|
This motion, said Elizabeth Welch, was the heart of the matter. The
statement sought to set out clearly where we actually were now, namely
unable to affirm the acceptability of homosexual practice. The resolution
called for the statement to be sent to the whole Church and, if agreed,
there would be consequences: we would not continue knowingly to ordain those
in homosexual relationships. Two things should be clear from the statement.
Firstly that we affirm and welcome people of homosexual orientation in the
church this was a positive statement about role of people of homosexual
orientation in our life. However, secondly, there was a distinction to be
made between orientation and practice and on the acceptability of the latter
we were not persuaded. We were all made in Gods image but that image was
corrupted in us and all that we do was not necessarily within the will and
purposes of God. The view expressed in the statement was that of the
Christian church as a whole, namely that the Church was unable to affirm
acceptability of homosexual practice.
|
John Johansen-Berg (former Moderator)
said that if we were to depart from the traditional understanding on the
matter, we must be very clear it was the mind of Christ, something that
was not clear at present. The issue was inextricably tied up with
ordination since we do, in practice, make distinctions between members,
elders and ministers. Ministers, for instance, have the task of marriage
preparation and must give an example. No motion could be universally
accepted but R34 allowed us to maintain our integrity and the
possibility of continuing our journey together.
David Coleman (Mid Wales) was unable to
support the motion in the light of the passing of Resolution 33. We were
asked to affirm and support homosexuals but how was that possible if we
went on to make a distinction between orientation and practice, creating
an invidious distinction between them and us.
|
Loud voices
Supporting the motion, Peter Clarson (Leeds)
argued that the loudest voices had been those of people with the strongest
convictions. What of the silent majority with their unspoken fears? He
referred to a letter in Reform describing the motion as what many in the
church were silently hoping for. The majority of members were not ready to
affirm the acceptability of homosexual practice. The Core Group had steered
through a minefield and wisdom had spoken the prayers of members and
ecumenical partners had been answered in the report.
Roy Lowes (South Western) wanted
clarification as to whether individual councils of the Church would be
trying to come to a mind on what was the position of the whole Church or
just their own position?
Catherine Smith (Northern) questioned the
lack of detail on the implications for the call and ordination process,
since that was what the whole issue was about. How would the Church come to
a mind on things to which only implicitly reference was made?
Kirsty Thorpe (Cheshire) had read the Core
Group Report with interest and had been disappointed by it the current
motion lacked integrity. Referring to Elizabeth Welchs mention of the
ordination of women, her own research suggested that the ordination of women
had not been based on biblical principles but that the denomination had been
forced, over a long and difficult period, to recognize what was actually
happening in local congregations. Indeed, without the shortages created by
the Second World War, it was quite possible that the denomination would have
stopped ordaining women! The history showed how God works through the
culture and that we find signs of the kingdom in unexpected places.
Phil Boyds (Staffordshire) found that he
could not support a motion which argued that while he was free to express
himself sexually, others were not.
Gwynfor Evans (Mersey) thanked the Core
Group. The motion affirmed the position found in scripture but did not hold
that position without pain. The motion did not condemn homosexuals or
homosexual practice but we could not affirm it. It was not true that we
could accept a person and yet reject their practice many church members
lived with the tension of a loved child living out of wedlock. While it
might be painful to speak what might appear critical words to someone we
love, at present the majority were unconvinced and could not affirm
homosexual practice.
Jo Williams (Northampton) asked about the
practicalities of responses? What if a group wished to support one part of
the statement but not the other? Carole Ellefson-Jones (Bradford) had read
the Core Group report with her congregation and there had been great
distress at the conclusion not knowingly to ordain someone in a homosexual
relationship. Many knew of the god-given ministries of homosexuals but we
had encouraged dishonesty and concealment from people who were consequently
unable to present themselves whole. We now had the opportunity to enter the
third millennium as an open, affirming and disagreeing people of God we
should not go back to locking things in cupboards.
Richard Alford (Roding) felt it was time to draw
matters to a close. Those who wished to change things had not yet proven
that the time was right.
It now being late in the evening, the
Moderator proposed that Elizabeth Welch be given the opportunity to answer
questions put so far but that amendments to the motion be left until the
following morning.
In a brief reply Elizabeth Welch said that
the distinction between orientation and practice arose from the simple fact
that it was on the question of practice that we could not agree. Discussions
of the statement at a local level should be in the local context and then
fed into the wider process. Questions as to the implications of the passing
of the statement were covered by the reference in a later motion to the
exploration of further consequences.
A view from the SCC
The Wednesday morning session began with an
apparently unexpected interjection by the Revd James Merilees, one of the
representatives of the Scottish Congregational Church, who sought permission
to read a statement on behalf of the SCCs General Committee:
The General Committee, looking forward with
eagerness and expectation to the unification of the Congregational Union of
Scotland and the United Reformed Church in the UK offers this statement as a
contribution to the currant discussions within the United Reformed Church on
issues of human sexuality:
* It expresses its love and care to the United
Reformed Church in this period of turmoil and pain
* Receives the material contained within the
Human Sexuality Report 1999 and welcomes it as a serious and sensitive
basis for on-going dialogue within the Church
* Wishes to express some sadness that the debate
on such a significant, complex and diverse issue as human sexuality has
focused so centrally on questions of homosexuality
* Rejoices that the Church is called to
inclusiveness, bringing people of wonderful diversity into its life, to
enrich it and the world it serves
* Affirms that its concern, in evaluating calls
to service within the Church, has focused on the spirituality, the gifts,
the capacity for loving and creative relationships of candidates rather
than on their sexual orientation and practice.
This was followed by a question from Alison Davis
(Wales) as to the situation if the present motion were not to be passed.
Elizabeth Welch said that the motion was an attempt to offer a way forward
which would hold us together and that it was not possible to foresee all the
consequences. If the motion fell we would be in a situation of ambiguity,
with no way of knowing how damaging it might be. The General Secretary added
that the effect would be to return to the situation which held before 1997.
People not orientation
The first amendment to be moved [Brian O'Neil
(SE Manchester) and Janet Lees (S Yorkshire)] sought to replace the
words people of homosexual orientation in the motion with the words
homosexual people.
Moving the amendment, Brian O'Neill quoted
from the popular author Terry Pratchett: Sin begins when we start treating
people as things rather than as people. The amendment was a recognition of
that insight. There were homosexual people in the church and there would
continue to be. It needed to made clear to churches that we welcomed
homosexual people not homosexual orientation.
Alan Wharton (Medway) felt that the motion
did mention people as people. There were many people with orientations of
different kinds but practice sometimes had to be contained.
David Williams (Lea Valley) recalled that
he had once been referred to as a person of the coloured persuasion. Words
mattered and said more than we sometimes intended. The joy of joining the
URC had been to join a church which valued him as a person though the church
still had some way to go! We ought to make clear that we valued people not
their orientation.
Sally Willet (Derbyshire) on the other
hand, wished to preserve the world of difference between orientation and
practice which was present in the documents presented to Assembly. Paul
Snell (Cornwall & Plymouth) felt the amendment put homosexual first and
people second. He agreed that it clouded the clear distinction in the report
between orientation and practice.
Nanette Head (Wales) said that as a member
of the Wales Synods Training Group, she had the privilege of listening to
peoples experiences of calling and they did not start by asking about
orientation. She did not see Jesus saying that people could not be disciples
if they had a disability or a different orientation. We ought to accept one
another as Christ accepted us.
Anthony Howells (Cambridge) offered the
observation that 75% of people in the country expressed belief in God, which
seemed to him to show that there was a difference between orientation and
practice.
Elizabeth Welch suggested that we all recognized
in practice the difference between orientation and practice, as when we sang
Lord help us this and every day to live more nearly as we pray.
John Young (Newcastle) supported the
amendment because orientation suggested choice and homosexual people did not
have a choice.
Summing up for the amendment, Janet Lees (S
Yorkshire) said that it recognized there was a diversity of people within
the church. We are people and it was people we need to welcome. The group of
women with whom she worked on the Shire Green Estate in Sheffield would be
looking at this language for a message as to how the church responded to
people on the edges. Was there room for them if there was no room for
homosexual people it was people we should be supporting.
The amendment narrowly failed.
Lack of affirmation
Ron Williams (Mid-Wiltshire) and Rita Page
(Birmingham) now moved an amendment which sought to delete both affirms and
and at this time from the original wording of the motion.
Moving the amendment, Ron Williams said he
supported the general thrust of the proposal. We welcomed people of every
kind in love but we could not affirm everything. Other proclivities, such as
that towards incest, created a great struggle for Christians. There might
well be those with a tendency towards paedophilia who had become trustworthy
and inspiring leaders of the young. We should welcome but should not affirm:
a good word but one which was being overused. To use affirm in the
resolution was to suggest that God, with malicious intent had given people
an orientation to something that he forbids. In addition, the phrase at this
time implied movement towards the acceptance of homosexual practice and
invited others to bring the issue back time and time again.
Rita Page (Birmingham) agreed that it was a
simple matter to welcome anyone into the life of the church but there was a
problem with affirming them, which was stronger and asked more of her. She
pointed out that the phrase at this time was not used elsewhere in
resolutions.
David Coleman (Mid Wales) asked what kind
of a welcome we would be offering if someone was not affirmed too. We were
not talking about affirming abuse, which was to do with power rather than
sexuality. The amendment, he concluded, was motivated by fear.
David Featonby (Gloucester) argued that we
should affirm people as people in their own right, not just by giving them a
warm handshake. Affirmation did ask more of us we are asked to affirm people
even if we disagree with them not their practice. The phrase at this time
reminded us that we are in the middle of process.
Michael Hopkins (Reading and Oxford) also
wondered what kind a welcome it would be if we did not affirm people. The
phrase at this time was also very important since we were not here to set a
firm policy for ever but to start a process. He also felt that it was
offensive to put the items on todays agenda in the same category as incest
and paedophilia.
Helen Clapp (Roding) recalled the many
spiritual stages through which her son had passed becoming a spiky Anglican,
entering the priesthood and marrying, then entering the Roman Catholic
Church to continue his ministry. She had learned the lesson that we should
not make hasty judgements of people since no-one could have foreseen her
sons future 10 years ago.
Martin Edwards (Cheshire) felt that both
the Book of Acts and the Epistles showed the diverse views which had existed
on the admission of those who once had been defined as excluded. There were
passionate views on the current issue and if we did not both affirm people
and understand that there was a process going on then we would tear
ourselves apart by refusing to recognise our passionate diversity.
Summing up, Ron Williams told those who had
taken offence at his comparison between homosexuality, incest and
paedophilia that he had only been talking about the question of orientation.
The amendment did not arise out of fear but out of the desire to rest on
firm foundations.
The amendment was substantially defeated.
Restoring the balance
The next amendment was clearly a crucial test of
Assemblys attitude to the main motion. Former Moderator Ruth Clarke
and Convener of the Doctrine and Worship Committee, Colin Thompson sought to
replace the words affirm the acceptability with affirm or deny the
acceptability of homosexual practice. In addition, the amendment sought to
replace the reference to homosexual practice with the phrase homosexual
practice in a committed and loving relationship.
Before debate even started on the amendment
Sally Willet (Derbyshire) asked the Moderator to rule that the amendment
was inadmissible on the grounds that it negated the original motion. The
Moderator replied that he had wrestled with this issue but had decided that
the amendment was admissible.
Ruth Clarke (former Moderator) told
Assembly that she had been very disturbed when she had first seen the
statement in the resolution. This was meant to be a uniting statement but it
was not balanced, given the diversity of opinion in the church. Part of her
had not wanted to come to Assembly, or to talk on the issue. Part of her
even thought of leaving the URC if the statement were to be approved. Other,
better parts, had prevailed. She would not leave because part of the very
reason for our existence as a church was the search for unity. If we could
not hold our own diversity together, what hope was there for the search for
unity with others. It was that search for unity which kept her in the URC
and the aim of the amendment was to maintain the unity of the church.
Was the statement in current form, she asked,
giving respect to the positions of all our ministers and members. The
Working Group reports showed a balance which was not reflected in the
conclusions of the Core Group nor in the drafting of the resolution. The
resolution spoke only of inability to affirm the acceptability of homosexual
practice but, she maintained, there was not a sufficiently clear mind to
deny it either. The amendment would restore the balance of the Working Group
reports and the parity of respect required. With the amendment there would
be a greater possibility the statement being accepted by the councils of the
church and of unity being preserved. In addition the amendment clarified
what it was that we found difficulty in affirming or denying not any kind of
relationship but a loving and committed one.
Colin Thompson (Convener, Doctrine and
Worship) said that the statement in its present form was of no help at all
to homosexual Christians struggling to live out faithful lives. We would
never, for instance, make the original statement about heterosexual practice
without specifying what kind of relationships we meant. The current
statement made no distinction between rape, abuse and faithful
relationships; it implied that there was, morally speaking, no difference.
Was that really the message we wanted to send out? His second concern was
about the kind of people we were in this church. He had always been proud to
be part of a tradition of openness. The ordination of Constance Mary Coltman
was one such occasion though the great weight of Christian tradition was
still against ordination of women. Was it possible that God was calling us
into a new understanding of homosexual people and to the ordination of gay
and lesbian people. Because we have regarded scripture as an open book we
have always been open to new inspiration from its pages. We have re-read
scripture constantly with new insights: the opening chapters of the book of
Genesis had, for instance, not been compromised by the theory of evolution.
We should, he concluded, leave the door open until we could go forward
together and we should remain a place of courage and openness.
Donald Norwood (Dorset) spoke in support of
the amendment, though he conceded that the congregation where he served
would probably accept the motion as it stood. That would worry him because
the test of real Christianity was how we dealt with minorities. In seeking
to help others understand he would use the analogy of marriage. In the
church we are in Christ together and in that marriage we should not jump in
and take sides. The Working Group reports were a good example of the kind of
balance which was necessary. If asked the question about the ordination of
homosexuals, we should reply that it is the wrong question. The real
question was whether we are going to ordain Christian people. In Christ we
all take on a new identity: no male, female or, by extension, black, white,
homosexual, heterosexual. We were all one in Christ and what God had joined
together let no-one put asunder.
Gabrielle Cox (Convener, Church and
Society) recalled the phrase See how these Christians love one another and
reminded Assembly how sadly and mockingly it had been said of us in the past
by people who noted all the fine things we said but that we just like
everybody else when it came to the crunch. They saw that we wanted to win,
just like anybody else. Unfortunately the motion as it had been put gave us
both winners and losers and she wanted to avoid that. God appeared to be
speaking to us all but giving us different messages and she did not wish to
say that the message she was getting was right and that others were wrong.
She would like to go home and say we all won. The amendment, she felt, gave
us the opportunity not to compromise but to give to those with whom we
disagree a gift of love and respect. The amended motion would not be ideal
for anybody but it would be an honest reflection of where we were. It would
undoubtedly leave all sorts of unresolved questions and ambiguities but, she
asked, was Christian life ever any different?
Short and clear
Roger Cornish (Cornwall and Plymouth)
argued that the resolution asked the councils of the church to come to a
view on a statement, which must therefore be short, clear and unambiguous.
The original form the statement fulfilled these requirements: it asked
whether we were willing to put aside 2000 years of traditional teaching. If
not, then that teaching should continue. The amendment would make things
worse than before 1997, rejecting 2000 years of teaching and creating a
free-for-all. The consequences of the amendment would be to negate the whole
purpose of original motion, while the addition of the type of relationship
under discussion would complicate matters and leave us saying nothing about
other forms of homosexual relationships.
Simon Copley (E Wales) felt that the
balance of respect and diversity could be preserved by the councils of the
church in discussing the motion in its unamended form. The amendment would
simply muddy the waters and make the issue difficult to debate.
Jan Berry (Northern College) said she had
hoped that the outcome of a long process of debate would have been a
resolution which she could have supported with integrity she could not
support Resolution 34. She was grateful to the movers of the amendment. In
one sense the motion as it stood was a description of where we were but she
knew from conversations with colleagues and churches, and the evidence of
the Working Groups, that there was evidence of those who did wish to affirm
loving committed relationships between people of the same sex. If we were to
do justice to those opinions and to the Working Groups then we needed this
amendment. She could understand the desire of some to reach closure on the
issue but did not believe that the resolution as it stood would achieve
that. There would still be those who wanted their partner affirmed as well,
there would be those who felt the call to ministry, there would be those who
believed the church should be open and inclusive. There would still be those
who were gay and lesbian already in the ministry and who wanted to be open
and honest. There would still be those who came to a different recognition
of their sexuality during the process of candidating. The issues would not
go away; we could try to ignore them in hypocrisy or we could recognise the
fact that we lived together in a church of diversity.
Zam Walker (MidWales) said that as a member
of one of the Working Groups she had been disappointed with the Core Group
report. The amendment, she argued, better reflected the work of the Working
Groups. There had been points of disagreement in each Working Group but even
those with whom she disagreed felt this amendment was a better reflection of
where we were and of the reports themselves. People might talk of the silent
majority but it was not of one mind and could often surprise us. At a local
church debate one lady who began by talking of Sodom and Gomorrah ended
regretting that we were forcing homosexuals to live in sin. People could
tell the difference between abuse and lifelong committed relationships.
Richard Landon (Worcester and Hereford)
pointed out that Assembly was not being asked to take a decision on the
issue but to decide on a statement to send to the councils of the church. We
should place confidence and trust in the Core Group and Mission Council, who
had come to their conclusion after looking at all the facts.
Alan Evans (Bradford) felt that if the
amendment were to be carried it would be exactly what people in Yorkshire
Province expected: that something wooly would be sent down to the churches.
There was a need to take a position on either side. The amendment would make
the whole thing more divisive and we should send something clear for
discussion. We ought to trust Mission Council rather than emotional appeals.
Robert Kerham (Southend) recalled that
pernicious and fanatical was the description which had once been applied to
opponents of slavery. We should proceed with caution, especially when we
were sure we were right. The amendment was an honest description of where we
were. His church was open and honest, was he to see it become exclusive?
Stephen Fisher (Medway) was very much aware
of partner churches of other denominations in Medway who were praying for
him during the debate. We needed the discipline of holding to the tradition
of the last 2000 years and to stand alongside Christians around the world
and to stop people going their own way and making their own positions,
undermining the unity in which he passionately believed.
Philip Morgan (former Moderator) felt that
the amendment made it more difficult to find the way forward. It might offer
unity but it was unity in confusion. What was being sought was to test the
mind of the church. The process allowed for the church to give its mind at
all levels and opposition by only one third could put the process on hold a
very generous provision. In addition, the inclusion of the phrase at this
time in the statement already provided an inherent flexibility.
Brian Davison (Roding) had been impressed
by a previous speakers reference to Galatians and the process of making a
change. In that case, he pointed out, as many people as possible had been
consulted. In the current situation the original motion could be discussed
easily; the amendment only served to confuse the question. The church should
be asked if we were prepared to make a change of Galatian significance yes
or no.
Unambiguous statement
Elizabeth Welch said that the Core Group
resisted the amendment because they were trying to circulate an unambiguous
statement for churches to consider. While the Core Groups proposals were not
based on the reports of the Working Groups, those reports would be sent to
churches. She also stressed that the original motion was a Mission Council
motion, since the original Core Group proposals had been different.
At this point the motion that the question be now
put was proposed and passed by the requisite majority.
Summing up, Ruth Clarke agreed with
Donald Norwood that we must not take sides, which was exactly what the
amendment sought to achieve. She also agreed with the sentiment that there
should be no winners or losers, which was the reason for putting as honest a
statement of where we were now as possible she disagreed with the assertion
that the present motion was an honest statement of our current position. It
would create inevitable tensions for years to come. She agreed that we
needed to trust the councils of the church but there was also the question
of checks and balances. She questioned how a motion such as the one offered,
accompanied by such a mass of paper could be handled at an ordinary church
meeting. Contrary to Philip Morgan she believed that unity in confusion was
exactly what we are about. While she agreed that the statement must be
listened to in the churches and tested there, the amendment would not make
it more ambiguous but less so.
The amendment was defeated, by 220 for to 280
against, and discussion returned to the unamended form of Resolution 34.
Ken Jones (Cheshire) had been disturbed by
the venomous responses to this debate on the part of some people. He had
come to recognize that we are a church of many parts and all of those parts
had been given by God. The Report, he felt, had become no more than a
witch-hunt against gays and lesbians. The Working Groups had asked for more
time but we were tempted to sort it and go home. Mission Council had bowed
to those who had made the most noise and the most threats, and he hated to
think what other minority in the church which wanted to live faithfully in
love would be next. Assembly should vote against the motion and return the
church to the position before 1997. Calls should be tested by asking if a
person was called by God to ministry and confirmed by the local church.
Catherine Smith (Northern) asked for
clarification on why there was no explicit reference in the motion to
ordination and induction, so leaving its application to be based upon future
interpretations.
Barbara Plenderleith (NE Man) asked what
affirm meant in the context of the statement to be sent to the councils of
the Church? Would acceptance into membership be regarded as affirming and
therefore against the mind of the church? She would have difficulty in
accepting that kind of exclusion.
Jack McKelvey Congratulated the Core Group
on its report and hoped it would be required reading for theological
students. He felt that it pointed the way forward. Martin Cressey (former
Moderator) recounted that, as one of those involved in the drafting of the
URCs Basis of Union, he was often asked to interpret parts of our
constitution. His standard reply was that it was not the drafters
interpretation that counted but what was actually written. On that basis he
found that he could vote for Resolution 34 but not on the basis of the
interpretation of those who had drafted it, which he considered to be
over-restrictive. We should regard it as a plateau from which to move
forward with the openness and inclusivity which were characteristic of the
URC.
John Danso (Roding) urged representatives
to think of the people who had sent them. Had we listened to the older
generation or to ethnic groups from countries where homosexual practice is
unacceptable. We should not create confusion by our decisions, for if we did
our decisions were not of the Holy Spirit. The motion, he concluded should
be tested according to the principle of Gamaliel if it was of God it would
persist.
Colin Thompson (Convener, Doctrine and
Worship) asked how treating one small minority differently would help the
churchs mission of justice and commitment to human rights. Secondly, how
could references to homosexual practice without distinguishing between
behaviour which was abusive and that which was freely chosen be justified on
ethical grounds.
David Bradburne (Lea Valley) urged support
for the motion because it provided a text to take back to church meetings.
He implored Assembly to allow church meetings to discuss the issue and feed
back on it. Assembly should listen and not dictate.
Sally Willet (Derbyshire) urged support for
the motion in the interests of church unity There were, she said, no winners
and and losers in the debate; the main victim had been the Church, which had
suffered enough. The issue would not go away because it was about people and
people are the church. Mission Council had offered a way of salvation and
offered the resolution for the whole church to debate we would reject the
resolution at our peril.
Beatrice Buabeng (Wimbledon) felt that she
had to speak out for those who were hurting. She failed to understand how we
could recognize the same spirituality in homosexual Christians and yet still
discriminate against them. At the same time she recognized that there were
those in the black community who had difficulty with those who were
different.
Katherine Price (W Wales) pointed out that
the previous evening Assembly had passed two resolutions, one affirming that
the church welcomed people without qualification and secondly that we should
continue in unity, supporting each other. If Assembly had meant what it said
we should reject the current resolution since it was an attempt to make one
point of view paramount.
Alan Evans (Bradford) feared that if
Assembly threw out the current resolution he would have nothing to go home
with. He asked only for the chance for churches, districts and provinces to
discuss the proposed statement. Why, he asked, were opponents of the
resolution afraid to let the churches decide did they believe that the Holy
Spirit only worked at Assembly?
Poetic pointer
Martin Smith (Cheshire) had found a book of
Brian Wrens poems in the Assembly bookshop, including one on the need to
listen which reminded us that it was not up to us to say that we had
listened to someone people would tell us when we had listened. Had we, he
wondered, listened enough to gay men and lesbians? Did they want to be
welcomed and affirmed if we were unable to respect their integrity in living
in a permanent relationship with someone they loved. Assembly could not, he
felt, send the current motion back for discussion because it was distorted
and twisted. We would be saying to gays: well patronise you, use you as a
test case for discussion but not allow you to live with integrity.
Brian ONeill, (E Manchester) felt that we
could not affirm and welcome people and not carry that through to the end.
The whole point was surely to recognise that people who are different can
share in the same project.
Michael Hopkins (Reading and Oxford)
opposed the statement. There was, he found, much talk of unity but many had
kept quiet for more than two years in order to allow work to be done on the
issue. The resulting statement simply kow-towed to those who had shouted
longest. He also felt that we needed more time for discussion; even given
the considerable time spent so far, few churches had taken up the
opportunity to consider the issue. Finally he opposed the motion because the
proposed statement was unbalanced and not a fair representation of the
situation at present.
Simon Copley (S Wales) was offended by talk
of witch-hunts and who had shouted loudest he himself had been afraid to
speak out. He was disappointed not to have heard substantial arguments on
important scriptural issues. He supported the motion because it was simply
asking for a chance to put the issue before other councils of the Church.
Peter Noble (S Wales) confessed to having
read the main body of the report before its conclusions and was glad to have
done so because otherwise he would not have realized how disappointing the
Core Group report was compared to those of the Working Groups. He had been
unable to identify the sources of the Core Group report other than the
clamorous voices calling for a decision. Their primary aim seemed to have
been to maintain unity and the Working Groups work did not seem to have been
properly used in coming to a decision. The issue, however, would not go away
and there would continue to be diversity in the midst of unity. We were in
danger, he felt, of preserving unity rather than taking risks and launching
out like the Pilgrim fathers.
Sandra Dears (Mersey) told of meeting a
homosexual man on a recent holiday in Italy. Six months before, he and his
partner had taken upon themselves the care of the partners dying mother.
When she eventually died, he went to the funeral and then to their local
church (not a URC) in great need. He was refused communion. The current
motion, she argued, was not neutral resolution. It closed doors on issues
like who came to communion, what kind of candidates were suitable for
ministry and who should be in the church.
David Coleman (M Wales) asked about a
pastoral situation in which a local undertaker had died and, though the
undertakers life partner had been at the funeral, their relationship had
never been mentioned. It was, he said, an obscene silence. On the basis of
the current motion, which would come first: ministry to the person or
allegiance to the denomination? Was it, he wondered, the way of the cross to
suggest the exclusion of others as a means to deal with ones own pain?
Donald Norwood (Dorset) found himself
disillusioned with the way we were dealing with the subject. We had made
enormous efforts to set up balanced working groups and, not surprisingly,
they had come to no clear-cut conclusion so we ignored them. That seemed to
him a terrible way to treat each other. We then introduced at a late stage
what was in effect a fifth working group on another question, the claim that
there is a 2000 year-old tradition on the issue. The report made no
examination of whether that assertion was true and yet ignored the careful
work which had been done. It all left him with a great sense of
disappointment.
Reply to the debate
Replying to the debate, Elizabeth Welch
said that she was dismayed at the suggestion that the current process might
be regarded as a witch-hunt on homosexuals that was not the intention. She
then dealt briefly with a number of the points raised in opposition to the
current motion:
* In answer to the question of why there was no
reference to ordination, it was because some matters under the heading of
possible consequences needed further examination by Mission Council over
the coming year. Both the issue of membership and that of eldership were
also matters for the future.
* On the question of justice and human rights
she felt that there were significant questions to be asked from the
perspective of the church. Some concepts of human rights were rooted in
citizenship, some in natural law and others in ethical considerations. It
was a complex matter to discern the mind of Christ in relation to human
rights and more work needed to be done.
* With regard to the distinction between
different kinds of homosexual practice, she pointed out that the Report
did refer to the possibility of the recognition of different kinds of
relationships in the interests of honesty but we were not at that stage
now.
* On the question of why we needed a resolution
for discussion, it was simply because we needed a focussed discussion.
* With regard to respect for the integrity of
homosexuals in relationships she said that the problem was precisely that
the question of integrity was as yet unresolved in relation to homosexual
practice.
* On the relative lack of response in previous
discussions she pointed out that they had not been intended to result in
voting. This time people would have a clear statement on which to vote.
* On the question of putting unity first, she
felt that there was a good biblical mandate for it. The real question was
when could we agree to disagree? She believed that unity in diversity was
Gods will but we did need to have some idea what unity was about.
* On the question of refusing communion to
practising homosexuals she was quite clear that we did not ask questions
at the communion table. More generally, she recognized that there was a
distinction between policy as a denomination and pastoral care in
particular situations.
* With regard to the treatment of the Working
Group reports, she pointed out that the Groups reports were being
commended to the churches. As to the Core Groups concentration on the
traditional public teaching of the church, she could only reiterate that
the position implied in the statement had been the public teaching of the
church over two millennia.
|
