Year: 2018

The Revd David Runcorn is a theological teacher, writer and Spiritual Director. He is presently a Director of Ordinands and Warden of Readers in the Diocese of Gloucester

I have been invited to offer a response to the recent letter by 11 Evangelical Bishops to the Coordinating Group for Living in Love and Faith (LLF), concerning the church’s understanding of marriage and same-sex relationships. I gratefully acknowledge the helpful contributions already made by Bishops David Atkinson and David Gillett. I also gladly support all they both affirm in their responses to the Bishop’s letter.

I found particularly helpful the way the 11 Bishops’ letter acknowledges the tensions inherent in being communities faithful to the reforming Word of God.

‘The church must always be reformed according to the Word of God, and God has “more truth yet to break forth out of His Holy Word”. But neither can we simply abandon what we have received in order to appear relevant and avoid feeling uncomfortable. As God’s people carefully re-read Scripture together, allowing it to teach us, we may be challenged where we are wrong and be led into deep learning, serious intellectual persuasion, and heart-felt repentance for past errors.’

These words suggest a relationship with scripture that is always unfolding, never exhausted and where understandings may need to change and evolve over time. It is precisely this understanding of the re-forming Word that leads folk like me to support the extending of the marriage covenant to same-sex couples. But the letter remains insistent there can be no change in the ‘traditional’ understanding of marriage. I want to ask – on the basis of the letter’s own understanding of the re-forming Word – why not?

In his book ‘Having words with God – the Bible as conversation’, Karl Allen Kuhn writes,  ‘Scripture itself provides no indication that the dynamic nature of God’s instruction is suddenly to cease. To insist, as some do, that all of the specific injunctions of the New Testament concerning particular behaviours must stand for all time is to assign to biblical instruction a role that it has never before performed.’ (2008:89 my emphasis)

This does begin to offer us a faithful way to address the question of how to read the scriptures for guidance about issues or people it  a) originally addressed in very different contexts, b) does not directly address at all, or c) possibly does not even know exists. This is an approach to bible reading variously described as a ‘Redemptive’ or ‘Christological’ trajectory, a ‘continuing unfolding’ or a ‘developing understanding’ of what scripture teaches and calls us to across time. (The reply fairly made here that while all the other ‘trajectories’ already have positive hints in the New Testament the teaching about homosexuality is always negative. But this is only partially true. The argument needs more care. Firstly, ‘homosexual’ is not a biblical word. The word first appears in any English bible translation in the first edition of the new RSV in 1946. Those texts traditionally presumed to be teaching against homosexual relationships in every case describe subjugation, rape or violence, excessive lustful activity, patterns of coercive male dominance and a total disregard of acceptable norms of social, religious and sexual behaviour. So it is more accurate to say that these Bible texts condemn abusive sexual behaviour of any kind. They are not for applying to what is loving, faithful and committed).

The idea of a developing reading of scripture is not as novel an idea as may first appear. We have been reading the Bible in this way for some time. The Church of England, for example, does not believe the New Testament speaks with a final voice on the partnership of men and women in society, church leadership or marriage. And slavery? We believe today that slavery is an appalling unchristian evil. But where does the bible ever say this? There is not one condemning text and a great deal else that appears to allow the opposite.

Furthermore an unfolding revelation is evident within the scriptures. When Peter is told in a dream to eat food forbidden in Torah and then goes into the house of a Gentile and sees the Spirit of God fall on outsiders, where is he to go biblically to explain this? Something very new is going on. Don’t underestimate how disturbing this would have been. On a discussion thread about same-sex relationships a conservative contributor wrote that when people talked about allowing these things, ‘I feel as if my face is being pushed into vomit.’ On his Joppa rooftop Peter would have understood that feeling very well. But he learned that revulsion is not a reliable guide to good theology, divine will and purpose.

Peter and the Jerusalem Council proceeded in vulnerable obedience under the compelling guidance of the Spirit. And when we try to pull out Old Testament verses that talk about the inclusion of Gentiles we are still missing the challenge faced by the first Christians. Those prophecies saw Gentiles welcomed into the Jewish world and religion on Jewish terms. That is why so much of the argument centred around how Jewish Gentile believers needed to become – food, circumcision, behaviour etc.  What they could not even receive yet – except as a nightmare – was that God was creating a community based on radically new belonging and identity in Christ, one that is yet to be fully revealed – neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male nor female.

What begins at Joppa goes beyond the received revelation as long understood. But not surprisingly the Jewish/Gentile tension seems to run unresolved through the whole New Testament church. It was their version of our sexuality debates. Perhaps they too wondered if good disagreement was possible?

I do want to question the way the 11 Bishops letter tends to only set the Word of God/teaching of the church over and against those voices challenging traditional teaching.  A familiar response to those arguing for a more including approach is that they have been ‘influenced by the culture of the day’ (a culture presumed to be wholly negative and faithless). But I would say ‘yes we are – and thank God for that’! What accelerated the movement to abolish slavery in Britain and apartheid in South Africa was not compelling biblical teaching. Large numbers of Christians supported both precisely on the basis of scripture. It began in a very similar way to how opinions and beliefs about the gay community have been changing in recent years. People began to tell stories of what it was actually like. The inhumanity. The brutality. The exclusion. And that led Christians back to the re-forming Word with new sensitivity. The same happened with contraception debates during the 1920-30s (a topic on which it is hard to find any clear biblical texts). It was fiercely opposed by the Mothers Union and by successive Lambeth conferences who could only see it as a licence for promiscuity. Slowly an awareness of the brutal realities of women’s health and life expectancy, of large families living in poverty, of children’s welfare and dire social deprivation began to be heard. (It has been noted elsewhere that the quotation about marriage in the letter from the 1920 Lambeth Conference is unfortunate in being lifted from a highly reactionary and conservative debate opposing contraception. In its original context the quote is supporting a view of marriage and family the church, and these signatories do not hold).

Of course not all cultural pressure is Godly or wise. It needs testing. Christian faith is profoundly counter-cultural. But then, as now, cultural and social pressure play an important part in raising awareness and awakening conscience in a way that has forced a revisiting of how we have been reading and interpreting the bible for today. So, as the letter acknowledges, the unsettling process of reading, re-examining, repenting, re-interpreting and revising even long unquestioned Biblical convictions under the compelling of the Spirit is not a task the Evangelical tradition is unfamiliar with or unwilling to undertake. In fact its understanding of scripture actually requires it.

In his book ‘Beyond the Bible – moving from scripture to theology ’  the revered evangelical theologian and Bible commentator I Howard Marshall admits the risk involved in this – of going beyond the received Biblical texts. But he insists there is another risk. It is that of misleading the church by dwelling in the first century or earlier and refusing to go beyond the letter of Scripture. ‘We must be aware of the danger of failing to understand what God is saying to his people today and muzzling his voice.  Scripture itself constrains us to the task of on-going theological development’  (2004:78).

In all this debate I acknowledge my place in a conflicted community. I contribute to both hope and pain with words like these. I walk with close friends and colleagues who deeply disagree with me. I respect them and long to continue this journey of faith with the re-forming Word. And in that renewing and awakening Word I believe there is another story being told; one that is yet to be fully revealed; one that is found both within and beyond the texts; one that is always breaking through. It is one that we can trust with our lives – and even our divisions.

END

This is part of a three-part series by Affirming Evangelicals.

Part 1 is by Rt Revd David Gillett, former Principal of Trinity College, Bristol (1989-99) and former Bishop of Bolton

Part 2 is by Rt Revd David Atkinson, former lecturer at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford and former Bishop of Thetford 

Jayne Ozanne has written an additional blog entitled Bishops’ Letters and the Case for the Defence – “Lunatic, Liar, or Lord”

CEEC (Church of England Evangelical Council) responded to all these articles with a blog entitled “Why Conservatives Remain Conservative” on November 23rd 2018.

by the Rt Revd David Atkinson, former lecturer at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford and former Bishop of Thetford

I have been invited to comment on the letter from 11 evangelical bishops, some of them friends or former colleagues, to the Bishop of Coventry as Chair of the Coordinating Group for Living in Love and Faith (LLF).  The letter was sponsored by the Church of England Evangelical Council, and seeks to underline the importance for LLF’s work (‘Human Identity, Sexuality and Marriage’) of affirming the central place of Scripture, and supremely Christ’s teaching, in Christian mission and discipleship for a Church which seeks to embody Christ’s Gospel. Their approach, they argue, must affirm that ‘we are made in God’s image, have fallen captive to sin, are redeemed by Christ, and are being sanctified by the Spirit.’  All that I gladly affirm.

The writers recognize that LLF is dealing with a ‘complex and contested’ issue; they say they wish to be open to fresh understanding of Scripture as led by God’s Spirit; they recognize that Christian teaching changes and develops, and that the Church must always be reformed according to the Word of God. They affirm the traditional teaching of ‘faithfulness and chastity both within and outside marriage.’  All this I also affirm.

However, when the bishops identify the wording of Canon Law and various Resolutions about heterosexual marriage with ‘the teaching of Scripture’, and that they therefore express ‘the character and will of God’, I believe they being too bold.

I accept that whenever Scripture refers to same sex relationships it does so negatively.  However I cannot accept the Levitical laws with their associated death penalty as a clear guide for Christian discipleship. I am inclined to believe that St Paul’s references are most likely to be to the idolatrous promiscuity of the Gentile world of his day. I have written much more fully about these references in my chapter in Terry Brown ed. Other Voices, Other Worlds.

My question to my episcopal colleagues is this:  are you open to the possibility that there could be more than one faithful interpretation of Scripture on these matters?  Some of your evangelical colleagues believe so.

Christian understanding of the ‘Scriptural teaching’ on marriage and sexuality has developed from Augustine, Aquinas and Cranmer, and within Anglican theology in recent decades, not least post-Freud. The evangelical tutor David Runcorn is one of many who have come to ‘accept the place of committed, faithful, same-sex relationships within the Church on the basis of  (not in spite of) the teaching of Scripture’ (see his essay in the Pilling Report). Such evangelicals believe that to speak about ‘the teaching of Scripture’ on marriage and sexuality narrows down the very questions that are acknowledged to be ‘complex and contested’.

I believe we need to stand back from other dimensions of the ‘teaching of Christ’ to provide a fuller context for our current understanding.  When Jesus pronounces a blessing on the ‘pure in heart’ (which I think means emotional sincerity), that is surely a blessing on Marcus Green, an evangelical vicar whose life was ‘screwed up’ by the church, forcing him to deny his gay identity and ‘hide in plain sight’ until he came to believe that he, too, was loved by God and able to be emotionally honest (see his new book ‘The Possibility of Difference’).  When Jesus pronounces a blessing on those who ‘hunger and thirst for God’s justice’, does that not apply on behalf of so many in our culture who have been oppressed and marginalized because of their sexual orientation?  Jesus endorses the Genesis teaching about humanity in God’s image, male and female, as a basis for the permanence of marriage as God’s ideal, and then allows divorce in certain circumstances as the best way of making optimum moral sense of a less than ideal situation.

With this in mind, some evangelicals have asked the question:  how is a Christian gay person to make optimum moral sense of his or her life?  Is our willingness within the Church to give each other freedom of conscience to disagree about divorce and remarriage not equally applicable to our disagreements about gay relationships?  In other words, although Canon B 30 is right to say that ‘according to our Lord’s teaching.. marriage is in its nature a union, permanent and lifelong…of one man with one woman’,  ‘our Lord’s teaching’ covers many other aspects of discipleship, relationship and vocation as well.

If it is possible for a gay couple to make an act of exclusive, loving commitment within a permanent covenanted relationship and to experience God’s blessing in doing so, and find their lives displaying the fruit of God’s Spirit, then I believe we need a broader evangelical theology of covenanted same-sex friendship than can be found in what the bishops refers to as ‘Anglican tradition’. The evangelical scholar and liturgist, and gay evangelical Christian, Dr. Michael Vasey explored such a theology in Strangers and Friends as long ago as 1995. More recently theologian and ethicist Professor Robert Song opened up a fresh understanding of the fulfillment of all creation, including our identity as sexual beings, in Christ in Covenant and Calling.

I believe we must not give Lambeth 1.10 the status of Holy Scripture, or even the fortieth of the 39 Articles; nor assume that the legal framework of Canon B 30 is all there is to ‘the teaching of our Lord.’

Indeed, we could perhaps add to Canon B 30 (taking our cue from some wording in the forgotten 1979 Gloucester Report):

‘The Church of England also recognizes that there are circumstances in which an individual may    justifiably choose to enter into a covenanted partnership, permanent, exclusive and life-long, with a person of the same sex, with the hope of enjoying loving companionship similar to that which is   to be found in marriage. Such a partnership is not incompatible with the doctrine of Holy Matrimony that is affirmed in Canon B 30.’

I have written elsewhere (Other Voices, Other Worlds) that I think Lambeth 1.10 is ‘too blunt an instrument for an appropriate pastoral response to those for whom this is a pressing personal question, too unclear an instrument for forming any constructive Christian mission to gay communities, and too insensitive an instrument for affirming and accepting what is of God in the lives of many Christian gay people.’

My prayer then was  –  and now is –  that God will give us grace as a global church,  and as evangelical brothers and sisters,  to enable each other, in relation to these questions – as we continue to grow and learn –  to have freedom of conscience to disagree.

END

This is part of a three-part series by Affirming Evangelicals.

Part 1 is by Rt Revd David Gillett, former Principal of Trinity College, Bristol (1989-99) and former Bishop of Bolton

Part 3 is by the Revd David Runcorn, former lecturer at Trinity College, Bristol

Jayne Ozanne has written an additional blog entitled Bishops’ Letters and the Case for the Defence – “Lunatic, Liar, or Lord”

CEEC (Church of England Evangelical Council) responded to all these articles with a blog entitled “Why Conservatives Remain Conservative” on November 23rd 2018.

by Rt Revd David Gillett, Principal of Trinity Theological College, Bristol (1989-1999) and is the former Bishop of Bolton

A group of evangelical bishops have recently written a letter asking for no change or development in our understanding of marriage in the forthcoming Bishops’ “Living in Love and Faith” document (aka the Teaching document).  They recognise both that we face many challenges today about sexuality and marriage and also that, over the years, the way we express the tradition in various other areas has developed.  In this instance, however, they call for there to be no development because the teaching of Scripture, as traditionally understood, has to be preserved.

At one time I would have agreed with them but, while still holding wholeheartedly to the fundamental importance and authority of Scripture, I believe we should be looking to expand our understanding of marriage in the light of the questions asked of those Scriptures by our understanding of sexuality and gender today.

At the outset, however, I happily concur with the fundamental point they make about the process we face: ‘As God’s people carefully re-read Scripture together, allowing it to teach us, we may be challenged where we are wrong and be led into deep learning, serious intellectual persuasion, and heart-felt repentance for past errors.’ Amen to that!

For many evangelicals the Bible has one clear meaning which concludes that the will of God can be read straight off from the pages of Scripture so that there is a correct answer to most major questions of ethics. Over the years many evangelicals have added what I believe is a deeper and more nuanced understanding to this starting point.

One major influence has been the approach of the American theologian, Stanley Hauerwas, and his championing of Narrative Theology. This reminds us that the Bible is first and foremost a story, the story of God’s involvement with humanity. It is the story which provides the framework for the whole of our understanding and way of life. Its authority is transformative, not just in the truths it reveals at first glance, but in the way it invites us to inhabit the story and to discover its life transforming power in our daily lives.

Walter Brueggemann, the renowned Old Testament scholar, also counsels us to believe that there is often more than one appropriate answer to an issue when we consider a particular verse or passage of the Bible. He asks us to see that many texts can rightly be interpreted in a variety of ways to offer different approaches which are valid for different people in different situations. He criticizes ‘the pervasive Western, Christian propensity to flatten, to refuse ambiguity, to lose density, and to give universalizing closure… Classical Western theological discourse, wants to overcome all ambiguity and give closure in the interest of certitude (‘Theology of the Old Testament’ 1997, page 81 & 82).

This more patient approach to the Scriptures adds a greater degree of humility to our theology. While believing in the authority and power of the bible no less, we are cautious not to use an all-too-certain interpretation of a bible verse or passage as a way of exercising power over others.

Many people, and in particular our LGBTI+ brothers and sisters have often experienced being silenced and excluded by a lack of such an approach. The traditional use of the six or so verses in the Bible, which in some way or another refer to same-sex activity, can be experienced as one group of Christians exercising power over LGBTI+ people and forbidding to them what God wills for the whole of humanity. This approach means we are careful not to censor another Christian who has arrived at a different way of following Christ. I may be wrong, or they may be wrong, however we need to hold in faith the fact that we may both be right! This approach fosters a greater generosity – in line with our all-generous God

As the 11 evangelical bishops say in their letter, ‘We recognise that the teaching of the church affects LGBTI+ people personally and deeply.’ My plea is that we allow for readings of the bible that respect LGBTI+ experience and how they are made in the image of God. As one gay friend of mine wrote, ‘We are all created by God to be who we are, including gays and lesbians. It’s just as natural and spiritually correct to be gay as it is to be left-handed.’ No doubt some LGBTI+ Christians will feel called to remain single as their way of following Christ, but some will feel called to be in a faithful loving intimate relationship as part of how they live out their Christian discipleship.

My LGBTI+ friends and I both read the same bible and are called to inhabit the same stories as we consider God’s will for our lives. We both, for instance, approach the paradigmatic story in Genesis 2 which describes the wonder of discovering our life’s partner, and we both feel drawn to the divine announcement, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone.’ Central to the story is the need to find a life partner who will be fully suitable to the needs of both and sustain them as they launch out on life together. At first there comes the almost comical process of looking around at different possible partners, and for some of us that can take a long time in reality – though all the ‘possibles’ in our list will be human!

As I read this story for myself, I am presented with a range of possible partners – as was Adam – and I am unsatisfied until I see the other human being – the one who became my wife – and I exclaim, ‘this at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh!’ For me, and for most others whom I know this encounter has been one of the most thrilling of all life’s discoveries.

This story invites us to is find someone who is equal to our needs, the same as me, not someone who is different (like the animals) but of the same stuff as Adam. The animals will not do – because they are different. For most of us this deepest fulfilment will be in a human of the opposite sex – but that is not so for all….

So, I listened as one of my gay friends told how he inhabits God’s story for himself and, like me, he is there in the garden asking God to find a partner who is fully equal to his needs. He wishes to discover mutual support that will sustain them both as a couple through the whole of their life’s journey together and with God. To begin with, God presents various possible partners to him – as in the original drama – and he sees all of these as inadequate for his deepest needs. He does not recognize one who will be a soul mate in whom depths of sexual intimacy can be found. Then after a while a man is presented to him who evokes a totally different level of recognition and response. This for him is what he has been longing for and he exclaims, ‘This at last is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh!’ They can become one. And, of course, the story is inhabited in their own way by other LGBTI+ people.

My prayer is that increasingly we will see that there are various ways to inhabit God’s story in the Bible. As this happens we can reach out to our LGBTI+ sisters and brothers in a wholly new way.

While preserving the tradition that marriage is a commitment to a faithful, life-long and intimate relationship between two people, we will now be able to see the tradition in a fully inclusive way – or, at the very least, hope that others who disagree will allow blessings of same sex marriages – thus leaving a variety of ways of living God’s story that recognizes the full humanity and equality of our LGBTI+ brothers and sisters.

END

This is part of a three-part series by Affirming Evangelicals.

Part 2 is by Rt Revd David Atkinson, former lecturer at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford and former Bishop of Thetford 

Part 3 is by the Revd David Runcorn, former lecturer at Trinity College, Bristol

Jayne Ozanne has written an additional blog entitled Bishops’ Letters and the Case for the Defence – “Lunatic, Liar, or Lord”

CEEC (Church of England Evangelical Council) responded to all these articles with a blog entitled “Why Conservatives Remain Conservative” on November 23rd 2018.

by Erika Baker, Convener of the Christians for LGBTI+ Equality Facebook Group

It is four years since 14-year old Lizzie Lowe took her own life because she could not reconcile her sexuality with her Christian faith and because she did not know that her church could have guided her through this turmoil. The Coroner’s stated that the “church conspiracy of silence around the issue of sexuality… had been the crucible in which she existed”. The anniversary was marked by comprehensive media coverage and many priests across the country took the opportunity to talk about inclusion and the need for “signposting”.

As the BBC has explained Lizzie’s own church signed up to Inclusive Church after her death and her priest, Nicholas Bundock, has since become a strong campaigner for the inclusion of LGBTI+ people in our churches.

Inclusive Church is seen by many as the gold standard that signals that a church has spent time to think through all six inclusion topics and is committed to actively working towards being “a church which does not discriminate, on any level, on grounds of economic power, gender, mental health, physical ability, race or sexuality”. The first step is to make a public commitment to honour that intention.

Not all churches are able to do this yet. As we know, many churches do not want to make this commitment, because they fundamentally disagree  about same sex relationships, and do not see it as an unjust exclusion. Indeed, some churches believe that same sex relationships are a first order issue and a matter of salvation.

It would be fair to say that the Church has been talking about the theology of LGBTI+ inclusion for many many years, and we will doubtlessly be talking about it for many more to come.  In the meantime, however, it is imperative that all churches take a careful look at their pastoral provisions for the young LGBTI+ people in their care and consider increasing their signposting.

No church, however conservative, wants a member of their congregation to be so desperate that they self-harm or take their own life. In this, I am sure, we are united across our differences.

I would suggest that it is not just conservative churches that need to think about their signposting. Many many Church of England churches pride themselves on being welcoming and, at the very least, tolerant of all. Most of them don’t see any special need to make that explicit. Many have openly gay couples in their congregation, often fully included in all aspects of worship. Or they have a partnered priest “everyone” knows about.

But sadly nothing is ever said openly. “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” still reigns supreme.

The most unequivocal ways of signposting are signing up to Inclusive Church, with a poster in the porch and the Inclusive Church statement on your website, or to the OneBodyOneFaith register of Visible Congregations, or having any other explicit messages of welcome on your website and in your porch.

I would like to ask you to take a moment to put yourself in the shoes of a young person in your congregation and to take a walk around your church. Take a look at your website, your notices and your activities. Don’t assume that the young person knows the gay couple in your church you had dinner with only last night. Most couples, gay or straight, don’t hold hands in churches or send out any other easily visible signal that they are a couple.

And if your church is conservative, don’t assume that the young person knows that while your theology prevents you from accepting same sex relationships or gender transitioning, you will do what you can to help them feel a valued and loved member of your congregation.

I regularly meet priests and lay people who are very keen to make sure that everyone knows that their church is pastorally supportive of LGBTI+ people, but who are not sure how to make this clear within the framework of their specific church and its theology.

Where would a person find any signposting that your church is a welcoming space for them? Or that it is safe space for them to talk about their concerns concerning their gender or sexuality? Or that there is at least one designated pastoral support they could approach in confidence? The answers will be different depending on the theology your church holds and not all approaches will work for every church. Each church must find its own way of keeping its LGBTl+ people safe.

Possible ways of signposting suggested in a group of clergy and lay people were:

1. A welcome statement on the church website that explicitly mentions gender and sexuality
2. The same statement displayed in the porch or inside the church
3. Having someone designated (and trained) who publicises that they are a safe person to talk to
4. Training for the pastoral teams and chaplaincy teams
5. Using inclusive language in all services and in prayers
6. Having information in church that shows you are aware and supportive of people needing extra support, including information on Diverse Church; the support group for trans children, Mermaids; and other external organisations offering support to LGBTI+ people
7. Keeping up the signposting so that new people and children growing up in your churches also become aware of it

There must be many other approaches churches have taken, and I would love readers to let me know about them, perhaps in the comments section below.

There is a potential Lizzie Lowe in almost every congregation. Signposting and pastoral support are not about our theology and about how we expect people to live, real people.  They are not about theory but about safeguarding, lived practice and visibly walking alongside people.

As Kevin Lowe, Lizzie’s father has admitted, it can be scary to address this issue and start this conversation in our churches. But it really matters.

Jesus teaches us that we should not be afraid. A quick turn to Google suggests that there are 365 variations of “do not be afraid” in the Bible, one for every day of the year. Whether that’s true or not – it’s a lovely thought. Be encouraged. Do not fear. And begin that conversation about signposting in your church.

In the moving words of Kevin Lowe: “It does take courage, but it is the ability to do what’s right – even when you are afraid.”

by the Revd Canon Giles Goddard, Former Chair of the Human Sexuality Group on General Synod

I am glad to have among my friends several candidates for ordination, currently testing their vocations or in training.  I’m encouraged by the quality and commitment which they show, and by their deep dedication to Gospel values and to working beside people in need.

Some of them happen to be LGBTI+. They’re  people who have had to work out how to respond to the notorious question posed as part of the selection process – the confirmation that they have read and agree to abide by ‘Issues in Human Sexuality’ with its cruel expectation that clergy in same sex relationships should be celibate.

I entered the priesthood shortly after ‘Issues’ was published but before it had morphed into policy. There was never any secret about my sexual orientation. I was fortunate to be in a widely known relationship when I was ordained both deacon and priest, and I was never required to give such a guarantee.  I’m bemused and surprised, but very relieved, that others have not been put off by the question.

I know that we have lost many good candidates as a result of the current position, and I know that it is a bit of a postcode lottery – different bishops have very different policies.

I always ask my friends what makes them stay.  I am touched and encouraged by the answers I receive. A deep sense that they are being called to serve, a recognition that the C of E’s current position is ethically and theologically unsustainable, and a trust that, in the end, the love of God will win out over the reactionary pressures of tradition.

My friends’ responses have increased my feeling of urgency that we must make progress towards recognising and celebrating the diversity of human experience and love. It’s an urgency which has a real focus, as I am a consultant to the Coordinating Group of members of the College of Bishops responsible for ‘Living in Love and Faith’ (LLF).

I think I’m not breaking any confidences if I say that pulling together the document/resource/whatever it will be is a really complex process. The four working groups – Theology, Biblical Studies, Science and History – are doing great work on developing background studies which will, in different ways, be drawn on for the final product. The College of Bishops was given a good insight into the work in progress, last week. But there isn’t a great deal of time to produce the final product, if it is to be ready for Synod to think about in 2020, and expectations are running high on both sides of this debate.

There is great potential for something exciting to emerge. Something which takes seriously recent scholarship and advances in scientific understanding, which recognises the range of legitimate interpretations of scripture, reason and tradition, and opens up the possibility of moving towards a shared economy within the C of E – recognising and affirming LGBTI+ people unequivocally as well as respecting the positions of those who are more conservative. I’m hopeful by nature, and I think that no one would wish to see the amount of time and commitment – and money – going into the process wasted!

But  I am anxious about its reception, because I’m not sure that the purpose of this whole process is fully understood.  I think that many supporters of LGBTI+ inclusion are looking to LLF to make strong recommendations for change – including, for some, the opening up of church marriage to same-sex couples. And many traditionalists, including people close to the process, are looking to it to rule out any realistic change.

LLF may not do either of those things. When I think about it, I often think about exam papers – especially maths exams. I  remember sitting A level papers which set difficult equations to be solved. ‘Please show your workings,’ the instructions said.

My hope is that LLF will enable the C of E to ‘show its workings’ as we move towards full inclusion. At the moment the only recent document accepted by the Church, albeit without due process, is ‘Issues’ – which is widely acknowledged to be deeply flawed and was published in 1991. LLF will, if it is as good as it could be and if it is accepted, bring recent scholarship and contemporary understandings of sexuality, gender and identity into the warp and weft of the Church of England.

But it will be only part of a process – Synod, the House of Bishops and many others will be involved, once LLF is published, in deciding how to move forward. And any movement depends on whether we are all there to help make change happen.

So I am really grateful to my friends who are willing to trust the church with their futures, because they are making a long-term commitment to a flawed and confused institution. And I am grateful to so many others who are carrying on the struggle alongside LGBTI+ people.

As for me, I’ve been having these conversations for 25 years. I have, God willing, around another ten years active ministry. The process of change, if it happens, will not be quick – I don’t expect it to be over before I retire. It will be for others to take forward.

To you all – and you know who you are – thank you for being willing to take on the struggle. And may God be with us all as we try to help the church become the thing it so wonderfully could be, with a little more courage and a lot more love.