A response to the House of Bishops’ announcement of a review of its Guidelines on Human Sexuality
A contribution to the debate:
This review followed a year of conversations chaired by the Bishops of Lincoln and Bath and Wells, commissioned by the Archbishop of Canterbury, with leaders of the Lesbian and Gay groups in the Church of England.
The following are to be noted.
1. In the first paragraph of the announcement of the review, the developments that are cited as having taken place since the Guidelines were first issued in 2005 all point in the revisionist direction: “a number of clergy are now in civil partnerships. The General Synod decided to amend the clergy pension scheme to improve the provision for the surviving civil partners of clergy who have died. More recently Parliament has decided that civil partnerships may be registered on religious premises where the relevant religious authority has consented."
2. The second paragraph states: “We recognize that bishops and clergy have found ways of engaging pastorally with those in civil partnerships, both at the time of registration and subsequently.” What is meant by “subsequently”? Does this mean that bishops and clergy are blessing civil partnerships in contravention of the law, which states that civil partnerships must not have any religious element to them?
3. The paragraph also states that “Within Anglican theological tradition our theological thinking is formed by a reasoned interpretation of Scripture, within the living tradition of the Church informed by pastoral experience.” This statement does not give any priority to Scripture contrary to its position in the Anglican formularies.
4. “The House believes there is a theological task to be done to clarify further our understanding of the nature and status of those partnerships.” Why was this task not undertaken in 2005 when their Guidelines were first issued? Why is it only being called for now when further developments have already been put in place?
5. Paragraph three says that the review of the 2005 statement “will be undertaken in the context of the Church of England’s teaching” . Why will it not be undertaken “consistently with” or “while upholding” the Church of England teaching? “It will be consistent with the approach taken by the Anglican Communion in Resolution 1.10 of the Lambeth Conference 1998 and subsequently.” What does “subsequently” mean? What the primates asked for “subsequently” to Lambeth 1.10 with regard to TEC was not heard. Lambeth 1.10 is now only referred to with reference to the “Listening Process.” What does “consistent with” the approach of 1.10 mean? The word “subsequently”further obscures it.
6. The statement then notes the issue whether “clergy who have registered civil partnerships should be eligible for nomination to the episcopate…. the review will need to take account of the legal analysis set out in GS Misc 992 (Choosing Bishops –The Equality Act) during 2012” which will clearly be the framework.
7. Though the statement refers to the context of the 1987 resolution of General Synod, it goes on to quote General Synod resolution in February 2007 commending “continuing efforts to prevent the diversity of opinion about human sexuality creating further division and impaired fellowship within the Church of England and the Anglican Communion.” In other words it is the House of Bishops’ view that approval of homosexual behaviour is not a dividing issue.
8. It is intended “to draw together material from the listening process which has been undertaken within the Church of England over the recent years in the light of the 1998 Lambeth Conference resolution.” Every reference to the 1998 Lambeth 1.10 focuses on the listening process, which was never part of the intention of the 1.10 resolution but has been read into it and wished on it as though the clear declaration of Lambeth 1.10 was subject to further discussion.
9. A review about nominations to episcopate will be completed in 2012 and then a consultation document for a more general review will be made available in 2013. It is clear that the way is being prepared for a partnered or active homosexual priest to be made a bishop following the report of 2012 prior to a general review in 2013. The general review may well be done in the face of a fait accomplit. It ought to be said that nothing of this kind could be done before the more general review.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
