From the Revd John Prysor-Jones
Sir, - The Revd Professor Chris Cook, in his critique (Comment, 19
September) of the Pilling report, helpfully refers to "complex
and often hidden assumptions" informing our theology,
interpretation of scripture, science, and experience of sexuality.
Examining these assumptions in "facilitated conversations" could
help redress the perceived imbalance of power felt by many sexual
minorities.
To any discussion, each brings personality characteristics,
personal histories, repressed conflicts, and the form of faith
inculturated - all contributing to our view of the world and
understanding of faith. Owning this humanity might counter the
searching of science for proof that such sexualities are
psychologically flawed (which leaves many feeling exposed and under
scrutiny to justify themselves) with a willingness to examine
states of mind obsessed with others' sexuality, and a religion of
certainties which they wish to impose on others.
Psychological understanding is necessary for all involved in
this debate. Those who are at peace with themselves, and
self-respectful, can be respectful of others. Theological certainty
is no substitute for psychological maturity.
In the UK, professional bodies in psychiatry, psychology,
counselling, and psychotherapy are convinced that homosexuality is
not pathological. Yet the Church implies that it is. A committed
Anglican, mother of four adult sons, two of whom are gay, and one
of whom feels a vocation to priesthood, asked: "Why does the Church
have to say anything about sexuality? Why is it so central to its
concerns?"
To these serious questions, from one struggling to stay in the
Church, we could add other subjects. A different approach might
focus on what will encourage flourishing for all, giving priority
to justice, even when it is against our own interests, rather than
unity at all costs. Damage has been done to the Church over the
handling of sexuality and gender. There is an opportunity to make a
corrective, which touches people's humanity, opening them to the
deeper reality of God. The point of view presented here is shared
by many, largely silent, and has the potential to move from
wearying "for" and "against" disputes to serious engagement.
JOHN PRYSOR-JONES
Bryn-Y-Môr, St John's Park
Penmaenmawr, Conwy, LL34 6NE
From Dr Stephen J. O'Connor
Sir, - I commend your excellent contribution from Professor
Chris Cook. I would, however, go further in criticising the Pilling
report; for I was dismayed by the all-too-apparent selectivity of
the scientific findings considered by the House of Bishops Working
Group, which failed to review, in many cases, the primary
peer-reviewed papers referred to in much of the secondary
literature cited.
There is also a tendency in the report, and certainly in the
dissenting statement by the Bishop of Birkenhead, to reify the
injudicious opinions of a lobby group, namely the Core Issues
Trust.
As a scientist, a Christian, an Anglican, and one who genuinely
seeks to know God's will in relation to this debate for both
personal and theological reasons, I am disappointed that the report
lacks the scientific and philosophical rigour I would expect from
any of my postgraduate students. I was surprised that so much of
its length is taken up by the divergent opinion of one member.
This, for the most part, relies on personal anecdote and the use of
single isolated texts to eschew the growing and increasingly
definitive body of evidence that same-sex attraction is not a
simple or sinful life choice, and must, therefore, be capable of
finding its fulfilment in a committed and monogamous relationship
for the same reasons as this is commended by the Apostle Paul to
heterosexual followers of the Lord, and summed up in the very
earliest pages of the scriptures, which state that it is not good
for man to be alone.
Consequently, any discussion of human sexuality and the
psycho-social and spiritual needs that arise from this God-given
condition (of whatever variety), together with the correct
theological, pastoral, and liturgical response to it, cannot be
drawn from so narrow a premise as the Pilling report provides.
Its superficiality does great disservice to many thousands in
the Anglican Communion worldwide, and represents, in my view, a
well-meaning but ill-informed exercise in discursive capture by
those holding an authorising skeptron over the lives, identities,
emotions, feelings, and, indeed, ministries of many who deserve a
better starting-point for such a discussion.
It is vital that this situation be rectified, if the report, and
in particular, the minority view that follows it, is not to be used
to defend an unnecessary and prejudicial status quo, and support
the ongoing discrimination against homosexuals in some dioceses.
The conversation needs to be based on a proper and more rigorous
review of the evidence.
Such a review needs to be conducted by experts who have
scientific as well as theological credibility, an objective and yet
prayerful mind, and a sufficiently discerning spirit to present a
better and fuller synthesis of the scientific evidence and its
consequences. The House of Bishops would do well to extend the
scope of their original inquiry to do just this. Professor Cook
would be an excellent person to start with.
STEPHEN J. O'CONNOR
Reader in Cancer, Palliative and End of Life Care School of
Nursing
Faculty of Health and Wellbeing,
Canterbury Christ Church University,
Canterbury CT1 1QU
From the Revd Toddy Hoare
Sir, - I read Professor Chris Cook on the Pilling report with
interest. I am no scientist. There still seems to be a missing
element when I ask myself: "What experience do any of us have of
homosexuality?" As a parish priest, I encountered homosexuals, some
open about it, others not, some bishops, some fellow clergy, as
much as I had at school, at art school, as an artist, as a soldier,
when working for the Missions to Seamen, and when at theological
college. At the end of the day, they are people, and surely the
real measure of their evaluation is "What do they contribute to the
Kingdom of God?"
Some certainly contribute a great deal more than others of us.
Would the Church was less obsessed about the matter and about
making an issue of it rather than showing compassion and getting on
with the good news of the Gospels. (There are checks and balances
enough for those whose sexuality gets out of control or interferes
with others.)
My only gripe is that same-sex marriage is a bridge too far,
clouds what marriage is really about, and was introduced out of the
blue by an ignorant government.
TODDY HOARE
Pond Farm House, Holton, Oxford OX33 1PY
From the Revd Owen Dobson
Sir, - I am increasingly depressed and angered by what I hear
from people I encounter who are gay and exploring a vocation to
ministry in the Church of England. Many of those I have had the
privilege to meet and get to know are working in parishes, schools,
hospitals, and chaplaincies, already engaged in vital ministries,
and greatly loved and valued by their congregations and clergy.
It has been humbling to encounter these largely young,
energetic, intelligent, prayerful people of great integrity: whence
comes the rub. The selection process seems designed to encourage
secrecy and silence about sexuality. I have heard of diocesan
directors of ordinands' saying to candidates that it was because
they disclosed that they were in a relationship that they were
turned away: if they'd have kept quiet, all would have been fine.
The system wants people to lie, though the blame falls firmly on
candidates who tell DDOs what they make clear they want to hear,
but are later found to be in a relationship.
Others have been told their case might be considered if they
were to form a civil partnership: strange how convenient CPs have
suddenly become to a Church that refuses to bless them. Others,
whose gifts and calling are clear, have been asked to try another
denomination!
God is calling gay people to ministry, lots of them: passionate,
loving, faithful Christians whom the Church of England needs. But
so many of them are left deeply troubled and compromised by a
selection system that rewards dishonesty and denial.
The whole process needs to look in the mirror: what are we
saying about the call of God when we force those responding to it
to hide who they are and whom they love? Is this the way to a
healthy Church with happy clergy? Is this the best example we can
set to our congregations of daily following Christ's call to
fullness of life?
OWEN DOBSON
61 Pembroke House, London W2 6HQ