Whitby: Another Fine Mess

I doubt whether he realized it at the time, but John Secker, the Churchwarden at St Oswald’s Lythe who organized the petition which led the Revd Philip North to stand down from his appointment as Bishop of Whitby, is urging others to break church rules and indeed may be in transgression of those rules himself.

The 1993 Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod, which is of course still in force, states as its first principle the following:

Ordinations and Appointments

1. There will be no discrimination against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their views about the ordination of women to the priesthood.

Although Mr Secker and other signatories might not themselves be covered by the Act (they are not, after all, involved in the appointments process), the pressure they are exerting is, in fact, encouraging others to do just that.

Any appointment at Whitby which took their request into account would be a violation of the Act of Synod.

However, such violations have already taken place, most explicitly in the appointment of the latest Bishop of Salisbury, where the diocesan statement of needs said that “The Bishop will have to be prepared to ordain men and women without discrimination”. This, of course, was itself clearly in breach of the Act.

Unfortunately, no one picked it up at the time (which seems extraordinary, but is the case) and the appointment went through. But clearly, given the lack of ‘traditionalist’ appointments at every level, such discrimination has been going on for some time.

The situation is confused, however, by the fact that the abortive appointment of Fr North may itself have been in breach of the Act.

According to the Daily Telegraph, the succession of traditionalist catholic bishops at Whitby has been part of ‘an informal arrangement’. And informal arrangements do not seem to be envisaged by the Act.

According to the Act of Synod, a diocesan bishop should ‘make arrangements so far as possible within his own diocese for appropriate care and oversight for clergy and parishes’. Similarly, bishops in a region ‘acting jointly shall from time to time nominate from within their region for the purpose of this Act of Synod one or more bishops who are opposed to the ordination of women to the priesthood.’ And of course the Archbishops may operate the scheme of PEVs (Flying Bishops).

So in London, for example, the post of the Bishop of Fulham was more formally linked with the oversight of traditionalist parishes and clergy, in keeping with the first provision of the Act.

The problem in Whitby seems to be that there was no such formal ‘designation’ – hence, presumably, the disappointment of some of those in the Cleveland area who would have expected at least a chance of having a bishop who did support the ordination of women.

The thing to bear in mind — which is often forgotten — is that both those in support of, and those opposed to, the ordination and consecration of women, are faithful Anglicans. In principle, therefore, the good people of Whitby should have been prepared to take what they were given, provided everyone stuck to the rules. And it  may be that the signatories of the Cleveland petition are unaware of the nuances of Anglicanism and of the formal provisions still in place, in which case they acted out of ignorance, not in defiance of those rules.

Nevertheless, they have created a doubtless-unforeseen difficulty over Fr North’s replacement, for if the process still follows the rules, the views of his ‘successor’ must be disregarded, in which case they could find themselves back in the same situation as before. However, precisely because Fr North has stood down on the grounds that his views (in his opinion) would make it difficult for him to be a ‘focus of unity’, it is hard to see how his replacement’s views could simply be ignored as the rules actually require. Yet if his replacement does not share his views, it will be hard to avoid the suggestion that the rules have again been broken, this time in the other direction.

Meanwhile, ironically, the action of the Cleveland petitioners contradicts the demand of many supporters of women bishops that people ought not to be able to choose their bishop on the basis of his or her views. In this case, the supporters of women’s ordination are doing exactly that — although one suspects (given the theological position of some of those in support of women bishops) that this  demand has at least partly in view the next flashpoint, which will be over bishops’ views on homosexuality.

Of course, one could say the objectors ought not to be allowed to get away with it. Alternatively, one could argue instead that the introduction of one innovation (women bishops) opens the door to others (bishops whose sphere of influence is defined theologically as well as geographically).

Either way, it is ‘another fine mess’.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

"Thou cannot commit adultery" - the (theo)logical impossibility of 'equal marriage'

Here are the actual words spoken by our 'Equalities Minister' Maria Miller on the Radio 4 PM programme last night in response to a question from Eddie Mair about the legal definition of consummation in a same-sex marriage:

 “I can be absolutely clear to you, when it comes to issues of adultery and consummation those are issues that relate to heterosexual marriages. What they won’t be doing is relating to same-sex marriages, but there will be clear protections in terms of grounds for divorce for individuals who are in a same sex marriage, that will be unreasonable behaviour, that’s exactly as it is under civil partnerships at the moment, so clear protections in there, but clearly there will be some differences.”

There are, of course, some differences between chalk and cheese. But then no one is trying to say these are two 'equal' substances, whereas someone somewhere realized it was rather clever to coin the term 'equal marriage', given that equality is the bedrock (indeed some might suggest, the entirety) of contemporary morality.

The problem is, as the Equalities Minister acknowledges, this is one respect in which same-sex and opposite-sex relationships simply cannot be equal. And unfortunately for her proposals, this renders same-sex marriage a contradiction in terms.

The law has hitherto been quite clear: consummation is a necessary element of marriage and adultery is a violation of the marital relationship. The Bible is equally clear: adultery is forbidden in the Ten Commandments and it is the one exceptional fault that Jesus allowed would permit divorce.


But if you literally cannot commit adultery, then in what sense can you be described as 'married'? The answer is 'By changing the definition of marriage itself'. But then if you have changed the definition, you have ruled out the very thing you were trying to achieve which is to open up marriage to all. The label may be the same, but the content is not.

Unfortunately, we now seem to be in territory where logic and reason have simply gone out of the window. Government ministers and spokespeople seem to be mouthing words without any grasp of what lies behind them. Perhaps the classic moment in yesterday's interview was thus not Miller's admission that same-sex marriage couldn't be made or broken in the same way as marriage hitherto, or her insistence on talking about 'equal civil marriage' in a religious context (the word 'civil' was supposed to distinguish this from 'religious' marriage), nor her three times ducking the challenge that the government said nothing about this in its consultation, but came just after the words quoted above, when Eddie Mair suggested this was important to the Roman Catholic understanding of marriage, to which Miller replied,

“this may well be why the Catholic church does not want to opt into the system of being able to offer same sex marriage”.

This statement is so breathtaking in its potential for ignorance or arrogance, it is hard to believe it was made on air. Either the minister was joking -- hardly appropriate in the circumstances -- or she has persuaded herself that this might actually be true, and that the Church of Rome's only objection lies here. Any other explanation for what she said is hard to fathom.

And this is why I feel we shouldn't trust anything the government is now saying on such matters -- not because they are necessarily consciously lying (though that is by no means impossible), but because they are in a situation not merely beyond their control but beyond their ability to understand.

We can only watch to see how things will develop.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Accepting homosexuality - a retrograde motion?

This is my response, published today in the Letters column of the Church of England Newspaper, to Benny Hazelhurst's own letter picking up my critique of his original article in the CEN:

Sir, Benny Hazlehurst’s argument that the Christian acceptance of gay marriage would be like the overthrow of slavery or the realization that the earth goes round the sun (Letters, April 8) might be more persuasive if the ‘arrow of history’ were going the same way in each case.

Christianity was, of course, born into a world where slavery was normal (and very unlike the ‘plantation slavery’ of 18th and 19th century religious disputes). And the arguments for the earth going round the sun were once thought to be scientifically very weak, not least from the evidence of our senses.

The Graeco-Roman world, however, regarded what we now call ‘homosexuality’ with a mixture of general acceptance and mild disdain — an attitude very much like that which has prevailed in the West in recent decades. Commenting on the Warren Cup, an artefact from somewhere near Jerusalem in AD 5-15 depicting homosexual acts and previously kept in a private collection, the British Museum website significantly observes that, “Only with changing attitudes in the 1980s was the cup exhibited to the public.”

The spread of Christianity, however, brought with it a change in the prevailing morality — not just regarding homosexuality, of course, but certainly including that. It was thus ‘traditional’ Christian morality which was the equivalent of the abolition of slavery or the recognition of heliocentrism, not the other way round.

We must therefore ask why, given the willingness to adopt a more ‘liberal’ attitude on other matters affecting the Gentiles, the New Testament lacks any hint of adaptation at this point and why the spread of the gospel brought about the social changes it did.

As to my own arguments, I think Benny confuses matters by suggesting that in order to work, the paradigm of Ephesians 5 must ‘supersede’ that of Genesis 2, when of course the former rests on the latter (compare Eph 5:31 with Gen 2:24). Certainly the biblical narrative of marriage begins in Genesis 2, but the underlying ‘mystery’, hinted at in the rest of the Old Testament, is fully revealed in Ephesians 5.

The point to grasp is that human marriage is an ‘incarnation’ of a spiritual reality — something which our Anglican tradition insists is taught in Scripture. As the BCP says, marriage is “an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his
Church.”

Far from being ‘genderless’, however, this mystical union undergirds the very notion of gender — including the basis on which we call God ‘he’. As CS Lewis once put it, “What is above and beyond all things is so masculine that we are all feminine in relation to it.” (That Hideous Strength). Male and female are shadows of that. The reality, however, is not less but more.

The Rev John Richardson,
Bishop’s Stortford

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Cross Post to Benny Hazelhurst's Blog: Church, Tradition and the Bride of Christ

Benny Hazelhurst, of Accepting Evangelicals, has posted a reply to my comments on his article in the Church of England Newspaper. My own response has gone to the CEN for publication and may appear there (and here) at the end of the week. Meanwhile, you can read his reply and follow the reaction here.

He concludes,

The fact that the Church comprises both men and women and that this (according to John Richardson) is the ultimate paradigm for marriage, suggests that marriage is indeed 'genderless' - it has just taken the church a long time to realise it (like the abolition of slavery and the movement of the sun).

No-one, of course would suggest that there is a literal 'sexual' component to the marriage of Christ and his Church, but that further calls into question relying on this paradigm for our full understanding of marriage.  Indeed Paul says in Ephesians 5 that "this is a profound mystery".  It is a mystery which we are still unravelling, and perhaps we haven't quite got there yet.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Changing views on marriage raise important questions on evangelical truth

The article below is published in today's edition of the Church of England Newspaper:

In The Church of England Newspaper on March 4, the Rev Benny Hazlehurst, the Secretary of ‘Accepting Evangelicals’, set out his proposals for a ‘theology of gay marriage’. In the pages of the Church Times this would have been unremarkable, and letters of support would equally come as no surprise. This, however, was in ‘Britain’s leading evangelical newspaper’, and the many letters agreeing with him came, no doubt, from people who would describe themselves as evangelical.

That such a thing would have been unthinkable amongst the generation that gave us the 1967 Keele Congress, or the even bigger NEAC at Nottingham in 1977 is a measure of how far we have come in a few decades.

We must therefore ask, does this growing acceptance of same-sex relationships amongst evangelicals mark a stepping away from our earlier unconscious Pharisaism, as Hazlehurst suggests, or is it a declension from evangelical truth, as our forebears would doubtless have thought?

As we reflect on Hazlehurst’s article, one thing which particularly stands out is that the understanding of marriage he puts forward has no need for gender as such.

This alone surely raises difficult questions! Hazlehurst refers early on to the slogan that “God made Adam and Eve — not Adam and Steve”, and many of us would agree this is a bit too slick. Yet a few paragraphs later he has reached the conclusion that God might as well have done just that.

“Is it not possible,” he asks rhetorically, “that the yearning to find the one who ‘completes’ us is the same for everyone — gay straight, bi, or transgendered?” And he continues: “Is it not possible that God’s response to that yearning is also the same for everyone irrespective of their sexuality — the opportunity of marriage for all, with the person who ‘completes’ them, no matter what sex they are?”

Hazlehurst’s argument is thus that the need marriage addresses — the thing that prompted God to say, “It is not good for the man to be alone” (Gen 2:18) — is the need for someone to be, as we might say, our ‘other half’. And it is that arrangement which meets this felt need which ought to be defined as ‘marriage’.

It is an appealing argument, but the ‘genderless’ notion of marriage that emerges from this proposal is utterly unlike anything found in Scripture, or indeed in virtually any human society until the present time.

Hazlehurst claims that marriage is not fundamentally about procreation. Sexual attraction is fundamental to the desire, but sexual function is irrelevant to the definition.

Yet just what Hazlehurst rejects is actually intrinsic to the traditional Christian understanding of marriage, regardless of age or ability. “First,” says the BCP marriage service to everyone, “It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name”, even though, as the rubric notes later, “the Woman is past child-bearing”.

Admittedly that is not Scripture, but it is surely the BCP keeping the scriptures of Genesis 1:28 and 2:18 together, not dividing them as Hazlehurst does.

The biggest problem with Hazlehurst’s thesis, however, is not the ‘variable geometry’ of marriage that will result, but the fact that it is simply not theological enough.

Hazlehurst writes that, “In the account of Adam and Eve we find our paradigm for marriage.” Yet that is not true, as the Apostle Paul makes abundantly clear in Ephesians 5.

In verse 28, Paul quotes Genesis 2:24 — a verse central to Hazlehurst’s argument. Yet he refers it not to Adam and Eve, as might be expected, but to Christ and the Church. And this is why he can say to husbands in v 25, “love your wives, just as Christ loved the church.”

He emphatically does not say, “Christ loves the Church as you husbands love your wives”, which he would have done if this were simply an analogy between a loving marriage and God’s love for his people. The application is ‘top down’, not ‘bottom up’.

Thus it is ‘Christ and the Church’ which is the paradigm for Adam and Eve, and for all married couples to follow. And the fact that the love between Adam and Eve was imperfect is no more a barrier to the Apostle than the fact that the husbands he addresses are imperfect. It is the paradigm, not its outworking, which counts.

Just how significant this is in Paul’s thinking, however, is indicated at the end of chapter 1: “And God placed all things under [Christ’s] feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way,” (Ephesians 1:22-23, NIV).

To understand this, we must look again at Genesis 1:28: “God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth ...” (NIV, emphasis added).

In the LXX of the Old Testament, the verb for “filling” is the same as applies to Christ in the New — Christ is the one who truly ‘fills the earth and subdues it’. But he does not do it ‘alone’. Rather, as Eve was presented to Adam, so Christ presents the Church to himself (Eph 5:27) so that, as ‘one body’ with the Church, he may fill and rule over all things.

Theologically, then, Genesis 1:28 (sexuality for procreation) and 2:24 (sexuality for companionship) are held together, just as they point forward to Ephesians 1:23 and 5:27. It is no wonder Paul calls this a “mystery” (Eph 5:32), but it indicates that our understanding of sexuality in bodily union needs to be held together with our understanding of mutuality in marriage.

Thus human sexuality, according to Scripture, is not simply procreative, but neither is it simply relational. Rather, behind it lies God’s plans both for creation and redemption.

What, then of Adam and Steve? The modern world has coined the notion of ‘sexual orientation’ to explain the attraction between people of the same gender. In truth, however, we ought to speak of sexual dis-orientation, for such an attraction can never achieve a fully ‘sexual’ relationship.

In theological terms, however, the endorsement of ‘gay marriage’ would require us to say that ‘Christ and the Church’ can just as equally be modelled by two ‘Christs’ or two ‘Churches’, or indeed some other combination, since Benny Hazlehurst also refers to the bisexual and transgendered.

At that point we would certainly have left behind the traditional understanding of marriage. But I would contend that we would also have left behind the biblical understanding of Christian theology. And that we must certainly not do.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Church in Wales recommends action against 'homophobic' clergy

UPDATE: the full report is here.

The relevant paragraphs would appear to be 22, 29 and 35:

22. It is necessary to provide a policy with guidance to clerics on the dangers of emotional abuse arising out of the inappropriate use of pastoral supervision or theological teaching.

29. The cleric as role model, as seen by children and young people is significant. This needs to be fully recognised and appreciated by the Church in Wales. Inappropriate and unacceptable conduct such as discriminatory behaviour involving aggression, bullying or attitudes such as homophobia should not be tolerated and can in some instances be emotionally abusive. This should be a professional development issue and where necessary, subject to disciplinary procedures.

35. Reference has been made earlier to the need for policy and guidance in relation to certain approaches to ministry within the Church in Wales (see 21 and 22 above). It would be appropriate to initiate a debate on the subject which would include exploring the importance of ensuring responsible attitudes towards age appropriate emotional and spiritual growth. This would ensure that the Church in Wales exercises its duty to protect children and young people from spiritual and emotional abuse.

From the Church of England Newspaper, March 18th:

On March 9, the church released the findings of an 18-month investigation conducted on its behalf by social worker Elaine Cloke of the Children’s Commissioner for Wales’ office. It called for stricter sanctions for clergy engaged in physical, emotional and spiritual abuse, including homophobic attitudes.

The investigation reviewed 1381 clergy files. Of these 219 were referred for further action.

However, the “majority of these referrals related to incomplete service records and other complaints in relation to clergy conduct and personnel issues. Of these cases only five files were identified as containing information relating to child protection and safeguarding which required further action. These were referred on to the appropriate agencies following discussions with the relevant Bishop,” the report said.

The police declined to take any action against the five clergymen.

The report offered 36 recommendations for strengthening the Church’s child protection policies, including compulsory child abuse prevention training, increasing awareness of domestic violence, and providing guidance to clergy “on the dangers of emotional abuse arising out of the inappropriate use of pastoral supervision or theological teaching.” [My italics]

Hmmm. Any further information, anyone?

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Christian foster carers - still cause for concern

[UPDATE 4th March: this has now been posted on Ruth Gledhill's 'Articles of Faith' blog where it is available free.]

 Following widespread misreporting that a Christian couple had been ‘banned’ from becoming foster carers (provoking an inevitably mistaken outcry), we now have an opposite (and equally mistaken) reaction from those who are saying there is really nothing here to get excited about.

The couple concerned, Owen and Eunice Johns, had gone to court over the unwillingness of Derby City Council to grant them approval as foster carers — a rôle they had previously undertaken during the 1990s — due to their own views on homosexuality and a change in the Council’s formal standards reflecting new legislation on sexual equality.

The Johns’ views are explicitly based in their Christian beliefs. Even so, the first clarification they sought from the court carefully avoided mentioning their specific faith, referring instead to “Persons who adhere to a traditional code of sexual ethics”. It was any and all of these, they argued, who “should not be considered unsuitable to be foster carers for this reason alone.”

They also sought assurances that foster carers could be regular churchgoers (another question raised by the City Council) and that the particular views of foster carers on homosexuality ought only to be considered in the case of a specific child, rather than more generally.

Derby City Council, meanwhile, counter-claimed that, “A fostering service provider may be [originally they stated “would be”, but changed this in the course of the action] acting lawfully if it decides not [sic, to] approve a prospective foster carer who evinces antipathy, objection to, or disapproval of, homosexuality and same-sex relationships and an inability to respect, value and demonstrate positive attitudes towards homosexuality and same-sex relationships.”

These were the issues on which both sides agreed to seek “declaratory relief” — (in layman’s terms, ‘a court ruling that one or the other was basically right’).

In the event, the judges refused to do this, which means it is now up to the Council to consider the Johns’ case further and come to a decision. However, they also refused to grant the Johns’ permission to apply for a judicial review and in doing so, clearly took the side of the Council over the issue of the criteria they could apply to foster carers.

Moreover, in reaching this decision, they laid great emphasis on the cases of Islington London Borough Council v Ladele and McFarlane v Relate Avon Limited. It was the latter case in which Lord Justice Laws was so dismissive of the interventions of Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, and Laws’s words are extensively quoted in the present ruling.

Thus it is quite clear that a legal precedent in these matters has been established, and is now being followed by the courts, which comes down to this: if a body acts against a Christian in a way that it could lawfully act against anyone else, this is not a case of direct religious discrimination.

Now at first blush this might seem reasonable. The legal criteria would be the outward behaviour common to all, not the inward motivation specific to the individual. Indeed, the ruling (rather ostentatiously, given the context) denied “seeking to open windows into people’s souls”, emphasizing,

The local authority is entitled to explore the extent to which prospective foster carers’ beliefs may affect their behaviour, their treatment of a child being fostered by them.

But then, as we have seen, the Johns themselves did not seek to make this first matter an exclusively religious issue, which might seem to support the judges’ ruling in this respect.

The problem is, as the Council’s counter claim demonstrates, the only position that will be legally tolerated in this particular instance is one which expresses no “objection to”, but only “positive attitudes” towards, homosexuality and same-sex relationships. The range of behaviour and treatment that will be tolerated is thus apparently strictly limited.

This, therefore, is rather like the individual whose ‘balanced personality’ consists of having a chip on both shoulders. The equality of application is not necessarily a justification for the outcome. However, as the law currently stands, it would seem that the first anxiety expressed by the Johns is justified.

In a recent article in The Times, Emma Satyamurti identifies as a key question whether the Johns had a right to manifest their beliefs in the context of fostering a child. The initial answer would appear to be ‘no’. Adhering to the view that sexual union outside lifelong heterosexual marriage is morally undesirable is (because of its negative connotations regarding homosexuality) indeed sufficient grounds for the Council to discriminate against an application to become a foster carer.

Nevertheless, there was an interesting claim put forward by the Council that they had approved other foster carers who were, in their words, “very committed Christians who hold to orthodox beliefs and devout Muslims who are similarly committed to their religion”, yet who were apparently “able to value diversity notwithstanding their strongly held religious beliefs.”

No evidence was actually offered in court as to what this entailed, but one might wonder whether they offered the approaches of these couples to the Johns as ‘worked examples’ of how they might be able to comply with the Council’s standards.

Is it acceptable, for example, for these couples, if asked, to express their own “orthodox beliefs” to the children in their care? In that case, what the Council means by ‘evincing antipathy’ is not necessarily what might be assumed.

On the other hand, of course, if such carers are actually required to operate a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy, then we are indeed in a position where only one view may legitimately be expressed in this context, which for the Johns and those like them comes to the same thing as discrimination.

However, this only deals with direct discrimination. The ruling also touched on the question of indirect discrimination. If one’s faith required one to adopt and express the views held by the Johns, is not this an example of indirect religious discrimination and therefore contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights?

Here, the quoted words of Lord Justice Laws are decisive:

... in various contexts the law allows indirect discrimination where, in a carefully controlled legislative setting, it can be shown to have justifiable effects. (Para 53)

In the present case, the judges ruled that there was not even indirect discrimination. Nevertheless, they added this caveat:

However, on the assumption that such a requirement or requirements [of the Council] are indirectly discriminatory, it is clear ... that compliance with anti-discrimination legislation ... will amount to justification ... [of indirect discrimination].

The problem is that what Article 9 of the European Convention gives with one hand (paragraph 1), it takes away with the other (paragraph 2), declaring firmly that it is for the state to decided what is,

... in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

And as we are seeing, issues of ‘personal rights’ legally trump issues of ‘public morals’.

Any suggestion that there is, after all, nothing for Christians to worry about here, is thus misplaced. Satyamurti, for example, is technically correct when she says that “was no direct discrimination against [the Johns] on the basis of religious belief”, but that is only because the same discrimination would have applied to everyone holding their views on traditional morality. Whether one is hung for stealing a lamb rather than a sheep because one prefers one’s meat tender, the actual hanging comes to the same thing.

But for exactly the same reason that justified the universal direct discrimination, indirect discrimination would in any case be allowed, even on the grounds of religious belief. Thus the ruling states that

... Article 9 only provides a “qualified” right to manifest religious belief and ... interferences in the sphere of employment and analogous spheres are readily found to be justified [...]. (102)

Somewhat controversially, the ruling adds that,

This will be particularly so where a person in whose care a child is placed wishes to manifest a belief that is inimical to the interests of children [...].

At least on the face of it, this would seem to imply that strict adherence to traditional sexual morality might be just such a belief!

Thus the claim by the Christian blogger, Peter Ould, that ‘Christians with Traditional Moral Views can still be Foster Parents’ is, unfortunately, somewhat premature. Strictly speaking, the issue has yet to be decided. Derby City Council was reduced to saying that they may be acting lawfully in discriminating against people expressing anything other than positive views on homosexuality and same-sex relationships, and that may still be challenged.

As it stands, however, the law would certainly uphold any ‘ban’ they did impose on the grounds to which they have appealed, provided it applied equally to all, and would certainly not allow a claimed exception on the basis of religious belief.

In what ought to be doom and gloom for orthodox Christians, however, there is one chink of light. In their own deliberations, Derby City Council had generously acknowledged that this was not just a matter of Christian beliefs since, “there are homophobic people that are non-Christian” (para 11). Taking a different view, however, the Johns had sought a ruling that it should actually be unlawful for a public authority to use this description of people like themselves.

Oddly enough it is Lord Justice Laws who comes to the rescue, for in his response to Lord Carey, he also stated the following:

The judges have never, so far as I know, sought to equate the condemnation by some Christians of homosexuality on religious grounds with homophobia, or to regard that position as disreputable, nor have they likened Christians to bigots. (53)

This would seem to suggest that, at least in this regard, the Johns’ claim ought to have been upheld. According to Laws, the Christian condemnation of homosexuality ought not to be called ‘homophobic’, neither is the position disreputable, nor are its adherents bigots. Perhaps Derby Council (and others!) could take note of this, at least.

John P Richardson
3 March 2011

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Should Christians be allowed to keep children?

Update: The full ruling can be read here.


Apparently, according to the High Court, Christians who are not willing to commend homosexual acts ought not to be given other people's children to foster.

If this is what was said, and if it is a valid judgement, is it therefore right that Christians should nevertheless be allowed to keep their own natural children, if they similarly will not commend homosexual acts to them?

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

The Cornwall B&B case: a funeral oration for Christian Britain

Back in ad 2000, Callum Brown wrote a book called The Death of Christian Britain. Yesterday, Judge Andrew Rutherford delivered the funeral oration. It begins with these telling, and I think remarkable, words:

In 1882 Her Majesty Queen Victoria opened a new court building. It is in the Strand just at the entrance to the City of London. It was built to house the superior courts of this land with the exception of the House of Lords. No one who enters can fail to be struck by the similarity of the Great Hall with the interior of those gothic cathedrals with which this kingdom is so richly endowed. But if, before entering, you gaze upon the façade of the building you will notice 4 statues.

There you will find King Alfred who made such a notable contribution to Saxon England by codifying the laws of his day. You will find Moses to whom was given the ten commandments and to whom, by tradition, is ascribed authorship of the first 5 books of the Bible in which you will find in great detail the laws governing the children of Israel. Also there on the façade is King Solomon whose wisdom has become a legend and who displayed outstanding qualities as a judge when sitting in the Family Division in the only reported case of which we have details. And the 4th statue is that of Jesus Christ who, I imagine, needs no introduction to those involved in this case.

Why are those statues there? Perhaps there were many reasons for them but I venture to suggest that one was to emphasise the Judaeo-Christian roots from which the common law of England was derived.

A great deal has however happened since King Alfred and his Saxon laws, and even more has changed since Moses, King Solomon and Jesus Christ walked upon this earth. Those Judaeo-Christian principles, standards and beliefs which were accepted as normal in times past are no longer so accepted.

We live in interesting times.

Incidentally, his comment about Solomon and ‘the Family Division’ may be a better joke than he intended, but the fact that he knew the reference, and assumed his readers and hearers might actually ‘get it’, simply shows, as he acknowledges, how much things have changed in his lifetime. I have no doubt that almost no one under the age of fifty would know what he meant without looking it up.

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Glyn Harrison at the CDEA - talks online

The official version of the talks Glyn Harrison gave at the Chelmsford Diocesan Evangelical Association on scientific research and same sex attraction are now online. There is a direct link to them here.

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Be very careful before you object to Dr John

A couple of different sources have e-mailed me this evening the story from the Daily Telegraph that Dr Jeffrey John is the short-listed favourite to become the next Bishop of Southwark.

My guess is that whilst a lot of people would greet this news with rejoicing, others will respond angrily and will be prompted to threaten all sorts of reprisals.

I cannot speak for those who would support the appointment, but I want to urge those who might oppose it to think very carefully before they object, for the situation is nothing like as straightforward as might be assumed.

First, we ought not to condemn Dr John because he is, in the words of the Telegraph article, ‘openly homosexual’. I have said many times, including on this blog, that we ought to have far more ‘openly homosexual’ people in the Church. Indeed, one of the clergy I most admire is ‘openly homosexual’ — at least, he has openly told me his is ‘gay’ — and I would have no problems whatsoever attending his church or working with him in any capacity.

We would not be in half the mess we are in today if the Church, during the years in which homosexuality was almost universally regarded as perverse, had acted as a haven for real sinners, rather than a rather choosy hostel for the outwardly saintly. We ought to remember the words of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11:

Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Secondly, it would be difficult to condemn Dr John’s appointment on the grounds that he is in a relationship with someone of the same sex. The Church of England accepts the existence of civil partnered clergy, and although some (including myself) may think this is a mistake, the House of Bishops has made it clear that this acceptance is based on the provision of assurances that such relationships are sexually celibate. Moreover, Dr John has (as I recall) declared that this is the case for his own relationship.

There are therefore no current grounds within the Church of England’s teaching and practice regarding Dr John’s domestic arrangements for condemning his appointment as a bishop.

In fact, the only grounds I can see for objecting to Dr John’s appointment in principle lies in his teaching about human sexuality.

Some years ago, Dr John famously wrote a short book called Permanent, Faithful, Stable in which he advocated the acceptance of homosexual relationships, including non-celibate relationships, which showed those three features. I have reviewed this elsewhere, and detailed the difficulties I have with his approach, and I believe it would be entirely proper to object to Dr John’s appointment on the grounds of the position he adopts in this book.

However, if that is the basis on which an objection is to be made, it must be realized that the same would apply — as I have pointed out already — to a number of other existing Anglican bishops.

In other words, if Dr John’s appointment is seen as a potential casus belli, it needs to be appreciated that we are potentially at that point in more than one other diocese. Personally, I do not think this has been understood, and I am not at all sure that the implications have been considered as they ought to have by those who might think this is an ‘open and shut’ case.

Before any fierce objection is voiced to the mooting of Dr John, therefore, it needs to be asked, “Why him? Why now?” And if the objections are, nevertheless, made and actions do in fact follow, then for consistency’s sake this should not just apply to Dr John’s appointment, which may, in any case, never happen.

John P Richardson
3 July 2010

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Issues in Human Sexuality: the bishops begin to wobble

Back in the days of black and white television, one of the staples of light entertainment was the plate-spinning juggler. The act was simple, but compelling: a juggler would balance a series of plates on top of polls by spinning them. The real entertainment came when the plates started to wobble. Would the juggler spot them in time? Would he be able to prevent one of them falling off before the row was completed?

Today, though it is by no means as entertaining the same is beginning to happen to our bishops over homosexuality. Since 1991, the episcopal ‘line’ in the Church of England has been held by a small document produced by the then House of Bishops, titled Issues in Human Sexuality. Whenever a bishop was questioned on the subject, the stock response was, “I abide by the position set out in Issues in Human Sexuality,” whether the bishop agreed with the conclusions of that document or not. Thus unity was maintained and, equally in keeping with ‘company policy’, controversy was avoided.

Interestingly, when a much more substantial follow-up report, Some Issues in Human Sexuality: a Guide to the Debate, was again produced by the House of Bishops in 2003, it actually took a theologically very conservative line, reinforcing rather than questioning the traditional position largely (though not entirely) reflect in the 1991 report.

This makes it all the more important to understand what is happening now. When a system — or a person — is under stress, collapse may be a long time coming, but when it comes, it tends to be abrupt rather than gradual. What we are now seeing in the House of Bishops on the matter of homosexuality is an increasing number of ‘wobbling plates’. When they fall, though, I predict they will do so both dramatically and abruptly.

In this respect, Archbishop Rowan Williams definitely belongs in the ‘old school’. His personal views were made quite clear in his essay The Body’s Grace, and have never been repudiated. He has, however, been faithful in his own way to his commitment to uphold the church’s present teaching. Fundamental to his international approach has been the conviction that if the mind of the Communion is divided, then his responsibility as an instrument of unity is to recognize that, not to try to pre-empt the outcome in favour of his own views.

The same, however, is not true for our diocesan and suffragan bishops, and it is here that we see the wobble developing.

One of the early indications of this was the declared change of heart by the Bishop of Liverpool. This was then greeted with approving noises from the Bishop of Gloucester and the Bishop-elect of Chelmsford. Just recently the Bishop of Manchester has welcomed a LGBT ‘celebration’ at his cathedral.

Meanwhile, as an indication of the changing climate, the views of Geoffrey Annas, the new the suffragan Bishop of Stafford, have passed almost unremarked:

My feelings about openly gay clergy — I personally have no issues with that at all, but I think again like the ordination of women to the episcopate it’s something where there needs to be enormous sensitivity. I’m not somebody who will overthrow rules and regulations for the sake of it, because I think if you do that you get chaos and anarchy, but I am somebody who will work to build a consensus to change rules and regulations and I would hope that in the future at some point people could be allowed to be true to themselves. (Interview, Church of England Newspaper, 11 June 2010, p7)

This is, of course, a long way from ‘collapse’ — on the contrary, it is nuanced and careful to recognize the existing ‘rules and regulations’. But precisely for that reason, it is in fact more deadly than the pronouncements of the Bishop of Liverpool. What we see here, once again, is what Richard John Neuhaus wrote about when he warned of ‘The Unhappy Fate of Optional Orthodoxy’.

As Neuhaus observed, the crucial damage is done not when orthodoxy is overthrown, but when it is included as an option. And that is precisely what Annas advocates — all in the nicest possible way and the best possible taste. As he says earlier,

We sometimes make the mistake [of thinking] that everyone wants something new but there’s a lot that’s good about the traditional ways we’ve always done things and it’s just about bringing the two together really, which is what I meant by the consensual thing.

Thus traditionalists must be held together with revisionists until, as he says, such time as he can “build a consensus to change rules and regulations”.

Of course, the traditionalists will never be rubbed out or ruled out — not until there are too few of them for anyone to care any longer — but the very act of establishing the consensus between orthodoxy and change establishes that only those who accept the consensus will henceforth be allowed centre place in the institution. Indeed, the headline to the article says it all: ‘New bishop holds firm to incremental reform in Church’.

The tragedy in all this, however, is not the views of Mr Annas, but those of the existing Diocesan Bishop, the Rt Revd John Gledhill, whom I have hitherto admired as an evangelical. In the present circumstances, it would have been a dereliction of his duties not to ask his suffragan’s views on sexuality, and a dereliction of honesty for his suffragan not to have volunteered them. One can only conclude, therefore, that Bishop Gledhill was aware of, but unfazed by, the compromises being urged by his new episcopal colleague.

Our list of ‘wobblers’ thus runs to Liverpool, Gloucester, Chelmsford, Manchester, Lichfield and Stafford, but doubtless more could be included.

What will happen when the ‘tipping point’ is reached? And what should happen if one’s own bishop moves from ‘wobble’ down to floor level?

It cannot be long before the situation becomes intolerable on both sides. Indeed, the interviewer of Geoffrey Annas poses an interesting, though sadly rhetorical, question:

Traditionalists are asking why, if he feels women are entitled to be bishops and people who are gay entitled to physical relationships without being excluded, he doesn’t take a stand and openly challenge the Church, instead of sneakily undermining it.

The answer, I would have thought, is obvious. He is biding his time — as are many on the episcopal bench, some known, others unknown. But the time will certainly come.

When it does, and it cannot be far off, there is only one possible way that traditionalists can respond effectively — the way that has always most affected and changed the Church of England — and that will be radical principled action. In short, as the bishops topple, the traditionalists will have to find their own bishops.

A friend of mine who works in finance once said of the global recession that he could understand everything except why people were surprised it happened. To him, predicting it was like predicting that if it is spring, summer cannot be far off. The collapse of the bishops on human sexuality is in the same category. The only question is whether traditionalists will be ready when it comes and will act when they should.

John P Richardson
26 June 2010

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Southwark and the coming Anglican crisis

In a sermon preached at Southwark Cathedral on Sunday 13^th June, Dean Colin Slee described recent reactions to the visit there of the Presiding Bishop of TEC, the Rt Revd Katharine Jefferts-Schori, as a “kerfuffle”. And indeed ‘mitregate’ — so-called because Ms Jefferts-Schori carried her mitre down the aisle rather than wore it on her head — has certain ‘kerfuffley’ elements, not to say an air of petulance on one side or the other (or maybe both).

The problem with ‘kerfuffle, however, is that it can distract from serious issues, and in this case it is the Dean’s evening sermon, rather than the Presiding Bishop’s celebrations in the morning, that really matters in the whole affair.

The sermon begins with the background to the Presiding Bishop’s visit (and a little dig at the those who have since objected), in which the Dean points out, quite rightly, that this was arranged some time before the events surrounding the consecration of Mary Glasspool. Interestingly, he even says of the Archbishop of Canterbury, “I have kept him informed at all times, I would not act without courtesy [ie towards him], nor he towards us” — though these last words are somewhat at variance with the recorded reactions of the Presiding Bishop.

We also get an insight into the Dean’s own sermon preparation:

I have to tell you that I had intended to ignore all this kerfuffle this afternoon, until ... I read the lessons and the Collect set for the day and used by the Presiding Bishop at this morning’s Eucharist.

So not much advance planning there! But we must be grateful for the Dean’s change of heart, given the revealing nature of his subsequent comments.

The collect, with its focus on love, allowed the Dean to justify the invitation to the Presiding Bishop as an expression of love, but also as her due as “our sister in Christ”.

It is with the lesson from Genesis 13, however (what the Dean calls “the lesson from the Hebrew Scriptures”), that we come to the heart of the matter, for Dean Slee sees in the account of Abram and Lot a parallel to what is happening in the Anglican church. “Disaffected Anglicans,” he declares, “have been threatening to ‘walk separate ways’ for many months.” Thus he goes on,

Abram and Lot travel together and their herdsmen bicker and fight, in modern translation there is ‘strife’ between them. They reach agreement to take separate paths and settle down and so their mutual belonging as members of one family is secured.

Thus he concludes (via a brief discursus on Sodom), in a similar way, “It may be that some Anglicans will decide to walk a separate path.”

Now, notwithstanding questions of exegesis, we should pay close attention to what the Dean is saying. For although his preparation may have been a bit ‘last minute’, we need have no doubt that his sermon reflects a carefully considered position.

The first thing to notice is the open recognition of the possibility of separation in the Anglican communion. Though Dean Slee does not specify who are the “disaffected” (perhaps he applies this to both ‘sides’), he acknowledges the threat that they will indeed “walk separate ways”.

In his application of Genesis 13, however, he seems to suggest this would be a good thing, for the agreement between Abram and Lot is presented as a way in which “their mutual belonging as members of one family is secured.” The reasoning would seem to be that by walking separate ways, the ‘disaffected’ members of the Anglican communion could similarly ensure an end to their own comparable ‘strife’, whilst remaining ‘family’. To recognize the possibility of separation, as the Archbishop of Canterbury has done, is one thing. Virtually to advocate it is another.

This, however, brings us to the most significant statement of all, for having acknowledged that threats of separation may turn into reality, and having indicated that this might be not only necessary but helpful, the Dean states quite clearly his own conviction:

I believe the Chapter and congregation of this church will walk the same path as the Episcopal Church of America, the links are deep in our history, especially here.

Thus, according to the Dean, the Chapter and congregation of Southwark Cathedral are ready, when the time comes, to separate from others in the Anglican Communion, and to do so in line with TEC.

And here we come to the crisis.

The Diocese of Southwark is currently without a bishop. When that bishop is chosen, however, he will either have to align himself with the public position of his Dean (which the Dean claims is the position of the cathedral Chapter and congregation), or align himself against it.

It should also be remembered that, although it is a mere formality, the Chapter of a cathedral is still required by congé d’elire to ‘elect’ the bishop chosen by the Crown, so that, at least on paper, the bishop has the Chapter’s ‘approval’. Thus if the bishop decides against his cathedral Chapter, there will be a difficult conflict for him at the top of the diocese. If the bishop decides for his Chapter, however, the situation within the diocese may become impossible, for there are others in Southwark who would undoubtedly find the ministry of a bishop committed to the position put forward by Dean Slee simply unacceptable — not least, one presumes, those who put their names to a recent letter criticizing the visit of TEC’s Presiding Bishop.

Something close to open warfare between either the bishop and the Chapter, or the bishop and sections of the diocese thus seems inevitable.

Yet what if the incoming bishop, by some diplomatic ingenuity, manages to put off the immediate confrontation? Even then we must remember that Dean Slee cannot be acting alone — indeed, he says he is not. On the contrary, he is confident of the support of his Chapter and the cathedral congregation, and undoubtedly he can also be sure of support from many of the Southwark clergy. But if my own experience is anything to go by, Dean Slee will also be networking (whether formally or informally) with others around the country. If he feels confident to say what he has done, and explicitly to align his cathedral with TEC as he has chosen to, we may wonder how many others are in the same position.

Indeed, we may actually be at the ‘tipping point’ where numbers of senior clergy, who can call upon a considerable degree of support, are similarly ready to declare their hand and to call the institutional bluff.

Dean Slee must know (or at least now be reflecting) that what he has said throws down something of a gauntlet to the Crown Nominations Commission. Either they chose someone who will conflict with his own cathedral, or they pick someone who will not — either because he is willing to compromise and allow the Dean’s pronouncements to go unchallenged, or because he himself is in agreement with the Dean’s own views.

If they choose conflict, the Dean undoubtedly has many allies, and who can tell how such a scenario would unfold? If they choose compromise, they will only buy a temporary peace and in any case will alienate others in the same diocese and elsewhere.

We continue to live in interesting times.

John Richardson
21 June 2010

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Premier Radio Debate: Homosexuality and the Church

Here.

In response to listener requests Justin Brierley hosts two shows dealing with Homosexuality and Christian faith.
 
This second show addresses whether the church is homophobic in its attitude towards gay people.  Would a gay person feel welcome at an evangelical church?  Should practising gays be allowed to become church members or receive communion?  Has the church focussed on the gay issue to the exclusion of all other sins?

Mike Dark of the organisation "Accepting Evangelicals" is a gay Christian in a same sex relationship.  He says he experienced rejection and homophobia in his church when he "came out" as gay, but has since found a church where same sex relationships are welcomed.

John Richardson (who blogs as the Ugley Vicar) is part of the conservative-evangelical Anglican group Reform.  He believes there is a line to be drawn when it comes to the church condoning same sex activity among its members.

Martin Hallett is the former director of The True Freedom Trust.  As a Christian of homosexual orientation he chooses to remain celibate, believing the Bible does not condone same sex activity.  But he says the church is often guilty of homophobia too. 

The first show is here.
 
Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Premier Radio debate on the Bible and homosexuality

Yesterday I went down to the studios of Premier Christian Radio to record a debate on the Bible and homosexuality. Also taking part were Mike Dark of Accepting Evangelicals and Jeremy Marks of Courage ministries.

I was introduced as a spokesman for Reform, though I'm not sure that's strictly accurate!

It was all very amicably conducted, despite the seriousness of the topic. You can hear the outcome on Saturday at 2.30pm, or check out the podcast which will be available here on the website later. There will be another broadcast the following week on the pastoral issues (we recorded two debates back to back), with Martin Hallett of True Freedom Trust on the phone.

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Bishop James Jones and the challenge to unity

“ ... it is rather the force of custom, whereby the Church having so long found it good to continue under the regiment of her virtuous bishops, doth still uphold, maintain, and honour them in that respect, than that any such true and heavenly law can be shewed, by the evidence whereof it may of a truth appear that the Lord himself hath appointed presbyters for ever to be under the regiment of bishops, in what sort soever they behave themselves. Let this consideration be a bridle unto them, let it teach them not to disdain the advice of their presbyters ...”

Before he composed his recent address to the Liverpool Diocesan Synod, Bishop James Jones would have done well to have considered the above words of Richard Hooker, found in his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity (VII.v.8).

One wonders, for example, from how many of his presbyters Bishop Jones sought advice before advancing the opinions he has presented in his speech. One wonders also how his presbyters now feel, given that Bishop Jones has clearly decided that ‘his’ diocese will henceforth adopt a more liberal position on the question of homosexuality.

Earlier signs
Sadly, Bishop Jones signalled his changing views (dare one say his ‘changing attitude’?) on this matter two years ago with an essay entitled ‘Making Space for Truth and Grace’, published in A Fallible Church (Darton, Longman and Todd, edited by Kenneth Stevenson). In this, he defined four ‘walls’ within which he believed debate about human sexuality ought to take place in his diocese.

The first was, in his words, “the authoritative Biblical emphasis upon the uniqueness of marriage as a divine ordinance for the ordering of human society and the nurture of children.”

The second, however, was what he also claimed to be “authoritative Biblical examples of love between two people of the same gender.” Those he gave were “Jesus and his beloved and David and Jonathan,” but I have noted elsewhere the contentious nature of Jones’s exegesis in applying the latter case to modern same-sex relationships.

His third ‘wall’ was “the role of conscience in the Anglican moral tradition,” which, he argued, trumped even the oath of canonical obedience in that, “should you be pressed to do something which in good conscience you deem not to be honest then conscience would demand that you dissent.” That point may yet come back to haunt him.

His fourth ‘wall’, meanwhile, was the need for unity, on the basis that, “disunity saps the energy of the church.”

The last theme is very much to the fore in his speech to his Synod:

As Bishop called to “maintain the spirit of unity in the bond of peace” in the Diocese of Liverpool where we have the full spectrum of moral opinion on human sexuality I believe that to have “diversity without enmity” ... provides a safe and a spiritually and emotionally healthy place for Christians of differing convictions to discern the will of God for our lives.

A plea for ‘ethical variety’
In short, Bishop Jones believes that Christians can, within the Church of England, accept varying views on homosexual practice, just as they have long accepted varying views on pacifism:

Just as the church over the last 2000 years has come to allow a variety of ethical conviction about the taking of life and the application of the sixth Commandment so I believe that in this period it is also moving towards allowing a variety of ethical conviction about people of the same gender loving each other fully.

(For which latter phrase read, ‘having sex with each other physically’.)

One of the most peculiar things in his whole argument, however, is precisely the Bishop’s choice of the “sixth Commandment”, for he certainly could not have pulled off the same approach with the first, second, third, fifth, seventh, eighth, ninth or tenth. Thus there are, one imagines, very few ‘pro-adultery’ Christians, even within Anglicanism, and, in all probability, just as few (apart from the odd eccentric) who support stealing, lying, idolatry, and so on.

Actually, the Bishop could have made a much better case with the fourth commandment: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy,” particularly since the word translated “kill” in the sixth commandment generally applies to murder or accidental slaying, and thus has no real bearing on the issue of pacifism, which (given the rest of the Old Testament) has surely been argued on other grounds than that the Commandments absolutely prohibit killing anyone ever.

Once again, the Bishop’s biblical exegesis is contorted on a subject where the need is for clarity. Doubtless he has his reasons for choosing pacifism as the ‘test case’. But as I have indicated, a quick comparison with the other commandments shows that it is in danger of being ‘special pleading’ rather than convincing proof.

The reality of division
But that is not the real problem. The real problem is that the, precisely on the basis of a plea for unity, the Bishop has committed his diocese to a position which will exacerbate division because it is not the adopted position of the Church of England. This is clear even within his own pronouncements. Thus he says,

I bring it to you today to say that this is where I now am, and where I believe the Diocese of Liverpool now is and where I hope that the Church of England and the Anglican Communion might also move. (emphasis added)

He is not where he once was, he believes he has positioned his Diocese where he now is, and he hopes the rest of the Church may catch up! And that position is thus:

... we do already as a Diocese accept a diversity of ethical convictions about human sexuality in the same way that the church has always allowed a diversity of ethical opinion on taking human life.

In other words, some say this, and some say that, and who is to say who is wrong? Yet this is not a recipe for unity but for disaster. Bishop Jones needs to read Richard John Neuhaus on ‘The Unhappy Fate of Optional Orthodoxy’, and to look at what the revisionist lobby is saying. The midway position on this topic is not one that can be sustained, not least because it is not one that the key protagonists wish to hold.

A divergence from Issues
Yet we should be in no doubt that Bishop Jones himself has already adopted the view that there is little if anything wrong with the sexual expression of same-sex attraction:

If on this subject of sexuality the traditionalists are ultimately right and those who advocate the acceptance of stable and faithful gay relationships are wrong what will their sin be? That in a world of such little love two people sought to express a love that no other relationship could offer them? And if those advocating the acceptance of gay relationship are right and the traditionalists are wrong what will their sin be? That in a church that has forever wrestled with interpreting and applying Scripture they missed the principle in the application of the literal text?

In this, Bishop Jones is at odds with the House of Bishops, especially as that House expressed itself in the very substantial 2003 document Some Issues in Human Sexuality: A guide to the debate. There we read this:

The teaching of Issues in Human Sexuality ... does not have legally binding authority in the Church of England [...].

However, because it reflects the current collective position of the House of Bishops, and because the Church of England is an episcopally led Church in which bishops have a particular responsibility for guiding the Church in matters of faith and morals, it should be accepted by those in the Church as possessing considerable theological and pastoral authority.

Bishop Jones clearly now regards the teaching of Issues in Human Sexuality as a matter, fundamentally, of indifference — as something on which we ought simply to agree to differ:

... I believe the day is coming when Christians who equally profoundly disagree about the consonancy of same gender love with the discipleship of Christ will in spite of their disagreement drink openly from the same cup of salvation.

He must, therefore, be somewhat out of step with the other bishops, and it will be interesting to see how they respond to his attempts to reposition the Diocese of Liverpool — not least in the international arena when he refers to,

... a partnership between an African Diocese taking a traditional stance on gay relationships and a Church of England Diocese which is moving toward embracing a range of ethical convictions on this issue and which is also in partnership with a Diocese in the Episcopal Church of America. (emphasis added)

Note again, it is clear from his language that he regards the Diocese of Liverpool as no longer being where it was (where the rest of England is), and now nearer to the position of TEC!

Conscience and obedience
But in closing we must return to the question of conscience and canonical obedience, raised by Bishop Jones himself. The number of traditionalist clergy in the Diocese of Liverpool may be large or small, but they must surely be waking up this morning with troubled consciences. The Bishop has declared not only his own position but, ostensibly, that of his diocese as being one which accepts diversity on sexuality. Is this a position which his ‘presbyters’ would advise him (following Hooker) to adopt?

If not, then they might like to consider the rest of what Hooker said to the bishops,

Let this consideration be a bridle unto them, let it teach them not to disdain the advice of their presbyters, but to use their authority with so much the greater humility and moderation, as a sword which the Church hath power to take from them.

Of course the Bishop of Liverpool may not be deposed by his presbyters — not under the present arrangements of establishment. But he may be disobeyed on the basis of conscience, and it is Bishop Jones himself who has advocated this.

Sadly, Bishop Jones has not merely strained his own credentials, he has challenged the unity of his diocese and his national church. The situation is tragic, not least because this has been done in the name of unity. The question now is what the other bishops, and his own priests, will do in response.

John P Richardson
March 7, 2010

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

A spoonful of fudging helps the heresies go down

OK, I admit straight away, this isn’t really about ‘heresy’ in the full-on sense of ‘damnable religious errors’. Nor can I think of a word-play on ‘supercalifragilisticexpialidocious’. But in the old sense of haeresis, meaning wrongful divisions in the body of Christ, I do think that we are currently facing ‘heresies’ caused by fudging the issues, and we will soon be facing more.

Let us go back, for a moment, to the decision to ordain women into the priesthood of the Church of England, taken in 1992 — or rather, let us go back to the ‘indecision’, for that is unarguably what it was.

When the Church of England put to Parliament (as it had to) the necessary legislation to allow women to be ordained as priests, it included in that legislation the option for parishes to reject their priestly ministry. Looking back on it, that was an extraordinary thing to do. Is there any other example of a law where people can choose not to have that law apply to them?

Moreover, the Church itself spoke about the introduction of women priests as being a ‘process of reception’. That is to say, it was not prepared to commit itself to saying that this was exactly right —rather the approach would be ‘suck it and see’.

Then, on top of all this, Synod introduced its own legislation, an ‘Act of Synod’, to provide episcopal ministry for those who would be discomfited by the association of their existing bishop with the theology and action of ordaining women.

Thus, from its inception, the ordination of women was a fudge: systematically, deliberately — and inevitably, for without such a fudge it would not have taken place when it did. If the General Synod had been told, “You must decided now, one way or the other”, it is certain that it would have decided to wait.

However, the fudge was in place. And what happened next was equally inevitable, but unforseen by many. First, the assurances contained in the legislation where deliberately, but covertly, disregarded. The Act of Synod had declared that a person’s views on women’s ordination would not count against them when it came to selection for the higher offices in the Church. Yet extraordinarily, after 1993 almost no opponent of women’s ordination was found to have the qualities necessary to become a bishop. Indeed, there were unsubstantiated rumours of potential candidates being given a ‘fireside chat’ to inform them that on this issue there was only one option —you were for, or you were out.

Secondly, however, it may be argued that the basis of the Synod’s decision affected the quality of the candidates for ministry. Specifically, (and unsurprisingly, given the nature of its debates) the Synod had not decided that ‘this was what the Bible said ought to happen’. Rather, it had fudged the theological basis by failing to settle the biblical issue. Unsurprisingly, those women drawn to ordination to the priesthood tended to be those less committed to biblical precision, whilst those women drawn to full-time ministry, but of precise views, tended to avoid ordination to the priesthood.

What followed was inevitably an influx of women priests with generally ‘liberal’ theological views. And this had a further effect, for gradually the voting constituency for elections to Synods also shifted. The more that liberal women came in, the harder it was for conservatives to get elected. So, just as the Bench of Bishops was gradually being gerrymandered away from traditionalism, so the Houses of Clergy were being voted in the same direction.

Thus, contrary to the (palpably ludicrous) statement made in the 1970s, the theological objections to the ordination of women did not go away, but the objectors were increasingly marginalised. The Church was unequally divided, but the divisions would rapidly become more imbalanced.

Yet the objectors found it difficult to object! On paper, they were to be given equal treatment. Outwardly, the ‘period of reception’ would continue for as long as necessary. They had not been told they were wrong, only that they were a minority — but they were an honoured and welcome group, who would continue to be a valued ‘integrity’ within the Church of England. And most of them believed it. The Anglo-Catholics accepted the very considerable ‘bone’ of ‘Flying Bishops’. The Evangelicals were happy so long as they could get men ordained and accepted into parishes, and for the most part they thought the bishops were pretty laughable anyway. The Catholics fudged their attitude to Rome, the Evangelicals fudged their attitude to Anglicanism, the Liberals fudged their attitude to the Bible. Everyone was happy!

Now let us turn our attention to homosexuality, for back in the 1990s, the Church of England was also tackling this challenge. The definitive solution, however, was reached in 1991, when the House of Bishops produced a short statement titled Issues in Human Sexuality. With typical Anglican deftness, this managed to endorse the prevailing orthodoxy without actually insisting on it. The classic instance of this was the acceptance that the laity could engage in homosexual acts (since they were not bound to exemplify the church’s teaching) and that the clergy could argue for homosexual acts, but not engage in them (since the church’s teaching was binding on their behaviour but not their personal doctrine).

It was a small chunk of fudge, but enough to do the job.

Now let us fast-forward to 2005 and the introduction in the UK of civil partnerships. This was itself a classic fudge, being basically a government ‘cover’ for gay marriages in all but name. However, there was enough compromise involved in the legislation to allow Anglican bishops in the House of Lords to speak in favour of the development on the basis of ‘justice’ (but against broadening their provisions to include siblings or lifelong, opposite-sex, friends).

But what were the bishops to do about partnered clergy? The answer, given in another statement, was to allow for them, on the basis that, according to Issues in Human Sexuality, such relationships need not breach the church’s teaching on sex outside marriage:

The House of Bishops does not regard entering into a civil partnership as intrinsically incompatible with holy orders, provided the person concerned is willing to give assurances to his or her bishop that the relationship is consistent with the standards for the clergy set out in Issues in Human Sexuality. The wording of the Act means that civil partnerships will be likely to include some whose relationships are faithful to the declared position of the Church on sexual relationships (see paragraphs 2-7). [Civil Partnerships- A pastoral statement from the House of Bishops of the Church of England, para 19]

Notice, however, the caution in the first sentence of the above paragraph, that clergy in such partnerships should be “willing to give assurances” about their behaviour to their bishop. This was emphasised two paragraphs later:

... Partnerships will be widely seen as being predominantly between gay and lesbian people in sexually active relationships. Members of the clergy and candidates for ordination who decide to enter into partnerships must therefore expect to be asked for assurances that their relationship will be consistent with the teaching set out in Issues in Human Sexuality. [Ibid, para 21]

Notice, again, what is said: civil partnered clergy or ordination candidates “must ... expect to be asked for assurances” about the sexual nature of their relationship.

Notice also, however, what is not said. It does not say that the responsible bishop must actually seek such assurances, only that partnered clergy should “expect to be asked” for them. In fact, such assurances are certainly not sought by bishops in every case. Yet taken with paragraph 19, the implication is that it is the bishop, and not other potentially interested parties, such as churchwardens, parish representatives or neighbouring clergy, who is entitled to these assurances. Hence, although bishops are not always seeking these assurances themselves, they are unwilling to allow others to seek them, even though, as paragraph 21 says, the public perception of such relationships is that they will be sexually active.

Hence we have more fudge, and its divisive effects continue to spread. Thus the General Synod of the Church of England recently voted to approve pension rights to the civil partners of clergy, though not to their other dependents or supporters. The ‘marital’ status of civil partnerships thus seems to be reaffirmed. But on the basis of justice and morality it is hard to deny at least what was granted (even though one may have reservations about what was not), since all clergy in civil partnerships are supposed to be celibate and to be ready and willing to assure their bishops that this is the case, should they be asked. The assumption is breathtaking, though be careful you don’t choke on your fudge!

Meanwhile, on the ground the facts will establish themselves. Civil partnered clergy will become accepted, and the failure of bishops to establish, clearly and publicly, the nature of their relationships will pass unchallenged. But at the same time, the discomfort of those who hold to the traditional view will increase, for there will be no assurance, and no way of being assured, that the morality which the bishops have declared to be biblical (see their further and much larger document confusingly titled Some Issues in Human Sexuality, issued in 2003) is actually being maintained by those they see in civil partnerships.

The Church of England has, in the past, acted as if compromise were the ‘genius’ of Anglicanism. History, I suspect, will show the opposite — that far from being its genius, it was the agent of its downfall. And why should we be surprised? If the devil is the Father of Lies, then the half truth is surely his own offspring.

Revd John P Richardson
17 February 2010

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Is the Bible anti-gay?

This article originally appeared on the Guardian's religious comment and analysis site, Comment is free: belief. It formed part of a series of responses including contributions from Theo Hobson and Davis Mac-Iyalla.

Update: Judith Maltby has contributed here. 

Is the Bible anti-gay? The short answer has to be "Yes". Despite Theo Hobson's commendable efforts to argue that it is not talking about us, and Davis Mac-Iyalla's desire to summarise Jesus' message as a quote from the Old Testament (Leviticus 19:18), the modern enquirer, who has posed this most modern of questions, will surely find any other answer evasive.

Yet that answer does not at all mean what the enquirer will take it to be saying. It is like the lawyer who asked of Jesus, "What shall I do to be saved?"and was told to keep the great commandments. The answer was true enough, but the fullness of truth lay outside the form of the question. The subsequent parable of the Good Samaritan is not a truism about altruism, but a challenge to the questioner's world-view.

So with the Bible's standpoint on sex. In Genesis 1:27 we read that God "created man in his own image ... male and female he created them". God and human gender combine in the same sentence. Our interpretation of this, however, depends first on whether we regard the Bible as a coherent whole or as a series of quite unrelated "musings" on the divine. If the latter, then this is a standalone enigma. The Christian who can speak of "the Bible's view" on anything, however, will find here the beginnings of a theme which is developed and clarified as the revelation of scripture unfolds.

Too often in the Bible, human marriage and sexuality are depicted at their worst —the examples are legion. Yet throughout, God's relationship with his people is also depicted in marital terms. Thus the Bible ends with a marriage between Christ and the church: "I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband" (Rev 21:2). God is the great bridegroom.

This is not, however, because God's love is, in some sense, "like" a bridegroom's. Rather, marriage derives from our relationship with God. It is itself an "image", just as we are also God's image. Far from being seen as a challenge to true spirituality, sexuality thus provides an insight into salvation, with the Song of Songs as the outstanding biblical depiction of what this means in human experience. It is this which explains why the Bible takes sex so seriously.

However, as Davis Mac-Iyalla rightly recognises, Jesus provides the interpretive centre of the Bible and, in one of his hardest sayings, makes it clear that the divine "model" for marriage is one man, with one woman, in a lifelong covenant.

All expressions of sexuality outside this framework are, to a greater or lesser extent, declensions from the ideal which aims to reflect the very character of God. Some were allowed, Jesus said, because of people's lack of faith. Others were vehemently prohibited. Ultimately, however, the Bible's position on sexuality cannot be defined by listing those things to which it is notionally "opposed". Rather, we need to see it arises from an overarching understanding of the nature of God and his relationship with his creation.

Revd John P Richardson
17 December 2009

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.