34 clergy and 38 lay members of the General Synod, coming from 33 dioceses, have written an open letter which has been published in the Church of England Newspaper.
The full text and list of signatories is copied below the fold.
The existence of the letter is also reported in the Church Times but this article is behind the paywall.
The Church of England Newspaper report includes additional comments from two of the signatories, and also from one other (anonymous) synod member who said:
“This letter shows the complete blindness there appears to be amongst some to see the absurdity of their position. The Church cannot hope to give a welcome that has any truth, love or integrity if it does not fully embrace LGBTI Christians as equal members of the Body of Christ.
“To threaten fracture and state that ‘no proposals be considered’ is highly manipulative and unChristian. Surely our faith commands us to listen to what the Holy Spirit is saying and to remain open to revelation?
“To seek to close down a discussion before it even starts shows the rigidity of a fundamentalist approach to religion, which is based on fear rather than faith. God is big enough, his arms wide enough and His truth strong enough to withstand any debate”.
Open Letter to the College and House of Bishops
Dear brothers and sisters in Christ, Now that the process of Shared Conversations launched subsequent to the Pilling Report has been completed and the ‘baton’ passed to the College and House of Bishops, we are writing to assure you of our prayers as you meet this autumn to discern the way forward. As members of General Synod we wish to offer the following reflections which we hope and pray might help your deliberation and discernment.
We are grateful for the opportunity that was recently given to the General Synod to engage in a consideration of Scripture. However, we believe this was of an initial nature only, and that much more biblical study is needed before we will be able, as a Synod, to make theologically informed decisions about human anthropology and sexuality. In particular we believe it is essential to clarify what it means to ‘honour God with your bodies’ (1 Corinthians 6:20, NIV) so that we do not find ourselves praying for God’s blessing on that which is contrary to his will.
We are committed to building a church that is genuinely welcoming to all people, irrespective of the pattern of sexual attraction that they experience. We would welcome initiatives to help local churches do this in a way that is affirming of and consistent with Scripture, and would hope to support suggestions you might wish to bring to Synod to that effect.
As you prepare to meet in the College and House of Bishops, we urge you not to consider any proposals that fly in the face of the historic understanding of the church as expressed in ‘Issues in Human Sexuality’ (1991) and Lambeth Resolution 1.10. To do so – however loud the apparent voice for change – could set the Church of England adrift from her apostolic inheritance. It would also undermine our ability as members of General Synod to offer support and lead to a fracture within both the Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion.
We thank God for you and, remembering the apostle James’s injunction to ask God for wisdom (James 1:5), we commit ourselves to asking God to grant you his wisdom as you endeavour to offer episcopal leadership to the Church of England at this time.
Signed by the following General Synod members (Diocese):
The Rev Canon Jonathan Alderton-Ford (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich)
The Rev Sam Allberry (Oxford)
The Rev Dr Andrew Atherstone (Oxford)
The Rev Andrew Attwood (Coventry)
Mrs Emily Bagg (Portsmouth)
The Rev Canon David Banting (Chelmsford)
Dr William Belcher (Gloucester)
Mrs Rachel Bell (Derby)
Dr Andrew Bell (Oxford)
Mrs Liz Bird (Hereford)
Mr Peter Boyd-Lee (Salisbury)
The Revd Peter Breckwoldt (Salisbury)
Mr James Cary (Bath & Wells)
Mr Graham Caskie (Oxford)
The Rev Preb Simon Cawdell (Hereford)
The Rev John Chitham (Chichester)
The Rev Canon Jonathan Clark (Leeds)
The Rev Canon Charlie Cleverley (Oxford)
Dr Simon Clift (Winchester)
Mrs Ann Colton (Chelmsford)
The Rev Canon Andrew Cornes (Chichester)
Miss Prudence Dailey (Oxford)
The Rev Barney de Berry (Canterbury)
Mrs Gill de Berry (Salisbury)
Brigadier Ian Dobbie (Rochester)
The Rev Dr Sean Doherty (London)
The Rev James Dudley-Smith (Bath & Wells)
The Rev John Dunnett (Chelmsford)
Mrs Mary Durlacher (Chelmsford)
Mr Carl Fender (Lincoln)
Miss Emma Forward (Exeter)
Mrs Chris Fry (Winchester)
The Rev Canon Sally Gaze (Norwich)
Mr Chris Gill (Lichfield)
The Rev Graham Hamilton (Exeter)
Mr Jeremy Harris (Chester)
The Ven Simon Heathfield (Birmingham)
Mr Carl Hughes (Southwark)
The Rev Canon Gary Jenkins (Southwark)
Mrs Carolyn Johnson (Blackburn)
The Rev Peter Kay (St Albans)
Mrs Helen Lamb (Ely)
Mr David Lamming (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich)
Capt Nicholas Lebey (Southwark)
Mr James Lee (Guildford)
The Rev Mark Lucas (Peterborough)
Mrs Rosemary Lyon (Blackburn)
The Rev Angus MacLeay (Rochester)
Mr Sam Margrave (Coventry)
The Rev Alistair McHaffie (Blackburn)
The Rev Shaun Morris (Lichfield)
The Rev Dr Rob Munro (Chester)
Miss Margaret Parrett (Manchester)
Miss Jane Patterson (Sheffield)
The Rev Dr Ian Paul (Southwell & Nottingham)
Mrs Kathy Playle (Chelmsford)
The Rev Dr Philip Plyming (Guildford)
Mr Andrew Presland (Peterborough)
The Rev Dr Patrick Richmond (Norwich)
The Rev Dr Jason Roach (London)
The Rev Dr Ben Sargent (Winchester)
Mr Clive Scowen (London)
Mr Ed Shaw (Bristol)
The Rev Charlie Skrine (London)
Mr Colin Slater (Southwell & Nottingham)
Dr Chik Tan (Lichfield)
The Rev Martyn Taylor (Lincoln)
The Rev Chris Tebbutt (Salisbury)
Mr Jacob Vince (Chichester)
Dr Yvonne Warren (Coventry)
The Rev Canon Giles Williams (Europe)
Mr Brian Wilson (Southwark)
Suggests to me Gary Waddington 18 th July below might be right
There’s a certain absurdity in calling for more study (entirety sensible and legitimate) but then completely misrepresenting 1 Corinthians. If one reads the full section it is clear firstly that Paul is writing this section from his own understanding as a teacher, and not urged by the Spirit as a disciple. That immediately lessens the impact. Next, he is saying he would prefer men and women to remain chaste like him but, if they really can’t cope with that, then marriage is better than sexual immorality. There’s nothing to suggest that marriage should not be same sex – he was… Read more »
The biblical study has already been flogged to death – we’ve been debating the biblical issues for over 30 years! The Church will continue to have members opposed to gay sex and supportive of gay sex. There is, and will be, no agreement over the issue. But there can be agreement to differ and co-exist. We can maintain unity even with widely different views on sex, if we love one another and focus on service and mission. Conscience on the issue should be protected on either side, and instead of trying to impose a false uniformity, we should strive for… Read more »
One other thing: more than three times as many men as women signed this letter: if that anywhere nears representation in the General Synod, it is pretty disappointing. Alternatively perhaps it reflects the possibility that men fear gay sex more than women do.
Para 2 says much more biblical study is needed before Synod may make theologically informed decisions. Para 4 makes clear that the signatories already know the decision should be no change. I can only conclude that the point of the biblical study is to bring Synod into line with their own views. That’s a poor model of corporate Bible study, since only through the Spirit, open to each other, should we expect to hear God’s word.
The clergy signatories are 33 male, 1 female. The male/female ratio in the House of Clergy is about 2:1.
Some early responses to this letter:
http://therachelmannblogspot.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/personal-response-to-open-letter-to.html
https://theore0.wordpress.com/2016/08/12/in-response-to-the-group-of-72/
“The problem, and the potential schism comes from two sources: (a) trying to impose uniformity against many people’s consciences; (b) insisting on uniformity to your own view, or threatening to walk out if you don’t get your way imposed on everyone else.”
Actually the problem is that we are appointing bishops and archbishops to be managers rather than theologians who can lead us to a uniform view of Scripture through teaching and writing. It’s truly sad.
This is a most interesting letter (or at least the signatories are). It will have little impact, but it does tell us quite a lot about the composition and mind of Synod. As to the background, this was an initiative of the Committee of the Evangelical Group on General Synod (EGGS) (a group of which I am a member). The email to all EGGS members of 25 July indicated that the letter would be sent to the College of Bishops if at least 50 members supported it. The letter was not therefore issued on behalf of EGGS, but by ‘members… Read more »
Schism can only be undertaken by that part of a group totally unwilling to acknowledge the right of ther rest of the group to exercise its legitimate conscience on any matter. Schism is not ever undertaken by anyone willing to engage with the significant ‘other’ whose views are different. Therefore; if schism is undertaken by these people who have written to the House of Bishops – contrary to the Church of England’s ethos of ‘Unity in Diversity’ – then they, themselves, will be setting up another (their own) Church community that is not traditionally Anglican. In fact, they could just… Read more »
“Actually the problem is that we are appointing bishops and archbishops to be managers rather than theologians who can lead us to a uniform view of Scripture through teaching and writing.” That’s a bit of a hit one, miss one type of statement, Kate. Yes, we are enduring a period of frankly unimaginative managerialism from many Anglican bishops in England and beyond. Yes, bishops *should* be theologians. It would be nice if that part of more bishops’ personas could emerge. Some of them might benefit from thinking through the maxim that sometimes it is better for the Church to tolerate… Read more »
“the historic understanding of the church as expressed in ‘Issues in Human Sexuality’ (1991) and Lambeth Resolution 1.10. [1998]”
Ah yes, the historic weight of 25 year old (or less) documents. /s
“…as if the bible were not ancient near eastern culture in a suitcase.”
Those poor and brave leaders in the life of the church who were so benighted, who would have dismissed such a statement out of hand. Irenaeus, Chrysostom, Cyril, Augustine, Cassiodoros, Aquinas, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Bellarmine, Cranmer, Donne, Herbert, et al.
And what a funny doctrine of providence: God left the church in darkness until the proud moment when wise moderns could declare “as if the bible were not ancient near eastern culture in a suitcase.”
Kate Over a lifetime in the CofE and I cannot recall a time when people did not moan that ‘bishops today’ no longer have the character, theological depth and distinctive leadership skills they used to have. There was a golden age somewhere back there but I have yet to track it down. But this a very soft target to aim at. And what is the measure of it – if only weight of angst over the pressing issue of our own day? Are we really climbing that bishops in, say, the 1950’s would have handled the ordination of women or… Read more »
Rod, an interesting article but I am sceptical about its conclusions. The article muddles transgenderism and intersex and if it gets that simple matter wrong, why should we trust its deeper conclusions?
Victoriana, we pray, “Thy Kingdom come” and when it does one aspect of that will be that we then have a united understanding of Scripture, being in the glorious presence of the Almighty. To give up attempts to be as united as possible in our understanding of Scripture before then while we await the new Kingdom seems wrong, indeed sinful to me.
Victoriana, your remarks really chime with me: “…sometimes it is better for the Church to tolerate heresy (for the sake of argument, = diversity of strongly held views) than to end up in schism.” Totally agree. “But no, ‘a uniform view of Scripture’ is simply not possible in any century or through any type of teaching, whether by bishops or anyone else.” There has never been uniformity of dogma – that’s why we have so many denominations, sects, divisions, and distances between Christians… because uniformity was demanded, and was a justification for breakaway by the ‘pure remnants’. “Seeking just that… Read more »
Whether we like the idea or not, the Bible is a collection of ancient writings of widely differing types and viewpoints, none of them written in English and all marked by the cultural and religious assumptions of their authors. To ignore this, and the lengthy procedures by which the Church selected the contents of the Bible, and to adopt an uncritical approach to those writings, must eventually reduce the Bible to a magic book completely detached from the historical process. Would it help if we were to adopt the custom of referring not to the Bible but to the Scriptures,… Read more »
Kate, when the kingdom comes I suspect arguments over biblical hermeneutics will be moot.
The mission of the Church is to live as if the Kingdom is NOW. So we can hang the arguments over biblical hermeneutics, who’s in and who’s out, and get on with feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the prisoner and healing the sick. Remember who we would be serving when we do these things?
And the selection criteria for who we serve are what, precisely…?
It is not that the component of what we call ‘history’ was unknown to the history of interpretation, but that they saw this through the lens of a coherent providential hand. Hence, figuration and divine linkages in time. We do ourselves no favors when we think of ourselves as so wise because we have recourse to a category we call ‘history.’ What needs interrogation is whether this produces a false perspective and also heightens our sense of superiority and self-wisdom. The “cultural and religious assumptions of authors” were taken to be part and parcel of what gave them a special… Read more »
Surely you are mistaken David Runcorn? Could you please name the best academics and theologian bishops of today? There seem precious few to me and nowhere nearly in the same proportion as in former times. Even recent times.
“Suitcase” is perhaps too brusque, but as Barry points out, there is cultural baggage in the Bible. More importantly, an authority not on the list of worthies cited above, but important for Anglicans — Richard Hooker — affirms that Biblical laws, including those given by God, can, and sometimes should, be set aside. (Book III.x) This is particularly true when the reason for the law has either been accomplished or has ceased. Granting (pace John of Damascus and others) that the first cause for marriage is “to fill the earth,” and that this cause has been amply accomplished if not… Read more »
“It would also undermine our ability as members of General Synod to offer support and lead to a fracture within both the Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion.” Garbled syntax (“offer support … to a fracture”) aside, here we have it yet again–the argument that Synod must perpetuate discrimination within the Church of England because Anglicans abroad insist on it. There are two flawed premises here. First, Synod governs the Church of England. That being so, it should put English interests first. Synod should focus on what is best for people in Kent, not in Kampala. Second, do… Read more »
Thank you, Tobias, for again being the most authentically Anglican voice of reason. Yes, we certainly know more now than writers from a pre-scientific age. And the Bible is a document of its time and culture. We must never forget that Scripture has been misused to support slavery, misogyny, racism, anti-semitism, and the burning of heretics (often “uppity women”). We must never forget that those awful things are part of our “Tradition” as well – it is strong enough to require us to question all traditions. With all due respect to Wisdom of the past, we have the Wisdom of… Read more »
“there are things in latter times that were not understood in former times.” Unremarkably, yes.
But the obverse is also true.
That is where I see little recognition. Instead we have the whig account of history (lightly seasoned with the coue method “everyday in everyway I’m getting better and better”).
It was possible to believe that the greatest achievements lie behind us, not in us now or in the future. But this kind of thinking seems absent in New World progressivism.
It wasn’t absent in Hooker, btw.
Neil. You miss my point. I was not claiming a measurable ‘fact’. I was offering an impression, from long CofE memory, that each generation of the church has tended to bemoan the present paucity of its episcopal leadership in comparison with previous eras. But since you ask, I am not sure how to measure the theological weight of the house of bishops in any age – counting doctorates or numbers of chairs? Does that prove or guarantee anything? What makes an academic theologian an effective bishop? And the measurable decline of the church actually began a long way back into… Read more »
In the later Thatcher and then the Major years, Labour overcame its historic difficulties with the EU/EEC because they realised that European law provided an avenue for progressive causes which wasn’t available via the UK legislature. To misquote Clausewitz, “EU Courts were the continuation of politics by other means.” The same appears to apply, mutatis mutandis, to evangelicals and Africa. Twenty or thirty years ago, few evangelicals in Kent (to take Jeremy’s example) would have been able to find Kampala on a map, and even those that could would not have been particularly interested in the readings of the Bible… Read more »
@Rod Gillis: I appreciate the rhetorical panache. And I am fond of epigrams. 🙂
‘Twenty or thirty years ago few evangelicals in Kent (to take Jeremy’s example) would have been able to find Kampala on a map’. Well I would not begin to defend conservative evangelicals here or in Africa on their response to homosexuality. But this rather patronising statement shows large ignorance of the practical, informed and strategic missionary vision that has long been a feature of the evangelical tradition in this country.
“This kind of thing is a double error. Much of the impetus for a sea change on sexual ethics actually comes from folks advocating what they understand to be a scriptural perspective”
Yes, yes and yes. It’s why it’s an own goal when some advocate change but don’t firmly pin their call on Scripture.
@cseitz As I mentioned, I reject both the Norman Vincent Peale notion of Progress and the fallacy of Traditionalism. There are good and bad ideas old and new, and neither novelty nor antiquity prove the worth of any premise. I will observe that knowledge, if not wisdom, can be cumulative — though in the course of time some things are lost or obscured. (We don’t know how to make Greek Fire, but we can split the atom!) Sadly, the church was responsible for much of the loss, in its zeal to wipe out “pagan” cultures in both the Old World… Read more »
I agree with David Runcorn that many evangelical churches have long links of service with communities overseas. My family’s home church is a typical example. We had a saintly vicar and his wife who both served many years in Uganda. We had a link missionary there as well, who worked in education for I estimate 30 years. We were blessed by visiting Ugandan priests and lay people who came and stayed, and shared their experiences. And my own daughter lives and works in the slums in Uganda, sharing lives with a community of the extremely poor, who nevertheless have given… Read more »
“We don’t know how to make Greek Fire”
As Dresden and Vietnam show, we have a limitless capability to produce incendiary weapons, whether based on magnesium or petroleum or any number of other things. We just don’t know which of a range of possibilities the Greeks used, and it’s unlikely we ever will.
Indeed so, IO; hence my perhaps too veiled reference to Hiroshima.
The difference of the nature of theology and scriptural authority – its extent, its provenance, etc. – is too widely variant. The schism HAS happened. You may acknowledge, separate and move on, or play the old ecclesiastical games of empire resulting in a house divided and, ultimately, bloodied and bowed. Your choice, of course, but the split is done. It’s over. I, for one, see unhealthy emotional dysfunction in a church that will not recognize this, and refuses to acknowledge the harm done – if nothing else, in maintaining a pathway for those of the two functionally-separate belief systems to… Read more »
MB at 7.02am: Having followed this and other ‘progressive’ blogs I believe we are beginning to see the lineaments of three distinctive views all on the ‘progressive’ side of the debate. 1)There are two positions. One is objective, truthful. The other is deranged and dangerous. The tribes and sachems of these two groups need to separate and now. This is overdue. It is morally cowardly for the truthful side to continue to engage the deranged side. 2)There are two positions. One side believes the other side is wrong. Engagement is useful so as to persuade the other side of their… Read more »
@CSeitz, I don’t think you are missing anything, and this is an accurate portrayal of the situation on the progressive side. I would only note that the same range of opinion exists on the other side: there are among ‘conservatives’ those who urge total separation or expulsion, continued debate with formal toleration, or comprehension with assurances of respect for minority views. Moreover, even after the superior synods of each of the constituent member churches of the communion reach their decisions, it is likely such divisions will continue, with the exception of those choosing the separatist or absolutist course. We see… Read more »
Dear Mr Haller, can you show where these positions (on the conservative side) are so efficiently in one place, so that we may view them? I ask because my hunch is that most conservatives simply believe the “burden of proof” for changing a teaching and practice is not for them to establish, as this has existed through the centuries. Those wanting change, however, must deal with the three divergent positions above. I can quite prayerfully resist 1), and also 2) and 3), as not being consistent with what the church has taught and continues to teach, and find myself in… Read more »
*I ask because my hunch is that most conservatives simply believe the “burden of proof* A burden of proof implies you believe the case to be arguable. Conservatives have already decided, a priori, that there is no argument for same-sex marriage that can possibly be made which will convince them. Talk of burden of proof is disingenuous: if you say to a conservative “what would it take for you to agree that same-sex marriage is legitimate?” (and that includes, in most cases, legitimate in civil contexts which are outside the churches’ remit) you will get a long piece of flannel… Read more »
CSeitz, I don’t know of any one place where you can find the range of views on the conservative side expressed. (Apart perhaps from comment threads on some of the blogs!) However, I know from my own reading that conservatives have expressed each of the views I have described: 1) the absolutist or impossibilist position: “this can not change” as the truth is all on one side, the other is “apostate” if not “demonic”; 2) the “engagement” position: while the truth is on one side, continued argument may yet win those in error over to that truth; and 3) the… Read more »
Of course, it may be that some would say that any “conservative” who could be swayed by any amount of proof is “no true conservative.”
“A burden of proof implies you believe the case to be arguable.” No, not necessarily. It simply means the burden is not to be borne unless one wants to seek a novelty, and so must try to make a case. That is not a place where the vast majority of Christians worldwide are. They believe the tradition and scripture are clear, as well as reason (as Hooker meant that). Others can make arguments (so 2 and 3), or they can view this position as deranged (1). And so they do! Holding to a given and seeking a novelty present asymmetrical… Read more »
Mr Haller I suspect people like Radner simply accept that, within the pockets of Anglicanism they work (TEC and ACoC), there is no point in further debate (position 2). The progressives have won. The arrangements that presently exist to feint toward 3 will time out. Surely there is no further doubt about this. ‘Individual conscience’ will time out because dioceses will come under new TEC teaching. For people in his age category, it is simply a matter of working toward retirement with integrity and finding a way to support Anglicanism where one has missionary commitments, as he does. So are… Read more »
*That is not a place where the vast majority of Christians worldwide are. They believe the tradition and scripture are clear,* That’s wildly overstating it. The vast majority of Christians, and everyone else, don’t really care. There are a long list of issues which affect their lives, be those issues religious, political, economic, whatever, and same-sex marriage is at most one of those, and a not terribly significant one. It excites a small clique of conservatives for whom it’s a huge deal. To tear a community to pieces over an issue that matters might be regarded as a sacrifice worth… Read more »
Dr Seitz, I did not claim that the concerns or terms were the same, but that there is a range of formal argument (or non-argument in case 1) on both sides. Argument requires at least two sides, and takes many forms on each side. You appeared to suggest, above, that because progressives have engaged multiple formal positions in the debate, this creates some kind of problem for them. I believe that the reciprocal problem — if it is one — exists on t’other side. Obviously the “concern” or substance of one side is to promote change, and that of the… Read more »
Why tear the community apart?
Separate. Have nothing more to do with one another. Surely no one can enjoy this viciousness, back and forth, on both sides.
“Who believes the diocesan apparatus necessary to support conservatives in discernment, education, ordination, and fruitful deployment will exist in ten years? TEC will have moved on. The small cadre of CP Bishops remaining will have retired and their successors will be in the new TEC.”
I do not consider this position 1.
I do consider it an example of the asymmetry.
It is #4: ‘defeated’ and no longer able to make any difference inside the ecclesial institution.
Not despair. Honest acceptance.