able to reflect about which issues in human sexuality need to be thought about again, and how to engage in the continued journey of dialogue and learning with others.”
On 1 July 2011 the House of Bishops announced that alongside a review of its 2005 Pastoral Statement on civil partnerships it intended ‘to draw together and reflect upon biblical, historical and ecumenical explorations on human sexuality and material from the listening process undertaken in the light of the 1998 Lambeth Conference resolution’ and to ‘offer proposals on how the continuing discussion within the Church of England about these matters might best be shaped in the light of the listening process’.41 2. Following this announcement, the House then set up a Working Group on Human Sexuality to take this work forward.
Report of the House of Bishops Working Group on Human Sexuality (The Pilling Report) 2013
8 members, 201 pages
Contents:
A rapidly changing context
Listening to each other – and continuing to do so
The obligations of belonging to the Anglican Communion
The current teaching of the Church of England
Sexuality, culture and Christian ethics
Sexuality and social trends
Homophobia
Arguments about science
Arguments about Scripture
Perspectives from two theologians [Timothy Radcliffe and Oliver O’Donovan]
Christian ethics – the Anglican Tradition
Scripture and theology
Countering prejudice and homophobia
Science, society and demographics
A process for listening to each other
The Church’s practice
A Dissenting Statement by the Bishop of Birkenhead
Scripture and same sex relationships, Keith Sinclair, Bishop of Birkenhead
Evangelicals, Scripture and same sex relationships – an ‘Including Evangelical’ perspective, David Runcorn
The report recommended that “the subject of sexuality, with its history of deeply entrenched views, would be best addressed by facilitated conversations or a similar process to which the Church of England needs to commit itself at national and diocesan level.” This recommendation was taken up in the Shared Conversations. Other recommendations such as whether guidance should be issued about marking the formation of a permanent same sex relationship in a public service are being taken up in the current preparation of the Teaching Document and the work of the Pastoral Advisory Group.
Shared Conversations 2014
The proposal for conversations has two objectives, both with a focus on the church’s mission. One is to enable the Church of England to reflect, in the light of scripture, on the implications of the immense cultural change that has been taking place. The other objective is to clarify the implications of what it means for the Church of England to live with what the Archbishop of Canterbury has called “good disagreement” on these issues. The work will come to a conclusion in July 2016.
January 2017: The House of Bishops presented a report - Marriage and Same Sex Relationships after the Shared Conversations: GS2055. The General Synod voted not to take note of the report.
16 February 2017: The Archbishops of Canterbury and York wrote to members of the General Synod setting out the next steps following the vote not to take note of the paper on Marriage and Same Sex Relationships after the Shared Conversations. They said: As Archbishops we will be establishing a Pastoral Oversight group led by the Bishop of Newcastle, with the task of supporting and advising Dioceses on pastoral actions regarding our current pastoral approach to human sexuality. Secondly, we, with others, will be formulating proposals for the May House of Bishops for a large-scale teaching document around the subject of human sexuality.
Episcopal Teaching Document and Pastoral Advisory Group 2018
24 members plus additional members of the four working groups. Target of pages to beat: 358
Proposed contents:
Pastoral Advisory Group:
Supporting and advising Dioceses on pastoral actions, i.e. engagement, inclusion, and pastoral care, with regard to the current pastoral approach of the Church to human sexuality, with a particular (but not exclusive) focus on same-sex couples.
Reviewing, and as needed revising, advice provided by the House of Bishops on pastoral ministry to same-sex couples in Church of England congregations, such ministry being understood to include prayer offered by clergy and licensed lay minsters.
Offering advice when requested to bishops regarding specific cases they are dealing with in the areas of both pastoral care and discipline involving clergy in same-sex relationships, and clergy responding to lay people in same-sex relationships, to assist the sharing of knowledge and an appropriate level of national consistency in approach.
Exploring together, and hearing from others, what radical Christian Inclusion, ‘founded in scripture, in reason, in tradition, in theology and the Christian faith as the Church of England has received it.’, means in the life and mission of the Church: sharing and disseminating examples of good practice in terms of pastoral care of and engagement with those who identify as LGBTI.
To bring draft advice on pastoral ministry to same-sex couples in Church of England congregations for initial consideration by the House of Bishops, having reflected on how pastoral practices might develop within current teaching.
Co-ordinating Group:
The episcopal members will be responsible for bringing a final text to the House for approval and who will be advised by a standing group of Core Consultant Members (clergy and laity). The teaching document should include, inter alia:
a summary of the church’s tradition regarding marriage and sexual relationships, including its scriptural and theological foundations;
an indication of how this tradition has adapted and been sustained through periods of radical social change;
an analysis of rapidly changing social and familial structures over recent decades and the role of marriage in securing social goods in times of fluidity;
reflections on contemporary understandings of human sexuality and the contribution of other disciplines, especially the sciences;
a summary of the social trends which have led to the desire for faithful, permanent same-sex relationships to be recognised and celebrated publicly, and the church’s theological and practical responses to the advent of Civil Partnerships and Equal Marriage;
theological and ethical reflections on the pastoral and missional imperatives for the church in the light of these developments;
guidance for members of the Church of England on the spiritual and theological importance of marriage, on options for Christians in their sexual and familial relationships, and on relationships with those who are in other relationship structures.
clarity about the extent, and limits, of consensus within the church – mapping the areas where we continue to disagree.
Thematic Working Groups
Social and Biological Sciences: sociology, anthropology, psychology, physiology, biology, genetics and medical issues.
Biblical: Old Testament studies, New Testament studies, hermeneutics, biblical ethics.
Theological: dogmatics, ethics.
Historical: church history, including Early Church, Middle Ages, Reformation, modernity; history and theology of mission.
Sixty-six years have elapsed since the first report was published. In July nine years will have elapsed since the House of Bishops announced that it intended to set up a Working Group on Human Sexuality to take the work forward arising from the 1998 Lambeth Conference.
Is the House of Bishops yet ready to make evolutionary and revolutionary choices about the direction in which the Church of England’s teachings about gender and sexuality will evolve? The key question about the Living in Love and Faith material for LGBTI+ members of the Church of England is: will this achieve the radical change we now urgently need, both we who identify as LGBTI+ and the majority in the church for whom current teaching and practice is no longer adequate or believable?