Those Videos and LLF : When Managers Don't Manage

There has been a flury of social media activity recently following the publication of the Church of England's teaching materials 'Living in Love and Faith' - the latest attempt to explore questions around gender, sexuality, marriage and relationships.  

Not surprisingly, attention has been focussed in particular on two videos.The first of these, released by the 'Church of England Evangelical Council', was clearly filmed prior to the release of LLF and re-iterates all the well-rehearsed conservative arguments whilst also gently rattling sabres about either leaving the CofE if it changes its teaching in any way, or at least requiring the development of new provinces for those who would dissent from any such change. Rather bizarrely, it features people who were architects of LLF itself. The second, far more toxic, video was published by the group calling itself 'Christian Concern'. This is presented as a 'critique' of the LLF materials, in particular the videos in which various individuals or couples tell their story.  In reality, each story is dissected - some might even say ridiculed - in a rather sneering and unchristian manner.  

There is, of course, nothing new in all of this. Whenever the sensitive issue of sexuality is discussed in the church of England, the conservatives circle their wagons, brandish their bibles and bank statements and threaten schism. 

The plan - now proven to be somewhat naive - was that this time things would be different. The Archbishops had called for a new 'radical inclusion'. The idea was that everyone would engage with LLF in a spirit of 'respectful listening' in the hope that we could move away from the customary polarised debate. Whilst many sceptics saw this from the outset as just another 'talking shop' and a means of kicking a particularly controversial can further down the street, some of us have given LLF the benefit of the doubt. To be fair, it feels like a tentative step forward, and the materials are certainly better than anything produced previously.  

Having vowed that after a good forty years of fighting my corner on the issue of the treatment of LGBTI+ Christians in the CofE I would never get embroiled in further campaigning, still less make myself vulnerable by baring my soul and telling my story to a critical audience for the umpteenth time, I was persuaded to join a working group in my diocese that would look at the materials and 'test-drive' the course to see if we can then commend it to the wider diocese. I can't and won't comment on any of the dynamics or workings of this group as it would be a betrayal of confidentiality, and I'm still daring to hope that we may achieve something worthwhile. But groups like this, however well-meaning and successful they might be, do not exist in a vacuum; the wider context inevitably impacts upon the members of such a group, and for me, as a gay Christian, the two videos have raised serious concerns about how safe it is for LGBTI+ people to participate in LLF or whatever process might flow from it. Their release at this time can only have the effect (whether deliberate or not) of seriously undermining the LLF process and any confidence that people had in it. It seems it was just too much to hope that certain groups would engage fully with LLF - and allow their parishes to do so - before making a response.  

It is for this reason that I accepted an invitation to sign a letter from a number of LGBTI+ clergy to bishops who are known to have more liberal views, urging them to articulate those views as LLF moves forward. As I write, there has been only one response. It was quietly sympathetic, but disappointingly defensive. The recipient seemed to feel that he was being pushed to campaign actively for our cause and to publicly oppose those who take a conservative stance. This simply isn't the case, and whilst this may have been a genuine misreading or misunderstanding on the part of this particular bishop - and we are waiting to see how others respond- many of us are concerned that it is yet a further manifestation of a deeply worrying trend in today's CofE i.e. that bishops do not feel able to voice individual conscience publicly. 

We all know that there are bishops whose theological and pastoral hearts are empathetic to the LGBTI+ cause and who believe the church should be open to change. They are often highly supportive behind closed doors, but, with only one or two honourable exceptions, never in public. The House of Bishops is clearly committed to only ever presenting a united front on this issue, even if the fence on which they perch is becoming ever more rickety under their collective weight. This wasn't the case when, for example, the ordination of women was first debated (and one wonders how much progress that cause would have made had it been so).  It is entirely possible and reasonable for Bishops to uphold in practice the CofE's current stance on sexuality, gender and marriage whilst truthfully expressing their individual views about whether or not things might or should change. This is, after all, exactly what they are asking people like me to do as part of the LLF process. Not to do so themselves - and to model the courage and vulnerability that this requires -  is at best cowardly and at worst hypocritical. 

It is often said these days that the leadership of the CofE has become too 'managerial' in style. If this is true, the style of management we have seen in relation to LLF and the two videos is a particularly poor one. In any other organisation where a process as sensitive and crucial as LLF was undermined by the crass actions of certain groups, those involved would be subjected to a severe reprimand. Instead, we are treated to the rather embarrassing spectacle of bishops wringing their hands and tripping over themselves to avoid expressing any displeasure or frustration, still less censoring those who have acted contrary to the spirit of the whole initiative.  

Despite feeling irritated and discouraged, I plan to stick with the LLF process, at least for the time being. But if it is to have any credibility and the hope of achieving  anything (even if, as I suspect, it will be little more than a change in the tone of the ongoing debate) it really is going to need to be much better managed. 

 

   

I