I have an irritated, streaming eye, so I played hookey from church today. In addition, it was raining, so altogether too much to overcome, though I was sorry to miss on the feast of the Epiphany. Never fear. I shall say my prayers here at home. I read Bishop Alan Wilson's excellent blog post on the Church of England as Kafka land, which I urge you to read. I am mystified by the latest anonymous press release from the powers in the Church of England, which basically changes nothing, except that now if a gay candidate for the episcopacy promises not to have sex and to repent of ever "practicing" gay sex, he can be a bishop. Do I have that right? What really has changed?
All that has changed is a grudging recognition of civil partnerships for celibates. The headlines have, however, stimulated vigorous kicking and screaming by people. Lynette Burrows on yesterdays PM programme (18 minutes in) shared with the nation her “instinct that people like me have which is revulsion” about gay people. The role of the Church, she implies, is to validate her instinctive disgust, which she imagines is shared by everybody.Giles Fraser's response on BBC Saturday PM was very good. You can hear the shock and outrage in his voice. Lynette Burrows commentary was truly ugly. If you wish to listen, the program is available for six days only.
Part of Giles' response on the BBC program is incorporated into his opinion column in the Guardian.
"So, bishop, are you having sex with your partner?" I can't imagine anyone asking that question with a straight face. And what constitutes sex anyway? Snogging? Toe-sucking? (Is there a Church of England position on this?) Yet the new line from the C of E – ludicrously, that gay men in civil partnerships can be bishops as long as they refrain from sex (or to put it another way, we'll have gay bishops as long as they are not really gay) raises the question: how on earth will the authorities ever find out? A CCTV in every bedroom? Chastity belts in fetching liturgical colours? No, the only way the bedroom police could ever really know is if they ask and play a moral guilt trip about honesty on those being interrogated. So do sexually active gay priests or bishops have a moral responsibility to tell the truth? Actually, I think not. I'd go further: in this situation, they have a moral responsibility to lie.Well, the lying is certainly being done now, and I understand that clergy and bishops lie for their own self-protection. Still I'd hope for something like a plan for a grand coming-out party where all, or at least a majority, of gay and lesbian clergy and bishops come out of the closet, while, at the same time, a large majority of straight clergy stand in public support of their brothers and sisters. What would be the response of the leadership in the church?
Of course, it's easy for me to make such a suggestion, because I risk nothing, and perhaps it's pure fantasy, but what will it take for the leaders in the Church of England to realize how foolish they appear with their decisions to pry into the intimate lives of their bishops and clergy in a discriminatory way in order to prolong the practice of inequality?
As is obvious in the broadcast, the discrimination does not appease the people who oppose the ordination of gay and lesbian clergy and the consecration of gay bishops. Even Archbishop Eliud Wabukala, the Primate of Kenya and the leader of FoCA, weighed in, and he is not amused.
IT's graphic of CofE bishops coming out of the closet at The Friends of Jake.
This reminds me of the Monty Python routine: the ministry of silly walks.
ReplyDeleteSo it does, Jim. To laugh or to cry? Real people are affected by the silliness. What will it take for the leadership in the church to look in the mirror and see themselves the way so many others see them?
DeleteWhen equality for LGTB persons and women come in the CofE, it will have been done grudgingly, which will take away much of the joy of the occasion.
Still I'd hope for something like a plan for a grand coming-out party where all, or at least a majority, of gay and lesbian clergy and bishops come out of the closet, while, at the same time, a large majority of straight clergy stand in public support of their brothers and sisters.
DeleteWhat a beautiful idea! I'm not clergy but I'd cheerfully stand in support.
As I would, Bluebird.
DeletePerhaps the Church of England needs someone in a public forum to ask someone like the Archbishop of Canterbury (or whoever else is writing these screeds claiming to represent the Church) "Do you sodomize your wife?"
ReplyDeleteWhere is the Church of England's Eric Berndt?
Ouch! Someone should ask. Bravo for the young law student.
Delete"Do you and your wife ever engage in anything that might be considered gay sex including various oral practices?" I think someone should ask Justin W!
ReplyDeleteFWIW
jimB
Why the leaders in the church don't realize the humiliation and embarrassment that this sort of prying involves is beyond me.
DeleteThe obvious response to Giles Fraser's question about "whether there is a Church of England position on this":
ReplyDeleteYes, missionary.
Yes, Paul. Excellent. You made me laugh.
DeleteMore like the walks of silly ministry....
ReplyDeleteSeriously, the English have such a long history of duplicity on homosexuality -- so common, yet so lied about. In church, state, public school, the secret service. It is absurd.
Tobias, a friend on Facebook beat you to the Monty Python Ministry of Silly Walks. I had a good laugh watching the video again. The tea lady is hilarious.
DeleteThe history of hypocrisy over homosexuality is broad and deep, but I don't understand why the English continue the practice on such a scale even now, as much of the rest of the world comes to acceptance.
True, Mimi, hence my comment on the walk of silly ministries. The C of E seems to want to talk the talk endlessly, but never take the walk. Silly ministers attempting to walk in ways repugnant to human flourishing...
ReplyDeleteThe English obsession with this issue -- the aftereffects of which we can witness in many of their former colonies -- is woven into the fabric of the culture. It will not easily be disentangled.
The election of Gene Robinson in a diocese that was not known as flamingly liberal was a gift in ways that we did not fully realize at the time, because it forced the Episcopal Church to address the matter of a bishop in a same-sex partnership head on. TBTG for elections of bishops.
DeleteMimi, I concur. I think if England had an open election process rather than the smoke-filled room approach we might have seen an openly gay and partnered bishop in England before Gene. Though even as I say that, I have to check myself due to the unplumbed depths of English hypocrisy and the depths of English closets. As someone once observed, some English bishops are so deep in the closet they are practically in Narnia!
ReplyDeleteThe polity of the Church of England remains mysterious to me, seemingly with one foot still mired in the past, and the other struggling to straddle an ever-widening gap to the present. And Rowan told our bishops they didn't know how to run a church!
DeleteGay Bishops should come out. Honor demands it. I even made a graphic for them:.
ReplyDeleteIT, your graph is perfect.
DeleteI simply don't see how we can remain in communion with the CofE, at this point. This is a failed organization, not just flawed. It's only redemption is complete dismantling and starting from the ground up. We need to establish TEC missions in the UK and cut out this wavering over a mere need to pretend to be like Rome, but better. We can have a global communion, but not with those who believe that lying, hypocrisy, and bigotry are acceptable "costs of business" for the Body of Christ.
ReplyDeleteMark, I hope things will turn around, and, while I don't despair of the possibility that the situation will improve, it seems to be taking quite a long time. As Tobias said the hypocrisy about homosexuality is woven deep into the English culture.
Delete