ViaMedia

Author: Jayne Ozanne

  • Hot Cross Bunnies & Religious Freedom

    by Jayne Ozanne, Director of the Ozanne Foundation, Member of General Synod and Founder of ViaMedia

    Hot Cross Bunnies & Religious Freedom

    Salted caramel and chocolate hot-cross buns – have you tried them yet?  I think they’re divine!

    As I indulged in my first one earlier this week, I caught myself thinking “Why hasn’t anyone ever thought of making these before?” A couple of days later, on listening to a heated debate on Radio 4’s Today programme, I realised why. Evidently, this culinary delight is a complete sacrilege to many as they believe we are tampering with some of the crown jewels of baking! How dare someone change the traditional recipe, which has been around since the 14th century! I restrained myself from making the “hot cross bunny” joke, and chose instead to shout at the radio “Oh come on – why can’t you just have both?  For goodness’ sake, let us decide – we’re the ones who are paying!”

    Because, of course, this should be a ‘matter of choice’ – which, if there is an added ethical or spiritual dimension to that choice, becomes a ‘matter of conscience’. I would suggest that every decision we make that has a values dimension to it is a matter of conscience. Do we act in a proper and legal way? Do we respond in a kind and loving manner? Do we choose the godly or ungodly path? That is, unless the choice is taken away from us by those in power who believe they know best, as they see themselves as custodians of truth, and so make the choice for us.

    You will by now no doubt have guessed where I am going with all of this – although I don’t for one moment want to equate the dilemma of choosing hot-cross buns with matters that are causing those of us in the LGBT+ community, as well as those beyond, such deep pain and upset, especially in the Church. However, my overall point stands – the role of conscience in our lives is critical to all values-based decisions we make. By definition, it plays a significant role in our spiritual lives too. That is why it has been the central tenet of our Anglican ecclesiology since we were formed in 1534 over a matter where conscience could not play a role. However, by and large we have found a way of accommodating virtually all views since then – as long as we adhere to the historic Creeds and the 39 Articles. Hats, beards, contraception, marriage after divorce, the role of women, whether clergy wear robes, whether we confirm children, whether we refuse people communion, whether we rebaptise adults (some of which aren’t meant to happen, but we turn a blind eye to them anyway!). It is the Church of England’s hallmark for which we have been known throughout the ages.

    That is, until recently.

    For some reason – neither articulated nor openly debated – the powers that be have not seen fit to allow us to adopt the glaringly obvious solution around the debate on same-sex marriage by making it a matter of conscience. I’m constantly told that ‘there aren’t the numbers in the House of Bishops’ to allow same-sex marriage – but we’re not asking for numbers as we are not asking people to change their view. Rather, we are asking them to respect the role of conscience in this matter and so allow those of us who hold a different view to them (which, notably, is a sizeable majority of Anglicans according the The Times’ You Gov poll), to be able to proceed with it.

    Instead, we are being forced to accept something that many of us believe is biblically and morally wrong. None of us who hold that God wants to bless same-sex relationships will ever “believe” they are right – so instead we are being made to “put up” with their intransigence. They continue to hold us all to ransom, becoming increasingly brazen in their actions – such as withholding parish share and setting up separate ‘deanery chapters’. One just has to listen to the tone of their rhetoric to hear how cold and self-righteous they have become. It does really rather feel like the bullies have taken over the playground, and we’re all meant to just sit back and watch. I’m not sure what they think they are achieving – for they must know by now that they aren’t going to change our minds?

    The greatest irony is that some of them are now trying to employ a “freedom of religion” argument, citing Articles 9 and 10 of the 1998 Human Rights Act, without recognising the sheer hypocrisy of what they are doing or saying. For it is our “freedom of religion” that they are trampling all over, it is our right to worship and practice our faith in accordance with our conscience within our parish churches that they are restricting. I’ve made this point several times, including at the government’s International Freedom of Religion or Belief conference last summer, but they seem so ensconced in their bubbles of unconscious bias that they just can’t (or won’t) see it.

    This constant refusal to allow those of us who believe, in all integrity, that Scripture, tradition and reason supports a Church of England that wishes to marry those of us of the same-sex, is sheer stubbornness. It is not biblical, it is not rational, it is not founded in tradition and therefore, by definition, it is clearly not Anglican.

    I know an increasing number of faith leaders around the Communion now see this – which is why their provinces have moved forward and allowed a plurality of views on the grounds of conscience.  They also see the legalistic manner in which some continue to hold the rest of the Church to ransom.

    Most importantly, God sees.

    The fascinating question is, I think, what is God doing through all this? I for one believe that God is in fact moving us all out into the public square – for can we truly see the masses returning to our churches given all the scandals, abuse and hypocrisy that they have witnessed over recent years?  I believe there is a growing cry of “Ichabod” being heard within the Church of England – which for those who don’t know is a word used in 1 Samuel 4, meaning that “the glory of God has departed the temple”.  That is a topic for another blog, but perhaps is a rather fitting note to end with, and to reflect on as we approach Holy Week.

  • An Open Letter to Bishops – Your Pastoral Charge

    by Jayne Ozanne, Founder of Via Media, Member of General Synod and Director of the Ozanne Foundation 

    ‘Again, Jesus said, “Simon son of John do you love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said: “Take care of my sheep”’ (John 21:16)

    Jesus had just asked Peter a second time “do you truly love me”.  Peter’s answer was the same.  Jesus’ response wasn’t.

    The charge Jesus left Peter, the ‘rock’ on whom Jesus said “I will build My church” (Matt 16:18), was first and foremost a pastoral one.  It was not a doctrinal one, or a call for unity but quite simply a charge to care for His people.  All of them.  Each and every of one of us – those that we know, those that we don’t know.  Those who are like us, those who aren’t.  Those we agree with, those that we don’t.  Everyone.  That is, unless you think there are any sheep that Jesus is not concerned about?

    ‘Take care of my sheep.’

    It really is that simple.  A pastoral charge given by the Good Shepherd to the person who would go on to start His Church.  Peter is called to look after Jesus’ sheep and safeguard them from harm.  I would therefore suggest that it is this that you are called to – above all else! Taking care of people.

    But I fear that many appear to have forgotten this of late – and instead have got side-lined into prioritising arguments around doctrine, around ‘unity’ and misplaced notions of collegiality.

    ‘Take care of my sheep.’

    It may seem obvious to say, but a shepherd should never knowingly harm his or her sheep – they should never take a decision that they know will leave some vulnerable.  Indeed, quite the opposite – a ‘good’ shepherd will always prioritise protecting those in their care, particularly the most vulnerable, from forces that are seeking to kill and destroy.

    So why then, bishops, are you so determined to sacrifice certain sheep on the altar of expediency?  Why are you protecting some and not others?  I for one know that you have been presented with reams of evidence of the harm that LGBT+ people have experienced in their churches, you have heard countless testimonies of how so many have suffered because of the religious teaching they have been subjected to, you have been made aware of the numerous research studies (including one from the UK government itself) stating the mental health outcomes of young LGBT+ people growing up under conservative teaching.  Goodness, even the UN are now commissioning a report to document the harm done by religious teaching on the LGBT+ community.  But for some reason you just don’t seem to want to engage with these facts or prioritise them.  So why, please, is that?

    I’d love to know just how much time you have dedicated to listening to the impact of church teaching on LGBT+ people’s lives?  Indeed, how many LGBT+ people have you met who have attempted to take their lives (for there are far too many of them, but they may not feel able to talk to you about it – it would be interesting to reflect on why)?  Can you honestly say you’ve given as much time to listening to LGBT+ people as you have done to arguing about scripture?

    Cutting to the chase.  Did you listen to LGBT+ people yourself, or did you try and create a short cut because of time pressures?  Perhaps you chose just to read the executive summary instead?

    ‘Take care of my sheep.’

    Maybe you don’t think this is that important after all.  Or maybe you don’t really believe that LGBT+ people are getting hurt by current church teaching?  I mean, it would be difficult to hear that we have been causing so many people such deep distress, causing young people to hate themselves, leaving them in impossible situations at far too young an age, where they have had to choose between hiding who they are and being accepted and welcomed by their families and friends.

    Or perhaps you don’t want to believe these truths because, let’s face it, it’s all a bit awkward?

    Or is it because you just don’t care about the harm your teaching is inflicting on certain sheep?

    ‘Take care of my sheep’

    Not just some of them.  Not just the religious ones.  Not just the good ones.  Not just the ones that conform to your understanding of what a sheep should look like.

    As you may know, I had the great honour of meeting Pope Francis just over 3 years ago.  I was told I would have about 45 seconds to say something and was advised to choose my words carefully.

    I wonder what you’d choose to say in my position?  As it happens, I spent many sleepless hours the night before trying to discern what I should say.  Here was a golden opportunity, and I wanted to make the most of it.  In the end I decided it would be best to reach out to his pastor’s heart – for that, ultimately, is what he is.  Christ’s pastor.

    So, the next morning after introducing myself I held his hand, looked him in the eyes and said:

    “Your Holiness, I grew up being told by the church that I would never be a wife, a mother or a grandmother – and sadly this nearly killed me.  This is my story (giving him my book) and this is some research showing that there are thousands more just like me.”

    Before I could say anything else he grabbed both my hands, lowered his head and in what many witnessed as a holy moment, whispered softly “please pray for me – as I will pray for you”.

    Two days later I was invited back to the Vatican to hear him castigate leaders who spoke out against LGBT+ people.  Two years later he then also chose to give a speech to various theologians urging them to engage with lived reality of people’s lives, not just ideological doctrine.

    ‘Take care of my sheep.’

    Bishops, we have journeyed long enough on this road regarding whether we LGBT+ people have the right to be treated as equals, and to be honoured for our desire to love and be loved.  You may think that we have travelled it together, but I can assure you that there are many who have been lost along the way as they can no longer cope with the pain of it all.

    If we are honest, we have spent hours discussing certain biblical texts, but we have spent precious little time discussing the harm that we have inflicted and continue to inflict on some of our most vulnerable members.

    I know that many of you have chosen to stay silent through this ‘time of reflection’, which has sadly only served to strengthen the status quo. I can’t help wonder why you chose to do this? Perhaps it was because you were scared of upsetting some of your flock?  But I have to ask you, what about the sheep you left undefended on the margins?  What about those who needed you to protect them?

    So please, as you deliberate this week ensure that you make have one thing central in your mind:

    “Take care of my sheep.”!

    And that means all of us!

  • ‘Hermetically Sealed Hermeneutics’ & an Inability to Own Up to Harm

    by Jayne Ozanne, Founder of ViaMedia.News, Director of Ozanne Foundation and Member of General Synod

    The inability to engage with the pain and abuse that Christianity has and still causes many people appears to be a hallmark of a certain type of theology, which completely refuses to allow any dissention from a “I am right and there’s absolutely no questioning that” way of thinking.

    It is the ultimate ‘Strong Man’ argument – where you are challenged to prove how ‘strong in the faith’ you are by your commitment to a certain truth, despite all the evidence to the contrary that it is, in fact, causing people great harm and inflicting untold levels of suffering.

    People in these sect-like groups are enjoined not to ‘give in’ to ‘soft-heartedness’ (otherwise known as ‘loving concern’ or ‘compassion’) as they risk forfeiting their own salvation.  Instead, they are told they must ‘stand firm’ against any attempt to undermine their beliefs, because (they are taught) ‘the devil is prowling around like a roaring lion’ seeking to knock them off track by appealing to their most vulnerable weakness – their emotions.  (I mean, heaven forbid that we let our love and compassion for our neighbour risk jeopardising our place in eternity!)

    That of course is why the “Bible is so clear” on certain topics, because to think otherwise might just be to create a hairline fracture in the wall, which might risk bringing down the whole edifice of the Christian faith.  And we couldn’t have that, could we?  I mean – questioning certain truths that have been held for hundreds of years is obviously something that Biblical scholars have never ever done!  For we Christians have never ever got things wrong in the past (best to forget that we once thought that the world was flat, or that women should be kept silent and have no role in ministry).  Indeed, questioning given teachings was never ever something Jesus did…did he?!

    I was reminded of all this recently when I watched the challenging film “The Report”, that set out the harrowing account of the horrific abuses committed by the CIA when using enhanced interrogation techniques (aka torture) after the 9/11 attacks.  Despite the fact that many operatives were really uncomfortable with these techniques, they were ‘strong armed’ into agreeing them as they were only actually legal if they were thought to be working.  To admit that they weren’t working was to question the whole legitimacy of the programme and ultimately the legitimacy of the CIA itself.  They had to believe it and were kicked out if they didn’t.

    It was a ‘hermetically sealed’ argument – with no room whatsoever for dissent.

    Likewise with certain “clear Biblical teachings” that most know cause severe harm – like forcing someone to live a chaste life because they are gay even if they do not have the gift of celibacy.  A ‘hermetically sealed hermeneutic’ peddled by some is that you can only be a true Christian if you believe this, and that any challenge to this teaching is a sure sign that you are unsound.  What’s more, if you insist on pursuing this challenge then you must be rejected by your community.

    If you doubt me, have a look at the UK Evangelical Alliance’s ‘Affirmations’ on how they recommend their member churches and church leaders respond pastorally to questions regarding homosexuality:

    “We believe both habitual homoerotic sexual activity without repentance and public promotion of such activity are inconsistent with faithful church membership. While processes of membership and discipline differ from one church context to another, we believe that either of these behaviours warrants consideration for church discipline.”[1]

    Interestingly, the question of why church leaders are so unable to engage with the evidence of the harm that they have caused is a subject that the Bishop of Oxford, Rt Revd Dr Steven Croft touches on in his recent essay on same-sex relationships, Together in Love and Faith: Personal Reflections and Next Steps for the Church.  In it he movingly acknowledges and apologises for the pain and hurt that the Church has caused so many LGBTQI+ people, asking:

    ‘Why was it so hard to hear the extent of the pain and distress of my fellow Christians?’

    He responds by admitting:

    ‘It is very difficult as a Church leader to acknowledge pain, and discomfort within your own community – especially if you are the cause of that pain or see it as a challenge to deeply held beliefs.  It is much too easy to dismiss the experiences of a small number of individuals as particular to them.’

    In other words, the heart (or, indeed the head) will not hear what it does not want to hear.  It is far easier to dismiss the testimony of one or two individuals as “exceptions”, rather than engage with the truth of their lived experience.  The irony of this approach is that evangelicals tend to thrive on people ‘giving their testimony’ as a way of sharing the impact their faith has had on their lives.

    So why isn’t the lived experience of LGBT+ individuals heard?  Why aren’t the numerous testimonies offered in TV documentaries, research studies, health journals and government reports not heeded and taken onboard?

    I have to say to the Bishop of Oxford that the answer normally lies far deeper than a leader’s inability to accept uncomfortable truths.  For most it lies in their theological understanding of the nature of God, of sin and of judgement. In short, many hold that their religion teaches that these individuals have brought their suffering upon themselves because of their ‘ungodly’ desires.

    This is sadly another example of an ‘hermetically sealed hermeneutic’, which leaves LGBT+ people with no way out.  Evidently, they are hurting because they are ‘ungodly’ and because they are not healed – it is a circular airtight argument that is not open to reason or challenge.

    It is deeply concerning to see such a rigidity of thinking that does not allow for reason, science or human suffering to shape and refine religious teaching!  It is this that the history books will recount and question – why weren’t people’s hearts broken by the evidence of harm that was so clearly being perpetrated?  Why were people who believed in the primacy of love so cruel?

    Perhaps, deep down, the real problem is that they don’t want to have to admit that they have got things badly wrong, because – like the CIA – they would then be held accountable for the horrendous pain and suffering they have inflicted on countless individuals!

    Time will tell.  God alone knows.

    [1] Evangelical Alliance 2012 report Biblical and Pastoral responses to Homosexuality

  • Queen Elizabeth II – Our Modern Day Saint?

    by Jayne Ozanne, Founder of ViaMedia, Director of the Global Interfaith Commission on LGBT+ Lives and Member of General Synod.

    We Anglicans no longer canonise saints – at least not since the English Reformation in the 16th century – but maybe it is about time that we did!

    There are of course various definitions of what it takes to be a saint, but all agree that it is someone who has led a holy life and who has been an inspiring model of what it means to be a Christian.  Surely there is no better example than our late Queen, who is arguably the best known Christian in living memory and one of the few people of faith who has had a truly global impact.

    We have heard much in recent days about her rock like constancy borne out through a life of service.  If we are honest, I think one of the reasons why so many of us revere and respect her so much is that deep down most of us know that we could not and would not have chosen to do what she did – to give herself to her people and serve us no matter what the cost.  We know that she saw this work as fulfilling a sacred vow, which she understood to be a unique and lonely calling given to her directly by God.  But even so, no one can doubt the cost that it must have meant to her nor the exemplary way in which she chose to execute her duties over 70 long years.

    For she did not get special dispensation for being born into her position – there was no secret route to God to help her through the inner turmoil she must at times have felt when battling with the question that so many of us face, namely “Why me?”.  Her famed constancy came from her faith, and this faith came from recognising – and accepting – the hand of God in her Accession.

    Many have spoken about their unsettling concern about this being an ending of an era.  It is as if we fear that with her passing, the protective covering she seemed to embody for us as a nation is now lost.  By “covering” I mean that fact that, independent of where each of us as individuals stood with God, she at least stood firm and was our “go-between” with the Divine.  The Christian church has a word for this – it is a priest who intercedes for us, as she did for us as a nation.

    Through her quiet but firm Christian witness, through her many Christmas messages and other timely interventions, we were never left in any doubt from Whom she drew her strength.  Whilst making space for those of all faiths and none, she always pointed to the one person who helped guide her own decisions and was never afraid or ashamed to talk about Him, Jesus.  It was the most effective form of sincere Christian witness that our world has witnessed – and in her own indomitable and understated way, it was never ever too much but always heartfelt and sincere.

    In 2006, on her 80th birthday, I wrote to thank her for her inspiring servant leadership and lamented the fact that I wished others in senior positions of leadership within the Church of England could be so bold.  I rather thought that my letter had been lost or overlooked, as unlike others I appeared to receive no official response acknowledging receipt of my letter– as I understood the convention to be.  However, a couple of months later I was surprised to see a letter with her crest in my letter box and was delighted to receive a personalised response from her Senior Correspondence Officer, saying that the Queen had asked her to thank me for the assurance of my prayers.

    The truth is that the Queen has throughout her life used her position of privilege to share her faith and point people to the source of her inspiration.  She did so in a way that won the world’s respect and allowed us all to know from whom she drew this strength.  Perhaps more importantly though, she has ensured that her very act of living has been a constant witness to the God she sought so hard to serve.  It was that that we grew to love and respect, independent of our attitudes to religion, and it is for this reason I return to the idea of her being a Modern Day Saint.

    I am sure, given her well-recognised humility, she would balk at the idea.  But can I suggest that instead of referring to her, as some have suggested, as Queen Elizabeth the Great we rather think of her as Queen Elizabeth the Saint?

    And at may at a very minimum, and in the time honoured Anglican tradition, we may at least want to consider adding her to the list of people that we commemorate throughout the calendar year…

  • Pageants, Progress & People – The End of an Era?

    by Jayne Ozanne, Founder of ViaMedia, Chair of the Ban Conversion Therapy Coalition and Member of General Synod

    On Sunday I shall be incredibly “proud” (in the best LGBT+ tradition of the word) to take part in the Queen’s Jubilee Pageant as part of a small group of “contemporary” LGBT+ figures who have been asked to carry a giant rainbow flag in the parade.  We will feature in the 1970s section of the pageant, a decade chosen in order to honour those who took part in the first ever Pride March 50 years ago – some of whom will also be taking part on Sunday.

    Not all LGBT+ people who were approached wanted to participate in this event – most notably my friend Peter Tatchell, who has made his views very clear in a recent article for The Guardian.

    Whilst I respect Peter’s views, I must admit I am saddened that he is not taking part because this People’s Pageant (as it is being called by the organisers) marks one particular thing that has underscored the seven decades of Her Majesty The Queen’s reign.  It is the one thing that we cannot take for granted, but which the British Public have I believe embraced.  It can be summarised in one simple word: Progress.

    We are not where we were 50 years ago, thank God.

    As we walk down Whitehall, through Admiralty Arch and up the long red road that leads to the Palace, we will be met by tens of thousands of people who will, I anticipate, be cheering us and waving us on our way.  That would have been utterly inconceivable 50 years ago – indeed even arguably 25 years ago, when we were still in the dark days of Section 28.  But today the majority of the British public are keen to celebrate diversity and embrace difference.  Indeed, many are far more attuned to the pain that discrimination has caused for most now know a friend, a family member, a neighbour or a workmate whose life has been scarred by prejudice.  To borrow a phrase from the late President Nelson Mandela, it has been ‘a long walk to freedom’ and I for one believe we should stand tall, mark it and celebrate it.  For all freedoms are hard won and none are totally secure, as we are seeing with the advancement of far-right politics that is sweeping through the Western world.

    Which leads to a question that I have been asking myself over the past few days – what, I wonder, would the crowd’s reaction be if those of us holding this enormous rainbow flag were followed directly behind by the Prime Minister or the Archbishop of Canterbury?

    Interestingly, I seem to have got my answer as I heard the crowd outside St Paul’s Cathedral react to the arrival of the Prime Minister at the Service of Thanksgiving.  In case you are unaware, many booed.  It was quite an audible and a seemingly unprompted reaction. Crowds, as we know, can react in three ways – they can cheer, they can remain silent, or they can boo.  The latter is rare and is usually only invoked when people want to show their profound disapproval of a situation they believe is deeply wrong.

    I do not need to rehearse why the public might currently want to boo the Prime Minister given the ongoing Party-gate saga.  However, were he perhaps to be positioned behind us in the pageant, I am convinced that the crowd’s reaction would be doubly vociferous – given his recent attempt to backtrack, without explanation (or indeed apology) on his one primary commitment to the LGBT+ community, that of promising to ban “conversion therapy”.  Whilst it may have found its way back into the Queen’s Speech last month, this was only partly and grudgingly so – as we sadly have now had confirmed, those who most need the ban are to be excluded from it.  It makes no sense at all and is one of the main reasons behind the fact that the UK have plummeted in its ranking on international LGBT+ rights.

    So, what if we were to be followed by the Archbishop of Canterbury?

    Well, quite apart from the fact that many would, I think, be unaware who this man in a colourful cape and a pointy hat might be, those who do recognise him would I think fall silent for – let’s be honest – the Church of England remains very publicly opposed to LGBT+ people.  Yes of course there are wonderful examples of parish churches trying to make us welcome – but many of the British public now know someone who has been rejected from having their wedding in church, and others are aware of the rejection their friends have faced when coming out to Christian relatives and friends.  Silence might, in fact, be too optimistic – I fear that it would only take a few to start being vocal (as they were with the Prime Minister) and the rest would probably follow suit.

    So why am I labouring this point?

    Because whilst it is clear that Britain has made significant progress over the past 70 years, in truth these institutions and administrations that are there to serve the people have yet to catch up.  Unless they do so soon, they will I believe seriously risk undermining the trust people have in them and as a result risk their very future.

    Am I the only one, I wonder, who senses that we are coming to the end of an era?  For all that Buckingham Palace might want us to start to embrace “succession planning” I can’t help thinking that significant changes lie ahead in the not too distant future – particularly for the established Church.  No institution has an indubitable right to exist, and the Church of England is no exception.  Despite all the church planting and mission focused plans we might have, I just can’t see institutional religion being something the British Public are going to be keen to embrace in the years ahead – certainly not if it remains a place of discrimination, prejudice and pain for those who so many of the public care about.

    Is that progress?

    Time alone will tell.

     

  • Truth – The First Casualty in War

    by Jayne Ozanne, Director of the Ozanne Foundation, Chair of the #BanConversionTherapy Coalition and Founder of ViaMedia

    “Truth is the first casualty of war” is a phrase that has been attributed to a number of leaders over the years, but whether it be Senator Hiram Johnson in 1918 or Dr Samuel Johnson in 1758 it remains as true today as it has ever done.

    From the war on Covid to the war in Ukraine, there have been significant attempts to undermine the truth about the reality of the horrors of what is happening.  And it is always the most vulnerable and the most at risk who bear the brunt of these falsehoods.

    Sadly, we are witnessing exactly the same “war on truth” in relation to the lived reality of our trans friends, neighbours and colleagues, and again it is the most vulnerable and the most at risk who are bearing the brunt of the falsehoods that are being spun by the gender critical lobby. What is utterly unforgiveable in this case is that it is those in power, who have the means and the opportunity to do something about it, who are actively choosing not to do so.

    I know I am not alone in being appalled by Downing Street’s confirmation yesterday afternoon that they would not be including trans people in a ban on “conversion therapy”.  Their rational? Well their statement claims that this is “a legally complex area” which needs “further careful thought”, which is a pathetic excuse given that they have been working on this for nearly four years now!  That is why I and over 100 LGBT+ organisations have chosen to distance ourselves from the government’s ironically named “Safe To Be Me” international conference planned for the summer.  The fact that the Prime Minister is prepared to leave those who are the most likely to undergo and be offered “conversion therapy” open to abuse has only served to confirm in the minds of many that this administration is institutionally transphobic.

    One has to ask who is advising the Prime Minister?  It would appear that he has surrounded himself by people who are either too scared to tell him the truth or, perhaps more worryingly, those with a specific agenda, who are determined to peddle their own faux concerns about trans people and in so doing are wanting to wage a culture war against them.  What is clear is that he is not listening to the advice of the UN Independent Experts, his medical profession, research experts or indeed the brave testimonies of survivors, who all are calling for protections against a form of abuse that leads many to consider taking their lives.

    Let us be clear, “conversion therapy” has nothing to do with good medical practice, despite what the gender critical lobby would have us believe.  What we urgently need is to ban any practice that has a “predetermined purpose”, where a person is told that they cannot be who they know themselves to be and are encouraged to change or suppress who they are in order to fit in with a perceived “norm” of a certain group, cultural community or religious belief.

    Affirming spaces, whether they be in a healthcare setting, the home or a religious setting, is the essence of good practice and must be encouraged.  Despite what the gender critical lobby would have us believe, these are spaces where one can explore who one is without prejudice or fear.  That is why senior leaders, including Lord Rowan Williams, sent a letter to the Prime Minister yesterday condemning “conversion therapy”, particularly trans “conversion therapy”, and emphasising that “every church should be a safe space which affirms people in being who they are, without fear of judgement.”

    These are dark days, where there is a spirit abroad that seeks to want to ignore the evidence of harm caused and instead cling to certain falsehoods and ideology.  We see this repeatedly when trying to engage with those religious leaders who are hell bent on opposing a ban.  Time and time again they have been confronted with stories of people whose lives have been torn apart by their actions, with research that shows that these individuals are not alone, with medical professionals explaining the damage they do.  Their response?  Well, it should perhaps concern us all that their tactics seem worryingly familiar – they say we are exaggerating, that we are making things up, that we are bringing these terrible mental health traumas on ourselves.

    Indeed “truth is the first casualty in war”, and we are I would offer in a spiritual war.  The good news though is that we know the outcome already for, to quote one very brave president recently, “we shall win for truth is on our side”.

  • What You Do Matters More Than You Can Know….

    by Canon Richard Lamey, Area Dean of Sonning and on Diocese of Oxford’s Bishop’s Council

    I am the incumbent of a market-town parish in Berkshire. A young man who joined the congregation about four years ago stepped forward to be confirmed this year. When we met to think about preparation, and talked about why he was wanting to be confirmed now, he shared with me that his discovering of God was part of his journey as a trans man.

    He told me that he had not grown up going to Church but something had drawn him into a Church building as he discovered who he was. He thought about it a lot, and became convinced that if God was and God was real, then everything was connected and God loved him as he was. He started coming to services at St Paul’s and felt welcomed, included and loved- and that sense of community and inclusion made him open his Bible and learn more about Jesus, and then go on to wanting to be confirmed.

    I was grateful and humbled that he trusted me with these conversations, but I was also struck by the realisation that everything we had said over the last four years in church around human sexuality and personal identity had been heard by him in a very personal, specific and profound way. Could this church be trusted? Was it a safe place? He had found God- or God had found him- but did he need the Church as well?

    He particularly thanked me for putting Pride flags at the back of church for people to take home around Pride weekend over the last two years. At the time, I remember being disappointed that more hadn’t been taken and wondering why we had bothered. Now I know that it made him feel welcome and cared for, even though we didn’t know we were serving a member of our own congregation.

    It was a reminder that churches are called, in Lent and every season, to live lives of the same integrity and truth as we do as individual disciples. Collectively living out what we believe and what we are called to do, whether people are watching or not.

    I am not sure that we have said enough about God’s radical inclusion, welcome and love in church – I am not sure if we ever could – but I am pleased that we said something about the height, depth and length of God’s love in Jesus Christ for all creation and for every single person. I am pleased that I went on the local Pride march and was proud myself to be photographed for the local paper. I am pleased that we have a statement of universal welcome in our church porch and in our noticesheet, every week. I am pleased that people in same-sex relationships hold and have held elected office in the parish and sit on the PCC.

    Speaking with my parishioner, I was glad we had done something, glad we had done enough to make him feel that this was a family he wanted to be part of, glad that he felt safe enough to share his journey of faith with me. We had welcomed him enough to let him keep finding God, the God who made him, and loves him, and delights in him, and in us all. Furthermore, through our welcome and deepening friendship, we have found more of God’s love together. We have come to see Jesus’ face more clearly.

    For all the times I have offered a blessing to the congregation, it felt that I was the one being richly blessed in this conversation. I learned that one of God’s precious and unique children had been starving and we had fed them without even knowing they were hungry.

    This precious conversation is a reminder of how easy it is to get this wrong, but also how easy it is to get it right, by striving to be the Church we are called to be and by not always shying away from difficult conversations, by simply being the community we are called to be, the community the Holy Spirit is bringing to life. And what is true of our individual church might, perhaps, wonderfully, become true of the whole Church of England if we remember that we are always talking about ourselves and not about others, about us and not them, about the people of God who Jesus loves fully and without reservation and not a problem to be solved or cured.

  • Gen Z, Authenticity and Religion

    by Professor Jane Shaw, Principal of Harris Manchester College and Professor of the History of Religion at Oxford University, and co-author of Gen Z, Explained: The Art of Living in a Digital Age (2021)

    Last year, I was a member of a preliminary vacancy-in-see group in a large diocese and, as we talked about the diocese’s future, I was struck that no members of its future were present. The group of about forty included no people younger than forty. The Church is greying, and this brought the fact home forcefully to me.

    Over the past few years, three colleagues (a sociologist, linguist and anthropologist) and I (an historian) conducted an interdisciplinary study of Generation Z – those born in 1995 or after, who have never know the world without the Internet. We became convinced that older generations need to understand Gen Z and figure out how to work with Gen Zers to make the future better. We did surveys of that age group’s values across the general population in the USA and UK; conducted in-depth interviews with students at three very different campuses; and constructed a large database of Gen Z language scraped from social media. We published the results last year in a book titled, Gen Z, Explained: The Art of Living in a Digital Age.

    Here are my reflections on what we learnt and what the churches need to grasp if they stand a chance of engaging Gen Z.

    Religion. It’s not so much that Gen Z-ers are against it, but it just doesn’t come up on their radar screens. They are largely indifferent. For the most part, religion hasn’t been transmitted to them so, if they are going to investigate it, that will have to happen from scratch. This means that those in the churches will need to figure out how to engage with Gen Z – from scratch.

    Churches so often appear (and frequently act) as if they have all the answers for those outside institutional religion and little to learn from them. We need to begin by asking Gen Zers what is important to them. As the Anglican priest Vincent Strudwick says, “It’s no good taking people from where they aren’t to where they don’t want to go.”

    Living in the Digital Age is what Gen Z has always (and only) known. Online and offline life are seamlessly connected and totally integrated for them, though they understand the value of offline encounters. Participating in gathered community online is something they are used to; online groups are essential areas of belonging and identity formation though affiliations are not necessarily permanent or even long term. Gen Zers belong to groups as and how they make sense in relation to their identity and friend networks. It’s the equivalent of church hopping, and church hopping is exactly what we saw many – from all generations – doing online during the pandemic once they were given the opportunity to find what they liked for a particular time and season. Churches, struggling post-pandemic with how to win back congregations, might ask Gen Z for some advice on how you successfully combine and negotiate the online and offline, and work with people’s multiple affiliations. Gen Zers are brilliant at it.

    Identity is central for Gen Z. It is finely grained and carefully articulated, the result of a judicious sorting and selection of attributes. Gen Z’s identities also guide their affiliations and loyalties; the Internet has allowed them to find people ‘like them’ in ways that were simply not possible before. If identity is important but religion is rarely one of the attributes of identity, then the churches will have to figure out how to engage with other aspects of Gen Z identities as a starting point. Given that sexual orientations (yes, many) and genders (yes, many) are key to Gen Z identity, the churches are already on the back foot. Engagement with race and ethnic identity are also absolutely vital. For Gen Z-ers this is all a matter of justice and, if they are going to engage with Church, they will want to see Gospel justice values reflected in Christian behaviour.

    This brings us to authenticity. Gen Z-ers can sniff out inauthenticity from a mile off. Faced with sorting through a vast amount of information online from an early age, they have learnt the importance of finding what is authentic, what speaks to their experience and what is relevant or ‘relateable’ – a very Gen Z word.

    Gen Zers care passionately about the environment and issues of equity and justice. They are sceptical of institutions, seeing them as broken or incapable of solving deep problems. They have, of course, inherited much from the liberation movements of the 1960s and 70s, although they don’t always recognise that, and they are sceptical about the capacity of older generations to address and tackle what seem like intractable problems.

    Gen Zers who are part of the Church point out that their concerns flow out of their faith. In a book published this month, titled Young, Woke and Christian, edited by Victoria Turner, fifteen younger Christians argue that issues like the climate crisis, sexual identity, disability justice, food poverty, and racial justice are Gospel issues.

    These are some of the big issues of our day, and it is vital that people of all generations, including Christians of all generations, bring together our different skills and insights to address them, and find shared generational hopes and values. To do so, we will need to keep listening to each other.

  • Boring Ourselves to Death?

    by Liam Cartwright, professional organist and ordinand

    A recent survey in The Times (March 14th 2022) suggested that going to church was the most boring activity a person can do, second only to being asleep. Sobering stuff for those of us whose vocation and life’s work is tied up in the church.

    I have spent most of my professional career in church music. I am at a crossroads switching to full time ministry, approaching ordination this summer. I have a vested interest in going to church. The most boring thing one can do? Absolutely not. And yet often, absolutely yes.

    I have had the privilege of experiencing some hugely inspiring worship. In my student days the combination of dramatic liturgy, organ improvisation and the awe inspiring architecture of Notre-Dame de Paris felt like a meeting of heaven and earth. Back here in the UK, Choral Evensong in our wonderful cathedrals has often been a transcendent experience. The finest choral music in the world has enabled me to glimpse something of the divine.

    Sometimes my sense of collective worship conducting various parish choirs, or making music with fellow musicians in a worship band with fellow musicians, has been even more profound. My sense of being led by the Holy Spirit in a common purpose has taken me to a level which one could only experience worshipping God.

    That said, I’ve also been bored and, at times, deeply frustrated at what passes for worship. Sometimes, preaching has been dull, or liturgy has been badly led. Other times, music has been poorly executed. Occasionally, I’ve sensed a complete lack of joy or engagement from those leading or worshipping.

    Worst of all, though, is a kind of nervous blandness often encountered in the CofE. Ideas are dismissed because they are too Catholic, too Evangelical, too traditional, too modern, too different, not what we normally do. People might not like it, or it might not work. We cut singing merely to save time, or insist everything is said in case someone doesn’t know the music or understand all the words. Far too often we reluctantly opt for nothing as the least bad option.

    Fear and a risk-averse culture pervades. Our intentions are noble, but the reality is dull.

    I’ve heard clergy friends lament despairingly, “I’m leading worship that I would never want to go to myself”. My question is, “why do you do it like that then? If you don’t believe in what you’re doing, it’s unlikely anyone else will either.”

    I’m a big believer in not pigeon-holing churches, worship or people. It’s rarely helpful.

    We have so much that is good to learn from each other. I’ve seen real joy in worship at charismatic evangelical churches – people just thrilled to be there together, praising God as a church family. I’ve heard great preaching in these churches. The welcome, often with coffee and even breakfast thrown in, has been brilliant.

    I’ve seen people flocking to Cathedral Evensongs to find peace and beauty – an oasis in a frenetic and busy world.

    In theological colleges I’ve encountered creative worship that was fresh, imaginative, and spoke right into the heart of big issues in the real world. I’ve rejoiced in truly inclusive worship at Two:23 https://www.two23.net gatherings. I’ve shared, first hand, the joy of all of God’s children knowing they are accepted for who they are. It takes worship to another level.

    I’ve seen small children at an All-Age Parish Eucharist transfixed by a polyphonic motet sung in Latin by the choir.

    At On Fire mission conferences I’ve seen rooms full of people, many of whom would never have thought it was their thing, quietly overcome by the real presence of God in the sacrament during Exposition and Benediction.

    Worship needs vibrancy and diversity. We have to stop just going through the motions. We must truly believe God will turn up and do stuff with his people. We can draw on many different traditions, enjoying the broad spectrum of available resources .

    Doing this could be as simple as using our space and buildings more imaginatively, using incense or other sensory aids, or drawing more of the congregation into serving in the liturgy. If there are things people do not understand, explain, or even allow them to work it out for themselves. This doesn’t need cathedral choirs or lots of money and staff – just a real belief in what we’re doing, delivered with warmth and joy, thought and imagination.

    We face a turning point as we emerge from the Covid 19 pandemic. It’s time to shape up or ship out. If our worship is to be vibrant and engaging, preserving all that’s good whilst embracing the new, we need to lose our defensiveness and draw on the rich breadth of the church.

    We can’t do this without embracing equality. There are some tough questions to be asked. How long can we sustain cathedral choirs where boys have far more opportunities than girls, or only those children willing and privileged enough to board are able to take part? How long will church choirs survive if they refuse to sing any worship songs, and prioritise  their preferred style of music over the real purpose of worship? What does it mean to have great worship bands performing brilliantly, in an environment where theology is toxic and excludes many from God’s table?

    All worship is for God. Without boldness there is blandness. We want to stop the boredom and enable people to experience God vividly through word, spirit and sacrament. This means ensuring our worship is vibrant, broad, rich and inclusive, always serving the mission of the church, creating a space where worshippers can encounter the divine.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • War in Ukraine — A View from Italy

    by  Canon Tony Dickinson, Chaplain at the Church of the Holy Ghost, Genova (Diocese of Europe)

    On Ash Wednesday I picked up my mascherina and my Green Pass and headed off to the Church of Nostra Signora Assumpta and St Zita to pray for the peace of Ukraine with ecumenical sisters and brothers. It was not the first event for peace in Ukraine. There had been two marches on the day of the Russian invasion and a church-sponsored march from Santo Stefano, where the Ukrainian congregation meets, to the Cathedral. The Ash Wednesday prayer, however, was by far the largest.

    Santa Zita may not be the biggest church in Genova, but because of its octagonal shape it has greater capacity than any of the city’s three big basilicas.  It was full, with people standing three or four deep around seven sides of the octagon. On the eighth side was the sanctuary, where there were singers, readers and ministers from many different traditions, including the Ukrainian priest and both clergy from the Russian congregation at San Giorgio.

    There were two glimmers of hope in the gathering darkness.

    The senior Russian priest, whom we have not seen at ecumenical events in recent years (on orders from Moscow) has signed his congregation up for the Genoese Churches’ joint declaration against the war. Much of the credit for this belongs to the Waldensian pastor in the city centre. He drafted the declaration and, by patient diplomacy, persuaded the Russians to sign up to it.

    The Ukrainians themseves have been heroically coordinating local relief efforts, alongside the official protezione civile, and sending aid to Ukraine. At the beginning of March the Ospedale Evangelico Internazionale, on whose board of management I sit, packed a small truck with medical equipment of all kinds, from ventilators to sterile gauze, and sent it off north-eastwards.

    There is a sizeable Ukrainian community in Genoa, although not as big as those in Milan, Rome, Bologna or Naples. Prime Minister Mario Draghi recently announced that Italy has so far received about 24,000 refugees from Ukraine. The final total is expected to be somewhere in excess of 400K, possibly even 800K. That comes, it should be noted, on top of the continuing influx from Africa via Lampedusa.

    The latest total for Ukrainian refugees arriving in Genova is around 250, most of whom are reported to be staying with family members already in Italy.  Others are stopping over en route to family or friends in France and Spain. In addition, 300 offers of accommodation have been received, most of them fairly short-term (two or three months), with about thirty making open-ended offers. Genova voted a few years ago for a maverick right wing populist “Lega” mayor, but still has a huge capacity for solidarity with the oppressed and exploited.

    The International Rescue Committee (an aid agency headed by former UK Foreign Secretary, David Miliband) has calculated that Italy receives roughly 40% of all refugees arriving in EU territory. Many of the churches are engaged in supporting refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants who have been settled in the city by the Italian authorities. Alongside secular agencies, the Catholic archdiocese, several religious orders, the Comunità di Sant’Egidio and Caritas Genova are providing food and accommodation. Waldensians are part of the international project providing humanitarian corridors for Syrian refugees. Baptists and various Free Evangelical and Pentecostal congregations work with rough sleepers and other street people. They provide “meals on the street” in the spaces outside the central Brignole Station. The Anglican Church, almost all of whose congregation are migrants of one sort or another, runs a food-bank and clothing bank, the latter supplemented by occasional donations from crew members of some of the super-yachts with whom we struck up a relationship when they were trapped in Genova by the early waves of the pandemic.

    The Diocese in Europe is directly involved on both sides of the front line. There is serious concern for the diocese’s congregations in Kyiv and Moscow. Christ Church Kyiv is without a chaplain at the moment and one of the churchwardens has been ordered out of the country by his own government. The situation is similarly grim at St Andrew’s in Moscow, where the assistant chaplain and the chaplain’s wife have been airlifted out, and the chaplain, Malcolm Rogers, may have joined them in exile by the time you read these words. The diocese is running a Ukraine appeal jointly with USPG: https://ukraine-emergency-appeal.raisely.com

    The editors are very grateful for a fresh perspective on the war. Many Christians and others in the UK are longing to offer help to its victims, including accommodation for refugees. The UK Government has announced a scheme, full details of which should be available very shortly.