Buy it from Hive.co.uk and support local booksellers
This
book sits within a wider process and it is difficult to separate one
from the other, indeed it is probably unhelpful even to try to do so.
That
process is not easy to engage with, but we need to hold onto the
bigger picture, captured in this quote from p171 - “Eventually, in
God’s time, there will only be love. Love is the only thing that
lasts forever (1 Corinthians 13). We will find a love untainted by
selfishness, unlimited by death and unsullied by unworthy wants and
needs. Beyond the last day, when sorrow and sighing and pain are no
more and God dwells among humankind, that love, finally and fully
answering God’s love, will abide. Love will never pass away.”
In
broad terms I think the book delivers on the task set for it, (which
might not be the task some would have liked – it is not, and was
never intended to be, a manifesto for change), the main message it
provides is that you can via a set of reasonable, Anglican,
assumptions about the nature of God, Scripture, and the World etc
arrive at two opposing conclusions on human sexuality and gender
identity. It rules out of court a few of the more extreme positions
at either end but it sets a wide field on which the discernment of
what is not only reasonable but also correct can play out. It also
sets the scene for putting in place some arrangements for “two
integrities” such as exist around women’s ordination.
The
way it works through how positions are arrived at, essentially why we
might believe, and do, what we do probably makes it a useful textbook
for anyone wanting to understand the nature of belief across an wider
gambit, the issues at hand can be taken as merely useful case studies
for a methodology of unpack the different sources and the historical
and contemporary influences on belief and practice.
But
to say a little on the actual content, one of the challenges that the
book shines a light on, and then side steps, is the complicated
legacy of the Church’s evolving position on divorce.
This
paragraph talking about the current position on remarriage after
divorce can only explain that position by deploying a bit of a tongue
twister
"The
Church of England - where the conditions are right - allow clergy -
where their consciences allow them - to solemnize the marriage of
those who choose, with due regard to the past and full responsibility
to the future, to marry again, and for their bishops to support them,
praying to the God who is 'rich in mercy' (Ephesians 2.4): "Pour
out your blessings upon [them] that may be joined in mutual love and
companionship, in holiness and commitment to each other". In
this way, the church seeks to witness to the biblical call for
marriage to reflect God's 'covenant of life and well-being' (Malachi
2.5), to the challenges of human life known so well to the biblical
writers, and to the God who, 'rich in mercy', is always ready to
redeem and make new."
We maintain that marriage is a life-long and indissoluble union whilst dealing with the reality that it isn't.
This
is typical Anglican fudge, it allows the Bishops to maintain that
there has been not change in doctrine, while at the same time
accommodating pastoral practices that runs counter to that doctrine –
and I assume this is sort of thing the Bishops hope they will be able
to get away with as template for same-sex.
This
twin track of logic goes all the way back to 1937 when the Bishops
accepted that civil marriage and Church of England’s understanding
were not co-determinant, but the consequence of being a National and
Established Church left that view unresolved in practice – we are
left wondering how many of the letters required between 1957 and 1982
to provide Parish Priests with explicit written permission before the
baptism, confirmation, or admission to communion of those in a civil
marriage with a former partner still living their Bishops actually
wrote?
This
provides a context where “pastoral practice” and “official
position” have been at divergence for generations.
Thinking
about letters leads me on to the requirement in the 2005 House of
Bishops statement for clergy in Civil Partnerships to provide
assurance of their celibacy, how many have actually been asked, and
how many Bishops in effect told their clergy “I will assume your
relationship conforms with Issues of Human Sexuality unless you do or
say anything that absolutely forces me to acknowledge reality”.
And
this made me reflect that there is something missing for the picture
painted in the book, a that is the true extent that pastoral practice
for LGBT+ people has in many parishes been at divergence from the
official position – up and down the country LGBT+ people are busy
within their churches, their relationships welcomed and affirmed,
often without a second thought (by no means everywhere, but I think
welcome is much more wide spread than rejection). The range of
blessings on offer to same-sex couples are often difficult to
distinguish from a marriage service, (and Bishops have seen and
consented to such liturgies). And even in terms of ordination,
same-sex relationships are much less of a barrier to ordination that
the book might leave you thinking (I am not saying it is easy, it is
complicated and compromising, but it is happening nevertheless –
and despite their cowardice to speak publicly it is happening with
the Bishops blessing).
It
is a few weeks now since I read the book, and my unease about this
absence is growing, because if the task of the book is to baseline
the debate its failure to map the current landscape fully risks
limiting the debate.
The
book is accompanied by online “resources” which I have not
listened to / watched in full but I am aware that there is a range of
voices and experience included, and it may be felt that this covers
these aspects I feel are missing, but if so that perhaps worries me more, if
those experiences were identified for the online resources why didn’t
they get into the book?
Finally,
turning of another point, perhaps a bit of an aside, in part two
during the review of the range of types of relationships they look at
friendship, and say “...friendships can be picked up and let go
of...” really? That feels like a rather impoverished understanding
of friendship, I might say this of an acquaintance but not any
friendship worth having, if someone can be “let go of” easily
that would suggest they were never really a friend in the first
place.
