On the question of homosexual clergy, same-sex blessings etc, my mind is not fully made up. I tend to be influenced by the most recent thing I have read, but slowly some things are tending to solidify. So I thought I’d set out some propositions, which represent my present thoughts – all of which are more or less subject to modification as time goes on.

1. The Anglican tradition does not accept sola scriptura. Scripture is the supreme authority, but mediated by the tradition of the church and our own reason. The church has the authority to amend the teaching of Scripture. The prototype for this is Acts 11, but modern examples would be the abolition of slavery and the acceptance of women’s ministry. Therefore it seems to me that the church has the capacity to change the inherited tradition on this question.

2. Whilst there is room for a little ambiguity with particular passages, the uniform voice of the tradition taken as a whole is that a) sexual behaviour should be restricted to the context of marriage between a man and a woman; b) that rectal intercourse is a sin.

3. Covenants between members of the same sex have a Scriptural basis (1 Sam 20 16+17) and have been frequently practiced in the Christian tradition, eg in medieval monasteries. I think it is a live question whether it is permissible for such covenants to be sexual.

4. I think that much discussion of this issue is bedevilled by an equation of, firstly, a person with the label ‘homosexual’, and secondly an identification of ‘homosexual’ with ‘one who practices rectal intercourse’. The first of those I see as anti-Christian, the second I think is a simple mistake. I think it coherent to maintain 2b) above, yet not see that as a knock-down objection to widening 2a) to include the ‘faithful, committed, long-term, covenant partnerships between members of the same sex’. I am assured by medical colleagues that in fact 2b) is more common in heterosexual relationships than homosexual. I also wonder, at the end of the day, just how important a sin is it? On a par with smoking?

5. ECUSA have moved forward in accordance with their statutes etc, as accepted by the Windsor report. What they have not done is respect the wishes of the wider communion. There is therefore a legitimate question of authority, which we are presently working through. Yet those who seem most vocal in attacking ECUSA’s stance seem also to reject 1. above. Despite their disregard for their fellowship in the communion, therefore, ECUSA seem more recognisably Anglican than the more extreme voices ranged against them.

6. I expect the Communion to split. I expect there to be a new conservative evangelical (Anglican-derived) communion centred with +Akinola. I expect the CofE as a whole to remain in communion with ECUSA.

7. I’d rather be in a church which welcomed gay people than one that didn’t. I have worked alongside many gay people, clerical and lay, and enjoyed working with them. I don’t see this as an issue on which communion should be broken.

8. I may well be wrong on all of this. Fortunately I believe in a God of Grace, so I don’t have to earn my way to heaven.

The best books I have read on the topic are:
A Question of Truth, Gareth Moore OP
Strangers and Friends, Michael Vasey
and
Faith Beyond Resentment, James Alison

– in other words, the testimonies of three gay priests. I think, most of all, the church must take seriously the command to listen, and their voices would be a good place to start.

I am finally provoked into writing something by the details of the goings-on in Michigan with a priest named Gene Geromel (details at Thinking Anglicans.)

I’ll begin with a comment about Gandhi. Gandhi was very clear that the path of non-violent resistance would mean breaking laws. He was also very clear that the non-violent resister must never reject the right of the society to enforce their laws, (by sending the resister to prison) because if the legitimacy of laws as such were called into question then the only consequence would be anarchy, swiftly followed by a rule of the strong, and then all that the non-violent resister desired would be undone. I suspect this is the sort of attitude that underlies Paul’s comments in Romans as well. In other words any resistance has to understand its context, and not be mindless in its opposition. Rather the opposition must be clearly focussed, otherwise it turns into a battle of wills and power, and not a search for the truth, which respects the humanity of those with whom the disagreement lies.

Now in an episcopal church, ie one which accepts an historic handing down of apostolic authority to people called bishops, the primary locus of social authority is the Bishop. The Bishop is the focus of unity in the faith; the Bishop’s role is precisely to uphold apostolic teaching. Where there is dispute over what that teaching consists in, the Bishops have the primary role in resolving those disputes. Furthermore, the Bishop is, within their own diocese, the sole legitimate authority, particularly with regard to the Eucharist. In other words, no priest can celebrate the Eucharist within a diocese without the permission of the Diocesan bishop. (That is, within a particular church or communion. That isn’t a point about a bishop having jurisdiction over any other denomination – although in Anglican terms that’s quite an interesting question).

In the presenting issue afflicting our church, that role of the Bishops has been called into question. One of the major ways in which the body of Bishops has sought to move forward is through ‘delegated episocopal oversight’ – in other words, if a particular priest or congregation cannot in conscience accept the ministry of their bishop then the relevant bishop allows another bishop to act in his stead. I happen to think this a disturbing principle, but be that as it may, it seems to a) retain the proper episcopal lines of authority, and b) express the desire to remain in communion with as many fellow Christians as possible.

Where this possibility is rejected, then the honourable course would seem to be to leave the episcopal-type church. For if the oversight of the Bishop is rejected as such then the whole communion is also rejected at the same time. You can’t reject your Bishop and still belong to an episcopal church – it’s a contradiction. It is exactly what Gandhi was cautioning his followers against – you can reject specific elements, but you have to accept the structural process or else the whole project collapses.

Now from what I understand this is exactly what has happened in Michigan. The relevant bishop would seem to have gone out of his way – FAR out of his way IMHO – to ensure that a particular parish priest and congregation could be catered for, in good conscience. Except that the particular priest didn’t seem to accept the logic of what I have outlined above – and so the dispute continues.

Yet what has now happened is that half a dozen other bishops have recognised this priest as a minister in their dioceses. I can’t imagine a more fundamentally anti-episcopal act.

So the church split has arrived. ECUSA first, the worldwide communion next. Perhaps we’ll all end up joining Rome or Constantinople.