I was sitting in a cafe waiting to do a radio gig and had the time to look back at the last couple of days’ news. Also scanned Twitter. Then thought about Harry Redknapp. That led me on to empires during the last few millennia. I know: weird.
The thing about Harry is that just a few months ago he was riding high. He won his tax court case, was a media star, was tipped by all the media and pundits as the only choice to replace Capello as England manager. Then Spurs dipped, Hodgson got England, Harry made demands, and yesterday he lost his job. And this morning’s media are even suggesting he is now finished in football.
Fickle old world, isn’t it? Yesterday’s media certainties are today’s embarrassing misjudgements. All this proves, of course, is that pundits and the commentariat should never be taken too seriously. They fill the page or the screen with today’s gobby ‘wisdom’, then, while others remember what they have said, they move on to the next one.
Empires come and go. That’s what history (and the Bible, actually) teaches us. What looks permanent today can be gone tomorrow. Like confidence in Spain’s economy or Holland’s Euro 2012 outlook. Anything said with confidence today should be taken with great scepticism – it might have changed by next week.
Interesting, then, that yesterday’s noise about the Church of England’s response to the government’s ludicrously inept consultation on gay marriage is followed this morning (apparently) by some vital stuff on church chairs. Despair is evident in the twittersphere about yet another example of C of E PR ineptitude. Maybe it is. But, just who decided to roll these two things together. How long has the ‘chairs’ item been in the diary can? Would it even have made it to the airwaves if we hadn’t had the earlier gay marriage stuff?
The other complaint is that while Iain Duncan Smith is doing his ‘poverty’ stuff, the Church is banging on about chairs and not poverty. OK, that’s how it looks. But, it’s a bit naive, even it does cause instant depression in many of us. The reality is that we spend most of our time tackling poverty at local, legislative and political levels – ‘church opposes poverty’ is not news.
What all this makes clear, however, is not that the substance of the church’s concerns is misguided or that the priorities are necessarily wrong. Rather, it just goes to prove that we are terrible at ‘spin’. The Church hasn’t exactly managed the news to its institutional advantage this week. Maybe it hasn’t tried…
Which brings us to the response to the Church of England’s response to the government’s consultation on ‘gay marriage’.
OK, picking out one statement about threats to the establishment (one paragraph out of something like twenty seven) offered the media the lead story and ensured it dominated the front pages. Actually, to my mind this is the least interesting or important or significant element of the statement. The Church’s response is not primarily about establishment or status – even if there might be consequences here. The Church’s concerns are primarily about what is usually called ‘the common good’.
Change our understanding of marriage and we are not doing something trivial or consequence-free. The Church cannot simply go with the flow of contemporary culture, blessing whatever is this era’s wisdom. Someone has to ask the hard questions and question the language and assumptions behind moves for social change. It might not be popular and it can be mishandled, but it has to be done.
The shoddy consultation (a) confuses ‘marriage’ with ‘wedding’, (b) assumes a lie – that British law distinguishes between ‘civil’ and ‘religious’ marriage, (c) fails to distinguish between ‘equality’ and ‘uniformity’, (d) fails to address why civil partnerships would continue for gay couples and not be open to heterosexuals – surely ‘unequal’ – if gay marriage comes in, and (e) clearly sees this ‘consultation’ as a mere preliminary to doing what it intends to do regardless of what the consultation throws up.
Does anyone seriously think the church – or any sentient body – should just ignore all this and roll over?
Yes, it looks like the Church is being a bit flouncy or scaremongering in relation to its status, but the substantial critique of the government’s assumptions, language and process also need a response. I look forward to it – it has to be a bit more intelligent and less emotively woolly than the tangent the response has led us on so far.
The Church in Wales has also responded similarly and with great frustration about the same issues. I haven’t yet caught up with any response to this.
This one will run and run. The best hope is that we get some answers to the substantial questions while continuing strongly to affirm committed relationships of any sort – for the common good.
(On the footie question, my UEFA 2012 fantasy team – Purple Haze in the Spain Sucks league – is doing OK. But, in the context of poverty issues, Cameron at the Leveson Inquiry, questions around marriage – but not church chairs – it doesn’t really matter.)
June 14, 2012 at 4:26 pm
Immediate news and immediate responses to news and opinion dressed up as news and facts that are made up from news other people heard that wasn’t news… when will it all end? We have too much news now that nobody cares about actual news, because if its not happening now it isn’t news.
The church is particularly bad at handling news, often, but that’s because we’re not primarily a news-handler, a broadcaster, a commentator or a ‘spinner’. And because everyone has an opinion on the church, though not a commitment to the church, or an understanding of the church.
It makes me weary. And Holland were my tip for glory. It’s all vanity, a chasing after the wind [surely, ball?].
June 14, 2012 at 6:20 pm
Fair point Nick. But – when the church responds to social change why does it always do so negatively, at least for the past few hundred years? To name but a few: abolition of slavery, Catholic and Jewish emancipation, votes for women, equality in marriage, and now of course gay relationships? Can’t the church make a contribution to the debate instead of all the time declaring that something is against the will of God only to look silly later? The cumulative effect only erases the moral credibility of the church.
And what about the sloppiness of its own report: the worst thing since the Reformation (it is not) marriage has always been the union of one man and one woman, based on Scripture (it has not, see Abraham, Jacob, David….) lifelong (it is not, divorce has been legal for 150 years or so). We support civil partnerships (they do not, never have done)…..and so it goes on. I think one of the reasons for the furore is some of the hyperbole about the end of civilisation as we know it, and also some of the dishonesty.
June 14, 2012 at 6:22 pm
Hi Bishop Nick, I’m a new follower to your blog, largely because I’m at an exploratory stage as far as my own faith goes and have many unanswered questions, mostly around the subjects of women bishops and gay marriage. This is clearly not the place to address the former, but as far as the latter goes, it strikes me that the Church is in a bit of a quandry. Would I be correct in thinking that in our liberal society many clergy are in favour, but certainly at a senior level are unable to articulate this without an inevitable backlash? (I’m thinking of your former Dean in particular here, yet the Archbishop of York’s comments have attracted equal disdain.) We’re lucky, because we don’t live in a country where you can be put to death for homosexuality, but the Anglican Church in such countries clearly has an issue even being remotely associated with supporting such a move.
Thanks!
P.s Kevin, the Church has a rather professional in house PR and media operation at national level and in each diocese so doesn’t really have an excuse for being bad at handling news!
June 14, 2012 at 9:50 pm
Having tried to fill in the ‘consultation’ questionnaire I completely agree with the points you make. There is also an implicit assumption that bisexuals might want gay marriage, rather than that we might already be happy and faithfully married!
June 14, 2012 at 9:58 pm
Simon,
Are we reading the same report? I can find no reference to the Reformation, the definitive authority quoted is “the teaching of Christ himself”, which can I think fairly be described as derived from the Scriptures and is a higher authority than the actions of the various Kings and patriarchs in the Old Testament,, it refers to “the Church’s understanding” of marriage as lifelong, not the civil law’s,and its detailed wording on support for civil partnerships (“supported by the majority of Bishops who voted”) is very carefully worded, albeit I agree in a way that gives the impression of a greater degree of active support than is probably accurate – but should we not then rejoice over the sinner who repents?. By all means be critical of the response if you disagree with it, but disagree with what it says, not – which is pertinent to a different blog entry – what you heard it to say.
June 15, 2012 at 1:00 am
Hi Nick
Having used some pretty strong and defensive language regarding the governments attempts at the gay marriage consultation, can I just take issue with you regarding the House of Bishops own lamentable attempts at consultation (in effect largely ignoring the majority will ot its members) regarding the slight matter of Admission of Women To The Episcopate, a matter of equality far easier to resolve and far less complex an issue surely, than the issue gay marriage, but which we are still pussyfooting around after 20 or more years.
Before the truly woeful amendments and watering down of the draft legislation by the House of Bishops, which is to be presented to General Synod in July, ensuring that women will not be allowed to enter the Bishopric on full and equal status with their male counterparts (then what is the point may I ask?), the House of Bishops asked the dioceses and Deaneries to discuss and vote on the legislation. Nearly every single one, with a few very notable exceptions, voted overwhelmingly in favour of the legislation as it stands, and most voted down a second motion to water down the wording in the legislation. So what do the House of Bishops do?. In a ridiculous attempt to try and please all of the people all of the time, they produce amendments which end up pleasing hardly anyone!
Instead they deliberately and consciously fly in the face of the accepted will of the Diocesan and Deanery Synods vote (then why consult Nick?), and I suspect that you stiill think and expect that General Synod will vote this through. I seriously hope the HOB get a rude awakening and that the GS sends it back to the HOB with the resounding “NO” that it fully deserves and that that “No” is more the voice of the supporters of the motion than its opponents., What a story for the press that will be…but I have no sympathy whatsoever for the HOB if that is what happens as they will have brought it fully upon themselves.
In fact, I am seriously thinking of emailing all 10 of my Diocesan representatives, I have never done so before, and asking them that, especially if they support the measure, that they vote it down in order to send it back, so that the HOB can get it right first time, instead of foisiting a badly flawed piece of legislation upon the chuirch which will see us wrangling over this for years to come.
How you can have the temerity to accuse the Government, of whom I an in no way whatsoever a sympathiser, of shoddy consulation on the gay issue, whilst failing to mention the complete pigs ear the HOB has made of its own alleged consultation on the Ordination of Women to the Episcopate almost defies belief and credulity
I have been a Reader for over 20 years, and both during my training, and many years after, I have had it drummed into me by Senior Church leaders, almost to saturation point and beyond, that Readers are the “bridge” between the church and the world “out there” (yes…I know…tell me about it!…I am not stupid!). Then why does the church and its senior leadership do its utmost best to disguise all the brilliant work it does day in day out, by presenting itself to the outside world as a bungling, anachronsitic irrelevancy..and at times Nick, I can assure you, the watching world “out there” thinks we are a laughing stock, and justifiably so, andit is about time its Senior Leaders began to realise this.
When the vote at GS hits the headlines, as it invariably does, I hope you are not expecting me to “toe the party line” in public, while vehemently disagreeing in private, because this time I steadfastly refuse to do so. If people in work ask me what I think about this fiasco, then I am going to tell them and be brutally honest. After all, I can assure you, they are most definitely not stupid and they know what’s really going on!
There was no need for this draft legislation as a competently and clearly worded Code of Practice is eminently workable, with one proviso,..providing that it is properly worded, and that there is clear unambiguous guidance as to how it is to be implemented, and I am guessing that here is where the real problem lies. Raher than water down the legislation further, so that a female Bishop does not have complete authority over her own Diocese, and that future ordinands, (both male and female) are treated as second class citizens by some in the church because they have been consecrated at their ordination by a female Bishop, (how unworkable is that!), would it not be far wiser to recruit or select a competent team of drafters to do far more work on the CoP, so that it is eminently more workable, rather than take the soft and easy option of watering the legislation down even further. If opponents of the measure still can’t accept it, then I am afraid they have a difficult choice to make.
You may be hoping that the amended legislation is passed so that at last women are allowed to become Bishops without any further delay. I wholeheartedly disagree, in that it is about time that the House of Bishops and the General Synod learnt ton get things right first time, which is why I fervently hope and pray that the draft amended legislation gets roundly voted down.and that the church and the HOB, quite rightly, in the short term, receive the negative publicity come the beginning of July, that,on this occasion, they so rightly deserve.
If I was David Cameron, and I never thought I would hear mywelf saying that statement!! I would tell the Church of England and the House of Bishops to get their own house in order first, and to take the log out of their own eye, before they lecture the govennment and the wider nation on what they should be doing. Also well done Cof E, becasue since Tuesday the d word (disestablishment) is now well and truly being bandied around…mind you for the less paranoid amongst us, that might not be a bad thing!
Finally I read today that St Geprges Tron, a church 500 strong, have officially voted earlier this week to secede from the Church of Scotland over the Scottish Church’s stance over the gay marriage issue. I take it then that the clergy stipends will no longer be paid, that the clergy pensions will be immediately frozen, and that the church, vicarage and other estate/buildings will be immediately handed back to the Scottish Church Commissioners, and that St Georges Tron will be finding an alternative venue for their Sunday worship and midweel acrtivities. I am guessing not, as I am pretty sure they will wanting to have their cake and eat it too.
And btw I am not a wishy washy libeeral, I am an evangelical.
June 15, 2012 at 4:11 am
[...] Bishop Nick has read the whole thing. So has Doug Chaplin. Share this:EmailPrintDiggRedditStumbleUponTwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the [...]
June 15, 2012 at 6:32 am
How terrible that this Government is doing so much wrong! When the church is so much better at consulting its members, when it gives equal weight to all opinions, when it clearly indiciates who has made supposedly official statements, when it gives equal weight to all arguments in a debate… oh sorry, I must have read the wrong document, or been influenced by media spin.
Actually, I’ve read the right document, I felt sick, I have now left the church for good.
June 15, 2012 at 6:40 am
Stephen,
Fair enough, I accept your point about the difference between the report itself and the way the bishops have presented the report. But just to pick up one or two points: the report fails to accept that within Scripture itself there is a great variety of marriage practice. It gives the impression that the nuclear family was plonked down from heaven when in fact even in the New Testament there is a great deal more nuance. Jesus’ own attitudes to the family were fairly mixed and as to his views on monogamy/polygamy we simply don’t know. Polygamy was not banned in Judaism until 1000AD. This is all important if you are debating a further change of marriage. Secondly the church also accepts divorce and remarriage not just the state and there is no acknowledgement of this in the report. And thirdly yes I agree the report is carefully worded on the bishops support for civil partnerships – but again on the main debate in the House of Lords they were against and only on the debate once returned to the HoL did they vote in favour and on other matters of civil rights, e.g. age of consent, the bishops have voted against. To give the impression both in the report and in the presentation of the report by the bishops of Leicester and Norwich that the church supports civil partnerships is disingenuous to say the least. When the church apologises to the gay community for its homophobia and starts blessing civil partnerships and ending its own discrimination then we can talk about a sinner repenting, but until then we have only words.
June 15, 2012 at 10:56 am
Phil, it is difficult to know where to start. I am not excusing the HoB. But the process commits legislation for final say to the HoB and pressure was applied to amend and to resist amendment. It is a mess whatever decision was to have been made – some would say they hadn’t been listened to. So, the HoB debated it, agreed on what were considered to be ‘insubstantial’ amendments, then sent it forward. Now we are where we are. I don’t ‘expect’ you or anyone to tow any line – I expect people to make their judgment, do what they think is right, then we will be where we will be and will have to take it from there. I am not defending it. But to compare the two decades of detailed consultation over women bishops with the government’s consultation over gay marriage is absurd.
June 15, 2012 at 11:00 am
Erika, I am sorry – though not surprised – by your response, and very sorry about your decision. I understand your response to the document, but the questions remain valid and unanswered up to now. The problem with the church is that anyone who is not agreed with says they have not been heard when in fact it is the clear hearing that makes decision making very difficult. I am not trying to justify our poor PR either – or blame media spin: I tried to explain how it works, but we are responsible for how we handle such matters.
June 15, 2012 at 1:36 pm
Nick
Thanks for your reply which is much appreciated.
I am sorry, but I do not agree that to compare the two consultations is “absurd” in the slightest.
The next time that the House of Bishops sends something of vital importance out for wider consultation to its Dioceses and Deaneries, (and you may indeed, or may not be, Archbishop of Canterbury by then),you will excuse us if we sigh wearily and somewhat cyncially respond with “and what’s the point exactly? Because whatever we say, think or vote upon will only end up getting ignored anyway!” Surely a democratic process can only be seen to be worth a fig if what the members end up voting for is acted upon and not disregarded. The majority of Dioceses and Deaneries voted down making any changes or amendments to the legislation believeing that the Code of Practice, if drafted properly and ensuring that appropiriate safeguards were contaned within it, was more than enough. Why did the House of Bishops not accept the Diocesan and Deanery votes and instead bow to pressure from other sources, on both sides of the argument , by further tampering with the proposed legislation.
And with all due respect, if, as you so rightly mentioned, the lack of media savvyness surrounding last Tuesday’s announcement is anything to go by, I am really looking forward to seeing how the Church of England’s Press Office is going to put a positive spin on the vote at General Synod possibly being defeated, not by its opponents but primarily by its supporters! Talk about shooting ourselves in the foot! It will be quite entertaining to see how they attempt to go about it, but I am guessing we both will not be overly impressed.
I have no problem waging war with the government at all, but I do think we should choose the right battles to fight.. and this for me is not the right battle at all. You may well indeed offer your sympathy and understanding to Erica, but there are going to be a lot more Ericas leaving the church in the future if we continue in this vein. Which is very sad but an inevitable consequence of the stance the Church of England has consciously chosen to adopt.
June 15, 2012 at 1:45 pm
Nick,
thank you.
But the questions don’t remain unanswered, it’s just that no-one engages with the answer to explain why they’re wrong but keeps repeating the same old premises. Which gives people the feeling that they have not been heard – because why would you do that otherwise?
Take your point (b). The law allows remarriage after divorce and recognises those marriages as full marriages. The Catholic church recognises them as adulterous relationships. The CoE has allowed every priest to act according to his or her own conscience.
In what way would marriage for gay people be different?
Why is a system that has worked perfectly well on one obvious “redefinition of marriage by the state” suddenly be a lie when we want to apply it to gay couples?
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make with (c). We do not have uniform relationships, all marriages are different. But the inequality lies in the fact that every grown adult should have the right to enter into a marriage if they want to and that not one group of people should have the right to be judge and jury and claim a right for itself that it then refuses those it happens not to agree with. The inequality lies in the fact that your view of my life has a direct impact on my life, whereas my view on my own life hasn’t. That you have an impact on my life that I cannot ever have on yours. Whatever you think about the substance of the question – surely you agree that this is not an even conversation marked by mutual respect?
Your point (d) applies to people who travel. Marriages are “portable”, as someone phrased the other day. They are recognised in every country that recognises same sex marriage. Domestic Partnership arrangements are not portable, they are not recognised in countries that recognise same sex marriage. That might not matter to the majority of British people but it does matter to a fair number of us and it is clearly a legal inequality between those who are allowed to get married and those who are restricted to get civil partnered.
It’s not that there are no rational arguments or that the theology hasn’t been done.
The truly hurtful thing is that these are repeatedly completely ignored whenever the church makes any kind of official pronouncement about same sex relationships.
It’s lacking in honesty and in integrity. And more than the actual stance officials in the church take regarding the issue, it’s that approach that I find most hurtful.
Because it’s not necessary. If your position is true and valid, it should be possible to defend it with integrity, without pretending that the others don’t have a valid point to make, without trying to make their concerns invisible or irrelevant.
June 15, 2012 at 5:34 pm
“and pressure was applied to amend and to resist amendment.”
Just one further thought Nick. This is a bit of a worrying statement imo and requires further clarification. I can appreciate fully that “pressure was applied ” et..I’m sure it was, and I am sure it was not a very pleasurable exoerience to be on the receiving end of it……but what I would like to know is by whom was that pressure applied, and why was it necessary to concede and give in to such pressure, whether it be from supporters or opponents of the need to amend etc.when the general pulse of the church had been taken vai the mandatory Diocesan Synod debates and votes.? Why go throigh such a lengthy and inprotant process if it was to be undermined and bypassed by other people wielding excessive amounts of influence?
Could such pressure not simply have been resisted and the the voices of the 42 out of the 44 Diocean Synods taken precedence instead? And who exactly are these people who exert such undue pressure, and hold such undue influence ….and who operate outside of the accepted governance structures of the church?
It would be interesting to know who they are….
June 15, 2012 at 7:31 pm
Thanks for your response Nick which is much appreciated
“But to compare the two decades of detailed consultation over women bishops with the government’s consultation over gay marriage is absurd.”
I have to say that I disagree profoundly that the comparison is absurd. What I find staggering in your statement is that that don’t find it in the least bit absurd that it has taken 20 years…yes two whole decades to argue,. pray, debate, discuss , and delay this legislation …and has involved continuos and endless agonising and navel gazing before it can finally, if it ever does, make a decision on whether it will eventually admit women to the episcopate.
It is this kind of approach to decision making which is exactly what I mean when I state that the watching world looks on in bafflement and amazement at our ineptitude and indecisiveness, and which makes us become pretty much a laughing stock to those outside of the church.
As an intelligent, able, and gifted female manager colleague in my workplace joked today, as she heard about the latest developments inwhich she has shown an interest, it made her somewhat relieved to be an atheist! I joked in return that she may have made a wise choice, and that if she did ever become a Christian she may find that the Church of England would be a very frustrating place to call home..well, as it stands at present at least!! Which is what worries me most, in that this kind of inward navel gazing and decades of procrastination, badly hinders, hampers and impedes the mission of the church in this country, and certainly doesn’t advance it in any way whatsoever.
“But the process commits legislation for final say to the HoB and pressure was applied to amend and to resist amendment.”
This statement also concerns me deeply. It is the kind of stuff that we have heard being dsicussed at the Leveson inquiry of late. I know we all are aware of the politicking within both church and state, and between both church and state. But exactly who are these unelected power brokers and lobbyists, outside of the accepted and more importantly, elected governing General and Diocesan Synodical bodies, and who clearly wield such excessive influence? It would be interesting to know. And why the need to kowtow to them and spenda disproportionate amount of time listening to their overly powerful and influential voices anyway? Shouldn’t the prevailing voice of the 42 out of the 44 elected Diocesan Synods hold far more sway and precedence? It would be nice to know who these shadowy lobbyist/special advisor type people are, and why they are listened to so intently ,and why their views are not only taken into account but also acted upon. Contrat this with whereas the will of the vast majority of Synods, whose collective opinon was not to dilute or amend the draft legislation any further, only to find themselves being roundly ignored by the HoB and treated with apparent disdain?
“The problem with the church is that anyone who is not agreed with says they have not been heard when in fact it is the clear hearing that makes decision making very difficult.”
I understand where you are coming from here Nick , I really do, but when does this stop becoming a valid and acceptable reason, and become a very poor excuse for two decades of indecision and lack of clear and effective decision making? Just because decision making is “very difficult” doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen, or take many years to happen. Nobody else dithers over these kind of important decisions as much as the Church of England does!
We have at some point, surely to start being far more mature and grown up about these things, and learn to make very difficult decisiolns and accept that there will be consequences, no matter how difficult they might be for all concerned.
June 15, 2012 at 9:43 pm
And, Nick, the church should also be aware of the impact it has on the more conservative ones in its own ranks. Today I heard from a friend that she had a personal email (!) from an Archdeacon (who shall remain nameless) who used the statement by the CoE to inform her that she is immoral because the CoE had discerned that gayness is immoral. She does identify as lgbt but has been in a stable straight marriage for 20 years.
If we’re talking about PR and spin and the consequences of what we say – do bear that in mind too, please.
June 16, 2012 at 7:50 am
As a last example of what I mean, there was a comment on Thinking Anglicans this morning: “Among the many flaws in the C of E document (sorry Church Times, you too are wrong on this) is the strange assertion that there is no difference between church and secular marriage. I can point to any number of books on my shelf of books on marriage and matrimonial institutions that show the teaching of the Christian church at least until recent times as declaring that the marriage of non-Christians is not “marriage” at all — or at least not Christian marriage. How could it be! Scripture also shows, in Paul’s permission to non-Christians to divorce, that he regarded pagan or secular marriage as distinctly different from Christian marriage. All this aside from those churches that teach that the nuptial blessing is an essential part of what makes a marriage a marriage in the fullest sense.”
So what I’m seeing here is the church making a statement “there is no distinction between civil and Christian marriage”. And then people start to treat that statement with the respect it deserves and to engage with it.
And they come up with counter arguments from within the Christian framework of thinking.
Now, in an adult debate, I would expect those who made the initial statement to engage in return and to back up why they made their statement, to provide theological, historial etc. evidence – and to throw the ball back in the court of the other side.
Instead, that does not tend to happen. What happens is a great silence – and later a resurfacing of precisely the same “conversation” somewhere else.
That’s politics. I hate it in politics too, but I accept that it’s how things are.
But in church? Are we not meant to be counter cultural?
Are we not meant to engage respectfully and fully, in search for truth?
I may be naive… but it’s a naivety I’d like to continue to live with.
For me, it’s not a question of who thinks what and who “wins”, but a question of integrity in how we engage with each other, how we respect each other and that we should not manipulate each other.
Difficult – yes.
But when we don’t even aspire to it, it’s no longer a place I want to be.
June 16, 2012 at 10:56 am
Erika
You are so right re the impact this has on the more conservative ones, and how it bolsters their confidence to twist things to suit theirn own ends, as cleraly evidenced by the email your friend received from the Archdeacon. This will now start to happen more and more, and the awful attitude of the Archdeacon you mention will become all too prevalent before too long I fear.
Can I just reassure you that there are evangelcials who are really on your side here. I have a personal friend who is a serving Archdeacon and I emailed him on Tuesday as I was so angry at the stance the HOB had adopted to take, and the precedent it had set for the future. I didn’t hold back. He too is an evangelical and he emailed me back that evening saying that he thought the approach the church was taking towards the gay marriage issue was wrong and that he thought the action to redraft the legislation for women Bishops was unfortunate. Please do not take this conservative evangelelical Archdeacon as being typical of the evangelical approach to all this, because I can very much assure you it is not. Not only am I an evangelical by the way, but I have a charismatic background/leanings, athough very much on the sensible charismatic side of things…so I am probably a bit unique.
I am getting very, very annoyed at the type of behaviour adopted by such people as you describe. On a different tack, but it still covers issues of abuse and discrimination, I have a female vicar friend who is vicar of a neighbouring parish church to my own. She is absolutely fantastic, and is, by common consent, the best vicar they have had there for some time. Some months ago, I sat in silent horror as she told me a story which is all too common amongst her and her fellow female ordinands.
She was about to take a funeral service at a local crematorium when the doors opened and a retired male priest emerged, who had taken the service beforehand which had just finished. I kid you not people, in front of the entire waiting funeral party, this priest took it upon himself to publicly humiliate my friend by berating her and railing against how women priests like her had singlehandedly ruined the church. He was very angry, but although there may be a time and a place for such tiresome talk, although, unlike many, I personally am not convinved that there is, outside a crematorium is not one of them! It is a good job I was not in the waiting funeral party, because if I had heard him say what he did, I would have instantly nailed him to the wall and given him a public humiliation of his own that he would never have forgotten until it was time for his own funeral!
When I asked my friend whether she reported him to the Bishop, which I would have done asap, she shrugged her shoulders and explained that women priests are still subjected to this type of behaviour, albeit not so nastily, on a fairly regualr basis, so they tend to let it wash over their head or else they would spend a fair bit of their time and energy putting in complaints against fellow clerics, retired or otherwise.
The reason the Church Of England has spent 20 years or more debating over all this, is that we want to “keep everyone together” and we want to keep such perpetrators of abuse and discrimination within the fold of the church. My patience is beginning to wqear somewhat thin with the whole “we understand your pain” scenario, as I belleve such an apporach allows such discrimination and bad practice to flourish unchecked. I also remain unconvinced about the desire or ability of the House of Bishiops, both individually and collectively, to address the issue properly and so that it is effectively stamped out, so that it becomes a thong of the past rather than a recurring presnt reality.
I am guessing that that retired priest, should he have had to appear before his Bishop, would have received a fairly sympathetic hearing, with an attempt to “understand” his pain and anguish, and receive a gentle rap over the knuckles with a reminder not to do ot again.. If it was me, whi ch it wouldn’t have been, I would have him summoned to my office immediately, set the scene/context, asked for his version of events, and addressed him something like “now listen here sunshine, if you dare to even think about pulling such a disgraceful stunt like that ever again, not only will your feet not touch the ground, but you PTO will be revoked permanenently, and that will be the last odfficial duty you will perform on behalf of the Church of England ever again I hope I have made myself perfectly clear.”
That guty knew exactly what he was doing, and until they receive appropriate dicsiplinary action taken agaisnt them, such behaviour is going to continue unabated.
I am dismayed that there are far too many people at the highest levels and elsewhere in the Cof E, who are intent on bending over backwards to try our utmost to keep all existing Anglicans within the fold of the church. I used to very much count myself amongst them. I am afraid that now, I am far more of the opinion that the Church will be infinfitely more richer, loving, compassionate, srtronger, and above all else Christ-like, Christ-minded and Christ-centred without the likes of the above mentioned Archdeacon and retired priest within its ranks.
Hang on in there Erika…it may not be as bleak as it presently seems…there are those of us who are willing to fight the battles on your behalf within the Church of England so that you, your friend and countless female ordinands are not treated as second, or even third class citizens in the Church, and receive the treatment and respect you fully and richly both merit and deserve.
June 16, 2012 at 1:28 pm
Hmmmm As a Yank perhaps I might intrude for a few moments and offer another perspective? Perhaps the real issue is not the Church of England’s ham-fisted approach to marriage but rather what is the good and proper role for a Bishop in the 21st Century?
Perhaps the office of bishop needs to be rethought in light of the existence of General Synod as senior facilitation and training officer for the parishes of their diocese…and let General Synod handle the polity and the parishes handle the day-to-day work of the Church? Assuming a gathered democratic Synod is not subject to the direction of the Holy Spirit but individual male-only bishops selected and appointed by Her Majesty (with appropriate prodding by power players) are makes me shake my head in disbelief.
Thoughts?
June 16, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Hi Small Farmer from Frisco USA.
What an interesting and thought provoking contribution. One of the best articles I have ever seen written during my lifetime as an Anglican, spanning almost half a century, was written earlier this week by Stephen Kurht, Chairman of Fulcrum, on the Fulcrum website.. In it he is uncharacteristically blunt and very hard-hitting, and cogently argues that the issue at the very heart of all this, and the reason behind the unnecessary re-drafting of the legislation against the express will of the Diocesan Synods, is the very real fear of loss of power and control by a bench of all-male Bishops, and an unwillingness to allow female Bishops entry to the Episcopate on fully equal terms.. His summary of the situation is perceptive, insightful, courageous and bold.
Having the Bishop as Senior Training Office/facilitator/chief clergy pastor, placing Synod in charge of overall polity/policy and tasking parishes/paid staff, both ordained and non-ordained, with the day to day work and ministry at parish level, sounds eminently sensible and indeed profoundly logical to me. I am not sure that it would be met with a distinct amount of enthusiasm if it was put to the House of Bishops however.
The real advantage of this in the Admission of Women To The Episcopate debate, would have been that the only role of any influence that the male Bishops would have had, would have been to be part of the debating process and to vote on it at General Synod. They may have been part of the drafting committee process but certainly should not dominate its membership, but they certainly would not have been able to exert as much influence on the drafting and re-draftng of the legislation as they have currently had. More importantly, they also would not have had the opportunity to override the view of Synod, and thus have the final say as to what was presented before Synod in July. That would have been the responsibilty of General Synod alone. They would also have a role in implementing the outworking of the polity once the measure was passed by all three Houses, but the overwhelming influence on polity wiould be at Synod level and not at HoB level.
What it feels like has happened, is that the HoB were somewhat fearful that the legislation, as it stood, would be defeated inn one of the three Houses at the Synod in July. In order to attempt to avert this, and to try and ensure that it was passed, instead of allowing Synod to take its course and go with the result whatever it was, they felt that by re-drafting the legislation they would sufficiently appease its opponents so that they felt that they were adequately protected. What they failed to realise was, that the watering down of the measure would not cut much ice with many of the supporters of the measure, with the real possibility now being that the vote at Synod in July will be defeated by those in favour of admission of women to the Episcopate, instead of by its opponents as originally anticipated. You couldn’t write this stuff could you?
If Small Farmer In Frisco’s suggestion of Synod being in overall charge of polity, the will of the Diocesan Synods to both propose overwhelmingly that Women be admitted to the Epicopate, and for the legislation to be presented to Synod in July as it stood, without any further amenments to it, would have taken place without any further intervention by, or interference from, the House of Bishops.
I am fairly sure this innovative, imaginative and bold suggestion for restructuring the roles within the church’s governance would be more than likely be met with scant support by the HOB for the reasons already outlined. Therefore, Small Frisco Farmer, it is very possible that you may still be shaking your head in dsibelief from across the Atlantic, as you observe matters unfold over the coming months..
The hugely sad and ironic thing about all this, is that if the HoB had left the legislation well alone, and, as the Diocesan Synods wanted, had allowed the legislation to go as it was to Synod in July, I believe that there is a very real possibility that all three Houses would have passed the measure by a two thirds majority, and we would have had Admission, and a very postive story to report to the watching world.. I am sure that there will be much selling of the alleged benefits of the re-drafted legislation going on behind the scenes, much strong persuasion and lobbying of supporters of the bill to still pass it anyway in spite of the amendments, and quite a bit of emotional blackmail from the bill’s opponents thrown into the mix too.
However despite all this, I still think there is still a very strong possibility that the amended legislation could could end up being defeated by at least one of either of the Houses of Clergy or Laity, and maybe even by both Houses! I may be wrong, but I am guessing, and indeed hoping, not to be.
June 16, 2012 at 11:50 pm
By the way, Ms. Baker, I believe you’d be welcome in the Scottish Episcopal Church as well as TEC or ACofC…
June 19, 2012 at 9:12 am
I have not followed all the details of this tortuous legislation over the years, but what I find unacceptable is the really really poor theology which seems to be behind the amendments. If we can’t underpin what we are doing with solid theological reasoning then any sort of practice will fall apart anyway.
If I understand it correctly, the amendments would enshrine in law the concept that you can ‘choose your bishop’ on the basis of whether you agree with him about a particular issue.
Of course, the amendments don’t say that exactly, but they do seem to be making that case for one particular opinion. With regard to women in the Episcopate–this sort of ‘choosing’ will be allowed.
With that sort of theological reasoning–the door could be/ should be/ is opened for all sorts of choosing with regard to opinion. If we want to go down this road, what about men and women serving in Dioceses with a so-labelled traditional and ‘untainted’ bishop? Should they not also be allowed to choose some sort of alternate episcopal oversight so their bishop’s thinking about women’s ordination is in line with theirs?
Or , for example, what about bishops who are divorced and remarried overseeing priests who as a matter of conscience do not marry divorced people? Should those priests be allowed to choose an ‘untainted’ bishop to oversee them and their parishes? Or bishops who think this or that or the other?
In the Church of England we don’t within our Diocese choose which Bishop we want to have over us. And it has been accepted theology since the very early church that our sacramental ministry is not grounded in our own personal opinion or meritous [or otherwise] behaviour.
This is a silly road to be going down. I don’t see how we can argue that these amendments don’t point in this direction–and if we go this route I think we will pay a heavy price in the future with all sorts of diviseness on every issue imaginable.
If we can’t at this point have women bishops within the accepted and long-tested theology of episcopacy my own opinion is we should just shelve the whole thing for a decade and get on with our other work for the present.
Putting in shabby legislation so the Church can look as if it is sorted would be living a bit of a lie.
June 19, 2012 at 9:49 pm
I realize that as a Yank I misunderstand many things about C of E polity, but inasmuch as Her Majesty The Queen is Supreme Governor of the Church, would she be out of line to simply declare the addenda by the HOB null and require that the original legislation be given back to General Synod for an up or down vote?
June 19, 2012 at 10:10 pm
Vickie Sims makes several excellent points and thanks to fellowscouserphil for his kind words and amplification of what’s going on in the C of E….I pity the members of the HOB – they look incredibly weak in the eyes of their African and South American prince bishops who rule by fiat; they appear incredibly self-serving by those outside and as “preservers of the status quo” by those inside the the Church; and they look misogynistic to liberals, religious or not. The only folks who seem tepidly happy are the folks whom the Bishops purport to safeguard…would be interesting to have the aggregated demographics on these folks and their financial backers, eh?
As I mentioned above, perhaps its time for Her Majesty to “do a Constantine” convoke a Council of the Church and as Supreme Governor assist her bishops in a thoughtful and timely reappraisal of their “amendments” to the Women Bishops legislation, especially in light of the forthcoming selection of a new ABC and possible reassignment of Bishops thereafter…thoughts?
June 20, 2012 at 12:35 am
Too pressed to respond fully to the various comments and observations – all of which are illuminating. But, I will say that the imputation to the bishops of self-serving or self-protective motives are way off mark. I have heard nothing other than attempts to square a circle (keeping everyone united) that probably cannot be squared. Self-interest or preservation of a male status quo has not once entered into it – especially as almost all the HoB wants to make it possible for women to become bishops as soon as possible. The process might suggest all sorts of motivations, but I would urge charity rather than suspicion.
June 20, 2012 at 1:52 am
Thank you for your note, Nick. I apologize for imputing base motives to the episcopate…I should know better than to assume the worst. I truly wish the best for all. Prayers for all and I hope the HOB will consider recalling their amendments and simply allowing the original legislation be considered on its merits at General Synod.
June 22, 2012 at 1:05 am
Small Farmer
Concisely and brilliantly put. I agree with every word. I guess that, if the amended legislation is defeated that the amendments may indeed be recalled,, or there may even be a series of hurried pre-vote meetings and discussions at Synod ,which may result in the original unamended legislation being presented to Synod, in order to avoid gthe huge embarrassment of defeat by opponents and supporters alike..
We shall simply have to wait and see.
June 22, 2012 at 8:13 am
Nick –
I think what has made so many people, me included, so very angry and distressed about the HoB submission, and the various defences that you and others have made of it is this:
There as been hardly any attempt (I heard of one evening in Derby devoted to this) to engage our church in any discussion about the issues at stake, and to ask people what they think about it. Polling evidence (take the EA’s own poll) suggests that views in the pews are probably in favour of “gay marriage” (or equal marriage as it should perhaps be known). Why? Why don’t they think that gay people getting married won’t “hollow out” (dreadful phrase) the meaning of marriage for heterosexuals?
There is no nuance in what you have all said, no reflection that the views of the church may be a great deal more diverse and unclear than this offering suggests. Some of the defences of the submission and its theoretical grounds have been pathetic – I read today of John Goddard telling me that all heterosexual marriages are “open to the possibility of procreation” – this is nonsense! There are loads of heterosexual couples marrying for whom there is no possibility of children – or indeed the only kind of possibility resides in the fact that the two people are of different genders (and ignores their age or infertility) – and that is simply a circular argument.
A good deal of comment from members of the HoB has peddled the barefaced lie that the C of E through bishops in the House of Lords has supported legislation giving greater rights and freedoms to LGBT people – I am really shocked that I can read John Inge saying this as well as Tim Stephens. Look at the voting records!! The bishops voted 6 to 1 in favour of an amendment designed to wreck the Civil Partnerships Bill. George Cassidy voted against every single piece of legislation for greater freedom and respect for LGBT people that he could. It is no wonder that people like Erika are finally giving up in disgust and that many LGBT people will have nothing to do with our church.
The submission reveals at a number of points some really offensive views about the value of gay relationships. Para 13 is an example – “redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships will entail a dilution in the meaning of marriage”. So gay relationships are in some way a dilution from the gold standard of a heterosexual marriage? Pull the other one. Look at the state of heterosexual marriage. What is so offensive is that no one in the Church of England ever engages properly with gay couples to find out about the quality of their relationships; the profundity, the seriousness, the fidelity,the generosity and grace, and yes, the complementarity. People like Anglican Mainstream look for the most damaged and damaging examples of flaky gay relationships and elevate those to the norm – but, unless you can correct me, I don’t think the HoB knowledge of the best that gay relationships are possible of is serious and the result of real engagement. And, without knowledge, judgement – such as that in the submission, is simply prejudice.
It is not insignificant that popularly many people think that gay people can already get married – that is what they think civil partnerships are. There is a good popular perception that this kind of commitment and mutuality is what gay people want and aspire to – and I don’t think they are wrong.
What you are arguing for is “separate but equal”. We all know that that kind of a policy gives no equality at all.
June 22, 2012 at 10:40 pm
I’m returning to this thread a bit late, but I would like to come back to your question about equality. I stumbled across a case where one of the partners in a civil partnership had had a child through IVF and the other partner later sought to adopt the child they were bringing up together, standard procedure for married couples.
The European Court of Human Rights eventually ruled:
” Simple adoption enables a second legal parent-child relationship to be established in addition to the original parent-child relationship based on blood ties (as opposed to full adoption, where the new legal relationship replaces the original one). 3 Article 365 of the Civil Code governs the transfer of parental responsibility in the event of simple adoption. Parental responsibility is transferred to the adoptive parent; ****the biological parent or parents thus cease to exercise parental responsibility, except where the adoptee is the child of the husband or wife, in which case the couple share parental responsibility. This exception does not apply to the parties in a civil partnership.”****
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/viewhbkm.asp?sessionId=89415418&skin=hudoc-en&action=html&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649&key=97077&highlight=
As far as I can make out, this is a clear case of civil partners not having the same legal rights as married couples and a clear argument for same sex marriage.
Unfortunately, I did not pick this up in time for the Government consultation, but I hope that lots of other people made that point!