The Pilling Report - observations by a Methodist Minister
The following views are my own. They are my own
reflections, thoughts and feelings as a result of reading the report. They do
not necessarily represent the official views of either the Church of England or
the Methodist Church of Great Britain, though I hope that both denominations,
and others, will at least take notice of them in their future deliberations.
You may well ask what a Methodist minister in Wales is
doing reading the Pilling report, a discussion document for the Church of
England. Well, we are certainly not disinterested. The Methodist Church of
Great Britain works closely with our ecumenical partners, and indeed, there is
a covenant between the Methodist Church and the Church of England. It’s never
been fully explained quite how this works with those parts of British Methodism
which are outside England, but that’s another matter!
It is certainly useful for the Methodist Church to know
what is being discussed by the Church of England, as the Methodist Conference
is having similar discussions, and this may help influence the decision one way
or another.
Pilling begins by drawing on earlier Anglican reports on
human sexuality, going back to 1988 Lambeth Conference which urged members of the
Anglican Communion to listen to those who identify as LGBT. Pilling concludes
that there has been no systematic listening in the quarter-century since then.
(p4) My initial reaction on reading that was to think “Surprise, surprise”. To
be fair, I think the key word here is “Systematic” - am sure that there has been some good
listening done by Bishops, clergy and many others, but I guess that this is the
exception rather than the rule.
Pastorally, the Church of England’s attitude to LGBT
people (and in many areas, the attitude of the wider church) has been a
disaster. Again, there are exceptions to the rule, but on the whole, it leaves
a lot to be desired. We are not dealing with issues here, but with people,
real-life people, people who feel hurt, and, in many instances, who feel that
the church inflicts further hurt rather than seeks to heal them. Such a lack of
affirmation often leads to low self-esteem, a sense that they are “dirty” or
“unclean”, and there are far too many instances of suicide. Surely the church
is able to treat people better than this
The report is repentant in tone in several places, it
acknowledges that the Anglican Communion has let the LGBT community down, and
it expresses a desire to do better.
So what has caused this change in tone? Amongst other
things, the passage of the same-sex marriage Bill in the House of Lords. The
debate in Parliament, but especially in the Lords showed a sea-change in
society’s attitudes to the extent that it is hardly an issue at all for under
35s. The greatest opposition to the Bill in the Lords was from the House of
Bishops, and it made them look like dinosaurs of the church. Speaking at the
General Synod about the House of Lords debate, Archbishop Justin said,
“The cultural and political ground is changing.
There is a revolution. Anyone who listened, as I did, to much of the Same sex
Marriage Bill Second Reading debate in the House of Lords could not fail to be
struck by the overwhelming change of cultural hinterland. Predictable attitudes
were no longer there. The opposition to the Bill, which included me and many
other bishops, was utterly overwhelmed, with amongst the largest attendance in
the House and participation in the debate, and majority, since 1945. There was
noticeable hostility to the view of the churches.
I am not proposing new policy, but what I felt than
and feel now is that some of what was said by those supporting the Bill was
uncomfortably close to the bone…. We may or may not like it, but we must accept
that there is a revolution in the area of sexuality, and we have not fully
heard it” (p10)
Of course, some people will respond by saying, “But
Scripture says…” Well, it’s true that a face-value reading of certain passages
of Scripture may not seem to be good news for the gay community. The report
calls on textual experts and those who know their New Testament Greek far
better than I do to deal with this from page 67 onwards. What I will say is
that Jesus said that the first and greatest commandment is to love the Lord
your God, and the second is to love your neighbour as yourself (Matthew
22:37-40) If all the law and prophets hang on these commandments of Jesus, some
of the intolerance and even homophobia and hatred from some sections of the
church need to be re-visited in the light of this.
The report is right to say that not every argument
against homosexuality is to be seen as homophobia. (p102) Indeed, there are
difficulties with the word homophobia, as it is a –phobia and not an –ism.
Attempts to find a better word have, so far, all failed.
Yes, there is genuine homophobia, and the church, even
some sections of the church which might be seen to be against homosexuality are
also making a very firm stand against this. Indeed, there is cause to cheer, as
the report notes that the Archbishop of Canterbury has committed the Church to
combatting homophobic bullying in Church of England schools. (p59) This is to
be welcomed on so many levels.
Yet despite repeatedly trying to say that it is not
homophobic, the House of Lords debate on same-sex marriage caused the church to
ask some difficult questions of itself to see if this really was perceived to
be the case. Again, speaking to Synod about the debate, the archbishop of
Canterbury says
The majority of the population rightly detests
homophobic behaviour or anything that looks like it. And sometimes they look at
us and see what they don’t like. I don’t like saying that. I’ve resisted that
thought. But in that debate, I heard it, and I could not walk away from it.
(p54)
What a sad contrast from half a century ago and the
publication of the Wolfenden report. There, the then Bishop of Durham, Michael
Ramsey (later Archbishop of Canterbury) was at the forefront of the campaign to
decriminalise homosexuality. Now, the Bishops are not being seen as leading the
fight for equality, but rather as trying to maintain inequality and injustice.
Much has been made of the Church of England’s stance that
there seems to be one rule for clergy and one for laity. Yes, it’s true that
clergy are expected to display – well, display what? Higher standards? Well,
perhaps, but aren’t we all human? I’m not advocating “Anything goes” for clergy,
I’m not advocating that for anyone. The recent example of Paul Flowers has
shown what can happen when things get out of control, but the recommendation
that there be no more unnecessary intrusive questioning of candidates &
ordinands (p114) is to be welcomed. Yet the church does need to be a voice against the anything
goes attitude of society.
Perhaps at least some of this could have been avoided if
the church had given better teaching and guidance on the matter of singleness. Whilst
the Roman Catholic Church insists on celibacy for its clergy, the teaching of
the early church of the superiority of celibacy to marriage has largely been
reversed, especially, it seems to me, the more Protestant one goes. That is
another subject which, as a single male Methodist Minister I could write at
length, but I don’t want to get too distracted with a discussion of that here.
The Church of England does not stand alone. It has to
look to other branches of the world-wide Anglican Communion and its ecumenical
partners. That is referred to on page 23, and is also used as an argument in a
dissenting statement by the Bishop of Birkenhead on page 142. This is a valid
point, but such discussions have to be 2-way traffic. In the dissenting
statement, the Bishop of Birkenhead lists a number of denominations he believes
it would damage the Church of England’s relationship with, but interestingly,
the Methodist Church and other mainline Protestant churches do not get a mention
there. Perhaps he doesn’t care to know what we think? But then, the same argument
has been used by the Church of England about the ordination of women, women in
the Episcopate and other arguments in church life.
There clearly needs to be a way forward, and there is
pressure both within the church and from other sources for an end to the status
quo. It looks as if a “Conscience clause” could be a solution. This is what the
Church of Scotland has for clergy in same-sex relationships, and what the
Methodist Church has for the remarriage of divorcees. Indeed, it is what I and
others are advocating for a way forward for the Methodist Church.
I believe that broadly speaking, this is a report to be
welcomed. There is much discussion still to be had, and rightly so. In many
ways, these reflections do not do it justice. You may be able to pick holes in
my arguments, and better theologians than me will be able to discuss the finer
points with far more depth and clarity. It’s just my four penn’orth, and all I
ask is that in any discussion, you keep it civil. It does provoke strong
feelings on all sides, but, writing as I am in the middle of December with the
Season of Goodwill fast approaching, may we in all this be able to see more
what we have in common than the things which would try to divide us.
