Here we go again...

The Church in Wales have vetoed an openly gay priest in a celibate Civil Partnership from being appointed as Bishop of LLandaff.  This is especially shocking as the Church in Wales has been one of the more supportive Anglican provinces towards LGBT people in the past.

According to a letter published by Jeffrey John, whose appointment was blocked, the reason is anti-gay discrimination.  Despite unanimous support for Jeffrey among the appointed representatives for the Diocese of Llandaff, and a reminder by the presiding bishop that being in a Civil Partnership was not a bar to appointment, 2 of the 5 Bishops objected to his appointment on the grounds of his sexuality, effectively blocking his appointment.  In his letter Jeffrey John notes that, “This is the way that anti-gay discrimination always works.”

He should know.  He has been blackballed from the club of Bishops on a regular basis for the last 14 years.

In 2003, Jeffrey John was forced to withdraw from being appointed Bishop of Reading by the then Archbishop of Canterbury because of his sexuality.  The conservative backlash which followed the announcement of his appointment resulted in him being hounded by the press, pilloried by conservatives, and hung out to dry by the church which appointed him.  It all culminated in an ‘invitation’ to Lambeth Palace where he was subjected to several hours of emotional blackmail before finally caving in and withdrawing his acceptance.

At least that was all out in the open.

On numerous occasions since then, he has been shortlisted for posts as a Bishop.  Each time, he has submitted the personal statements required, often been called for interview and then told he was not suitable.   All under the veil of secrecy which shrouds the appointment of Bishops in the Church of England and in Wales.

In 2010, he was shortlisted to be Bishop of Southwark where he was known as a former parish priest, elected member of General Synod, and Canon Chancellor at the Cathedral.  He was well loved by his friends and respected by those who disagreed with him.  It should have been a perfect fit, but the same pattern repeated.  This time, however, substantive leaks followed.  One of the members of the appointing group (the CNC) died the following year, and his daughter made his account of the meeting public.  Jeffrey John’s appointment had been blocked by a ‘bad tempered Archbishop of Canterbury’ who left a number of the members of the CNC in tears.  The Archbishop of York had worked behind the scenes to the same end.  The whole episode had been shameful.

On and on it went, in a pattern which can only be called abuse.

After the appointment of Nicholas Chamberlain as Bishop of Grantham last year, and the subsequent revelation that he was in a long term same sex relationship, it appeared that change had finally come.  Now there was an openly gay Bishop in the CofE.  It appeared that the dam had broken, but there was an important difference.  The fact that Nicholas is gay, and in a long term relationship, was not publicly known before his consecration.  It was privately known, by the current Archbishop of Canterbury amongst others, but it was not in the public domain.  Apparently that still makes a difference.

And so we come to Llandaff.  Here, surely was the appointment that would break the cycle of abuse.  In recent years the Church in Wales has been more supportive of LGBT people in its public statements than its Anglican neighbours in England.  Jeffrey John is Welsh and a fluent Welsh speaker.  The 12 people elected by the diocese to represent the views of the diocese in the appointment unanimously supported him.

But even this was not enough.  After allegedly homophobic comments went unchallenged at the Bench of Bishops meeting, he was blackballed again, along with everyone else who had made the shortlist, just to obfuscate the blatant discrimination at work.

The spiritual and emotional abuse continues.

I talked with Jeffrey John back in 2003 when he was unable to go home because of the press camped out on his doorstep.  He told me of the pressure he was under to withdraw his acceptance to be Bishop of Reading.  I remember encouraging him to stand firm, and said that if he stood down, this opportunity would not come round again for a generation.

Sadly the pressure on him proved too much, and half a generation later, I am increasingly afraid that I might be right.

The irony is that I don’t blame the individuals involved as much as the institution whose culture is characterised by fear more than love or justice.  It was fear that prevented anyone challenging the homophobic statements made at the Board of Bishops.  It was fear that led them to blackball Jeffrey John rather than face any controversy which might follow.  It was fear which paralysed these Christian leaders from exercising true leadership.

The Christian Gospel is not meant to be about fear.  It is supposed to be about justice and love. In fact, the Bible says that perfect love casts out fear.  Perhaps the Bible should have the last word, from 1 John 4:16-18

“God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world, we are like Jesus.

There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.”

Tony Benn - RIP

Also published by Ekklesia http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/20268 

Veteran politician Tony Benn died yesterday.  From the amount of news coverage on Radio 4 today you would have thought he was a former Prime Minister of head of state, and as always happens when a great man or woman dies, people of all opinions lined up to sing his praises.

I met Tony Benn on a number of occasions, but two stand out for me.

The second of these was at the annual Tolpuddle Martyrs festival run by the TUC.  Every year thousands of trades unionists and politicians pack into the tiny village of Tolpuddle in Dorset to celebrate the world’s first trades union when a small group of six agricultural workers swore an oath to stand together against the land-owners who kept them in poverty while living in lavish homes.  They were deported to the penal colonies of Australia for their defiance and the outcry which followed saw the birth of Trades Unions in this country.

Tony Benn was a regular visitor to this festival, always ready to speak and share with others on both history and current affairs.

For four years I was Vicar of Tolpuddle, and during the festival there was always a wreath laying ceremony at the grave of the only one of the six who returned to Tolpuddle after they were eventually pardoned.  The irony was that the grave was in the Church Yard of the Parish Church where I was vicar – an irony because one my predecessors had betrayed the Martyrs.  He had originally tried to act as an honest broker in the dispute, and was a witness of a settlement agreed by all sides.  Yet when the land-owners reneged on the deal, he bowed to pressure from his bishop to support the establishment and deny that any such agreement took place.

As a result there was great suspicion of the Church of England by TUC members who knew their history and as vicar, I was not always made to feel welcome at the wreath-laying.   That is, until I asked if I could participate in the ceremony and lay a wreath of repentance for the betrayal of the Martyrs by my predecessor and the Church – and one of the proudest moments of my ministry was processing from the Martyrs Memorial down the road to the Church side by side with Tony Benn as we both went to lay our wreaths at the grave of James Hammett.

The first encounter was some years before when I attended a small evening lecture in a dimly lit north London church on the subject of disestablishing the Church of England.  The main speaker was Tony Benn, who was a long-time proponent of cutting the ties between Church and State in England.

Anyone who is unaware of Tony Benn’s views on the Church might assume that this came from a low regard for the Church, or a socialist, secularist agenda which sought to undermine any participation from the Church in the government of the nation.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  His argument was drawn straight from the Bible.

He drew a parallel with the Kings and Prophets of the Old Testament pointing out the balance of power which existed during the Old Testament monarchy – the various Kings from Saul onwards, wielding power and ruling the nation, balanced by the constant voice of the Prophets who held them to account for their actions.

The voice of the Prophets was essential, he would argue, to challenge wrong-doing and wrong motives – to provide direction for the Kings who would listen, and stubborn unyielding opposition when they would not.

This, he argued, should be the role of the Church in relation to government.

Yet in the Church of England, it is the Government who appoint the Bishops - the rulers who appoint the prophets – and while the Church of England is shackled in this subservient role to the ‘Kings’ of our day, it will never be able to fulfil its role as Prophet.

Tony Benn did not want to see the CofE disestablished to silence it – rather set free to speak as a Prophet to the nation, whatever political party was in power.

As I reflect on the state of the Church of England today – I think that the situation has become far worse.  Our Bishops are not prophets, but ineffectual peacemakers obsessed with being a ‘focus of unity’ rather than speaking out what they know to be true.

In the House of Lords they are seen to be more concerned with protecting an arcane world-view than speaking out with a prophetic voice.

Our role in this constitutional monarchy has become largely ceremonial adding pomp and pageantry to occasional state milestones around the cycle of monarchy.  It is a long way from Tony Benn’s vision for the church as a Prophetic voice to government and nation.

But can the giving up of power ever be right?  Could it really be better to give up our right to a place in the corridors of government and exchange it for the uncertain role of a prophet?

Let me finish with two examples which would point us in that direction…

The first is Tony Benn himself, who famously gave up his hereditary place in the House of Lords to fight for election as an MP.  Judging by the accolades he received this morning, Tony Benn did not exchange power for obscurity, because the strength of his message found a place (albeit an uncomfortable place sometimes) in people’s hearts and minds.

The second is Jesus Christ,

“Who being in very nature God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
⁷ rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.
⁸ And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death—
        even death on a cross!

⁹ Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
    and gave him the name that is above every name,
¹⁰ that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
    in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
¹¹ and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
    to the glory of God the Father.”

^{Philippians 2}

Here is a principle which the Church of England should pay attention to.  Those in the Kingdom of God, who seek to hold on to their power for sake of it, will lose it.  And those who give up their power for the sake of others will find it.

RIP Tony Benn (1925-2014)

Another way of doing business...

We are half way through the Church of England’s General Synod in York, and it has been fascinating as usual.  Conversations with Synod members, Bishops and others reveal a huge amount about what happens behind the scenes in the Church of England – and helps make sense of the debates.

But there is one area which is still shrouded in mystery – the meetings of the House of Bishops.

Questions on voting records in House of Bishops meetings, and questions about the secrecy which surrounds the Bishops meetings were swept aside on Friday evening by the blanket phrase “that remains confidential to the House” and there are clearly no plans to change that.

Such is that the secrecy that I saw the BBC’s correspondent’s eyes light up in a passing conversation with a Bishop at the vaguest prospect of getting an inside story on the last meeting.

The House of Bishops – unlike General Synod as a whole meets in private.  No record is published of votes taken, or of the content of speeches made, or contributions to discussions.  We never know if a policy or statement has been overwhelmingly endorsed or just scraped through by the slimmest of margins.

When a decision is taken however, that becomes the policy of the House and a kind of Cabinet Collective Responsibility takes effect where everyone is expected to back the decision whether they voted for it or not.

But is there another way of doing things?

It was also fascinating to read Christina Beardsley’s blog on Changing Attitude this morning.  She was at a very different House of Bishop’s meeting yesterday in the USA as part of The Episcopal Church General Convention.

Their House of Bishops meeting was not held behind closed doors.  They met in ‘Open Session’ and observers could come, watch and listen.  Nor were they keeping it safe by only addressing uncontentious issues.  On the agenda were two resolutions relating to inclusion of Transgender people in the life of the church – including equal access to explore a vocation to ordination.  There were speeches made on both sides of the debate – some supporting the changes and some opposing them - before a vote was taken in public on the two resolutions.

What struck me in reading Christina’s report, was how constructive and open the whole process was.  Strong and moving statements were made on both sides, including a bishop opposing the resolutions who said that this would be “an idol that will break us” but the description of the open session was breath-taking for its maturity in handling areas of disagreement in public.

This American model is a world away from the workings of the House of Bishops in England but it showed me that there is another way of doing things.  There is another way for Bishops to model leadership in the Church. There is another way to make decisions which does not require Bishops to keep secret their discussions, or to bury their own convictions beneath the pretence of Cabinet Collective Responsibility.  It is more open, more honest and infinitely more transparent.

Perhaps there is another way…

Is the dam beginning to break ?

This has been an extra-ordinary week in the debate on same-sex partnerships in England and Wales.

First the Archbishop of Wales made same-sex partnerships the subject of his Presidential Address to the Church in Wales Governing Body.

He said that the church needed to find ways to be good news to gay people and that they should not be treated as second class citizens in church.  He also recognised that there is no single Christian opinion on sexuality.

Turning to the Government consultation on same-sex marriage, he became the first Archbishop in the UK to say that we should engage with the idea of same-sex marriage rather than simply opposing it,

“If the legislation to allow civil marriage is passed, I cannot see how we as a church, will be able to ignore the legality of the status of such partnerships and we ought not to want to do so.

“The question then as now is, will the church protect and support pastorally, faithful, stable, lifelong relationships of whatever kind in order to encourage human values such as love and fidelity and recognise the need in Christian people for some public religious support for these.”

Then on Saturday morning, the Times newspaper published a letter from 15 leading members of the Church of England including 5 Bishops saying that the church has nothing to fear from Civil Marriage for same-sex couples and calls for theological discussion and prayerful reflection on the nature of marriage.

“Marriage is a robust institution which has adapted much over the centuries. It has moved beyond the polygamy of the Old Testament and preoccupation with social status and property in pre-Enlightenment times.

While the Prayer Book states that marriage was ordained first for ‘the procreation of children’ the modern marriage service begins by emphasising the quality of relationship between marriage partners ‘that they shall be united with one another in heart, body and mind.’

The Church calls marriage holy or sacramental because the covenant relationship of committed, faithful love between the couple reflects the covenanted love and commitment between God and his Church. Growing in this kind of love means we are growing in the image of God. So the fact that there are same-sex couples who want to embrace marriage should be a cause for rejoicing in the Christian Church.”

And then later the same day, The Bishop of Salisbury made a major speech to the Cutting Edge Consortium in London in which he said that "it is disaster that we have allowed the Church to be seen as the opposition to equal civil marriage."

“There is an evangelical imperative for the Church to recognise that covenantal same sex relationships can be Godly and good for individuals and society; that they are at least like marriage for heterosexuals, and this is a development that many Christians in good faith warmly welcome.”

So what are we to make of all this?

For some time now, it has been relatively easy to have private conversations with Bishops and other senior church leaders where they have expressed private support for same-sex couples.  What has not been possible until recently was to get them to say so in public.  Indeed a network exercise I took part in recently found evidence that almost half of the House of Bishops are personally open to a change in church teaching on sexuality, but a combination of loyalty and fear keeps them from saying so openly.

Pressure is now growing behind the dam wall of silence and holes are appearing in the façade of uniformity which the Church of England has erected.  People are starting to speak out - the debate is beginning to change.  How many more holes will it take before the dam starts to collapse – who knows?

But the cracks are showing as the water of honesty begins to flow.

I hope that this week’s events will encourage others to be more honest and open in their doubts about the church’s current teaching on homosexuality – I hope it will inspire others to speak out and be counted.  After this week, they will know that if they do, they will no longer be a lone voice in the wilderness, but part of a move of God’s Spirit.

Anglican Covenant - Rest in Peace

One of the most striking memories I have of General Synod was a conversation with Bishop Colin Buchanan – a veteran Synod member and wonderfully maverick Bishop.

He was a Bishop who was fully committed to the Synodical structure of the Church of England and a campaigner for truly democratic processes in the church.

He said to a group of us who had just been elected to General Synod that, “The first duty of members of General Synod is to try to defeat the platform!”

His words shocked more than a few of us!  But there was great wisdom in what he said.  The ‘platform’ of the great and good are the ones with the appearance of power in General Synod.  Ensconced in almost magisterial isolation, set above the rank and file of Synod members, the temptation is to believe that they must be right when they tell you something is good, or something is bad! This is particularly true when speeches from the platform are made with such Anglican politeness and distinguished reserve that anyone who might try to question them runs the risk of seeming untrusting and churlish, reactionary or revolutionary (hardly Anglican traits!)

Yet the duty of Synod members is not to meekly bow down to the received wisdom of church dignitaries, however deep their shade of purple or however many Boards and Committees they sit on.  The duty of Synod members is to question and scrutinise – to examine the substance behind the smoke screen of polished presentation.  The duty of Synod members is to probe beneath the surface of reasonable acceptability to see if the Emperor does indeed have clothes to cover his embarrassment.

This is what Diocesan Synods have done with great courage and perception over the last few months.  They have not been taken in by the great and good standing up in true Tony Blair fashion saying ‘Trust me!’  They have wanted to hear both sides, and to make their own minds up. It has been Synodical Government at its best.

The fact that so many clergy and lay people voted against their Bishops showed that when they really looked beneath the surface of the proposed Covenant, they found it wanting.  And in doing so time and time again, they defeated the platform.  And where Bishops had the courage of their convictions and voted against, they found themselves at one with their flock, rather than trying to drag them along in humble submission.

There are those who are still trying to pretend that the Covenant is still alive, desperately trying to breathe life into its limp body, while claiming still to feel the faintest pulse.  They are mistaken.

What is needed now is to recognise the will of the Synodical process, and express deep and sincere thanks to those who genuinely tried to find a way forward for the Anglican Communion in the form of a Covenant – and to let it now Rest in Peace.

Having led hundreds of funerals since my ordination over 20 years ago, I know that the best funerals are those where the mourners gather to say a loving good bye – and the worst are those where the grievers meet in a kind of desperate denial.

For the good intentions of those who tried to square this circle, the Anglican Covenant deserves a good funeral which will enable us all to move on and find new ways of living together as the living Anglican Body of Christ.

The Anglican Covenant – RIP.

Shocking Bishops!

Bishops have been in the news this week in ways that could hardly be described as being a 'focus of unity'.

First of all there were the five Bishops in the House of Lords who defied the Government and (if reports are correct) public opinion to oppose plans for a £26,000 cap on Benefits.

Then blast from the past, retired Archbishop George Carey, waded in with an article for the Daily Mail which was a scathing attack on the hapless Bishops mentioned above.  In it he called into question their judgment, perspectives on morality and use of the Bible.  He also practically canonised  the relevant Government minister because he is a 'Committed Christian' - after all, God forbid that committed Christians should ever disagree!

Lord Carey has of course, every right as a member of the House of Lords, to contribute to the debate in the House of Lords - but he did not.  He chose instead to make his contribution in the pages of the Daily Mail giving them the front page headline "Halleluiah!  Archbishop blasts clerics who oppose welfare reform!"  Nicely done Archbishop!

But the most shocking statement by a Bishop was brought to my attention by another Bishop who tweeted it with disbelief!  And shocking it was...

It was the observation that Bishop Wallace Benn (current Bishop of Lewes) has endorsed a book by Christian Voice fundamentalist Stephen Green.

The book "Britain in Sin" charts 57 pieces of legislation which the Queen has signed which are bringing God's judgment on Britain because they oppose the clear teaching of scripture.  Such unbiblical legislation includes recognition of marital rape, equal pay for women, the United Nations Charter, and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Coincidentally, another piece of legislation which Stephen Green describes as unbiblical is the creation of state social security.  Apparently, it goes against God's law because it "penalises thrift and marriage and rewards fecklessness and isolation." (page 9 of the pdf download of the book).  Disturbingly, Lord Carey also uses a similar phrase in his article for the Daily Mail stating that the welfare state, "traps people into dependency and rewards fecklessness and irresponsibility." 

So why is the 'focus of unity ' issue so important that it is being used to deny celibate gay clergy in Civil Partnerships from becoming Bishops ?

It is hard to imagine that Bishop Wallace Benn's endorsement of 'Britain in Sin' will be enable him to be a 'focus of unity' in the diocese where he serves, anymore that we can pretend that the Bishops in the Lords are at one with Lord Carey.

Our Bishops can be pro-government or anti-government.  They can be pro-women's ministry or anti-women's ministry.  They can even endorse books which would outrage the vast majority of Christians and society at large - but they can't be openly gay - even if they promise to abide by the churches repressive teachings.

Shocking - Bishops!

Update:
Since I wrote this blog I am pleased to hear that Bishop Wallace Benn has dissassociated himself from Stephen Green's book in a statment which implies that he didn't read it fully before endorsing it! See http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/16147 

While this is clearly welcome it is still shocking that he should have thought he could endorse the book at all.  It makes me wonder which parts had he read and could endorse!

Christians reach out while the Church pulls away...

At London Pride last weekend around 120 Christians dressed in purple T-shirts emblazoned with the words "Christian and Proud", marched in the London Pride Parade.

They sang Christian songs and gave out gospel leaflets to onlookers.  They smiled and waved as they were greeted with cheers and applause by the crowds who had gathered to watch.  It was profoundly moving to see this expression of the Christian faith welcomed by people of all faiths and none.  It was an act of mission declaring God's love to gay and straight alike on the streets of central London.

But as 'Christians at Pride' reached out, the Church of England was pulling away from the gay community, by introducing a new way of excluding gay clergy from being considered as Bishops.

In an statement from the House of Bishops, the Bishop of Norwich said,  "clergy in civil partnerships should not, at present, be nominated for Episcopal appointment".  This now appears to be the official policy of the Church of England, pending new reviews of same-sex relationships which will take place over the next few years.

This will certainly make for a quieter life in the Crown Nominations Commission, as recent revelations have shown, as it will exclude candidates like Jeffrey John without any need for discussion.  But what kind of message is it sending to gay Christians?

Clergy in Civil Partnerships already have to make a declaration that their relationship is non-sexual and that they will abide by the teaching and discipline of the Church.  As such there was nothing to prevent them being considered for other appointments - until last weekend.

To quote one of the organisers of 'Christians at  Pride', himself an evangelical gay Anglican, "This poses an interesting question for the church. What does a gay person have to do in order to be acceptable to the church?  For years, we have been told that it's really just the sexual act which is the problem, and now it turns out its more than that."

It is tempting to ask where Jesus would have been last weekend, if he had to choose.  Would he have been standing alongside the House of Bishops, or among the Christians at Pride?

The Gospel writers would seem to leave us in no doubt.  Jesus almost always chose to spend his time with those outside the religious institutions.  Whether on the shores of lake Galilee, or with tax collectors and sinners, Jesus spent little of his time in the corridors of religious power.  And when he did venture into the places of religious power, they were often as uncomfortable with him, as he was with them.

The two reviews which the Bishops announced last weekend do, perhaps, provide a glimmer of hope.  They may provide the opportunity for the Church of England to reconsider its attitude to same-sex relationships after several years of stalemate where concerns in the rest of the Anglican Communion have prevented a return to this thorny issue.

It is intended that these reviews should build on the 'listening process' which was begun in 1998, but has faltered in recent years.  LGB&T Christians will be hoping that as well as listening to them, the church will listen to the Jesus who still reaches out to them, even when the church pulls away.

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.

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.

We pray for their return ...

So yesterday the Church Of England lost 5 Bishops as they make the journey to Rome over the issue of women Bishops...

Some may find it tempting to say "Good riddance" but that would graceless. Instead I would like to tell the story of an young Anglican Priest who left the Church of England back in 1963 to become a Roman Catholic .

He did it for theological reasons.

He was an Anglo-catholic, trained at St Stephen's House in Oxford, under Fr Arthur Couratin. And he, along with others, felt that the Church of England was in danger of betraying its Catholic heritage by moving towards unity with the Methodist Church. In doing so, any claim to Apostolic Succession would be broken and we would have priests & ministers who had not been properly ordained. In short, the Church of England would cease to be part of the' one holy catholic and apostolic church' of the creeds.

And so he left, with his wife and young baby, following the courage of their convictions.

They left their home for a room in a Roman Catholic house for defecting Anglican clergy. They received a warm and practical welcome in the Roman church, with the Converts Aid Society helping him to get a job and home to live in, and Roman Catholic priests helped them through this momentous time of change in their lives.

At that time, their Anglican baptism was not accepted in Rome, so they had to be conditionally baptised and confirmed again - and of course, as a married man, there was no possibility of being able to move to ordained ministry as a Roman Catholic priest.

So he became a teacher, initially in Roman Catholic schools, but then in a state school in Rochdale. When he got there however, he discovered something - that the Head and Deputy Head at this school were both dedicated Methodists and the Deputy was a Methodist lay preacher.

During his time there, he began to question his attitude towards Methodists and his reasons for leaving the Church of England. These Methodists were among the finest Christian he had ever met, and as a result he realised that he had been wrong. In that realisation, he felt God calling him back and he went to the Bishop who had sponsored him for ordination him to ask to be allowed back into Anglican ministry. Graciously, the Bishop welcomed him back, and there followed another 28 years of ordained ministry before retirement.

This story is not unique by any means, but it is special to me because that Anglican priest is my father, and I was the young baby in their arms as they left their Vicarage to 'go to Rome'.

Its point is to show that sometimes we can be wrong. Sometimes there are issues which seem so fundamental to our faith, that lead us to difficult decisions and drastic action. Yet in the fullness of time we realise they are mere distractions to the call to love God and our neighbour in the footsteps of Jesus Christ.

Paul knew this of course, after his momentous change of life and faith on the road to Damascus. In Philippians 3, he lists all the things that he thought were so important before his encounter with Christ - and then he says that now he counts them all as loss compared with the all surpassing greatness of knowing Christ. Not many of us will have a Damascus experience to redirect our lives, but we do meet Christ in other people every day and if we are open to see Christ in them, we too can find Christ calling us to new understanding of His work in the world.

Of course things are very different now. The issue of the day is Women Bishops, not Methodists. Anglican priests can go to Rome and be welcomed into ministry, even if they are married with a family. And now there is the promise of an Anglican Ordinariate within the Roman Catholic Church.

Now, with the resignation of five Bishops to join the new Ordinariate, there will be other clergy who are tempted to join them. My hope is that they will think twice before leaving the Church of England on such an issue - but my prayer is that even if they go, they will remain open to seeing Christ at work in the ministry of others, and through seeing Christ at work, they will one day feel the call to return.

Don't know, Don't care ...

Following the renewed controversy about whether Jeffrey John could or should be a Bishop this summer, YouGov conducted a random poll asking whether the public at large thought that "the Church of England should or should not allow the appointment of Bishops who are gay".

The results came out in favour of gay Bishops - 39% were in favour, 27% against - but what struck me was the high proportion of people who just didn't care - or in the words of the survey "have no opinion either way".

Almost a third of those questioned (31%) had no opinion either way.

There are 2 possible interpretations of this:

Either they don't care because homosexuality just is not an issue for them - it doesn't provoke a response, positive or negative.

Or the Church of England and probably, by implication, the Christian faith is simply irrelevant in their lives.

Either way, this should be a matter of grave concern for those of us who want to make Jesus Christ known, as it shows how irrelevant the church has become for so many people.

For those for whom sexuality doesn't illicit any response, the way the church gets hot under the collar (usually the dog collar!) over and over again about this one issue must push them more and more to the conclusion that we are nothing to do with them.

But I suspect that the greater proportion of the 'no opinion' group have written the church and the Christian faith off, and see the church as a quaint anachronism, which has nothing to say to them. Our traditional ways of doing things - our patriarchal institutions - our funny clothes and rituals - our liturgical and ecclesiastical language - simply do not make an impression on an increasing proportion of the population.

For those Christians in newer churches, (mainly evangelical or pentecostal in style) this is not news. Their growth in recent years has been due largely to presenting the gospel in a contemporary way, seeking to make it relevant to a new generation. But even here there are problems.

In the 25-39 age group where these newer churches often do well, there were significantly fewer people who expressed no opinion, (27%) but this is the group who were most in favour of gay bishops (52%) which goes against the predominantly conservative approach on sexuality which these churches take.

Nor can the established church take much comfort from the older generation. Even among the over 60's (the only age group which came out against gay Bishops - 25% in favour, 40% against) the 'don't care' vote was the highest of all age groups (34%). This age group is generally regarded as being the most 'religious' (and most traditional) and those of us who are attend church will know that this is the best represented group amongst the majority of our congregations, and yet over a third don't care on this most traditional of issues!

The challenge of this survey is not the issue of gay bishops. It is the challenge which the church faces in presenting the Gospel in a relevant and engaging way. It is the challenge of bringing the love and teaching of Jesus Christ to our nation in the social environment of the 21st Century, rather than the 17th or 19th Century. It is the challenge of living and acting in a way which can speak to people who have been turned off what we do and what we say to the extent that they just don't care.