Wallace Benn comments on the recent consultation
‘No church can live in integrity if it proclaims loyalty to Scripture, but then ignores Scripture when faced with new proposals for her life.’ (Bishop Keith Sinclair)
‘While rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture…cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same-sex unions, nor ordaining those involved in same-gender unions.’ (Lambeth 1998)
On January 27, the College of Bishops of the Church of England met to consider the Pilling Report on human sexuality, issued in November 2013. The subsequent statement has been widely anticipated, like the report itself, and many hoped that the bishops would use the opportunity seriously to question the assumptions and the more controversial recommendations of the Pilling Report. They did at least openly acknowledge the deep division among them, and express their commitment to ‘seeking good disagreement’ (this seems to imply that we can agree to disagree about God’s revealed truth, which we cannot do). In the light of their statement, it seems both hard to understand why they troubled to meet and that it was an opportunity missed.
Anything but faithful
Despite paying lip service to the phrase: ‘in seeking to be faithful to the Scriptures and the tradition of the church’, an aim that will be sincerely held by a number of the bishops, it needs to be understood that this phrase comes from the report itself, which is anything but faithful to the Scriptures, as we shall see.
The bishops accept the suggestion of Pilling for a period of ‘facilitated conversations’ in the church and seem to accept the disastrous basis on which Pilling suggests these, but also requests the archbishops to commission a small group ‘to design a process for these conversations and additional materials to support and enable them’, to be approved by May this year. What this group decides is crucial, as will be how individual bishops handle these conversations in their respective dioceses. In the meantime, until after these facilitated conversations take place the archbishops have stated that ‘the Pilling Report is not a new policy statement from the Church of England and we are clear that the Church of England’s pastoral and liturgical practice remains unchanged’. We need to be vigilant about how this might change afterwards!
What’s wrong?
What then is wrong with the report, that we should resist the direction it advocates?
The report itself says of its recommendations that: ‘how they were arrived at is as important as their content’ (p.149). It also admits its lack of serious engagement with Scripture, saying: ‘This report cannot attempt a definitive account of the debate about the meaning of Scripture, even if such an enterprise were conceivable’ (p.67 para. 223), also that: ‘this report contains no substantial theological chapter forming the foundation upon which an eventual set of conclusions and recommendations are then based’ (p. 75, para. 255). Indeed the report states that these ‘facilitated conversations’ are ‘the only way in which brothers and sisters in Christ can discern what God is saying to our present context through his word’, as those who signed the report ‘believe that the church should be cautious about attempting to pronounce definitively on the implications of Scripture for homosexual people’, (p.91 para.312), since ‘informed readings of Scripture drive Christians to contradictory ethical conclusions’ (p.91 para.310).
Dissenting statement
The problems with this approach are wonderfully and clearly spelled out by Bishop Keith Sinclair in his ‘Dissenting Statement’, published in the report, thankfully, and also in Appendix 3 by him on what Scripture clearly teaches. We ought to thank God for him, support him and pray for him in the pressured situation he finds himself in. He states: ‘In particular, I am not persuaded that the biblical witness on same-sex sexual behaviour is unclear’. Pilling responds: ‘to make one reading of Scripture definitive in that way would, in effect, make one wing of the Anglican family the sole arbiter of Anglican ethics and bring an end to the conciliar approach, which has so long characterised Anglicanism’ (p.93 para.318).
The Pilling Report is a deeply cynical attack on the Reformation principle of the perspicuity of Scripture (i.e. the clarity of Scripture on first-order salvation-related issues), and reads like a report written to a predetermined conclusion. It does not believe that God’s Word speaks clearly on the subject under consideration. All sincerely held perspectives seem equally valid and must be listened to attentively (p.90 para. 304). Scripture may be said to be the primary authority, but it is not the supreme authority and it is not allowed to judge the special pleading of some modern views.
The Bible
It completely misreads Article VI of the 39 Articles, which says: ‘Holy Scripture con-taineth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, or may be proved thereby, is not required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation’. This article states that the Bible is clear on matters of salvation and what cannot be proved from the Bible is not to be required to be accepted. Even the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland Working Group on Human Sexuality concluded: ‘there was somewhat surprise at the degree of concord reached regarding the plain reading of Scripture in the specific mentions of same-sex sexual activity… the Bible, when it occasionally takes up the subject of same-sex activity, presents it as a wrong choice’ (quoted by Bishop Keith Sinclair, p.160).
Cynical view of God
Not only is Pilling unconvincing in its arguments on the clarity of Scripture in relation to the subject under consideration, it holds a deeply cynical view of God himself. This is the logic of believing that Scripture is unclear on a matter that if, along with lots of other sins, is not repented of, will prevent us inheriting the Kingdom of God (I Corinthians 6.10). How unjust God would be if he kept people out of heaven for something that he failed to make clear in his written word! This, it has to be said, is not only cynical about the Scriptures, and therefore about the God who breathes Scripture out (2 Timothy 3.16), but is ultimately blasphemous!
Join on what terms?
Should we then join in the ‘facilitated conversations’? The answer has to be: ‘on what terms?’ Not on Pilling’s assumption that Paul was wrong or unclear on a crucial salvation related issue, and we must seek God’s mind afresh (apart from the muddle of Scripture!) That would be suicide for biblical Christians. But if the terms of reference change for the better then it may be hard to refuse. However, Bible-believing Christians in deaneries and synods must graciously stand up for, and contend for, the issues and seek to uphold the clear teaching of Scripture, as the very soul of the church is at stake.
We can be grateful to Pilling for recommendations 5,6 and 7 against homophobia and also the confident misuse of science, (pp. 149,150). However we must dissent from the ‘pastoral accommodation’ used ‘to mark the formation of a permanent same-sex relationship in a public service’ (p.151 recommendation 16) which has proved to be the thin end of the wedge for changing the teaching of the church in Canada and the USA.
Above all the report is based on a cynical use of the uncertainty principle, which fails to let Scripture judge between right and wrong opinions, and will lead the church towards a lack of confidence in God’s Word written. It will also inevitably undermine the church’s clear reading of Scripture so far and therefore its firmly-held conclusion that the only God-blessed place for a sexual relationship is in a faithful, heterosexual marriage. It will also prove pastorally very unhelpful for those faithful disciples seeking in their own lives, in a costly way, to live by the clear ethical teaching of Scripture.
Cultural captivity
Such ‘dancing to the world’s tune’ that Archbishop George Carey recently warned against, will not further the church’s mission, but lead us into a new cultural captivity. Once again the bishops have opted for process, rather than giving a clear lead, which is extremely disappointing. It is to be hoped that at least the other evangelical bishops who support Bishop Keith Sinclair will follow his example and speak up sooner rather than later whatever the cost!
