One of the main aims of the supporters of the
Pilling Report seems to have been to make room for disagreement. On the one
hand, they affirm that “No one should be accused of homophobia solely for
articulating traditional Christian teaching on same sex relationships.” On the
other hand, the Report recommends “a period of debate and discernment in
relation to the gospel message in our culture” and urges that that “all,
including those with teaching authority in the Church, should be able to participate
openly and honestly in that process.”
In other words, those upholding traditional teaching should
be able to do so without being accused of homophobia, and those urging a change
in the church’s teaching should be able to do so without recrimination.
This does not seem to be workable. Alan Wilson, the Bishop of
Buckingham in the Diocese of Oxford, echoes many others when he says:
The nub of the problem for me is that it is all very well to assert "traditional teaching is not homophobic in itself" but of course it is, by the report's own criteria.
The response to the House
of Bishops Pastoral Guidance on Same Sex Marriage (14 February 2014), e.g. as
collated on
TA here, here and here, demonstrates that for many anything short of full endorsement of
same-sex marriage is homophobic.
If support for same-sex marriage is morally equivalent to the
abolition of slavery and the anti-apartheid movement, it is hard to see how and
why ‘progressives’ should make space for ‘conservatives’ even as a temporary appeasement
strategy.
It is therefore a little surprising that David Runcorn, who
argues that the debated issue should be one “on which Christians may respectfully
differ,” when suggesting analogous disagreements, should focus on slavery (in the Report itself, cf. my
previous post) and apartheid (in an additional
article). Was there ever a time during which the right course of action
would have been to “respectfully differ” on the atrocities of modern slavery
and the injustices of the apartheid system? If so, on what grounds? David Runcorn is not
arguing that we should be more inclusive of slave-holders and racists. So either,
unlike apparently the Rt Revd Alan Wilson and others, David Runcorn is not yet convinced
that opposition to same-sex marriage is reprehensible and offensive, or he believes that
while it is as reprehensible as racism, it is not something over which to break
fellowship.
On the face of it, comparisons with modern slavery and
apartheid suggest that ultimately there can be little room for differing respectfully. The basis for tolerating ‘homophobes’ would be either (a) numerical
or moral weakness, or (b) an acknowledgement that ‘homophobes’ are sincere,
bound by their conscience, and not malicious. In both cases the tolerance would
be limited either (a) until sufficient strength has been gained to confront ‘homophobes’
effectively, or (b) until the church’s teaching ministry has been sufficiently broad
and deep to leave ‘homophobes’ without any excuse.
This may be why the Report itself did not appeal to comparisons with slavery and apartheid but used the analogy of disagreements about war. David Runcorn's focus is more limited. He wants to make room for disagreeing about what the Scripture says on the issue at hand by pointing to diverging readings in the past among people with a high view of the way God exercises his authority through Scripture.The
Pilling Report states in paragraph 57:
It is worth, at this stage, setting out the nub of the disagreement ... It turns, as has the Church’s ongoing disagreement on questions of sexuality, on the meaning and authority of Scripture.
David Runcorn's contribution is included to bolster the claim that the disagreement is not solely about the authority of Scripture but about its meaning. If we cannot be confident about the meaning of Scripture, we must disagree respectfully, that is, presumably, allow for more than one reading. Our disagreements should arguably be always respectful. Maybe the point is or should be that some readings are difficult to respect, either because they are without sound exegetical and hermeneutical basis or because they are morally reprehensible?
