Other Links

Peter McIntosh’s unique moderatorial style was well enough established by the Tuesday evening for him to be able to offer some advice to Assembly before it moved to the debate of human sexuality. What was important, he told representatives, was that they heard each other. The purpose of the whole procedure was to enable people to speak, to listen and, finally, to resolve. One contribution to the process would be to avoid partisan support in the form of applause – a self-denying ordinance that Assembly observed throughout the many hours of debate on the subject.

Elizabeth Welch, the Convener of the Core Group which co-ordinated the process of study on the issue opened the time of discussion with prayer.

She explained that the Core Group had been given the task of looking at whether those in committed homosexual relationships could be ordained. The flood of letters following the passing of Resolution 19 [1997] had quickly revealed that the decision had plunged the church into chaos. Eighteen months of intensive and prayerful work was now scheduled to be debated and decided upon in a period of four and half hours. The question of time had always been at the forefront of everyone’s mind. Did we need more time or, indeed, should the decision have been made more quickly?

With that brief introduction, Assembly turned to the reports of the four Working Groups set up in 1997 to study the issues in dispute. A brief summary of the work of each of the groups followed.

The Group's task had been to cope with uncertainties and had suggested some certainties to stand by, some uncertainties to be reckoned with and some possible ways through.

The certainties offered were that God does address us in the scriptures. The group had spent time weighing the assertions in the Basis of Union with regard to scripture and every member could assert them with honesty. Some had wanted to assert more than was in the Basis of Union ­ and at that point there had been less agreement ­ but we could all stand by them.

At the same time there were genuine uncertainties. Modern ways of thought made convictions harder to hold for everyone. While our forebears might have talked of the plain meaning of the text, that would not be so easy today. Our own experiences and context placed their thumbprint on what we took away from reading a text: we do not merely hear what we take away, we partially create it.

As for ways forward, the group were concerned with the 'open Bible' and what God might be saying to us through it. We had to learn how to listen, and that was a communal rather than individual process bringing the issue into the heart of the community. This was an issue on the agenda of many European churches and the question was whether we should proceed alone or deal with the issue ecumenically.

The group had reviewed the process of the debate so far and found that it had followed the pattern laid down in the

Basis and Structure of the URC. They believed that pattern to be a valid one, though with hindsight it was possible to see potential improvements and they believed there were more effective ways of dealing with contentious issues. Their main recommendations in this respect were in terms of better relationships within the Church and between its councils ­ including improved training for members of those councils.

There had been some haste involved in the process and the Group felt there should be a longer period of reflection on controversial issues, despite the prolonging of uncertainties. There was a real question as to whether we were ready to reach a conclusion on the present issue.

There was also a question of clarity, since there had been evident confusion over the nature of Resolution 19 [1997]. It had been presented ­ but not received ­ as merely interpreting where we were constitutionally, not as a final judgement. A similar uncertainty could arise if we were not careful, and we must ask whether the current debate could again be creating ambiguity.

In the end, relationships were the heart of the matter. The basic criterion for assessing controversial proposals had to be: Do these proposals honour the requirements of our Christian relationships?

The Working Group had challenged itself to think the unthinkable, namely that there might be no clear-cut and packaged result to the current process. False clarity at the present time might not be the way to go in the light of lack of unanimity ­ there were in fact many differences in the denomination and this issue had become a focus for them. Lack of unanimity in the Working Group might be sad but it was inevitable and perhaps what we needed was to focus more on unanimity in celebrating what we hold in common. It might seem a sleight of hand to conclude that the Working Group's lack of conclusion was a conclusion but they had shared the pain of the process, shed the tears it involved and understood the passion roused and wounds inflicted on many souls.

The Group had come to the conclusion that we were not good at making ethical decisions in the church, especially relating to matters of sexual relations, and so had decided to produce materials to help others in their deliberations. Their report began with the story of our faith and went on to consider God's good creation, the effects of free will and the redeeming love of God for his people. They then applied these insights to selected issues and challenged local churches to arrive at a commonly produced statement on one of the topics. They had attempted to set their material against the biblical background and hoped it would be useful to others approaching the issue.

The Group had heard the message that more time was needed but the pressing question was whether this was the time to depart from the historic Christian position on the issue. This had been underlined by the evidence gleaned from other denominations. At the recent WCC Assembly in Harare, the issue had been regarded as too contentious even for discussion in a public session. The URC had had the courage to discuss it, nor were we afraid of change: in the past we had been ahead of others on issues such as women’s ordination. However change has to be discerned as being in accordance with the mind of Christ, which was not a simple matter. On some issues, such as the commandment ‘You shall not kill’, there had been continual disagreements down the ages. In each generation there was a need to discern in the life of the church whether the time had come to change or not.

There was also the question of how God revealed himself. Should we start with scripture, or with the Lord of scripture. Should we start with the tradition of the Church or should there be a fresh reinterpretation in every age. In relation to URC there was the question of what we held as a whole and what might be left to the individual conscience. What of the councils of the church: if Assembly took a decision, was that binding on all of them?

When it came to ordination it was not an individual call alone but one which had to be confirmed by the Church as a whole. In this respect, discernment of the mind of Christ in the body of Christ was a corporate activity. If we were divided, could we make major decisions? It was also about shared ownership of a critical decision.

For a church, decisions should be arrived at in prayer, praying that we could discern the mind of Christ – we differed from democracies in that respect. There was no doubt that different groups held their positions for sound biblical reasons but even so the judgement of Core Group was that the church was not of a sufficiently common mind to make a decision to move from the traditional public teaching of the church. It was clear that such a decision would create further divisions in the body and as the United Reformed Church we had a particular concern for the unity of the body. Being reconciled in the body was not easy but if we failed, how could we speak to a divided and fragmented world.

For all these reasons the Core Group felt the issue had to be discussed in the councils of the church. The group were very aware of the limitations of time to do the work and, indeed, were bringing a resolution calling for more work to be done. That, however did not affect the substance of Resolution 34, which sought to give a general direction without entering into details of canon law.

Many had asked the Core Group to state ‘the truth of the matter’ but different people who accepted Jesus as the way, the truth and the life, had different understandings. Truth, she concluded, did not always come in the form of statements but truth could hold us together in our diversity. We needed to be bound together in love by the triune God, who held us in the palm of his hand.

Resolution 31: Human Sexuality – Affirmations

General Assembly commends to church the affirmations set out in section 7 of the Human Sexuality Report 1999.

Resolution 32: Human Sexuality – Challenges

General Assembly sets before the church the challenges set out in section 8.1 of the Human Sexuality Report 1999.

Resolution 33: Human Sexuality – Diversity of Views

General assembly, taking into consideration th variety of views held within the United Reformed Church on the matter of Human Sexuality, urges all members, congregations and councils to continue in love together, respecting this diversity of views, supporting each other through the pain and tension of our divisions, seeking the mind of Christ and working together to fulfil the purposes of God in the world.

General Assembly, taking into consideration the variety of views held within the United Reformed Church on the matter of human sexuality, urges all members, congregations and councils to continue in love together, respecting this diversity of views, supporting each other through the pain and tension of our divisions, seeking the mind of Christ and working together to fulfil the purposes of God in the world.

Moving Resolution 31, Elizabeth Welch told Assembly that it was offered as a reaffirmation of what we held in common. There was no comment on the motion and it was carried overwhelmingly.

Resolution 32, consisting of a series of challenges to the churches, was overwhelmingly carried, without comment.

On Resolution 33, Chris Vivian (Fylde) asked whether the pastoral support group set up after the passing of Resolution 19 in 1997 would be kept in existence? Elizabeth Welch reassured her that the group would continue in existence until it was no longer needed. The motion was overwhelmingly carried.

Read Next Article

Index Page