Fr. Dale Matson
The official title of the Pilling Report is Working Group
on human sexuality (November 2013). However, the beginning section of the
(18) recommendations, “The foundation [my
bolding] of our report states, ‘1. We warmly welcome and affirm the presence
and ministry within the church of gay and lesbian people both lay and ordained.’”
I do not believe the title of the report accurately reflects the body of the
research and “Findings and 18 recommendations do not follow from the body of
the research. For example, does this report offer a response to the growing
number of of unmarried heterosexual couples living together? Is abortion an
acceptable means of birth control?
I was struck by this statement “The church has at many
points in its history sought to call people to embrace a world view that is
deeply at odds with the prevailing culture.” (p. 45) But is the conclusion
then, that this is not one of those times-that the church is wrong and
contemporary society is right?
Recommendation #2 refers to “the subject of sexuality, with
its history of deeply entrenched views.” Does this mean that the traditional
understanding needs to be uprooted? “…would be best addressed by facilitated conversations…” this sounds much
like the ‘Indaba’ process conservatives have had to endure for more than a
decade. The GAFCON primates have heard enough and will no longer listen. The
encouragement of recommendation #4 to carry the dialogue on same sex
relationships to the “…wider Anglican Communion” will fall on deaf ears and has
already been rebuffed by Archbishop Stanley Ntagali http://anglicanink.com/article/warning-uganda-english-hypocrisy-over-homosexuality.
The same is true of Archbishop Eluid Wabukala http://anglicanink.com/article/gafcon-archbishop-chastises-pusillanimous-church-england.
I am comforted that recommendation #6 states, “No one should
be accused of homophobia simply for articulating traditional Christian teaching
on same sex relationships.” My concern is that the Church of England is in the
process of redefining traditional Christian teaching based on a missiology
intended at adapting to social change and attracting un-churched young people
in England.
Recommendation #13 states, in part, “The church needs to
find ways of honoring and affirming those Christians who ….in good conscience
have entered partnerships with a firm intention of life-long fidelity.” Is this
not a change in church doctrine?
The actual foundational
reasons for the report are stated below.
“16. We believe
that there can be circumstances where a priest,
with the
agreement of the relevant PCC, should be free to mark the
formation of a
permanent same sex relationship in a public service
but should be
under no obligation to do so. Some of us do not
believe that this
can be extended to same sex marriage. (Paragraphs
120, 380–3)”
“17. While the
Church abides by its traditional teaching such
public services
would be of the nature of a pastoral
accommodation
and so the Church
of England should not authorize a formal liturgy
for use for this
purpose. The House of Bishops should consider
whether guidance
should be issued. (Paragraphs 118, 384–8, 391–3)”
But doesn’t ‘guidance’ become
policy and policy lead to doctrine?
Does this sound familiar? “Resolved that bishops, particularly
those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same gender marriage civil
unions or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this
church. “ (Excerpted from Resolution CO 56, TEC 76th General
Convention, 2009)
Of course,
assurances are given that “The
recommendations do not propose any change in the church’s teaching on sexual
conduct.” This is stated in the report from Archbishops Welby and Sentamu (28
November 2013). It is restated in the college of Bishops affirmative response
to the Pilling Report (27 January 2014). Does this sound familiar also? Both
Katharine Schori and Bonnie Anderson (head of house of deputies) said, “Nothing
has changed” after the resolution passed in General Convention.
And all of this
is repeatedly stated, with “…the guidance of the Holy Spirit”, “…reflecting
upon the Scriptures.” and “…attempting to discern the mind of Christ.” So much
of all these documents is boilerplate cobbled together to ‘stay on message’.
The Pilling
Report should have been research based outcome but it was outcome-based
research. Did the person(s) who wrote the “Findings and recommendations”
section actually review the preceding research section? The two are
disconnected.
Did anyone doubt how things would turn out thus far? Does
anyone doubt where this will end? Will there be a formal split between GAFCON
and the CoE? It seems inevitable. Kyrie eleison