Alleluia! Resurrection at Synod?

When the vote was lost for Women Bishops in 2012 I was shocked and stunned.  I was not alone.

The prospect of waiting another 5 years to get the same point, with no certainty of progress compounded that sense of depressing disbelief.

In response I wrote ‘Two Feet in the Grave’ as a response to the CofE’s uncanny ability to shoot itself in both feet, while standing on the edge of its own grave and then wonder why it falls into the gaping hole.

But I was mistaken.

Today after less than 2 years, the same vote has taken place again – and this time with a different result.  Somehow the Church of England has managed to rouse itself and move with remarkable speed (for an arcane institution) to overturn the bureaucratic processes whose tail so often wags the dog.   To those outside the church, this might not sound like lightening speed – but in ecclesiastical terms it would impress even Einstein! 

There is a wonderful parody of the hymn “Onward Christian Soldiers” where the verse starts ‘Like a mighty tortoise moves the church of God – brothers we are treading where we’ve always trod’.   When it comes to bishops the outdated sexist language of the parody was absolutely true – it was indeed brothers only – but somehow the tortoise has stirred itself to life and movement, surprising those who mistook its paralysis for death.

So perhaps I was wrong.  It would seem that in the action of falling into the open grave, the shock of shooting itself in both feet has resulted in a surge of ecclesiastical adrenalin which has brought about the first signs of resurrection.

Don’t get me wrong – I don’t expect the CofE to instantly bound ahead with exuberant life, but with the advent of women to the House of Bishops, I am sure that there will be a new injection of life into this previously patriarchal tortoise-like institution.

The CofE has benefited enormously from the ministry of women priests, and now, finally, it will have the opportunity to benefit from women bishops.

Today the CofE took one foot out of the grave.  

I now look forward to seeing more signs of life the future, and for the resurrection to be continue when we stop trying to exclude people on the basis of gender, orientation, love and marriage - and start living out the life-giving, welcoming love of Christ for all people everywhere, with no exceptions!

Will the sun still rise tomorrow?

Later tonight a new era begins in England and Wales as the first same-sex marriages are celebrated.

As the clock strikes midnight, marriage between two people of the same gender will become legal and the first couples will tie the knot.

There have been dire warnings about this change to the law here and elsewhere in the world.  In the USA a radio commercial proclaimed that  “Terrible consequences will affect everyone and everything imaginable forever if same-sex marriage goes ahead!” and here same-sex marriage was described as ‘grotesque’ by a senior church leader who later had to leave his post after admitting pressurising fellow priests into sexual encounters.

Into this mix I would like to contribute two things.

The first is a speech I gave last November at the Law Society in London in a debate etitled, “Protecting Diversity, Belief, Conscience, and the new definition of Marriage”

The second is a speech by a New Zealand MP in their debate on same-sex marriage.  The title of this post comes from that speech.

Enjoy…

Speech to the Law Society – 12^th November 2013

Ladies and gentlemen, let me first say thank you for your invitation to speak in this debate tonight.

When I received the list of other speakers for this evening, I have to say that I was a little overwhelmed as being the only non-lawyer on the platform for a debate at the Law Society!

 

But then it occurred to me that I am also likely to be the only person on the platform who has any experience of actually marrying couples and preparing them for marriage. During  my twenty-two years of ordained ministry, I have always taken marriage preparation just as seriously as the Big Day itself.  I have always met with the couple several times in the months leading up to their wedding – not to talk about hymns, flowers, or rehearsals – but to talk with them about what makes a successful, life-giving and life-long marriage.

So maybe I do have something to contribute after all…

Ever since same-sex marriage rose up the political agenda here and around the world, there have been those (especially people of faith) who have felt threatened by it.

It has been denounced by various Christian leaders in this country as “grotesque, dictatorial, and shameful”.  There have been accusations that it will devalue the marriages of heterosexuals and that it will put religious freedom in jeopardy.

Perhaps that fear is encapsulated most clearly in this quote from October in a radio commercial in Hawaii, before their Senate vote on same-sex marriage.  The radio commercial said

 “Terrible consequences will affect everyone and everything imaginable forever if same-sex marriage goes ahead!”

And yet here we are today with the same-sex marriage bill having been written into law for England and Wales and awaiting the first such marriage soon.

So are the warnings coming true?   In particular, is same-sex marriage in this country a threat to religious freedom, belief and conscience?  The answer is a resounding “No!”

The government has been at pains to protect religious freedom, faith and conscience, in the drafting of this law.  They have put in place the “Quadruple lock” to protect faith groups from being compelled to do anything against their beliefs or conscience, even going so far as to declare it illegal for any Church of England priest to celebrate a same-sex marriage.

And this has been recognised and accepted by many who oppose same-sex marriage.  For example the Evangelical Alliance is the oldest body of evangelical Christians in the UK claiming to represent over 2 million people.  They campaigned against same-sex marriage, and yet since the law gained royal assent, they have produced a “Marriage FAQ’s” for member groups and churches.  Twelve of the twenty-two FAQ’s consider the question of compulsion and churches’ right to refuse to conduct or facilitate same-sex weddings.   In every single one of those questions, the answer was “No – you cannot be compelled” and “Yes – you have a legal right to refuse” to conduct or host a same-sex marriage.

The reality is that the safeguards in the Same-sex Marriage Bill more than cover the right to religious freedom, faith and conscience.

But there is a diversity issue relating to belief and conscience which is deeply pertinent today – and that is the diversity of belief about same-sex marriage among members of churches and faith groups which is not being recognised or expressed by churches, denominations and faith groups.

A YouGov poll conducted by the University of Leicester in January 2013 found that even then

•  More Anglicans thought that same-sex couples should be allowed to get married than thought they should not.
• More Anglicans supported the right of same-sex couples to get married than opposed it.
• As well as, more Roman Catholics, more Presbyterians, and a majority of Hindu’s and Jews

But this is certainly not being represented by the leaders of Christian denominations. 

Even when the deeper question was asked , “Do you think that same-sex marriage is right or  wrong?” over a third of all Christians polled said that they thought it was right!

And I hear from Christians up and down the country who would like to see same-sex marriage happening in their church, and that includes local church leaders!

So where is this diversity being acknowledged and expressed in the official stance of most Christian churches?  The answer is that it is not.

I stand before you today as an Evangelical Christian who is not only in favour of same-sex marriage, but who also longs for the day when I will be permitted (by my Church) to officiate at such a wedding – and I am not alone.   I have come to this conclusion after careful, prayerful examination of the Scriptures, my belief, and my conscience.

So as we consider ‘Protecting diversity, belief and conscience in the new definition of marriage” today, the real question we should address is this:

“When will our churches and faith groups recognise, protect and give expression to the differing beliefs and conscience of their members in relation to marriage today?”

I look forward to our debate tonight.

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)

Women Bishops - a Minority report ...

During Monday's Synod debate on women Bishops I witnessed an interesting spectacle.

It has long been accepted in the CofE that women Bishops are going to happen.  The only question which remains is how to accommodate the minority who still can’t accept the fact. 

Some of those are Anglo-Catholics who believe that a Bishop must (by definition) be male, but others are conservative Evangelicals who can’t accept the notion that a woman can have authority over a man (except the Queen of course, who is supreme governor of the CofE – I assume they think she is really a man!).

So the debate (which is still rumbling on) is about how to ensure that these minorities still feel welcome in the Church of England and what system should be put in place for providing Bishops to look after them.

And in the debate yesterday, we had 2 or 3 conservative Evangelical speakers pleading for a system that would mean that their minority could remain in the CofE after women Bishops become a reality.

“Will there still be a place for us?” asked one speaker, “Will we still be welcome?”

As I thought about this, the situation became more and more intriguing.  Here was a minority in the CofE, which acknowledged that they were a minority, pleading for special treatment because they were a minority.  There is nothing wrong with this, of course.  The Church should be a place where everyone is welcome, even those whose picture of God and the church is very different to the majority.  It should be a place where grace and acceptance is not dependant on having the same theological view.  Our unity should be found in following the Lord of grace who reached out and embraced the poor, the outcast and the sinner.

Yet at the same time this particular minority is the most vocal group in the fight against the acceptance of another minority in the Church – lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Christians.

When it comes to gay Christians, who (on this issue) understand the Bible differently, they vehemently deny the possibility of a special place in the Church.  They want lesbian and gay Christians to be barred from ministry unless they promise to deny themselves and bow to enforced celibacy.  They would like to see Bishops taking action against gay and lesbian ministers in relationships and Civil Partnerships instead of turning a blind eye.  They want enquiries made about their sexual conduct and public repentance for past errors as a condition of continuing in ministry.  They want to see the Church continue to deny same-sex couples who are seeking blessing or dedication for their loving commitment to each other.  And they certainly do not want to see openly gay Bishops – even if they are celibate.

Yet they plead for a ‘special place’ in the CofE with their own Bishops who will share their minority theology while at the same time seeking to exclude others.

I am sure that I was not the only one who shared the irony of the moment.

If the CofE does manage to square the circle and provide a framework which creates a space for them without undermining the authority of woman Bishops, then perhaps we ought to require of them a little grace and charity towards the minority which they have been trying to drive out. 

Perhaps a commitment should be required from them to show respect and acceptance to the minority of Christians who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, before we let them stay?  Perhaps we ought to ask them to publicly repent of their failure to love and to listen to their brothers and sisters, and in a particular, the 1500 LGB&T clergy in the Church of England?  Perhaps they need to be ready to accept that there is a place in the Church of England for gay Christians – in the pews – in the pulpit – and in the House of Bishops.

And perhaps the CofE should seek to cater for all its minorities instead of picking and choosing which ones to protect.

The Bishop of Sodormy?

I have to confess to being slightly surprised at the recent Church of England announcement that the Bishop of Sodor and Man has been appointed to chair the review of Civil Partnerships.

It’s not that there is anything wrong with Bishop Robert Paterson.  I am sure that he is a fair and open person with a wealth of experience that can be brought to bear on the issues that the church needs to face.

My surprise came from the part of the UK where he serves  as Bishop – The Isle of Man.

The diocese of Sodor and Man is the smallest in the Church of England, covering the 28 parishes of this beautiful island in the Irish Sea.  I first became aware of it when researching the implications of a proposed Clergy Discipline Measure on Doctrine.  The measure would have enabled doctrinal complaints to be made against clergy and bishops, initiating a kind of Spanish Inquisition to investigate alleged doctrinal impurity!  Under the terms of the proposed legislation, I discovered that a mere 10 people in the Isle of Man Synod could force a formal disciplinary investigation into the beliefs and practise of the Archbishop of Canterbury or York with all the ramifications that such formal proceedings entail!  Thankfully, I was part of a group of clergy in General Synod who succeeded in getting the legislation thrown out, and to this day it has not returned.

But it is the reputation of the Isle of Man that raised my eyebrows when I learned that their Bishop would chair the review into Civil Partnerships, because historically, the Isle of Man is famous for 3 things – liberal tax laws, motorbike racing, and homophobia.

Armed with its own parliament and legal system, it was the last part of the British Isles to de-criminalise same sex acts in 1992 – a full 25 years after the mainland.  Its attitudes were so well known that actress Emma Thompson famously joked that it was a place that ‘stones gays’ – although she got it wrong and accused the Isle of Wight instead!  When Civil Partnerships were introduced in the UK, the Isle of Man stood out against them, only changing its mind amidst much controversy in April of this year. 



Douglas harbour

Then there are the jokes (which date from pre 1992) about homosexuality being illegal which is ironic when you can only get there by entering Douglas – jokes which are still repeated today.   And finally there was a friend of mine who misheard when I said that the review of Civil Partnerships would be led by the Bishop of Sodor and Man – he thought I said the ‘Bishop of Sodomy’!

So was this a wise choice on the part of the House of Bishops?  Surely it would have been better to choose a bishop from a more neutral diocese, or at least one without the antigay reputation of the Isle of Man?

But then again, perhaps there is more than a little wisdom in this choice – after all, the Isle of Man has a lot in common with the Church of England.

Both represent relatively small communities in the UK, enshrined in historic law, each with their own law making bodies.   Both are instinctively conservative in outlook and slow to embrace change.  Both have sections of their communities who would much prefer to pull up the drawbridge and keep themselves to themselves, rather than deal with the realities of a changing world.

And yet the Isle of Man has found a way to embrace change in the area of sexuality.  Despite its history and the internal controversies which Civil Partnerships has brought, it has found a way to move forward and embrace new understandings and new ways of living.  Despite its cultural instincts, it has and is making changes.

Perhaps there is a parable here for the Church of England.  Perhaps its leaders and its parliament can show the House of Bishops and the General Synod how to embrace a more open approach to people of all sexualities.  Perhaps they can show us that when change comes, the sky does not fall in as a result.

So perhaps the Bishop of Sodor and Man is exactly the right person to chair the Church of England’s Civil Partnership review – and many same-sex couples in the Church of England will certainly be hoping he is.

Shhh - Don't ask!

On Monday 5th December the law which prohibits Civil Partnerships being registered in religious buildings ceases to be.

Following an amendment to the Equalities Act in the House of Lords, the Government has now relaxed the rules and churches will soon be able to apply to offer Civil Partnerships.

The Government has been careful not to force churches or denominations to conduct Civil Partnerships and has produced 'opt in' legislation which leave it entirely up to churches to decide if they want to apply.

This both extends equalities legislation and preserves religious freedom of belief.

But the Church of England is not being so even handed in its response.  All Anglican churches will need to get permission from the Church of England's governing body to be registered.  The CofE has told the Government that the relevant governing body is General Synod.  So far this  seems reasonable until we learn that the Church of England has no plans to ask General Synod if it would grant such permission or not.  In the absence of such a vote, the answer will remain 'No'.

The paper sent  to General Synod members today (1st December) makes this clear:

"an application for the approval of a church or chapel of the Church of England cannot be validly made unless the application is accompanied by the consent in writing of the General Synod. That means that it will not be legally possible for any church or chapel of the Church of England (irrespective of who owns or controls the building in question) to become approved premises for the registration of civil partnerships without the consent of the Church of England as a whole expressed by way of a resolution of the General Synod. In the absence of such a resolution the Synod would not have given its consent for the purpose of the regulations."

And that goes with the recent statement from a spokesperson at Church House who told the press that "The Church of England has no intention of allowing Civil Partnerships to be registered in its churches."

So that's that then.  If Synod isn't asked - then Synod can't say 'yes' - so the easiest way of avoiding the whole issue is  'Don't ask'.

This is, of course an interesting variation on the 'Don't ask - don't tell'  policy which has kept gay and lesbian priests quiet for years.  Under this unofficial policy, gay priests have been allowed to continue in ministry as long as they haven't put their Bishops in a 'difficult position' by being honest with them.

Now we have a new variation - "Don't ask - don't know" - which will enable the Church of England to continue to evade the in inconvenience of having to face up the fact the there are gay Christians, gay Clergy, even gay Bishops - many of whom are in fulfilled loving same-sex relationships.

But shhh - don't ask.

Women's Ministry & Homosexuality - a response to Stephen Kuhrt.

Last month the Church of England Newspaper published an article by Stpehen Kuhrt, Chair of Fulcrum, on the difference between accepting women's leadership in the church, and accepting homosexual relationships.

Today they have published my response...
___________________________________________________________________

The connection between the debate over women's ministry and that of homosexuals has been a bone of contention among evangelicals for many years.  On the one hand, the Biblical texts on the role of women in the church have been re-examined and re-interpreted by 'open' conservatives, whilst on the other hand, a similar process has been resisted with much more energy when it comes to homosexuality.  In addition, there are those who have prophesied that the acceptance of women into ministry and headship would lead inexorably to the same pressures to reconsider the place of homosexuals in the church on a slippery slope away from Biblical truth.

At the heart of each issue is how we as evangelicals treat verses in Scripture which, at first sight appear to speak out clearly against change on either of these two issues.

In Stephen Kuhrt's recent article "Women's ministry and Homosexuality" he meets this issue head-on.  He tries to provide a rationale for conservatives like himself who want to follow the re-examination of Scripture in regard to women's ministry while continuing to resist any movement on homosexual relationships.  In doing so, he is attempting to defend that position from attacks from conservatives and liberals alike, while also trying to ensure that the 'slippery slope' argument does not hold back the full inclusion of women in the ministry of the church at every level.

And he is right in when he identifies significant differences between the two issues.   No-one has ever suggested that women in general are sinful if they seek a loving, faithful, self-giving relationship (except if that relationship is with another woman).  No conservative has suggested that women should seek to seek healing for their sexual identity or embrace abstinence in order to be acceptable to God and the church.  Women can be clearly identified in the Bible, and are present in almost all New Testament contexts, and Paul is clear in his radical theology that "In Christ there is no male of female".  Indeed it would be profoundly sad and inappropriate if there were people who would oppose the full inclusion of women in the church's ministry simply because they were opposed the inclusion of homosexuals.

But having said that, there are striking parallels in the process of discernment for both issues.

Both require us to re-examine Biblical texts which, when taken at face value exclude any change in traditional teaching.  In the case of women's ministry, the verses include clear statements excluding women from having authority over a man, and describing the idea of a women speaking in church as 'shameful'.  In the case of homosexuals the verses which exclude are well known to evangelicals, even if their meaning and context is less clear.

The process of re-examination which is needed in both cases is also similar.  Proponents of a new understanding on either issue call for the texts to be considered within their cultural context and purpose before being weighed against other passages of scripture which might point to the possibility of a more inclusive approach.

Both issues require an openness from us to be challenged on our own received cultural presuppositions and norms - what we think is 'normal' and 'obvious' because of the Christian culture we have been brought up in.

The difference, as Stephen Kuhrt points out is the lack of identifiably 'gay' people in the early church.  While a careful reading of Roman 16 reveals the possibility (or probability - depending on your point of view) of women in leadership, there are no such examples of openly 'gay' people.  But this absence in Scripture is not surprising, as it is similarly difficult to demonstrate a model of exclusive, partnered, faithful same-sex relationships in secular society at that time either. 

The same cannot be said of our society today. 

Homosexuality is identified by the vast majority of people as an orientation rather than a recreational choice.  There are plenty of examples of same-sex relationships today which exhibit the same characteristics of love, commitment and fidelity as marriage.  Indeed, there are partnered homosexual Christians in ministry and leadership in a wide variety of churches.

The joy and blessing which Stephen Kuhrt has found in welcoming women into ministry at his own church is wonderful to read about, and there are many who have experienced that same joy and blessing as they have begun to welcome LGB&T Christians into their churches in a more inclusive way.  Those of us who have experienced the blessing which LGB&T Christians can bring, know that full inclusion in the church - of women and of homosexuals - will further demonstrate the joy and blessing of faith in Jesus Christ.

The debates of women's ministry and homosexuality are different - but the issues which they call us to address have striking parallels, as are the potential blessings which full inclusion in the church will bring.

Rev Benny Hazlehurst

Secretary of Accepting Evangelicals
www.acceptingevangelicals.org

Published in the Church of England Newspaper - 9th September 2011

More or less human..?

Hollywood and  a  prominent scientific body are both addressing the issue of bio-medical ethics in very different ways this summer.  Both are highlighting  the issues behind the use of human tissue and DNA in animals for research.

Predictably, the Hollywood approach in 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes'  (released in the UK this week) treads the well worn apocalyptic  route - the scientific creation of a 'more human' ape which is then mistreated and rebels, leading to a battle between humans and apes for world supremacy.

The Academy of Medical Sciences, on the other hand, is calling for better regulation on the increasing use of human material in animals for medical research.  This is necessary, they argue, otherwise  we might find ourselves faced with a scientific 'fete accompli' of genetic hybrids with increasingly human attributes.

In short, the creation of a mice with 'human' livers is one thing (and already exists) but an ape with a 'human' brain would be quite different.

Potentially this is a huge issue.  As genetic and stem cell research develops, the ethical issues about using human material in animal research raises significant moral, theological and ethical questions for the human race.  The definition of what constitutes a 'human being' may in time come under increasing scrutiny if elements of 'personhood'  in animals are artificially developed in such experiments.

And yet the ethics of making animals 'more human' seems to make few waves in the Church.  The Church of England did contribute to the Academy's consultation last year, although my guess is that few people are aware of the document, never mind its conclusions.  (Find it at http://www.churchofengland.org/media/45701/achmresp.pdf)

The Church's response to the Academy takes a pragmatic approach.  It considers possible definitions of what constitutes a human being as well as potential issues of 'personhood' in relation to developing animal research.  It concludes that most current experiments would seem to be ok, but there is a line to be drawn when we create something which is more human than animal (wherever that line might be).  It seems to be ok to make animals 'more human' as long as we don't go too far.  The response is measured, sensible, and well argued, despite the fact that the balance it tries to establish will not engender universal agreement among Christians.

When I compare this to the church's debate of homosexuality, I find a huge contrast.

Unlike bio-genetic research, the church's position on homosexuality makes huge waves, and it is not at all pragmatic.   While giving the green light to making animals 'more human' , the church's response to homosexuals is to make them 'less human'.  It does this by telling them that God requires them to set aside a fundamental part of their humanity -  their longing to give and receive love in a mutual intimate relationship with someone they love.  The potential for such relationships is at the very heart of what it means to be human and when we deny LGB&T people this possibility, we reduce their humanity in the name of God.

In short -  the Church of England seems to think that it is ok to make animals more human, but not ok for homosexuals to be fully human.

The irony is that many of the issues which the Church of England has grappled with in human/animal experiments resonate clearly with the Church's ongoing e debate on sexuality!

In its response to the Academy, the Mission and Public Affairs Council of the Church of England deals with the question of what is considered 'natural' or 'unnatural' by noting that:

'Research may challenge some of our most fundamental beliefs and presuppositions but this is not sufficient reason to prohibit or to restrict it.'

and yet there are many Christians today who continue to regard homosexual relationships as 'unnatural' despite evidence to the contrary and the Church colludes with this world-view.

It goes on to say that.. 

Many scientific or medical techniques and practices that most people currently accept, such as organ transplantation or the use of psychiatric drugs were once widely deemed to be unacceptable because they challenged prevalent interpretations of human identity and personality. Fundamental beliefs may, at times, act as an initial defence mechanism against untrammelled experimentation but it is correct to challenge such beliefs and to engage in thoroughgoing discussion with regard to their veracity and significance.

and yet the Church has not allowed such an open approach to developing understandings around perceptions of sexuality.

The response also considers other concerns  which resonate with debates over sexuality, namely that such experiments on animals

·         will lead to moral or societal confusion

·         is an affront to human dignity

These concerns are often raised by those opposed to the acceptance and blessing of same-sex relationships, and yet the CofE considers none of these to be insurmountable in bio-genetic research.  So why are they insurmountable when it comes to allowing LGB&T people to express their humanity fully?

Perhaps this confusion arises from a misunderstanding of the role of God's laws.   I recently heard an evangelical theological college lecturer teach that "God's laws are there to make us more fully human". 

If this is the basic premise, then those opposed to blessing same-sex relationships can claim that obeying laws against same-sex acts makes homosexuals more human, not less.

But there is a fundamental error in this understanding of God's law.

It is God who makes us fully human at our creation in the womb - we are all born fully human irrespective of obedience or not to God's laws - and anything which is fully human cannot be made more fully human!   The purpose of God's law is to enable us to express that humanity fully in our interactions with God and others.  We can see this in Jesus' statement that loving God and our neighbour is the heart of the God's law. (Matthew 22:34-40) and in Paul's radical statement in Romans that 'love is the fulfilment of the Law'. (Romans 13:10)

So the test of any of the many laws we find in the Bible (often written in the context of specific cultures and points in history) is whether they enable us to express our humanity more fully , or whether they reduce it.  The experience of the vast majority of LGB&T people is that setting aside or denying their sexuality reduces their ability to truly express the fullness of their humanity. 

Should we allow unbridled experiments on animals using human tissue or DNA in the name of science?   Like the Church of England - I think not.

Should we continue to lessen the humanity of LGB&T people by telling them that God wants them to live in way which sets aside their sexuality?  Unlike the Church of England -  I think not.

And perhaps there is a wider issue here as well - that while the church continues to dehumanise LGB&T people, we lessen our right to be heard on other issues of humanity - and that is not a path we should follow.

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.