ViaMedia

Category: General Synod

  • Born-Again Virginity?

    by Prof Helen King, Professor Emerita in Classical Studies at The Open University and member of General Synod

    The World Health Organisation’s 2018 statement on “Eliminating virginity testing” argued that “the term ‘virginity’ is a social, cultural and religious construct with neither medical nor scientific basis” and that virginity testing is a violation of human rights because “the appearance of a hymen is not a reliable indication of intercourse and there is no known examination that can prove a history of vaginal intercourse.”

    “A religious construct”… yes, indeed. And it was clear from speakers in the Living in Love and Faith debate at the February General Synod that virginity is back on the agenda, at least in some parts of the Church of England. This is part of the attempt to argue that lesbian and gay people must never have sexual relationships, which involves promoting alternatives: for life. What do women – and the word only tends to be used of women, men preferring “celibate” – mean when they claim the status?

    Those asserting their virginity seem to come from the evangelical tradition. If you want to start from the Bible, then the key passage is probably Deuteronomy 22.13-21 on what happens if a man fails to find “evidence of virginity” in his bride. The woman’s family are supposed to demonstrate this “evidence” to the elders of the city, and they “spread a cloak” out to show the blood of defloration. This is a deadly serious business. The woman can be stoned to death if no “evidence” is shown, this being a culture in which not only a man found with a betrothed virgin but also the woman herself can be killed if discovered; in her case, because she did not cry out for help.

    There’s a Catholic dimension too, of course: the Virgin Mary. Julia Kelto Lillis has pointed out that the Church Fathers operated with the full range of models of the female body that existed in the ancient Mediterranean; so, some believed in the hymen, others didn’t. Mary’s body could be regarded as “closed” without this having to mean an intact hymen. Even where the hymen was considered a real thing, its reliability was open to challenge. In the fifth century CE, in his City of God (1.18), St Augustine noted that checking for virginity could destroy the hymen:

    A midwife, suppose, has (whether maliciously or accidentally, or through unskilfulness) destroyed the virginity of some girl, while endeavouring to ascertain it: I suppose no one is so foolish as to believe that, by this destruction of the integrity of one organ, the virgin has lost anything even of her bodily sanctity.

    So what do statements today that someone is a ‘virgin’ actually mean? If it means “not having had sexual intercourse”, then what counts as ‘sex’? The CEEC ‘What to write to your bishop’ guidance states its objection to the same-sex relationships in which some of the bishops’ prayers are intended to be used, on the grounds that these “will often be sexually active”. As well as noting that this implies some won’t be – so are these somehow OK with CEEC? – I remain confused as to what “sexually active” means.

    Conservative evangelicals want to affirm sex as only between a man and a woman, married, in a lifelong relationship. Of course, that ‘lifelong’ has already bitten the dust after the acceptance that some people can be married in church despite a previous divorce. Somehow, being in a church where this could happen – if the conscience of the minister allowed them to do such a thing – was not enough to make conservatives feel that they would be damaged by their proximity to such behaviour. Yet the Prayers of Love and Faith are thought a step too far.

    To support this “only between a man and a woman”, Genesis is widely cited: the myth of Adam and Eve. If it’s all about being (potentially) fruitful and (potentially) multiplying, then as the only sex which is (potentially) procreative is penis-in-vagina sex – the WHO’s “vaginal intercourse” – where does that leave same-sex sex? Why is any sexual “activity” between two men or two women of any interest or relevance? In the traditional Christian morality with which many of us grew up, not “going all the way” didn’t really count as sex. That recalls that much-quoted line from the coming-of-age comedy Clueless (1995), “Dionne’s virginity went from technical to non-existent”. Is same-sex sex any different?

    Perhaps it’s not about hymens, or even bodies, at all. True virginity, as Basil of Ancyra argued and John Chrysostom underlined, was the virginity of the soul: “Virginity can be lost even by a thought” because there are those who are “virgins in the flesh, but not in the spirit”. The hymen did not guarantee spiritual virginity. Is this the virginity which those who announced their status at Synod had in mind?

    You can’t see spiritual virginity. As for physical virginity, there’s a long history of faking it. From the ancient Mediterranean onwards, medical texts describe constrictive ointments to tighten the vagina, the insertion of containers filled with fish blood, or even ways to create a new hymen. Today, virginity restoration surgery is advertised online. Hymen reconstruction, as well as vaginoplasty, is popular in Iran and in Korea, where in 2017 24% of the world’s plastic surgery was being carried out. Vaginoplasty is known as “princess surgery”; the claim is that your man will treat you like a princess. In Guatemala, where hymenoplasty is called “intimate surgery”, it thrives despite the opposition of both the state and the Catholic church.

    I want to be fair: there are real benefits to these surgeries, in that they allow women to survive within the insane structures in which they have to live. In cultures where virginity is the only way for a woman to be respected, “virginity restoration” can save not just reputations but lives, giving some women a second chance. Promoting virginity also has value; showing it’s fine to be a virgin can help prevent people feeling under pressure to enter relationships.

    But there are strange things happening in some churches today. The Christian idea of spiritual virginity is being revisited, to suggest that a woman who has survived sexual violence, or has admitted and been forgiven for sexual activity outside marriage, can still be a virgin in her soul. Vilma Conner published Born-Again Virgin: How to transform your life from promiscuity back into purity in 2009. As for physical virginity, in November 2022 April Ajoy, who co-hosts a podcast on American Evangelical Christianity, tweeted:

    During Purity Week at my Christian college, one preacher bragged about seeing God restore girls’ hymens to make them physical virgins again. Then they gave us purity pledge cards that included the following: I am a (circle one): A. Virgin B. Secondary Virgin. Fun times.

    She had in mind people like Kris Vallotton, a leader in Bethel Church, who in 2012 claimed that God can replace the hymen: “We OFTEN get testimonies from women sharing that God restored their virginity including restoring their hymen! I have heard 100s of these testimonies!!!”

    Virginity – a construct with “neither medical nor scientific basis” – is most definitely back on the agenda. Physical, or spiritual? More importantly: God, or idol?

  • Learning from history: LLF and the ordination of women

    by April Alexander, Member of General Synod 2000-21; Church Commissioner 2008-18

    (Editor’s note: this article is based on letters originally published in the Guardian (7 February 2023) and Church Times (3 February 2023). They are reprinted here both to underline the point that there is a long history behind the LLF debate, and to draw out the parallels – and warnings – that can be drawn from the processes that eventually led to the ordination of women)

     

    Among the comments about the House of Bishops document debated at the February General Synod were many which implied that the anti-discrimination campaign for gay priests in the Church of England began about a decade ago.

    That is not the case. It began in 1987 when Tony Higton’s private motion was debated at General Synod declaring that homosexuality, adultery and fornication are “sinful in all circumstances”. The matter had not been discussed in General Synod before that, although there were around 400 Anglican clergymen in the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement at the time. It is probably true to say that many congregations were oblivious and, according to Jeffrey John, the future Archbishop of York did not trouble himself at all about it.

    Synod passed the motion not as originally worded but in another, only slightly less draconian, version stating that “fornication and adultery are sins against this ideal” – the ideal of sexual intercourse being something “which belongs properly within a permanent married relationship” – and “that homosexual genital acts also fall short of this ideal, and are likewise to be met by a call to repentance and the exercise of compassion”. Terry Louden, who spoke in the debate, has noted that “There was the air of a witch-hunt around at the time.”

    In the wake of these discussions the Rochester Group was set up, which published a Discussion Document suggesting that, while homosexual acts were acceptable for lay people, clergy should abstain. The discussion document, despite its status, was not discussed in Synod but this central new requirement for the clergy had not only become– apparently – part of the doctrine of the Church, but ordinands and clergy were required to sign up to it as Issues in Human Sexuality. A recent question in General Synod elicited the surprising information that there was no record anywhere of Synod or the House of Bishops having decided this or agreed to it.

    In 2003 Jeffrey John was offered the Bishopric of Reading and conservative evangelicals in the Oxford Diocese secured his withdrawal from the post through the then-Archbishop of Canterbury. This prompted the foundation of Inclusive Church which has struggled since to achieve affirmation, gratitude and love for the very many gay priests in the Church of England.

    Now, after the February 2023 debate, there is to be another ‘Pastoral’ group to consider whether it is yet possible to love and affirm our gay priests and whether the time is right to dispense with the intrusive questioning of ordinands which turns out never to have had the blessing of General Synod at all. So far, the issue has run for nearly forty years; it has caused misery to many and detriment to the Church. Many would consider there is very little to discuss but the Archbishop was far from unequivocal recently on the matter and meanwhile it stands as an extra hurdle for gay priests being considered for the Episcopate.

    Another of the many issues raised by the LLF debate is the relationship between the Church of England and Parliament; between the established church and the law of the land. MPs are currently demanding that the Church should allow the marriage of same sex couples in CofE churches. Sir Tony Baldry even outlined the way in which Parliament could impose the will of MPs and peers by “introducing a Private Member’s Bill with the effect of permitting Church of England priests to marry same-sex couples” (Church Times 7 February 2023).

    Here, it is worth remembering the history of the ordination of women in which Parliament also had a keen interest. In 1992, the General Synod passed a relatively simple measure to allow women to become priests, but not to impose them where a parish wanted to maintain the then-established position of appointing only male priests. That did not satisfy the Ecclesiastical Committee (a joint committee of MPs and peers) of the time and they demanded “protection” and “safeguarding” against women priests for those who “needed” it, by means of an Act of Synod. The church had no alternative but to oblige – and complicated arrangements were agreed whereby conservative evangelical and Anglo-Catholic parishes could opt out of the new regime and elect not to appoint women priests or to consider them for posts.

    Worse than this, because neither Conservative Evangelicals nor the Catholic wing could “trust” their Diocesans who supported and even ordained women as priests, the Act of Synod dictated that there should be not one but two categories of Provincial Episcopal Visitors (PEVs) (“flying bishops”) to provide Episcopal oversight for them: one category for the Conservative Evangelicals and another for the Catholics. A particular stipulation for the Catholic wing was that, in order to remain in communion with their Catholic flocks, such bishops could neither ordain women nor receive the Eucharist from them. More than that, neither they, nor their flock could receive the Eucharist from any bishop who had laid hands on a woman in ordination. One such Anglo-Catholic was recently consecrated bishop separately from his three colleagues (one of whom was female) for this reason. The two services took place at different times on the same day, 2 February 2023, both in Canterbury.

    These divisions within the C of E have not only survived but increased in intensity. That was the reason why legislating for women as bishops took so long and was so difficult – and the reason why we have so few women bishops today (25% of newly appointed diocesan bishops after seven years).

    Similar but not identical divisions are also evident today with regard to same-sex marriage; dissenters have become emboldened over the last thirty years and they insist not just that same-sex marriage cannot take place in church but that the relationship of same sex couples cannot be blessed there. This is despite the fact that same sex marriage in church can occur in our neighbouring Anglican Provinces of Scotland and Wales. These dissenters are largely on the evangelical wing and have huge support from some churches in the Anglican Communion worldwide, although by no means all.

    It is interesting to speculate whether, had parliamentarians left the church to its own devices in 1992, it would be in a very different position now. The examples of the Act of Synod, the provisions made around women bishops, and the continuing discrimination that have resulted are very relevant to consider at a time when some conservatives are calling for “structural differentiation”.

     

    Further reading

    Judith Maltby, ‘Gender and Establishment: Parliament, “Erastianism” and the Ordination of Women 1993-2010’ in Mark Chapman, Judith Maltby and William Whyte (eds), The Established Church. Past, Present and Future (Continuum, 2011)

  • Being Invisible While Anglicans Debate Marrying Same-Sex Couples

    by Savitri Hensman, author of  “Sexuality, Struggle and Saintliness” and LGBTI+ equality activist, writer and involvement coordinator

    In February 2023, the Church of England’s General Synod voted to welcome a proposal by bishops for optional prayers for blessing same-sex couples, though weddings were not on offer. Also a much-criticised document which was used to ban married gays from ministry – Issues in Human Sexuality – was to be scrapped. This was a modest but significant step towards greater inclusion of LGBTQI+ people, though far from enough (1).

    There were strong negative reactions from those most opposed to change, in the UK and parts of the wider Anglican Communion; the Communion had been mentioned at various points in the debate, mainly with regard to the hazards of moving forward. Church of England leaders were accused of putting Western cultural above biblical values and some challenged the Archbishop of Canterbury’s fitness to chair the Communion, though many think existing structures outdated in any case. Following Synod, at an Anglican Consultative Council gathering in Ghana, Justin Welby made a rather defensive speech, criticising secular British culture and MPs’ warnings about parliamentary consequences if equal marriage in church did not go ahead, but indicating that those in favour of greater inclusion also sought to follow Scripture.

    In recent debates, LGBTQI+ people of Global Majority Heritage (GMH) have, I think, been mainly invisible, except occasionally as victims of (now and then protestors against) homophobia and transphobia (2). This seems strange, partly because there are a lot of us, who may be affected in multiple ways by the changes which are proposed or resisted. What is more, some have influenced shifts in churches and society. Each has a unique experience and perspective; the dangers of sweeping generalisations about categories of humans should, by this point in history, be clear. However, there may be areas of common ground among many, if not all.

    I am a British Sri Lankan lesbian, born and baptised in what was then Ceylon. I arrived in this country in the ‘60s as a small child but remained a citizen for the first three decades or so of my life and am still connected. My late partner was of Jamaican descent, my family and friends are from diverse backgrounds. My late parents were active in Asian and wider Southern theological circles. I agree with some “conservatives” that many affirming Church of England members underestimate the importance of the Anglican Communion – but I draw entirely different conclusions.

    Like Anderson Jeremiah, the Communion I know is far from homogenous. And, echoing Jarel Robinson-Brown, the notion of a “liberal” West pitted against a “traditionalist” South is simply untrue, though slavery and colonialism alongside other kinds of injustice have influenced patterns of oppression and resistance.

    With some Synod speakers, I fear for Nigerian Anglicans’ safety. But many already face horrific violence because they are LGBTQI+ or on religious grounds, despite church leaders there inflaming hatred of LGBTQI+ people and bishops here repeatedly stalling moves towards inclusion. Murderous fundamentalists will keep persecuting Christians while this bolsters their own power. Given my own island’s blood-soaked recent history, I understand concerns about increasing the vulnerability of those for whom one cares. Yet, as also pointed out at Synod, some of those seeking affirmation of their love are themselves refugees. And I believe that consistently upholding compassion and human rights for all, and challenging fundamentalism and inequality, offers the best hope of overcoming violent division.

    Justice, mercy, human and Divine love

    In the mid-twentieth century, Lambeth Conference gatherings proclaimed that all people were equally the objects of God’s love and urged support for human rights; affirmed that all Scripture must be interpreted in the light of Christ; and acknowledged “our debt to the host of devoted scholars who, worshipping the God of Truth, have enriched and deepened our understanding of the Bible, not least by facing with intellectual integrity the questions raised by modern knowledge”.

    Such ideas did not simply emerge from an enlightened (or degenerate) West. Struggles against slavery and colonialism, as well as the Holocaust, had helped to demonstrate the dangers of treating some people as less than fully human, while rebels across the world strove for freedom, humanity and greater equality. And a version of Christianity distorted by the interests, and norms, of the rich and powerful in the West had been deeply damaging, though the Good News sometimes shone through nevertheless. Diversity in sexuality and gender identity in some countries was sometimes seen as a sign of heathen backwardness.

    Sometimes biblical passages were used to “prove” God’s backing for inequity or even cruelty, ignoring the Bible’s broader emphasis on justice and mercy and God’s presence in and with the marginalised, as well as Jesus’ bold challenge to religious leaders who disregarded human need and emphasis on the law of love. At the same time, “reason” and “experience” were also sometimes harnessed in oppressive ways, a reminder of the risks of over-confidence that one possesses the full truth. Narrow nationalism and uncritical allegiance to the state has also often been disastrous.

    I remember how, in South Africa and the USA, numerous supporters of racist segregation were convinced this reflected their faithfulness to the Bible. Selective use of Scripture and tradition was also used to underpin economic oppression and women’s subjugation – and, evidence increasingly indicated, not offering LGBTQI+ people the same opportunities to grow spiritually in faithful, self-giving relationships. When I was young, organisations such as the World Council of Churches and Ecumenical Association of Third World Theologians helped create space for anti-racist and more broadly liberatory theology to be shared and developed.

    In different parts of the South, churches took varying paths, especially when social tensions heightened and scapegoating intensified. As in the West, bishops did not represent everyone, though there have been inspirational figures like Desmond Tutu. Sometimes anti-LGBTQI+ laws and norms left over from colonial times were enforced with fresh vigour, at times with backing from institutional churches. Yet creative thinking has also gone on, often exploring how to respond to God’s call, amidst multiple inequalities and divisions, to build a world where all are valued.

    Following God, not culture

    When I came to Britain, men could be jailed for gay relationships. GMH people in the West, and ethnic minorities in Sri Lanka, have often faced prejudice from neighbours and mistreatment from the state.

    Cultures and states do not deserve absolute allegiance, though God can sometimes work through these. The liberatory thread running through the Bible, despite human fallibility, offers more; and openness to the Spirit in seeking a more loving, merciful world. LGBTQI+ GMH Christians, among others, have useful insights to offer.

     

    References

    (1)Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex – but please note that this term is used broadly for a range of people who, across cultures and history as well as on an individual basis, might describe themselves in varying ways, some of which might not be easily translated into English.

    (2) This may include people of African, Asian and Latin American descent or descended from the original peoples of North America or Australasia, who make up most of the world’s population. Some people prefer other terms, such as ‘people of colour’. On various aspects of diversity, I am fairly flexible about the terms or sets of initials used to describe me, if not too rude!

     

  • All About Power: General Synod and the LLF Debate

    by the Revd Dr Charlie Bell, Fellow at Girton College Cambridge, and Assistant Curate, St John the Divine, Kennington

    The General Synod of the Church of England is a strange beast, and this week was no exception. Most of us don’t pay an enormous amount of attention to it most of the time, but this week felt different. This week, our lives and loves were up for debate – once again. And whilst the outcome was – to my mind – a positive, albeit small, step for LGBTQIA+ people in the life of the church, the debate gave us an insight into far more than that.

    In 2017, the bishops were asked to bring something back to Synod that might prove acceptable to the majority, and that might model a better approach to same sex relationships. In many ways, they have done precisely what they were asked to do – their offering ‘passed’. Yet one thing that they – corporately, although there are individual shining examples – cannot be accused of is being courageous. It is absolutely true that the numbers from this synod – a body that is entirely unrepresentative of the wider church, most particularly given the ludicrous method of electing lay representatives – suggest that equal marriage would not have secured the required 2/3 majority in all three houses, a stipulation that Parliament must surely look to change in the coming years. Yet a refusal to even debate it, whatever the result of the vote on the prayers – a refusal backed by the House of Bishops – is frankly pathetic.

    For at the heart of the debate in the chamber, and the endless faux outrage outside, was the outworking of power, and a refusal to dare to let go of it. For years, a relatively small, yet vocal and uncompromising minority have spent their time holding us all to ransom. The motion in front of Synod was one that offered a compromise, that enabled people to hold different views and follow their consciences. It is fascinating – in that light – that the majority wasn’t any larger. The reality is that many people who oppose same sex marriage don’t just oppose it – they oppose anyone being permitted to disagree with their point of view, their theological or Biblical interpretation. This is all about power.

    We saw this in the scandalous employment of endless delay tactics at Synod, whether by appeals to process or the crass disingenuity of some of the amendments tabled. Up popped the same group of people, time and again, to try to bring down any possibility of change and to try to kick this into yet longer grass. Synod, on the whole, saw through this, but it cast a shadow on proceedings in quite a significant way. ‘Let your word be ‘Yes, Yes’ or ‘No, No’; anything more than this comes from the evil one,’ as we hear in St Matthew’s Gospel. There is no moral get-out on truthfulness – we cannot simply ignore the need to be honest in the small things in order to serve The Truth™. That is not how Christianity works, and I hope those who stood up in an attempt to subvert Synod might reflect a little on how that looked from the outside. The intervention by the Second Estates Commissioner, Andrew Selous MP, was also somewhat unusual – shall we say – in suggesting that the real victims were the conservative MPs who felt unable to speak out in public. This argument is tired and false victimisation is not a good look. Finding it difficult to express a view is not the hard bit; having your entire lives discussed by other people as a matter of abstract debate just might be. Giving up power, too, is hard.

    Many have said that the Church of England is obsessed with sex. I might modify that a little bit – from the outside, the Church of England’s General Synod seems to be obsessed with other people’s sex lives. It was embarrassing to watch, and at times quite infuriating, most particularly when hearing the spurious nonsense that suggested gay people having sex would ruin opposite sex marriages. Sorry, folks, but you’ve ruined marriage quite enough by yourselves – it ain’t us who have increased the divorce rate – and are your relationships really that fragile?! Someone even stood up to say their entire engagement would be rendered a waste of time if gay people were allowed to have sex. Give me strength.

    Of course, this was all because the bishops were remaining silent on sex outside of marriage, and several speakers told Synod that this was an outrage. Well, might I remind those members of Synod who appeared terribly upset about that, that they are the very people who have stopped us even having the conversation about Equal Marriage. You cannot complain that the bishops have to find some kind of pastoral accommodation outside of marriage when you won’t allow the conversation on marriage. But then, they know this already. As I say, it’s all about power.

    There were some key takeaways from the debate. The first was that this Synod, to a large degree, found good in same-sex relationships – for the first time. At last we can face down the usual claptrap about how same-sex relationships, with or without ‘sexual activity’ (whatever that is), are bad in the ‘settled mind’ of the church. They aren’t. It’s over. Issues is gone (or at least soon will be).

    Secondly, the amendment that passed was a total waste of everyone’s time and effort. In effect, it did absolutely nothing – it endorsed the decision of the bishops not to bring same-sex marriage to the chamber on this occasion (unsurprising, albeit absurd), and endorsed their intention (a strange turn of phrase) that the prayers shouldn’t be ‘contrary to or indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England’. Given that the bishops made that explicit in their accompanying paperwork and given that this is required anyway under canon law, this amendment is totally pointless. Neither did it restate the current position on marriage (and amendments seeking to do this comprehensively failed), nor does it bind any later synod. I suppose the phrase commonly used is ‘virtue signalling’.

    Thirdly, those who oppose same-sex relationships should be careful what they try to amend for. Whilst it might have been a great play at delaying tactics – winsome even – it rather takes the wind out the sails when Synod votes down the wrecking amendments. The final amendment, seeking once more to police the bedroom, was particularly nasty, and there was a delicious pleasure in watching it sink beneath the waves. Synod did not agree with the proposer that the prayers ‘should not be used so as to indicate or imply affirmation of sexually active relationships outside of Holy Matrimony or to invoke God’s blessing on such relationships’. That’s rather unfortunate for those seeking to make the new Pastoral Guidance another prurient, sex obsessed, holes-ridden, tool of oppression.

    So here we are. We can finally, as a church, catch up with God in blessing same-sex relationships. We can finally recognise the role of conscience in debates in which different perspectives have been reached with integrity and with due attention to scripture. And we can finally see the light coming through the ever-so-slightly open door to Equal Marriage.

    This is the beginning and not the end. This Synod, as divisive and tiresome as some of the debate was, has done what no Synod previously has ever been able or willing to do.

    The next step is Equal Marriage, because try as you might, you cannot hold back the justice of God.

  • This is No Time for a Soft Drink!

    by the Revd Canon Rosie Harper, Chaplain to the Bishop of Buckingham and Trustee of the Ozanne Foundation, and Rt Revd Dr Alan Wilson, Bishop of Buckingham

    Since the Gloucester Report of 1979 there have been many special C of E consultations on homosexuality. Each had its finer points and limitations.

    The latest, Living in Love and Faith, included some moving testimony for anyone who had not actually ever met a gay person before, if indeed there is anyone like that out there. It also proposed some excellent Pastoral Principles for difficult conversations in Church, that would work as well for an argument with the choir as a discussion of sexuality. Good fruitful conversations “acknowledge prejudice, speak into silence, address ignorance, cast out fear, admit hypocrisy and pay attention to power.”

    Has the LLF process actually done these things? And if it has, why has its rollout been so scrappy and contentious? Perhaps the honest result was too hot to handle, and the only way the bishops thought they could keep control of their emerging situation was to come up with a fudge. The problem with fudge is that it’s ambrosia to fudge lovers, but an improbable solution to a war between diabetics and sugar junkies. The bishops’ cunning plan might just annoy everyone equally on all sides, and land them up where they started.

    Perhaps there’s something about the whole way marriage equality has been framed in the Church of England that has trapped it in a destructive infinite monkey cage? Wittgenstein said the reason his early work stalled and led nowhere was that “a picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably.” The fantasies and fictions the Church of England has indulged in for years about marriage may have driven a self-destructive narrative to vanishing point. Jesus’ paradigm for marriage has been treated as though it were a definition for all time, and it can’t bear the weight.

    Step outside the ecclesiastical goldfish bowl and an entirely different perspective dawns. The wreck and the pottery diver who looked as though he was perpetually sitting on the toilet are only pretend — decoration to make the fish think they were living au naturel not in a tank.

    Last Thursday at the Oxford Union, three bishops spoke in support of the motion that “this house supports same sex marriage in the Church.” Despite the President’s best endeavours, no Catholic or Anglican bishop could be found to speak against. Of course not. Who would want to go down as “the homophobic bishop”? The Union needed to supply two opposition speakers who made it plain they did support same sex marriage, but wanted the motion voted down on the technicality that people should not expect to get married in Church any more than get a driving licence there. Two speakers sincerely believed gay marriage was wrong. One told us that God was discriminatory and sent those who follow the Bishop of London to hell. The other took us back to Nazi Germany, like Basil Fawlty when a guest complained about a prawn cocktail. The motion was carried by 181 votes to 41. It would seem that gay marriage is unthinkable for people who believe there is something wrong with being gay, but for those who see it as a natural aspect of being human it was obvious.

    This being the case, the only choice for a solution now, even a provisional one, would be to facilitate mutual understanding and tolerance, along the lines of the Archbishop’s observation at Lambeth last year that there are churches who could not survive if they didn’t conduct same sex weddings, whilst others could not survive if they did.

    But this is where the Pastoral Principle of paying attention to power kicks in. There is an extraordinary imbalance in the way power is being used here. Some gay people want to marry on conscience grounds, whilst others object, also from conscience. Much as those supporting equal marriage would like it to be allowed in church, they realise this would be intolerable to some who oppose it. Of course nobody would ever be forced to conduct a same sex wedding. What couple would want that anyway? That is an acceptable compromise. St Paul commends such an approach in Romans 14. However, this understanding is not reciprocated. Not only do opponents find it intolerable to conduct gay weddings in Church, but they insist on blocking anyone else from doing that. Thus they hijack the integrity of those with whom they disagree, often deploying threats of schism and bankruptcy which feel like blackmail.

    So what about synod this week?

    Whatever happens the bishops, leading from behind the sofa, have engineered a situation where it matters very little what the synod actually thinks. Perhaps everybody can agree, after more than 44 years of discussion about homosexuality, that the least satisfactory thing to do now would be to kick the can further down the road yet again. There’s a sense that the bishops now know the right thing to do, but feel they can only manage what is politically expedient. Some might call that a failure of leadership, what the RAF used to call “lack of moral fibre”.

    The spectre of disestablishment hovers over the whole debate. Hensley Henson is said to have observed to a former Archbishop of Canterbury after the 1928 Prayer Book debacle, “I imagine your Grace has found that a lifetime habit of steering around difficulties rather than facing them has scarce prepared you for such a time as this.”

    Back to the future?

  • No More Delay: A Call to General Synod

    by the Revd Dr Charlie Bell, Fellow at Girton College Cambridge, and Assistant Curate, St John the Divine, Kennington

    I’ll admit to approaching Synod this week with rather mixed emotions. This is the case not least because I’m not a member – so I’ll be sitting on the side-lines, somewhat glad I’m not in the debating chamber, and yet also finding myself in that position that so many of us find ourselves in: watching other people make decisions about our lives.

    The sense of powerlessness amongst LGBTQI folk has been palpable as Living in Love and Faith dragged the Church of England into conversations many didn’t want to have, for many different reasons. Yet there was always going to be an endpoint, and here we are.

    What’s on ‘offer’ from the bishops is, in a sense, staggering from two directions. The wet-behind-the-ears young upstart me who despaired at the pathetic episcopal Valentine’s day poison-pen letter issued in response to the introduction of same-sex marriage back in 2014 would not believe we now have blessings on the table. Frankly, I’m not sure I would have believed they’d be on the table when the House of Clergy gave the bishops a bloody nose in Synod in 2017. Yet looking at where we stand now, I can’t help but be disappointed that that’s all we’re being offered, after all this time, after all this expended energy – I can’t help but be staggered that this is all the bishops, corporately, think we are worth.

    I care little for whether the draft prayers are blessing the people or the relationship – the fact of a blessing says that something is ‘good’, and for years we have heard that our relationships are no such thing. LGBTQI clergy have been hounded out of jobs; LBGTQI laity have had doors slammed in their faces; we have been told to have ‘warmer hearts and cooler heads’ whilst our entire lives, loves, and very existence has been trashed. We have been told to stop calling ourselves gay, and instead use whatever terminology is foisted upon us by those who know better. It is only in the church that those who are doing the oppressing get to determine what the bounds of that oppression are, what homophobia is, what transphobia is. Meanwhile the world looks on, and cannot understand how we have gotten ourselves into this mess. The Church of England is seen as prejudiced, hateful, unwelcoming – however much we tell ourselves blessings is a big step.

    So I come to these proposals with anger, certainly, and yet with a sense of realism, too.

    The problem is that – however much we hate it – the next step in this process is political. That is simply a fact – this is now about votes. It is abundantly clear that nothing more than what is on the table could get through Synod, however much we wish it could. And that hurts, because here we are again being told to wait, wait, wait. Oh for more bishops to speak in our favour in more than a whisper; oh for them to stop hiding behind procedure and speak prophetically.

    And looking at the Questions for General Synod during this session, the sheer, prurient nastiness from some quarters continues. This does not look like a Synod that truly wants to apologise for the hurt done – that continues to be done – to LGBTQI Christians.

    We know that the bishops will authorise some form of these prayers ‘for use come what may’, whatever happens at Synod. The key thing now is how they are ‘received’ at Synod, and let’s not be naïve in thinking that this week doesn’t matter for what the future looks like.

    Self-professed conservatives seem divided, not least on whether same-sex relationships can ever be a good thing (however obscene that might sound to anyone who has ever met a gay, lesbian or bisexual person). Some ‘conservative’ bishops have offered a theological reflection on their concerns about equal marriage, yet this paper’s thinness of content perhaps belies the disagreements that remain beneath the surface in that camp. But notable is that even they are willing to say what would previously never have been said:

    Same-sex relationships can, of course, be lifelong, loving, committed, faithful, and provide deep and enduring companionship. As such the church needs to find ways to recognise and welcome such relationships, without explicitly or implicitly changing her teaching by doing so. 

    Yet the wider conservative response appears to be in one of two camps – delay, delay, delay, kick the can down the road yet again, or bizarre videos consisting primarily of weaponised prayer and threats to withhold money. In a sense, at least this mode of operation is finally out in the open. The threats have been there for years – the bishops have just been too scared to say anything.

    The delaying tactics aren’t going to work: the prayers are going ahead. We know this. There will be procedural nonsense and attempts to water everything down. You can just imagine what is coming from the usual suspects.

    Yet this is nothing more than a loud minority in the wider church that are excellent at getting themselves elected to stymie progress, and who have wasted our time for years.

    For what it’s worth, I think these proposals are the next step on the road, and the destination is equal marriage. I strongly believe inclusive synod members should vote them through, even if the progressive amendments don’t pass. We can reason with people all we like, but it’s through experience that people change their minds. The minute we bless same-sex couples, people’s prejudice will be challenged by real, living people, right in front of them, living ordinary, faithful, loving, honest lives of love and faith, to coin a phrase.

    Are these proposals enough? Absolutely they are not. Are they demeaning? Absolutely they are. Are they our best chance of changing the culture of the Church of England and creating an unstoppable momentum? I believe they are. If we vote them down, we simply provide ammunition for those who have always held the power over us. We won’t even be given the scraps, and the small but increasing group of genuinely supportive bishops will take the heat.

    Make no mistake: the ‘conservatives’ will do anything to make these proposals fail, because they know this is a step on the road and not the end of the journey. They know that this is their last chance to hold back the floodgates. We have been held back long enough – enough of this.

    But I would urge inclusive Synod members to make it abundantly clear that this is but a step on the road, and an unsatisfactory one at that. I would urge them to make it clear that if the new Pastoral Guidance is in the same vein as Issues in Human Sexuality, and if our clergy cannot marry according to their conscience, then the bishops will have betrayed us, again – and that there will be mutiny in the ranks. If the ‘conservatives’ won’t give us marriage, then they can hardly complain that sex outside of marriage is the next logical step. They made their bed.

    The Bishop of London has said in response to a Question that:

    The response of the bishops makes no proposals for further decision-making, nor does it have plans to do so. However, it is not within the bishops’ power to ensure or predict that there will never be further change in any direction.

    Let’s be absolutely clear – there may be no ‘plans’ for further decision-making, but any bishop who thinks that this thin gruel of acceptance is the end of the road is in for a rather rude awakening. Unlike those who threaten to take away parish share, I don’t offer this as a threat – I offer it as a promise. The way forward is clear, and it is time bishops were held to account.

    No more silence but much more honesty. Respect for theological differences of opinion. Freedom of conscience. No more punitive measures. And perhaps – at last – a recognition of the gift of LGBTQI people to the church.

    Synod reps, I urge you to get this done. Say no to delay, and drag the Church of England on the first step of the journey. There is an inevitable finale to this particular spectacle, and that finale is full inclusion – maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but someday soon. This is a time for hope, and for new beginnings – Synod reps, you are the midwives of this new creation. God bless you in what you will do this week.

  • Imagining Otherwise: Dreaming of the Future Church

    by Fr Jarel Robinson-Brown, Co-Chair of OneBody OneFaith and Visiting Scholar at Sarum College, Salisbury

    It is an immense gift, the most precious gift of my life, to be called to serve the people of God. I believe firmly that ministry to God’s people can teach us things otherwise unknowable. In my ten years of ministry, what I have valued most about serving the people of God is what it has shown me about people’s lives – how complicated each of our lives can be, how full of contradiction and paradox, how undeterminable our relationship to ourselves and others can be as we grow and fail, discover and wrestle with what it means to live, to be truly human. I suppose that what I am saying is that it is my pastoral relationships with God’s people that has most deeply transformed and deepened my theology. As I journey with God’s people, I have to let my guard down just enough, as priest, pastor and preacher – so that others too, may see the slow work of God not just in themselves and in our world, but also in me. It is in this dialectic relationship, where human experience touches human experience, that our theology deepens and our knowledge of God and reading of the scriptures are nurtured and enriched.

    Any theological conviction that begins fixed and remains fixed is one which has not come into contact with the world as it is, or us as we are. One can have a number of theological principles and moral convictions but, when someone who is made in the image and likeness of God sits in front of you and says ‘this is my life…here’s the mess I am, the mess I have made – here are my regrets, my failures, my shattered dreams’, a pastor can respond either with the mind and heart of Jesus, bringing their humanity to touch the humanity of another – or not. This is perhaps the biggest issue I have with much of the Church of England’s leadership currently – the lack of honesty about how our theological convictions are formed, and change. We seek to understand one another in the midst of a Church led largely by people we do not really know.

    For myself, I am so many contradictions. There are many labels I could wear: pro-life, Anglo-Catholic, Benedictine oblate, Black radical, patristic scholar, single priest, advocate for equal marriage, Wesleyan – not all of these are seen as compatible with one another, but they do name something about who I am and what I believe. There is something quite fatal about always wanting our lives to ‘make sense’, and part of the incoherence of the Church at the moment, is, I think, part of it becoming more honest, more real. This is the threat we LGBTQ+ Christians present to the Church – our lives do not ‘make sense’ to what people consider the only legitimate way of being a real Christian. It is because of the threat we pose that even heterosexual allies have to use words like ‘faithful’, ‘stable’, ‘committed’, ‘lifelong’ and ‘monogamous’ when expressing support for our relationships and marriage. They still seek to ‘absolve’ our love from its ‘sinfulness’ and ‘disorder’ – in other words, they still seek to make us straight in order to be holy. We must resist any attempt that seeks to describe LGBTQ+ relationships in this way, when heterosexual relationships are not made to carry a necessary list of qualifiers. Anything other than this is to suggest that LGBTQ+ relationships are somehow inherently unfaithful, unstable and everything else when, as anyone involved in pastoral ministry knows, heterosexual relationships can be, and are, just as messy. Let us quit the lies, friends.

    I also believe that our lack of honesty means we are only really having a debate on false grounds. Because we are saved by the life of someone fully human, I believe that our mission and witness are impeded by the ecclesial dishonesty in which we are all complicit around desire, the body and sex. As God, Christ’s mission was to be truly and fully human. To embody this true humanity, we need honesty about our lives, yet the politics our church leaders are engaged in makes this honesty impossible. How convenient for the Archbishop of York to emotionally affirm us, and how ideal for the Archbishop of Canterbury to rejoice in the possible blessing of our relationships but publicly exempt himself from ever offering such a blessing – it is simply too perfect a situation to have any real integrity. We need to know, as many have said before, what our Bishops really think – more importantly we need to know who they are!

    I have said little here about LLF, and absolutely nothing about General Synod. It is a great shame that the Archbishop of Canterbury seems to think that God will honour his loyalty to the Anglican Communion over LGBTQ+ people in England. My hope is that LLF will provide at least a route for clergy to live and love honestly – for those who have entered same sex marriages to be given back Permission to Officiate, and for blessings to happen in Church (though they have for some time illegally). In essence, neither LLF nor General Synod can be fruitful or lead the Church to where I believe God invites us, not as long as real honesty is demanded of LGBTQ+ people alone.

    So we must hope, and fight, petition, and pray – but most importantly, we must dream. One of the most powerful things about oppression is the way it limits our imaginations. Can we as LGBTQ+ people, despite the violence we have endured, still imagine a Church which is truly the Church? Can we imagine a Church which loves with the heart of Christ and stands between God’s people and the all the forces of death and violence? On a good day, I can imagine such a Church, but it is becoming more and more difficult. In her recent book Experiments in Imagining Otherwise, Lola Olufemi – a black feminist writer and academic – writes:

    ‘I belong to a legacy of those who saw what this world had to offer and refused it. Before they refused it, they fought it, and not just with words.’

    I look on our Church, and I refuse what it has to offer. This refusal seems like holy work. Instead I have a dream – one which I will pray for and labour for, one which I believe is the dream of the Almighty… it is a dream

    of a Church where all God’s people love with reckless abandon, and without fear.

    of a Church where the vocations of all are nurtured, celebrated and affirmed.

    of a Church where we see our tradition in all its truth, and diversity.

    of a Church which regains an understanding of sacrifice and self-emptying.

    of a Church certain of its mandate to speak prophetic truth to itself and the world.

    of a Church where one mega-Church in a hundred places does not have the monopoly on the Church’s resources.

    of a Church where Bishops step out of fear into courage.

    of a Church which trust deeply in the promises of God.

    of a Church set free of the ties which come from Empire and State privilege.

    of a Church confident in the power of sacraments and preaching.

    of a Church which has taken the sin of its past seriously.

    of a Church which knows the power of repentance in the heart of its institutional life.

    of a Church willing to lay down its life, that it may be born anew.

    of a Church which knows that at the last, it is answerable only to God – for how well and deep and passionately it has loved.

    Jesus did not wait for a two-thirds majority in every religious court of his day – he embodied the radical dream of God until it became manifest – and he calls us to do the same.

    I know that God has more to offer us than this, and that the heart of God rejoices in true love wherever it is found. I also believe that every power in the Church that seeks to define orthodoxy by the limits of their inclusive love will, in the end, fail. Between that time and this, there is the work of fighting and dreaming. God has more to offer us than this. For God’s sake, despite what we may be offered now – let us not set our sights too low.

     

     

     

     

  • Time for the Church to Come Out

    by Revd Neil Patterson, Chair of the Gender & Sexuality Group on General Synod

    Since the draft resources for same-sex couples were published on the 21st February (GS2289) I have read a great deal of comment on them, mostly understandably critical. One important theme I have noticed is “these don’t move us forward, they just do what’s already happening.” In other words, informal prayer services (long offered by many inclusive parishes) and clergy in same-sex relationships, all just officially proclaimed rather than somewhat covert. Yes, that’s not a big change. But as every LGBTQ+ reader will know, we have an expression for making something public that has always been the case. It’s called ‘coming out’ and there’s nothing trivial about it at all.

    In my experience almost every LGBTQ+ person can remember, quite vividly, the details of their coming out, in my case to my friends at university, my family a little later, and finally to my parishioners in 2013.  The last was prompted by three things: a short relationship with a lovely man (who wisely ended it and is now happily married to someone else) which made me realise that I needed to be more open to be myself; the public debate around the Same-Sex Marriage Bill in 2012; and the decision of the House of Bishops to allow the consecration of openly gay or lesbian clergy as bishops on the same basis as ordination to the priesthood.

    The second of those had prompted a memorably difficult encounter with a couple in one parish, when I had after the service challenged the husband’s petition in the intercessions that the Same-Sex Marriage Bill “might not become law.” A tricky conversation in church led to me visiting to talk to him at home (his wife being absent without explanation). I didn’t say much about myself, but offered to discreetly include them in the distribution of the service rota so that they could avoid me if they wished, and we had a respectful discussion of Scripture and our differing views. But as I was leaving he uttered the unforgettable words, “But of course, you know my wife can never receive communion from a homosexual.” Fortunately for the wider parish, they were known for having very particular views on many things, so my explanation to the churchwardens was accepted as just another oddity about them.

    But the Bishops’ decision gave me the opportunity to write a letter to my parishioners (copied to my bishop and others) which largely set out the current state of debate in the Church of England and beyond as I saw it (I still have it, and it still makes sense!) and quietly slipping in at the end that, of course, being gay myself, this affected me directly. Responses were not loud, and there was a good deal of “we did guess, you know!” But there were a few striking responses, one from a churchwarden and his wife who then told me both about their lifelong dear gay friends, one of whom had just died, and the husband about his great passion for another boy at school. And one organist, a Northern Irish lady, who reportedly began in tears of shock and horror, and within about a day had thought about it, and proclaimed with equal fervour “he can love whoever he wants!” As with so many comings out, personal knowledge and love overcame prejudice, and I regret very much that I left it so long.

    Across the Church of England, I know there are still very many LGBTQ+ people living, and in many cases ministering, from the closet. You may be afraid of your parishes, or families, or dioceses, and for that I am most sorry. I believe, as many campaigners and celebrities have said before me (Ian McKellen springs to mind) that we are all better for coming out, whatever our situation, and I believe you will be too, for the truth will set you free. And I here place on record (feel free to spread this around) that I will personally give a bottle of champagne to any bishop who manages to come out in the LLF debate on February 8th.

    It feels to me, though, as if this is the moment when the Church of England itself, in a sense, comes out. It may be that the changes offered in GS2289 are not in themselves very substantial, and that is fair comment. But maybe, just maybe, this is the moment when we shake off the carapace of grudging bishops’ statements and captivity to a minority incapable of theological imagination. And show the Church to have been what it has always been, at least in part. Diverse, welcoming and affirming of human variety and love in all its forms, and ready to proclaim the good news of that love in Christ to our generation.

  • Being Syrophoenician: Eating the Crumbs?

    by the Very Revd Dr Mandy Ford, Dean of Bristol

    There is a terrible irony for gay clergy preaching this Sunday; for those of us observing the Third Sunday of Epiphany, the lectionary invites us to reflect on the presence of Jesus at a wedding in Cana. It is a story of God’s generosity, and a foretaste of the banquet when earth and heaven are united at the end of time – a feast to which both Jews and Gentiles will be welcome. I can see the gospel in the gospel, the good news in the good news, but I’m struggling to see this gospel at work in the Church of England just at the moment.

    Having read the House of Bishop’s proposed Prayers of Love and Faith, and the legal advice that shaped them, I feel like the Syrophoenician woman, whose entreaty for help Jesus turned away with the words “it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs”. It is rare occasion when we are taken aback by the violence of the language used by Jesus.

    Yet, despite being horribly insulted, the woman stood her ground and reproached him with self-deprecating humour, “even the dogs may eat the children’s crumbs”.

    So here we are, a crowd of Syrophoenicians, standing at the door of the wedding feast, asking for a share and being thrown the crumbs.

    And for the avoidance of doubt, these really are crumbs. While, should these prayers pass through General Synod and gain acceptance, I will be using them as creatively as I can to bless couples and celebrate their permanent, faithful and committed relationships, I will do so in the knowledge that these prayers are a very poor substitute for the sacramental, covenantal, liturgical resources offered by the Church of England for those who can enter what is now distinguished as “holy matrimony”.

    There will be many people who throw the crumbs back in the face of those who offer them and walk away. I’m not going to judge them.

    But I am going to reluctantly stand at the door and refuse to leave.

    The courage of the Syrophoenician woman and her challenge to Jesus was enough to make him repent and change his mind. She was no longer a “bitch”, a gentile “other”, to whom the doors of the Kingdom were closed, she was a beloved child of God, fully human and deserving of the flourishing that God longs to give all his children.

    There is a very real danger that some of us will read the legal advice shared with General Synod, and feel less than human. It is difficult not to do this when you are apparently being denied access to one of God’s gifts in creation, a gift given to enable us to flourish in our full humanity.

    But as a baptised child of God, I refuse to have my humanity denied by the institution I serve. I continue to believe that Jesus was as present on the day of my civil partnership as he is at every wedding to which he is invited. And I find myself, unexpectedly, strengthened in the conviction that the full sacramental riches of marriage should be generously shared with all who seek it from a Church which still wants to convince itself that it serves the whole of England.

    The story of the Syrophoenician woman is an enacted parable of the love of God which is expansive enough to include the once despised Gentiles. In responding to her request, Jesus is signposting the future of a community of great diversity who will all be invited to share in the heavenly wedding feast.

    Institutionally, we have not reached the place where we can say this unequivocally. Pragmatically, some terrible sophistry has been used in order to gather up enough crumbs to throw to the dogs. Pastorally, it will be challenging to encourage gay couples to come to church for blessing when we long to offer so much more. Politically the space in which, as a gay person I am standing, feels more toxic than at almost any time I can remember.

    So, I’m praying for the faith, the resilience and the humour of the Syrophoenician woman because Syrophoenician lives matter.

  • Wrestling for a Blessing in a Time of “Theological Nonsense”

    by Ruth Harley, curate of Watling Valley Ecumenical Partnership in the Diocese of Oxford, and co-author of ‘Being Interrupted: re-imagining the church’s mission from the outside, in’. 

    “The Blessing of a Civil Marriage of a couple… is a theological nonsense, but sometimes a pastoral necessity, while the Church’s marriage discipline is in such confusion. Theologically, we should have to say that, if a… marriage is possible and valid, the Church should be willing to celebrate it for its members. If it is not possible or valid, the Church has no business blessing it.”(1)

    This could almost have been a commentary on the proposals made in GS2289 Living in Love and Faith: a response from the Bishops of the Church of England, released on Friday ahead of General Synod. But it is not. It is the late, great Michael Perham, writing in 1984 in about the blessing of the civil marriage of couples in which one person (or both) is divorced with a former spouse still living.

    He is right, I think, to say that blessing a marriage which we will not celebrate puts the church in a position of “theological nonsense”. That was true when he wrote it almost 40 years ago about the remarriage of divorcees, and it is true now about the marriage of same-sex couples. As Perham goes on to observe, “the principal function of the priest in a marriage is to bless”. It makes little liturgical or theological sense to permit the blessing of a marriage but not the solemnisation of the marriage itself, the principal function of which is, after all, blessing.

    And yet, here we are – in the territory of “theological nonsense”. The proposals for blessing same-sex relationships are a step forward, but still a far cry from the fullness of what we hoped for, and will continue to work for: full marriage equality irrespective of the genders of the couple.

    But blessing is in itself a powerful and weighty thing. I remember the first time I raised my hand to bless someone as a priest – to pronounce God’s blessing with the authority of the church – being  taken by surprise by the physicality of that weightiness.

    Blessing is more than ‘saying a prayer’. To pray a blessing is to do something more than “to reflect the blessing of God in all creation”,  as the bishops’ response to LLF puts it (2). A blessing, as spoken liturgically in the context of divine worship by a priest, has a particularity about it. To bless is to ask and declare God’s blessing on these people and, in the case of the blessing of a marriage, this relationship. To bless is to recognise and respond to God’s presence and purpose in this specific moment and person(s) and place.

    We bless people not because they are good, but because they are God’s – and so is the blessing we proclaim. We bless in the midst of the world’s brokenness, and blessing and breaking are closely entwined in the liturgical imagination, as day by day we offer the blessed and broken body of Christ in the eucharist, and live as the blessed and broken body of Christ in the world. To bless is not to say ‘this is perfect’, but rather ‘God is in this’. To bless a loving relationship – whether that is a civil partnership or a marriage (or indeed a covenanted friendship) – is to reflect the truth that “whoever lives in love lives in God and God lives in them” (1 John 4.16).

    Blessing is a significant step in the right direction in terms of the church’s response to same-sex couples. But it is a step which leads us to not into the satisfaction and relief of resolving the situation, but rather into the turmoil and discomfort of “theological nonsense”. So just what kind of progress is this?

    Significant change – change which is paradigm-shifting – often requires the old paradigm to be destabilised before a new paradigm can be established. It is out of the destabilising “theological nonsense” in which we now find ourselves that a way forward will emerge. That is how it was with the remarriage of divorcees. As Michael Perham observed, to say that a marriage can be blessed but not solemnised by the church is an untenable position. And so a way forward was found for divorcees to marry in church.

    There are some parallels here with women’s ordination too. To say that a woman can be ordained priest but not ordained bishop is also “theological nonsense”. But it was only out of a time of living with that untenable position that the move to ordain women to all orders of ministry eventually emerged.

    We long for a conclusion, a resolution, for the theological and pastoral good sense of full equality for all, irrespective of sexuality or gender identity. This week it may feel like we are still so far from that goal. The proposals before Synod are like a discordant note, still awaiting the final, resolving, chord. But we should not underestimate the power of blessing. It is a significant thing, both in its own right, and as a means of showing up the “theological nonsense” of denying equal marriage to same-sex couples for what it is.

    Dwelling in this in-between time, this now-and-not-yet in which the “theological nonsense” of the status quo is revealed but not yet resolved, will be hard and painful for many of us. We are blessed, and yet still wrestling for a blessing. The church will emerge from this wrestling, this time of “theological nonsense”, both broken and blessed, as the body of Christ always is. For now, we limp on together.

     

    (1) Michael Perham, Liturgy Pastoral and Parochial (SPCK, 1984), p. 104.

    (2) GS2289 Living in Love and Faith: a response from the Bishops of the Church of England, p. 6.