Updated several times
John Bingham Telegraph Churches should perform gay blessings, CofE says
Sam Jones The Guardian Church should allow blessings of gay relationships, CofE report says
Anglican Communion News Service Report on sexuality: “Hold Church-wide facilitated conversations”
Updates
Church of England Newspaper Same sex ‘blessings’ recommended in report
BBC News Same-sex blessings backed by Church of England report
Carey Lodge Christian Today Church of England report on human sexuality: Clergy should be able to bless same sex partnerships
Madeleine Davies Church Times Pilling opens door to gay blessings in church
Sam Jones The Guardian Anglican church should lift ban on blessings for gay couples, report says
Andrew Brown The Guardian The Pilling report: a blessing for gay people but not for conservatives
John Bingham Telegraph Church of England considers ‘weddings in all but name’ for same-sex couples
And for those who are still confused there is The Pilling Report – Your Questions Answered.
The report is a step in the right direction. It is clear that the Church of England is divided on the issue of gay sex. However, since the divide is kind of 50-50, it seems right that if a vicar and local church council want to bless a gay couple’s relationship (or indeed marry them) then their conscience on the matter should be respected, and not overruled by the other half of the church. Having recognised that this report advances positive arguments, it still needs to be recognised that the Anglican Church requires its priests and bishops, even if they… Read more »
(…continued) So the politics behind this report are far more pragmatic and difficult. If you do a survey of Church of England diocesan websites, you will find that LGBT presence is nearly everywhere ‘airbrushed’ out of existence. The topic is regarded as too hot to really handle and embrace and champion. So whereas the Church, one would hope, would be at the vanguard of social justice issues… it still drags its feet, so disappointingly. It allows priests to live with a same-sex partner but not to have sex. It wants to stop bullying of gay and lesbian people, but it… Read more »
‘the document offered only ‘findings and recommendations’ intended to form part of future conversations.’ Archbishop of Canterbury.
So, there we have it.
Might feature in ‘future conversations’ – or not.
The dishonesty of the leadership of the C of E beggars belief.
‘In Sir Joseph’s words their ‘disagreements have been explored in the warmth of a shared faith’. Our prayer is that the process of reflection that will now be needed in the Church of England, shaped by the House of Bishops and the College, will be characterised by a similar spirit.” ‘ Lgbt have never been reliably treated ‘in the warmth of shared faith’ in my experience, so this would be a positive development. I am not sanguine that all bishops and other ministers would be capable of this towards those of us who are lgbt. Trust must be earned, and… Read more »
Sometimes I tend to think that the C of E will simply bore itself to death – laity will simply lose all interest in the seemingly eternal back-and-forth and in the loud self-righteousness of the reactionary right, who seem to excel in nothing but indignation. How many of my young friends shun Christianity for these very reasons? Yet my home church is growing, especially among the young, a fact strongly linked to our advertised Open and Affirming status. Each time we have a Matthew Shepard sermon or a same-sex marriage we gain new members, hetero- and homosexual who come to… Read more »
To my mind, this is not leadership, it is followership. The attitudes of the people in the pews have (in the main part) moved so far that holding the old line is now impossible, and the leadership is now following this – agreeing very largely with the the more moderate kind of conservative opinion. Too little, too late.
Note that one of the signatories was the bishop of Fulham.
“Part of this is the knowledge that celebration of gay sexuality (as courageously championed by the Anglican Church in the US) would divide the Church of England, the wealthiest of whose parishes often tend towards more conservative evangelical stances on sexual morality.” Just for the record, it was my perception here in the US, that the opposition to LGBT inclusion in TEC was also led by some of our wealthiest churches. It was definitely true in the three dioceses in which I’ve lived. I have a personal theory that that’s the reason for all the lawsuits here. Those wealthy parishes… Read more »
One could ponder the fact that, if the Church had been more proactive in this area of offering a Blessing service for Same-Sex Couples, the later demand for Same-Sex Marriage may never have arisen. However, in the circumstances, it would seem that the Church of England could now make good its seeming lack of compassion towards Same-Sex Couples by taking the advice of the Pilling Commission – perhaps with an officially authorised form, or forms, of service for the occasion. Thanks are due to the Commission for its work on behalf of the Church on this important matter of what… Read more »
The Church of England cautiously dips its toe in the shallow end of the swimming pool.
I’m not expecting the Pilling Report to become Church Doctrine as did the Windsor Report so soon after that was published.
Following Pilling’s recommendation that the Church be allowed to perform same sex blessings (although the CofE is not actually courageous enough to provide an official liturgy!) does this now mean that the Established Church will be, at long last, brave enough to consecrate Jeffrey John as bishop?
What is the point of the two year consultation period, when Anglican Mainstream and other conservative evangelicals make it clear that there is no room for negotiation, that the Bible speaks clearly and that cannot be negotiated? How and why have dialogue with people who are so convinced that only they have the truth?
Note that one of the signatories was the bishop of Fulham.
Your point being?
John: why should we note that one of the signatories was the Bishop of Fulham?
“What is the point of the two year consultation period”
It’s a cynical attempt to kick the whole issue into the long grass. “Now look here, Ms Parks, all this talk about seats on the bus is all very well, but we’ve set up a committee to hold a facilitated conversation about it, so you won’t need to hold a boycott, will you?”
There is nothing here, only the blueprint of the upcoming battle Giddings recently predicted.
This may encourage few hundred more clergy to jump now and bless same sex unions rather than wait for the debate, but the vast majority are already happy to do them.
This is a report recommending what already is.
I am deeply disappointed, it should be dismissed.
One might note it because it shows that battle-grounds constantly criss-cross. Under the same head, one might also note Father David’s differing reactions: his charge of Erastianism (which, obviously, I do not remotely accept)co-existing with robust championship of the serially maltreated Jeffrey John (where I am glad to find him on the side of decency and correct procedure).
Maybe I’m missing something here, but to me the biggest disconnect in the Report is that, after acknowledging the history of homophobia and bullying, it then implicitly assumes that that history has had no effect on the doctrine or the debate to date.
In other words, is the “antis” clean up their language, then a pure, theological, loving but abstract discussion can ensue in which mutual decisions can be made by the whole, including the antis, about how to continue treating the victims of the bullying the Report deplores. Bizarre, quite frankly.
Martin Reynolds is always very perceptive….I notice Church Society welcome the Report, particulary the Bishop of Birkenhead’s dissension.
Things are moving a pace though, it took the C of E decades to recognise re-marriage after divorce..this is certainly progressing at a quicker pace.
Martin, this report marks a change invisible if you’re caught up in the battle: it says the church will have to make a decision, and do so democratically. Most people up till now have really just hoped that the whole bloody thing would go away.
Presumably the democratic decision will be a vote to overturn Synod’s 1987 “Higton motion,” which claims that “fornication” and “homosexual genital acts” fall short of the “ideal” of a “permanent married relationship.” Since this motion was passed 403 votes to 8, either the church in the 1980s was overwhelmingly homophobic, or a lot of Synod members voted against their conscience for political reasons. I’m not sure which option is worse, but in any case, repeal is long overdue. Repentance would be nice, too. If Synod holds a vote and reaffirms Higton, the matter won’t, of course, be settled, anymore than… Read more »