The working group on human sexuality which published the Pilling Report included an evangelical Bishop who published a dissenting statement. The majority within the working group thought that the Bishop of Birkenhead reads Scripture “independently of the Church’s traditions and of human reason” and this is seen as characteristic of the evangelical wing of the Church.
Keith Sinclair rightly demurs. Whence this misunderstanding? Hooker is cited in the Report as affirming that “what Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that the first place both of credit and obedience is due” (par. 281). This goes a little further than approaching Scripture “with the utmost seriousness” (par. 233). It may be that such going further, with Hooker, is now thought to reflect a specifically “evangelical” view of the authority of Scripture but it is not perfectly evident that the majority of the working group wants to distance itself from Hooker in this way.
I nevertheless raise this as a possibility because it could be argued that the very claim that Scripture is clear on this, or any other issue, might be seen as threatening the alleged Anglican genius for juggling Scripture, Tradition and Reason. Where Scripture is clear, there is no need for an elaborate appeal to tradition and reason. This could then look like a reading of Scripture “independently of the Church’s traditions and of human reason.” Since the view presented by Keith Sinclair is in line with tradition and his exegesis rationally argued, it is still an odd claim to make but it might explain why the group considered it important “to include in the Appendices two essays on the Scriptures and homosexuality” by two men who would both “identify themselves as evangelicals within the Church of England” and “believe they are taking a high view of the authority of Scripture” (par. 223).
The two contributions are likely meant to “epitomize the way in which study of the same sources can lead to very different conclusions” even among those “taking a high view of the authority of Scripture” (par. 223). Christina Beardsley comments:
It’s a rather limited aim, though consistent with the ethos of polarisation that the working group is keen to insist is prevalent in the Church at large as well as in its midst. What is needed, though, at this point is precisely a wide range of evidence, especially gay, lesbian and queer theology, so that this case can be heard. The brief literature review, paragraphs 227-232, is woefully inadequate in this respect, and I would commend The Gay Gospels by my fellow Changing Attitude, England Trustee, Dr Keith Sharpe, for a comprehensive and succinct account of non-heterosexist readings of these passages.
Maybe the working group wanted to avoid characterising this as primarily a debate about the authority of Scripture. The debate about same-sex relationships is of course also a debate about the authority of Scripture and this is acknowledged in the Report. But by privileging readings that ostensibly come from the same stable, the working group may have hoped to demonstrate that there is a debate to be had about what the Bible teaches even among those who come to the text with a high view of Scripture as the authoritative and trustworthy word of God.
Among supporters of Changing Attitude this strategy is felt as excluding, apparently because it privileges those who emphasise our responsibility to listen to Scripture and obey over against those who stress our need to be ethical in our use of Scripture. Christina Beardsley, however, does not specify in what ways David Runcorn’s contribution falls short.
We should seek to listen with care to hear what God says to us through his Word and submit to it with joy. We should also be concerned that our use of Scripture like all of our life fulfils the commandment to love God and our neighbour. The Report may have missed an opportunity to ascertain whether we are agreed on these two principles or not, even allowing for differences in emphasis.
Supporters of Changing Attitude readily decry literalism and bibliolatry. The latter is what Keith Sinclair is accused of in one of the responses: “He wants to ‘set out the whole attractive biblical vision for the ordering of human relationships.’ (Attractive? Not to gays it isn’t. It’s toxic).” I suspect that the commenter does not want to characterise the biblical vision itself as toxic, rather Sinclair’s presentation of it, but the following paragraph suggests that treating “the authority of scripture” as “a first-order issue” is part of the problem. It is possible that the charge of “bibliolatry” would cover anyone who is seen to be privileging conformity of our experience to Scripture over against conformity of our reading of Scripture to our experience.
For Colin Coward himself the Report demonstrates that “Christianity is in thrall to literalist faith” and another comments that the Report “is naive in its use of Scripture.” Such comments could suggest that the disagreement is not so much about the authority of Scripture than it is about what constitutes good hermeneutics. But the comments provide no evidence for a concern that the Church may be too cavalier in its use of Scripture. A warning against failing to submit to all that the Bible, taken as a coherent whole, teaches would be as unexpected here as an evangelical warning the Church against taking Scripture too seriously.
So a dividing line between those who wish to privilege the biblical text and those who wish to privilege the ethical reader is discernible. Christina Beardsley is worried that the selection of two evangelicals to represent the diversity of Biblical interpretation gives undue prominence to the part of the Church that stresses humility before the Word of God. I read the Report differently.
It is true that the working group does not give an equal voice to those who argue that we should not necessarily submit to what the Bible teaches. While the majority slightly distances itself from “a high view of the authority of Scripture,” this is done only implicitly and while asserting in the same breath a lack of clarity on what the Bible teaches, thus leaving the door open to the claim that we would submit to Biblical teaching if only we knew what it is.
The choice of two evangelicals to discuss the biblical evidence ostensibly privileges “a high view of the authority of Scripture,” but at the same time undermines it by suggesting that such a view is the property of one wing of the Church, not the birthright of the whole Church.
Evangelicals will want to stress that a submissive stance to Scripture and a concern to let our use of the Bible be an expression of love are not two opposite poles - far from it. But the danger of focusing on submission to certain parts of Scripture in ways which neither do justice to Scripture nor express love to our neighbour is real.
Most evangelicals stress that the Scriptures consistently condemn gay sex without qualification and do so in an environment of more permissive cultures around them. They are also by and large sceptical of the claim that loving and stable homosexual relationships are only to be found in recent times. For this reason they fail to see how the Church can change its teaching on sexual behaviour without compromising itself. At the same time, most evangelicals stress that acts are condemned, not same-sex orientation or loving relationships between members of the same sex.
Nevertheless, the impression is often left that people who experience same-sex attraction are tainted. This is what LGBT people report. There has been little discussion that I am aware of among those affirming Biblical limits to sexual behaviour as to whether same-sex attraction is a handicap or a different giftedness (cf. the quotation from Eve Tushnet in a previous post). If the former, this calls for greater compassion. If the latter, we should explore ways of affirming and celebrating same-sex orientation without endorsing sexual behaviour which is condemned in the Bible.
It is true that it would be easier to have this discussion in the Church if we were all agreed on the authority of Scripture and on abiding by the limits to sexual behaviour set out therein. But the fact that some will insist that they will not feel welcomed and affirmed until some of the traditional limits are lifted should not prevent those who believe that Scriptural teaching on sexual behaviour is clear from exploring the broader issues of desire and identity.
The suggestion that affirming a high view of Scripture is a specifically evangelical concern is troubling in both directions. The authority of Scripture should not be a primarily evangelical concern but neither should evangelicals accept that being gatekeepers of Scriptural teaching is their role if it means neglecting reflection on those issues that are not directly addressed in the Bible.
