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.

Now I know how it feels ...(a bit)

This week I was told that I wasn’t eligible to volunteer for something because I wasn’t gay!

It rather took me by surprise.  I was indignant.  I felt devalued, disqualified, and stunned!  Without needing to know anything else about me, I was told that because I was straight, it ruled me out from being a volunteer!

More than that, I was being ruled out because of a survey of opinion amongst the users of the group I wanted to offer my services to.  Can they do that, I wondered?  Isn’t that what equalities legislation was meant to stop?  Putting an end to considering someone’s sexuality as a criteria for deciding if they were suitable?

Now I must stop there, because I have to say that having thought about it, I quite understand why this particular group has decided to only have gay volunteers.  It is a confidential help line for gay farmers who were looking for volunteers, and thought ‘I could do that!’  As I live in deepest rural Dorset, and have several years’ experience of being a vicar to 4 local villages and their farmers, I felt that I might have some appropriate knowledge and skills to offer.

When I heard that all volunteers had to be ‘gay and out’, I asked why.  The answer came back that people who had already benefited from the helpline felt that it was important that each volunteer should be able to truly identify with the issues the callers were facing.  As a straight person, try as I might, I could not.

So actually, I'm cool with that – but the experience of being turned down (in this tiny way) because of my sexuality was a very sobering experience, and made me reflect on the way in which the church does this time and time again to LGBT people.  Lesley's recent blog 'What does it feel like to be bisexual and a Christian?' revealed in graphic honesty what it feels like to suffer such discrimination.

It is only when we experience discrimination at first hand that we truly begin to understand what it is like to be on the receiving end of it.

I remember spending time with a black youth worker called Trevor in the West Midlands.  He was (and is) a deeply impressive person – a former professional American Footballer and Rugby League Player, he was disciplined and committed, physically strong and athletic, and yet gentle and compassionate, always ready to listen.

On the way back from work one day we called at a carpet shop to get a quote for his flat, but the white shop manager clearly didn’t want to serve him.  First he ignored him.  Then he answered all of Trevor’s questions with one word answers, and when Trevor persevered, he finally gave an estimate  that was 10 times more expensive than it should have been.

I was incensed with the blatant racism of it all.  I felt like steam was ready to blow from my ears.  I wanted to challenge the shop keeper - and in a less than constructive way! 

But Trevor took it all in his stride.

When we left the shop, I asked him why he put up with it.  He could have picked the guy up with one hand if he had chosen to – he could have intimidated him with one look – but he chose not to.  The answer he gave has stuck with me.

He said that, “When you have grown up with that kind of thing, you learn how to deal with it.  It becomes part of life - you can let it destroy you, or you can learn not to let it get to you.”  But he also said, “With an attitude like that though, he won’t be in business for long.”

Sure enough, before the year was up, the carpet shop had closed down.

I wonder if there is a parable and a warning for the Church in that?

Time and time again we act with prejudice and discrimination towards gay people simply because they are gay.  We make them feel like I did when I was told that I was disqualified because of my sexuality (but 1,000 times worse).  All too often, we act like the shop manager, putting every barrier in the way to send the message "We don't want your sort here!"

So I wonder - if we don't change, how long we will be in business?

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.

Enough is enough ...

There is very little that needs adding to this video of a father talking about the suicide of his son following homophobic bullying.

I think his words put it best ...

"What I'd ask is that you share this video with your friends and ask them to share it too. If you are a teacher or work with young people feel free to share it in your school or wherever. If you are a young person feel free to take it school and share it through an assembly or a PSE lesson. If you work for a local authority use to raise bullying and teenage suicide as safeguarding issues. You don't need to ask my permission. Thanks. Roger"

Permission or Intimidation ?

This morning I was interviewed on TV with Chris Sugden, from Anglican Mainstream.

It was a bewildering experience. While the main action was taking place in a studio in London, I was alone in studio 100 miles away surrounded by remote control TV cameras, trying to take part in a debate with people I couldn’t see! It was definitely a learning experience.

But what bewildered me more was Chris Sugden’s assertion that Government plans to give permission for Civil Partnerships to take place in religious buildings was nothing more than intimidation. He implied that it was part of a co-ordinated campaign against the Church, (I assume he meant the Church of England) which was designed to coerce and intimidate.

While I found the surroundings I was in strange, I found his accusation mind-blowing. How can ‘permission’ be ‘intimidation’?

The fact is that there are many same-sex couples who would love to have a spiritual element to their Civil Partnership, but this is currently prohibited by law in the UK. There are also numerous churches (and other religious groups) who would love to offer Civil Partnership in the context of a religious service of blessing, but are similarly prohibited by law.

Last year, Lord Ali introduced an amendment to the Equalities Bill which would remove this prohibition by giving permission for religious buildings to be used and religious content included. The amendment was supported in a public letter by no less than 7 Bishops and many leading church people, and was passed by the House of Lords.

What the Government is doing now, is acting on this democratic vote to give such permission to those who seek it. This is the very opposite of intimidation, and will not force any church or anyone to act against their faith.

Yet clearly Chris Sugden and Anglican Mainstream feel intimidated by this permission. Why?

Is it because they feel intimidated by religious freedom? Is it because they feel intimidated by anyone who doesn’t agree with them? Is it because they are frightened of the differing views on sexuality which are present in the church? Is it because they are scared of people who don’t agree with them?

Whatever the reason, their attempts to prevent those who want to include their faith in their most important relationship, and to prevent churches from meeting those spiritual aspirations, are both morally indefensible and spiritually repressive.

Jesus had a saying for this kind of approach – “You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.” Matthew 23:13

I think the taxi driver who took me to the studio had the right question.

He was white, male, heterosexual, married, down to earth working class in his 50’s, and he said “What is their problem?”

Re-Writing the Gospel...

I have struggled over the last few days with whether to post a link to this blog by The Satirical Christian.  It is a re-working of John chapter 8 where a woman who has been caught in adultery is brought to Jesus for judgment.

On the one hand, it is highly relevant to events in Uganda in recent times, and shows how easily the Gospel can be re-written in our own image.  On the other hand, it is not fair to single out the Church in Uganda in this way, as all of us have the capacity to use our cultural prejudices to re-form our image of God and the Gospel - often without realising it.

However, as The Satirical Christian says "Satire is always unfair, but that is why it gets under your skin and makes you think about issues in a different way".

So here is it, and I hope that it will act a catalyst, not just for our thoughts about Uganda, but also for our own reflection and self-examination, lest we find ourselves falling into the same trap.

http://thesatiricalchristian.blogspot.com/2011/01/gospel-according-to-uganda.html

One day when Jesus was teaching in the Temple, the teachers of the Law brought in a man caught in adultery.

They made him appear in the national newspapers and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this man was caught in the act of adultery, and we would like the law to demand that we should stone such men.  Now what do you say?"

They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write in the ground with his finger.  When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone."

Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, until one of them turned and said, "But Teacher, he was caught with another man."

Then Jesus replied  "Why didn't you say that in the first place?  Stone him - straight away, and go looking for others who have done the same thing, so that they may be 'outed' in Rolling Stone  too!"

"And when you take their funerals, remind their friends why they have been stoned, and tell them how he brought it upon himself, and how evil they all are! 

"For I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of being Gay will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who dares to be homosexual will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

And the teachers of the Law congratulated Jesus on passing their test, for confirming all their prejudices, and giving them an excuse not to consider the sin of their own hearts.

And Jesus said, "Then neither do I condemn you - go now, and be self-righteous in your sin."

Today I am ashamed to be an Anglican.

Today I am ashamed to be an Anglican.

The accounts of David Kato's funeral have shocked and depressed me as I think of his family and friends gathered there to mourn, but instead being subjected to a kind of pastoral rape.

Yesterday I wrote in hopeful terms that there was an opportunity for the Archbishop of Uganda to live up to the proud Christian history of his country, to bring peace in the midst of conflict.

His predecessors stood up for the Gospel and for justice, and some gave their lives for it - the church he leads now is doing neither.  The Gospel they have chosen to embrace appears more ready to condemn than to love, by its actions as well as by its words.  That is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The appalling way in which his funeral was handled has ensured that a new martyr has been born in Uganda  - and the role of martyrs has always been a powerful force in the spirituality of Uganda.

But unlike the martyrs which the Church of Uganda celebrates, David will be the kind of martyr who, like the prophets of the Old Testament, shines a light into the lives of those who profess to be God's people.  What will that light show?

It will show an Archbishop in Uganda who has remained silent, while other Archbishops speak out, and even Presidents express their deep sadness.  It will show a church which is content to Scapegoat a vulnerable minority, rather than face its own moral bankruptcy.  It has shown the world who the real 'violators' of Lambeth 1:10 are - those who refuse to listen to others - those who refuse to assure homosexuals  that they "are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ" - those who refuse "to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation".

Repentance is needed in Uganda - but it is not the repentance of the gay community - it the repentance of a church that has lost its way.

Today I am ashamed to be an Anglican.

(For an account of David's Funeral - follow this link)
... And if you have read this far, please go back and read yesterday's blog  'A Tale of Two Ugandans' which put this in context.