The Pilling Report
A critique and review by Martin Davie
One of the biggest challenges facing the Christian Church today is how to respond to the growing influence of the campaign for the acceptance of homosexual activity and relationships both by society and by some in the Church. The fundamental question is whether to: (a) maintain its traditional position that same-sex sexual relationships (like all sexual relationships outside heterosexual marriage) are sinful and to be abstained from, (b) accept that such relationships, though less than ideal, may represent the least worst option for some people with deep rooted same-sex attraction, or (c) move to the position that such relationships can be as morally valid as sexual relationships between men and women in marriage. Allied to this are then a series of ancillary questions, such as how to care pastorally for people with same-sex attraction, whether it is right or not for people in same-sex sexual relationships to serve in the ordained ministry and whether it is right or not for the Church to celebrate such relationships liturgically. Most recently the issue has arisen about whether the Church can recognise relationships between people of the same sex as marriages.
The Pilling report, the short hand title for the Report of the House of Bishops Working Group on Human Sexuality, is the report of a working group which was commissioned by the House of Bishops of the Church of England to consider the Church of England’s attitude to same-sex relationships, with the issue of same-sex ‘marriage’ coming on to its agenda in the course of its deliberations. The Pilling report is in two distinct parts. There is the majority report and there is a ‘dissenting statement’ from the Bishop of Birkenhead, Keith Sinclair.
This article outlines the approach taken by the majority report, looks at why this approach is problematic and explains why the dissenting statement offers a better alternative.
The approach taken by the majority report.
The best place to begin to look at the approach taken by the majority report is to consider what it says about the ethics of sex. According to the report the principle problem with regard to sexual behaviour in our society is what it calls the ‘commodification’ of sexual activity. We live, it says, in a society in which we are encouraged to desire more and more commodities (food, clothes, cars, electronic gadgets etc.). This desire is open ended and moves on from one commodity to the next. Our attitude to sex increasingly operates in the same way. We want to satisfy our sexual desires and are encouraged by our culture to move from partner to partner in order to achieve this.
However, the report argues, to live in this way is to make an idol of desire:‘Desire becomes an idol if it is treated as an end in itself. Desire, properly understood, points to the bonds of relationship that are worked out in the course of a whole life. It is the whole of one’s life that is offered to God, and it is the whole of one’s life that ought properly to be offered to another person in the sexual relationship – that is the offering to which human desire ought to lead us.’ (Para 142)
This call to offer the whole of ourselves to another person is the basis for Christian sexual ethics:
‘Permanence, fidelity and openness to the nurturing of family life provide the essential context for a Christian ethic of sexual relationships, for the simple reason that they are a reflection of God’s love for us. In turning to God, we offer our whole lives, as Christ offered himself unconditionally for us.’ (Para 136).
What is significant about this quotation is that while it affirms the virtues associated with traditional Christian sexual ethics it says nothing about marriage between two people of the opposite sex or about the procreation of children. This must be deliberate and can be assumed by the fact that the majority of the Pilling working group were unwilling to sign up to a view of Christian sexual ethics that would exclude all forms of same-sex sexual activity. This is made clear in paragraph 312 of the report:
‘In the face of conflicting scholarship, as well as conflicting beliefs, we believe that the church should be cautious about attempting to pronounce definitively on the implications of scripture for homosexual people. We do agree that, as all Christians are called to faithfulness, exclusivity and life-long commitment in their sexual relationships, same sex relationships which do not seek to embody those aspects of vocation cannot be right. We learn from what previous generations of the faithful have understood the Holy Spirit to be saying to the Churches, wait for the Spirit’s guidance in our own generation, and commit ourselves to finding ways for the Church to continue to listen for his voice.’
If we ask why the majority of the working party thought they should take this cautious approach the Report suggest that the answer is twofold. First, they felt that such caution was demanded as an appropriate response to the range of different views encountered by the working group. As paragraph 68 puts it:
‘…wherever we have turned – whether to scripture, theology, science, or social trends – we have encountered divided views, sincerely and prayerfully held. Any suggestion, therefore, that the arguments are so conclusive that further discussion of the issues is no longer necessary does not do justice to the integrity of the theological convictions that are held or to the significant areas of scientific uncertainty that persist.’
Secondly, they felt that such caution was demanded by fidelity to the Anglican approach to ethics, a ‘conciliar’ approach marked by a willingness to listen to a range of different perspectives and an unwillingness to close down debate on contested issues. In their view to accept the traditional Evangelical approach to sexual ethics advocated within the group by the Bishop of Birkenhead ‘would, in effect, make one wing of the Anglican family the sole arbiter of Christian ethics and bring an end to the conciliar approach which has for so long characterized Anglicanism.’ (Para 318)
The way that the majority report recommends that the Church of England should continue to listen to the voice of God is through prayer and ‘facilitated conversations,’ primarily in the Church of England, but also involving other Anglican churches and other ecumenical partners, in which those with different views listen attentively and respectfully to each other:
‘Prayer accompanied by a deep commitment to listen for the voice of the Holy Spirit – not only in the thoughts, words and lives of those with whom one agrees but in the contributions of those one believes to be wrong – is perhaps the only way in which brothers and sisters in Christ can discern what God is saying to our present context through his word.’ (Para 310).
The majority report recommends that while these conversations take place the Church of England should continue to ‘abide by’ the Church’s traditional teaching on sexuality, but that in the course of the conversations everyone, including those with ‘teaching authority’ in the Church, should be able to express their views ‘openly and honestly’ (even if these views are at variance with the Church’s traditional teaching) (Recommendations 11 and 12).
While wanting the Church to continue to uphold its traditional teaching for the time being the majority of the working group also took the view that the Church should not only honour those with same sex attraction who have ‘embraced a chaste and single life style’ but also those ‘who in good conscience have entered partnerships with a firm intention of life-long fidelity.’ (Recommendation 13). While a formally authorised liturgy for this purpose would be inappropriate, ‘a priest, with the agreement of the relevant PCC, should be free to mark the formation of a permanent same-sex relationship in a public service’ (Recommendation 16).
Finally, the majority report suggests that the facilitated conversations should ‘explore’ the Church of England’s discipline that clergy, unlike laity, may not enter into same-sex sexual relationships, that the same assurances about their personal lifestyle should be sought from all ordinands regardless of whether they are single, married or in a Civil Partnership and that ‘intrusive’ questioning should be avoided. (Recommendations 15 and 18)
Why this approach is problematic
There are a number of reasons why the approach taken in the Pilling majority report is problematic. First, it relies on a distorted view of the Anglican tradition. The Anglican approach to ethics, like the Anglican approach to theology in general, has not been focussed on ensuring that different voices have their say. It is true that Anglicans have developed a ‘conciliar’ approach in which the Church as a whole, through representative bishops, clergy and laity is consulted about developments in faith and practice. However, as Canons A5 and C15 make clear, the criteria for deciding truth is not the voices of various different groups within the Church, but the teaching of Holy Scripture as witnessed to by the orthodox Fathers of the early centuries and by the ‘historic formularies’ of the Reformation period (the Thirty Nine Articles, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal).
Secondly, it is wrong to say that the existence of conflicting convictions and beliefs about sexual ethics is in itself a reason for the Church of England to be cautious in what it says about the implications of biblical teaching for homosexual practice. Throughout its history from the earliest times onwards (see Acts and Galatians for example) there have been competing convictions and beliefs within the Church and it has been the calling of those with responsibility for deciding the Church’s belief and practice to make decisions about which of these have been in line with Scripture. What the Church of England is facing today is thus a challenge the Church has always had to face and it cannot shy away from it. It has to decide what Scripture says and act upon it.
Thirdly, as the Pilling report itself acknowledges, the Church of England and the Anglican Communion has clear existing teaching about sexual ethics (see Paragraphs 101-122). This teaching, that sex should only take place within hetersosexual marriage and that same-sex sexual relations are sinful, reflects the teaching of the Church as a whole over the past two thousand years, but the Pilling majority report now says that we cannot be sure that this teaching is true. If we ask why this is the case, the answer we are given is that looking at science, or social trends, or biblical scholarship, or theology shows that there are ‘divided views’ about sexual ethics. What the report does not do is to give a clear account of these divided views or present a proper critical analysis of them. To convince us that the Church of England cannot rely on its existing teaching it would need to say that these views call this teaching into question for these reasons, but it doesn’t do so. The one attempt it makes at this is in the chapter ‘Arguments about Scripture,’ where it suggests that we cannot be sure about the translation of the biblical words for homosexuality, that we cannot be sure that the Biblical writers about homosexuality were describing the same phenomenon as we encounter today and that the first two chapters of Genesis allow us to reach different ethical conclusions about
sexuality. However, as the dissenting statement points out, these suggestions are not backed with persuasive arguments or relevant evidence and so do not carry weight.
Fourthly, the report is inconsistent. It says that those who signed up to the Pilling majority report believe that the Church of England should continue to abide by its existing teaching. Yet they also contend that we have no good reason for believing that this teaching is true, set out a sexual ethic that departs from this teaching in important ways, and propose that the Church of England should undermine this teaching by permitting the public liturgical celebration of same-sex unions. (Incidentally, by moving away from the Church’s traditional teaching in this way, the report has already further damaged relations between the Church of England and a number of other parts of the Anglican Communion).
Fifthly, the report does not explain how the proposed ‘facilitated conversations’ will help the Church of England to discern the will of God with regard to sexual ethics. How can listening to other people and their views help us to achieve this unless it is accompanied by the sort of serious and informed study of the Bible and the Christian tradition for which the Pilling majority report makes no obvious provision? What the Church of England has to do is not simply listen to different voices but test them to see if they are of God and this demands intensive and critical theological work.
Recommendation 2 in Paragraph 490 says that the facilitated conversations should ‘continue to involve profound reflection on the interpretation and application of Scripture,’ but this appears to be a late addition to the report (compare the original recommendation 2 in paragraph 83 where these words are absent). The importance of such reflection, how it should work in practice and how it should be resourced are never addressed in the body of the report.
One response to this criticism might be to say that the whole point of the facilitated conversations is that they will be an open process which will allow space for fresh ideas and perspectives and therefore we cannot prescribe in advance how they will work. However, if the facilitated conversations do indeed produce fresh ideas and perspectives these will need to be rigorously tested to see if they are truly from God and for this to happen a serious and informed study of the Bible and the Christian tradition will still be required. It is therefore vital that any arrangements for facilitated conversations put in place by the House of Bishops make proper provision for this to happen.
Sixthly, and most importantly, the Pilling majority report offers no assistance to people experiencing same-sex attraction and yet who wish to live true to orthodox teaching. It does not offer them any help, or support, or any reason to go on struggling against temptation. For this reason it is a profoundly un-pastoral document and one that will not help the Church of England in its mission to the nation.
A better way
The dissenting statement by the Bishop of Birkenhead offers a better alternative to the majority report.
First of all, together with the Bishop’s account of the biblical material contained in Appendix 3 of the Pilling report, this statement gives a clear and persuasive account of the biblical basis for the Church of England’s existing teaching on sexual ethics.
The statement notes that if the New Testament passages relating to sexuality are read in their historical context what ‘is striking is the universal expectation that Christians will be different in their sexual behaviour from their pagan neighbours.’ (Para 436) The reason for this expectation is that:
‘The first Christians believed that a distinctive pattern of sexual behaviour was an integral part of Christian discipleship because they believed that the one true God, the God of Israel, had lovingly created human beings to be sexual creatures who would come together in marriage as men and women in joyful obedience to the first command (‘be fruitful and multiply’).’ (Para 437)
In the light of this belief the first Christians, following the teaching of Jesus himself, taught that Christians, as those who have died with Christ in baptism and risen to a new life with him (Romans 6:1-11) have to learn to ‘say ‘no’ to all forms of sexual sin, both in terms of sinful thoughts and in terms of sinful behaviour.’ (Para 442 referring to Matthew 5:27-30 and 1 Thessalonians 4:3-4)
It is this understanding of the requirements of Christian discipleship that has led the Christian Church from biblical times onwards consistently to teach that living the resurrection life ‘involves the restriction of sexual activity to the context of marriage between one man and one woman. All other forms of sexual activity (whether heterosexual or homosexual) are to be rejected by God’s people as incompatible with their love for God.’ (Para 443)
The importance of this account of the biblical material is that it shows that the rejection of all forms of homosexual activity in Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:10 is not an isolated departure from the main thrust of the biblical message, but is rather a consistent outworking of the overall biblical conviction about how God has created human beings to be his image bearers in the world (Genesis 1:27-28) and how he has made this vocation possible once again in the face of human sin through the saving work of Jesus Christ, by whom creation has been renewed. It also shows that the motion on sexual ethics passed by the General Synod in 1987 rejecting all forms of sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage is in line with biblical teaching. (Para 444)
Secondly, with reference to the story of Greg, a same-sex attracted man who married and had two children, the statement explains that resistance to same-sex attraction is possible and sets out the theological reasons why such resistance is critically important:
‘Jesus teaches that love and obedience go together in the gift of God and the gospel. Loving as he loved means keeping his commandments (John 14:15). The structures of sexual relationships given by God in creation and re-affirmed in the law and the gospel are given because of love, love for us and for all life which will come into the world because of such love. Whatever our attractions, the key is whether we have heard and responded to Jesus’ words to receive eternal life. Such life comes from receiving his washing, receiving him and doing what he says: “Abide in me as I abide in you” (John 15:4). There will be pruning and much fruit. Greg’s story witnesses to this, and not just because of Margaret, Rob and Jenny, but because, he says, in learning that Jesus’ words applied to sexual attraction he learned they applied to everything else in life too. In today’s culture, it is not easy to insist on self-denial. We have been seduced (as the Prologue to the Report explores) by popular philosophies spinning the illusion that the uninhibited expression of our desires (‘being who you are’) is the key to human flourishing. It is claimed that for healthy psychological development a commitment to sexual abstinence is neither possible nor desirable. But the Christian gospel insists that we are fallen creatures, the ‘devices and desires’ of our hearts having been deeply corroded and corrupted by sin. Christian discipleship, in all areas of life, whether same-sex desire, ‘heterosexual’ desire, or other non-sexual desires, is always a call to radical submission, discipline and re-ordering of our errant desires in the way of Christ. This, I believe, is the key to human flourishing according to the gospel.’ (Paras 429-30)
Thirdly, the dissenting statement offers the Church of England a ‘better vision,’ a vision which calls on the Church to offer love and pastoral care to all people without compromising the teaching of Holy Scripture. To quote the Bishop’s words in full, the hall marks of this better vision are that:
‘a. It affirms God’s love and concern for all, whatever their sexuality, recognising we are all sinners whose only hope is in the love of God shown to us in Jesus Christ and poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit..
b. It seeks to be marked by love, truth and grace in ongoing debates, repudiating and regretting all attitudes and actions which victimise or diminish people whose sexual attraction is directed towards people of the same sex or towards people of both sexes.
c. It commends marriage as an institution lovingly created by God in which one man and one woman enter into an exclusive relationship for life, believing this to be the only form of partnership approved by God for sexual relations and thus the only form of sexual partnership that properly expresses love for God.
d. It encourages churches to be safe spaces where everyone, including those with same-sex attraction or bisexual attraction, is able to share and explore his or her story with fellow believers for mutual encouragement and support as we help each other grow together into maturity in Christ.
e. It commends and encourages all who experience same-sex or bisexual attraction and have committed themselves to chastity by refraining from homoerotic sexual practice, welcoming as leaders those of them God calls to ordination.
f. It supports all those who responsibly seek to help Christians who experience sexual attractions in conflict with their commitment to live in accordance with biblical teaching, encouraging the church to offer all Christians counsel and pastoral support to live a chaste life.
g. It calls on churches to welcome and accept all, whatever their sexuality and whether or not they follow the church’s teaching on sexual behaviour, in the hope that, like all of us who are living outside God's purposes, they will come in due course to see the need to be transformed and live lives of loving obedience in accordance with biblical revelation and orthodox church teaching.
h. It calls on churches not to be conformed to the prevailing sexual culture, but to seek to resist and transform it so that both the church and wider society will flourish by more closely reflecting God’s standards in their beliefs about sexuality and their sexual behaviour.’ (Para 488)
Fourthly, the statement ends by calling on the Church of England to be willing to pay the cost of living by this vision:
‘Because our society increasingly rejects limiting sexual intercourse to marriage and sees any opposition to homosexual practise as morally reprehensible, if the Church of England were to commit herself afresh to this vision then there would undoubtedly be strong criticism. Like Christians in many other contexts we would have to learn to be confident in holding beliefs that many in our society did not share or even understand. Dissent within the Church of England would also likely continue, but a process of facilitated conversation framed by this vision would give plenty of opportunity for honest debate and the confronting of the sins of homophobia of which the Church must repent. But fidelity to God’s way means learning in our own generation what it is to carry the cross (Mark 8:34-38). ‘When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die’ said Bonhoeffer. Death is never easy, but being willing to accept the criticism that this approach I am recommending will attract is, in my view, an unavoidable part of being faithful to that call and thus an unavoidable part of our loving obedient response to God’s love for us. Jesus loved us to the end and, as he loved us, he calls us to love one another.’ (Para 489)
It is the path of radical and uncompromising discipleship set out in this paragraph, and not the confused and compromising approach advocated by the Pilling majority report, that is the right way for the Church of England to respond to the challenges of bearing faithful witness to British society in the twenty first century.
‘
The Pilling report, the short hand title for the Report of the House of Bishops Working Group on Human Sexuality, is the report of a working group which was commissioned by the House of Bishops of the Church of England to consider the Church of England’s attitude to same-sex relationships, with the issue of same-sex ‘marriage’ coming on to its agenda in the course of its deliberations. The Pilling report is in two distinct parts. There is the majority report and there is a ‘dissenting statement’ from the Bishop of Birkenhead, Keith Sinclair.
This article outlines the approach taken by the majority report, looks at why this approach is problematic and explains why the dissenting statement offers a better alternative.
The approach taken by the majority report.
The best place to begin to look at the approach taken by the majority report is to consider what it says about the ethics of sex. According to the report the principle problem with regard to sexual behaviour in our society is what it calls the ‘commodification’ of sexual activity. We live, it says, in a society in which we are encouraged to desire more and more commodities (food, clothes, cars, electronic gadgets etc.). This desire is open ended and moves on from one commodity to the next. Our attitude to sex increasingly operates in the same way. We want to satisfy our sexual desires and are encouraged by our culture to move from partner to partner in order to achieve this.
However, the report argues, to live in this way is to make an idol of desire:‘Desire becomes an idol if it is treated as an end in itself. Desire, properly understood, points to the bonds of relationship that are worked out in the course of a whole life. It is the whole of one’s life that is offered to God, and it is the whole of one’s life that ought properly to be offered to another person in the sexual relationship – that is the offering to which human desire ought to lead us.’ (Para 142)
This call to offer the whole of ourselves to another person is the basis for Christian sexual ethics:
‘Permanence, fidelity and openness to the nurturing of family life provide the essential context for a Christian ethic of sexual relationships, for the simple reason that they are a reflection of God’s love for us. In turning to God, we offer our whole lives, as Christ offered himself unconditionally for us.’ (Para 136).
What is significant about this quotation is that while it affirms the virtues associated with traditional Christian sexual ethics it says nothing about marriage between two people of the opposite sex or about the procreation of children. This must be deliberate and can be assumed by the fact that the majority of the Pilling working group were unwilling to sign up to a view of Christian sexual ethics that would exclude all forms of same-sex sexual activity. This is made clear in paragraph 312 of the report:
‘In the face of conflicting scholarship, as well as conflicting beliefs, we believe that the church should be cautious about attempting to pronounce definitively on the implications of scripture for homosexual people. We do agree that, as all Christians are called to faithfulness, exclusivity and life-long commitment in their sexual relationships, same sex relationships which do not seek to embody those aspects of vocation cannot be right. We learn from what previous generations of the faithful have understood the Holy Spirit to be saying to the Churches, wait for the Spirit’s guidance in our own generation, and commit ourselves to finding ways for the Church to continue to listen for his voice.’
If we ask why the majority of the working party thought they should take this cautious approach the Report suggest that the answer is twofold. First, they felt that such caution was demanded as an appropriate response to the range of different views encountered by the working group. As paragraph 68 puts it:
‘…wherever we have turned – whether to scripture, theology, science, or social trends – we have encountered divided views, sincerely and prayerfully held. Any suggestion, therefore, that the arguments are so conclusive that further discussion of the issues is no longer necessary does not do justice to the integrity of the theological convictions that are held or to the significant areas of scientific uncertainty that persist.’
Secondly, they felt that such caution was demanded by fidelity to the Anglican approach to ethics, a ‘conciliar’ approach marked by a willingness to listen to a range of different perspectives and an unwillingness to close down debate on contested issues. In their view to accept the traditional Evangelical approach to sexual ethics advocated within the group by the Bishop of Birkenhead ‘would, in effect, make one wing of the Anglican family the sole arbiter of Christian ethics and bring an end to the conciliar approach which has for so long characterized Anglicanism.’ (Para 318)
The way that the majority report recommends that the Church of England should continue to listen to the voice of God is through prayer and ‘facilitated conversations,’ primarily in the Church of England, but also involving other Anglican churches and other ecumenical partners, in which those with different views listen attentively and respectfully to each other:
‘Prayer accompanied by a deep commitment to listen for the voice of the Holy Spirit – not only in the thoughts, words and lives of those with whom one agrees but in the contributions of those one believes to be wrong – is perhaps the only way in which brothers and sisters in Christ can discern what God is saying to our present context through his word.’ (Para 310).
The majority report recommends that while these conversations take place the Church of England should continue to ‘abide by’ the Church’s traditional teaching on sexuality, but that in the course of the conversations everyone, including those with ‘teaching authority’ in the Church, should be able to express their views ‘openly and honestly’ (even if these views are at variance with the Church’s traditional teaching) (Recommendations 11 and 12).
While wanting the Church to continue to uphold its traditional teaching for the time being the majority of the working group also took the view that the Church should not only honour those with same sex attraction who have ‘embraced a chaste and single life style’ but also those ‘who in good conscience have entered partnerships with a firm intention of life-long fidelity.’ (Recommendation 13). While a formally authorised liturgy for this purpose would be inappropriate, ‘a priest, with the agreement of the relevant PCC, should be free to mark the formation of a permanent same-sex relationship in a public service’ (Recommendation 16).
Finally, the majority report suggests that the facilitated conversations should ‘explore’ the Church of England’s discipline that clergy, unlike laity, may not enter into same-sex sexual relationships, that the same assurances about their personal lifestyle should be sought from all ordinands regardless of whether they are single, married or in a Civil Partnership and that ‘intrusive’ questioning should be avoided. (Recommendations 15 and 18)
Why this approach is problematic
There are a number of reasons why the approach taken in the Pilling majority report is problematic. First, it relies on a distorted view of the Anglican tradition. The Anglican approach to ethics, like the Anglican approach to theology in general, has not been focussed on ensuring that different voices have their say. It is true that Anglicans have developed a ‘conciliar’ approach in which the Church as a whole, through representative bishops, clergy and laity is consulted about developments in faith and practice. However, as Canons A5 and C15 make clear, the criteria for deciding truth is not the voices of various different groups within the Church, but the teaching of Holy Scripture as witnessed to by the orthodox Fathers of the early centuries and by the ‘historic formularies’ of the Reformation period (the Thirty Nine Articles, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal).
Secondly, it is wrong to say that the existence of conflicting convictions and beliefs about sexual ethics is in itself a reason for the Church of England to be cautious in what it says about the implications of biblical teaching for homosexual practice. Throughout its history from the earliest times onwards (see Acts and Galatians for example) there have been competing convictions and beliefs within the Church and it has been the calling of those with responsibility for deciding the Church’s belief and practice to make decisions about which of these have been in line with Scripture. What the Church of England is facing today is thus a challenge the Church has always had to face and it cannot shy away from it. It has to decide what Scripture says and act upon it.
Thirdly, as the Pilling report itself acknowledges, the Church of England and the Anglican Communion has clear existing teaching about sexual ethics (see Paragraphs 101-122). This teaching, that sex should only take place within hetersosexual marriage and that same-sex sexual relations are sinful, reflects the teaching of the Church as a whole over the past two thousand years, but the Pilling majority report now says that we cannot be sure that this teaching is true. If we ask why this is the case, the answer we are given is that looking at science, or social trends, or biblical scholarship, or theology shows that there are ‘divided views’ about sexual ethics. What the report does not do is to give a clear account of these divided views or present a proper critical analysis of them. To convince us that the Church of England cannot rely on its existing teaching it would need to say that these views call this teaching into question for these reasons, but it doesn’t do so. The one attempt it makes at this is in the chapter ‘Arguments about Scripture,’ where it suggests that we cannot be sure about the translation of the biblical words for homosexuality, that we cannot be sure that the Biblical writers about homosexuality were describing the same phenomenon as we encounter today and that the first two chapters of Genesis allow us to reach different ethical conclusions about
sexuality. However, as the dissenting statement points out, these suggestions are not backed with persuasive arguments or relevant evidence and so do not carry weight.
Fourthly, the report is inconsistent. It says that those who signed up to the Pilling majority report believe that the Church of England should continue to abide by its existing teaching. Yet they also contend that we have no good reason for believing that this teaching is true, set out a sexual ethic that departs from this teaching in important ways, and propose that the Church of England should undermine this teaching by permitting the public liturgical celebration of same-sex unions. (Incidentally, by moving away from the Church’s traditional teaching in this way, the report has already further damaged relations between the Church of England and a number of other parts of the Anglican Communion).
Fifthly, the report does not explain how the proposed ‘facilitated conversations’ will help the Church of England to discern the will of God with regard to sexual ethics. How can listening to other people and their views help us to achieve this unless it is accompanied by the sort of serious and informed study of the Bible and the Christian tradition for which the Pilling majority report makes no obvious provision? What the Church of England has to do is not simply listen to different voices but test them to see if they are of God and this demands intensive and critical theological work.
Recommendation 2 in Paragraph 490 says that the facilitated conversations should ‘continue to involve profound reflection on the interpretation and application of Scripture,’ but this appears to be a late addition to the report (compare the original recommendation 2 in paragraph 83 where these words are absent). The importance of such reflection, how it should work in practice and how it should be resourced are never addressed in the body of the report.
One response to this criticism might be to say that the whole point of the facilitated conversations is that they will be an open process which will allow space for fresh ideas and perspectives and therefore we cannot prescribe in advance how they will work. However, if the facilitated conversations do indeed produce fresh ideas and perspectives these will need to be rigorously tested to see if they are truly from God and for this to happen a serious and informed study of the Bible and the Christian tradition will still be required. It is therefore vital that any arrangements for facilitated conversations put in place by the House of Bishops make proper provision for this to happen.
Sixthly, and most importantly, the Pilling majority report offers no assistance to people experiencing same-sex attraction and yet who wish to live true to orthodox teaching. It does not offer them any help, or support, or any reason to go on struggling against temptation. For this reason it is a profoundly un-pastoral document and one that will not help the Church of England in its mission to the nation.
A better way
The dissenting statement by the Bishop of Birkenhead offers a better alternative to the majority report.
First of all, together with the Bishop’s account of the biblical material contained in Appendix 3 of the Pilling report, this statement gives a clear and persuasive account of the biblical basis for the Church of England’s existing teaching on sexual ethics.
The statement notes that if the New Testament passages relating to sexuality are read in their historical context what ‘is striking is the universal expectation that Christians will be different in their sexual behaviour from their pagan neighbours.’ (Para 436) The reason for this expectation is that:
‘The first Christians believed that a distinctive pattern of sexual behaviour was an integral part of Christian discipleship because they believed that the one true God, the God of Israel, had lovingly created human beings to be sexual creatures who would come together in marriage as men and women in joyful obedience to the first command (‘be fruitful and multiply’).’ (Para 437)
In the light of this belief the first Christians, following the teaching of Jesus himself, taught that Christians, as those who have died with Christ in baptism and risen to a new life with him (Romans 6:1-11) have to learn to ‘say ‘no’ to all forms of sexual sin, both in terms of sinful thoughts and in terms of sinful behaviour.’ (Para 442 referring to Matthew 5:27-30 and 1 Thessalonians 4:3-4)
It is this understanding of the requirements of Christian discipleship that has led the Christian Church from biblical times onwards consistently to teach that living the resurrection life ‘involves the restriction of sexual activity to the context of marriage between one man and one woman. All other forms of sexual activity (whether heterosexual or homosexual) are to be rejected by God’s people as incompatible with their love for God.’ (Para 443)
The importance of this account of the biblical material is that it shows that the rejection of all forms of homosexual activity in Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:10 is not an isolated departure from the main thrust of the biblical message, but is rather a consistent outworking of the overall biblical conviction about how God has created human beings to be his image bearers in the world (Genesis 1:27-28) and how he has made this vocation possible once again in the face of human sin through the saving work of Jesus Christ, by whom creation has been renewed. It also shows that the motion on sexual ethics passed by the General Synod in 1987 rejecting all forms of sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage is in line with biblical teaching. (Para 444)
Secondly, with reference to the story of Greg, a same-sex attracted man who married and had two children, the statement explains that resistance to same-sex attraction is possible and sets out the theological reasons why such resistance is critically important:
‘Jesus teaches that love and obedience go together in the gift of God and the gospel. Loving as he loved means keeping his commandments (John 14:15). The structures of sexual relationships given by God in creation and re-affirmed in the law and the gospel are given because of love, love for us and for all life which will come into the world because of such love. Whatever our attractions, the key is whether we have heard and responded to Jesus’ words to receive eternal life. Such life comes from receiving his washing, receiving him and doing what he says: “Abide in me as I abide in you” (John 15:4). There will be pruning and much fruit. Greg’s story witnesses to this, and not just because of Margaret, Rob and Jenny, but because, he says, in learning that Jesus’ words applied to sexual attraction he learned they applied to everything else in life too. In today’s culture, it is not easy to insist on self-denial. We have been seduced (as the Prologue to the Report explores) by popular philosophies spinning the illusion that the uninhibited expression of our desires (‘being who you are’) is the key to human flourishing. It is claimed that for healthy psychological development a commitment to sexual abstinence is neither possible nor desirable. But the Christian gospel insists that we are fallen creatures, the ‘devices and desires’ of our hearts having been deeply corroded and corrupted by sin. Christian discipleship, in all areas of life, whether same-sex desire, ‘heterosexual’ desire, or other non-sexual desires, is always a call to radical submission, discipline and re-ordering of our errant desires in the way of Christ. This, I believe, is the key to human flourishing according to the gospel.’ (Paras 429-30)
Thirdly, the dissenting statement offers the Church of England a ‘better vision,’ a vision which calls on the Church to offer love and pastoral care to all people without compromising the teaching of Holy Scripture. To quote the Bishop’s words in full, the hall marks of this better vision are that:
‘a. It affirms God’s love and concern for all, whatever their sexuality, recognising we are all sinners whose only hope is in the love of God shown to us in Jesus Christ and poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit..
b. It seeks to be marked by love, truth and grace in ongoing debates, repudiating and regretting all attitudes and actions which victimise or diminish people whose sexual attraction is directed towards people of the same sex or towards people of both sexes.
c. It commends marriage as an institution lovingly created by God in which one man and one woman enter into an exclusive relationship for life, believing this to be the only form of partnership approved by God for sexual relations and thus the only form of sexual partnership that properly expresses love for God.
d. It encourages churches to be safe spaces where everyone, including those with same-sex attraction or bisexual attraction, is able to share and explore his or her story with fellow believers for mutual encouragement and support as we help each other grow together into maturity in Christ.
e. It commends and encourages all who experience same-sex or bisexual attraction and have committed themselves to chastity by refraining from homoerotic sexual practice, welcoming as leaders those of them God calls to ordination.
f. It supports all those who responsibly seek to help Christians who experience sexual attractions in conflict with their commitment to live in accordance with biblical teaching, encouraging the church to offer all Christians counsel and pastoral support to live a chaste life.
g. It calls on churches to welcome and accept all, whatever their sexuality and whether or not they follow the church’s teaching on sexual behaviour, in the hope that, like all of us who are living outside God's purposes, they will come in due course to see the need to be transformed and live lives of loving obedience in accordance with biblical revelation and orthodox church teaching.
h. It calls on churches not to be conformed to the prevailing sexual culture, but to seek to resist and transform it so that both the church and wider society will flourish by more closely reflecting God’s standards in their beliefs about sexuality and their sexual behaviour.’ (Para 488)
Fourthly, the statement ends by calling on the Church of England to be willing to pay the cost of living by this vision:
‘Because our society increasingly rejects limiting sexual intercourse to marriage and sees any opposition to homosexual practise as morally reprehensible, if the Church of England were to commit herself afresh to this vision then there would undoubtedly be strong criticism. Like Christians in many other contexts we would have to learn to be confident in holding beliefs that many in our society did not share or even understand. Dissent within the Church of England would also likely continue, but a process of facilitated conversation framed by this vision would give plenty of opportunity for honest debate and the confronting of the sins of homophobia of which the Church must repent. But fidelity to God’s way means learning in our own generation what it is to carry the cross (Mark 8:34-38). ‘When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die’ said Bonhoeffer. Death is never easy, but being willing to accept the criticism that this approach I am recommending will attract is, in my view, an unavoidable part of being faithful to that call and thus an unavoidable part of our loving obedient response to God’s love for us. Jesus loved us to the end and, as he loved us, he calls us to love one another.’ (Para 489)
It is the path of radical and uncompromising discipleship set out in this paragraph, and not the confused and compromising approach advocated by the Pilling majority report, that is the right way for the Church of England to respond to the challenges of bearing faithful witness to British society in the twenty first century.
‘
