Modern Parable for the CofE

So I went to my local cinema with a friend.

We got to the box office to buy our tickets, but when we said which film we wanted to see, the cinema usher suddenly looked uncomfortable.  The colour slowly drained from her cheeks.

After an agonising pause, she finally said, “I’m sorry but this film isn’t really for you.  It’s for other people… you know, people who aren’t like you.”

My friend and I stood there, caught somewhere between amazement and incredulity.  We began to argue with the usher.  “What do you mean – it’s not for us?  Why can’t we go in?  What sort of cinema is this anyway?”

The more we argued, the more uncomfortable she looked, mumbling things like, “I know, I know... it doesn’t seem fair…  If it were up to me, I would let you in… you are more than welcome to see other films, but not this one – its company policy.”

We stood our ground, continued to argue and after a while, she offered to talk to the cinema manager and see what he could do.  While this was far from ideal, we reluctantly agreed and she disappeared into his office, leaving us standing there wondering if it was really worth staying.

In the end, we decided to wait, and eventually she came back with a smile.

“I’ve talked to the manager, and he doesn’t agree with the company policy either, but his hands are tied.  We can’t sell you tickets to that film – but we can get around it!   If you want, I can sneak you in through the side door, and sit you in a corner where no one will see you.  I’m afraid you won’t be able the whole screen, but you will get the gist of the film you want to see.”

Now we were completely incredulous.

“But” she continued, “you have to agree not to tell anybody, and you mustn’t let anyone see you, and if you hear certain words – words like ‘thanksgiving’ or ‘blessing’ or ‘marriage’ or ‘ring’ – you must put your hands over your ears and remember that those words don’t apply to you.”

Now we didn’t know what to do.  We really wanted to see the film.  We had been looking forward to it, ever since it came out.  We had made a commitment to each other to see it together.

Yet now, faced with all these conditions… faced with the way we were being treated… faced with all the difficulty our presence was creating… we just felt a mixture of angry, deflated, and sad.  All the joy and excitement had gone.

Should we stay and take what we’ve been offered, even though it’s not what we want?  Should we walk away?  Find another cinema?  Surely they can’t all be like this? Perhaps we should just wait for the DVD? But that wouldn’t be the same either...

The cinema usher asked us again, “So… do you want me to sneak you in?”

Tell us, Church of England, what should we do?

Fractured Families and the House of Bishops

During my 25 years of ordained ministry, I have come across a good number of families who were divided over sexuality.

Most heart-rending would be when visiting a family about the death of their adult son or daughter, I would suddenly realise that there was an unseen partner, not present at this key moment as we planned the funeral service.

It was an innocent question about girlfriend, boyfriend, or children which usually betrayed the guilty secret.  ‘Well, he did have a “friend”’ or something similar was the typical embarrassed reply.  This ‘friend’ in the days before Civil Partnerships was invariably of the same gender, and was excluded by the family from this vitally important part of grieving a loved one.  After a while, I learned to look for them at the funeral.  He or she would be the one whose grief was palpable, almost uncontrolled – far surpassing the grief of parents, brothers or sisters – and yet excluded from the family pew.

I would make a point of spending time with him/her after the service, but even then, their words to me were guarded as I tried to include them in a funeral which they had no part in planning.

The situation has improved over the years since then.  Civil Partnership and now marriage have secured the right of the partner in a same-gender relationship to be the next of kin, but there are still situations when a loved one of the same-sex is marginalised or excluded.

I have done funerals for a parent of a LGBT son or daughter, where their partner has been marginalised of excluded.  The person who would be the best support in a difficult time has been placed at the outer margins of family, or simply excluded completely by others in the family.

The typical line which would accompany this pastoral situation would be something like, “Mum (or dad) never really got used to – you know – the way they were.” The same gender couple were tolerated, occasionally welcomed at family events, but never really accepted into the family.  There was no blessing, no celebration, no real acceptance.  Now they were separated from each other in this most tender time by the ghost of family disapproval.

And that disapproval is the harmful and hurtful message which the House of Bishops have further enshrined in their recent statement on same-sexpartnerships, to be debated in the General Synod this week.

In recent years, LGBT Christians have put their head above the parapet, risked sanction and exclusion, by joining in the Church of England’s ‘Shared Conversations’ in the hope of recognition.  Yet now they have been deliberately put back in their place on the margins.

In suggesting ‘maximum freedom’ for Church members, priests and bishops in same-gender partnerships, but refusing to change the church’s approach one iota to same gender relationships, the House of Bishops is saying we will tolerate you, but don’t get too close, don’t expect recognition, and don’t expect us to celebrate with you or bless you in your love – because at the end of the day, you are still living in sin against the will of God and his Church.

Not much of a welcome, is it?

Under their statement, same-gender Christian couples will still be refused public thanksgivings, blessings or acts of affirmation.  They will still be pushed to the margins of church life – expected to live in the shadows.  The House of Bishops doesn’t want them to get too close for fear of aggravating other members of the family – just like my funeral stories.

Very few people expected the CofE to rewrite its doctrine of marriage to include same-gender marriages anytime soon.  What was hoped for, however, was the same recognition which people marrying after divorce received for years, before marriage in church was an option.  A service of thanksgiving or blessing which did not rewrite the church’s doctrine of marriage “One man and one woman for life” but which did recognise that real life doesn’t always work out in the way the church expects.

Allowing such a liturgy does not require a change of the doctrine of marriage – it simply requires the same pastoral heart which prompted clergy to respond to divorcees in a more positive way.

What will be debated this week however, will be more of the same line which the CofE has peddled for years.  You can’t be blessed – not in public at least – and we won’t sanction giving thanks for your love – but we will tolerate you with our new doctrine of ‘maximum freedom’ for the wretched sinner.

In the light of this report, the CofE remains a sadly fractured family, and yet again, gay and lesbian Christians are being asked to carry the burden of that division – just like the fractured families I have encountered.

Surely there must be a better way?

It is particularly ironic that the next agenda item after the sexuality debate at General Synod this week is entitled “Setting God’s People Free”.  And it is particularly sad that the Church doesn’t seem to recognise the link or the contradiction between the two.

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!

Lords Gay Marriage Vote - democracy or politics?

The same-sex marriage bill is being discussed by the House of Lords.

This evening, the Lords will vote, not just on the Bill, but also on a ‘wrecking amendment’ from Lord Dear who has called the proposals ‘ill-considered’ and ‘too serious a matter to be hurried through on a whim and in a cavalier fashion’.

Yet this is arguably the most democratic Bill to go through the House of Commons in years.

Not only were MP’s given a free vote at both its readings, but it has been passed by a large majority at both stages, despite the chief opposition to the Bill coming from the government’s own backbenchers.

Compare this to the usual day to day operation of Parliament on controversial legislation.  MP’s are corralled by their Party Whips into voting according to party instructions, irrespective of their own views or opinions.  Political posturing takes place on all sides of the House, and the debates seem to have more to do with party political points-scoring than with the issues under consideration.

In contrast, the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill has gone to the House of Lords with support from all sides of the House of Commons, having had a largely principled debate on each occasion, and a 2/3rds majority in favour.

This is democracy at work as opposed to politics, and the Lords would do well to remember that as they prepare to vote.  To send it back to the drawing board or reject the Bill would be to reject the clear non-partisan vote of MP’s.

Sadly, there is a precedent for such a democratic debacle in recent months – the General Synod’s vote on women Bishops.  After vote after vote in favour of women bishops – after 42 out of 44 Church of England Dioceses voted for women Bishops – after 74% of General Synod Members voted for women bishops – the legislation was still lost by just 2 votes in the House of Laity as it failed to get a 2/3rds majority in that House. (see ‘Reflections on a Broken Democracy’).

The House of Lords would do well to remember the ridicule, incredulity, and outrage which greeted that Church of England vote.  Although the vocal minority got their way and prevented equality reaching the House of Bishops, the reputation of the Church of England suffered yet another crippling body blow.

If the Equal Marriage Bill is rejected by the Lords after such a clear democratic majority in the House of Commons, it will not help its precarious position as the unelected House in our Parliament.  Like the Church of England, it would risk being seen as anachronistic, reactionary and out of touch.

Alternatively, the Lords could embrace the democratic vote of MP’s and reject the vocal minority who still believe they have the right to dictate to the majority.

Democracy comes from hearing the voice of the majority, whereas politics is the exertion of power by those with the loudest voice.  Let’s not confuse the two.

 

Update - after the vote...

I am delighted to say that the Lords have chosen not to play politics, and voted by 390 to 148 to reject the 'wrecking motion' and forward the Bill to the next stage. The majority of 242 is even more emphatic than the 2/3rds majority in the House of Commons.

Congratulations to the House of Lords for such a decisive vote.

Reflections on a broken democracy ...

The Church of England has always voted for women Bishops.

Ever since the ordination of women to the priesthood 20 years ago, the church has been making its way, slowly but surely, towards the ordination of women as Bishops.

Every round of voting (and there have been many) has left no doubt that it was the will of the Church.  When I was a member of General Synod from 2000 – 2005, we had 2 of rounds of voting – both clearly in favour - but there have been many more.

So how is it that the law which would have created women bishops was thrown out – even when 74% of the General Synod and 42 out of the 44 dioceses in the CofE voted for it?

The answer lies in a voting system which is designed to prevent significant change.

In most areas, a simple majority in General Synod is needed to take something forward.  In a few cases the issue has to be sent to dioceses to vote on before it can come back to General Synod for the final majority vote.

But there are some areas where not only does General Synod have to vote for change - which is a challenge in the first place – but then it has to go to each diocese to be voted on – and then if a majority of dioceses support it, the innovation finally comes back to General Synod where it has to pass an even higher bar – a 2/3rds majority in each of the 3 ‘Houses’ – Bishops, Clergy, and Laity.

And that death by attrition is what scuppered the women Bishops vote.  It is democracy gone mad – a self-defeating democracy where the will of the majority is ignored in deference to the minority.  It is designed to ensure that radical change is prevented at all costs and this un-democratic framework has resulted in the CofE shooting itself in the foot with both barrels.

So what is it about women’s ministry that makes it such a threat?  Why should women’s ministry have to pass all the ridiculously high hurdles before the church can change?  Why are women so dangerous that such anti-democratic measures have to be employed to keep them in their place?

When women were ordained priest, it was only by the slimmest of 2/3^rd majorities – just 2 votes in the infamous House of Laity.  Many predicted doom for the church as a result, but nothing could be further from the truth.  Women now outnumber men in ordination services, a third of all licenced clergy are now women and the church has not fallen apart.  Far from it, the church has been blessed by women priests up and down the country.  Those who have left as a result have left – but what of it?  The church has not disintegrated.   A church which doesn’t allow people to leave is not a church – it is a prison.  And a church which does not allow change because it fears the people who threaten to leave becomes a prison of a different kind – a prison of the past.

Having reflected on the debacle which we witnessed in the Synod vote, I have realised that the problem is not the membership of the Church of England – it is not the Bishops or the Clergy.  It is certainly not the Laity who voted ‘yes’ in 42 out of 44 Dioceses and by a clear majority in General Synod.  It is the system of voting we have shackled ourselves with – a system which despises the will of the majority – a system which requires ever higher hurdles to be negotiated until finally the loser becomes the winner in a moment worthy of Alice in Wonderland.

It is not the women Bishop’s legislation which needs fixing - it is the voting system itself.  Until this is addressed, the vocal minority can still play the heart-strings of the compassionate majority to ensure that nothing will ever be good enough to meet their demands.

And it would not need a major readjustment.  Even the high standard of requiring a 2/3^rd majority could still be required to ensure overwhelming support.

·         If the requirement had been for a simple majority in each House and a 2/3^rd majority overall – we would now have women Bishops.

·         If the requirement had been for 2/3^rd of dioceses to vote for women Bishops and then a simple majority in General Synod to ratify the will of dioceses - we would now have women Bishops.

·         If the requirement was for a 2/3^rd majority in 2/3^rds of the Houses of General Synod and a simple majority in the third House - we would now have women Bishops.

The women Bishops vote in General Synod laid bare the structural flaws in our version of democracy – a version which allows the minority to dictate to the majority as an anchor against change.

It is time for change – it is time to lower the impossible hurdles to the point where the church can move forward and try to rebuild its shattered credibility – and that change must start in the structures of General Synod.

Two feet in the grave...

Tonight the CofE has done the unthinkable.

Twenty years after it voted for women priests… after years of debate and counter debate…  after pouring over the issue of women bishops ad nauseum… after sending the proposed legislation to dioceses who voted overwhelmingly for it… tonight it has thrown out that legislation to welcome women as bishops for another 5-10 years.

I wrote last night on my blog that the results of voting ‘no’ would be catastrophic - http://benny2010.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/make-or-break.html - and have no desire to change a single word.  Today was a ‘make or break’ day for the CofE, and the House of Laity has chosen to break with the vast majority of church members who have voted for women Bishops in Diocesan and Deanery Synods throughout this land.

They have chosen to break with public opinion and with Government.  Worst of all they have chosen to break with the work that the Holy Spirit has been doing in society by enabling everyone to be seen as equal before God – each person, male and female, made in the equal image of God.

Last night I also wrote on Facebook that I was “praying for the CofE tomorrow as it chooses between the past or the future in its vote on women bishops. A vote for the past will be like putting a second foot in the grave...”

But now it has jumped with both feet into the grave.

My wife’s response to the news was to say… “If I was still a member of the Church of England, I would be leaving now in disgust.”  She tired of CofE discrimination some time ago and when I left parish ministry joined an MCC Church where everyone is welcome.

My 14 year old son was even more direct – “The Church of England is evil” were his words.  Thank God that he has not given up on his Christian faith, and now worships elsewhere too.

Such is the plight of the Church of England.  Out of touch with both God and the people it is called to reach out to, its structures and procedures are outdated and arcane, and it is so anchored to the past that it is increasingly incapable of following Jesus Christ on the road of salvation.

Tonight the Church of England has put two feet in the grave.

My only hope comes from an evangelical author Oz Guinness, who I once heard say,

“Several times in the history of the Christianity, the Church has gone to the dogs!  But each time, it is the dog that has died – not the church!”

As a Christian, I believe in resurrection – and I know that God can bring resurrection to the Church even when the Church seems to prefer death to life!  But that does not excuse the behavior of a Church who insists on presenting an image of God which denies and undermines the Good News of Christ.

While I would not want to second guess what Oz Guinness would think of our present situation, I would like to finish with one more quote from him which resonates with me today.

“Sometimes when I listen to people who say they have lost their faith, I am far less surprised than they expect. If their view of God is what they say, then it is only surprising that they did not reject it much earlier.

Other people have a concept of God so fundamentally false that it would be better for them to doubt than to remain devout. The more devout they are, the uglier their faith will become since it is based on a lie. Doubt in such a case is not only highly understandable, it is even a mark of spiritual and intellectual sensitivity to error, for their picture is not of God but an idol.”

What picture of God has the Church of England painted today?

Make or Break...

Today is a make or break day for the Church of England.

In the debate and vote on Women Bishops, the Church of England faces a clear choice.  It can either stick with those who want to hold the Church back – or move forward to embrace the work which the Holy Spirit has been doing – often in wider society more than in the church, because we have been so slow to hear.

To hold back from welcoming women as Bishops would be catastrophic.

It would be catastrophic for our credibility in the country in which we minister - which can’t see what the problem could possibly be. 

It would be catastrophic for the relationship between the established Church and State which is already being strained to breaking point by the refusal of the Church to accept the equality of all human beings, each of us made in the image of God.

It would be catastrophic for the image of God we project to the world – a no vote today would present a God who is out of date, out of touch, and fatally flawed – who considers those who would exclude women to have greater importance than the women He is calling.

There are those of course, who have threatened to leave the Church of England if the vote is ‘yes’.  They have made this threat very public to ensure maximum leverage in General Synod.

Much less visible are people like a valued female priest I know well, who has quietly confided that if the vote is ‘no’ she will resign her ministry.  She has not announced this with a fanfare of trumpets, but with a quiet resignation that a church which votes ‘no’ is not the church she felt the call to minister in.  I wonder how many other women and men feel the same.

So today is a make or break day for the Church.  My prayer is that we make our way into the future with generosity for those who are unable to recognise the work of Spirit in opening up Episcopal ministry to all – but not by allowing them to hold the Church to ransom.

Today is the day – and to quote Hebrews 4:7

“Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.”

 

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.

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…

Questions & Answers (& more Questions)

Every session of General Synod contains an Agenda item called “Questions” in which ordinary members of Synod can table questions.  These Questions are a little like Parliamentary Questions which MP’s can table in the House of Commons.  In parliament, the relevant Government Minister must stand up and answer the question.  In General Synod, it is the relevant Bishop, Archbishop or Chair of the relevant committee.

And last night the Archbishops of Canterbury and York had their work cut out as question after question was tabled about the recent Church of England response on same-sex Marriage.

'Who was the author?’  Synod members wanted to know.  Who saw it?  What was the membership of the group who finalised it?  Who voted on it and by what authority was it submitted as “the view of the Church of England”?  Who can truly claim to speak for the ‘Church of England’ on an area where there is such diversity of opinion?  Why was Synod not consulted?  Why are the votes of the House of Bishops not recorded and published?

To be fair, the Archbishop of Canterbury took it on the chin.  He tried to be helpful, and took the final responsibility with the Archbishop of York for signing off the response before it went to the Government.

As a result of the Archbishop's answers, we now know that the response was drafted by ‘staff’ at Church House in Westminster and presented to the Archbishops Council and House of Bishops in May.  The basis for the response was Canon B30 which says:

 The Church of England affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better or worse, till death do us part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and affections, and for the mutual society, help and comfort which one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.  

Suggestions were made and the House of Bishops “agreed the general shape of the response, considered a number of detailed suggestions … and invited the Archbishops to finalise the draft.”

But the answers only raised more questions…

A key question is who were the mysterious and anonymous ‘staff’ who drafted the response?  This is significant because we know of staff at Church of House who are sympathetic to the aspirations of same-sex couples, and we know of staff who are definitely not!  Without knowing which members of staff were tasked to write the response, we cannot know if it the group or individual was balanced, neutral or partisan.

Other questions followed from members of Synod…

If Canon B30 was the basis for opposing same-sex marriage, how is it that the Church of England can embrace the many church members (and indeed members of Synod) who have not lived up to its rigorous ideals of life-long union to the exclusion of all others?  Many marriages are not permanent and lifelong, but the Church does not exclude or oppose 2^nd, 3^rd or further marriages after divorce. 

If marriage is for the procreation of children, what about couples who cannot or do not want to have children?  The Archbishops answer appeared to stretch Conon B30 to breaking point when he responded that “The Church of England has never regarded the validity or value of marriage as dependent on the possibility or intention of having children.”

What consideration was given to the pastoral impact of issuing such an unequivocal rejection of the possibility of same-sex marriage, as many same-sex couples (including many Church members) woke up on the 11^th June to find their hopes and aspirations crushed?  The response was non-committal.

Were there any plans to revisit and review Canon B30?  “No” was the clear and definite answer.

Is the House of Bishops aware of the level of dismay and discontent the response had produced among faithful Anglicans?  “One cannot be anything but aware of this” the Archbishop said in response.

Last night was very revealing as Synod members probed the response which had been made in their name, but as often happens, the answers raised more questions than they answered.  At the end of the day, 4 key questions remain:

1.      Who were the ‘staff’ authors of the draft response and what personal perspectives did they bring to the task before them?

2.      If the Church is able and willing to recognise divorce and participate in remarriage without contravening Canon B30 insistence that the  “nature” of marriage is “permanent and lifelong”, why is the church not also able to consider recognising and (perhaps one day) participating in marriage of same-sex couples?

3.      If “the Church of England has never regarded the value or validity of marriage to be dependent on the possibility or intention of having children”, how is it that opponents of same-sex marriage can hold up the issue of procreation as a reason why gay people can’t get married?

4.      Given the coach and horses which these answers drive through the Church’s definition of marriage, why are there no plans to revisit and review Canon B30?

This is an issue which won’t just go away…

Trouble at the Top...

There is trouble brewing in the Church of England – shock, horror! 

It’s not just the women Bishop’s debate this weekend at General Synod.  It’s not just the running sore which is the (lack of meaningful) debate on sexuality.   It is something much deeper than that.  It’s the increasing gap which is opening up between the House of Bishops and the rest of the Church.

There have been worrying signs over the last year or so. 

First it was the Anglican Covenant.  Endorsed by the House of Bishops and sent by General Synod to the dioceses for ratification, it floundered as diocese after diocese voted against it – and even against their Bishops – in a rare act of defiance.

Then there are the frequent statements which try to keep pace with the very unchurch-like pace of change in social attitudes to same-sex partnerships.  Without the opportunity for proper debate in the Church of England, the Bishops have resorted to well worn statements about incompatibility with scripture and tradition, saying nothing new, getting left behind by the nation and increasingly by the church as a whole.

This has lead inexorably to the response which the Bishops (we assume it was the Bishops although even that has been left vague) made last month to Government plans for same-sex marriage – and the cry which went up from clergy, laity and even some less senior Bishops who have said, “Not in my name!” (The Petition on that can be found here)

But, most catastrophic of all, has been the overwhelming temptation to meddle with the Women Bishops legislation which is coming back to General Synod this weekend for its final vote.  The proposed legislation has passed every hurdle asked of it short of this final ratification.  Endorsed by General Synod – sent to Diocesan Synods – debated in Deanery Synods – this planned legislation was overwhelmingly supported by the Church as a whole, and yet the House of Bishops could not resist the urge to modify it yet again before final ratification.  Consequence – catastrophe!

The amendments, inserted by the House of Bishops in a paternalistic ‘daddy knows best’ approach to Church Government have enraged those like myself who long for women Bishops.  Ironically, they have also failed to impress the traditionalists who were meant to feel reassured.

And in this ill advised action we see the heart of the problem.  It is the outdated way the House of Bishops sees itself and its authority in the 21^st Century Church.

Gone are the days when Bishops were all powerful in Church and highly influential in State.  Gone are the days when ordinary clergy and laity would instantly revere every word which came out of a Bishop’s mouth.  Gone are the days when the sight of a mitre and crook would instil a sense of awe and wonder.  And yet it would seem that the House of Bishops hasn’t noticed.

Authority in the church today does not lie in a kind of blind obedience to those ‘fathers in Christ’ who must know best.  Increasingly the Church of England has been learning to think for itself.  What impresses church members today is the strength of the argument, not the fact that a Bishop is saying it, and increasingly the arguments are seen to be lacking.

As a result, Diocesan Synods have started to flex their muscles.  Since the amendments to the Women Bishops legislation were announced, several have tabled emergency motions to ask for the amendments to be withdrawn or reconsidered.  The new found authority placed in church democracy has begun to rebel against the old paternalistic guidance of the Bishop’s crook.

Nor is this a bad thing.

There are those who say that the church is a theocracy, not a democracy – but that is to cheapen the issue.  We all want to know the will of God – the issue is how we discern it.  In times gone by, the Bishop’s word was final – today we all take part in the debate.  We do this in our reactions (positive or negative) when another church statement or policy hits the news headlines.  We do this when we face the increasing discrepancies which pull us apart, stretched between our day to day lives as part of society, and the interpretation of faith we are told to profess.  We do this through the people we elect to Synods at every level.

This weekend, it is the House of Bishops who needs to listen, and pull back to the legislation which Dioceses have already voted on – and voted for in such overwhelming numbers.

If you wish to sign the petition calling for this – you can find it by following this link.

As retired Bishop Laurie Green said, when signing the petition, “A male-only elite should not take it upon itself to gainsay the clear and overwhelming convictions made obvious in the votes in Diocesan Synods. I speak as a male CofE bishop who knows how lop-sided and strange the House of Bishops is!”

As Bishop Laurie shows us, there are Bishops who know that the old way of doing things is over.  They have recognized the unsustainability of the status quo and are starting to embrace a new way of going about the work of God.  Some have already spoken out on issues like those above and have sometimes been called ‘rebels’ for their honesty and genuine leadership.

Yet the future of the House of Bishops is in their hands and in the hands of those women who will (at some point) enter this male only domain.  Leadership which is disconnected from the voice of those it seeks to lead is doomed to failure – even in the house-hold of God.

It is time for change.

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.

A self-defeating Covenant

One thing is for sure - among Anglicans, views on The Anglican Covenant are very divided.

For example, I live in an area of Salisbury diocese where our local Bishop, Graham Kings, is vociferously in favour of the Covenant.  He has devoted much time and effort in writing, speaking and arguing for it - yet in this same diocese our new Diocesan Bishop voted against the Covenant in Diocesan Synod, as did Graham Kings predecessor, Bishop Tim Thornton in his diocese of Truro.

Around the world, some in the Anglican Communion are saying they won't adopt it because it is too restrictive - others are rejecting it because it's too loose!  So far, 8 provinces of the Communion are in the process of ratifying the Covenant, whereas 9 appear to be moving towards rejection (not counting the CofE).

Even global neighbours see the Covenant in very different ways.  The Province of South East Asia has 'acceded' to the covenant but wants to make it stronger while the The Episcopal Church in the Philippines has rejected it 'saying the proposal to centralise authority in London was an “un-Anglican” attempt to “lord it over” the Communion’s national provinces'.

So how can the Covenant possibly succeed?  If a framework that was designed to foster unity in the Anglican Communion is itself the cause of such division, what hope can there be that its aspirations will be realised?

In the Church of England, our dioceses are divided with 10 dioceses having voted in favour and 17 voting against (updated 11th March).  All this fatally undermines the ideals which were the motivation behind this Covenant - the desire to promote unity, not division.

Some, like Bishop Graham Kings have tried to portray it as a marriage, while others have said it sounds more like a pre-nuptial agreement between partners whose relationship is already in trouble, even before the wedding.  Still others have likened it to a shot-gun wedding motivated more by the fear than loving commitment.

Canon Richard Franklin, in the General Synod debate of 2010 said,

"A troubling expression that has been used to describe the purpose of the Covenant is that it is ‘to make explicit and forceful’ the loyalty and bonds of affection which govern the relationships between the Churches of the Anglican Communion; but communion is not something that can be forced by human means."

At the end of the day, the Anglican Covenant has shot itself in the foot.  Even if somehow the Church of England and others adopted it, it would simply leave the Communion limping along nursing its wounds and looking for someone to blame.   The divisions which it has engendered make it precisely the wrong solution to the problems facing the Anglican Communion.

As the Bishop of Lincoln said in General Synod,

"I therefore leave you, Madam Chair, with the wise words of the American philosopher H.L. Mencken, with which you may be familiar.

‘For every difficult and complex problem there is a solution which is simple, straightforward and wrong.’

As an answer to a difficult and complex problem, this Covenant is simple, straightforward and, I still believe, probably wrong.

There is too much religion in the world and not enough faith, and I think this Covenant seems to be more about factory-farm religion than free-range faith."

With 17 more dioceses still to vote, it is time to gently and humanely put the Covenant down, thanking those whose intentions have been to strengthen our Communion, but recognising that it is already more dead than alive.

It is a self-defeating Covenant.