Human Sexuality
Address by the Bishop of Liverpool, the Rt
Rev James Jones
to Diocesan Synod
September 2005
We have as a Diocese been considering the issue of Human Sexuality for a long time. Too long for many I suppose. Not long enough for others. We have been doing this within the context of the wider debate in the Church of England and the Anglican Communion. We have been doing it at a time when our culture has shifted fundamentally in its sexual mores. The church has sometimes given the impression of being like a whale stranded on a beach with the tide rushing out with no hope of its return!
I am very grateful for the work that has been done by the Theology of Friendship Group who have spent many hours and days in deliberation on our behalf. Therefore on behalf of the Diocese I want to put on public record our gratitude to them for not only the time they have given but also the courage they have shown in being prepared to debate with one another. The Group was deliberately constructed to embrace as many different shades of opinion on the subject. This meant that much energy has been spent in people placing themselves in one another’s shoes so as to understand and see the world from a different view point. This in itself has been a model of how Christians should engage with other new contentious issues of ethics and doctrine.
I should imagine the Group must be somewhat disappointed at the poor response to the public hearings that have been arranged around the Diocese.
There may be many reasons for such lack of interest as people voted with their feet. Are some tired of this subject, are others indifferent, do the majority feel that the best way forward is simply to live and let live, is there a growing awareness that the argument has been had and won or lost, do we feel that there are other more important issues for the church to address?
I suppose members of the Synod will identify with these different positions. Although there are most certainly other pressing issues which face the planet as we pray for the coming of God’s Kingdom we have to recognise that our sexuality is essential to our humanity and that although there are indeed other pressing issues it is of considerable importance to our emotional well being both individually and corporately that we have a truly Christian and biblical understanding of our sexuality and humanity.
The wholeness of the salvation that God brings through Jesus Christ must touch every aspect of our personhood. Therefore, although the poor attendance at these hearings indicates a lack of interest I continue to be persuaded that the church needs to address this particular subject as a matter of priority.
I suspect that one of the reasons for the lack of interest is that some have grown tired of the heated polarisation of this debate. It is not that people do not consider it to be important but that they have no appetite for the hostilities that have marked and marred this conversation both in the Church of England and within the Anglican Communion. It has led me to believe that what we now require is a shift in the discussion that takes us beyond the two polarities that have characterised the discussions. As we well know the media create or at least contribute significantly to the context of all our discussions. The media accuse the church of being obsessed with sex. It is my experience that it is the media that have the obsession and that they constantly ignore many good things that the church does and concentrate on statements and spokespersons who talk about sexuality.
When the church does engage in the media it finds itself in a corner as do many other institutions as the media does what it is famous for and polarises issues into those who are for and those who are against. The media love conflict. They have little interest in consensus. Programmes that are punctuated with aggressive argument are deemed more watchable and listenable.
Some of you will know that I had experience of this recently when appearing on “Question Time”. You may recall my struggle as I sought to maintain traditional orthodoxy while at the same time accepting that for others on the other side of the debate there were genuine issues of justice and equal rights. I feel that I failed in communicating that the debate is more complex than simply bashing one side or the other. I certainly do not wish to be party to such hostilities although I know that by refusing to engage in hostilities I incurred some hostile letters!
I want to call for such a shift in the way we discuss human intimacy. In other words, I want to move away from the polarised positions and ask for us to have the debate in a 4-sided forum. I have already alluded to this in a previous Synod but want to take it further.
I think we need to address four fundamental questions:
Firstly, what do the Bible and the Christian tradition have to say about the nature of same gender friendship. The Bible gives us at least two major examples, firstly that of David and Jonathan, secondly that of Jesus and the beloved. The relationship that David and Jonathan had was emotional, spiritual, physical and covenantal. They clearly had a mutual dependency, they were committed to each other within their commitment to God, they embraced and kissed each other and they entered into a covenant with one another sealing their friendship before God.
Secondly, what do the Bible and the Christian tradition have to say about sexual intimacy in human relationships and particularly in marriage. Is there a uniqueness to the estate of matrimony that cannot be imitated by any other relationship?
Thirdly, what do the Bible and Christian tradition have to say about the role of conscience in ethical decisions both personally and corporately? The Anglican tradition in particular when it comes to the Oath of Allegiance requires of the candidate to obey but this obedience is qualified and limited to “all things that are lawful and honest”. The implication is that if in all conscience you deem the church to be asking you to do something that is neither lawful nor honest then you have grounds for disobedience. What relevance does this have to the current debate and to the relationship between the people and their Bishops?
Fourthly, what do the Bible and Christian tradition have to say about the tension between the unity of the church and the apprehension of truth as the Christian faith engages with new cultural contexts?
I believe that these four questions form a quadrilateral within which we need to continue the debate about human intimacy.
These questions will I suspect make some people impatient. There will be frustration that I am not answering a simple question “Are gay relationships right or wrong?” But what I want to do is to ask and answer that question within this quadrilateral and not within the barren hostilities of the polarised debate that we have had so far.
To those who are wedded to advancing the debate from the two polarities I would urge a new spirit to accompany the discussion which is in accord with the Lambeth Conference of 1998. We need to recognise that on the one side there are those who genuinely believe that there is an issue of justice and of human rights and who in all and good conscience believe that gay relationships are compatible with a relationship with Jesus Christ; on the other side there are those who sincerely believe that sexual intimacy is a gift exclusively for marriage and that genital relationships outside marriage are wrong, and there are those who live in cultures where homosexual activity is against the law and to advocate homosexual relationships would be equivalent to advocating polygamy in our society which is illegal. I personally know people on both sides of the debate whose faith in Christ I do not doubt. What I want to say ask of, of us all is to pray for courageous compassion in order to see the world from the other side. We need to deconstruct the dividing line and enter a new forum within the four sides that I have already begun to construct.
I know that this will be difficult, for many people believe that the line drawn between the two polarities has come to define orthodoxy. What I am hopeful of is that the future might lie in a place hitherto unimagined where we apprehend the truth about human intimacy in a different way which is consonant with the authority of scripture, faithful to the tradition, open to reason and true to our experience. I am beginning to see it very faintly a bit like an old fashioned photograph which you see beginning to develop in the solution. The debate lies within the quadrilateral I have outlined which affirms same gender affection, affirms the uniqueness of marriage, affirms the role of conscience and affirms the unity of the church. I want to register with you that as for me this is still work in progress. I am sharing my thinking thus far. This address is but a preface to a more substantial exposition. It is my intention to write fully on the four fundamental questions I have outlined and would value any submissions which members of the Synod or any in or beyond the Diocese might wish to send me.
I was enormously encouraged by the conversation that we had between the Diocese of Liverpool and the Diocese of Akure last April. Frankly I was not optimistic but my pessimism was ill founded. We both heard and understood things that we had never heard nor understood before. As with the Theology of Friendship Group there was no changing of minds. However, there was a mutual commitment to listen to each other under the authority of scripture, keeping faith with our Anglican tradition while being in conversation with our very different cultures in order to discern the mind of Christ on human intimacy.
I hope very much that soon we might be announcing a formal partnership in mission with the Diocese of Virginia. It would be a great service to the debate both here and within the Anglican Communion if we could have a three way conversation between ourselves, Virginia and Akure. It could become a model for how the Anglican Communion might find a way through its present difficulties so that the integrity of no one is compromised and the mission of God might go forward.
I am taking seriously the Lambeth Resolution 1:10 in the Diocese, because I believe that the community of Christ is one in which the quality of relationships is of the greatest importance both intrinsically and as the means of mission. Put simply, there is difference of opinion and doubt within the Body of Christ and I feel a responsibility to prevent difference becoming division. Furthermore, as a person of faith I am an optimist who believes that God can surprise us with a future that is presently beyond the reach of our own imaginations. As disciples of Christ we live under the authority of scripture which we must interpret and apply to our present situation; this we do in conversation both with the tradition of the church and with our contemporary cultures applying the power of human reason; above all else we must do it prayerfully in order to learn the mind of Christ whose grace and truth are to be the hallmarks of debates within his church.