When this is a Brief Guide to the Pilling Report

Today the Church of England saw the publication of 'The Pilling Report' (henceforth referred to as 'Pilling'. The media jumped on it, and we saw the Telegraph run with 'Churches should perform gay blessings, C of E says', which is wrong on several levels. Pilling will be misrepresented, argued over and commented on a lot over the next two years, so here are a few points I think are worth bearing in mind. The report does say that some form of blessings of same-sex relationships would be acceptable. The extent to which this apes marriage or is law, or so on, is not clear. As a non-Anglican studying at an Anglican College and open to where God might lead my wife and I, and as a Christian doing ministry in England, it matters to me what happens in the C of E. It is from the perspective I make the following observations.

- 1 - 

It is not the Church of England changing its mind.

Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby and of York John Sentamu released this statement alongside the publication of the report. The key point is actually in bold, which is quite helpful, and it is relatively straightforward concerning Pilling;

"It is not a new policy statement from the Church of England"

Got that? Good. It is, as the Archbishops write, "a substantial document proposing a process of facilitated conversation within the Church of England over a period of perhaps two years". The Archbishops end their brief statement with something true - a call to prayer.

The Pilling report is not at this moment in time a policy statement, it is a set of findings and recommendations.

- 2 - 

The report has some good theology in it, and some bizarre theology in it.

The prologue, by the Revd Dr Jessica Martin, 'Living with Holiness and Desire' is a powerful opening statement, with much to celebrate there. Martin makes the powerful point that our culture is confused about sex, noting that "When you idolise the ecstatic experience of the moment, you sever your past from your future". This, and the observation about Jesus being one who "sees clearly that all humanity falls short of love's promise", reminded me of something I wrote about sexuality and identity, 'Sex(uality) is Not Enough'.

The Introduction makes for interesting reading - and part 1 is formed by 120 observations. These vary from the bizarre to the very helpful. I appreciated the note that "debate about sexuality is not abstract or theoretical, but about real people facing real situations". Amen. It is for this reason that we need to careful, and clear, and Christlike. I was also glad to see the report addressing issues of power, noting that "Power relationships within any institution are complex", including the often un-sung point to remember the humanity and frailty of those in power. There is also a healthy focus on mission, with the important observation that this issue does affect the ministry and mission of the C of E, and so does need to be focused on and dealt with. Denominations are essentially focused on interpretation of secondary issues, in my mind, and the C of E must decide what it thinks about this one.

There is also a lot in the introduction, at least, that is less than helpful. I was particularly disappointed by the relativism and individualism of some of the observations. For example, we read that the report says "we recognise that people have the right to choose how they describe themselves". Ok, but I'm wary - Who Says so? Are we God? Point 105, however, and I am aware it is in a specific context, provides what might be, in my mind, some of the strangest pastoral advice ever given; "Church must not ‘reject those who sincerely believe it is God’s call to them’. Nevertheless, because of ‘the distinctive nature of their calling, status, and consecration’ the clergy ‘…cannot claim the liberty to enter into sexually active homophile relationships.’". This rather surreal statement seems to me to be saying that essentially, if any individual believes God is calling them to do something, then that is fine. But it then limits that point regarding clergy. This is both a double standard and (in my mind) poor advice - many church leaders I know have had people in their congregations claiming that God is calling them to leave their wife for someone else, and so on. 

- 3 - 

Did God Really Say?

The big question running throughout and behind the report, at least in my reading, is an ancient question - 'Did God really say?'. The issue hinges on how Scripture is read, and what it means, and how it applies today. Is Scripture authoritative, and if so, in what sense? There was much anecdote of those who seek to apply Scripture to their lives - apart from the bit that they don't like/can't accept/feel called to ignore. That is not an acceptance of the authority of Scripture. 

What is refreshing, and perhaps encouraging, is that at this early stage one of the members of the committee, Keith Sinclair, the Bishop of Birkenhead, dissents from the report. I will get round to him, but in the first instance it is worth noting what he says in his appendix, in a kind of minority report. 

"Among the many arguments advanced, the most significant for the long-term life of the Church is that Scripture must now be read differently. No Church can live in integrity if it proclaims loyalty to Scripture, but then ignores Scripture when faced with new proposals  for her life. Those who would argue for this change know that they must convince the Church that Scripture as it has been read is mistaken"

This is a clear observation, and it is important for three key reasons:

1) The Long Term life of the Church - the Church should last, not die (though, of course, bits of it might die, as plants are pruned...)

2) Living in Integrity - unity in truth, living as Christ intends

3) Radical change - the revisionists are essentially claiming that the vast majority of previous readers and interpreters of Scripture have got it wrong. Bold.

- 4 -

Prayers, and the Future

As noted above, those who hold to a traditional, orthodox interpretation of Scripture on this matter have a clear friend, +Keith Sinclair, the Bishop of Birkenhead. 

Of the eight people whose names are behind the report, there is one down as 'dissenting'. The reasons for this - and this speaks well of the committee and process here - are included as an appendix, simply titled 'Scripture and Same-Sex Relationship'. This is a concise, clear and thorough - in the space - engagement with different issues, of context and place in the Canon. It is well worth reading as an Anglican defense of Scripture and the traditional teaching.

I do not doubt that Sinclair found it hard to dissent, that it would be significantly easier not to, but I believe  he was right. I think in the coming days he will be bombarded by those who think him evil, intolerant, bigoted. He isn't, based on this report alone. I think we - especially those of us not part of the C of E, and especially those of us training for ministry in the C of E and elsewhere, should thank God for Sinclair, let him know of our gratitude, and continue to pray for the Spirit to lead the Church (of England) into all truth.

- 5 -

Further reading.

I would like to recommend a few things to you, for your reading. Firstly, and perhaps most pertinently for Anglicans, is a blog by the excellent Peter Ould. 'The Path after Pilling' was written before the report came out, and was widely laughed at by the Twitterati. Ould has since been proved right. Secondly, a couple of book reviews. Jeffrey John is a well known gay Anglican leader, and I reviewed his book on same-sex relationships, 'Permanent, Faithful, Stable'. Another Anglican book is the multi-perspective 'The Way Forward', which is a helpful compilation of Anglican viewpoints. Finally a book by the Anglican, evangelical, gay and celibate Sam Allberry, the superbly accessible and readable 'Is God Anti-Gay'.

Of my own writing, I'm reminded of the importance of recognising the Imago Dei in people, even whilst we remember that we are all sinners. Hence I flagged up earler 'Says Who' and 'Sex(uality) is not Enough'. I'd like to point you to 'Truth Matters: An American Case Study', which addresses similar events in the Episcopal Church in the states, and also my basic posts on this wider issue 'Christianity and Homosexuality: A New Approach'. Finally, because it is so important, you might like to think about Pilling in the context of global ecumenicism, reading 'On Church Unity'.

UPDATE 29/11/13 - A great new website launched today, looking at this complex issue through the perspective of individuals, theological thought, and book reviews. Endorsed by some great folks and well designed, check out Living Out!

___________________

Thanks for reading! I'd love you to connect with me via Twitter or Facebook.