Apostolic Regression

According to Christian Today, we now know that the Church of England is set to further deepen its division over Women Bishops.

In yesterday’s article by Ruth Gledhill, she has revealed that when the new ‘Traditionalist’ Bishop - Philip North - is consecrated, the Archbishop of York and his new Diocesan Bishop will not participate in the consecration of the new Bishop at the crucial moment – at the laying on of hands.

Why is this?

At first sight this may sound like a snub to the new Traditionalist Bishop. Not participating in his consecration sounds like a snub – but nothing could be further from the truth.

The reason why they will not lay hands on him, is because a week earlier they will both fully participate in the consecration of the first woman Bishop, Libby Lane. 

And because they will participate in the laying on of hands of a woman Bishop, traditionalists appear to consider them ‘tainted’.  Or in plain English, because they have consecrated a woman, they no longer qualify to take part in the consecration of a man - well, not a real man anyway!  They have become ‘tainted’ by consecrating a woman.

At the heart of this issue is the Anglo-Catholic belief in Apostolic Succession – an unbroken line of consecrations and ordinations properly conducted by the hands of men to the heads of men – which they believe can be traced right back to the Apostles, who were in turn ordained by Christ.

In the minds of traditionalists, this unbroken line is everything.  It’s like an unbroken electric current connecting today's priests and bishops to the Apostles and Christ.   If you break the circuit, it ceases to connect you to the heavenly light bulb – the whole thing breaks down.

Not only is such a connection Biblically spurious, but it also assumes that God’s hands are bound such an arbitrary set of rules.  It is a theology which negates the ministry of all Christians who have not been ‘properly’ ordained in the line of Apostolic Succession.  It couldn't be further removed from the wind of the Spirit which Jesus talked about in John 3 - the wind which blows where it wills.  It couldn't be further removed from Jesus’ conversation with the woman at the well in John 4 – where Spirit and Truth replaces slavery to places, regulations and restrictions.

This kind of belief in Apostolic Succession is designed to exclude those who do not fit the ‘right’ ecclesiastical mould – to restrict and constrain rather than release and set free.  This is not the truth which Christ talked about - the Truth which sets us free.  Rather it harks back to an Old Testament legalism – the very same legalism which got Christ crucified in the first place.

It is more like Apostolic Regression than Succession – regressing to a pre-Christian understanding of God and priesthood, and ministry.

So what should the Archbishop of York and Bishop of Blackburn do?

They certainly should not give in to this superstitious legalism.  If a new traditionalist Bishop is to be consecrated, it should be a consecration by the whole church – not just by those who are ‘untainted’ in his eyes.

When Paul talked to Timothy (in 2 Timothy 1)  about “the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands”, he first reminds him of a different succession involving two women in his life – the succession of faith passed down from his grandmother to his mother, and then to him.  It is the succession of faith which counts in God’s eyes – from believer to believer – men and women - of faith in the Good News of Christ.

When the Church of England finally authorised the consecration of women, it was a wonderful (if overdue) sign of Apostolic Progression.  As a sign of respect and care for those who could not agree with it, it was deemed necessary to provide Bishops to look after their needs.   But allowing this theology of taint to flourish will be both divisive and regressive.  It allows the creation of a ‘pure sect’ within the church which defines its own rules and its own boundaries of who is in and who is out.

I pray that those in authority will think again, and when the Bishop of Burnley is consecrated, that he will be consecrated by all Bishops present – not just a few.

Were the Patriarchs really married ?

“Marriage as created by God is an exclusive relationship between one man and one woman that is entered into for life …”

So says the St Matthias Day Statement from the Church of England Evangelical Council and the Church of England’s official response to Government proposals for same-sex marriage.  The Archbishop of York agrees.  “Marriage is marriage is marriage” he states, and “neither the State nor the Church, or any religious group can change the essential nature of marriage”.

But that evokes a curious question in my mind – in that case, were some of the most prominent marriages in the Old Testament really marriages at all?

The question arises, of course, because most of the famous marriages in the Old Testament were not ‘an exclusive relationship between one man and one woman’.  Therefore, according to the CofE and the Archbishop, they were not marriages at all.

Let’s take Jacob for example.  He worked for Laban for 7 years to ‘earn’ the hand of Rachel in marriage.  But when Laban deceived him and married him off to her sister Leah, he worked for another 7 years to get the bride he really wanted as well.  He married two sisters, and it didn’t stop there - he also had children with Rachel and Leah’s servants.  Were these marriages in the sight of God?  These ‘marriages’ were not exclusive relationships between one man and one woman as created by God.   And what about the children which resulted?  Even if we accept Jacob’s first marriage to Leah as the one that really counts, that means that 5 of the tribes of Israel were born outside of wedlock, as a result of nothing less than institutionalised adultery.

Perhaps Jacob can be forgiven because at least he came before the Law was revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai.  Surely this pivotal point in God’s relationship with humanity would put all that straight.  Indeed it did include some regulations on divorce, but no definitive statement or definition which would put the matter rest once and for all.

Then there were David and Solomon, both heroic Kings of the Old Testament, and both of whom were married many times over.  David appears to have had at least 8 wives (and many more concubines) and yet he wrote some of the Bible’s most moving Psalms extolling the Word of God.  Could these really be marriages?  Apparently not, according to the Evangelical Council!  Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines according to 1 Kings 11 and the only rebuke which Scripture offers is that many of them were foreigners.

Indeed the relationship between David and Solomon is problematic in the extreme as Solomon was David and Bathsheba’s child - and we all know how that relationship began.  David committed adultery with Bathsheba (Uriah’s wife) and then had him killed in battle when Bathsheba found she was pregnant.  Surely David and Bathsheba’s marriage could not be valid in the sight of God – nor could Israel or the Levites make it a ‘marriage’ because “marriage is marriage is marriage” and “neither the State nor Church can change it” from that which was “created by God” as “an exclusive relationship between one man and one woman that is entered into for life”.

So what is the point of all this?   Am I really advocating polygamy as a Biblically valid form of marriage?  Or arguing that we should re-define marriage to be more ‘biblical’ in this sense?

No – I am not!

What this does show however, is the limitation of trying to give eternal status to our current definition of marriage and claim that it is, and has always been the created will of God.

In fact, there is no normative example of marriage in Scripture that ends the story once and for all.  Even Adam and Eve cannot be claimed as such, as their story is meant to be figurative rather than literal.  (Otherwise we open up yet another can of worms as we have to concede that their children must have married each other, thereby opening up the possibility of incestual marriage as well!)

If ‘marriage is marriage is marriage’, and cannot be any different to our current definition, then most of the people in the Bible were not married, their children were born out of wedlock, and all sexual activity in those ‘non-marriages’ could not have been blessed by God because they were sinful, pure and simple.

The alternative is to recognise that our understanding of marriage has changed over the centuries and continues to change.  Whether it is the slow transition to monogamy, or the marriage of slaves, or interracial marriage, or the continual tension between marriage and divorce, we have continually amended our understanding of what does and does not constitute marriage in the sight of God.

In these areas the church universal has never been unanimous in its attitudes or practise, and if we want to look biblically at marriage (which I hope we do) we have to recognise that God appears to have been far more willing to embrace different forms of marriage than the church of today. 

We also need to delve much deeper into Paul’s ultimate paradigm for marriage.  The marriage of Christ and his bride, the Church is a marriage which is not dependant on gender or sex, and which is expressed in the substance of the relationship, rather than the correctness of the formula (one man + one woman = Marriage).

In the end, all definitions and understandings of marriage through history have been temporary and will remain temporary this side of eternity.  It was Jesus himself that said, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage.  But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage… for they are like the angels.” (Luke 20:34&35).

It is time we acknowledged the temporal nature of our limited understanding and looked for marriages which are life-giving relationships based on the vows and promises which the marriage partners make to each other, rather than the gender of the partners. 

When the woman at the well challenged Jesus on the correct place to worship God, he told her that the time was coming when God’s true worshippers would not be tied to one place, but would worship God ‘in Spirit and in Truth’.

Once again, perhaps, we need to look beyond our limited views and disagreements to marriages which are grounded ‘in Spirit and in Truth’.  For there we will find God.

God, Marriage and the State

With the Archbishop of York firing a first shot across the bows of the Prime Minister over same-sex marriage last weekend, there is a theme emerging from opponents of the idea -  the premise that you can't change marriage.

According  to the Archbishop, it is not "the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are."

The Archbishop is undeniably right of course, when he points to our current understanding of marriage being "a relationship between a man and a woman" but what he fails to acknowledge is that definitions, understandings and laws relating to marriage have been constantly changing through human history, biblical history, and church history.

If we go back to the bible, we find that for the bulk of biblical history, marriage was polygamous and many wives were a sign of male success.  Jesus never openly put an end to this model of marriage and yet it is a model which few would advocate today - our understanding of marriage has changed dramatically from the examples of scripture.

Then there are those family relationships where marriage is forbidden in the Book of Common Prayer.  Few people are aware that they have changed over the years.

My grandfather married his wife's sister after being widowed despite this being forbidden in older copies of the Prayer Book.  From a theological understanding of marriage, the practise of a man marrying his wife's sister was considered wrong under Canon Law, and was formally prohibited by parliament in the 1835 Marriage Act.  It soon became a matter of some controversy.  An attempt to revoke this law in 1842 was defeated by strong opposition, and it was not until 1907 that the Government finally permitted such marriages in the 'Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act'.   The issue was still so controversial that individual clergy were permitted to refuse to conduct such marriages - an interesting parallel in today's debates about same-sex partnerships. 

So when the Archbishop asserts that it is not for the state to define the scope of marriage, it is a selective view of history at best.

Divorce and remarriage is another example.  Civil marriage after divorce has been widely available in England since the 1857 Matrimonial Causes Act and further widened in 1937 and 1969.  Yet it was not until 2002 that the Church of England embraced a clear policy which formally allowed marriage in church after divorce.  Once again the understanding and practice of marriage in law has changed with the church lagging behind the decisions of the state.

But perhaps the most shocking examples of changes in beliefs about marriage come from elsewhere in the world.  In the United States laws against interracial marriage, underpinned by traditional Christian teaching, were still in force until 1967 when a landmark case at the Supreme Court finally declared them unconstitutional.  The case was brought to challenge the conviction of Mr and Mrs Loving, who were dragged from their bed in the middle of the night after crossing the state border to get married in more liberal Washington DC.

The judge who sentenced them to a year in jail famously declared that God created the races and placed them on separate continents which "shows that he did not intend for the races to mix".

Such ideas about race and marriage are hard for us to understand today but they were deeply held and underpinned by theological argument.  This theology of race and marriage has its roots in the preaching of church leaders who opposed the abolition of slavery.  Theologians like Robert Lewis Dabney truly believed that the abolition of slavery was the first step to 'amalgamation' which he described as a 'abhorrent' word. As far as he was concerned the mixing of races was something which the Bible forbade and such marriages should be prevented at all costs.

Nor are such beliefs dead and buried in US churches today.  As recently as December last year, Gulnare Free Will Baptist Church, in Kentucky, voted to prevent interracial couples from becoming members or taking part in any services.  The Pastor of the church said, “I am not prejudiced against any race of people, have never in my lifetime spoken evil about a race... I do not believe in interracial marriages."

So whose role is it to define marriage?  Is it really the Church in all its conflicted diversity?  Is marriage really 'set in tradition and history' as the Archbishop of York believes, even when history shows a continually changing landscape in both spiritual and temporal spheres?  Is marriage really an area where the state has no jurisdiction, despite evidence to the contrary?

What we need in the Church of England is theological debate and prayerful reflection on the nature of marriage, rather than knee-jerk reactions to government initiatives.  At the present time, the debate is almost entirely sociological and political, which is why the church is getting left behind.  Our theology of marriage has changed over the centuries and this is the next change we need to consider.

Perhaps that debate should start with the words of Mildred Loving whose legal challenge finally legalized interracial marriage in the USA.  "I think marrying who you want is a right no man should have anything to do with. It's a God-given right,"

Archbishops haunted by a voice from the grave...

So now we know what really happened.

A bad tempered Archbishop shouting and losing his temper; mature, professional people being reduced to tears; back room deals or ecclesiastical arm-twisting in the toilets; all to exclude a gay priest and a pro-gay priest from being appointed to a top job.

It is hardly the atmosphere that one would expect to find amongst the Church of England’s spiritual leaders as they met to choose the next Bishop of Southwark – one of the most senior appointments in the CofE.

Before yesterday, many of us who were concerned by reports and rumours thought that we knew.  But last night The Guardian published a damning account of the last year’s secret meeting by one of the main participants – the late Dean of Southwark Cathedral, Colin Slee.

I knew Colin during my years working in Southwark Diocese.  He was a complex character – sometimes brash and bombastic – at other times deeply pastoral – but always a man of huge integrity.  He said what he thought, and told it like was, all through his ministry.  The Church of England has been lessened by his untimely death last November.

But it appears that he has left one last parting to gift to the church that both inspired and frustrated him – the gift of his account of the 2 days last year when the Archbishops and the Crown Nominations Commission met to choose a new Bishop for South London.  And now, following continuing disarray in the House of Bishops on the issue, his daughter has made the courageous decision to make the account public.

His account is not news to Lambeth Place.  It is the same account which Colin gave to the Archbishops’ enquiry which was investigating the leaks which brought this shameful process out into the open.  What is new is that ordinary church members and the public at large can now gain a glimpse behind doors that are usually guarded with such secrecy.

It is not a pretty picture.

When I first read the article last night, I posted a link to it on Twitter with the words “homophobic bullying” partly because I had also just seen a video account of such bullying that led a 15 year old to take his own life last year.  The Guardian article smacked of ecclesiastical bullying, with the Archbishops at the helm.  I also know some of the other people at the meeting.  They are strong, self-assured and mature individuals, and the thought that any of them could be reduced to tears shows be how thoroughly unpleasant the atmosphere must have been. 

But as I have reflected, I have realised how the reality is so much more complex than that.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, is not homophobic.  Nor, I am sure is the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu.  Therefore by definition, they cannot be accused of being homophobic bullies.

So where did this all come from?

The real issue is the homophobic bullying that goes on day in and day out in the Church.  Jeffrey John has experienced this throughout his ministry and particularly following his abortive appointment as Bishop of Reading in 2003.  Other gay people have been systematically told that their ministry is not welcome in the church - or they have been told to keep quiet about their sexuality and relationships – to live a lie or face the consequences.

Even straight Christians such as myself, have been told that we are unfit for ministry and are wrecking God’s Church– just because we are advocating the acceptance of same-sex relationships in the church.  Once at General Synod, an Anglican Church leader who really ought to know better, implied to me in public that I should be careful about my salvation (a thinly veiled threat if ever I heard one) and should remember the reality of hell.

If I, a mere nobody in the structures of the Church of England, can be on the receiving end of such pressure, what must it be like for Archbishops whose private views are so at odds with the repressive policies they feel they have to uphold.

And there is the heart of the issue.  As a church, we have allowed homophobic bullying to become part of our institution – and allowed that institutional homophobia to corrode our leaders, our policies, our public statements, and our private decisions.

In the same way that the Steven Laurence enquiry came to the land-mark conclusion that the police were ‘institutionally racist’, so any independent enquiry into the Church of England would conclude that we are ‘institutionally homophobic’, and Colin Slee’s account of those 2 days last year proves it.

We have allowed the voice of institutional homophobia in the church to turn good people and gifted leaders into bad tempered bullies, desperate to defend the status quo, whatever that takes.  

It reminds me of a quote which I came across last year when I was doing some research before a speaking engagement.  It said,

"Considering all the evil that exists in the world, the fact that all of religion's condemnation is focused on expressing disapproval of two people loving each other proves just how evil religion is."   

Until we make a determined decision to be less ‘religious’ and more Christian – to be less concerned with upholding our corrupted institutions, and more concerned with following Jesus Christ, we will continue to allow our church to act like a bad tempered bully instead of embodying the loving God who sent his Son so to bring us life in all its fullness.

It is time for change.