Other Links

Revd Rose Barrett, Revd Stephen Brown (Convener), Mr Philip Burroughs, Revd James Breslin, Revd John Humphreys, Ms Kirsty Thorpe (Secretary), Revd Janet Webber and Mr Bert Worrall

The current discussions have revealed sharply divergent views about the extent to which certain patterns of sexuality and sexual practice should constitute an absolute ban on ordination to the ministry. Two related issues are the extent to which expectations of ministers of word and sacrament differ from those of church members in general, and the extent to which expectations of ministers differ from those of elders.

The group should reflect on the following questions:

a) what does it mean for an ordained minister to be called to a holy life?

b) how far should an ordained person be expected to be a "role model" in his or her personal relationships, and for whom, inside and outside the Church?

c) should the Church publicly recognise committed homosexual relationships, and if so, how?

d) could ordination to the ministry be considered in the absence of such recognition?

e) should a distinction be drawn between relationships involving sexual activity and those which do not?

f) what would be the implications of ordaining ministers who might not be acceptable throughout the Church?

g) if persons in committed homosexual relationships were ordained to the ministry, how would the Church's understanding of fidelity in sexual ethics be maintained?

The Group should make use of the Doctrine, Prayer and Worship Committee's Statement on Holy Living to General Assembly, 1997 and the statement on ordination accepted by Assembly in the Patterns of Ministry report 1995.

The working Group came into being in January 1998 and met on fourteen occasions until January 1999. We had to discover a method of working and began by brainstorming all the issues we felt might be covered by our remit (see 5.1 below). Many corresponded with the specific questions given us by the Core Group, but additionally we discussed "ordination" at some length. All members of the Group were given the chance to write brief papers on each of them, so that we have been regularly confronted by our similarities and differences of approach and experience. Early on in the process we reviewed all the major pieces of work in the area of human sexuality which have emerged from our own and other mainstream British denominations in recent years. Our first meeting included an act of covenant together for the journey ahead, and our worship continued to reflect this.

The Group has been committed throughout to seeking the mind of Christ, in the confidence that God has a will and purpose for our church. We were conscious of standing in the Reformed tradition, declaring "the Word of God in the Old and New Testaments, discerned under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as the supreme authority for the faith and conduct of all God's people". The conviction that God's Word is alive for us and can be discerned with the Spirit's guidance has constantly motivated our work.

One issue that has exercised us is why the question of homosexuality and ordination has become such a central one for the contemporary church. It sometimes seems as if where one stands on this question is the primary test of orthodoxy for a Christian today. Although we have sought to explore the question with thoroughness and commitment, we still wonder whether the church is not doing itself severe and unnecessary damage by singling out this issue. We would hope that at some point in the future, the church might set a larger context for what makes Christians distinctive and different in their life style. Homosexuality belongs with pacifism and usury as issues that highlight important differences between Christians but not such significant ones that they necessarily lead to schism. We long for the day when distinctiveness of Christian lifestyle is seen as something more than one's attitude towards sex, and when Christian commitment to justice and peace command more attention in a materialist, violent world.

We were conscious from the outset of the enormous variations in meaning which lie behind our use of words. It was this that prompted us to spend several sessions on the meaning and significance of ordination (See section 3 below). But where words such as sex, sexuality, homosexuality are used the scope for misunderstanding is very great. There is a danger of using unhelpful language to categorise what we perceive to be one another's views. For instance, in the necessary consideration of sexual immorality, some people focus solely on 'abuse' and 'perversion' and accuse their opponents of legitimising promiscuity, while others accuse those who take a hard line of being legalistic and judgmental. Consciously or unconsciously we use language to put other people into categories and to express unhelpful and damaging stereotypes.

It was vital that early on we agreed that for us the discussion was about homosexual relationships which were comparable in love, commitment and faithfulness to those which we understand in Christian marriage. There is no suggestion of validating same-sex partnerships (or heterosexual ones) other than these. The question is whether such same-sex relationships are blessed by God or condemned by God, with the secondary question of whether there are different standards for ministers, elders and church members.

In such a difficult debate for Christians, where people fear deep division, it is right to try to be clear about what unites us. When the emphasis is so easily put on division, it is necessary to remind ourselves of our unity under our one Lord Jesus Christ. Being part of the body of Christ brings with it a grammar or discipline of obedience, that is, an obligation to listen to other Christians who have gone through as demanding a process of discernment as ourselves on an issue and come to different answers. The point when we say to one another "We don't need you any more" is the point when the body of Christ is wounded. We need to be open to the movement of the Spirit of God, yet we need to recognise that none of us comes to a debate such as this with full and genuine openness. This requires great humility. We must not assume that any plea for greater openness to God necessarily comes from those who seek change. We all need honestly and repeatedly to seek the mind of Christ through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, whether such inspiration reaffirms views already held or moves us to a different persuasion.

We found that, through our long process of exploration and discovery, although some of our differences were just as great at the end, we grew in the intensity of our commitment to and respect for one another, and became more and more aware of the grace of God at work in each other. We are convinced that there is no substitute for personal encounter. Discussion about people who are "them" is very different from being required to substantiate arguments face to face, and the presence in our Group both of a lesbian living in partnership and of a founder of the group BASIS, among others, gave us all a profound experience of committing ourselves to talking and listening to those far from us in outlook and theology. We believe it is necessary to experience the pain and frustration of deep disagreement, as people committed to God and one another in the search for truth, in order to reach such a point of mutual respect. This may not change opinions, but it moderates language and forces us to see the unity we share. So we advocate the method we have tried to follow, of recognising points of agreement as fully as possible and setting out points of disagreement honestly and openly (see 5.4,5.5 below)

Any discussion of the morality or otherwise of committed same-sex partnerships needs to grow out of a basic grasp of the ethics of sexuality in general and even more broadly of the ethics of relationships. For Christians the starting point is our understanding of God's nature and covenant relationship with us through Christ. In him God's love is made clear to us through the quality of Jesus' relationships with the people he met, and his atoning death on the Cross.

It is as Christians absorb, and are transformed by, the love of God that our human relationships become selfless and Christlike, symbols of the love of God for humanity. It is because some Christians recognise such Christlike love in committed and faithful homosexual partnerships (as we all would in faithful marriage and faithful friendship), and because some gay and lesbian Christians believe their partnerships to be God-given, that debate has arisen. Others disagree, for while the ethical practice of sexuality is a question for everybody and not just those of a homosexual disposition, many Christians believe that any physical expression of homosexual love is abhorrent to God and contradicts God's creative purpose. What is the truth?

There is proper disquiet about certain expressions of homosexuality, where people parade their sexuality in what seems to some a very aggressive manner - but this applies to blatant heterosexuality as well. Homosexuals can be the scapegoats onto whom people place all their dis-ease about imperfect relationships. Physical expressions of love are accepted as entirely private to the couple concerned in heterosexual practice. In same-sex relationships, uneasiness over the tastefulness or otherwise of the physical expression does not justify condemnation any more than the affirmation of lesbian and gay Christians of their sense of God-givenness in their partnerships justifies unquestioning acceptance of their moral probity.

The debate about the biblical view of what is or is not an abomination to God in terms of sexual practice would be wrong to dismiss the witness of those committed homosexual relationships which exhibit the kind of gentle and compassionate love that reveals God's closeness. Much discussion relating to Ordination and Human Sexuality has already revolved around the promise made by ministers at inductions to "lead a holy life", and so we devote a section to reminding ourselves of this issue (see the Statement of the Doctrine, Prayer and Worship Committee to General Assembly in 1997 for a fuller account).

One other point needs to be made, namely that if the denomination were to rule against the ordination of practising homosexuals we would be creating a unique category of exclusion. Infidelity is one of a number of sins within relationships that contradict holy living. Some of these might be the subject of subsequent disciplinary action, but none are enquired about a priori when someone is candidating for ministry. Were we to agree that homosexual activity is sinful, there is a danger of a legalistic system making it an unequal sin, as if it were totally different from all other sins in relationships.

The Working Group discussed the Doctrine, Prayer and Worship committee's statement on Holy Living to the General Assembly 1997 (Resolution 21) and its attempt to determine holiness with regard to the church and the believer. Mention is made of several useful biblical texts and the Group would reiterate the point in 4.6 which states: ‘God's gift of grace in Christ and God's demand for "holy living" are inextricably linked.’ The committee's statement stresses the nature of the covenant relationship with God. In the bible, this covenant relationship is witnessed to in a variety of ways and identified in very varied contexts, at different times in biblical history. The living out of the holy life in the bible is not static or uniform in its particularities. The new covenant is one in which, in the words of a child describing communion, we are invited ‘to go with God - to meet him’. The new covenant in Christ demonstrates God's challenge to human beings and communities to live in relationship with him particularly as the covenant is worked out on the frontiers of human life. The Group saw two distinct ways of appreciating holiness which led us to identify two questions needing theological answers: ‘What does it mean to be holy?’ and ‘What does it mean to live a holy life?’

Christian holiness arises out of a relationship with the holy God (Lev 19:2: ‘You shall be holy for I the Lord your God am holy’.) Further, we are ‘partakers of the divine nature’ (2 Pet 1:4) and we ‘share in his holiness’ (Heb 12:10). Indeed, the character of a holy people should reflect the very image of Jesus Christ in all its facets: ‘be conformed to the likeness of his Son’ (Rom 8:29) and ‘be...holy in all your conduct’ (1 Pet 1:15).

God’s commitment to our holiness is expressed in personal terms by Jesus who sanctifies himself for our sake so we can be sanctified/made holy. The close connection between holiness and the committed relationship signified by covenant is evident. Through the grace of God, holiness is ‘imputed’ to the believer, in the sense of being credited to us. We are not holy but God makes us holy. A people, a nation and a church in a relationship with God, who is holy, will be holy too. God knows the creation to which he relates as holy. It is the challenge and responsibility of discipleship to give expression to what God sees and feels as he looks on creation and the lives of individuals. God is able to impute holiness into each culture, history and individual. Neither the individual nor the community can be holy unless they listen to God with heart, mind and soul. Holy life is a continuing obedience to this listening. The obedience will shape the listening, and the listening the obedience. Essential to holy living is obedience to the call upon the believer's life. This is the 'state' of always being called, as the incarnational God continues to lead creation to be and live the holiness that is his decision and gift. Holiness is not one fixed goal or destination. Pursuit of a genuine obedience to discipleship ensures that the expression of being holy cannot be a constant but is discovered as life goes on.

To live a holy life means that individuals and communities are always responsible to God to ensure that the listening and obedience are constant and authentic. Our response to this gift of holiness from God is to be open to the process of sanctification. As we turn towards a process of relationship with God, we recognise and discover the willingness and desire of God to work in and transform the believer.

In the process of sanctification, God’s willingness to work in and with the believer will be shown by their transformation into the likeness of Jesus Christ. This should not be taken merely as a point of arrival, but is in essence a continual point of departure as the thrilling and awesome enormity of God's holy being is imputed to the believer and transforms him/her and his/her community.

The Group recognised that although there are different perceptions of sin and sinfulness, the essence of sin is to threaten a relationship with God. Sin denies and puts from view the character of God and works against love, justice, mercy, righteousness and grace. It is an obstacle between the believer and community and God. Sin prevents people from fulfilling their particular potential as human beings. The Group discussed the role of the Holy Spirit in the sanctification process: the purifying, the cleansing, the renewal; all are part of the ongoing process through which the character of Christ becomes reflected in the believer and community.

The Group agreed that there could not be a checklist of rules for holy living. Any attempt to create such a list could give rise to a new Pharisaism. Lists can be static and can excuse the believer and community from the responsibility to be obedient to God, substituting the possibility of a lively relationship with God for the likelihood of burdensome "yokes" that suffocate the work of the continually creating Spirit; but the biblical rules regarded as guidelines can be positive and inspiring.

Furthermore, there is much guidance in scripture on how to live as a consequence of being part of a holy people. The Group used Colossians 3 as an example: Paul exhorts believers to ‘put to death’ certain activities belonging to their earthly nature, and to ‘clothe themselves’ with unifying virtues. These 'lists' are not prescriptive and vary in style, content and context. They are principles or reflect principles towards which the believer is guided through the process of sanctification.

The Working Group decided to base its discussions about ordination on the official position of the United Reformed Church, as contained in the ‘Basis of Union’ and the ‘Structure of the United Reformed Church’. This meant discounting certain understandings of ordination held by many in the world-wide Church and some in the United Reformed Church.

The Group began with the understanding of ordination in the ‘Basis of Union’: "The United Reformed Church recognises that Christ gives himself to his Church through Word and Sacraments and through the total caring oversight by which his people grow in faith and love, the exercise of which oversight is the special concern of elders and ministers. Those who enter on such ministries commit themselves to them for so long as God wills: the United Reformed Church having solemnly acknowledged their vocation and accepted their commitment shall appoint them to their particular ministry and give them authority to exercise it within the Church, setting them apart with prayer that they shall be given all needful gifts and graces for its fulfilment, which solemn setting apart shall in the case of ministers and elders be termed ordination." (Basis of Union paragraph 20).

This builds on the statement of the 1645 ‘Form of Church Government’, that ordination is "the solemn setting apart of a person to some public church office". The Group saw the value of a comment by Martin Cressey in the Journal of the United Reformed Church Historical Society Sept. 1997: "‘Ordain’ is seen to take its meaning from the noun that follows it; ‘ordaining’ an elder does not therefore have the same implications as ‘ordaining’ a minister of the Word and Sacraments." The group considered at length the implications of ordaining both elders and ministers.

The 1995 questionnaire circulated to Synods and Districts on Human Sexuality asked about attitudes towards practising homosexuals under three headings. One question related to ministers, one to "leaders" (which most people took to mean elders) and one to "church members". As only 29% of churches replied the answers were too few to be statistically valid but the exercise clearly showed members have different expectations of church members, leaders and ministers in this matter. Over a third of the churches which responded would accept homosexuals as members, and the figure rose to 47% if those homosexuals were celibate. Only 12% would elect active homosexuals to leadership roles, and 9% were willing to call a practising homosexual minister.

The group debated the validity of having one standard of behaviour for ministers and another for elders. Both were ordained, and held significant positions in church life, so why should people expect different things from them? Clearly, being ordained to ministry of Word and Sacraments was not the same as ordination to eldership within a local congregation, but did that difference of role have any bearing in this matter? Despite holding a range of views covering both high and low doctrines of eldership and of ministry, the group eventually agreed that on the question of Ordination and Human Sexuality treating ministers and elders separately could not be justified. The duty of "showing forth the Christian lifestyle to the world" fell equally on them both.

Without presenting detailed scriptural arguments, which are being made elsewhere, the passage in I Timothy 3 is relevant. Few modern ministers can claim to match up to the details of the duties and character of the bishop and deacon but verse 7 is particularly applicable: ‘moreover he must be well thought of by outsiders, or he may fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.’ The Church may well ask what it means to be well thought of by outsiders today.

There is some pride in the United Reformed Church that one of its predecessors, the Congregational Union, first ordained a woman in 1917 and though the Presbyterian Church and Churches of Christ took longer to act they both recognised that there was no theological bar in the 1920's. The example of Constance Coltman has been cited on several occasions and on both sides of the debate. However the United Reformed Church of today is very different from the Congregational Union of 1917. That fact explains some of the anxiety being expressed in the church in the present debate. In the case of Constance Coltman it was apparent that some churches would not recognise her ministry. That option is not open to us in the United Reformed Church now that ordination carries universal recognition throughout the denomination, (although some opposition to the ministry of women still exists). A minister ordained by a District Council is thereby, at least in theory, recognised by the whole church as one of its ministers.

A closer parallel to the current debate might be the case of Ella Gordon, ordained in 1956 as the first Presbyterian woman minister, or Margaret Taylor, ordained in 1963, the first woman minister in the Presbyterian Church to require training before ordination. There, procedures were followed which ensured that there was a general acceptance by the whole church of what was being done. In these cases the ordination was inescapably valid for the whole church.

What is significant about the ordination of women is that the church looked again at particular biblical texts and argued that other scriptural passages, and the whole tenor of the scriptures, permitted what seemed at first sight to be forbidden. It is this exercise, whose conclusions remain uncertain, which the church is engaged in today with regard to the ordination of homosexuals in committed partnerships.

Three elements have traditionally been required for ordination in the Reformed Churches. They have not always been given equal weight and for long periods one or more has been reduced to a formality. In the United Reformed Church today, though, we expect any candidate for ministry first to have had a call from God, (sometimes called a sense of vocation). Once this call has then been recognised by the wider Church in several stages the third element is the call of a local congregation.

It is worth describing how recognition by the wider Church is obtained. Any member of the United Reformed Church offering for the ministry of the Word and Sacraments must have the support of the local church meeting, the District Council and the Synod before beginning training. Before being accepted by their Synod, all candidates attend a meeting of the Assembly's Assessment Panel, which makes a recommendation to the ministries committee of the relevant Synod. How the provincial committee proceeds is a matter for each individual Synod. Some interview candidates and come to a preliminary conclusion before seeing the views of the Assessment Panel. Others interview while already aware of the Assessment Panel's views. After acceptance by the Synod (and in cases where Assessment Panel and Synod are unable to come to a common mind the Synod’s decision is final) a candidate for ministry starts a training course.

Successful completion of the training for stipendiary ministry leads to the award of a leaving certificate which enables the ordinand to be introduced to a local pastorate with a view to receiving from them a call to ministry. The congregation(s) must feel that God has called this man or woman to be their minister and express this by a considerable majority. The District Council which will ordain the new minister must concur in such a call. Non-stipendiary ministers are not always called in this way but may be appointed to chaplaincy or sector ministry.

The issue of how a personal call from God is experienced retains an element of mystery. In the current debate some in the church deny that God can genuinely call homosexual men and women to ministry while others cite examples of this happening. A similar debate persists in those parts of the Christian Church that oppose the ordination of women. Women are told they must be mistaken about God’s call since ordination is barred to them. Others reply that God calls whom he wills. Every member of the Group had to accept the possibility that if the church decided to disallow the ordination of practising homosexuals some men and women might be denied the opportunity to respond to a call from God. This would cause pain, though it might be needful for the greater good of the church and a closer obedience to God’s will as discerned in scripture.

Ministers and elders make certain promises at their ordination and again when inducted into office. The ordination and induction of some elders predates the URC so they have not made the Schedule B affirmations. There are very few ministers, however, who have not responded positively to ‘Do you promise to live a holy life, and to maintain the truth of the gospel, whatever trouble or persecution may arise?’ This question is not put to elders, who are asked if they will ‘seek to do and to bear his (Christ's) will all the days of your life?’. The group agreed that part of ‘living the holy life’ is to do with questions of sexual ethics. The proposition that ‘all Christians are called to a life of chastity’ at first sounded conservative but finally became a point of agreement. It was important to distinguish between ‘abstinence’ and ‘celibacy’. Celibacy, it was agreed, should be defined as a particular vocation, a gift from God. Abstinence is refraining from sexual intercourse.

For heterosexual ministers the obligation to live a holy life either means marrying or abstinence. It was much harder to see what the choices are for homosexual ministers though promiscuity is clearly not an option. The group differed over whether committed, exclusive, same-sex relationship can be equivalent to marriage. Three views of marriage and partnership were put forward.

a) Marriage is a civil contract recognised by church and state for the good of society. Cohabitation is incompatible with ministers living the holy life.

b) Marriage is a personal contract between a man and a woman, and although state or church recognition are valuable they are not essential. People who cohabit faithfully, long term, can lead the holy life.

c) As (b) but also applied to same sex partnerships.

The question remains about what it means to undertake to "live a holy life" and what constitutes a failure to do so. Not all ministers have always lived up to the standard of ‘in marriage chastity, and outside of marriage abstinence’. Asserting the ideal but accepting a lower standard of practice would leave matters unresolved.

From the earliest days of the Reformed Church candidates for ministry have been checked for suitability both in terms of doctrine and character. In the group, disagreement persisted over whether it is possible to see a faithful, loving, same-sex partnership which may include a physical relationship, as acceptable in terms of character. Biblical and other evidence from the traditional teaching of the church and from recent medical science was examined but no clear consensus was obtained.

Some argued that biblical condemnations of homosexuality do not apply today, either because they refer to a different kind of homosexual activity, or because modern insights into human nature enable us to depart from the biblical authors on this matter. Others argued that the ‘Potestas ministerii’, the authority and right of the church in teaching and discipline, is limited to those things which Christ did and said. Since the scriptures do not permit homosexual practice it is forbidden and represents an absolute barrier to ordination. The Group could not resolve this difference.

The group has explored the ecumenical arena both in the British Isles and overseas, with sister churches cited on both sides of the argument. Two major North American churches of the Reformed family, the United Church of Canada and the United Church of Christ in the USA, have pronounced in favour of the ordination of homosexuals. Others, most notably the Presbyterian Church of the USA, have found against. None of these decisions has been unanimous. Some denominations are grateful that the URC is wrestling with this issue and hope to learn from us.

One problem in seeking guidance even from sister Reformed Churches is a lack of clarity on the role and function of the minister. There are those who say the primary role of the minister is to represent Christ to the people. They assert a representative function in a way that demands a considerable degree of moral and spiritual probity. (Although even here it is important not to fall into the trap of Donatism, where the validity of the sacraments is predicated on the righteousness of the ministers.) Equally there are those who say the role of the minister is to represent the people to Christ. For them, questions of ‘worthiness’ become less important. Ministers are collectively seen as representing the church in its wholeness, including amongst other groups black and white, male and female and different types of sexuality. ‘Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry’, the World Council of Churches 1982 statement, does not help. It assumes a particular model of ministry which many churches including our own questioned, and further work promised on this question has never been done. The major churches of the world continue to struggle with questions of human sexuality and ordination and even where they have found answers these have not been totally accepted.

The group consciously chose to consider issues of human sexuality, and homosexuality in particular, only when the members had developed a sense of mutual trust and respect for their differences. To begin with each person was invited to summarise on paper what they meant by sexuality and by homosexuality. This exercise at once revealed two points on which agreement was possible. The first was a shared dislike of the tendency to equate all reference to sexuality with the issue of homosexuality. This means that heterosexual expressions of sexuality, both healthy and perverted, never come in for serious consideration so producing an unbalanced debate. A second tendency is that of limiting our treatment of sexuality to considering genital acts only. The more the group considered the nature of human relationships, and the gender issues associated with them, the more strongly it emerged that there is a sexual element present in all human contact. It may never be recognised, or openly expressed, but even in so-called platonic relationships people offer one another their time, concern and attention in ways that cannot be neatly separated from their whole personality as sexual beings. The limitation of our understanding of human sexuality to apply to purely physical expressions sidelines consideration of the emotional and psychological aspects of our sexual make-up. We are far more than purely physical creatures and if talk of our sexuality gives no space for people to acknowledge this then we run the risk of detracting from one another’s God-given dignity and worth.

Having identified two major points of unity within the group we soon found ourselves clearly divided. Some differences were eased by considering the language we use in the debate, and the ways in which homosexual partnerships do not receive the same treatment as heterosexual ones. Other differences were harder to reconcile and emerged from the variety of ways in which we approach scripture.

The Resolution 18 process needs people to have a clear understanding of what is meant by terms such as ‘sexuality’ and ‘homosexuality’. In fact, it is very doubtful whether such an understanding exists, even amongst those involved in the process. The Reports for Portsmouth General Assembly 1997 said: ‘An active homosexual relationship might be defined as a relationship involving sexual contact with a person of the same sex. This is the sense in which the term 'homosexual relationship' is used in this report and in the resolutions.’ [Book of Reports, p 46]. Such a definition has encouraged the tendency for people to speak only of genital activity when the word ‘sexuality’ is used, a narrow view which may not have been originally intended at Portsmouth. Secondly, people have assumed the debate relates to any homosexual relationship, not just those which are long-term, committed and loving .

What is at issue is whether committed, loving homosexual relationships can be compared to heterosexual marriage, provided the couple remain loyal to one another. Before looking at the rights and wrongs of particular relationships, or asking whether same-sex partnerships can be valid in God’s eyes, we first need to identify whether commitment and faithfulness exist in homosexual partnerships. It is not easy to compare committed same-sex partnerships with marriage because their circumstances differ and homosexual partners have no public equivalent of a marriage ceremony.

Another problem in comparing heterosexuality and homosexuality derives from the unequal way in which people often consider the two. The defining of sexuality purely in terms of genital contact may explain why some people see homosexual relationships so narrowly, unlike the way they look at heterosexual partnerships. To describe someone as ‘homosexual’ often becomes the main thing to say about them and other aspects of their personality, gifts or achievement are disregarded.

No single outlook can claim the monopoly in terms of being biblical. There are Christians who would describe themselves as ‘Bible believing’, but who would come to starkly divergent conclusions about the ethics of a homosexual lifestyle, based on their reading of the biblical witness. One clear difference of approach to answering a question is between those who turn first to scripture, those who look to the tradition of the church, and those whose searching begins by looking for signs of God at work around us now. People working in any of these ways might claim to be taking scripture seriously but could also disagree about whether a particular piece of biblical teaching applied absolutely to all places, times and situations or not. If we set aside texts we need to be clear about the principles on which we do so. As Reformed Christians, our way of reading scripture critically means always starting from and referring back to our understanding of God in Jesus Christ.

As well as being aware of how we read scripture now, it is also important to consider how the bible gives examples of scripture reading scripture. Texts are constantly being re-worked within the canon of the bible, and different interpretations are held within a sort of internal debate. Ezra and Nehemiah, for instance, were both concerned to reform marriage, basing their arguments on Deuteronomy chapter 23, yet Ezra’s definition of whom a Jew could marry (Ezra chapter 10) was a good deal narrower than Nehemiah’s (Nehemiah chapter 13). The group discussed instances of scripture reading scripture in the life of the Early Church but acknowledged that this issue lay within the remit of another working group.

The traditional reading of Gen 1.26f stresses the complementarity of male and female but it was suggested in the group it could be complementarity of persons. If the complementarity of persons were the main theme it might be argued that complementarity in same-sex relationships reflects the image of God. In the two creation stories (Genesis 1:1-2:4a and Genesis 2:4b-25) man is for woman and woman for man. Song of Songs, Proverbs and Psalms offer further suggestions that heterosexuality was the accepted norm, both within and outside marriage (the Song of Songs was possibly outside marriage).

The scriptural references that we have to homosexuality - in narratives (Gen 19, Judges 19); in the Levitical Code (18:22, 20:13); in Paul's account of a society set against God or people set against God (Rom 1:18ff, 1 Cor 6:9f and possibly in 1 Tim 1:8ff) - are all condemnatory. Given that these passages were written for different situations the context of each needs examining to see whether the homosexuality is the same as the relationships considered in our debate, for if not the condemnation may not apply. Jesus affirms heterosexuality as the norm in his teaching on marriage and is silent on the issue of homosexuality. Matthew 19.4-6 talks of monogamous heterosexual union as in some sense ordained by God. Some would say that Jesus re-affirms a divine command which excludes anything but abstinence. In response to Jesus’ teaching it could be said firstly that a norm need only be just that. Secondly, to move on from affirmation of the norm to condemnation of other behaviour is an argument from silence. Paul wholly condemns homosexuality, yet arguably refers only to one type of homosexuality, so the particular language used deserves close scrutiny. At one point he advocates marriage to help deal with the distractions of desire but still praises those who refrain from marrying, and his view seems to alter according to the community he is addressing and his anticipation of the second coming of Jesus.

The nature/nurture debate looks, amongst other matters, to genetic makeup in its deliberations. A recent paper by Dr. Iain Frew cited a wide range of research world-wide suggesting a link between gene change and so-called "true" male homosexuality (as opposed to bi-sexuality). The question is whether genetic variance is a mutation of perfection, a flaw in creation, or part of that varied creation. Heterosexual physical lovemaking is made possible by creation. Same-sex partners also express their love physically in genital ways as part of the emotional and psychological love they feel. However many would argue that male/female distinctions point to heterosexuality as the norm and find same-sex physical acts un-natural.

To acknowledge that there are variations from a norm, especially if some are possibly seen as sinful, raises questions of our understanding of creation and the story of the 'Fall'. A number of approaches could be taken.

If we believe in a primal state of perfection we can argue that a fall from grace due to human disobedience introduced distortion, including dysfunctional sexuality, into creation at every level. The genetic account of homosexuality can be used to argue for fallenness at the level of DNA, a thoroughgoing distortion of the created order. In that case the 'true' homosexual condition is, like an illness, an imperfect condition to be treated. If no choice is involved it is difficult to talk of sinfulness however. We say people who contract cancers are victims of the way the world is. (Analogies of blindness, leukaemia and cancer suggest sickness or deficiency. That is not the way many people perceive homosexuality but the analogies can enable fruitful reflection in this discussion).

If we do not believe in primal perfection, we may say:

1. God deliberately created the world with inbuilt disorder - disease and sorrow as well as health and joy.

2. Creation is continuing. Eden-like perfection is an ideal of relationship to strive towards. (In which case why is the starting point less than

perfect?).

3. God is not wholly in control. This could suggest God is compromised by weakness and other forces or affirm that in granting free will to humanity God deliberately accepts some limitation, even endures suffering. In God’s creation disease, sorrow and disobedience are possible - otherwise there is no morality and no love or choice.

4. God is in process so the whole of creation is on a journey of becoming.

God is sovereign over the whole creation. Isaiah 45.7 suggests God is ultimately responsible for everything. In that case God must be responsible for the homosexual condition. Or could it be that God has taken responsibility for certain things even though not in fact responsible for them.? Consideration of Isaiah 45.7 should be done in the light of the whole of the witness of Isaiah. The expectations in chapters 40-55 of a triumphant return from the Babylonian exile were not fulfilled. Those chapters require to be heavily re-interpreted by chapters 55-66. Taking Isaiah as a whole, the bible does not understand God as ultimately responsible in the way Isaiah 45.7 suggests. Perceptions of God's presence and guidance need continuous re-interpretation.

The account of the Fall seeks to explain either wilful human disobedience to the demands of loving justice or the conflict between what we think is God's intention and the facts we find about us or within us. The roots of sinfulness are perceived in the poetic prose of the story. The emphasis is on sin and the whole of creation is seen as being corrupted in the Fall. So thoroughgoing is the fallenness that it pollutes all God had made and pronounced as ‘good’ in the first story of creation. People see manifest sinfulness as evidence of this Fall. The pleasure, celebration and virtue of the original close communion with God have been lost to be replaced by pain, sorrow and sin.

Resorting to arguments based on genetics does not fully and finally explain human behaviour, for the way we express our sexuality is not morally neutral. The genetic argument can be slippery because it allows us to avoid accepting moral responsibility for our actions. The relationship between natural predisposition and personal choice is complex, as is the question of predisposition and sin. Choosing to be the way we are naturally predisposed to be may not be a sign of virtue. The group agreed people's gender and sexual orientation are not a choice. One may, however, choose to contradict a natural inclination. The givenness of the way we are is the starting point everyone has in working out our discipleship but we also have choices. Choice needs to be involved if we say sin is a reality. Sin is wrong because it damages relationships with God, with one another and with ourselves. It could be held that homosexuality is not a good starting point but that good can come of it if people form loving, faithful, same-sex relationships.

Chastity is mandatory for everybody. For heterosexual people a traditional Christian understanding suggested there are two choices: i) to live faithfully with one person or with more than one if the first union ends in divorce or death; ii) abstinence. If a person's predisposition were homosexuality there was no choice but abstinence. Though sexual activity is not always necessary for finding fulfilment, there could be said to be a contradiction in the way some people are restricted from full expression of their sexuality because of being created homosexual. This restriction is not imposed in the same way on heterosexuals who are no more responsible for being created in the way they are than homosexuals. Some would respond it is mistaken to see life in terms of natural justice, to do with rewards, punishments and fairness. They would cite examples of congenital disability as other ways in which people are restricted. The question was posed whether a same-sex relationship that was committed and loving but involved no genital activity was non-sinful. If this were so would we need to ask specific questions about genital activity of all ministerial candidates?

Time and again Jesus deals with people’s potential rather than the problem they seem to represent to others. This does not deny that in embracing outcasts, Jesus calls them to discipleship and change, as he requires of all who are called. His whole way of living and relating to others is a contradiction of that strand of Christian thinking which is suspicious of sex. Such a suspicion suggests reticence about the creation that God pronounced as ‘good’ whereas Jesus was happy to touch and engage with people of all types and conditions. However we consider creation as ‘fallen’ from grace, the Word of God taking Flesh eloquently shows that the world matters to God. If we take the example of Jesus seriously we cannot drive a wedge between our physical relationships and our spiritual lives, retreating into sinful suspiciousness about our bodies or trying to maintain our souls in saintly detachment.

The focus of our debate is relationships that are committed and loving and our ethical measure is the level of commitment presumed in the vows of the marriage service. Marriage is a model or sign to the community, particularly in demonstrating commitment and self-giving love. The theological potency of marriage is the opportunity to see in the couple's love something of the love of God, in Christ, for the world. It could be argued that relationships in general can act as models and signs to the wider community and if so then homosexual partnerships showing fidelity and love could perform this role as well as any other. The powerful imagery of relationships within the Trinity is a model of human relationships at their best, held together by love in mutuality and shared concern with no use of power to coerce another. The question is whether same-sex relationships, and marriages, where talk of procreation for instance would be entirely inappropriate, are precluded from being potential reflections of the Trinity. It is a truism to say some marriages are poor adverts for the married state, and that some other relationships can be unhelpful, damaging signs and symbols both for those within and those outside them. Marriage is not always a positive sign and symbol any more than relationships in general (including homosexual ones) are always negative signs.

When the Group alighted on the distinction between ‘difference’ and ‘disorder’ in the created order many felt we were getting close to the heart of the matter. Some people begin from what they see as the created norm where man is for woman and woman for man, with physical union clearly intended by the complementary design of our manifest genital physical differences. Others highlight the naturalness some gay and lesbian people experience in their union, including its physical aspects. The question is whether anything different from the created norm is, per se, disordered. Value judgements of what is better or worse, valid or invalid, often come from deep emotional conviction when they also need to deploy deep, consistent theological arguments. Theological argument that is totally out of touch with feelings and emotion is also unbalanced. Equally, to suggest that something is unacceptable merely because of being different from the norm, is to question the whole tradition of the prophets.

Until recently left-handedness was viewed as a definite disorder, bringing with it a sense of suspicion, exclusion and alienation. It is now accepted as a ‘given’, representing no inherent disorder apart from that we imposed on it by our sinister suspicion. Sexuality as a ‘given’ is possibly more akin to handedness than to a condition such as blindness, though the biblical witness and the possibility that our bodies were not made for union with same-sex partners may point in the other direction. Some argue from the fact of homosexual people finding fulfilment through committed, loving, monogamous relations that homosexuality is not a natural bar to such fulfilment, the argument from physiological differences notwithstanding.

The difficulty is deciding what is creative difference and what is disorder against Creation. The ‘disorderedness’ of women's ministry has turned to difference because, as happened over slavery, a greater openness and honesty to the scriptural witness occurred. It is possible that a re-examination of the witness would lead to an understanding of homosexuality as simply different. If such a re-examination is undertaken it might be that the outcome would either be a realisation that homosexuality is not completely ruled out or precisely that it is. Commitment to be open to the Spirit speaking through scripture, when the whole of the scriptural witness is in focus, means we cannot prejudge the conclusion of that search. Heterosexuality can clearly be both functional and dysfunctional. The debate is whether this can also be the case with homosexuality.

The Group agrees that for some people homosexuality is a given over which they have no choice but disagrees about God’s responsibility in that. We agree everyone has responsibility for how they give expression to their relationships and the choices they make.

There is clear difference across the Group - differences of approach to the bible and different conclusions drawn from following the same guiding principles. We talked about the validity of relationships and found ourselves using expressions such as "valid but not equally valid". Assuming we are all prayerfully committed to seeking the mind of Christ and being guided by the Holy Spirit, the inescapable question is whether different answers are possible. The dilemma of living with difference has to be faced. In an essay on The Limits of Theological Freedom in ‘Bible and Belief’ (SPCK 1991) Leslie Houlden asks:

who can arbitrate between conflicting claims to be faithful to the tradition and to be following the Spirit? And who can be sure when exactly Christian identity is left behind, in past, present or future? But there is a modified and perhaps equally religiously mature sense in which we may learn from the Johannine situation: that is, we are to trust God as we make our conscientious judgements in the statement of theology, but without being too anxious about our correctness or validity; for correctness and validity are less applicable in this area than theologians have often believed and hoped. If we need to give ourselves advice in the present situation, we might say simply: more thought, less fear. (p.26).

A considerable number of people in the church are experiencing significant pain, confusion and sorrow in this debate. This is in no small measure due to our having studiously and irresponsibly avoided any teaching on, discussion about or even mention of, sexuality over a period of generations. It is rather analogous to the position of a church building which has had no maintenance over many years. Suddenly the walls start crumbling and the roof threatens to fall in. We cannot be surprised that so much anguish has been caused by the church having to face issues about which it has been silent for so long.

Our discussions over the meaning of terms revealed strongly that everyone comes to this debate with some prior understanding. Neutrality is impossible. It is essential to admit this is the case and so to honestly recognise our prejudices and predispositions. Any honest and heartfelt search after truth must acknowledge the potential hurdles in the way. This difference of opinion within the denomination need not compromise our unity, for unity within the church is not the same as uniformity and the Christian church has never been uniform. Differences of theological outlook have been, are and always will be present. They allow debate and give fruitful insights to deepen understanding. Mere reference to tradition or to the need for change, unsupported by theology, is not the basis for debate. When we recognise, affirm and celebrate what unites us then our lack of uniformity can be seen from a strong position of mutual respect for fellow travellers on the road to truth.

The Christian church has always exhibited plurality in practice and in theology, both within denominations and between denominations. The challenge is to distinguish those differences in theology and practice which, creatively held in tension, might be mutually enriching from those which are disordered, destructive and inconsistent. We have lived with deep differences in theology and practice since the formation of the United Reformed Church. We do not normally recite creeds or require formal assent to them by members and this may contribute to a lack of uniformity but it is not true that being in the URC means believing what you like. Our ability to live with our differences of theology and practice is not a reason to avoid exploring the sexuality question, for on this ‘agreeing to differ’ without exploring the issues will not do.

Our thoughts on holy living strongly suggest a journey as a very helpful image, since this helps us to think of a lifelong process rather than a perfected ideal beginning from the laying on of hands at an ordination. Inescapably, this Christian discipleship journey is undergirded by an obedience to the call of God which involves the hallmarks of self-denial and a taking up of the cross. Holy living goes on within the individual and within community, and involves both listening and obedience.

Refs. 2.2 and 3.5

b) how far should an ordained person be expected to be a 'role model' in his or her personal relationships, and for whom inside and outside the church?

The Group saw it as inevitable, whether right or not, that ordination entails becoming a 'role model'. However much we might suggest that all Christians share a representative responsibility, there is still a significantly greater expectation laid on those who are ordained. The Group differed in its view of the degree to which ordained ministers are seen as significant in wider society. Ministers may be portrayed as negative 'role models' when accused of sexual misdemeanours, but they rarely seem to be positive 'role models' on matters of justice and peace. The Group found it very difficult to distinguish between expectations of ministers of Word and Sacraments and expectations of elders in the area of morality, except in the way ministers are commonly perceived as attracting more attention. Ministers are seen as representing the Church in its wholeness both to the world and to the local church.

Ref. 3.2

Time and again the Group found that the lack of an act for publicly recognising homosexual relationships meant comparison with conventional heterosexual marriage was inherently unbalanced (it might be said balance is impossible because the relationships are fundamentally different, but the Group always tried to start with what is similar and unites before considering possible difference). Question c) is not restricted to homosexuals seeking ordination. It asks whether homosexual relationships of the kind in view in this debate should receive some liturgical, public recognition. It would be unwise to institute any service of recognition for same-sex relationships that was open only to non-ordained people since this would suggest a theologically suspect double-standard.

We have taken pains in this process to deal only with those homosexual relationships that are comparable in their commitment and love to a conventional marriage. If we officially stated that publicly unrecognised homosexual partnerships were suitable for ministers this would be introducing a double standard. It is unlikely that an unmarried, sexually active, heterosexual minister would be allowed to live in the minister's house with his/her partner, although when a cohabiting couple come for marriage some would acknowledge their existing commitment rather than suggest the relationship was in any way disordered. Problems emerge in trying to compare very different situations. Marriage exists in a climate of affirmation and celebration. Same sex partnerships exist in a climate of disregard, devaluing and denial. If homosexual partnerships were to be ritually affirmed, some people would see this as advocacy or legitimising of homosexuality, while others would regard it as a recognition of God's grace. (We noted that the United Church of Christ USA has concluded that practising homosexuals can be ordained to the ministry without such a public rite of recognition of the relationship)

The Group has been careful to avoid defining the term "sexuality" narrowly. We would want to say that all relationships are sexual relationships, since the term refers to a complex set of interactions, only some of which are expressed in genital activity. In this remit question the phrase 'sexual activity' clearly refers to genital activity. Behind this question is the suggestion that a celibate same-sex relationship might be considered suitable and appropriate for a minister where a non-celibate same-sex relationship might not. Although the distinction between orientation and practice is one way of dealing with the existence of homosexuality the distinction is more easily stated than put into practice. We might ask whether any expression of homosexual love, short of genital activity, is to be proscribed on biblical grounds or if there are expressions of affection that might be permissible. The impossibility of legislating in this way without repeated intrusive questioning is clear.

Ref. 4.2

f) what would be the implications of ordaining ministers who might not be acceptable throughout the church?

The Group thinks this situation pertains already in an unofficial sense. The procedure of Call allows distinctions in acceptability to be hidden from clear view. Nevertheless some congregations are reluctant to accept the ministry of a woman, or a young minister, or an older minister, or one with a particular theology or worship style. Universal acceptability of ministry is not a current reality. Some congregations may officially declare themselves against homosexual ministers while others might officially declare themselves in favour. Still others would use the process of Call to express their feelings through a vote at church meeting on a potential candidate.

Ref. 3.3 and 3.4

The Group's view of relationships as covenant (see 5.3) gives a measurement of fidelity independent of sexual orientation. An ethical expectation of committed homosexual relationships would be the same as that looked for from married heterosexual ministers. If homosexual relationships are not a bar to ordination it would be hard to object to some celebratory rite of public commitment. This is when vows of fidelity are made in heterosexual marriage and might be an appropriate point for homosexual partners to do the same. Were such a rite not instituted, or at least envisaged, then the possibility of unmarried cohabiting heterosexual ministers arises. If we do not expect or require a public commitment to sexual fidelity for homosexual ministers in relationship then we can hardly insist on it for heterosexual ministers.

The denomination would also need to consider its position if a homosexual minister's committed, officially recognised relationship broke down, either during or after their retirement from active ministry. Guidelines might be needed for practical questions such as housing and pension rights. Equal treatment of heterosexual and homosexual ministers could also require a revision of ministerial discipline to apply in all cases of alleged infidelity.

As a Group, we have opened up a large number of questions and issues and travelled a long way along the road of debate and discovery. Even so our findings are inconclusive. This may be an indication to the denomination of the way forward. This is not to suggest that we need to live with permanent difference but it does caution that drawing conclusions too readily and easily may exclude the Spirit of God. Some people who are longing for a conclusion to this process may feel let down by the lack of a definite answer. The alternative, that of drawing conclusions for their own sake rather than in response to perceived truth, would be a betrayal of our Lord who called those blessed who hunger and thirst after righteousness. This is a complex matter which requires loving and dedicated attention over a long period of time. To those who might say the Working Groups were supposed to be doing this work on behalf of us all, we would recommend to the whole denomination that people engage in an unfolding process of encounter comparable to that which has been so valuable for us.

An example of the influence of culture in this century in Britain, has been the movement of women in church and society towards equality in what has been a male-dominated society. This has emerged from our culture, although we now recognise a biblical affirmation of greater equality, particularly in the attitude of Jesus to women. Culture and biblical criticism interact. Culture must not be allowed to dictate to us, and must always be judged against scripture, but we recognise that it can reveal the wisdom of God.

An example of the effect of scientific discovery is the work of Galileo and Copernicus, in revealing that the sun did not revolve round the earth, thus posing serious questions for the Church, which feared for its own authority, since a different reading of Genesis so plainly contradicted official teaching. The Church had to come to terms with scientific discovery by seeing that the truths in the Genesis creation stories can only emerge when we cease to treat them as science.

These examples show how advances in science and changes in culture can require new understandings of biblical texts. Modern insights about human sexuality cannot be dismissed out of hand even if they provoke a searching re-examination of key passages. Unless we re-examine texts (alongside evaluation of scientific and cultural insights), we cannot re-state their timeless fundamental principles or identify their contextually bound nature.

The debate about the relationship of gospel and culture remains lively. There is understandable concern that God is seen as increasingly irrelevant and sidelined by culture or society. For some, the answer lies in engagement with our culture and society, based on informed dialogue between scripture and our contemporary context. For others, our focus must remain within the church since culture and society are considered to be purely human constructs. It may be that God is going ahead of us and aspects of modern culture and society are God-inspired.

When covenant principles are broken in the story of the people of God those people are exiled from God's presence and receive God's judgement. The expression of sexuality as a covenant relationship between two people should reflect the covenant relationship of God with his people, marked by a mutual commitment. That is not possible in relationships where there is exploitation but it does seem possible in relationships where there is a mutual commitment: a coming together of like-minded human beings finding shared fulfilment in relationship. The close link between covenant and holiness was noted in the section on holy living.

It is clear, of course, that where there is sexual exploitation of minors, of subjugated women or any of a number of abusive relationships, that is reprehensible. These relationships defy the gospel message about denying self, being a servant of all and not lording it over others. It is important for biblical studies to ask if the homosexuality proscribed in the bible was similarly exploitative since the whole church community agrees that abusive relationships are not acceptable. There are lines to be drawn and parameters to be described. The Resolution 18 debate is not the beginning of a slippery slope to validating every kind of sexual activity for that would be a betrayal of covenant commitment and faithfulness. People who claim a right to fulfilment through expressions of sexuality that respect neither themselves nor others need to hear our strong opposition.

Relationships that are creative and contribute to the fabric of society can be celebrated. Mutual self-giving, mutual commitment and a level of personal sacrifice are inspirational and in some way mirror the unconditional love of God in Jesus Christ, who embodies the new covenant fulfilling the law and prophets.

Since Creation in all its diversity in some way reflects the Creator then those things that mitigate against the Creator and the Creator's relationships with Creation are necessarily disordered. In this sense adultery is disordered since it breaks covenant, compromises trust, involves deception, and encourages promiscuity. The question is whether such a judgement applies to the homosexual relationships in view here. There is a distinction between relationships that are merely different from the norm and disordered ones. Where do homosexual partnerships fit into these categories? (Ref: 4.8)

Within the church generally, the opinion has often been voiced that this debate is the thin end of a wedge, so acceptance in the area under consideration would presage all kinds of slackening in moral rectitude. It is precisely to counter such an argument that the Resolution 18 process has clearly defined the ethical measures for relationships under consideration. For the same reason this Working Group talks of relationships in terms of covenant. The whole church should share the fear of any slackening in moral rectitude. None of us is at liberty to dispense with morality as some outmoded or outdated concept and it would clearly be unacceptable to actively promote immorality.

Biblically, covenant and journeying are inextricably bound together. The history of the people of God as found in the Old and New Testaments is an unfolding relationship through all kinds of trial, resistance and triumph. In the New Testament the story of that relationship finds a new dimension in the figure of Jesus. We in the church look with Christian eyes at the Old Testament and its relevance for the new covenant or relationship.

Jesus declared that he would not remove a dot or comma from the Law but fulfil it. It is relevant for us to ask how that fulfilment took place. The dynamic understanding of the Law's requirements presented by Jesus in Matthew's gospel gives an almost impossible level of challenge. It was clear that murder was wrong, for example, but Jesus made the demand even more searching by suggesting that even anger was to be judged. In the area of sexual morality, merely to experience lust was a form of adultery. Jesus did not set aside Old Testament Law but by deepening its challenge he showed up the inadequacy of obeying the letter of the Law while missing its profoundly searching spirit. Slavery was permitted and given scriptural warrant for so long, and then after hundreds of years was seen as something to be outlawed. So perhaps we need to see our dynamic relationship with God as a confirmation or clarification of the scriptural witness through a continual process that we embark on in our hungering and thirsting after righteousness (right relationship).

The example of slavery is a warning that our attitudes might need revision - an illustration of the need to be constantly open to the whole witness of scripture in the guidance of God's people. Difficult issues in the church are sometimes addressed by telling stories, by soliciting narratives that point up the particularities of individual cases. Some may suspect this is a way to avoid making definitive statements, for in the telling of stories people can be deflected into a kind of false complexity. Yet this is part of what it means to encounter God within individuals who are not like ourselves. The experience of the Working Group affirms the value of listening to the stories of individuals. There is a great difficulty, however, since many homosexuals and others will feel inhibited, or be inhibited from telling their stories, by the culture of the church. Personal encounter shows us the humanity of those involved and lays bare the common concerns and unity we all possess before our one Lord, even with our deep differences in outlook. The Group found itself continually aware that we never "arrive", that even our agreements are not infallible, that there is always more light and truth to come.

1. We have become more and more aware of the centrality of Christ and the peripheral nature of the question before us. Jesus is our model for good relationships based on righteousness and love.

2. The importance of the Bible, the need to recognise and maintain the integrity of the scriptural witness, and the need to look at texts in their context, while being aware of our own starting points. The examples of slavery and race relations enabled a new understanding of what the biblical witness is requiring of us.

3. The distinction between what is different in the created order and what is disordered is essential for a full understanding of what may or may not be termed sinfulness.

4. The Group saw it as inevitable, whether right or not, that ordination entails becoming a 'role model'. However much we might suggest that all Christians share a representative responsibility, there is still a significantly greater expectation laid on those who are ordained to Word and Sacraments.

5. The need to begin with what unites us rather than what divides.

6. Our theology of ministry depends very much on the principle of the priesthood of all believers and there is no valid reason for distinction in the question of ordination and human sexuality between ordained ministers of Word and Sacraments and ordained elders.

7. Our holiness is not by our own merit: we are holy because God, who is holy, calls us to be a holy people.

8. The biblical witness to Covenant is essential for discussing relationships since it speaks of commitment and recognises the potential for breakdown and restoration.

9. A helpful definition of 'sin' is 'that which damages relationship'.

10. The possibility and value of people being in dialogue across differences of theology and experience and of choosing to be open rather than defensive with one another.

11. The importance of getting our use of language agreed on at the start, including awareness of how we load terms. This could help prevent misunderstandings and avoid prejudice and knee jerk reactions. For instance, the Resolution 19 debate is solely considering long-term, committed, loving, same-sex partnerships when the term 'homosexual relationships' is being used.

12. In our society attention given to questions of sexuality has become disproportionate and though we agree this issue is important and raises many important theological questions, it is not of such central significance that it need or should cause the church to tear itself apart.

13. It is valuable to consider human sexuality in general, rather than homosexuality in isolation, especially as the church has been silent in this area.

14. Fidelity and ethical conduct in all relationships is an important witness to our culture.

1. We noted a difference of method. In asserting the priority of scripture, some would deliberately begin with the scriptural text; others with the tradition of the church; and others with questions arising from the present cultural situation. It is agreed that all these starting points are important, enriching and valid. Nevertheless, differences of starting point have led to differences of weighting.

2. Whether or not same sex committed relationships can be a response to and reflection of the love of God, and therefore be capable of having a covenant character that is a positive sign to the community at large.

3. Whether it is reasonable and unavoidable that some people, both within and outside the church, tend to claim a greater freedom to pronounce judgement on the personal morality and behaviour of ordained ministers than of other Christians. Some of the Group saw this breeding a climate of double standards and hypocrisy.

4. Whether we need to reach a conclusion in this entire process at this point. Some of the Group were ready to face a significant period of inconclusivity in preference to a decision which resulted in schism. Others felt we had spent long enough on the process already and an answer was badly needed.

5. Whether a public rite of recognition for same sex partners would be helpful.