By Schism Rent Asunder?

Gill Cooke and Alan Sheard

Gill Cooke is a retired university chaplain and is still active in prison chaplaincy. Alan Sheard is a retired Director of Public Health for East Yorkshire and is Gill's husband. From Signs of the Times, July 2003.

Sexuality has come to the fore as the issue which most threatens the unity of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion as a whole. Unease was first apparent with the appointment of Rowan Williams as Archbishop, because his positive views were considered by some unbiblical. In protest at least one large evangelical church in London withdrew payment of the Diocesan quota and stated that they would in future pay their own clergy.

Nevertheless, Evangelicals did not all speak with one voice. Evangelical societies like the Church of England Evangelical Council were deeply divided. It was the conservative Evangelical groups such as the Church Society and Reform (so vociferous in its opposition to women's ordination) who wrote and spoke out against his 'unbiblical' views, as did similar groups in other parts of the Anglican Communion and some churches in the developing world. It is clear that the different views expressed in the Anglican Church now threaten its inclusive character and its unity.

Events moved quickly with the election of Gene Robinson as the first openly gay bishop in America and the choice of Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading (a celibate man in a long term relationship). These decisions followed shortly after the authorisation of church blessings of same sex couples in the Canadian diocese of New Westminster, which led 13 Anglican provinces (mainly in Africa and Asia) to declare 'impaired communion' with that diocese. Nine traditionalist English Bishops signed a letter objecting to Jeffrey John's appointment, while eight signed a letter supporting it. Further threats to withdraw payment of diocesan quotas were also made.

Finally, although the Bishop of Oxford saw his consecration as Bishop as a matter of principle, Jeffrey John has felt compelled, or forced?, to withdraw his acceptance of the appointment. Archbishop Rowan announcing the decision, made clear that he deplored the 'unsavoury' nature of some opposition which 'displayed a shocking level of ignorance and hatred towards homosexual people'. He added that Christians who colluded with this prejudice prevalent in society were simply not living out their calling. Much is made by opponents of gay clergy of the call for them to be celibate, in the House of Bishops' document of 10 years ago (though never approved by General Synod). Nevertheless it is clear that these same people have ignored the need for more debate and the necessity of listening to and learning from gay people. Yet how can debate take place if some parties threaten schism or persecute those who express views with which they disagree?

We now know that same sex attraction is inborn, rather than learned. Psychologists gave up trying to change people's orientation in the 1960s - they realised that it is not possible. In general, the closer our adaptation to our true orientation, the greater our chance of fulfilment and happiness. Indeed, where this is prevented by societal or church laws and pressures the greater the danger of psychological damage and even suicide.

However our bishops, in the House of Lords, have opposed the repeal of Section 28 which endangers the full discussion of sexuality by children in school at a crucial time when they are developing sexually and need careful nurture to discover their sexual orientation. Again in relation to the European Employment Directive, the Churches have obtained exemption from the legislation which protects the employment of gay people. It is deplorable that these exemptions may allow the dismissal of any gay or lesbian employee in, for instance, a care home run by a religious organisation.

Sadly much of the information furnished to the Bishops and other parliamentarians comes from well funded conservative evangelical organisations like the Christian Institute (founded by the Anglican priest David Holloway). The 'evidence' produced very much reflects their traditionalist view of the Bible and society which is presented as the Christian view. We need more open discussion on sexuality and this can only take place if we have an objective exchange of views which reflects modern knowledge of sexuality and in which individuals are not persecuted for their views. We can only have a true open debate if we include gay men and lesbian women fully in the discussion. Our present Archbishop recognises this. The current debate has become far more personalised than that over women's ordination where one gender was blocked by legislation from ordination. Although much has been made of the needs of churches in the developing countries, particularly where they are suffering Islamic persecution, and we want to be sensitive to their needs, we should also remember that in such cultures gay people are also cruelly persecuted.

Above all we need to ask 'What sort of Church do we wish to be?' Do we want a church which embraces new knowledge and seeks to discover the will of God in the modern world? Or do we want a totalitarian church which silences debate because it finds the issues threatening older cherished ideas? Do we want a church which seeks justice for those without power and helps the powerless find a voice? Or do we want to be a church which, by giving in to the threats of those with power silences those who are discriminated against? The current debate highlights the need of the MCU witness in the Church. A true generous liberalism which reflects the hymn 'there's a wideness in God's mercy' may need to be fought for if we are to be an inclusive Church. We need to pray for Archbishop Rowan as he tries to achieve this.