ViaMedia

Tag: holiness

  • We Don’t Need More Theology: This is the Time for Action

    by Charlie Bell, Fellow in Public Theology and Medicine at Girton College, Cambridge, Associate Vicar of St John the Divine, Kennington, in the Diocese of Southwark, and member of the LLF Vocations and Ministry Working Group

    I will admit that talk of clergy discipline is not something that excites me terribly much. If we’re brutally honest, it’s not been something the Church of England has done a stellar job at in recent years – the ‘Clergy Discipline Measure’ often finding itself to be a tool of vexatious and politically motivated censure, or utterly toothless as a way to manage genuine clerical misdemeanours. We are told that the newly introduced ‘Clergy Conduct Measure’ is going to be much better, but the proof of the pudding – as ever – will be in the eating. Yet I think it is worth focusing in on discipline when it comes to clerical marriage because – it is clear – we have become so bogged down in endless debates about ‘the theology’ [sic] that we fail to see the wood for the trees.

    One of the thorniest issues which continues to perplex the House of Bishops is how to enable clergy to enter into marriages to people of the same sex or gender. Because it’s always good to speak the truth, let’s be honest here – it is the ‘how’ not the ‘whether’ that is now being debated, for a variety of extremely compelling reasons. There are clergy who can no longer minister because they’ve entered into a civil marriage – clearly absurd – and marriage to someone of the same sex or gender is now pretty much the only absolute impediment to ordained ministry, meaning that in the middle of a vocations crisis, we are turning to people whose vocations have often been affirmed through official church processes and saying ‘no, thanks’.

    It’s a total scandal – it’s cruel, it’s self-defeating, it flies in the face of the clear evidence that LGBTQIA clergy are often wonderful pastors, the vast majority of bishops agree that it is a pernicious and nasty witness, and most importantly, I think, it is utterly unnecessary. Yet for months (actually, for years) we have heard that boring, ridiculous, and inaccurate phrase, ‘we need to do more theology’ on this, whilst we keep slamming the door in the faces of queer people. Well, actually, we don’t need to.

    The call for theology has been an absolutely superb delaying tactic, of course, but it is ultimately irrelevant, because this is not really a question about doctrine at all – it is a question about discipline. It’s time we named that, and got on with it.

    I do appreciate that there are those who think that those of us pushing for a change in discipline are – in so doing – trying to subvert or change the doctrine, so let me be blunt about where many of us are coming from. I absolutely do believe that sacramental marriage should be opened to all couples. I absolutely do believe that God is already at work in queer marriages and that the church is doing itself a disservice in refusing to recognise this. I am absolutely committed to seeing the doctrine of marriage enlarged and – in being enlarged – enriched. All of that is no surprise.

    Yet I am also clear that this is not where we are at the moment in our decision-making processes (even if we are there in the minds and hearts of many churchgoers and clergy). Again, let’s be blunt. Canon B30 is in force. The Church of England’s current doctrine is that marriage is between a man and a woman (for life, by the way, but hey – let’s not be pedantic, right?). That is also the Church of England’s practice. In order to allow queer marriage in church, we would need to change Canon B30 (which, by the way, does not require a two-thirds majority in General Synod), and we would need to modify the liturgical provision (which does).

    All of this is not opinion, but objective fact. What is also objective fact is that clergy entering into something the church does not call marriage is not going to change any of that – it cannot. In other words, whilst clergy might enter into a covenant that the state calls marriage, the church does not and will not call it ‘the holy estate of marriage’ unless or until – God willing – it is open enough to hear what the Holy Spirit is calling it to do. Which means that there is no specific doctrinal change required to allow clergy to enter an institution which is not – in the eyes of the church – the holy estate of marriage.

    It is important to be absolutely clear about this, because much water has been muddied in this arena, often rather disingenuously. Now, of course, other churches (including other Anglican churches) might well recognise queer marriage as the bona fide ‘holy estate of marriage’, but we do not, yet, in the Church of England. So what is being talked about with clergy entering into this institution is ultimately a pastoral provision in its truest sense – a way of living effectively in the complex reality of the world in which we find ourselves as a church. It is also pastoral provision in a church that really does disagree on the goods present within queer relationships, and the way to order a holy life if we are LGBTQIA. It is, in other words, a way of enabling ministry in a complicated, messy, and unsatisfactory church. We have historically called the ‘complicated, messy, and unsatisfactory church’ the Church of England.

    Currently, clergy who enter a queer marriage cannot exercise new ministry; that means that they cannot be ordained or, if they are already ordained, that they cannot hold a new license – yet if they are currently licensed, they can continue under that license, which shows the absurdity of the situation. Why not? This derives from the so-called ‘Valentine’s Day Statement’ of 2014, where the House of Bishops hurriedly declared that being in a same-sex marriage was incompatible with ordained ministry. I understand that this was a response to an anxious Archbishop desperate to keep the ‘Communion’ happy at a meeting the following day, and leaning heavily on his fellow bishops – times were rather different then. Today, queer marriage rather than civil partnerships is the norm, and yet this nasty little Statement remains the be all and end all of the way we treat queer clergy hoping to gain some civil (not ecclesial) status for their relationship.

    Ministry Division claim (with questionable reasoning) that this Statement prevents people even entering the national discernment process, and bishops – rather timidly, I might add – point to it and mostly wring their hands when they are presented with a married queer ordinand or priest. Some bishops are courageous enough to find limited workarounds, but far too many – especially those on the ‘inclusive’ side – would rather privilege ‘collegiality’ amongst bishops over pastoral care for their queer clergy. It’s pretty scandalous, and eight years on from calls for ‘radical new Christian inclusion’ what we appear to have is ‘radically weak episcopal decision making’ paired with ‘radical obsession with “doing the theology”‘, when no such theology is necessary for a basic, practical decision.

    The thing that makes all this so frustrating is that this statement could simply be rescinded, or bishops could equally simply say that they are no longer abiding by it. If that happened, there is absolutely no impediment to queer married clergy being ordained or licensed. There is not a doctrinal case to answer, because this is not the holy estate of marriage. What, precisely, would change if clergy got married, except an end to the current pointless cruelty? What is the issue here? The only difference would be that clergy would be able to regularise their relationships in law (and please just educate yourself if you don’t know the legal differences and implications between civil partnerships and marriage). The church will not collapse. Queer clergy are already in relationships, and are already being ordained and licensed – I know, because I’m one of them. So what actually changes when we get married?

    I would urge us, then, to take a step back from this endless focus on ‘theology’. There is, of course, theology to be done – about living with doctrinal differences, about delegated episcopacy, about holiness of life and estate, about the meaning of ‘intimacy’ and ‘sex’ and ‘proper place’ and so on. But not one bit of this impacts upon whether clergy should face discipline for entering into an institution that the church does not recognise beyond being a legal entity. I have heard a number of times that seeing this as a disciplinary matter means that queer clergy will be upset the church has nothing good to say about their marriages. You know what? It’s baby steps. Perhaps let us keep our jobs, first?

    After years and years of LLF, and wasted time and lives, and persistent and pernicious cruelty meted out on queer people – particularly on those in ministry – it feels too easy. Yet it really is this easy – this is a matter of discipline, and the bishops have it in their power not only to resolve this, but to stop looking quite so silly at the same time. The current position is objectively ludicrous and cruel in equal measure. No more theology – it’s time for action, instead.

  • On the Exchanging of Friendship Bracelets; or: The Bishops are Asking us to Lie

    by Matt Drapper, an author who writes about church and queer culture. His book ‘Bringing Me Back To Me’ is an autobiographical look back at his experiences of Conversation Therapy Practices and homophobia within Christianity and his journey towards healing from trauma

    Imagine you have two friends, who are Christian women, who love their church and each other and you hear they have become engaged. Later, you are invited to a church service at which the couple, who have been recently married at a civil ceremony, will be blessed and their love for each other celebrated before God and the gathered congregation of their friends and family. You’ve dressed up for the occasion, written a card emblazoned with hearts and even brought a pocket full of confetti just in case they decide to take photos after the blessing. You’ve already heard of the couple’s disappointment; they cannot be married in the church with a traditional ceremony, and it feels a pity to have their blessing taped onto the end of a regular Sunday morning service, however you know this will be a wonderful celebration with family and friends. Except, when the minister stands up to pray, she describes the women’s relationship as “friendship” and instead of rings, they exchange friendship bracelets.

    The minister knows. The couple know. The gathered friends and family know. You know, this is an opportunity to come before God for a blessing on the relationship and civil partnership or marriage of a couple who love one another, but who have been denied the opportunity to be married in the church building they love (a right granted to straight couples simply for living in the catchment area of the parish.) However, everyone has (at the request of the House of Bishops and the Church of England Lawyers) been asked to lie and say they are just celebrating a friendship.

    For context, I’m referring to the documents recently released for General Synod which detail the ways Churches will be allowed to use the Prayers of Love and Faith. These prayers were ostensibly designed for the blessing of same-sex relationships, but, due to the inclusion of the phrase “with no change to the doctrine of marriage” in an amendment passed in February, have seemingly had their entire purpose removed from them, and worse, replaced with an encouragement to pretend they are something else entirely.

    One example of the prayers which some churches will be enabled to offer, begins with a promise of love and commitment, but ends with just friendship.

    For lifelong peace
    God of all grace,
    friend and companion,
    look with favour on N and N
    as they journey together through life. Deepen their love
    and strengthen their wills
    to honour the commitment they have made,
    that they may continue
    in lifelong faithfulness and friendship to each other; through Jesus Christ our Lord.
    All Amen.

    To what “commitment they have made” is this prayer referring? The Guidance offered for use of the prayers states: “Pastoral preparation with the couple should cover the fact that the service is not a marriage, or a Thanksgiving for Marriage, or a Service of Prayer and Dedication after Civil Marriage.” And yet, the blessing of a civil ceremony or marriage is exactly what these prayers have been asked for, and prepared for. No one was asking for a new form of pinky-swearing with our best friends and a promise to love them forever and ever and ever.

    “They are roommates,” used to be the whispered code for an Uncle or Aunt known to be living with their gay partner, back in the day. “They were good friends,” suggest descriptions below paintings of historical possible queer love in museums. And now the Church of England is asking us to use the same veiled language, whispered, between evening prayers.

    As if it were not enough that the latest Guidance of the Use of Prayers of Love and Faith (and its accompanying Theological and Pastoral Introduction to the PLF) consistently use the words “holy” and “ideal” to describe straight presenting marriage, suggesting an “unholiness” and “less than ideal” to same-sex partnerships, and as if it were not demeaning enough to describe the Prayers of Love as Faith as “Prayers on the Way” (on the way to what?), the Guidance appears to be asking Ministers, Couples, Friends and Family to be intentionally deceptive before each other and before God. I would go so far as to say, The House of Bishops are asking us to lie.

    We have spent our lives being told our relationships are not Holy. This new document enforces this feeling in some of the most unhealthy language I have ever heard. They may have swapped out the word “sin” for “unholiness”, and not aimed it at us directly, but they should say what they really mean, if they are proud of it. Call us sinners, please.

    In describing their purpose, the guidance continues: “The PLF fall short of affirming a couple’s entire way of life as made Holy by God, and blessed as a marriage service would do…The PLF do not seek to simulate marriage or pretend that our Church has made a decision to extend marriage to same-sex couples.” The Theological document could not be clearer. PLF is not to be used as a celebration of same-sex relationship. And yet, what else are they designed for? Throughout the recent documents, they are consistently described as celebrating friendship. Are we to believe the women’s football team will be using the prayers to bless their bonds? Are we to understand the men’s mental health support group will be showing up for a blessing over their budding friendships? Is this a blessing for besties?

    No.

    We know what it is.

    It is what it is.

    In the most outrageous sample from the Guidance, it is suggested as an image: “The minister may pray over rings worn by the couple (but) to avoid the impression that the service is a marriage service, rings are not given or exchanged.” Pardon? The minister knows, the couple knows, the friends and family gathered know what this service is for and what the prayers for the rings mean. Yet, the House of Bishops and Church Lawyers are asking us to pretend we don’t understand. To lie about it to each other and in front of God.

    The Guidance is also clear on another point: you cannot offer the blessings to people who are still going through an unsettled divorce. Why not? If it is a blessing for buddies, for two roomies who get on really well? Make it make sense.

    As a gay man who grew up in a Christian household, and then in evangelical Christianity, I was taught to whisper about my sexuality. I was told by my family, “You cannot Be Gay at home.” I was told by my church, “You will lose your leadership role if you are openly in a Same-sex Relationship.” Better to keep these things hidden, wrapped up in shame, secret, pretend to be something you are not. Queer Christians recognise a lie for what it is: Shame, Denial, Pretence.

    Asking ministers, couples, friends and families to lie to each other and before God is a sure way to invite destructive poison into a congregation. Is this really the best they can offer us?