To Rome... and back

Crossing the Line - Part 5

I was three months old when my parents left their home, job and ministry, taking their baby with them into an uncertain future.  They left without telling anyone in the parish, leading to a headline in the local paper, “Vicar disappears with wife and baby!”

What prompted this rash action will seem almost incomprehensible to most people today but in 1963, for conservative Anglo-Catholics, it was an issue on a par with women priests and bishops more recently.

What was the issue?  Methodists!

In 1963 the Church of England and the Methodist Church appeared to be nearing agreement to come together and be united as one church.  While for many this was a cause for joy, the idea struck horror and fear into the hearts of those whose identity lay in seeing the Church of England as the true ‘Catholic’ Church of England.  For them it was not politics or the Reformation which defined the Church of England.  Rather, it was its Catholic heritage with orders of ministry handed down by Apostolic Succession.  After all, Henry VIII’s faith was thoroughly Catholic.  His treatise “Defence of the Seven Sacraments” in 1521 against Martin Luther, earned Henry the title Defender of the Faith, bestowed on him by Pope Leo X.  Whatever his political and marital motives, Henry was no Protestant!

Unity with the Methodists would put the Catholicity of the Church of England in jeopardy.  In England, Methodists had no Bishops and their theology was methodically reformed in its nature.  There was no Apostolic Succession and they had ministers, not priests.

For my parents, this would be the end of the Church of England as they knew it.

My father wrote to his Bishop to announce his resignation and intention to convert to Roman Catholicism.  The Bishop’s reply was polite but to the point – if you are going, go quickly.  I have the letter, and it almost reads like Jesus’ words to Judas at the last supper (John 13:27).

So that is exactly what he did.  Together they left without a word.  They took nothing with them except a baby and a couple of suitcases.  They stepped out into the unknown.

Fortunately, the Roman Catholic Converts Aid Society had a plan.  They offered us a room in Top Meadow, a house in Beaconsfield left to the Roman Catholic Church by author GK Chesterton in his will.  He was after all, a convert to Roman Catholicism himself.

There were others at Top Meadow too, beginning a new life having ‘gone to Rome’.  It was a kind of safe-house for defecting Anglican clergy.  While there, we were all baptised again (at the time The Roman Catholic church didn’t accept any other church’s baptism as valid) and my parents were confirmed.  In more mischievous moments, I have teased my Baptist and Pentecostal friends by telling them I have been baptised twice.  They would invariably nod with approval, assuming that I mean once as a baby and again as an adult when I was old enough to do it properly.  I usually wait a moment before spoiling it by saying that both were as a baby and one was as a Roman Catholic!

After a few months there, the Converts Aid Society found David a job as a Maths teacher in a Roman Catholic school in Kirkby, Liverpool.  David could not be a RC priest, of course, with wife and baby in tow.  We moved into Kirkby and settled into our new life.

I’m not sure when it began to dawn on David and Irene that this wasn’t the promised land they hoped for.  I think they had high hopes in joining the ‘mother-church’ and finally being able to be as Catholic as they pleased.  Now they were there, perhaps it wasn’t everything they had envisaged.

In any case after a year in Kirkby, David decided to find his own job as a teacher.  He was offered a job in a local authority school in Rochdale.  We moved to Hollingworth Lake on the edge of the Pennines and David started work at his new school, only to find that the Head Teacher and the Deputy Head were both Methodist lay preachers! 

Whoever said that God doesn’t have a sense of humour?

Over the next two years, they had a profound effect on David’s life and attitudes. Having ‘jumped ship’ and left his church, his vocation, and his ministry on account of Methodists, he could have simply jumped ship again and found another school to teach in.  Maths teachers were in demand, but something made him stay.

During his time at that school David came to the conclusion that they were two of the finest Christians he had ever met.  Their pastoral care and dedication to all the children in that school, from the most able to the most troubled, made a deep and lasting impression on him.  He began to see that there were more important issues than Apostolic Succession or Church labels.

For Irene, it had not been an easy transition either.  She went from vicar’s wife in the CofE to an oddity in the Roman Catholic Church and no-one knew how to treat her.  A former nun, married to an ex-Anglican priest with a baby!

I don’t think I helped either.  Mum told me of one occasion at Mass when I was about three years old;  I fell asleep during the sermon and started singing in my sleep.  Unable to wake me, she ended up walking out of the church with me in her arms, still singing the Flanders and Swann song Mud, Mud Glorious Mud at the top of my voice!

By 1966, David knew what he had to do.  He went back to the Bishop who ordained him and said, “I’m sorry. I was wrong.  Can I come back?”  Graciously, the answer was yes, albeit with a challenging first appointment to test his resolve.

From that moment onwards, David and Irene were committed to a very different form of Christianity.  Their theology had not changed.  They were still Anglo-Catholics, steeped in sacramental faith.  They still went to Walsingham each year.  They continued as Oblates at the convent in Wantage but from then on, they refused to be sectarian Christians and were always open to expressions of Christian faith different to their own.   The most important thing was recognising Christ in others, whatever our disagreements might be.

That is the Christian home where I grew up from the age of 3½ and these values have become a deep and intrinsic part of who I am.  At times they have been tested by the intransigence and prejudice of other Christians, but the roots run deep and were forged in the fire of those difficult years in my parent’s lives.

I experience a variety of feelings about their decisions in my early years.  Although my memories of that time range from sketchy to non-existent, I had 6 homes in my first 4 years of life.  We were constantly on the move, not knowing what would come next. 

I admire them for their courage to act on principle, even if they later regretted it.  Faced with similar dilemmas, many people just stay and grumble. This usually results in their impotent moaning sapping life from those around them and provides no opportunity to be challenged or changed.

I admire them even more for being willing to change when they realised they had been wrong - for being willing to admit it and say sorry.

Crossing the line doesn’t always lead us in the right direction, but when we do it in good faith it gives God the opportunity to do something in our lives and bring us to where he wants us to be.

Perhaps we may all need to be more like that sometimes?

Click here for an Introduction to Crossing the Line

Click her for Part 6 - From rubble to a garden

CofE division grows while the Danes march on

I was fascinated by the Anglican church press last week.  The Church Times and the Church of England Newspaper (CEN) are renowned for taking different approaches to stories – different approaches which, no doubt, are shaped by the majority of their readers.  This difference is most often seen in treatment of issues like sexuality, with the Church Times trying to steer a middle path through the turmoil, and the CEN being more outspoken in a conservative evangelical direction.

But last week that difference could not have been more stark.

In the CEN the floodgates finally burst open from the pressure of accumulated indignation and fear in an editorial which rounded squarely on David Cameron and his “severe left wing cultural policy” which is leading us to Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’ in “this crazy equality governmental blitzing of our societal deep grammar”.  The author goes on to denigrate same-sex partnerships which are merely “a purely subjective sense of friendship” and lesbian couples who are simply “women who refuse to use their normal female capacities to have children”.

The irony is that all the rhetoric above undermines the other claim of the article which says that there is no need for same-sex marriage because “there is no injustice to correct since ‘gay’ couples can cement their friendship by the civil partnership arrangements and gain nothing from having that called ‘marriage’”.  Having read all this I beg to differ.

The Church Times, on the other hand, printed two letters from readers which took a very different view.

Lady Oppenheimer from Jersey writes, “To suppose that backing same-gender unions redefines marriage is like supposing that backing adoption redefines parenthood” and goes on to say “Just as parenthood is more than giving birth, so marriage is more that fertility.”

Alongside that, Gwylim Stone from Southampton questions why those who are “so loudly defending the ‘biblical’ standard of marriage” are less vocal about divorce.  He goes on, “I wonder how many signatures the Coalition for Marriage would muster if it added a complete ban on marriage after divorce to its goals?”  One suspects that he is right.

Yet while the debate continues here in the UK, Denmark made up its mind in voting by a large majority to introduce same-sex marriage for both state and church.  Soon same-sex couples will be able to marry in the national Evangelical-Lutheran church although individual priests will not be forced to conduct same-sex marriage against their conscience.  In doing this Denmark has joined other Scandinavian countries like Sweden in introducing full church same-sex marriage with safe-guards for those Christian ministers who cannot in good faith conduct the ceremony.

While the UK is clearly not ready for compulsory same-sex marriage in church, it is deeply disappointing that our Government is proposing legislation which legally excludes the possibility of same-sex religious marriage.  As the readers of the Church Times remind us (and Church Times circulation is over 3 times that of the CEN) there are many Anglicans who would welcome such an opportunity when the time is right.

Gays, Damned Gays, and Pro-Gays!

Ok , it doesn't have the same ring as 'Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics'  which came to mind as I thought about a title for this blog, but it does exhibit the same progression that is found in parts of  the Christian church.  In fact, it is fascinating to see how more conservative church attitudes to homosexuality are developing the same kind of hierarchy in levels of distrust.

On the first layer are gay people themselves (I use the word gay - by the way - as shorthand for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered - which I always find a bit of a mouthful).

This is the layer of openly gay people who are not currently in a same-sex relationship.  On the whole they are tolerated by the Church.  They are conditionally welcomed into most churches - conditional that they don't get into a relationship, of course.  They are permitted to contribute to most areas of church life - join a home-group, read the Bible and lead intercessions.   They are sometimes supported pastorally - mostly to keep  them from getting into a relationship. 

They are a slight cause of anxiety or concern,  but are often used as an example in saying "We have gay people in our church", so our church is not homophobic.   Dig down a little, however, and they are often viewed as a ticking  time-bomb, which one day might explode with damaging consequences.

The next layer up are 'Damned Gays' who are the ones who are 'practising' homosexuals - whatever that means! 

They are the ones who have  the audacity to turn up to church with their partner.  They are made to feel much less comfortable.  They are often welcomed with that tense, surprised and nervous look by clergy and church officers who live in fear of what their presence might mean for their well-ordered church and congregation.  They  are often not allowed to join home-groups, not allowed to stand up and speak at the front of church, not allowed to be involved in lay ministry, but nevertheless are told that their presence is welcome as long as they don't rock the boat too much or talk to anybody.  They are reminded from time to time however, that according to 1 Corinthians 6:9 they will not be inheriting the Kingdom of God - hence the title, "Damned Gays".

But there is another layer of mistrust which is gaining ascendency among conservative churches.  And this layer is causing much more concern for those from a more conservative theology of sexuality.  The name of this last category...  Pro-gays!

They are being feared more and more, because of the damage they are doing to the Gospel.  On the one hand there is less to attack.  They are straight, often happily married, with families.  They are amongst us as clergy, church wardens, deacons, or even Bishops.  They are respectable people, not like those gays!  They might be evangelicals, anglo-catholics, or just good old broad church CofE. England'.

But beneath this layer of respectability, they are more dangerous than Gays or Damned Gays because they have the audacity to be Pro-Gay.  They are the real threat because they have no vested interest in seeing the church become more inclusive,  and their presence is increasingly finding its way into the cross-hairs of conservative focus.

The appointment this week of Rev Nicholas Holtam as the new Bishop of Salisbury is just such a case.  He is straight,  married with children, and the vicar of a hugely successful church in central London.  Surely such an appointment could not upset anyone?

But there is a darker side to Nicholas Holtam - he is Pro-Gay!  And worse still - he has said so publically, is a member of Inclusive Church, and has welcomed such people as Bishop Gene Robinson to speak at the church!  He has had the audacity to challenge the homophobic statements of the global south, and to genuinely welcome gay people in ministry and worship.  Worst of all he has had the nerve to suggest that the biblical scriptures against homosexual practise simply do not apply to "baptised people in loving and faithful same-sex relationships".

And indeed the reaction from those who react to these things has been predictable.

The Church Society says...

"The appointment of the Revd Nicholas Holtam as the next Bishop of Salisbury is a regrettable and retrograde step.  In his public ministry Mr Holtam has actively promoted erroneous teaching on the issue of human sexuality, which puts him at odds with the declared mind of the House of Bishops, the General Synod of the Church of England and the 1998 Lambeth Conference, makes him unfit for ministry in the Church of England let alone as a Bishop.

While Rev John Richardson, writing in the Telegraph says that,

"If I were a minister in the Diocese of Salisbury today, therefore, I would be faced with a real crisis of conscience."

You do not need to be a church dignitary of course to attract such questioning.  In a comment to one of my recent blogs on same-sex marriage, the same Rev John Richardson wrote:

"When it comes to an issue as contentious as changing our entire theology of marriage and sexuality, the tradition should be our starting point, from which departure should only be made after careful, serious and collective deliberation. Importantly, this is one of those cases where private judgement must not be allowed free rein.

And that brings me to my question. You acknowledge standing outside the tradition (laid out in the BCP). But you are required to take the Declaration of Assent and stand under Canon A5, and I just want to know how you can do this. If you have changed your mind, fair enough, but should you not therefore change your allegiance?"

These are the kind of views which make many of us deeply suspicious of the Anglican Covenant - not for its intentions, but for the way in which it might be applied.  Under the Covenant, Anglican Provinces which  are perceived by some to have stepped out of line in their theology, practice, or indeed appointments could be similarly asked to consider 'changing their allegiance' but in a much more official way.

Such reactions do not, of course reflect the views of the majority of Anglicans in the UK who, despite wide diversity in their views on sexuality, treat each other with the acceptance and respect that Christ encouraged.  They know that to have 'serious and collective deliberation' in the way John Richardson describes, requires people to be there to deliberate - not ejected or asked to change their allegiance.

As a member of the Clergy in Salisbury Diocese, I am happy to say that I am facing no crisis of conscience following the nomination of our new Bishop - just a sense of rejoicing that the Church of England has listened to the diocese and God in this appointment, despite what others might try to say.

Permission or Intimidation ?

This morning I was interviewed on TV with Chris Sugden, from Anglican Mainstream.

It was a bewildering experience. While the main action was taking place in a studio in London, I was alone in studio 100 miles away surrounded by remote control TV cameras, trying to take part in a debate with people I couldn’t see! It was definitely a learning experience.

But what bewildered me more was Chris Sugden’s assertion that Government plans to give permission for Civil Partnerships to take place in religious buildings was nothing more than intimidation. He implied that it was part of a co-ordinated campaign against the Church, (I assume he meant the Church of England) which was designed to coerce and intimidate.

While I found the surroundings I was in strange, I found his accusation mind-blowing. How can ‘permission’ be ‘intimidation’?

The fact is that there are many same-sex couples who would love to have a spiritual element to their Civil Partnership, but this is currently prohibited by law in the UK. There are also numerous churches (and other religious groups) who would love to offer Civil Partnership in the context of a religious service of blessing, but are similarly prohibited by law.

Last year, Lord Ali introduced an amendment to the Equalities Bill which would remove this prohibition by giving permission for religious buildings to be used and religious content included. The amendment was supported in a public letter by no less than 7 Bishops and many leading church people, and was passed by the House of Lords.

What the Government is doing now, is acting on this democratic vote to give such permission to those who seek it. This is the very opposite of intimidation, and will not force any church or anyone to act against their faith.

Yet clearly Chris Sugden and Anglican Mainstream feel intimidated by this permission. Why?

Is it because they feel intimidated by religious freedom? Is it because they feel intimidated by anyone who doesn’t agree with them? Is it because they are frightened of the differing views on sexuality which are present in the church? Is it because they are scared of people who don’t agree with them?

Whatever the reason, their attempts to prevent those who want to include their faith in their most important relationship, and to prevent churches from meeting those spiritual aspirations, are both morally indefensible and spiritually repressive.

Jesus had a saying for this kind of approach – “You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.” Matthew 23:13

I think the taxi driver who took me to the studio had the right question.

He was white, male, heterosexual, married, down to earth working class in his 50’s, and he said “What is their problem?”

Re-Writing the Gospel...

I have struggled over the last few days with whether to post a link to this blog by The Satirical Christian.  It is a re-working of John chapter 8 where a woman who has been caught in adultery is brought to Jesus for judgment.

On the one hand, it is highly relevant to events in Uganda in recent times, and shows how easily the Gospel can be re-written in our own image.  On the other hand, it is not fair to single out the Church in Uganda in this way, as all of us have the capacity to use our cultural prejudices to re-form our image of God and the Gospel - often without realising it.

However, as The Satirical Christian says "Satire is always unfair, but that is why it gets under your skin and makes you think about issues in a different way".

So here is it, and I hope that it will act a catalyst, not just for our thoughts about Uganda, but also for our own reflection and self-examination, lest we find ourselves falling into the same trap.

http://thesatiricalchristian.blogspot.com/2011/01/gospel-according-to-uganda.html

One day when Jesus was teaching in the Temple, the teachers of the Law brought in a man caught in adultery.

They made him appear in the national newspapers and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this man was caught in the act of adultery, and we would like the law to demand that we should stone such men.  Now what do you say?"

They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write in the ground with his finger.  When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone."

Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, until one of them turned and said, "But Teacher, he was caught with another man."

Then Jesus replied  "Why didn't you say that in the first place?  Stone him - straight away, and go looking for others who have done the same thing, so that they may be 'outed' in Rolling Stone  too!"

"And when you take their funerals, remind their friends why they have been stoned, and tell them how he brought it upon himself, and how evil they all are! 

"For I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of being Gay will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who dares to be homosexual will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

And the teachers of the Law congratulated Jesus on passing their test, for confirming all their prejudices, and giving them an excuse not to consider the sin of their own hearts.

And Jesus said, "Then neither do I condemn you - go now, and be self-righteous in your sin."

A tale of two Ugandans

This week Uganda has been in the gay rights news once again, with the murder of leading homosexual David Kato in an attack my unknown assailants who beat him to death with an iron bar.

Such murders are, sadly, not uncommon in Uganda, but what makes this murder such a cause for concern is the fact that David Kato was one of over 100 homosexuals whose names and photographs appeared in Uganda's Rolling Stone Newspaper with the words "Hang them".  Following the article, many of those who were 'outed' have suffered attacks, and received death threats.

David Kato had recently won a court case against the newspaper preventing them from naming more homosexuals, and there is clear suspicion that his death may be linked to his sexuality.  Last year Uganda faced unparalleled international pressure when a bill was introduced in parliament which would have introduced the death penalty for homosexual acts.   The publication of names and photos of homosexual came soon after the withdrawal of the bill and many read it as encouragement for Ugandans to take the law into their own hands.

While the circumstances of his murder are still to be determined, messages of concern over his death have come from almost every quarter, including US President Barack Obama & Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

Also this week, another leading Ugandan made a stand on the issue of homosexuality, but in a very different way.

Archbishop Orombi of Uganda, is one of the leading figures in the Global South Group opposed to same-sex blessings, ministry and marriage.  In 2006, he led the Ugandan Bishops in unanimously declaring that they would boycott meetings where "the violators of Lambeth Resolution 1:10 are also invited" 

Lambeth 1:10 describes homosexual practice as 'incompatible with Holy Scripture' and true to his word, he was one of 7 Archbishops who have boycotted the Anglican Primates meeting this week in Dublin because of the presence of The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States, Dr Katharine Jefferts Schori.

But Lambeth 1:10 also states "We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God" and calls on "all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals"

Now, surely, is the time for Archbishop Orombi to put the whole of Lambeth 1:10 into practice.

In  an article for the Anglican Communion in 2007, he notes that Uganda is the second largest province in the Anglican Communion, with over 9 million members.   He extols the benefits which the Gospel has brought to Uganda saying, "The gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed to us through the Word of God enables warring tribes to begin to coexist and to embrace neighbourliness."

He praises evangelists who "Instead of being armed with spears, they came armed only with the Word of God. Instead of a message of war and destruction, they delivered a message of Good News from the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

The time has surely come when this voice needs to be heard again in Uganda - with the Church acting as bringer of peace - to end to the tribalism of sexuality and to promote love and respect for all human life.

And the time has come for Archbishop Orombi to recognise the importance of fulfilling the whole of Lambeth 1:10, by using his influence in Uganda to stop the demonization of homosexuals. 

Nor would he be a lone voice in Uganda in calling for a new dialogue.  The influential Ugandan newspaper 'The Daily Monitor' has responded to the murder by calling for a new national debate.

What we need is an honest national dialogue on homosexuality in order to forge a consensus on the rights of those Ugandans who choose to be gay and those who oppose homosexuality as a lifestyle.

Holding puritanical and extreme views on the matter, whether liberal or conservative, will divide us, rather than help us find a mutually acceptable compromise.

People like David Kato and others who might be gay are Ugandans and enjoy the same rights and protections of the law as heterosexuals. We cannot send them into exile neither, lock them away, or hang them.

We need to have an honest discussion about how to ensure that their rights are upheld without violating the rights of other Ugandans.

Any Anglican province which does not take on Lambeth's call to "condemn irrational fear" and assure all homosexuals "that they are loved by God" could be described (in the words of Archbishop Orombi) as a 'violator of Lambeth 1:10'

And no-one would want the Archbishop of Uganda to have to boycott himself...

(Please also see my follow-up post 'Today I am ashamed to be an Anglican' which followed the Funeral of David Kato)

The Sin of Honesty

Over the last week there have been a number of Blogs pointing out the culture of secrecy that exists in the Church of England and the Anglican world over sexual orientation.

Colin Coward in the Changing Attitude Blog has been most outspoken, claiming that there are 3 gay Primates in the Anglican Communion and 10-13 gay Bishops in the Church of England!

So the Archbishop's now famous phrase from last week's interview in the Times that "He has no problem with gay bishops' clearly needs another caveat placed alongside celibacy - the caveat that "He has no problem - as long as no-one knows!"

This is clearly a major issue for the CofE and the Anglican Communion. At a meeting of candidates for the current General Synod elections last week, 2 of the candidates openly noted that the Church of England has been ordaining gay priests and consecrating gay bishops for years, and that we need to stop living a lie!

Indeed, when I served on General Synod several years ago, I remember being part of a conversation in which a serving Bishop's name was mentioned as being gay. The reaction was remarkable - there was shocked silence for a moment before one senior churchman (they were both men) for whom this was news, said "He's not gay, is he?" while at the same moment another (who already knew of the Bishop's sexuality) said, "He's not gone public, has he?" Which was the greater crime, I wondered - being gay or being honest?

Nor is this issue limited to men. I also remember meeting a life-long missionary, for an evangelical mission agency, who, throughout her many years ministry in Africa knew she was a lesbian, and indeed had a relationship with a fellow missionary for many years. Everyone thought she was simply a spinster who had never met the 'right man', and it was not until she was in her late 60's and safely retired, that she could be finally honest and open about her sexuality. The sense of liberation on her face, at finally being able to tell people was tangible and powerful.

Is honesty the main issue then? Is it the honesty and openness of Jeffrey John that is the real cause of his awful treatment at the hands of the Church? And when is there going to be a sustained challenge to this way of doing things?

Is it the honesty of Gene Robinson and Mary Glasspool that makes them and the Episcopal Church such a focus for disapproval in the Anglican Communion? If they had just kept quiet? If they had just lived a lie? If they had hidden behind a veneer of acceptability? Would everything have been ok?

The answer, of course, is a resounding "No!" If we, as Christ body here on earth are to convince people that God is real, we need to be real. If we want people to find abundant life in Christ, we need to live real lives, not carefully crafted veneers of acceptability.

It was Oliver Cromwell ironically, (the English puritan political leader during the English Civil War) who said "Paint my picture - warts and all". Like it or not, good or bad, he wanted people to see him as he really was.

Until we learn to be a church which is prepared to be an environment where people can be honest and open, we will continue to encourage Christians and Christian leaders to lead fake lives.

And fake lives can only build a fake Church.

And a fake Church does not portray a real God, or a real Gospel, or real salvation - just an hollow veneer which people see though all too easily.