ViaMedia

Category: Human Sexuality

  • On Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali’s Move to Rome…

    1. by Revd Trevor Wyatt, Vicar of Christ Church,  Bexleyheath and Co-Chair of MOSAIC 

    As has been widely reported in the media, Rt Revd Michael Nazir-Ali, former Bishop of Rochester, was recently received into the full communion of the Catholic Church by Monsignor Keith Newton on the Feast of St Michael and All Angels, and with the permission of the Holy See will be ordained to the Catholic priesthood for the Ordinariate at some point in the future. It was my privilege to be Ordained Deacon and then Priest by Bishop Michael in Rochester Cathedral at Michaelmas in 2000/2001.  It is a sadness to me that the Bishop who Ordained me has left the Church of England.  Bishop Michael has held many senior positions, has a fine theological mind and his leaving will be considered by many to be a deficit to the Church of England.

    It seems that a key reason for Bishop Michael leaving, as reported in an interview with the Telegraph is “a lack of teaching authority in Anglicanism, a lack of a sense of belonging to a worldwide church where everyone has to do things in step, rather than everyone doing whatever they want to do”.  In its governance structures the Church of England and the worldwide fellowship of Anglican churches (the Anglican Communion) has never had a centralised authority like the Papacy in the Roman Catholic Church that can amongst other things, provide a “clear teaching authority” that all are compelled to follow.  The founding fathers of the Church of England relied on a doctrine of provincial autonomy – the church was beholden to nobody but the King, and least of all to a Bishop in a foreign land.  The Anglican tradition has tended to eschew centralisation and see benefits where authority is mediated though a number of separate entities thus avoiding the dangers of tyranny and unchecked power.  Anglicanism has historically been committed to an approach to authority where its sources are dispersed through a number of different channels with the objective that they are mutually restricting and illuminating.  The timeless words of Lord Acton warn us that ‘Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely’.

    Because the Anglican tradition has not had a “centralised authority” it has become the kind of church where people can more freely express their opinion about things.  The intellectual freedom to question the establishment, speak truth to power, challenge accepted norms and the status quo without being excommunicated is something that many Anglicans treasure.  Admittedly this doesn’t look too good in our media age of “sound bites” however the richness of working with different perspectives is arguably something to be celebrated rather than disparaged.  The history of the Church of England especially over the last two hundred years has been one of living with increasing diversity over a wide range of theological issues.

    During the nineteenth century the various ‘parties’ within the Church of England – the catholics, evangelicals and the so-called liberals became more visible.  The Catholic tradition was re-energised and led by the so called ‘Oxford movement’ including John Henry Newman, who of course went to Rome like Bishop Michael.   In the Church of England one could now be ‘Catholic’ or ‘Evangelical’.   However, differences don’t stop here.  Anglicans have always had different opinions about most ethical issues that one might care to mention.  When it comes to whether we can “go to war” and kill the enemy, there are ‘pacifists’ who believe that war is always wrong, and then there are those who support the ‘just war’ theory – that in certain proscribed circumstances it is ok.  Over the question of contraception, although it was overwhelmingly supported by the Lambeth Conference in 1930 a large minority of Bishops present disagreed with the majority.  When the Abortion Act was passed in October 1967 it is on record that Bishops of the Church of England voted both ‘for’ and ‘against’.  Although General Synod agreed to the Ordination of women as Priests back in 1992, and women as Bishops in 2014, many issues remain and we need to find better ways of living together with our differences over this so that both sides on this issue can flourish.  On marriage after divorce, the church allows clergy the right of conscience not to remarry divorced people.  The most recent example of difference has been the spectacle of two recent Archbishops, Carey and Williams,  taking opposing views on assisted dying.  When we come to the issue of the day – human sexuality – there are passionately held view on all sides and the church finds itself divided pretty much down the middle, if the most recent General Synod elections are anything to go by.

    If anything summarises Anglicanism in its classical form and in its history, it is living with diversity and difference – whether Catholic or Protestant, or over the many complex ethical issues about which we take different views.  In the future it is unlikely that there will be a ‘knock down argument’ or an ‘overwhelming consensus’ on many of these issues.

    It is perhaps ironic that just at the moment when Bishop Michael has moved to Rome, Pope Francis has formally launched a two-year global consultation process in the Roman Catholic Church, saying “. It seems highly likely that many of the questions about which Anglicans disagree will at the very least be debated in this consultation process e.g. women priests and human sexuality.

    In response to this diversity that is the sheer reality of things in the Anglican tradition, my deepest prayer and urgings are to encourage everyone on all sides to hold on to our shared identity in Christ above everything else, and to find ways of walking towards each other rather than walking away.  That we enter into the areas of tension and find ways of inhabiting uncomfortable places, disagreeing with each other in the kindest way possible and holding on to each other with bonds of love and affection.  I recognise immediately that staying and remaining requires sacrifice and has been at a huge personal cost to many, and that I speak as a white straight male whose lived experience is not directly affected as it is for so many others.  Not everyone will feel that they can keep with us, but I profoundly hope that most will.  Over the years the Anglican tradition has been wonderfully creative and resourceful in finding ways to hold different kinds of acknowledged, public disagreement within a framework of common life as one church, and one communion of churches.

    I for one hope we can find similarly creative ways through the current issues that threaten our common life.

     

     

  • ‘The Bible is Clear’, Consent & ‘Conversion Therapy’

    by the Revd Canon Dr Phil Groves, former Director of the Anglican Communion Office (2006 – 2016) and Associate Rector Wychert Vale Benefice 

    In the public debate over ‘conversion therapy’ the leaders of evangelical powerhouses such as the Evangelical Alliance and the Church of England’s Evangelical Council have sought to maintain space for people to receive ‘non-coercive’ counselling and prayer for those seeking to live in accordance with their beliefs. They cite freedom of religion and spread stories about people being denied the right to pray the Lord’s Prayer. Religious freedom is said to be at stake.

    What I don’t see is any engagement with the damage to evangelical theology done by advocating such change orientated therapies.

    ‘The Bible is clear’ has become a mantra of institutional evangelicalism as exemplified by the response to the Evangelical Alliance to proposals to ban conversion therapy:

    ‘The teaching of the Bible is clear that sexual activity is restricted to monogamous marriage between one man and one woman. For Christians who hold to this biblical teaching, it is essential that those who experience same sex attraction are free to pursue and receive support to help them live in accordance with their beliefs.’

    If ‘the Bible is clear’ defines reality then it must follow that ‘same sex attracted people’ can find fulfilment in singleness or in heterosexual marriage.

    Plenty of Biblical scholars have questioned whether ‘the Bible is clear’, but they have been unconvincing to those who represent evangelicalism. However, in rejecting such claims evangelicalism needs to face up to just what it is endorsing.

    No one claims the Bible has anything to say on the kind of ‘support’ that might be needed by people who are convinced by the clarity of the Evangelical Alliance’s message and who know themselves not to conform.  So what kind of therapies are they keen to support?

    The Evangelical Alliance is clear that they oppose the use of electric shock treatment and rape as methodologies, and this is important because while they are clearly criminal here, the rape of lesbians in particular is common in Africa and our African Anglican allies need all the support they can get to have the laws that enable horrific abuse to be removed.

    However, they continue to support non-coercive therapies, without specifying just what they are.

    The most common ‘therapy’ that has been adopted by Christian groups is so called ‘reparative therapy’. Reparative therapy was developed by Freudian analysts and was based on assumptions that sexual drive is learnt in childhood and adolescence through desire for the more distant parent. Gay men (and Reparative Therapy focused almost exclusively on gay men) were understood to be closely attached to their mothers and have distant or absent father figures for whom they developed sexual desire. The remedy was to develop an extremely close male to male bond between male analyst and client. These relationships broke all the norms of distance and clients were rewarded for good behaviour, such as sexual fantasies and sexual encounters with women, and reprimanded for bad behaviour as the therapist became the father figure.

    The British Psychoanalytic Council only finally repudiated such analysis in 2012.

    The academic literature that informed that decision explored the abuse often inflicted by therapists on clients and the damage done to clients. ‘Talking therapies’ were understood to be harmful to clients and society as a whole. Clear policies of discrimination barring LGBT people from training as analysts was eventually put in the past.

    Of course, the people who came for psychoanalysis did so of their own free will – they were not forced into it. Except they were. They were persuaded of their own deviancy by a culture that portrayed heterosexuality as pure. They were easy to persuade that their failure of attachment to their father was real and at the heart of the problem. They were open to forming a bond with an analyst who often thrived on the power.

    During the 1990s Christian organisations promoting change orientated therapies latched on to these Freudian solutions especially with the formation of National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), founded by Charles Socarides, a leading Freudian analyst, and Catholic therapist Joseph Nicolosi.

    Their views were promoted by Anglican Mainstream and the Latimer Trust in a book published in 2007 entitled God, Gays and the Church. The book also promoted other ways of avoiding ‘same-sex attraction’ such as praying to the saints and most specifically the use of John Henry Newman as a ‘spirit guide’. Yes, the Latimer Press published a book promoting the use of prayers to the saints. However, it was the discredited Freudianism of Socarides and Nicolosi that dominated the text.

    Evangelical Christianity became the standard bearer for Freudian assumptions about sexual attraction, while often labelling progressives as Freudians (oh, the irony).

    Have things changed?

    Well, a key player in the campaigns to stop the banning of change therapy is The Core Issues Trust and it continues to reference reparative therapy as a key component of what they call Change Orientated Therapies. They don’t make people aware that it is outdated Freudianism, but the Director of CIT, Mike Davidson, is shown proudly standing by Joseph Nicolosi who was absolutely clear about the therapy he was promoting.

    Institutional Evangelicalism has become the last bastion of support for the 20th Century Freudian understanding of what it understood as deviant sexuality. ‘The Bible is clear’ is the mantra, what actually is being endorsed is an outdated Freudianism.

    It cannot be healthy for evangelical theology.

  • Ghana: “Grandma, What Big Teeth You Have….!”

    by the Ven Peter Leonard, Archdeacon of the Isle of Wight and Chair of OneBodyOneFaith

    On social media this last week I saw a light-hearted post which questioned how Little Red Riding Hood fails to recognise that a wolf has replaced her grandma in the famous fairy tale. It is a good question but not seeing or responding to the danger in front of you is not sadly restricted to fairy tales.

    The parliament of Ghana is about to discuss the “Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill” which proposes that anyone who identifies as gay or transgender face imprisonment for up to five years and anyone who promotes or supports non-straight sexual identities be sent to prison for up to 10 years. It also requires Ghanaian citizens to report so called ‘suspects’. This is potentially the toughest anti-gay legislation in the world and the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church in Ghana has issued a statement in full support of the bill stating that to be LGBTQI+ “is unbiblical and ungodly”. They further state that they will “open their counselling and support centres for the needed transformation services required by these persons” – also known as conversion therapy. You can read the full statement here.

    Despite the media coverage of this statement neither of our English archbishops nor any bishop in the Church of England has said anything about the Ghanaian bishops’ actions. It is as if they have their red hoods pulled down and are still choosing to see grandma rather than a wolf. Although it is interesting how quick they are to respond when an Anglican province makes a more progressive statement about the LGBTQI+ community isn’t it?!

    I am particularly impacted by this statement because I serve in the Diocese of Portsmouth, which as part of the Inter Diocesan West Africa Link scheme is partnered with the Anglican Church in Ghana. Portsmouth has a long history of supporting the church in Ghana financially, in prayer and through mutual visits. The diocese is due to be hosting the Ghanaian bishops and their wives in the run up to the Lambeth conference next year. I have been aware of their anti-LGBTQI+ stance for some time and that has been problematic for me as a civil partnered gay man and for others.

    But this new step presents me, and many other ordained and lay members of Portsmouth Diocese with a challenge. I am already being contacted by people asking what they can do. I know of churches who are withdrawing their financial support immediately and asking for action in terms of a statement from the Diocese of Portsmouth and more direct steps when the Ghanaian bishops visit. What form that action could take is uncertain – is it more effective to refuse to host them or to challenge them and protest when they are here?

    One of the joys of being within the Diocese of Portsmouth is that it has felt a relatively “safe” place to be an openly gay member of the clergy and there are many churches which are fully inclusive of LGBTQI+ Christians. To invite the Ghanaian bishops into that safe place makes it considerably less safe, not only for those of us who work for the diocese but also for those members of the church, clinging on by their fingertips, who will see welcoming them here as a statement of support for what they have said.

    For anyone outside of the church who sees the diocese welcoming the Ghanaian bishops also places us squarely in support of them. The only way to address this is a clear and unequivocal statement condemning the bill and their support of it.

    To be clear, this is not about whether you support equal marriage, this is not about whether or not you think LGBTQI+ people can be part of the church. This is about that fact that LGBTQI+ people, or even those who are suspected of being LGBTQI+ will be locked up. If I were in Ghana I would be in prison as would my partner and many other people I know, or we would be being subjected to the tortures of so-called “conversion therapy” which even the UN has now condemned. Members of my family and friends would also be locked up for supporting me. Worse still it will result in people being hunted down in Ghana, beaten, and potentially killed. This is not an issue of culture or of different biblical interpretations – this is a matter of life and death for some. This is not the fabled “Good Disagreement” that is so often spoken of, but little seen, this is not a matter for “Pastoral Principles” however good they may be on paper.

    This is homophobia. This is oppression. This is injustice and it is the absolute opposite of how Christ lived and what he taught.

    I have said before, and it is a great sadness that it remains true within the Church of England, an apology with no action to change the behaviour is meaningless. The Archbishops and the House of Bishops can make as many apologies for the way the Church of England has treated the LGBTQI+ community, they can set up as many shared conversations and LLF type programmes as it likes but until something changes these are meaningless. Their silence in the face of such blatant homophobia and abuse of human rights puts them on the side of the oppressor.

    It is time to call out the wolf and stop pretending we are still looking at grandma.

     

  • Fr Alan Griffin – Unconscious Homophobia?

    by Canon James Mustard, Canon Precentor at Exeter Cathedral

    The tragic circumstances of the death last year of Fr Alan Griffin have been the subject of national media attention.  The Coroner’s report – a “Prevention of Future Deaths report”- released in July, described a litany of errors in the handling of safeguarding accusations. These accusations were found to have “no complaint, no witness and no accuser”, “no concern raised” and “no person said they had been the subject of or had witnessed any concerning behaviour, save that Father Griffin had been seen to have dinner with men in an Italian restaurant, for which he might have paid the bill.”

    These vague insinuations, made in February 2019 by an outgoing staff member of the Diocese of London, formed the basis of a chaotic and shambolic safeguarding investigation, the details of which were never described to Fr Griffin, save that it was underway. It must have left him feeling afraid, uncertain and alone. On 8 November 2020, Alan Griffin took his own life.

    A notable feature of this tragedy was the lack of any accusation or victim. Yet when Fr Alan became the actual victim of this process, the Diocese of London and Church of England were slow to respond. The Coroner’s report records a “lack of full engagement by the Church of England in the inquest process until June 2021”, seven months after the inquest commenced.  The recent description of Fr Alan’s death as “unfortunate” may have been deemed prudent by advisors, but – in letters to the Church Times at least – it seemed to minimise the experience of the victim. This is itself a serious Safeguarding concern.

    The Diocese of London and Lambeth Palace have responded to the Coroner and set out their initial steps to prevent future deaths, as required.  The Church of England has expressed “deep regret”, and the Diocese of London, where Fr Alan served from 2001 to his retirement in 2011, has announced this month that it will conduct a “Learning Lessons Review”.  But the Diocese of London will not apportion blame.

    I knew Fr Alan Griffin personally, before he was in the Diocese of London. From 1978 he ministered and taught in the Diocese of Exeter. He was a lecturer in Classics at the University of Exeter, where I was a student in the 1990s. He was Assistant Chaplain to the University and Warden of halls of residence, later Assistant Curate of an Exeter parish. Alongside University Chaplains he ministered faithfully to the student community, from a chapel that was in the 1980s and 90s a vocations powerhouse. Alan was openly gay, a brave move at that time in Devon. As a young man, afraid to express my own identity, I was impressed that Fr Alan was never “in the closet”. His example gave me confidence to express myself similarly. I last saw him in his Rectory at St Andrew-by-the-Wardrobe in 2003, when I called in for a cup of tea, which he offered with typical kindness. So, I have a particular sadness at such terrible institutional failure. I have no doubt that many in the leadership of the Diocese of London and beyond are traumatised by Fr Alan’s death, too.

    How could this have happened? Why was a retired, gay, priest not deserving of due process? Why might rumour around a retired, gay, priest lead to such a chaotic, and ultimately tragic, response? Will these be some of the “lessons learned”?

    I am left with the uncomfortable possibility that the Church’s actions in this case might be an expression of something deeper than institutional failure. Is it unconscious, institutional, homophobia? Homophobia in the insinuation that a priest in an Italian restaurant must be up to “no good”? Homophobia in the willingness to take that insinuation and extrapolate from it, without question, a fantastical and grotesque narrative? Homophobia in an investigation of abuse which was poorly conducted as if the retired, gay, accused didn’t matter or deserve better? Homophobia in an institution failing to engage with the Coroner until seven months had passed? Homophobia in the failure, in the opinion of the Coroner, not to have “recognised errors and undertaken meaningful attempts at improvement by the time of the inquest”? If this is so, it is how appallingly ironic that these events coincided with the launch of the Church of England’s “Living in Love and Faith” project to discern how sexuality fits “within the bigger picture of the Good News of Jesus Christ”.

    This tragic sequence of events took place between February 2019 and July 2021: this is not a historic or “non-recent” case. It resonates with an older miscarriage of justice: of someone betrayed by gossip, given a sham trial and silenced with nails on a cross, all to protect religious reputation. That injustice served to demonstrate God’s triumph over sin and death. It has challenged and inspired the Church for two thousand years. It called Fr Alan Griffin to ordained ministry. One can only imagine what a Coroner’s report would have made of that injustice two thousand years ago. How might it be similar to this Coroner’s Report?

    May Fr Alan rest in peace and rise in glory.

    The views expressed in this piece are the personal views of the author and do not represent the views of Exeter Cathedral

  • General Synod: The Importance of Compromise & Conscience

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

     

    The next few years in General Synod are going to be challenging ones.

    There are a number of substantial issues to address, all of relatively equal importance and all of which are going to affect the life of our church and the life of its members in significant ways.

     

    I have written previously about the obfuscation and political manoeuvrings of the elections, but the reality is that – however unedifying and unimpressive some of the contests were – we are where we are, and we will have a lot of people on synod, with a lot of differing ideas, and with those ideas a lot of possible heat to be generated.

    I am relieved not to be one of them, but nonetheless, having watched the last few months of politicking, several things have stood out.

    The first thing new members of synod are going to need to do is to recognise that most – if not all – of their fellow members, and indeed wider members of the Church of England, (including those who make noise in the wider the church), are doing so not out of some kind of hatred for the church or in an attempt to self-aggrandise, but rather because they genuinely believe what they are saying and doing to be in the best interests of the church. We might vehemently – at times, angrily and in great frustration – disagree in the Church of England, but we must not lose sight of the fact that each of us comes to the table because we fervently, earnestly, and honestly believe what we are saying. If we don’t, then we are easily found out – but this is, thank God, rare.

    The first watchword of the new synod must, then, be “conscience”.

    That is, a recognition that others are not out to destroy the church, but rather acting in a way that is answerable to God, and that comes from a place of serious intent. We may indeed believe others are wrong – fundamentally so, and on issues that are close to the heart of God and His people – but we must learn to stop the slurry of accusation that we are so good at producing. Here, I once again draw attention to the Pastoral Principles – sensible, helpful and necessary in the current high temperatures in the Church of England – which are at the core of this virtue. If we cannot recognise each other as Christians – Christians who long after God and for the good of His church – then we have failed in our fundamental duty of belonging to the Body of Christ.

    From this recognition must come a commitment to listening to, and responding to, the actual words that others speak and the position that they wish to outline and believe in. There must be no more pejorative talk of ‘lobbies’ or “attempts to wreck the doctrine of the church”.  This might sound impressive in a political speech, but it is simply not true. Likewise, it is also not good enough to have one voice in private and one in public. What we say, and do, matters – and until we recognise one another’s integrities – rather than showing determination to besmirch and misrepresent each other – then we are on a road to nowhere.

    Those who want same-sex marriage are not trying to destroy the church – they are trying to enrich it. Those who want to forbid it are holding to their own view and interpretation of scripture in good conscience, however painful that might feel to faithful LGBTQI Christians. We don’t have to agree, and we don’t have to tiptoe around each other – but we owe it to each other to respond honestly, openly and without caricature or twisting the truth when we meet each other’s arguments.

    The second key theme is going to be “compromise”.

    Nobody likes it – if we are honest, we all prefer to ‘win’ outright. Yet that is not what the next five years is going to look like for any ‘side’. There are good reasons to want to ‘win’ – for those who oppose same-sex marriage, it is because of the threat of ‘blessing sin’ and of the threat to the current doctrine of the church. To those who affirm LBGTQI people, it is because every LGBTQI person that grows up repressing their sexuality in the name of Jesus Christ can lead to severe mental health consequences and is a tragedy – a needless one.  It it also because of the fact that many see the current teaching of the Church of England as fundamentally narrowing the boundless love and grace of God.

    We are quite simply not going to agree on this, but we need to either decide to walk away, or to compromise. For me, compromise and conscience are two sides of the same coin.

    In a recent article, Ian Paul – arguing for the non-affirming position – asserted that everyone agrees a compromise is impossible. I beg to differ – not least on the factual accuracy of the statement. Many, many people – of different theologies – are desperate to seek a compromise. The challenge is what that compromise might look like.

    For those, like me, who believe it is high time for the church to bless faithful gay couples, compromise is absolutely part of the way forward. I have no desire whatsoever to tell those who disagree with me that they are not Christians, however wrong I think they are, and I have no desire whatsoever to exclude them from the Church – not that I would have any authority to do so in any case. Instead, I want to find ways to genuinely walk together in which both our integrities are recognised, and in which both integrities are honoured.

    For me, this would mean turning back to the importance of conscience. It is abundantly clear that we do not all agree, and we will not come to one mind on this. It is also clear that those who are affirming and those who are not both love the church, are Christians, and ultimately love the Lord Jesus. If we are to take the Lord’s command to love one another He loved us seriously, then we must surely see a way forward based on the mutual recognition of our differences and yet willingness to enable one another and call on the Holy Spirit to reveal all things.

    This is the makings of a compromise – one that enforces neither belief or practice in this area, but that allows us to look each other in the face and say, ‘you are beloved of God, we disagree, but we will fulfil His command to love one another’. I long to belong to a church where we are open in our disagreements, and not so fearful that we won’t admit this disagreement to those who walk through our doors. It is through such openness that our fears of compromise might be ameliorated too – those who fear doctrinal catastrophe can be clear that affirming LBGTQI relationships is not the only position in the Church of England; likewise, those who fear for the safety of young people growing up in non-affirming communities can point those vulnerable youngsters to places where other points of view are expressed.

    For the ultra-purists, this will never work – but their strength is immensely over-estimated. It is quite simply not true that a compromise is not possible, desirable, or sought. Our decision is either to sacrifice our unity as beloved children of God on the altar of prideful purity, or to embrace unity in openness, diversity of belief and practice, and in a recognition that we might, just, be wrong.

    Compromise in conscience is possible – it is up to us to stop being the stumbling block in its way.

  • General Synod: the Abomination of Desolation

    by Jayne Ozanne, Director of the Ozanne Foundation and Editor of ViaMedia.News

    I grew up in a church culture that taught me that we are in a constant spiritual battle, that the devil is in the process of massing his forces against us Christians, and that we will soon, very soon, be in the “End Times” as described in the Book of Revelation and Daniel (if we aren’t already).

    Whilst it’s true that different churches gave different emphasises to different parts of this narrative, one thing was always clear – it was drummed into me that there are the “good” people and then there are the “others”, those who were working against God’s purposes, that is – “the bad people”.

    As time went on, and as I encountered more heartache and strive in my life, I learnt to embrace the narrative that the difficulties I was facing were due to the devil trying to “knock me off my path”.  I was told that all I needed to do was to stand firm, hold fast, and not let myself be blown off course.  You see, Jesus had won, He had “done it all for me at the Cross” – I just needed to faithfully believe this, and trust that it would “all come right in the end” for “all things work together for good”.

    So my faith strengthened, despite these obstacles, and I learnt to see beyond the immediate difficulties I was facing and believe that there was always a “bigger picture”, in which a great cosmic battle was being fought between good and evil.

    The problem is that this thinking brought me to a point – where millions of other Christians are today – of believing that the evil I faced in the world was down to “the bad people”, “the others”, those that are not living according to what I perceive to be “God’s way”.  I was taught there were numerous bible verses to back this up, including much of the Old Testament and books like Jude.

    So, the narrative morphed into believing that we are a Christian remnant, battling to stand for God’s truth in an evil world where those who “lived according to the world” are always to blame.  I attended large prayer rallies claiming the verse “when the enemy comes in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against them” (Isaiah 59:19 – which isn’t in everyone’s translations, proof (I was assured) of how important this verse is!).

    In other words, “we” are chosen and special, and by default “they” are not.  “They” are evil doers, those who go against God’s purposes.  To begin with, I saw this group as being quite small – those who are “obviously evil”, like murderers, rapists and Nazis.  It then grew overtime (fuelled by the many sermons I devoutly imbibed) to include those from other religions (the “pagans”), oh and yes, those who lived “immoral and ungodly” lives – like gay people.

    It was a subtle transition – I wasn’t really aware that I was on such a pathway.  I was surrounded by friends and fellow Christians who all believed the same thing.  The large Christian conferences I went to all preached the same message.  They would constantly call out “dead religion”, those who were in love with the shackles of their faith (for instance, wearing robes and using incense), rather than those who “had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ”.  It then began to make all perfect sense – the “abomination of desolation”, which Jesus had talked about (Mark 13:14) and which Daniel had written about was obviously those who belonged to this “false religion”.  Those who think they are Christian, but in fact aren’t “true Christians” – not like those of us who are real Christians (and who manifest the charismatic gifts, especially speaking in tongues).

    So now the “others” weren’t just those “of the world”, they were those “in the Church” who think they are Christian but actually really aren’t.  I began to see that they were “the real problem”, which Jesus had warned us all about.

    Of course, we shouldn’t tell “them”.  For “they” wouldn’t understand – the devil had blinded them.  We just needed to “stand firm” and “hold the line”, knowing that God would hold them accountable on the day of Judgement for preaching such a false Gospel.

    The trouble is, this approach squeezed every last ounce of compassion for “them” out of me.  Yes, of course I was worried about “the lost” – but they were those who were sick or needy, not those who were “the problem”.  No, they were people I needed to stand up to and pray against, for they were thwarting the very purposes of God.

    And so my heart hardened towards them.  Which was OK, because I knew I was right and that all that they said or did to try and dissuade me of this fact was really the devil in disguise.

    Which is ultimately why “crossing the Rubicon” and coming out for me was so very very difficult.

    You see, I became “one of them”.  I went “to the dark side”.  And so many of my past Church friends have never ever forgiven me for that.  I am an agent of the devil now.

    But the thing is, the wonderful truth I myself witnessed, is that Christ “crossed over” with me.  When I got to the other side, I found Christians who loved Jesus just as much as I did, they just manifested this in rather different ways.  I needed to learn that what I had been taught to believe were trappings of “false religion” are just people expressing their love for God in ways that resonate with them.  There are of course many paths up a mountain.

    I learnt not to judge “them”, and slowly moved from seeing a world with “us” and “them” to one just with “we”.  I learnt compassion for those who I had “othered” and embraced a Gospel that had no “outsiders”, no limits, no one beyond God’s unconditional love.

    That said, I began to see that my new fellow Christians do in fact have people they “other” too.  People they perceive as working against God’s purposes and causing misery and pain to some of our most marginalised in society.  These “others” are those who appear so wedded to the “law of God” that it has stopped them understanding the unconditional “love of God”.  These then are “the real problem”, indeed many see them “as the abomination of desolation” that Jesus had talked about.

    The ironic thing is that both sides – who both believe the other to be the devil – are being told they need to embrace and accept each other in our wonderfully broad Church of England.

    Neither side can.

    And that’s what is really going on these elections for General Synod right now.  There is a “battle” for the soul of the Church between two “sides”, where each think the other is doing the devil’s work.

    Thankfully only God knows what will happen.

    One thing is absolutely clear, though, and that is that Love Always Wins!

  • General Synod: Honest to God!

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

    ‘Integrity’ is not, perhaps, the first word we might associate with elections. Those who run for high office will often find all kinds of excuses for not telling the whole truth – there are always higher goals to pursue, or a bigger vision to embrace and they just need to keep the voters sweet to gain the power to make things happen. Of course, this might not be totally honest, but that’s just the way these things go, and in any case, voters will forgive them when they see their grand plans in action. You see, it’s all for the greater good – or that’s what we’re told to believe, at least.

    For all that we say that we do things differently, that we practice ‘good disagreement’, and that we live to a “higher standard”, it’s clear that elections in the Church of England are no different. In recent weeks, we have seen election guidance that seems to call on candidates to tell nothing like the full truth – and indeed to avoid topics that might be thought to be too ‘controversial’.

    The problem is that these controversial topics are absolutely key to General Synod’s business for the next few years, and it is quite frankly appalling that candidates are being told to avoid discussions of abuse within the Church. There is something very dark indeed about calling discussion of abuse controversial, given all we know about the culture of secrecy that has led to such horrific outcomes for so many children and other vulnerable people over so many years. There is nothing controversial whatsoever about naming and stamping out abuse in the Church, and anyone standing for General Synod should be willing to discuss this topic head on or risk perpetuating the very culture we are trying to eradicate.

    Yet this kind of advice gets to the heart of the conversation about what kind of Church we want to be.

    There are a number of difficult decisions to be taken in the next few years, and if we are to make these decisions – and elect members of Synod to make them on our behalf – then we need to be doing this with our eyes open and with a serious commitment to speaking the full truth honestly and with candour. It is no longer acceptable to dance around these key topics in Church discourse. Trying to pull the wool over the eyes of voters is not the way to create a healthy structure of church governance.

    For too long, the Church of England has been willing to favour convenience and a vague sense of ‘unity’ over honesty, integrity and the full truth. It is certainly true that homosexuality is not the only issue facing the Church of England in the next session of General Synod, yet it is also true that LBGTQI people are not an ‘issue’ either. Refusing to even mention them – to treat them as collateral in the ambition for power – is disgraceful.

    The next session of General Synod is not likely to be a walk in the park, and nor should it be, given the complex discussions that are going to need to take place. Yet we should – as electors – be treated with enough respect by those who seek to represent us that we are at least told their explicit position on key elements of Church policy.

    It is not enough to ‘sound as if you are a practicing member of the Church of England’ if you want to sit on General Synod – you should be willing to stand up and be counted, be challenged, and surely be open to the possibility of compromise and discussion once elected. Candidates that obfuscate before they even get elected are hardly those that can be trusted to act with integrity once they take their seats. Refusal to mention the key topics facing the next Synod is a choice – and it is a choice to obscure the truth of your position, however winsome your arguments.

    If those who hold non-affirming positions on women’s ministry and blessings for same sex couples truly believe that their positions are right and true, then they should have the courage of their convictions to put themselves forward with their colours nailed firmly to the mast. Getting elected by the back door is the sign of a terrified sinking ship and not a healthy, vibrant, courageous Church.

    Integrity must be the marker of the next session of General Synod, if we are not to totally lose our way. The Pastoral Principles of the Church of England, which exhort people to speak into silence and call our hypocrisy, are there for a reason, and if we cannot act in accordance with them whilst standing to represent fellow Christians in the governance body of our church, which forms part of Christ’s body, then we have fallen before we even fire the starting gun.

    We are in desperate need of a Church that embodies integrity and ultimately honest and open compromise – that allows faithful Christians to live in accordance with their consciences and that deals in honesty rather than fear. We owe it to each other to clearly state what we believe and to be willing to be tried and tested on it – to take on each other’s arguments rather than our easily constructed straw men, and to always see the face of Christ in one another.

    We may never agree, and for some the strain will be too much. Nobody doubts the difficulties we face. Those standing to make these decisions on our behalf most certainly need our prayers – but they owe us their honesty in return. The Gospel requires nothing less.

     

  • General Synod: Coming Out for it All!

    by the Revd Nicky Skipworth, Priest in Charge of the Parish of Harworth and Bircotes, Styrrup and Hesley (Diocese of Southwell and Nottingham)

    I’d like to open this piece by telling you that I am (as far as I’m concerned, anyway) just an ordinary parish priest, living in Nottinghamshire with my family (husband and two children at school, one away at university). This year, I celebrate 20 years since I was deaconed, vows which have never bowed down in deference to those of my priesthood.

    It’s a busy life, what with ministry, home and family, plus supporting an older family member and a newly adopted cat, but it tends to work out in a messy kind of way; many clergy will relate to it. So it might surprise you that I am currently seeking election to General Synod. In fact, I’m one of over 220 candidates supported by , the only such clergy candidate in my Diocese. You can read my election address here.

    Why would I, as someone with an already full life, want to press even more grains of sand into my apparently full jar of pebbles? Well, to put it in two really simple terms, firstly, I want to work for change at what is arguably the heart of the Church of England. However cynical I may be after twenty years in this saddle, I still trust that change is on the way. I believe that either God is changing, or we are changing to think more like God, or else God is finding away around us. Given the recent decisions of Methodist Conference and my ‘alma mater’ the Church in Wales, it looks very much to me as if reality within the Church of England is the latter option.

    Secondly, and I am not speaking for anyone else when I say this, I have grown sick and tired of what I look upon as my own apparent heterosexual-cis-gender privilege. Because I’m not what others think me to be; I’m not heterosexual, I’m bisexual and have known this since the age of 7. It all came to a head, bizarrely, in 2017 when thirty-eight years later I was stood alone in the bathroom one day, having just had a new hair cut and, looking into the mirror, found myself thinking “this is finally me looking back at me”. Oddly enough, the last time I had a thought like that was when stood in front of the mirror in my sparkly new collar the morning of my diaconal ordination. These were both moments of absolute clarity, which called for action on my part. I never, ever doubted God’s presence nor love in my life. I did, however, doubt other people’s ability to accept me, especially at school.

    Since that second ‘reflection’ four years ago, I have been taking small steps to come out. My husband has known for years, our children know, too; thankfully my non-churchy Mum and brother were gracious; my friends have been marvelous. After taking care of  my deepest personal relationships, I told my congregation. They are lovely people with whom I feel safe (this isn’t always a given). We have gone on to join Inclusive Church, but please don’t think that’s just for my sake. One parishioner nearly fell off their stool, then asked the classic question, “How does that work?!” I responded to questions and comments as best I could, and am still doing so, because I’m still getting to know ‘me’.

    It is therefore a combination of reasons that brings me to seek election, and being supported by Inclusive Church makes it crystal clear where I stand. After all, those opposed to inclusion aren’t going to vote for me, so I might as well go all out and be open about it all. There are, as my friend Andrew Lightbown re-iterates in his own blog) so many candidates not declaring their true position. I urge anyone voting in the House of Clergy election (and the House of Laity, for that matter) to scrutinize every election address; ask probing questions of your candidates.

    I do have other flags to wave, though, flags which may not be as all-consuming as those which concern my identity before God, but mean a great deal to me all the same. The one that sticks out, and is possibly of equal use to General Synod, is my membership of the Faith Worker’s Branch of Unite the Union. I’m also an Accredited Workplace Rep., and Accredited Support Companion, not to mention member of the Branch Committee  and Branch magazine editor.

    I bring with me, too, all of my experience as a parent in ministry; including the constant guilt. Being a female parent in ministry seems to worry parishioners, too, but more upsetting is how this concern doesn’t seem to be extended to all parents. Of course, I have been exposed so many times to less subtle forms of sexism, like the complete stranger who, during my time at All Saints’ Parish Church in High Wycombe, now an Inclusive Church member, barged into the vestry  to give me a piece of their mind. As if it would make any difference!

    Going back to the matter of true inclusion, I have been reflecting deeply on what is at the core of people’s desire to exclude and denigrate. Because, surely, if marriage is so wonderful, so divine, why wouldn’t the Church want to extend the availability of that gift? Surely we need more public love and commitment, and the admission that if you are going to harangue people for this so called and all-too-undefined ‘sin’, especially before marriage, then we must allow people access to the remedy. We don’t probe the sexual habits of different sex couples when they come to book their marriage ceremony; quite frankly, it is pretty obvious when we meet the children of their current (and more often than not previous) relationships.  It’s just they make the way they love one another perfectly clear.

    I’m probably not well known enough to be elected but, for me, this is about more than ‘getting elected’. It’s about giving a voice to the many, many clergy who fear that the ability to truly be the Established Church, actually more especially, to be the parish church – is fading before our eyes.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Synod: A Call to Simplify Our Structures

    by Rt Hon Canon Sir Tony Baldry, who was MP for Banbury (1983 – 2015), Second Estates Commissioner (2010 – 2015) and Chair of the Church Buildings Council (2015 – 2019)

    I have some reflections on my time on General Synod having served for eleven years, been Second Church Estates Commissioner for five years, and Chair of the Church Buildings Council for four years.

    The Church of England is now made up of a number of Tribes.

    For the Church of England to flourish, ways have to be found to enable all of the different Tribes to flourish and we should seek to avoid the loss of energy and damage of the various Tribes conflicting with each other.

    Sometimes this will mean having structures which enable different Tribes to do things differently.

    So, for example, on the issue of same sex relationships it would appear that it is going to be impossible to persuade Conservatives of anything other than it is sinful.

    But for many of us, I suspect most, sin implies choice, but we are not in a position to choose our sexuality.  It is what we are.

    We cannot go on kicking the issue of same sex relationships down the road.  Sooner or later we are going to have to have in place legislation that allows priests to marry same sex couples, or bless same sex marriages at their discretion.

    Similarly to the practice which has existed since the 1920s, whereby Church of England clergy at their discretion have been able to marry or bless marriages involving someone who has been divorced.

    Nearly a third of a century as a member of the House of Commons, and including eight years as a Government Minister and four chairing a Select Committee, has taught me something about the complexities of the machinery of Government – that Whitehall is running a country, including three devolved Administrations.

    Whitehall is simple compared to the complexities of the governance of the Church of England.  We have: General Synod, the Archbishops Council, the Church Commissioners, Lambeth Palace, Church House, the National Church institutions – I do not think it would be possible to find anywhere in the world another institution with such labyrinthine governance rules.

    If I had a magic wand, I would wave it to summon a former Cabinet Secretary, such as Lord Butler, to review the governance of the Church of England and advise how it could be significantly simplified, with less cost, and less time taken on matters of process to all involved.

    I see that there are rumours in the press that the Bishop of Leeds has recommended the merging of the Archbishops Council with the Church Commissioners.

    There is an urgent need to simplify the governance of the Church of England and merging the Church Commissioners with the Archbishops Council makes extremely good sense.

    Some Parish campaigners seem to have expressed the concern that such a move would be in some way a “coup” by the House of Bishops.  They need not have such fears.  Such simplification would mean fewer costs and less money spent on administration means more money available to pay Parish priests.

    The Church Commissioners are established by Act of Parliament and any change to their status will require an Act of Parliament and I am sure that the House of Commons will have a real interest in the outcome of any such reform not least what will happen to the role of the Second Church Estates Commissioner, which is  a Crown appointment and at present the link between the Commons and the Church of England.

    Parish priests are the lifeblood of the Church of England and many of the concerns expressed by the current “Save our Parishes” campaign are concerns about the future of the numbers of parish priests in different Dioceses.

    The simple fact is that there is a limit to how much one can increase the amount of money given across the country by parishioners and others to support the centralised work of the Church of England.

    Every £1 spent on administration and elsewhere within the Church is money that is not available to spend on parish clergy, but the Church of England is an organisation with no fewer than 42 Regional Offices, each replicating many of the same functions.

    There is little logic with this.

    The Diocese of Oxford – one Diocesan Office – manages to look after three quite populous counties, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire, whereas three Diocesan Offices and all their associated costs look after the three counties of Gloucestershire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire.

    If we want to ensure the greatest possible amount of funds available to support parish clergy, sooner or later someone is going to consider how the overall administration of the Church of England is made as efficient and as cost-effective as possible.

  • How to Help Change the Church of England…

    by Nic Tall, General Synod Elections Coordinator – Inclusive Church

    Voting works – change is happening!

    In June the Methodist Conference voted to allow same-sex marriages.  In September the Governing Body of the Church in Wales voted to introduce a service of blessing for gay couples.  Both stories have been welcomed by LGBTQI+ Christians and their allies, demonstrating a grassroots desire for change.  Crucially, both were as the result of voting, one where a two-thirds majority was needed in all houses.

    Many changes need decisions by governing bodies, whether it’s promoting racial justice, supporting carbon neutrality, or the introduction of equal marriage for LGBTQI+ couples.  There are meetings, conversations, much ink spilled on reports and briefing papers, but eventually it comes down to a vote.  It’s clear that voting really maters!  And how do people get to be part of governing bodies in the first place?  Again, it’s usually down to people voting for them.

    The Church of England’s General Synod is elected every five years, and voting in the 2021 election takes place between 17th September and 8th October.  Elections are taking place in every diocese for both clergy and lay candidates, and by the end of October we will know the results.  Those people returned will take part in the big debates and cast the votes that will guide the Church of England.  This will include the conclusion of the Living in Love and Faith project, with any recommendations to General Synod likely to be voted on in November 2022.

    Inclusive Church has been working in partnership with Ozanne Foundation and a broad coalition of church groups to encourage inclusive candidates to stand.  We are delighted to be supporting over 200 candidates who have signed up to our inclusive election statement:

     “I am committed to equality for everyone, at all levels and roles within the church, regardless of gender, disability, ethnicity, socio-economic status, mental health or sexuality.” 

    The full list of candidates is online at www.inclusive-synod.org.  In 2015 Inclusive Church backed 108 candidates, today we have over 200.  To have doubled the number of candidates shows the desire for a fully inclusive Church of England.

    The candidates are in place and now we need people to vote for them.  Everyone on a deanery synod can vote.  That’s every licenced priest and every parish lay representative. It’s really important to vote – the opportunity only comes up every five years.  In elections such as UK General Elections a marginal constituency would be around 1000 votes either way.  With General Synod a small number of votes can make a big difference.  In 2015 half of the diocesan elections would have had a different outcome if just five votes changed.  One in eight elections were decided by just one vote.  Electorates are small and turnout can be low, so with multiple candidates and a proportional representation voting system every vote counts!

    When it comes to General Synod every inclusive candidate will matter.  Really big decisions often pass by wafer thin majorities.  The 2017 the House of Bishops sexuality teaching document was rejected by just seven votes.  In 1992 the approval of women priests passed by just two votes.

    In 2021 just five extra votes going one way or the other in each diocesan election could change around 40 seats in General Synod.  With such close Synod votes on important matters the direction of the church will be decided by how people vote in this month’s elections.  Inclusive candidates need your vote so that they can make a difference.

    So please find out who the inclusive candidates are in your diocese by visiting www.inclusive-synod.org, and make sure if you are eligible you vote for them.  Spread your top preference votes (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) around those on the list.  If you yourself can’t vote then encourage people you know who can to do so, and share the inclusive candidates list with them.  If you’re not sure who your local deanery reps are, ask your local Church of England priest.  We have a real opportunity to make a difference by voting for a positive, open, forward looking and truly inclusive church.  This is a vision that is definitely worth voting for!