Achi news desk-
By Helen King
So here we are. Six years after being asked to be part of the ‘History’ group Live in Love and Faith; eight years after volunteering to be part of our diocese’s Conversations Together process; over 20 years since the House of Bishops brought a group together to reflect on human sexuality (Pilling Report); more than 30 years since the suspension of the Osborne report, and since the House of Bishops published Issues in Human Sexuality, using the term ‘homophiles’ to avoid any idea that those who are attracted to people of the one gender never goes beyond feelings; and over 40 years since the ‘Gloucester Report’.
It feels like we discuss the same thing at least once a decade. That feeling of exhaustion was reflected in the responses published to the Living in Love and Faith course, where people with different views pleaded for a decision to finally be made.
Where LLF differs from what has gone before is its increased focus on process, rather than outcome, and its intention to include all of God’s people, not just the House of Bishops, with videos, podcasts and course. Someone in the Synod debate will probably complain that the official numbers on those who engage with the resources are low, but this was never intended to be a referendum. Importantly, those who gave feedback reflect the wide range of views held by the Church of England. In some parishes and deaneries, people know more about the different views found across the church: others were not engaged. Some audiences thought there was nothing to discuss anyway. Anecdotally, others were reluctant to broach the subject. ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ is easier to live with than ‘The truth will set you free’.
For LGBTQI+ people, this debate is about them, at the most fundamental level of their identity as people created by a loving God; about whether they are really valued, considered equal to other Christians; for their safety and prosperity. That’s wearing.
The debate also touches on so many areas of what we think of as the Church of England. Historically, Anglican authority has been rooted in Scripture, Reason and Tradition, with different parts of the church placing more importance on reason, or on tradition. None is supreme: each checks the others. Later, some have added in Experience. How do we balance all these when thinking about loving and committed relationships between people of the same sex?
The conversation materials shared suggested that our stalemate depends on different ways of reading the Bible, rather than one group taking the Bible more ‘seriously’ than another. In our past, there were many more ways of engaging with his books, many of them not current: our Bible reading looks very poor. But identifying this basic issue has not moved us forward: there is much more going on here.
Another aspect is our place in the Anglican Communion. In that great comment in Lambeth, the Archbishop of Canterbury – who has always been torn between his role in the Church of England and in the Communion – accepted that those who reach different conclusions rely on the same basis of prayer, reflection , and read the Bible. He has now prioritized his Communion role by stepping back from the new prayers proposed for use with same-sex couples. Yet, in the history of the communion, the Church of England has found many areas where we have felt no need to align with our sister churches, and it is convenient for us to forget about churches that support systems to offend, or even inflict the death. punishment, on gay people.
The theology of marriage is obviously another controversial area. The press release for the February documents reiterated the traditional view of Holy Matrimony as “between one man and one woman for life”. Yet even the House of Bishops includes people in a marriage where one partner has a previous spouse still living, so we do not follow that ‘traditional view’. The newly published documents seem to suggest that such relationships are not ‘Holy Matrimony’, but isn’t that just splitting hairs? What about the default position for some Christians in our early history, that not marrying is better than marrying? I’ve heard people claim that same-sex marriage would somehow devalue opposite-sex marriage, and others say that allowing lesbian and gay people to live in committed relationships would devalue those who feel they have calling them to one life. Why? Isn’t there room for all of us?
The newly published documents seem to suggest that such relationships are not ‘Holy Matrimony’, but isn’t that just splitting hairs? What about the default position for some Christians in our early history, that not marrying is better than marrying? I’ve heard people claim that same-sex marriage would somehow devalue opposite-sex marriage, and others say that allowing lesbian and gay people to live in committed relationships would devalue those who feel they have calling them to one life. Why? Isn’t there room for all of us?
The Christian faith is rooted in historical events. But GS2289 continues to read Adam and Eve, ‘one man and one woman’, as the first ‘marriage’. Genesis is a powerful theological narrative about human nature, not history. The Christian faith is also rooted in incarnation: in God who chooses to become ‘flesh’. Yet, as GS2289 acknowledges, we remain uneasy about anything to do with bodies. When man/woman is the only acceptable combination, penis-in-sheath sex is the only real ‘sex’. Recent generations of heterosexual Christians persuaded themselves that it didn’t count as ‘sex’ as long as they didn’t ‘go all the way’. On the other hand, obviously, lesbian couples and gay couples don’t do penis-in-the-vagina, so is their sexual activity really sex at all?
The Church of England has also been trying to cling to the pretense that civil partnerships are not about sex, but that marriage is, with only civil partnerships acceptable to clergy. The proposal before the Synod would allow civil partnerships and civil marriages to be blessed in the church. For some, that will be unacceptable and tantamount to a ‘sin of blessing’.
And then there is friendship. In the LLF process, something on The Gift of the Church was supposed to appear. Instead, Friendship and the Body of Christ (2022) arrived. The section on friendship (3.12.14) in Issues in Human Sexuality said it was ‘more flexible than marriage’, although ‘friendship between husband and wife is an essential element within the married state itself’. Here, the key aspect of friendship was that ‘full physical sexual relations’ or anything that ‘would normally and naturally lead to such relations, has no place in friendship’.
Friendship and the Body of Christ tried a hand shot: because we are all friends of Jesus, we are friends of other friends of Jesus, a model that to me at least does not seem to be reflected in other types of friendship. But GS2289 goes further. It includes prayers to mark ‘covenant friendship’, a kind of no sex, ‘special friendship’. Is there a real demand for these in our churches? I wonder if these are promoted as a type of sexless relationship for lesbian and gay people.
No matter how tired they are of the intermittent conversations on sexuality, I’m not sure how any conservatives will feel they can support blessings, even when they never have to allow such services to take place in their buildings. churches, not to mention presiding over them. Some still ask for ‘structural differentiation’ to keep them apart from such things; separate bishops, separate training, separate ordinations. The proposal that is presented to the Synod will attract amendments, but how far could such discrimination go, before it becomes a separate church?
If this proposal is passed, we will still welcome a couple of the opposite sex into the church who have never been there before, who have lived together for years and like it as wedding venue: but, if they wish, a church will be able to recognize and welcome the commitment of a same-sex couple who have been regular attendees. Tertullian wrote about the marriage bond as “two believers who share one hope, one desire, one discipline, one service”, with the blessing of the church as a seal on that marriage.
Let’s move forward, by taking this next, careful step on the journey.
Helen King, a lay member of the General Synod (Oxford) is Professor Emerita in Classics at the Open University.
