What's the impact of binning 'Issues'?

For over three decades “Issues in Human Sexuality” has been the Church’s key statement on sexual mores.

On Tuesday this week the Church of England’s General Synod voted to end its use in the church’s discernment process for would be clergy and, for now, replaced it with adherence to the Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of Clergy (GPCC). Synod passed a Private Member’s Motion (PMM) amended such that it would do not only the former but also the latter.

Both revisionists and the orthodox hailed the development - Revd Dr Ian Paul, an evangelical member of General Synod describes it all as a “workable and reasonable agreement”. He identified from the “Together on General Synod” (TOGS) grouping of liberals, not a compromise that was only accepted because otherwise the Motion would have been lost altogether due to creating a 'vacuum' as to what sexual behaviour is acceptable to the CofE, but rather, the discovery of new common ground.  This new consensus is apparently found in, "'revisionists’ agreeing that it is the canon, doctrine, and clear past statements of the House of Bishops that are the real issue, and that the only path to change must come through the due process of engagement with all of these”.

It would, of course, be utterly bizarre if any group of Synod members did not, at least for public consumption, support "due process" and recognise the importance of "canon, doctrine, and clear past statements…”. What else would they say? That they supported procedural anarchy and were all for ignoring the law and the bishops?

In fact, the vote was by no means the unambiguous win many evangelicals such as Paul are claiming.

The obvious question, if it were so, is why liberals were so pleased by the outcome despite having to accept a substantial amendment to what they originally set out to achieve.

The answer, of course, is that they regard the end of “Issues” as such a valuable prize, it was worth winning at almost any cost, and certainly at the cost of the amendment.

TOGS are pleased as punch- “the removal of Issues from the vocations process is a limited step forward on that longer road to full inclusion [in permitting clergy same-sex marriage or equal marriage].” They described it as “a small miracle”.

At the same time the orthodox got nothing from the deal except praise for being so willing to co-operate with the revisionist agenda and the comfort of being able to disassociate themselves publicly from such as the language of 34 years ago - like 'homophile' and 'heterophile'.

It is not difficult to see why TOGS, albeit couching it in the language of consensus and emphasising just how much more they want, so welcome the step.

“Issues” is well over 20,000 words, more than a third devoted to the discussion of homosexuality. It contains deep biblical and theological reasoning that give rise to statements such as these,

“5.2. The convergence of Scripture, Tradition and reasoned reflection on experience, even including the newly sympathetic and perceptive thinking of our own day, make it impossible for the Church to come with integrity to any other conclusion. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not equally congruous with the observed order of creation or with the insights of revelation as the Church engages with these in the light of her pastoral ministry.”

“5.17. We have, therefore, to say that in our considered judgment the clergy cannot claim the liberty to enter into sexually active homophile relationships. Because of the distinctive nature of their calling, status and consecration, to allow such a claim on their part would be seen as placing that way of life in all respects on a par with heterosexual marriage as a reflection of God’s purposes in creation. The Church cannot accept such a parity and remain faithful to the insights which God has given it through Scripture, tradition and reasoned reflection on experience”.

What, temporarily at least, replaces Issues in the GPCC is all of 55 words,

“10.2    The clergy should set an example of integrity in relationships, and faithfulness in marriage. Marital infidelity is regarded as “unbecoming or inappropriate conduct” for the purposes of the Clergy Discipline Measure. The House of Bishops’ Marriage: A Teaching Document (1999) clearly affirms, “Sexual intercourse, as an expression of faithful intimacy, properly belongs within marriage exclusively.””

That says nothing, save by implication, about homosexuality at all. Certainly, unlike “Issues”, it says nothing expressly disapproving of same-sex sexual activity. And what is more the 1999 document referred to does not either.

That leaves some other material - Canon B30 on Marriage, and the “clear past statements of the House of Bishops”- key being- the 2014 Declaration on Clergy Same Sex Marriage. The Canon says nothing about homosexuality and the in relation to same-sex marriage for both lay people and clergy on the Declaration adopts as its basis- Issues in Human Sexuality, (as does the Bishops’ 2005 guidance on Civil Partnerships).

This is why the likes of Canon Vaughan Roberts were incorrect to say during the debate that the problem of the creation of a “vacuum” had been resolved in the amended PMM and, further, that there would not be “an unholy chaos and a breakdown of catholic order…”.

Someone of Canon Robert’s renown as an evangelical preacher knows that what is not said can be just as important as what is said and that confronting error requires the courage to say with clarity not just what is or should be but what is not and should not be- “begotten not made” etc. To merely affirm the Church’s present and 'unchanged' teaching on marriage without also clearly stating its obverse ramifications is surely wholly inadequate.

What now exists in relation to what is wrong as well as what is right is wordless silence- it is just the sort of emptiness into which anything can now be spoken. Same-sex marriage may need to go through the "proper process" but that will not necessarily stop greater acceptance of same-sex relationships based on fidelity and integrity.

And yet, in the near future, the situation may get even worse- the GPCC are presently in the process of being revised. The idea that after Synod’s sidelining of “Issues” and its approach a firming-up of those 55 words will happen is, to say the least, unlikely. The territory on which that debate might have occurred has already been freely surrendered. At Synod the Archbishop of York could not even confirm that the House of Bishops were agreed that the Church’s traditional teaching on sexuality did not represent a safeguarding risk.

For the orthodox, whether in the revision, or otherwise, to be able to rebuild the substance of what they agreed to see demolished is surpassingly less likely than revisionists being able to replace it with something new. The wise person counts the cost of constructing the tower before they embark on building and it is similarly wise not to blow-up an existing structure until there is a good idea that its replacement will be an improvement. With a few exceptions (an honourable mention to Ms Debbie Buggs) the less wise courses were taken without demur.

The 'empty space' created, however, is not just deep and potentially becoming filled with revisionist ideas, it is broad.

Although the amended Motion was said on its face to be limited to the effect of “Issues” on the vocations process it was, entirely predictably, immediately also said to of universal application. There is much logic to that- it makes no sense for those who are potentially going to be ordained be held to a different standard to those who already are. Indeed, it was expressly stated that the basis of the Motion was that one standard should apply to all as in other professions- that of the GPCC.

That the PMM would immediately be said to have much wider effect was heard over and again in the speeches. The proposer- Mr Paul Waddell, referred to “Issues” as “malignant” and needing “surgical removal” and to be “put out to pasture”. He ended his speech saying, “Let’s bin off Issues in Human Sexuality today”. His theme was taken up by Canon Roberts who, having decreed that “Issues” had never “worked” since its inception, called on Synod to, “pass [Issues] into history where it belongs”. Roberts spoke immediately after Revd Lucy Davis who ended her oration with the words, “Issues needs to go, and it needs to go now”. Another spoke of ending “the unintended reign of Issues”.

TOGS’ own headline was “Issues in Human Sexuality scrapped by General Synod." Likewise, the Bishop of Southwark’s “X” message was, without qualification, that “Issues in Human Sexuality had to go- and not before time”. Prominent campaigner Revd Charlie Baczyk-Bell told Reuters, “Now it [Issues] is gone… it opens the way for liberalisation of the church’s policy on same sex relationships”.

It was never only about vocations- the 'empty space' left by Issues was always intended to apply across the breadth of the Church’s activity.

There was much talk of the passage of this PMM representing- a new “tone”, “playing nicely” and a “coming together”- in the LLF process and that would be welcome, but not if it results in outcomes, unintended or otherwise, like last Tuesday’s.

Thanks to Gary Chan from Unsplash for the image

---

Will you be at New Wine this year?

If so, email susie@anglicanfutures.org, so we can be sure to meet up.

Visit Anglican Futures in the Exhibtion Area to carry on the conversation.