Other Links

After a brief introduction by Elizabeth Welch, Janet Lees (S Yorkshire) made the point that while it was good to refer the issues to the churches, many people wouldn’t know where to start in dealing with the reports – there was much too much paper. Were there no ways, she wondered, to pass it on more simply – especially for those who were not very literate?

Elizabeth Welch recognized the dilemma and the diversity of literacy. There had been discussion on the possibility of a booklet based on the work of the Wider Issues group but there had not been time to take the proposal forward.

Elizabeth Welch outlined the proposals for the process of discussion called for in Resolution 34. It was based on the church’s normal practice in constitutional matters. There had been considerable discussion on the timing involved and it had been decided that it would be helpful to come to a mind sooner rather than later.

Richard Alford (Roding), opposing the amendment, said that we were not talking about a process which had taken two years, it was already more than five years old. He was sure that the councils of the church could cope with the discussion and come up with acceptances before the deadline. We should not the issue drag on.

David Williams (Portsmouth) opposed the amendment. All churches and councils would know that the issue had to be discussed. It was already on the agenda of the Portsmouth District for November.

Paul Snell (Portsmouth & Plymouth) felt that there was sufficient time to address the question and that the issue had received enough attention over the years. He said he had had to hold together his church on the issue and could not do so for another year.

Seconding the amendment, Alistair Ellefsen-Jones (Bradford) referred to Stephen Brown’s earlier comment that it was better that we get it right than that we get it quickly. Elizabeth Welch had spoken earlier of issues of justice and human rights, membership and eldership needing further study, quite apart from the call in Resolution 37 for more work to be done. Would all this be ready before next March? The current timetable would also mean that the Congregational Union of Scotland would have no input to the discussion. All the Working Groups had recommended further, longer, prayerful study – longer than current motion permitted.

Returning to the main motion, Raymond Clark (NW Synod) wondered how urgent pastoral support was to be offered to candidates in training.

Roy Lowes (S Western) felt that the Church’s councils would need support in the form of a synopsis if they were to discuss the material effectively.

Brian Kessler of the British province of the Moravian Church said that he was a member of a united UR/Moravian church. Some 30 years before, when he had been a callow, thin, long-haired youth he had entered a Congregational church and what had impressed him was the warmth of the welcome and the democracy. It saddened him to see that democracy thrown out with the assumption that silence indicated consent.

David Coleman (Mid Wales) said he was working in local churches with a limited capacity to deal with business. They already had the millennium to deal with and could not be expected to deal with this as well.

Replying to the debate, Dr David Thompson said that the structures for pastoral support already in place would continue and that the issue would be clearer when discussion had taken place on the fate of Resolution 19 of 1997. On an earlier question as to churches which disagreed with part of the statement, they should dissent from the whole. Churches should not by trying to discern the mind of the church as a whole: it was only when the councils of the church had been heard that we would be able to say what the mind of the church was.

On the question of only silence indicating consent, the practice of only counting positive votes was comparable to the procedure for changing the Basis of Union and it was felt to be appropriate to use the same system here.

Elizabeth Welch told Assembly that in the midst of a difficult process, where much needed to be worked out about our life, one matter needed clarification straight away. She called upon the church’s legal advisor Mr Hartley Oldham, to explain some of the issues behind the motion.

Mr Oldham explained that in designing the disciplinary system the church had always been careful not to introduce an ‘offence-based’ system where certain acts were proscribed. Instead the Church had adopted a disciplinary structure based on the broader definition of conduct incompatible with the peace and unity of the church. If a minister’s behaviour was no longer compatible s/he could be referred to the disciplinary process. The purpose of Resolution 36 was to declare that the passing of Resolution 34 had not been the first step towards the introduction of an offence-based disciplinary process. He told Assembly that the words ‘of itself’ in the motion were very important, making it clear that the motion does not mean that the disciplinary process could not be applied to a practising homosexual only that it need not necessarily be applied as a result of the passing of Resolution 34.

Brian Harley (Portsmouth) received leave to withdraw an amendment which would have had the effect of limiting the guarantee in the motion to ministers who were already in homosexual relationships, not to those who might enter such a relationship in the future. He had been concerned that the motion might give a carte-blanche defence to ministers in a homosexual relationship but accepted that his proposed amendment might lead to the creation of an offence-based system.

Returning to the original motion Martin Smith (Cheshire) pointed out that there was no reference in Resolution 34 to ministers. If they nevertheless needed protection from the effects of the resolution, what steps would also be taken to protect members and other non-ministers from disciplinary action.

Replying, Elizabeth Welch said that the question of members had not yet been addressed and that no action, either positive or negative, could be taken until it had.

In a brief introduction to Resolution 37 Elizabeth Welch told Assembly that the motion was a recognition that further development and fine-tuning was needed in a number of directions.

Jim Brown (Worcester and Hereford) wondered how it was possible to have the discussion called for in Resolution 34 if people did not have the results of this process.

Elizabeth Welch replied that it was important to think about consequences but clearly they would only become relevant if the statement were to be adopted. If we waited to examine consequences before making a decision it would prolong the process considerably and she judged that Assembly would not want that.

Sue Henderson (Bristol) wanted to know what the implications were for existing ministers in homosexual relationships who sought to move church and seek a call elsewhere.

Jan Berry (Northern College) argued that if we were really putting out a statement to test the mind of the churches, we should not prejudge the answer by passing the current motion.

Brian Davison (Roding) felt that while the process might be incomplete we ought to call a halt to ordinations that might be provocative in the interim period.

Martin Smith (Cheshire) felt that we should not prejudge the issue. The consultation period was not over and we should not deny ordination to those called by God.

Brian O’Neill (SE Manchester) had a sense that the other 4 Working Groups thought they had not been listened to and that there was still a lot of material that had not been examined.

John Waller (Deputy General Secretary) said he supported the motion but wished to make a personal statement. The motion need not create a vacuum, as some supposed, if we followed a number of well-tried practices. Firstly, ministers must live a holy life. Secondly, those who exercised public ministry nevertheless had a right to a private life. Thirdly, those who knew a person’s life best, namely their church and district were best placed to say when someone had crossed the line. He felt that what we could best feed into the supposed vacuum was a readiness to trust each other and to trust in the hand and heart of God.

Alan Evans (Bradford) felt that the Resolution 18 of 1997 process was indeed now over and had been superseded by Resolution 34 – it was now a new ball-game.

It was moved and passed that the question be now put.

Elizabeth Welch, replying to the debate said that ministers wishing to move would be handled ‘in a pastoral way’. As to students, we should not raise expectations during this year only to dash them next year. The coming year, she argued, was not part of the process of consultation but of decision-making.

At this point the Clerk once again intervened to clarify the significance of the passing of the motion in relation to Resolution 19 of 1997. She reminded Assembly that Resolution 19 of 1997 had not been intended to institute a new policy but as an interpretation of the then current situation within the denomination. The effect of passing the current motion would not be to remove, change or replace a policy but to withdraw that previous interpretation and replace it, for the present at least, with no interpretation of the church’s practice.

Adrian Bulley (Synod Clerk, Thames North), seconding the motion, appealed for justice for a group subject to violence and hatred because of what they were. Once it was women that the church stood up for, then against racism, then abuse of children. This resolution arose out of the same sense of outrage that lay behind other resolutions: that any group of people should be targeted just because of what they were. Homophobia was every bit as wicked as racism or sexism. He wished to add an amen to a sentence in the report from Gear (Group for Evangelism and Renewal) on Homosexuality and the Gospel: Silence in the face of injustice can look very much like support for injustice.

Richard Alford (Roding) said he was in a quandary. He did not hate or fear those with a different sexual orientation but he did preach that sin was sin. He sought assurance that he could abstain.

Ken Jones (Cheshire) on the other hand applauded the resolution and hoped that members of Assembly would use it in all the other conversations they had on the issue when they returned home.

Stephen Fisher (Medway) gave total support to the motion but felt that we should take the plank from our own eye before we labelled the speck in others.

Seth Brown (Birmingham) supported the motion but feared that the word homophobia would not be understood. His suggested amendment to spell out the meaning was accepted into the motion.

Kirsty Thorpe (Cheshire) wondered if Assembly could still, with integrity, vote for the motion, given that in Resolution 34 it had already done violence to ‘people of homosexual orientation’ as we had chosen to call them. Wilf Bahadur (NE Lancs) also thought we needed to rethink the decision we had made if the current motion was accepted.

The motion was passed by an overwhelming majority.