Raising the Flag of Faithfulness and Purity

In August 2018, Ely Cathedral flew a rainbow flag to mark an LGBT+ pride event that was taking place in the city. The Cathedral Chapter were rightly motivated in wanting to signal compassionate acceptance of LGBT+ people, but misguided in flying the rainbow flag. The gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ calls everyone to faith and discipleship, and it calls LGBT+ people just as much the heterosexually oriented to faithfulness in their relationships and purity in the their lives. The event whose flag Ely flew, however, included an ‘adults only” party. Any commitment to faithfulness and purity there may be by some in the movement whose flag this is, is accidental rather than typical. By flying the rainbow standard, the Chapter of Ely Cathedral signalled capitulation to a force that remains hostile to the standard of Christ.

Ian Paul (@Psephizo) has a lengthy discussion of the Ely question  here. I won’t spend any more time on that specific occasion here, except to refer to it in my remarks near the end of this post.

I would like us to look ahead twenty or so years and picture what things might look like within Tikanga Pakeha of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia (ACANZP)  if the provisions of Motion 7 (see footnote below), as passed at our May 2018 General Synod / Te Hinau Whanui (GSTHW), have taken root and been honoured on all sides.

  • The ACANZP by then has one or more bishops, and numbers of clergy, who are in same-sex relationships that have been blessed in the Church, and the thing that most surprises visitors from parishes and dioceses that still do not appoint such clergy is that, as these clergy lead in prayer and worship or in celebration of the Eucharist, their sexual orientation is invisible. Their goal, like the goal of every godly heterosexually-oriented servant of Christ, is to lift up Christ and make him visible, and therefore they efface themselves.

    In their preaching and pastoral work, they are known to make the call to faithfulness and purity loud and clear, and to counsel those of whatever sexual orientation to remain celibate if not in a Church-blessed relationship.

    In every church, conservative as well as others, those who struggle with the challenge of celibacy, whatever their orientation or stated identity, are given compassionate, non-judgmental counsel, prayer, and support. No one is ashamed or fearful of making their struggle and faltering known to their pastors.
  • Almost every parish also has some lay couples who are in blessed same-sex relationships, and they display by their actions and involvement that their zeal is for the full-orbed gospel mission given to us by Christ. The same commitment is evident in clergy in same-sex relationships, too.
  • All this initially came as a great surprise to many conservatives who, though having supported Motion 7 for the preservation of church unity, had nevertheless worried that it was a Trojan horse that would shortly lead to gay orgies on sacristy floors.

    Some, consequently, have been able to rethink the issue in the context of the whole counsel of Scripture. Seeing some things in Scripture they had not weighed before, they have changed their view and now support the blessing of faithful same-sex relationships.

    Others do not yet have that confidence, but almost all have come to the view that they are willing to leave the ultimate question in the gracious hands of God, and to receive such people as sisters, brothers and shepherds.
  • Of course, there have been some scandals and some dissolutions of relationships, but no more, proportionately, than among the Church’s heterosexual couples.

That is a possible future, but there are some things that could prevent it happening, and leave the church divided.

  • Foolish alliances with wickedness, such as that made by Ely Cathedral. (Conservatives, too, are capable of such alliances, as witness the support that so many evangelicals have given to Donald Trump, so please understand this caveat as applying to all parts of the Church.)
  • Scandals and relationship dissolutions that proportionately far outnumber those among heterosexually-oriented clergy and laity, so that the suspicion held by many conservatives is not dispelled, that same-sex relationships are somehow inherently disordered.
  • Priests who use the pulpit and altar as a platform for LGBT+ visibility rather than for the elevation of Christ.

Please bear with me as I draw upon a stereotype for humorous effect to illustrate the point: if the breeze from the sleeves of your surplice frequently blows out the altar candles, you may be guilty of the fault I’m naming here! I know that the stereotype is false as a stereotype, and applies only to a minority in gay circles even outside the Church, but I wanted to accompany what I intend as a serious point with a memorable image. Hopefully, I’ve succeeded.

Please bear with me as I draw upon a stereotype for humorous effect to illustrate the point: if the breeze from the sleeves of your surplice frequently blows out the altar candles, you may be guilty of the fault I’m naming here! (I know that the stereotype is false as a stereotype, and applies only to a minority in gay circles even outside the Church, but I wanted to accompany what I intend as a serious point with a memorable image. Hopefully, I’ve succeeded.)

I would add, too, that the breeze that comes from your mouth in your sermon or homily can also blow out the candles.

  • Insistence on changing the doctrine of the Church so that same-sex unions are deemed to be marriages, undifferentiated in any theologically meaningful way from heterosexual unions. The permission already achieved via Motion 7 for blessing same-sex unions will not, I think, lead to many more resignations from the ACANZP than have already occurred, but insistence on changing the doctrine of marriage, I think, will. I hope that those who would like to see such a change will let it lie.

My hope is for the first set of outcomes, but my fear is that the second set may prevail. Let us encourage one another to beware of them.

Footnote: About Motion 7

Motion 29 of GSTHW 2016 resulted in the establishment of a working group which was charged with bringing recommendations to GSTHW 2018 on “possible structural arrangements within the Church to safeguard both theological convictions concerning the blessing of same gender relationships”.

At GSTHW 2018, Motion 7 received the report and adopted for implementation the essence of its recommendations. (That is why you may see the terms “Motion 7” and “Motion 29” used more or less interchangeably in imprecise discussions of this issue.) The same Synod accordingly approved five statutes that amended a number of canons and also created a new one, for purposes that were stated in the preamble to each statute. To make it easy to understand what was achieved, I have listed those purpose statements (rather than the amended canons), below.

Statute 747 “…amending Title D Canon I to provide for immunity from complaint and discipline for Ordained Ministers who either agree, or refuse to agree, to conduct services blessing couples in civil marriages or civil unions in accordance with an amended Title G Canon XIV and to provide immunity from complaint and discipline for those who preach or teach that such services are, or are not, consistent with Holy Scripture and the doctrine of this Church” [and]

“…amending Title D Canon II to provide for immunity from complaint and discipline for bishops who either authorise, or refuse to authorise, a form of service blessing couples in civil marriages or civil unions and who either authorise, or refuse to authorise, Ordained Ministers to conduct such services in accordance with an amended Title G Canon XIV and to provide immunity from complaint and discipline for those who preach or teach that such services are, or are not, consistent with Holy Scripture and the doctrine of this Church”

Statute 748 “…amending Title G Canon XIV to create a framework to allow for Bishops to: a. authorise services blessing those in any civil marriage or civil union; and b. authorising individual Ordained Ministers to conduct such services.”

Statute 749 “…To give effect to the recommendations of the Motion 29 working group by enacting a new Title B Canon XXXVIII to provide for the recognition of Christian Communities and for the affiliation of Ministry Units with them.”

Statute 750 “…To amend Title A Canon I, Title A Canon II and Title B Canon XXI so that the forms of declaration of adherence and submission set out there are consistent with the forms of declaration of adherence and submission set out in the Constitution/Te Pouhere.”

Statute 751 “…To amend clause 15 of Part C of the Constitution/Te Pouhere to repeal and replace the existing form of declaration of adherence and submission”


Not Discerning the Body

Elsewhere, I have acknowledged the mess we delegates made at the August 2018 session of the Synod of the Nelson Anglican Diocese, when we passed a motion stating that Nelson’s relationship with the rest of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia (ACANZP) was “impaired”. The majority, I am sure, meant “impaired” only in a mild, generic sense of the word. We have concerns that we believe need to be raised and discussed and a sense that the relationship is to a degree impaired and will remain impaired until these matters have been sincerely discussed and, with mutual love, resolved, but impaired only in the dictionary sense of the word, as it might be used outside Anglican polity.

I want now to explain why I believe those concerns are justified, and why I decided to support the amended motion even though I opposed its original version. My support turned out to be ill-advised, but only because the motion, amended on the floor from the original, was not carefully thought through, not because the underlying issue was inconsequential.

These are of course just my personal views. I don’t claim to know what swayed the decision of the other delegates.

I strongly supported Motion 29 when it was debated by the Nelson Synod in March 2018, and Synod voted by a small majority (slightly less than 60%) to encourage our General Synod representatives to support it. In its modified Motion 7 form, it was subsequently adopted by General Synod / Te Hīnota Whānui (GSTHW). I continue to believe that Motion 29 was the best way forward for us, the ACANZP.

However, some of what occurred at GSTHW and afterwards was sufficient to raise misgivings in the minds of a significant number in Nelson. I will list those misgivings and then make my own comments regarding them.

  1. The report from the Motion 29 working group had said that their recommendations did not extend to the matter of ordinations. Motion 7 did not carry that caveat forward. 
  2. Auckland immediately announced their intention to ordain those in same-sex unions that have been blessed in the ACANZP, and, of course, +Jim White has now ordained Reverend Chris Swannell. 
  3. Auckland also put forward Motion 13 at General Synod, which would have redefined marriage, and this motion was only narrowly defeated.
    My statement here is wrong!  See Peter Carrell’s comment that I have now appended at the bottom of this post.

My comments are these:

  1. It is my opinion that it logically follows from Motion 29/7 that persons in blessed same-sex unions can be ordained. However, I might be wrong, and so might others who think so. Regardless of whether Motion 7 repeated the caveat or not, there should have been further Province-wide discussion before any ordination occurred. 
  2. I can sympathetically understand why +Jim White would be eager to ordain Chris Swannell, who has given many years of faithful service and is highly esteemed as a pastor by the Russell congregation and by others. Nevertheless, I think it was a mistake and harmful to the health of the Province to pre-emptively announce the intention to ordain and then carry it out. 
  3. Thank God for the wise heads, though only a small majority, who defeated Motion 13. Awkward though relationships and future discussions may be, Nelson remains part of the Province, and it seems to me uncaring that other parts of the Province should try to drive forward by weight of numbers a change in what has for centuries been thought to be a fundamental part of the Church’s doctrine. Frustrating though the wait may be, the discussions need to take as long as they take, even if that is decades more. And if the change is never made, so be it – we’ll still at the end of it have a healthy, unified Province in which – given that Motion 7 has been passed – no faithful, believing LGBTQ person need feel unwelcome.

When Paul reproved the Corinthian church for abuses of the Lord’s Supper, he told them, “…anyone who eats and drinks [the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper] without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Corinthians 11:29, ESV). Earlier commentators seem to have seen “discerning the body” only as recognising that the bread is a reminder (at the very least) of Christ’s crucified body. However, in the last 100 years or so, commentators have suggested that it also has a reference to discerning the unity of the body which Christ has created, the Church. This comment by Thomas Schreiner is a good summary of the position:

“It is also possible that discerning the body refers to the church. The rich members failed to discern the unity of the body; thus, they harassed the poor and relegated them to second-class status, and thereby imposed the standards of society upon the church. It is difficult to be certain, but perhaps the best solution does not opt for an either–or. In partaking of the bread, believers participate ‘in the body of Christ’ (1 Cor. 10:16); and, ‘Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body’ (1 Cor. 10:17). Paul has already forged a close connection between the broken body of Christ and the one body which is the church. The same connection and link is probably present here as well.” (Thomas R. Schreiner, 1 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale New Testament Commentary), Kindle location 4749).

Personally, I think that Schreiner’s “probably” is too weak. Elsewhere in the Epistle, Paul has:

  • reproved the Corinthians for splintering into sects 
  • reminded them, “…you [the Church] are God’s temple and … God’s Spirit dwells in you. If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him” (1 Corinthians 3:16‭-‬17, ESV) 
  • told them, in the context of discussing attitudes toward meat that had been offered to idols, “…not all possess this knowledge” (1 Corinthians 8:7, ESV), so that they must be mindful and considerate of those whose faith-knowledge is weaker than theirs.

Therefore, it seems to me almost certain that Paul will have seen symptoms of the same sin in the disorder of the Corinthian “Lord’s Supper”. But, even if he didn’t, I think I am justified in using the phrase “not discerning the body” as a rubric for all schismatic or running-roughshod-over  disorders of the kind that Paul deals with in 1st Corinthians and in Romans 14.

Earlier, I defended +Jim White’s probable motivation for ordaining Chris Swannell so quickly, but I said I believed the action was a mistake. If some dioceses and parishes rush to draw implications from Motion 7 and apply them without stopping to consult with other dioceses and parishes whom they know full well are likely to disagree, are they not repeating the Corinthian error that Schreiner describes as relegating other members of the body to second-class status?

I know that Schreiner’s phrase can be turned in the other direction, too, and conservatives charged with having treated LGBTQ believers as second-class. However, if that was your first thought on reading my previous paragraph, I plead with you to look again at Jesus and Paul and John: “Little children, love one another.” Differences will arise between us, but our Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles forbid us to act contemptuously or combatively as we seek to resolve the issues. If there is guilt on both sides, that doesn’t exonerate your side!

I understand the zeal with which many want to press forward and right wrongs in the Church’s treatment of LGBTQ believers, but no amount of zeal gives any of us the right to override Jesus and Paul and John and destroy the temple of God.

In Romans 14, Paul is dealing with less weighty matters of controversy than our differences regarding blessings and ordinations. All the same, I think we would do well to take to heart and apply to ourselves his counsel in that chapter:

Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand. (Romans 14:4, NIV).

Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. (Romans 14:6, NIV)

Let us stop viewing the other side as the unenlightened enemy, and instead see each other as servants each sincerely seeking to please the master whom we worship in common. Let us not dismiss the other viewpoint by accusing its adherents of acting from a base motive, such as on the one hand a supposed desire to maintain an oppressive structure, or on the other hand a desire to subvert the Church into orgiastic license. Instead, let us credit one another with doing what we do with an attitude that is “to the Lord”. And let us entrust one another to the grace of our Master who is able to make his servants stand even when, as a matter of divine fact, they are mistaken about something.

Relationships within the Church of Corinth were impaired because of the failure of many to “discern the body” and be guided and controlled in their actions by that discernment. I sorrowfully believe that relationships between the conservative parts of the ACANZP and those who would press forward beyond Motion 7 without respectful consultation are impaired in just the same way, for just the same reason. The way forward is to acknowledge frankly the impairment and try in Christ to resolve it.

Nelson’s “impaired relationship” motion was a regrettable mess, but masked by the mess is a sentiment that remains true and cries out for loving “discerning the body” consideration by the rest of the Province.


“Dear Trevor,
Unfortunately aspects of your post above involve inaccuracies and it is possible that Nelson General Synod reps did not make sufficiently clear to your synod some aspects of the GS 2018 decisions/texts. Specifically:

1. on the matter of ordination, it was very clear at GS 2018 that little or nothing was said about ordination, precisely, deliberately because that meant that each bishop could work out her or his response to the resolutions in respect of ordination. Auckland is well within that ambit to do what it has done and so is Nelson (in, presumably, undertaking no such ordinations). Whether Auckland should have acted so quickly on the matter is a moot point, but there was no intrinsic reason within the GS 2018 deliberations why they should not have acted as they have done.

2. there was no motion narrowly lost which would have changed the definition of marriage. What was lost was a motion to set up a working group on the theology of marriage, a working group with a four year reporting time frame. Such motions are apple pie and motherhood because they do not ask synod members to make an actual decision to change anything. We have no idea what the majority against change would have been, had actual change been proposed.

Putting this in another way, the question being asked about the meaning of “impaired” involves asking whether it is giving expression to a somewhat vague unhappiness (that the church might one day entertain the notion of change to the doctrine of marriage) in which case, does “impaired” have any meaning at all? Or, is it specifically about disagreement with what Auckland has done re ordination, in which case, is Nelson in an impaired relationship with Auckland and not with ACANZP at large?

Ven. Dr Peter Carrell
Director of Education, Diocese of Christchurch & Director of Theology House
Archdeacon of Pegasus”

image source

Two Ways Forward

Two ways forward lie before the Anglican Church in the province of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia. One way is to adopt the recommendations that have been made in the report of the Working Group that was formed in consequence of Motion 30 as agreed at the 2014 General Synod / te Hinota Whanui. To choose that way is to choose to divide our Church. There is not the slightest possibility that conservative parishes and clergy will agree to remain part of a body that had accepted the recommendations framed as they are in the Working Group’s report. Nor could any conceivable amendments make the recommendations acceptable.

The other way is to analyse why the Working Group has got it so badly wrong and to start again and do it right this time. I hope that that is the path we follow, and so I offer my own preliminary analysis here.

A Hopeful Starting Point

Reports from those who attended the 2014 General Synod / te Hinota Whanui say that there was a prayerful sense of unity among the delegates despite the extreme differences in views regarding the blessing of same-sex relationships. It was that feeling of unity, it seems to me, that paved the way for Motion 30. Two integrities were sensed, and a way was to be sought, if possible, to formally recognise those two integrities within the processes, structures and liturgies of the Church, as a common faith in Jesus Christ was acknowledged, and a common desire to serve his kingdom.

The ideal way forward for the working group would have been to begin with that foundation and work very carefully forward: “This is what we have in common; where does that lead us in respect of the charge that Motion 30 has given us?” Every part of the report prior to the recommendations themselves needed to be statements that could be affirmed by all parties. Such a process may then have led to recommendations that all parties could support. I acknowledge that even then it may not have done so, and that the recommendations might still have needed to be adopted by majority vote within the working group, but:

  • I am sure that the liturgical recommendations would have differed in significant ways from those presented in the current report, and have come much closer to something able to be accepted within the conservative parts of the Church.
  • The preliminary sections of the report would have given the General Synod / te Hinota Whanui a clear overview of the issues involved, as seen from both sides, so far better equipping delegates – and, afterwards, the diocesan synods – to evaluate the recommendations and accept or reject them.

Recognising Integrity Despite Diversity

When I say, “I disagree with my sister on this or that issue of doctrine or practice, but I believe that she holds that position in integrity,” it should mean that I have put on her moccasins and walked as far as I possibly could in them. I have started at a point where we were standing together and I have explored in all sincerity the processes of reasoning and the life experiences that have led her to her current belief, and I have asked myself at every turn, “Would God have me make the same decision here?”

Since we are talking about two integrities, we must suppose that at some point I have answered that last question, “No, my sister made a mistake at this turn; I can see why she made the turn that she did, but I cannot follow her.” Nevertheless, that deliberate process of having walked in her moccasins is what enables me to affirm with conviction that her position is one of integrity. An affirmation made on any lesser basis, merely some feeling of good will, is hollow.

And, of course, my sister has a responsibility to reciprocate, not perfunctorily dismissing my position because it differs from her own but understanding my arguments and journey and sincerely testing her own convictions against them. Only when she has done so will her affirmation of the integrity of my position be meaningful. “Let us not love in word or in speech, but in deed and in truth.”

Integrity in the Way Forward

The report that the Way Forward Working Group has produced contains some useful observations and findings. Nevertheless, it shows signs of the pressure of time under which it was produced. Its preliminary sections are one-sided, representing the view of the majority who are in favour of the blessing of same-sex relationships and failing to give respectful acknowledgment of the views of the minority who are not. If the Working Group’s recommendations are to form the foundation of the ongoing recognition of two integrities within the Church, surely its own proceedings and report should have modelled that very thing, but they do not.

The Emmaus Road

Page 5 of the Report handles the “Emmaus Road” passage from Luke 24 in a way that many conservative scholars would consider fast and loose, eisegesis rather than exegesis. I am not saying that the Report’s viewpoint is necessarily wrong. With fuller exposition, it might conceivably be acceptable. However, the Report presents its viewpoint as though it was accepted already on all sides and thus it discounts the other supposed integrity.  This is not a wise foundation to lay for the Report’s later recommendations.

Living “in the Now”

The first paragraph of Motion 30 uses the phrase, “in the now”. The Report (on page 5) has turned this into the question, “What does it mean to be human in the now?”  I believe that the instinct of most conservatives would be that this is the wrong question. The correct question is, “What does it mean to be Christian in the now?” Our first duty is to Christ. Observing Christ and listening to his Word, we learn best how to serve humanity. We do not firstly observe humanity for the purpose of learning how best to serve Christ, because – according to orthodox doctrine – humanity is fallen and not a safe guide as to its own best interests.

Again, I acknowledge that there is a debate to be had here, and the Report’s point of view might on deeper consideration turn out to have merit. My point is, it seems wrong and disrespectful for the Report to proceed summarily as though the debate had already been had and the result already agreed.

Complicated vs Complex

Indeed, “now we see in a mirror, dimly,” and “…I know only in part…” (Report, p.6) However, even while stating that, the Apostle Paul makes it clear in the surrounding chapters (1 Corinthians 12 – 14, in particular but also in the entire epistle) that there were clear solutions to most of the differences with which the Corinthian community was struggling. Conservatives will see in their more liberal brethren too great a readiness to appeal to complexity when, after all, the matter is merely complicated and can be solved with prayer and sweat, and consideration of the first principles of what it means to be in Christ.

By including this appeal to supposed complexity, the Report has weakened its chance of persuading conservatives to take seriously its recommendations.

Questionable Appeal to Hebrews

On page 8, the Report appeals to Hebrews 1:1-3a to support its assertion that, “So it is throughout Christian history that Doctrine had to be thought out, and lived out in the worshipping life of the church, with reflections and ongoing decisions made through Councils and Creeds.”  While the assertion may be correct, no conservative is likely to agree that it follows as such from the Hebrews passage. By prefacing that section of the Report with such careless handling of scripture, the Working Group has again undercut any persuasive power the Report may have had for conservative readers.

Unbalanced Bibliography

Other commentators (see, e.g., http://anglicandownunder.blogspot.co.nz/2016/03/a-way-forward-section-5-critical-review.html) have noted that the Report’s bibliography is unbalanced:

  • “…for the most part, recent Anglo-American liberalism and rather obscure” (Brian Kelly, March 31, 2016 at 8:07 AM).
  • “The strangest thing about this imbalance is that even those **evangelicals who favour SSM** have been ignored, even though these scholars are explicitly trying to ground their work in scripture and meet the objections of opponents. That is to say that working groups charged with seeking *a way forward* are ignoring the very works that are arguably the least polarising and the nearest to centre ground” (Bowman Walton, March 31, 2016 at 10:13 AM).

This omission subtracts yet again from the value of the Report, leaving the appearance that the Working Group has not adequately canvassed the options.

Incidentally, the conservative minority in the Working Group must share the blame here. I think everyone on all sides should be well-read in the full spectrum of views, but one would think that the Working Group’s conservatives should have been especially careful to see that the various conservative viewpoints were at least acknowledged in the Report.

Unacceptable Liturgy

Motion 30 upheld the Church’s traditional doctrine of marriage as monogamous and between a man and a woman. By entitling Form 1, “The blessing of the relationship of those who have entered a civil marriage,” and using the word marriage repeatedly in the Form and constructing the Form so that it can be used to bless same-sex unions, the Working Group has in conservative eyes de facto changed the definition of marriage. The adjective “civil” in the title does not alter that fact. The Form as proposed is unwise and another reason why the Working Group should be asked to start again.

Unity that Recognises Two Integrities?

On page 6 of the Report there begins a section entitled, “When we speak of ‘two integrities’ how can we also speak of the unity of the Church?” Although the section as a whole makes some useful observations, the opening paragraph ends with a question that detonates a petard that hoists the Working Group itself: “What would it be like if we as a Church committed to respect one another’s differences, held with integrity, in a harmonious way?”

How can the Working Group credibly hold that out as a hope for the Church when they have not modelled it in their own proceedings and product? I do not ask that question contemptuously but with a sad heart and the hope that the Holy Spirit might use it to bring conviction of sin. There is no shortcut to meaningful mutual recognition of integrity.

Two Integrities Regarding the Identification of Sin?

The “two integrities” section of the Report makes a distinction between first order matters (Māori tikanga) and second order matters (Māori  kawa or kaupapa). The Report hopes to find there some paradigm for recognising unity despite diversity. However, for that to be relevant to the blessing of same-sex relationships, both sides of the debate would have to agree that this is a second order matter. Clearly, that is not the case as far as conservatives are concerned. Sexual connection with someone of one’s own gender is seen as one of the sins that Christ calls his people to forsake, no less nor more than fornication or idolatry or adultery or theft or greed or drunkenness or swindling (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Conservatives have carefully examined and found unconvincing the case that some have tried to make that in those Corinthian verses Paul is referring only to a limited subset of homosexual activities and that others are not in view. Therefore, the only conceivable way forward is for both sides to acknowledge that this remains a first order matter and to seek on that basis to appreciate one another’s point of view. I am of the view that a cogent argument founded in orthodoxy can be found for the blessing of faithful same-sex relationships, an argument sufficiently strong that conservatives can at least acknowledge its force even if not finally agreeing with it. Only on that basis will two integrities be able to coexist in true unity.

The Immediate Way Forward

I said earlier that the Report contains useful observations and findings, but what I have written focuses on its inadequacies. For a wider overview that covers the valuable as well as the bad, I recommend Les Brighton’s paper.

Rev. Bosco Peters has made some suggestions as to how the Report’s recommendations might be amended to improve them (An Improved Way Forward?), and I appreciate the work he has put into devising and explaining his proposed changes. I wish I could believe that changes of this kind could resolve the matter, but as I have tried to show in this paper, the Working Group has failed to model the cooperation of two integrities in the production of the Report and in its content, and therefore if General Synod / te Hinota Whanui presses ahead and adopts it, even if amended along the lines suggested by Bosco, schism is inevitable.

I therefore conclude and urge that the only way forward that can preserve our unity is for General Synod / te Hinota Whanui to

  • declare that the Working Group’s report is inadequate for its intended purpose, and
  • commission them (or a new group) to start again.