Taking his cue from the statement in 1 John 4:18 that 'perfect love casts out fear' the Archbishop consistently sees fear as something negative which we need to allow God to overcome in us. I have two reservation about this approach.

My first is about his appeal to 1 John 4:18. If you look at the context of the words which he quotes from 1 John 4:18 you will see that the Apostle John is not talking about fear in general, but about a very specific form of fear, the fear of the judgement of God on the last day. What the Apostle is saying is that as Christians filled with God's love we should not fear the judgement.

The specific nature of what the Apostle John is talking about means that this verse cannot be taken as a blanket rejection of all kinds of fear. This is particularly the case as the Bible elsewhere depicts fear as perfectly legitimate. Three examples will serve to illustrate the point. In Ecclesiastes 12:13 the writer of Ecclesiastes declares 'fear God and keep his commandments; for that is the whole duty of man.' In Luke 12:4-5 Jesus warns 'fear him who, after he has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear him.' In 2 Corinthians 12:20-21 St. Paul writes about his fear of what he will find if he comes to Corinth 'For I fear that perhaps I may come and find you not what I wish, and that you may find me not what you wish; that perhaps there may be quarreling, jealousy, anger, selfishness, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder. I fear that when I come again my God may humble me before you, and I may have to mourn over many of those who sinned before and have not repented of the impurity, immorality, and licentiousness which they have practiced.'

What these examples show is that some forms of fear are entirely legitimate. In his address Archbishop Justin notes the fears of those on the conservative side in the Church of England and the wider communion who are concerned about where the Pilling process will lead the Church of England in terms of its belief and practice with regard to sexuality. He rejects that fear, arguing that we cannot find a way forward on this issue on the basis of fear.

This brings me to my second reservation. I do not think that the fear by conservatives about this issue to which he refers can or should be set aside. If there is a possibility that the Pilling process will lead to the acceptance of same sex sexual activity in the Church of England (and there is) and if, as the Bible and the Christian tradition have consistently taught, such behavior is a serious sin which if not repented of will exclude someone from the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) then there is every reason to be afraid of the outcome of the process. As we have seen, St Paul was fearful that the Corinthian church would fail to repent of the 'impurity, immorality and licentiousness which they have practiced' and those on the orthodox side who are concerned about the Pilling process share exactly the same sort of fear.

Furthermore, the example of St. Paul shows that love and fear are not, as the Archbishop suggests, incompatible. St. Paul was fearful for the Corinthians because he loved them. In a similar way, conservative Anglicans can and do have a fear about the acceptance of same-sex relationships that is rooted in a love for those involved and a desire for their flourishing.

This brings me to my second critical question, which is what does it mean to seek to ensure the flourishing of those with whom we disagree?

In the case of the ordination of women to both the priesthood and the episcopate what seeking to ensure such flourishing means is that both sides on this issue allow space within the Church for the other side to hold their beliefs and act accordingly.

This is the position that the Church of England has held since the debates about the ordination of women to the priesthood in the early 1990s. It is based on two theological convictions:

(1) that both sides of the debate fall within the spectrum of legitimate Anglican belief and practice;

(2) that we are in a period of reception in which the question of whether the ordination of women is a legitimate development has not yet been decided by the universal Church and that while this is the case the Church of England has no authority to finally determine the issue one way or the other.

This being so, the position taken by the Church of England is not a matter of dispensing with 'consistency and coherence' in order to allow mutual flourishing as the Archbishop seems to suggest. Rather it is an attempt to apply these two theological convictions as consistently and coherently as possible.

If we move on to the issue of sexuality the question which arises is whether allowing those with whom we disagree to flourish means accepting that arguments for accepting same-sex sexual relationships form a legitimate part of the spectrum of Anglican theology and that being part of such a relationship, or marking such a relationship liturgically, are legitimate forms of Anglican practice.

The issue which has to be decided is whether the analogy of the position that the Church of England has taken over the ordination of women suggests that this should be the case. This is the direction in which the Archbishop's address seems to be taking us, but I do not think it is correct. This is because the teaching of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion, and behind that the teaching of Christian tradition and of the Bible itself, all point to the fact that the acceptance of same sex sexual relationships is not, and cannot be, a legitimate part of the spectrum of Anglican belief and practice. As Canons A5 and C15 point out, the Anglican theological tradition is rooted in the teaching of the Bible and the teaching of the Fathers that is in agreement with the Bible. Neither of these sources allows space for the acceptance of same sex sexual relationships. There is thus no space within Anglican theology to permit such acceptance.

Does this then mean that there is no space within traditional Anglican theology to allow those with same sex attraction to flourish? Not at all. As the testimonies of those with same sex attraction given on the new 'Living Out' website (http://www.livingout.org/) show, there is plenty of opportunity for those with same sex attraction to flourish in the same way that all Christians may flourish, by living a life of sexual fidelity in a marriage to someone of the opposite sex or by living a life of sexual abstinence if marriage is not possible. This may be because their sexual orientation changes over time (perhaps with the help of counselling), or because they learn to live with that attraction in a way that permits them to live a fulfilled life while avoiding sin.

What traditional Anglican theology does not recognize is the possibility that people can flourish while living a life marked by sin without repentance. This is because human beings can only truly flourish by living lives that are in accordance with the will of God and a life of unrepentant sin is necessarily incompatible with this. Psalm 1 sets out the choice between these two sorts of lives very clearly:

Blessed is the man
ho walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
but his delight is in the law of the LORD,
and on his law he meditates day and night.
He is like a tree
planted by streams of water,
that yields its fruit in its season,
and its leaf does not wither.
In all that he does, he prospers.
The wicked are not so,
but are like chaff which the wind drives away.
Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment,
nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous;
for the LORD knows the way of the righteous,
but the way of the wicked will perish.

Whatever form the continuing discussions about sexuality in the Church of England take, they cannot be allowed to blur this fundamental distinction.

For the reasons set out above I am not convinced that the Archbishop's address provides a helpful approach to the issues the Church of England facing. We need an approach that is more deeply rooted in the fear of God and a commitment to obeying his commands, that does not set love and fear against each other and that has a clearer understanding of what human flourishing involves.

END