The Bible, Bishops and Bedrooms
I'm glad I'm not a bishop and never will be.
Why?
Because today's Church of England (and indeed the wider Anglican Communion) is no longer the tolerant, inclusive 'broad church' that it once was but is now a rather unpleasant (some would say 'toxic') and belligerent beast in which political expediency often trumps truth and justice and where bullying tactics and emotional coercion have become almost everyday currency.
Leading such a wayward institution - whose dirty laundry when made public supports the very common charge of hypocrisy - must be a huge challenge and an unenviable task. Many would say, however, that the bishops have brought this on themselves through decades of weak leadership, a cowardly response to theologically conservative bullies who seem hellbent on changing Anglicanism's entire character so they can have it on their own terms, and a series of unfortunate, mealy-mouthed 'Pastoral Statements' that are often notable only for their distinct lack of any genuinely 'pastoral' content.
Superficially, the conflicts by which the established church is currently beset are all about sex, or more specifically, homosexuality. But a bishop said to me years ago, '"There's a can of worms to be opened, which is a battle for the heart and soul of Anglicanism. Homosexuality is merely the tin-opener." I believe he was right, and in reality the underlying issue is much more about how we do our Theology and in particular whether we read the Bible in a superficial and literal way or whether we take a more intellectually critical approach. The traditional Anglican method was to use scripture, reason and tradition in a balanced way. Where opinions varied, the tolerant spirit of Anglicanism allowed for a respectful disagreement; but this no longer seems to be the case, and it's a sad indictment on today's CofE that we now have to have working parties and reports to figure out how we might manage to disagree well.
Many have rightly observed that if the Church cannot model good disagreement there is little or no hope for our fractured world.
I'm also glad I'm not a Bishop because it means that I can't be associated with the most recent (un)pastoral statement from the House of Bishops regarding Civil Partnerships. The timing of the statement was every bit as crass as its content.
Following BBC Two's chilling documentary 'The Church's Darkest Secret' screened over two nights only a week or so ago - which told the story of the appalling physical and sexual abuse of young men perpetrated by Bishop Peter Ball and (perhaps even more disgracefully) the establishment cover-up that followed in which a number of Bishops, including the then Archbishop George Carey were complicit, one might have expected the bishops to keep their heads down and their mouths shut for a while. (As the saying goes, 'It often shows a fine command of language to say nothing.') But the recent enactment of the Civil Partnership (Opposite-sex couples) Regulations 2019 which now permits heterosexual couples to have a Civil Partnership rather than a marriage was bound to lead to such couples requesting a service of blessing in church, and given that their Lordships and Ladyships have forbidden such blessings for same-sex couples, this created something of a dilemma.
When the Coalition Government introduced Equal Marriage in 2014, the legislation included the possibility of any Civil Partnership being converted to a marriage at the stroke of a pen. As a result there was talk of Civil Partnerships being phased-out and even a possibility that all existing Civil Partnerships would be automatically converted. Had this happened, the bishops would have found themselves in an extremely tight corner. They supported same-sex Civil Partnerships (albeit very grudgingly) because it helped to solve the 'problem' of gay clergy who lived or wanted to live in a committed relationship with a partner. Unlike marriage, there is no presumption of a sexual relationship in a Civil Partnership, so bishops could assent to their clergy entering a Civil Partnership so long as there were appropriate assurances that the relationship would remain celibate. Thus the church's traditional teaching on marriage and sexuality would remain intact.
The recent statement basically re-iterates what the House of Bishops has previously said i.e. that a marriage between a man and a woman is the only proper context for a sexual relationship. It then rather patronisingly assures couples in Civil Partnerships that the church will continue to 'affirm the value of committed, sexually abstinent friendships.'
Setting aside the rather offensive and myopic implication that a celibate committed relationship is merely a 'friendship', the main problem with the statement is that it once again shows that the House of Bishops is out of touch with reality and will simply not acknowledge how the world really is. For example, at most of the weddings I conduct, the couple have lived together and had a fully sexual relationship for years, and their children act as bridesmaids or page boys. We don't refuse to marry them on these grounds - nor would that ever be my personal instinct - but given what the bishops are saying about the only proper context for a sexual relationship, perhaps it's time we hardened our attitude on this. Surely anything less is hypocritical? Maybe the marriage service could begin with a public confession and absolution of their previous sexual immorality - or perhaps a detailed statement regarding a couple's pre-marital sexual intimacy could be incorporated into the Reading of the Banns. (That would certainly liven up an otherwise archaic and meaningless ritual.)
We would never do anything like this, of course, as we don't want to alienate the heterosexual population. Gays and lesbians on the other hand are a minority, so we are fair game. The fact that in today's society most if not all families have within them - or know of - someone who is LGBT, is beside the point. So, it seems, is the fact that whilst the leadership of the CofE was happy to cover up the disgraceful, abusive and criminal sexual conduct of one of its bishops, it still can't bring itself to properly affirm consensual, loving, and faithful same-sex relationships.
Anglicanism's current obsession with sex is totally unhealthy. Even if one adopts a conservative theology, the prominence sex-related issues are given is totally disproportionate to the attention they receive in the scriptures generally and the Gospels in particular. Our attention should be on the things that really matter - issues of Truth and Justice and the reconciliation and healing of a broken world.
One heterosexual friend of mine who gave up on the CofE years ago responded to the recent statement by saying, "Maybe people will come back into the Church when the church gets out of their bedrooms."
I say 'Amen' to that.
Why?
Because today's Church of England (and indeed the wider Anglican Communion) is no longer the tolerant, inclusive 'broad church' that it once was but is now a rather unpleasant (some would say 'toxic') and belligerent beast in which political expediency often trumps truth and justice and where bullying tactics and emotional coercion have become almost everyday currency.
Leading such a wayward institution - whose dirty laundry when made public supports the very common charge of hypocrisy - must be a huge challenge and an unenviable task. Many would say, however, that the bishops have brought this on themselves through decades of weak leadership, a cowardly response to theologically conservative bullies who seem hellbent on changing Anglicanism's entire character so they can have it on their own terms, and a series of unfortunate, mealy-mouthed 'Pastoral Statements' that are often notable only for their distinct lack of any genuinely 'pastoral' content.
Superficially, the conflicts by which the established church is currently beset are all about sex, or more specifically, homosexuality. But a bishop said to me years ago, '"There's a can of worms to be opened, which is a battle for the heart and soul of Anglicanism. Homosexuality is merely the tin-opener." I believe he was right, and in reality the underlying issue is much more about how we do our Theology and in particular whether we read the Bible in a superficial and literal way or whether we take a more intellectually critical approach. The traditional Anglican method was to use scripture, reason and tradition in a balanced way. Where opinions varied, the tolerant spirit of Anglicanism allowed for a respectful disagreement; but this no longer seems to be the case, and it's a sad indictment on today's CofE that we now have to have working parties and reports to figure out how we might manage to disagree well.
Many have rightly observed that if the Church cannot model good disagreement there is little or no hope for our fractured world.
I'm also glad I'm not a Bishop because it means that I can't be associated with the most recent (un)pastoral statement from the House of Bishops regarding Civil Partnerships. The timing of the statement was every bit as crass as its content.
Following BBC Two's chilling documentary 'The Church's Darkest Secret' screened over two nights only a week or so ago - which told the story of the appalling physical and sexual abuse of young men perpetrated by Bishop Peter Ball and (perhaps even more disgracefully) the establishment cover-up that followed in which a number of Bishops, including the then Archbishop George Carey were complicit, one might have expected the bishops to keep their heads down and their mouths shut for a while. (As the saying goes, 'It often shows a fine command of language to say nothing.') But the recent enactment of the Civil Partnership (Opposite-sex couples) Regulations 2019 which now permits heterosexual couples to have a Civil Partnership rather than a marriage was bound to lead to such couples requesting a service of blessing in church, and given that their Lordships and Ladyships have forbidden such blessings for same-sex couples, this created something of a dilemma.
When the Coalition Government introduced Equal Marriage in 2014, the legislation included the possibility of any Civil Partnership being converted to a marriage at the stroke of a pen. As a result there was talk of Civil Partnerships being phased-out and even a possibility that all existing Civil Partnerships would be automatically converted. Had this happened, the bishops would have found themselves in an extremely tight corner. They supported same-sex Civil Partnerships (albeit very grudgingly) because it helped to solve the 'problem' of gay clergy who lived or wanted to live in a committed relationship with a partner. Unlike marriage, there is no presumption of a sexual relationship in a Civil Partnership, so bishops could assent to their clergy entering a Civil Partnership so long as there were appropriate assurances that the relationship would remain celibate. Thus the church's traditional teaching on marriage and sexuality would remain intact.
The recent statement basically re-iterates what the House of Bishops has previously said i.e. that a marriage between a man and a woman is the only proper context for a sexual relationship. It then rather patronisingly assures couples in Civil Partnerships that the church will continue to 'affirm the value of committed, sexually abstinent friendships.'
Setting aside the rather offensive and myopic implication that a celibate committed relationship is merely a 'friendship', the main problem with the statement is that it once again shows that the House of Bishops is out of touch with reality and will simply not acknowledge how the world really is. For example, at most of the weddings I conduct, the couple have lived together and had a fully sexual relationship for years, and their children act as bridesmaids or page boys. We don't refuse to marry them on these grounds - nor would that ever be my personal instinct - but given what the bishops are saying about the only proper context for a sexual relationship, perhaps it's time we hardened our attitude on this. Surely anything less is hypocritical? Maybe the marriage service could begin with a public confession and absolution of their previous sexual immorality - or perhaps a detailed statement regarding a couple's pre-marital sexual intimacy could be incorporated into the Reading of the Banns. (That would certainly liven up an otherwise archaic and meaningless ritual.)
We would never do anything like this, of course, as we don't want to alienate the heterosexual population. Gays and lesbians on the other hand are a minority, so we are fair game. The fact that in today's society most if not all families have within them - or know of - someone who is LGBT, is beside the point. So, it seems, is the fact that whilst the leadership of the CofE was happy to cover up the disgraceful, abusive and criminal sexual conduct of one of its bishops, it still can't bring itself to properly affirm consensual, loving, and faithful same-sex relationships.
Anglicanism's current obsession with sex is totally unhealthy. Even if one adopts a conservative theology, the prominence sex-related issues are given is totally disproportionate to the attention they receive in the scriptures generally and the Gospels in particular. Our attention should be on the things that really matter - issues of Truth and Justice and the reconciliation and healing of a broken world.
One heterosexual friend of mine who gave up on the CofE years ago responded to the recent statement by saying, "Maybe people will come back into the Church when the church gets out of their bedrooms."
I say 'Amen' to that.
Comments
Post a Comment