Having read through Archbishop Justin’s presidential address carefully several times it seems to me that he makes two major points in it. The first is that we need to be a church marked by love rather than fear, and the second is that as this sort of church we need to be a place where people will seek to ensure the flourishing of those with whom they disagree. The Archbishop sees these points as applicable both to the issue of the ordination of women to the episcopate and to the issue of human sexuality.
In what follows I want to raise critical questions about each of these points.
First of all, is it right to see fear as always being a bad thing?
Taking his cue from the statement in 1 John 4:18 that ”˜perfect love casts out fear’ the Archbishop consistently sees fear as something negative which we need to allow God to overcome in us. I have two reservation about this approach.
My first is about his appeal to 1 John 4:18. If you look at the context of the words which he quotes from 1 John 4:18 you will see that the Apostle John is not talking about fear in general, but about a very specific form of fear, the fear of the judgement of God on the last day. What the Apostle is saying is that as Christians filled with God’s love we should not fear the judgement.
The specific nature of what the Apostle John is talking about means that this verse cannot be taken as a blanket rejection of all kinds of fear. This is particularly the case as the Bible elsewhere depicts fear as perfectly legitimate. Three examples will serve to illustrate the point…
….
What these examples show is that some forms of fear are entirely legitimate. In his address Archbishop Justin notes the fears of those on the conservative side in the Church of England and the wider communion who are concerned about where the Pilling process will lead the Church of England in terms of its belief and practice with regard to sexuality. He rejects that fear, arguing that we cannot find a way forward on this issue on the basis of fear.
This brings me to my second reservation. I do not think that the fear by conservatives about this issue to which he refers can or should be set aside. If there is a possibility that the Pilling process will lead to the acceptance of same sex sexual activity in the Church of England (and there is) and if, as the Bible and the Christian tradition have consistently taught, such behavior is a serious sin which if not repented of will exclude someone from the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) then there is every reason to be afraid of the outcome of the process. As we have seen, St Paul was fearful that the Corinthian church would fail to repent of the ”˜impurity, immorality and licentiousness which they have practiced’ and those on the orthodox side who are concerned about the Pilling process share exactly the same sort of fear.
………
If we move on to the issue of sexuality the question which arises is whether allowing those with whom we disagree to flourish means accepting that arguments for accepting same-sex sexual relationships form a legitimate part of the spectrum of Anglican theology and that being part of such a relationship, or marking such a relationship liturgically, are legitimate forms of Anglican practice.
The issue which has to be decided is whether the analogy of the position that the Church of England has taken over the ordination of women suggests that this should be the case. This is the direction in which the Archbishop’s address seems to be taking us, but I do not think it is correct. This is because the teaching of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion, and behind that the teaching of Christian tradition and of the Bible itself, all point to the fact that the acceptance of same sex sexual relationships is not, and cannot be, a legitimate part of the spectrum of Anglican belief and practice.
As Canons A5 and C15 point out, the Anglican theological tradition is rooted in the teaching of the Bible and the teaching of the Fathers that is in agreement with the Bible. Neither of these sources allows space for the acceptance of same sex sexual relationships. There is thus no space within Anglican theology to permit such acceptance.
I thought these questions were pretty solid. (The answer was less so.)
Q12 With regard to the College of Bishops‟ request to the Archbishops to commission the design of (i) a process for facilitated conversations on the subject of sexuality, involving profound reflection on the interpretation and application of Scripture, and (ii) additional materials to support and enable them, will the Chair of the House of Bishops give assurances that the design will ensure that:
• the process will not be a “one way street†intended at the outset to lead to a change in the church‟s teaching or pastoral practice concerning sexuality or marriage;
• the primary purpose of the conversations will be to enable participants‟ views to be clearly articulated, heard and understood, rather than to change participants‟ views;
• the conversations will be professionally facilitated in a way which does not steer them to any particular conclusion;
• the conversations will not be premised on the proposition that scripture is not clear about these matters; and
• participants who believe that scripture clearly teaches that having sexual relationships, otherwise than within the marriage covenant between one man and one woman, is not consistent with Christian discipleship will be free fully to articulate and explain that view?