Other Links

Introduction

Somehow it seemed appropriate that the Moderator had a sore throat so that, as he said himself, even if he had wanted to be strident, he didn’t have the volume to be anything but gentle. Much the same could be said of the five hours of debate which followed, reflecting a tolerance and gentleness of spirit which surprised many.

Introducing the debate on behalf of the Mission Council, Rosalind Goodfellow, the Convener of the Human Sexuality Task Group reminded Assembly of the story so far, beginning with a request from Westminster College for clarification on the question of whether a self-declared homosexual could be accepted for training. Discussion and worship material had been circulated to all local churches and councils and some 29% of churches (513), representing 42% of the total membership of the URC had responded, representing all shades of opinion.

Why had only 29% responded? Perhaps it was because the subject was too hard to handle; perhaps it was taboo for elderly folk; perhaps the issue had been perceived as too complex.

Whatever the reasons, a number of issues had been raised. First and foremost had been the concern for the unity of the Church, with the majority being quite clear that the URC should not split on the issue. It was this concern for unity which had led to the first of the resolutions to be debated. Another issue had been the question of the authority of the Bible and whether the passages referring to sexuality should be interpreted liberally or literally. The replies also showed the tension between the various councils of the church – what if local churches disagreed with the District or if Assembly made a decision with which many in the Church disagreed? This had led to the drafting of the second resolution. As to the ordination of self-confessed practising homosexuals to the ministry or eldership, or their acceptance as members, the replies showed that a practising homosexual could be accepted as a member in 178 churches, as a leader in 62 and as a minister in 48.

On the basis of the results, Mission Council had to face up to the question of the form any resolution should take. If the Church were to decide that a practising homosexual could never be a minister, existing ministers would have to leave their posts or their partners and others might be subjected to explicit and intrusive questioning over their private lives. Some individuals and churches would have left the URC. If, on the other hand, the Church were to decide knowingly to ordain homosexuals, some ministers, members and churches would leave and there might be an influx of homosexuals into the Church, changing its character and leading to the fear that local churches would be under pressure to accept the ministry of homosexuals. Hence the form of the third resolution, which allowed those who were otherwise suitable to apply for training and protected existing ministers who had proved themselves faithful ministers of the gospel.

Resolution17

a) the seriousness of the issues of human sexuality and their implications or acceptable behaviour and lifestyles among Christians; and

b) the lack of agreement in the responses submitted to General Assembly by local churches, District Councils and Provincial Synods concerning aspects of the contemporary debate on human sexuality and the teaching and application of scripture; and therefore

1. believes that these disagreements, though serious, must not be allowed to injure the unity and peace of the United Reformed Church;

2. encourages local churches, District Councils and Provincial Synods to apply with wisdom and sensitivity the pastoral practice and discipline set out in the Basis of Union and Structure of the United Reformed Church, in a way which respects the rights of personal conviction and which does not override conscientious decisions in these matters nor use such decisions as a reason for breaking the fellowship of the United Reformed Church;

3. calls on those who exercise pastoral care of members, elders and ministers in the Church to seek ways of ensuring that all those who experience rejection because of their convictions in these matters are sustained within the fellowship of the Church held together by Jesus Christ.

Introducing the debate on the first resolution (see above), Mrs Goodfellow stressed once again the great concern for unity over an issue on which views were divided, together with the resolution’s emphasis on the sensitive application of the Church’s rules.

First speaker from the floor was Bruce Stuart (Wimbledon), who felt that the church should be moving more quickly. Social divisions were always complex and their causes were often unspoken and intimate – like past prejudices against black people. The division between homosexuals and heterosexuals was a cultural division like that between Jews and Gentiles in New Testament times. He regretted that the Church had not long ago declared that we were one in Christ.

Margaret Taylor (Northants) was encouraged by those who had travelled together to seek the mind of Christ during the process – even while disagreeing – and saddened by those who did not find it possible to love those with whom they disagreed. The current resolutions would give us more time to come to an understanding and to learn to hold differing views while still loving one another.

For the Revd Janet Webber (Roding), the present resolutions were the best we could do at the moment. She was, she said, one of few members of Assembly who was able to be public about her personal sexuality – she was a lesbian in a long standing relationship which had sustained her ministry over many years. This was not a discussion about ‘them’ but about ‘us’. People sometimes talked as if there no problem because ‘there aren’t any in our church’. The truth was that no one knew how many homosexuals there were within the Church because most felt compelled to hide. Most people had not discussed or thought sufficiently about the issue, so we needed to keep talking until we were comfortable with it. God, she argued, treated us as individuals not as members of a group and that was how we should treat each other. To write into our constitution a denial of one group would be a denial of our practice of determining whether an individual was called by God.

Anne Jeffers (C&N London) spoke of the extraordinary pluralism of the New Testament Church. Jesus had come and turned the society of his day upside down: those who had been rejected were accepted and included. She was very proud of the inclusive church and this was another important issue on which we must be both inclusive and forward looking.

Rachel Poolman (Thames North) felt that just as people had different genders and colours, so there were different sexualities. She longed for unity, but unity did not come without cost and risk along the way. The debate was about very deep things in our personality, so it should not surprise us that we sometimes felt uncomfortable. She longed for the day when we moved beyond discomfort and did not look at people who stepped up to speak, wondering ‘which they are’.

Simon Copley (E Wales) was the first to speak against the resolution, pointing out that when the apostles discussed the admission of gentiles to the Church, the question was not simply who was to be included but also the basis of that inclusion. They had not been above imposing requirements about sexual morality and idolatry. He also wondered whether the poor response from local churches had perhaps happened because people did not wish to appear intolerant.

On the other hand David Coleman (N Wales), felt that the saddest thing was the 2/3 of churches who had not discussed the issue. The process of discussion had been one of the most valuable parts of his ministry and after those meetings he could fully support the resolutions, not only on his own behalf but on behalf of the churches he served.

Sheila Fairbairn (Northumberland) admitted to being part of a small church which had not replied. She had, however been surprised when individual elders had told her that they did not think it was an issue, they were more concerned with poverty in the local community. She found that they accepted people as they were and sought unity with them as they were.

Peter Westlake (Southend) argued that the debate was about unity, so that biblical quotes which might allow us to condemn homosexuals were not relevant. There was a danger of looking at one sin as determining eligibility for ordination, whereas if we were looking at one sin we have to look at all the subjects that divide us.

Sarah King (Devon East) held the power of the local church very dear and that it was clear that homosexual ministry would be appropriate in some local contexts.

Clare Hardwick (Southampton) reported from her discussions with young people a realisation that no matter what decision was taken, some people would be hurt. For that reason we ought not to be afraid to make a decision.

John Hardaker, (St Albans) wondered whether churches had not replied because they had not been asked for resolutions. What was needed was a clearer lead as to what local churches were being asked to do. He was disappointed that the views of 42% of our members were apparently being dismissed. When 83% said the same thing we ought to take it very seriously, especially if we believed that God spoke to us both through the scriptures and through seeking the mind of Christ in church meetings.

Simon Ellis (Sussex East) supported the resolution but wondered if the process had been flawed, with confusion over whether to take votes or not. He also felt that many had confused sexuality and practice by raising the question of celibate homosexuals, when the issue was the ordination of self-declared practising homosexuals.

Daphne Beale (Leicestershire) felt that many of the arguments heard seemed to be very similar to those deployed against women in the ministry in the past. She also felt that there was a danger of saying that only unity matters, not what the church should be doing.

Replying to the debate, Rosalind Goodfellow wondered whether it was possible to move more quickly when it was clear that minds were only changed through discussion. Janet Webber had made it clear that we were not dealing with something new but with the acknowledged fact that there were already men and women in homosexual relationships within the ministry.

The Task Group, like some speakers, had been saddened at level of response and it would take to heart any criticisms made of the process but some complexity had been inevitable once it had been decided that it was not possible to ask for a simple yes/no answer on the issue.

Resolution 17 was overwhelmingly carried, with no more than one or two votes against.

a) the nature of Biblical authority for the life of the church;

b) the relationship between the authority of General Assembly and the other Councils of the Church;

c) the matter of ordination and human sexuality, including the implications of ordaining ministers in committed homosexual relationships;

and also to consider ways in which the Church may be assisted in reflection on the wider issues of human sexuality. To enable this process Assembly asks Mission Council to establish a timetable for these reflective processes and ensure appropriate representation on necessary consultative groups and working parties.

Beginning the afternoon session, Rosalind Goodfellow introduced Resolution 18 (see above). The resolution, she told Assembly, dealt with points raised during the process of consultation, calling for further work – ecumenically wherever possible – since the issue affected churches of all traditions. She stressed the wide range of responses, from outright rejection and outrage that the issue was being discussed in the light of biblical injunctions, to those who felt that proper study of the scriptures provided little of direct relevance to the current issue.

The problem, she argued, was that to reach agreement on the meaning of biblical passages did not mean that people consequently agreed on the relevance of these passages to the current debate. That was why the resolution called for further work on human sexuality in general, since the Task Group had, necessarily, dealt only with homosexuality.

Ruth Clarke (former Moderator), in supporting the resolution, spoke particularly of our understanding of biblical authority. We were a Church which interprets the scriptures – if we had not done so there would be no women in the ministry. She listed a number of ways in which the authority of scripture was mediated by the Church in different aspects of its life and worship and which could further the process of reflection if the resolution were carried.

Alan Wharton (Medway district) believed that there was still confusion between homosexual orientation and homosexual practice. What Christians do, he argued, was not simply a matter of personal choice. Jesus welcomed all to come to him but having called them he asked them to turn away from what was wrong. It was his conviction that homosexual practice was contrary to the way we have been made and contrary to the will of God and we therefore needed more time to study and reflect.

John Bradbury (FURY Assembly) felt that the issue of the minister as role-model (especially for the young) was paramount in many people’s minds but it was not merely a question of role-models for the Christian community but rather for the wider society. The Church could provide role-models of homosexual people in loving stable relationships, showing that sexuality was about loving in a God-like fashion.

Walter Houston (Northern College) was in favour of discussion on the nature of biblical authority but felt it would be unreasonable to expect a wide degree of agreement. He did not accept that the division of opinion on homosexuality was merely a reflection of our differences on the interpretation of scripture. If it had been so, we would also have seen a major debate on issues like the charging of interest on loans, which was also clearly condemned in scripture. The issue was whether what the Bible says should define in detail how we behave, going down to particular proof-texts. We should not be looking simply at how we defined biblical authority but at our personal responses to the issue which lie at a much deeper level in our personality than how we define biblical authority.

Joanne Acty (Wirral) felt that attitudes had changed over 2000 years. In discussions among FURY members it had been felt that biblical texts had to be placed alongside more liberal modern understandings.

For David Haslam (Staffordshire) we had not sufficiently focused on our call to be a ‘united’ Church. We should be able to encompass diversity within our ranks. God was big enough to encompass us all and we should be a Church with open doors.

Ann Jeffers (C & N London) wondered what ‘holy living’ meant. She felt that in the Bible it did not refer to the kind of person but to the call of God. Secondly, for Christians all relationships should be judged on the extent to which they reflected the faithfulness of God in Christ in forms like mutual commitment, servanthood and compassion.

Duncan Goldie (Gloucester) felt that the debate highlighted the need for theological work on relationships, commitment and covenant in the light of our understanding of the scripture, and it was important that work be done ecumenically.

Paul Bedford (Coventry and Warwickshire) recalled that a group in Coventry had looked at a previous church document on homosexuality and had come out by a large majority against practising homosexuals being ordained. However, he felt there were other issues to be addressed. Contraception had demeaned the sexual act so that it had become not an intention to create life but rather something engaged in for ‘kicks’. The media portrayed sex as a harmless thing to do and people now co-habited casually. We should be speaking about the preciousness of human sexuality and of the marriage bond: fidelity within marriage and chastity outside marriage. When we had undertaken this costly self analysis we would have the right to analyse the sexual practices of others.

Amendment

Mark Argent (Cambridge) argued that if we were to wait for the entire Reformed family and CWM to decide, it would cause a considerable delay in the process.

On the other hand Howard Klein (Cheshire) had been impressed by the number of visitors from partner churches around the world who valued their relationships with us. We were a partner with them but not a more equal partner and so should consult with them. Coming from a partner

Johnson Jesudos (Milton Keynes) said that as someone from a partner church (the Church of South India), working for a period with the URC, he felt that this was an issue which reflected the individualistic society which existed in Britain. Human sexuality might be an issue for the comfortable middle classes but it was not at the forefront of the minds of those whose biggest struggle was to survive.

Brian O’Neill (SE Manchester) argued that we lived in such a different context to many of those whom it was proposed to consult that any attempt to involve them would destroy the timetable for consultation. There were sufficient churches with shared experience ecumenically and in America, Canada and Europe.

Malcolm Clarke (Leicestershire), supporting the amendment, reminded Assembly that the URC was trying to discern the will of God – not decide the will of God. We needed to listen and not to assume we had the monopoly on what God was saying.

Charles Croll (Ipswich & Colchester), seconding the amendment, accepted that our culture was distinct from that of others but we ought not to be driven by our culture.

Summing up, Andrew Mills wondered whether we were in danger of consulting only with those who would be likely to agree with us. What kind of message would we give if we told people that they were not culturally relevant to us – surely we had much to learn from other cultures.

Amendment

Moving the third amendment, Malcolm Hanson (Moderator, E Midlands) argued that the resolution did not make explicit some of the work which needed to be done on specific issues arising out of the possible ordination of practising homosexuals. He listed a number of areas for study including the moral framework within which it would be envisaged that active homosexual relationships were lived out. Was there a framework at all comparable to that accepted for those in heterosexual relationships. If not, what discipline could be applied to homosexuals? Was there any way of recognising when a casual relationship had become a committed relationship? In legal terms, in what sense might a stable long-term homosexual relationship be considered akin to marriage – in particular, what would be the obligation of the Church to such partners?

Bill Mahood (Committee for Interfaith Relations) pointed out that marriage law took centuries to develop and had only been fully established for the last 300 years. Before that time common law marriage had been widely practiced among those who did not need to define property rights. We were, he argued, only at the beginning of dealing with a detailed framework for homosexual relationships.

Rosalind Goodfellow, replying, welcomed the amendment and said that on all the matters raised, work had been begun.

The amendment was passed and after a brief final reply to the debate on the whole of the resolution it was overwhelmingly passed.

Resolution19

Assembly:

a) recognises

1. that no candidate admitted for training can be assured of ordination until a call is issued and accepted with the concurrence of a District Council;

2. that all decisions on candidature and on the calling of a particular minister involve seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the weighing of the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate.

b) declares concerning persons in a homosexual relationship that, during the process of further reflection and discussion set out in the previous resolution:

1. no local church or pastorate is to be constrained to consider or accept such a person as their minister nor any District Council constrained to concur with such a call;

2. Assembly will uphold a call to such an ordinand or minister duly issued by a local church with the concurrence of the relevant District Council(s) leading to ordination and / or induction;

3. Assembly will also uphold the refusal of a local church to call as their minister a person who is in a homosexual relationship;

4. in view of these options, the fact of a homosexual relationship shall not be the ground for rejecting a candidate for ministry during the process of selection, assessment, entry to a college or course and ministerial training.

c) resolves that in the case of a disagreement wherein a local church still wishes to call such a person when a District Council has refused concurrence, the relevant Synod, through an appropriate committee or commission, shall seek to secure agreement, failing which agreement the appeals procedure can be applied.

d) instructs the Ministries Committee to produce guidelines for the application of this decision in the cases of non-stipendiary ministers.

Introducing the third – and most contentious – of the three resolutions, Rosalind Goodfellow stressed the provision that no local church would be compelled to accept a practising homosexual but that if a church were to issue such a call (and the District concurred), under the terms of the resolution Assembly would uphold the call and that person would be a minister of the URC. Assembly would equally uphold a refusal to issue such a call. On the question of training, candidates would not be refused on the grounds of an active homosexual relationship as such if they were otherwise considered suitable. The resolution also recognised the need for provision to reconcile parties in the case of a dispute and the need for further work on the provisions where a postholder was appointed rather than called.

She quoted Bishop John Austin Baker’s description of human sexuality of whatever type as tempestuous, fragile, vulnerable and potentially a source of cruelty, degradation and selfishness. Light and darkness featured in both of both homo- and hetero- sexual relationships. The prize for which we prayed was a unified Christian sexual ethic applicable to all.

She stressed that under the terms of the resolution no homosexual would be accepted for ordination unless all the required gifts were present nor anyone constrained to call such a candidate. Equally, no one could be ordained unless they had been called and that call had been confirmed.

Opening the debate from the floor Bill Burgess (Cheshire) asked why colleges were being disenfranchised by preventing them from rejecting candidates. Surely it was colleges who should say whether someone was a fit minister for the URC?

Philip Morgan (former Moderator) had been surprised to hear that Mission Council considered the current resolutions an adequate framework for a debate on all the issues involved. No attempt had been made to present sociological and theological issues or to discuss the implications for ecumenical relationships. Just as importantly, Resolution 19 contradicted Resolution 18. Assembly had just declared that it had not decided the issue but this resolution would give the authority of the Assembly for the ordination of homosexuals. He accepted that the URC had ordained practising homosexuals – it could happen but that was not to say it ought to happen. The ordination of practising homosexuals had taken place but the evidence showed that the majority in the church wished that it were not so. The resolution was pastorally insensitive in that any practising homosexual ordained could be in jeopardy if Assembly decided differently in future. He asked Assembly to reject such a radical step in order to enable a more positive and general approach to be made to the issue.

John Johansen-Berg (former Moderator) felt that there was a great need for clarity and compassion in the debate. We needed to be quite clear on whether homosexuality was a sin to be forgiven, a sickness to be healed or a natural state to be celebrated. He wondered whether the compassionate spirit in which most were approaching the debate would survive the passing of the resolution. Our task was to seek the mind of Christ, not what was considered politically correct. We also needed to seek the mind of the church in the past and we must be sure that we had it right before we made such a paradigm shift. He felt that much more debate was needed before such a resolution could be accepted.

Fragile Unity

Charles Martin (Sussex West) felt that the provision for the ordination of practising homosexuals was in fact taking the very decision that Assembly had declared that it was not ready to take. The issue was not one of placing a barrier in people’s way but of bringing into ministry people who would find it almost impossible to find a church and, in addition, damaging our fragile unity.

At this point Derek Gill (Norwich) moved that ‘the motion be not put’ but the Moderator responded that the whole Church had been through a two year process in the expectation that we would make a definitive decision and he therefore ruled that it would not be in order to curtail the debate.

Nicholas Jones (SE Manchester) urged support for the resolution because it struck a balance between acceptance and the precious democracy within the church. Why should not homosexuals have the same rights as others to ordination? Yet at the same time the rights of Church Meetings ought to be respected. Jesus himself had preached tolerance, respect and a refusal to judge others.

Simon Thomas (Southampton) argued that the wording of the resolution prevented discussion of the real issues. No one wanted anyone to be excluded from local churches but the issue was what happened to those who did come – what was God saying to them. Since previous resolutions had stated that we were not ready to come to a mind, he did not see how he could then vote for the present resolution.

Jean Jackson (Derbyshire) was particularly upset by the provision to ordain practising homosexuals. We had, she said, to decide whether our boundaries would be set by God’s word or by a deeply flawed secular world.

Sally Willett (Derbyshire) agreed that it was illogical to say that we were not ready to make a decision and then to make that decision. Passing the resolution would close the door to openness in future discussions since it would be impossible and too painful to reverse ordination. Resolution 19, she believed, was a decision and it was a decision too far.

James Breslin (Northern) wondered why, when Rosalind Goodfellow had been at such pains to emphasise that no District Council would be constrained to concur with a call, the resolution itself described the process by which a District Council would be constrained into ordaining a homosexual minister.

No Despair

Lesslie Newbigin (former Moderator) urged rejection of the resolution on the grounds that it authorised something which scripture did not authorise. He had, he said, read literature which claimed to validate a practising homosexual life-style on biblical grounds but it seemed to be based on a different Bible than the one he used. It was impossible to affirm that the Bible was the supreme authority for faith and conduct and, at the same time, affirm that a practising homosexual life-style was a valid model for the Church to follow. However the attempt to find out what the Bible taught was not hopeless and we should not despair of receiving from God’s word the guidance we needed.

John Bradbury (FURY) felt that the resolution said nothing new but rather put into writing the position at present. To say that this set a precedent and was a decision was misleading – the alternative resolution (to place an embargo on the ordination of any practising homosexual) was equally a decision. If we were to reject the resolution then we would have to look long and hard at the candidating procedure because it had either gone badly wrong or we were trying to play God by deciding that homosexuals could not be called.

John Titlow (Medway) told Assembly that he had thought the intention was to maintain the status quo but his District was on record as not being prepared knowingly to call or recommend for training ministers whose practice fell outside acceptable bounds, particularly anyone engaging in sexual activity outside the bounds of faithful marriage between a man and woman.

Richard Alford (Roding) opposed the resolution because it was muddled and attempted to decide something on which we had not made up our minds. Whatever the resolution said, churches might end up being forced to accept homosexuals. There would be confusion where churches and districts differed. He refuted the suggestion that the suggested alternative resolution would mean throwing people out, since we did not pass retrospective legislation.

A New Approach

Lee Gammon (Canterbury) felt that the acceptance of homosexuals for training would be good – they would offer a new approach and would also provide for the increasing number of homosexuals in society and in the Church.

Ian Bird (Bromley) opposed the resolution because, while it intended to steer a middle path, it was uneven and biased. The provision to uphold the ordination and call of a practising homosexual was a distinctly new step while the protection to those who declined to call a candidate said nothing new at all, since no one could compel a local church to call a minister.

Brian Clarke (C & N London) opposed the ordination of practising homosexuals. He did, however, believe that it was in the interests of all sides in the debate that we did not make a decision. The statistics from the consultation reflected the fact that of those who had expressed a view, more were against than for. While we might decide in favour in future, he believed that unity would be easier if we were not under pressure because we wished to safeguard existing homosexual ministers.

Hazel Catton (SE Manchester) regretted that there had been no mention of those who had been damaged physically, socially and spiritually by homosexual activity and who had come for healing and counselling. We needed more time for reflection and if we passed the resolution we should be adding to the pain and brokenness of the world.

Pauline Barnes (Croydon) had heard emotive language about a change of policy but this resolution affirmed current practice and prevented the church from making an important change. The result of voting against would be to constrain the activity of the Holy Spirit by a ‘sexual activity’ test for candidates and existing ministers.

Susan Rand (Equal Opportunities Committee) agreed that without the provision that homosexuality would not be considered a bar for training, all those involved in assessment procedure would be forced to ask intrusive personal questions.

Enriching and Challenging

Brian O’Neill (SE Manchester) argued that as we sought guidance, the Bible was part of the process but not all of it. The resolution reflected what was actually happening – there had been gay nuns and clergy etc for 2000 years and he hoped they might go on enriching and challenging the Church for another 2000.

Bill Young (Coventry and Warwickshire) said that during assessment and training he had been interviewed by people he trusted and who were trusted by the church. He would like them to go on trying to discern the will of God in particular situations, not having God’s will decided for them by Assembly.

Ruth Clarke (former Moderator) felt that we were a very small church and that such a large debate automatically became a very personal matter. She referred to one candidate in training who was living in a loving and stable homosexual relationship. The fact was that 48 churches had said that they would consider a homosexual minister in a loving and permanent relationship. Were we, she wondered, to miss the chance a good minister?

Sally Thomas (SW Manchester) felt that many appeals for more time to discuss had come from those who had already made up their minds and were expressing a homophobia which should not be reflected in any decision. She had been divorced and was rejected by one group of churches on those grounds. If we were going to be biblical, we had to be thorough going: if we were to be opposed to homosexuals would we also be opposed to divorcees and ask people like her to leave?

Professional aproval

Norman Muir (St Albans) told Assembly that he belonged to a Church with a high proportion of professional people and had discussed the Assembly papers with some of them and found that they approved of the current resolution. It was important, he felt that we treated people as individuals rather than placing them into categories.

Martin Camroux (NE Wiltshire) wondered how long it would be before we were of one mind? He had heard the passions expressed and knew the difficulties but we would delude ourselves if we thought we could enforce a moratorium on ordaining homosexuals. We needed to find a way for the two points of view to live together in one church and the present resolution allowed those who could not go along with it to stand clear of its effects, recognising that we would not decide the main issue in the next five or ten years.

Alan Wharton (Medway) however, did not see much allowance for the needs of people on the ‘other side’. The argument with respect to divorcees, he felt, was unhelpful – no one who had been through the pain of divorce would advocate the process, which was precisely what homosexuals were doing.

Irene Tuley, (Sussex West) was another speaker who felt that the current resolution conflicted with that just passed. The resolution would put pressure on Mission Council and on District Councils and would add to the pressures on those who might subsequently find they could not continue in ministry. She felt that the ways of the world had crept into the Church but that God had called us to be different from the world. Ministers were called on to give an example and many were concerned at the influence of practising homosexuals as ministers and leaders of churches.

A national Church?

Eddie Boone (Sefton) said that it was good to be part of a debate which was sensitive, orderly and clear. Nevertheless we had to come to a conclusion and passing the current resolution would harm our national identity as a Church. If the ordination of practising homosexuals was to depend solely on the decisions of local churches we would no longer be a national Church.

Mark Argent (Cambridge) found that of the first ten names of ministers which came into his head, five were homosexual. He argued that there was nothing in Reformed theology which would allow us to say someone who could be a member of a church could not, in principle, also be a minister. The issue was one of calling. We were voting on whether someone who was homosexual and felt called could answer that call within the URC or whether they had to go elsewhere. We were also voting on whether a church which wished to call a particular minister would be prevented from doing so.

Alison Evans (Bristol) believed that the resolution would allow candidates to be honest and not to hide parts of themselves, so allowing churches to make a proper judgement on them.

Simon Ellis (Sussex E) felt that it was clear from the previous resolution that we did not have an adequate framework on which to judge homosexual relationships at present. For that reason it would be reckless to allow the ordination of practising homosexuals on the basis of local decisions. Different District Councils would act in totally contradictory ways and we would inevitably face the farcical situation where a minister might be accepted in one District, whereas in another he or she would be disciplined. The divisive issue was not homosexuality, or categorising people, or homophobia: the key question was whether self-declared practising homosexuals could be ordained. That was clearly a new step. If we did not reject the resolution we would not only threaten the unity of the URC’s ministry but also undermine our understanding of the nature of faithful committed relationships.

Apples and Pears

Kim Fabricius (W Wales) wanted to ask what was being condemned in the Bible and how relevant it was with the current debate. The paradigm being condemned by Paul was something that was self-willed – homosexual activity chosen by people who were inherently heterosexual and therefore promiscuous. Today we looked for recognition of a homosexual orientation which was given, not self-willed. Paul’s paradigm was also that of the relationship of an older to a younger man and therefore open to exploitation. The paradigm for which we sought approval for was for relationships which were mutual and supportive. Paul’s paradigm was one of a temporary relationship, even a serial relationship, out of which a young person would grow. We would affirm a relationship which, in intention, was lifelong, caring and committed. In other words, Paul condemned apples, while we were talking about pears.

Joanne Acty (Wirral) wished to correct any tendency to identify homosexuality and the abuse of children – the difference was that children did not consent to abuse. In addition, young people were not as gullible as to choose to become homosexual just because they knew someone who was. They had minds of their own and made up their own minds. In today’s very diverse society it was important to teach children to look at love in all its aspects.

Reasoned arguments?

Simon Copley (E Wales) referred to those who characterised the current resolution as affirming the status quo. He had been under the illusion that the status quo was that the Church took scripture to be its supreme authority. It was true that we were in a position where practising homosexuals were ordained but many felt that to be wrong. The current resolution changed the situation because it gave approval to that policy. Where, he wondered, were the reasoned arguments from scripture to permit this? Did we now affirm ‘loving relationships’ rather than marriage? God had made us male and female, implying that that was the proper expression of our sexuality.

David Coleman (N Wales) begged Assembly to support the resolution or he would have to go back to members of the churches he served saying that Assembly did not trust them to be channels of the Holy Spirit when next they came to call a minister.

Martin Hazell (Lea Valley) introduced himself as a ‘well known homosexual, self-declared but no longer practising – I am almost perfect.’ Twenty years ago when he had candidated for the ministry the District had seen that he was a gay man, despite the fact that he had been pretending to be straight, and passed him for training. Since then he had completed thirteen years of ministry and was now president of the District. He urged Assembly to support the resolution because it represented the reality of the situation: it did not go as far as he would wish but it was a start.

Summing up

There was general laughter when the Moderator invited Rosalind Goodfellow ‘to reply to the debate’ as representatives acknowledged the virtual impossibility of doing justice to the many and varied points which had been made. Wisely, she limited herself to one or two general points. The Task Group on Human Sexuality had done what Assembly had asked and the result was before Assembly. It was true that we needed more time but the debate might go on for years and there were people who needed some kind of indication now. Several people, she noted, had referred to the ‘status quo’ but had used the phrase in entirely different senses. Some had understood the status quo to be ‘no homosexuals’ and some had taken the status quo to be that we already had ministers who were homosexuals. The Task Group and Mission Council wished to see the present position of homosexual ministers protected and regularised and recognised that there were different procedures in different Districts and Provinces.

She regretted the tendency on occasion for some to fall into a slight confusion between homosexuality and paedophilia – this was a very dangerous error, since paedophilia affected heterosexuals as much as homosexuals. She also informed Assembly that, having taken legal advice, it had been pointed out that, despite the statement in the Assembly Reports that it was not illegal to discriminate against a person on the grounds of sexuality, there was now a case before the European Court of Justice on the question of the legality of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

She had noted that those who had spoken for and against the resolution had been roughly equal in numbers but she asked Assembly on behalf of the Task Group and the Mission Council to support what was before them.

Resolution19 Results

523 voting papers had been submitted, of which eight were spoiled. There had been two abstentions. There had been 324 votes for the resolution and 189 against.

After announcing the result the Moderator affirmed the message of the resolution. There would be no coercion and no pressure would be put on local churches or District Councils as the Church sought to implement the decision. Any implementation should take place in the spirit of the debate, which had been very special. The Holy Spirit, he reminded Assembly, did not go away now that the debate was over. Our prayer was that the Spirit would be with us in affirming our unity and affirming the diversity of views which had been so gently expressed.

Dissent

The Revd Andrew Mills (C&N London) was granted permission to register his dissent from the decision taken and was followed in a dignified fashion by 28 others, a number visibly distressed and most expressing their regret. (A number of other members of Assembly later registered their dissent in writing, the eventual total being 68.)

Finally, the Moderator expressed the gratitude of Assembly to the Task Group for their work on the Church’s behalf. They had, he said, displayed energy, wisdom and patient insight and had acted throughout in a tremendous spirit of responsibility.

Assembly confirmed his sentiments with prolonged applause.