 |
|
2. Background
2.1 In 1994, following the usual assessment procedures, two synods each accepted for ministerial training a person who openly announced that he was homosexual by orientation. In one case he was committed to a partner in a longstanding relationship. In the other, the candidate made clear his openness to the possibility of such a relationship. The issue reached national consciousness in the church when Westminster College, Cambridge, sought the advice of the church. The Board of Studies of the college asked that the policy of the church with regard to the ordination of persons in a homosexual relationship be clarified. In so far as the General Assembly had never debated the matter, it was decided to begin a process which would lead to the Assembly reaching a mind on this issue.
2.2 In October 1994, the General Assembly's Mission Council set up a Task Group to work out a process whereby the United Reformed Church can be enabled to hold an informed debate on the matter of human sexuality and come to a decision on the implications for ministry within the church . The Group encouraged the publication of pamphlets expressing different views on the subject. The intention was to start a debate within local churches. In 1996 a paper was circulated by the Task Group to local churches, district councils and synods. Although it was not a formal survey, an analysis of the responses was undertaken in order to assess the attitudes of the different councils of the church. 29% of the churches representing 42% of the membership responded, as did 43% of the district councils and all the synods. The Task Group also gathered information about the attitudes and experiences of other parts of the church within the UK and elsewhere in the world.
2.3 In the light of this response the Task Group prepared a report for the March 1997 meeting of the Mission Council. This offered a number of options with regard to its recommendations to the General Assembly. At the Assembly in July 1997, the Mission Council proposed three resolutions. The first (Resolution 17), recognising the serious nature of the issues and noting the lack of agreement, called on the Church to remain united. It also urged the councils to be sensitive in applying the pastoral practice and discipline of the church. This resolution was carried.
General Assembly 1997
Resolution 17
Assembly recognises;
a. the seriousness of the issues of human sexuality and their implications for acceptable behaviour and lifestyles among Christians, and
b. the lack of agreement in the responses
submitted to General Assembly by local churches, District Councils and
Provincial Synods concerning aspects of the contemporary debate on human
sexuality and the teaching and application of scripture;
1. believes that these disagreements, though serious, must not be allowed to injure the unity and peace of the United Reformed Church ; 2. encourages local churches, District Councils and Provincial Synods to apply with wisdom and sensitivity the pastoral practice and discipline set out in the Basis of Union and Structure of the United Reformed Church, in a way which respects the rights of personal conviction and which does not override conscientious decisions in these matters nor use such decisions as a reason for breaking the fellowship of the United Reformed Church;
3. calls on those who exercise pastoral care of members, elders and ministers in the Church to seek ways of ensuring that all those who experience rejection because of their convictions in these matters are sustained within the fellowship of the Church held together by Jesus Christ
2.4 The second (Resolution 18) began a process of discussion and reflection of which this report is the outcome. This resolution also was carried. The Mission Council at its meeting in October 1997 set up four Working Groups each responsible for the four issues mentioned: the nature of biblical authority, the relationship between the authority of the General Assembly and other councils, the ordination of ministers in committed homosexual relationships and wider issues of human sexuality. A Core Group was charged with the oversight of the four Working Groups and with reporting to Mission Council in March 1999.
General Assembly 1997
Resolution 18
Assembly,
a. the nature of Biblical authority for the life of the church;
b. the relationship between the authority of General Assembly and the other Councils of the Church;
c. the matter of ordination and human sexuality, including the implications of ordaining ministers in committed homosexual relationships;
and also to consider ways in which the Church may be assisted in reflection on the wider issues of human sexuality. To enable this process Assembly asks Mission Council to establish a timetable for these reflective processes and ensure appropriate representation on necessary consultative groups and working parties.
2.5 The third (Resolution 19) proposed a way of dealing with the situation during the interim period while the work in response to the second resolution was undertaken. This resulted in a long debate. When finally it was passed (324 voted in favour, 189 against), 69 members of Assembly gave notice of their dissent from the decision. This was the beginning of a period of significant pain and anxiety for many members of the church on every side of the debate.
General Assembly 1997
Resolution 19 Assembly
a. recognises
1) that no candidate admitted for training can be assured of ordination until a call is issued and accepted with the concurrence of a District Council;
2) that all decisions on candidature and on the calling of a particular minister involve seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the weighing of the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate.
b. declares concerning persons in a homosexual relationship that, during the process of further reflection and discussion set out in the previous resolution:
1) no local church or pastorate is to be constrained to consider or accept such a person as their minister nor any District Council constrained to concur with such a call;
2) Assembly will uphold a call to such an ordinand or minister, duly issued by a local church with the concurrence of the relevant District Council(s), leading to ordination and/or induction;
3) Assembly will also uphold the refusal of a local church to call as their minister a person who is in a homosexual relationship;
4) In view of these options, the fact of a homosexual relationship shall not be the ground for rejecting a candidate for ministry during the process of selection, assessment, entry to a college or course and ministerial training.
c. resolves that in the case of a disagreement wherein a local church still wishes to call such a person, when a District Council has refused concurrence, the relevant Synod, through an appropriate committee or commission, shall seek to secure agreement, failing which the appeals procedure can be applied.
d. instructs the Ministries Committee to produce guidelines for the application of this decision in the cases of non-stipendiary ministers.
2.6 For church members who themselves are gay or lesbian, the mere suggestion of the disapproval of their orientation and its resulting lifestyles is a deeply offensive rejection of their faith and Christian commitment. This is aggravated by the contrast with society's increasing acceptance of those who are openly homosexual. Many have lived for years with the implications and fears of rejection by family and society; some have known extreme loneliness and insecurity. Therefore the whole debate in the church they love and serve has aroused in them emotions swinging violently from the hope of full acceptance to the fear of total rejection. The pain for them has been real.
2.7 However Resolution 19, covering the interim period, committed the General Assembly to support the decision of the local pastorate whether to reject someone on the grounds that they were in a homosexual relationship or to call them in spite of being in such a relationship. The resolution also ruled that such a relationship did not, in itself, allow a council to bar someone from acceptance for ministerial training. In effect, this committed the General Assembly to support a decision to ordain a person living in a homosexual relationship.
2.8 From the beginning this decision proved to be divisive. The pain of those opposed to this step, though different from that experienced by gays and lesbians, was deeply felt. Some resigned their membership, others led their churches to consider secession, some ministers and their families felt betrayed and anxious about their future in a church which they now saw as having changed radically. Moreover Resolution 19 raised, by implication, other contentious issues, for example: sexual behaviour in general, questions about ordination, the meaning of holiness etc. It also pointed to different understandings and interpretations of the Bible and exposed the tension between people of different theological positions. There is, in addition, a difference in acceptability between the generations. Questions are also raised for parents struggling to accept their children's sexuality. Some people have been obliged to face up to their own experience of a long spiritual struggle as they have avoided the sexual behaviour associated with their own orientation and in some cases have lived in a heterosexual relationship or, on principle, remained celibate. For them the Assembly decision was a betrayal by the church of their faith and commitment. Where this experience has been coupled with a particular interpretation of the Bible, their pain has been real.
2.9 This ferment in the church has been paralleled by the changes in western society. Some have interpreted such changes, with the greater openness and acceptance of gay and lesbian relationships, as a sign of a more mature and healthy society. Others have interpreted such changes as a media-led conspiracy leading to the break up of ordered and decent society. This cultural context affects Christian attitudes for good and for ill.
|