When the Press Press Hard

This is probably rather a sad admission, but I spent my last waking hour last night watching the 'You Tube' recording of the Archbishops' Press Conference following the recent announcement by the House of Bishops of the publication of Prayers of Blessing for same-sex couples. 

As someone who has spent a lifetime being profoundly affected - and often deeply wounded - by the church's response to LGBTQI+ people, and still struggling to process how I really feel about this recent development, I wanted to hear for myself exactly what was said, and how it was said.

It wasn't easy viewing. The tension and discomfort of the panel was quite palpable. Perhaps not surprisingly, Dr Eeva John, Enabling Officer of the 'Living in Love and  Faith' project was easily the most robust, confident and coherent speaker, with Sarah Mullaly, bishop of London, the least. 

After the inevitable preliminaries - a brief explanation of the role of General Synod by William Nye and a quick canter through the agenda of the forthcoming meeting, followed by a detailed description of the 'Living in Love and Faith' process thus far - it was down to business as questions were invited from the floor. 

The secular press, of course, has no awareness of, or interest in, the theological and political nuances around which the panel were so painstakingly and obviously tiptoeing. Their questions, therefore, along with those from the conservative church press, were at best blunt and at worst brutal. 

It went something like this:

"So is the Church of England now saying that Gay sex is ok and isn't a sin?"

"Does the CofE still believe that heterosexual marriage is the only acceptable context for a sexual relationship, and if so does it therefore require even those in same sex relationships that it blesses to be celibate?"

"In blessing gay couples, are you blessing the sexual expression of their relationship? If so, why not marry them?"

"Is it or is it not reasonable to expect gay clergy and other church leaders to uphold traditional church teaching?"

and perhaps most bruising of all:

"Given recent statistics regarding the decline in church attendance; what would you say to those who suggest that this is just a desperate attempt to make the church seem more relevant?". 

Ouch!

Few of the questions got the direct and robust answer they deserved, and the responses they did get often felt evasive and disingenuous. Whilst there was much talk of how open, honest and courageous the discussions in the College of Bishops had been, I saw only the faintest of  glimmers of these qualities in the press conference. There were more than a couple of 'rabbits caught in the headlights' moments. 

Stephen Cottrell, Archbishop of York exhibited the most vulnerability, humanity and passion in his  contribution (which also felt more natural and unscripted than the others) and he did become emotional at one point. He was also the one whom I sensed was closest to saying, "Look, we've changed our minds about this. Let's just get on with it, shall we?". He didn't, of course, but he did say unequivocally, "The Church is definitely now in a different place, and I believe it's a better place."    

Eeva John, meanwhile, let her guard down slightly and made one slip that may have rankled the conservatives when she acknowledged that many traditionalists would have a problem with what the bishops have done, whilst some of us 'want to make a more generous response'. Oops! Good, though, to see through the political defensiveness here and there. 

At the end of the hour, I was left with a very strong sense of the episcopal nervousness that underlies the recent announcement. That nervousness makes me in turn rather more anxious about what will come next. I was left feeling that I'm by no means alone in fearing that some very dark storm clouds are gathering over next month's Synod. I suspect it won't be pretty, but I'm desperately hoping and praying that I'm wrong.