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.

Why the Bishops have got it wrong...

As the first same-sex marriages are conducted in England and Wales, much of the country is celebrating with the happy couples, but there are a significant group of LGB&T people who are being excluded from that joy by the Church of England.

Benny Hazlehurst critiques the Pastoral Guidance issued by the House of Bishops.

---

The Bishops’ Valentine’s Day guidance on same-sex marriage was a shock to the vast majority of LGB&T clergy in the Church of England.

While apparently being magnanimous to lay people who get married to someone of the same gender, offering ‘pastoral provision’ for informal prayers and full access to the sacraments,  the guidance also prohibited existing clergy in same-sex partnerships from getting married and said that it would not ordain anyone in a same-sex marriage.

At the stroke of a pen, it reintroduced a prohibition on marriage for some priests in the CofE, opened the gates to ecclesiastical guerrilla warfare in dioceses, and further distanced the House of Bishops from a substantial proportion of their clergy and people, not to mention the population at large.

There have been those in the church have said “What did you expect?” arguing that there was no other option available to the Bishops.  They argue that if the Church of England does not recognise same-sex marriage, then of course it can’t allow its clergy to enter into it. 

But as the first same-sex marriages take place, the implications of the Pastoral Guidance are looming large for both clergy and bishops as they realise the implications of this statement, and the land mines it has laid.

As I write this, I am mindful of that there is a variety of opinion in the church on same-sex marriage.  Accepting Evangelicals, of which I am a part, has called for prayerful reflection and theological discussion on the nature of marriage in the church before making pronouncements.  Nevertheless, whatever our individual views on marriage, the Pastoral Guidance issued by the Bishops is ill conceived and will not serve the church well in the months and years ahead.

1.       The re-introduction of marriage prohibition for some clergy.

It is 465 years since priests in the Church of England were last forbidden from entering into marriage.

As David Hope noted when he was Bishop of London, “The requirement for celibacy in the clergy was formally abolished in the Church of England in 1549.  Since that time… there is no requirement for celibacy even among single clergy within the Anglican Communion.”  That is, until now.

With same-sex marriage becoming a reality in England and Wales, clergy in same-sex partnerships like anyone else,  now have the opportunity to be married according to the law of the land.

The Bishops’ Guidance however is attempting to put a stop to that, stating “it would not be appropriate conduct for someone in holy orders to enter into same-sex marriage, given the need for clergy to model the Church’s teaching in their lives”.

This is then backed up with a thinly disguised threat of disciplinary action against clergy who might dare to rebel, by reminding them that at ordination they undertook to “accept and minister the discipline of this Church, and respect authority duly exercised within it”.  With the advent of the Clergy Discipline Measure of 2003 there is a clear avenue for potential action against clergy who break this prohibition.

Finally, just in case there might be any ambiguity, Tony Baldry MP (who is the Church of England’s spokesperson in the House of Commons) sent a very clear message this week when he said in Parliament, “The canons of the Church of England retain their legal status as part of the law of England and I would hope that no priest who has taken an oath of canonical obedience would wish to challenge canon law and the law of England.”

This requirement for LGB&T clergy is not only at odds with the Church’s own abolition of celibacy almost 500 years ago, it is also at odds with the way in which the Church of England has treated Civil Partnerships involving clergy.

Far from trying to enforce church discipline on clergy who have chosen to enter Civil Partnerships, the CofE has fully recognised both the reality of Civil Partnerships and the legal rights which they bring.  Since 2005, the recognition of pension rights for the Civil Partners of stipendiary clergy has been fully accepted by the Church of England and the House of Bishops has said that “it does not regard entering into Civil Partnerships as intrinsically incompatible with holy orders”.

So why is entering into same-sex marriage incompatible?

The answer, one can only assume, is because of the thorny issue of sex.  Civil Partnerships did not require sexual intimacy per sae, while traditionally, marriage does.  However the same-sex marriage act does not require or recognise the need for consummation of the marriage for same-sex couples either –so  the two are no different in their legal requirements for same-sex couples in relation to sex. 

So why do the House of Bishops treat one differently to the other?

Perhaps it is because the Church of England does not recognise same-sex marriage?   But if the church does not recognise it, then clergy who enter into it are not breaking church teaching, because you can’t break the rules by entering into something which church theology says does not exist!

Even if Equalities legislation has been amended to allow faith groups to determine their own rules on same-sex marriage, there is a clear inequality here.  For gay and lesbian clergy who want to marry their partner, selective celibacy in relation to marriage has been re-introduced into the Church of England’s discipline after discussion at just one meeting and behind closed doors.

2.       Pastoral insensitivity.

While the Bishops’ Guidance has made provision for clergy to ‘respond pastorally and sensitively’ to same-sex couples who come to them asking for a blessing, it seems little thought has been given to effect of that response on gay and lesbian clergy.  Clergy in same-sex relationships are much more likely than others to be approached by couples wanting a blessing or prayers for their marriage, and yet in placing a responsibility on clergy to respond pastorally and sensitively to these couples (ie have some kind of private ceremony to mark their marriage) the Bishops seem to have given little thought to the emotional price which LGBT clergy will pay in responding to that request.

Many lesbian and gay clergy have long experienced the pain of longing when they are asked to officiate at a wedding knowing that they could not enter into marriage.  Now when marriage is finally open to them (albeit in a Civil Ceremony rather than a church wedding) they have been forbidden from entering into it.  And yet they are being called to minister to and pray with others who have got married.

To most people this will sound unremittingly cruel.   Knowing that the law allows you to get married but that the church you are called to minister in is both denying you that right and requiring you to respond to others is both cruel and unjust.  For some it will feel akin to being a midwife who is prohibited by her employer from having children.

3.       The prohibition on ordination is tantamount to a process of same-sex cleansing.

Another clear and unequivocal statement of the Bishops is that those in a same-sex marriage will not be ordained.  I have already been told of one young person who was exploring ordination but has now withdrawn because he hopes to be married someday.

At present, there are estimated to be between 1,500 and 2,500 licensed LGB&T clergy in the Church of England.  It is a fair representation to say that some dioceses would collapse without their ministry.

Yet, it has been getting more and more difficult for LBG&T ordinands to get to ordination.  I was asked to talk with one such young man recently who said to me (with genuine fear) “But what do I say if they ask me?”

Now, however, the rule is quite clear when it comes to marriage, and the answer is ‘No’ even before you start the long process of vocational discernment.  The next generation of would-be ordinands will be growing up in a society where same-sex marriage is normal, and for those who are LGB&T, they are likely to aspire to marriage as naturally as anyone else.

From now on, however, they will know that the door is firmly locked and bolted to prevent them entering ministry in the church.  Faced with the choice of ordination or the potential married life, very few will choose ordination.

The Church of England is already experiencing a shortage of ordinands.  Not only will this policy reduce still further the numbers of people who want to explore a vocation to ordination, it also continues the process of reducing the ‘embarrassment’ created by having LGB&T clergy in their midst.  As time goes on LGB&T clergy will be ‘cleansed’ from the ranks of ordained ministry and the church will be the poorer for it.  Many of us will be able to think of the ministry of a gay or lesbian, bisexual or transgender priest which has helped or inspired us, yet under these rules, many of them would not be even considered for ordination.

This ruling also flies in the face of the Church of England’s claim to welcome and value the ministry of LGB&T clergy.   While some on the conservative end of the church may rejoice in this, we will all feel the impact.

4.       Encouraging use of the Clergy Discipline Measure

According to the Church of England’s website, “The Clergy Discipline Measure… provides a structure for dealing efficiently and fairly with formal complaints of misconduct against members of the clergy.”

As a result of the Pastoral Guidance, some conservative groups are already sharpening their swords at last seeing the opportunity to force bishops to take action against LGB&T clergy – action which they believe is long overdue.  One group, EGGS (the Evangelical Group on the General Synod) has also called for the same rules to apply to those lay people who hold a Bishop’s licence or commission.

Bishops themselves appear to be increasingly frightened of the situation they have created for themselves.  I was told recently that while some bishops are saying “I don’t want any ‘martyrs’ in my diocese,” there are others who are considering their own position if a Clergy Discipline complaint is brought against them for not taking action against clergy who enter same-sex marriage.  As a result of the Pastoral Guidance both clergy and their bishops appear vulnerable to those who want to stir up trouble.

And yet it is the Guidance itself which has created this dilemma.  Linking words like ‘conduct’, ‘consequences’  and ‘discipline’ in the statement has given a green light to those who want to force a showdown.  It is far from the “distinctive and generous witness to Jesus Christ” which the Guidance says it seeks to model.

5.        Unwholesome contradiction.

Yet the saddest contradiction of the whole statement is to be found in paragraph 23 of the Guidance.

It says,

‘At ordination clergy make a declaration that they will endeavour to fashion their own life and that of their household 'according to the way of Christ' that they may be 'a pattern and example to Christ's people'. A requirement as to the manner of life of the clergy is also directly imposed on the clergy by Canon C 26, which says that 'at all times he shall be diligent to frame and fashion his life and that of his family according to the doctrine of Christ, and to make himself and them, as much as in him lies, wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ.'

Given the rest of the Guidance which follows, this is clearly taken to mean that clergy in a same-sex marriage cannot be wholesome examples to the flock of Christ.

Furthermore, the acceptance of Civil Partnerships by the Church of England while at the same time prohibiting marriage strongly implies that the Bishops consider it to be a more wholesome example to your flock to be living with the person you love outside marriage, than within it!

In a society which often either dispenses with marriage as irrelevant, or enters into marriage without the commitment to make it work, how can it be that two people living together in a vicarage outside marriage is a more wholesome example than being married and demonstrating how to take wedding vows seriously?

Unfortunately, this kind of double-thinking betrays a deeper problem with the Pastoral Guidance.  Despite the quotation earlier in the Guidance from the 2005 Dromantine Communique which “affirmed the Anglican Communion’s opposition to any form of behaviour which ‘diminished’ homosexual people” the reality is that the House of Bishops has once again succeeded in ‘diminishing’ LGB&T people.

They have unwittingly joined in with the “diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of their own sex” (to quote the Dromantine statement) by failing to recognise the spiritual longing of those clergy who want to marry their same-sex partners and by devaluing their faith, love, and commitment.

They have said that it is a better example to be living together outside marriage than within it.  They have failed to value the contribution which LGB&T people make to church life and ministry by prohibiting clergy from same-sex marriage and excluding LGB&T ordinands, who would naturally yearn to be married, from any possibility of ordination.  And they have failed to see the emotional and spiritual price which they are asking their LGB&T clergy to pay for the sake of a church unity which does not exist.

This week, as same-sex couples celebrate their relationships in marriage for the first time in England and Wales, my prayer is that the Bishops who have approved this Guidance (as well as a rod for their own back) will quickly reconsider.

There is an alternative.

The Church of England, which only approved marriage in church after divorce in July 2002, also accepted before that date, that some of its clergy could enter into a second marriage at a Civil Ceremony, and have a thanksgiving in church, and remain in ministry.

If that could happen after marriage vows had been broken, why can’t clergy who have only just gained the right to be married for the first time be given that opportunity?

The Bishops have got it wrong – and it needs to be put right.

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.

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.