General Synod York, July 1997

Archdeacon of Wandsworth's Private Member's Motion Speech by Archbishop of Canterbury 

I am most grateful to the Archdeacon for giving Synod this opportunity for debate. I want to concentrate on the question of homosexual practice, fully realising that the Motion goes much wider than this. But it is an important issue, which raises deeper questions about how we do our theology and how we live with differences of opinion. I also often remind myself that it is not merely a 'matter', an 'issue' or a 'problem' that we are discussing but real people, loved by God, made in his image and likeness. I want to contribute briefly to this debate mainly from the perspective of the wider Anglican Communion.

The picture formed by many outside the Church is that the Anglican Communion is hopelessly divided and rent asunder by furious debate about homosexual practice. I urge Synod, indeed, all members of our Church to treat this description with great scepticism.

As part of the preparations two years ago for the Lambeth Conference, nine Regional Conferences of Bishops representing every Province of the Communion were convened to draw up the priority issues for the Lambeth Conference. Four of them did not include sexuality at all. The rest did not give it high priority. Issues such as international debt and relationships with Islam were regarded as far more pressing priorities.

However, there will be study and discussion concerning human sexuality - not just homosexuality - in one of the four Sections of the Lambeth Conference. The Conference will, for example, consider a suggestion, supported by the Primates, in their Jerusalem meeting that an International Commission should be set up to examine the matter, along the lines of the Eames Commission on Ordination of Women to the Episcopate. But this will take its place among debates on many other topics.

We know that in the Anglican Communion there is a strand of opinion challenging the traditional understanding of the Church. We know that the great Desmond Tutu, a personal friend of mine, is an eloquent exponent of that opinion. But it remains a minority view. Let me remind Synod that, under his successor Archbishop Ndungane, the Bishops of the Province of South Africa have agreed a Statement which - though pastorally sensitive - includes this reaffirmation that "sex is for life-long marriage with a person of the opposite sex, for the purpose of companionship, sexual fulfilment and procreation".

When the Primates met in March this year, it is true that a number of differing views about homosexual practice were expressed very vigorously, and it was suggested that a number of Provinces might feel so strongly about the issue that they would find it difficult to remain in communion with Provinces that decided to ordain practising homosexuals or welcome 'same sex' marriages. However, I discovered from careful enquiries of my fellow Primates that homosexual practice was simply not on the agenda of over two-thirds of the Provinces as a live issue; and even in those Provinces which were discussing it, no imminent legal changes were envisaged, whatever more subtle, non-legal changes might be afoot.

I mention this to take some of the heat out of the debate. There are some who want to 'talk up' the matter and make it a symbolic test of faith. Ironically, some of those most opposed to the ordination of practising homosexuals seem to be among those most concerned to talk it up!

Nonetheless, it is an important subject which can and does give rise to much anxiety, pain and division. It will not go away and it is no good pretending that opposition to, and acceptance of, homosexual practice are reconcilable options. We are therefore left with two subjects for continuing dialogue: firstly, what is God's will? And secondly, what do we do as members of the Church when we disagree about what God's will is?

Anglicanism with its rich theology of comprehensiveness should be a wonderful context in which to wrestle with these two questions honestly and openly. Neither question can be settled by campaigning tactics or soundbites. They need prayerful, respectful dialogue.

On the first question, let me make clear my own starting point. I do not find any justification, from the Bible or the entire Christian tradition, for sexual activity outside marriage. Thus, same sex relationships in my view cannot be on a par with marriage and the Church should resist any diminishing of the fundamental 'sacramentum' of marriage. Clergy, especially, must model relationships that commend the faith of Christ. I know that this statement will distress some, and I understand the pastoral difficulties that come from working out the discipline of the Church in the personal life, but I could not commend any significant departure from the principles and conclusions set out in the Issues Statement. Of course, that Statement or its preface is not to be seen as Holy Writ and is there to be debated. In that sense it is not intended to be the last word, as if prayerful discussion should stop! But I do not believe any major change is likely in the foreseeable future and I do not myself share the assumption that it is only a matter of time before the Church will change its mind.

But there are brothers and sisters who wish to challenge that view, and it is right that courteous, thoughtful debate and prayer should continue. It is a disappointment to many of us in the House that Issues in Human Sexuality has not been as widely discussed as we had hoped. This debate presents us with an opportunity to send it to the dioceses and deaneries with a fresh commendation. We should beware of mirroring our society's near-obsession with sexual matters, but the issue does deserve serious, prayerful attention along with other important contemporary questions. Let us show that we can disagree on particular issues and yet work together in the Body of Christ for the sake of all we hold in common, reminding ourselves that Christ's mission to preach the Good News comes before all else.

Finally, let me add a word about the responsibility of Bishops. To us is given responsibility for the Church's faith and moral life. We shall take these seriously - as the Ordinal reminds us to administer the discipline firmly, but with mercy.