THIS AND THAT ON ABSTINENCE FROM SEX IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

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.

NOT ALL THAT ROTTEN

I have not done a post on the amendments from the Church of England House of Bishops' meeting (all male, of course!) to the legislation on women bishops which will be presented at General Synod, because I could not understand the meaning of the amendments from the poorly-written press release.  As I've said elsewhere, my initial reaction was that it appeared the writer(s) of the press release attempted to send out a double message to soothe both sides, with the result that the release does not make much sense.

Bishop Alan Wilson courageously provides a priceless explication for us, titled "Swimmin with the Wimmin part 94".  The title alone is worth noting.  A brief quote, and you can read the rest over at Alan's blog.

The result, in true C of E fashion, is a curate’s egg, but probably not such a rotten one as to send the whole process around again in five years time.

From Thinking Anglicans:

WATCH (Women and the Church) is deeply disappointed to hear that the all male House of Bishops has, in a closed meeting, decided to make two amendments to the draft legislation on women bishops that had been so carefully crafted after years of debate and scrutiny from all sides and had commanded the support of 42/44 dioceses across the Church of England.

Read the rest of their press release, which makes much more sense to me than release from the House of Bishops meeting.

I remain in the dark as to how the amended legislation will play out in practice if it passes all three houses of GS with a two-thirds vote.  We shall see.

BISHOP ALAN WILSON IN THE COMMENTS AT HIS BLOG

Bishop Alan Wilson said...

I don't know why the English always have to find a more complicated and painful way of doing simple things. It's clear as a pikestaff from everywhere else in the world that the kindest, as well as the least histrionic way to do this is just to do it. As John Harvey Jones used to say, you can only get shot once. Then sit down with everyone it impacts and go to the greatest lengths possible, with great kindness, to help them in any way that's possible. This is all the more so in England because the variety among the tiny company of people impacted negatively is immense - for some episcopacy is actually of little to no account, to others it's the core of their ecclesiology, for some it's about preaching, for others the Eucharist. Listen carefully to the real issue and then respond kindly to real issues as they arise. That way everybody ends up in the best possible place.

Bishop Alan's suggestion for a simple and straightforward way for the Church of England to include women in the order of bishops seems so eminently sensible to me. The CofE is not my church, and perhaps I should not even express an opinion, but the process at General Synod is painful to observe.

Alan is area Bishop of Buckingham in the Anglican Diocese of Oxfordshire.

ST EDMUNDSBURY AND IPSWICH DIOCESE SAYS STICK A FORK IN IT...

...the Anglican Covenant, that is. The synod of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich Diocese in the Church of England voted to reject adoption of the covenant.

From Lesley's Blog:

The synod met on Saturday the 5th and the motion was rejected.

That makes the number of Dioceses in the Church of England split evenly:

Lichfield and Durham have voted for the Covenant.

Wakefield and Edmundsbury & Ipswich have voted Against.

This is fabulous news. I heard one Church of England bishop say recently that although he had reservations about the Covenant, he couldn’t speak against it because he had sworn an oath of obedience to Rowan Williams. It really does need to be the lay people and the clergy who stop this mad document. Well done Bishop Peter Selby, and well done to the members of Eds&Ips synod.

I agree. The vote to reject the covenant is fabulous news.

About this:

I heard one Church of England bishop say recently that although he had reservations about the Covenant, he couldn’t speak against it because he had sworn an oath of obedience to Rowan Williams.

????!!!

Bishop of Buckingham, Alan Wilson, in the comments to Lesley's post:

As a bishop who has taken an oath of canonical obedience in all things lawful and honest, I have to say I think it’s bizarre to think this commits me to blind obedience to any notion the Archibishop (sic) may adopt. I think it is a higher and more positive form of obedience to be more honest, and had some of my colleagues had the spine to advise him earlier about their real feelings about some of the drawbacks in this particular scheme it would have been an act of loyalty, not disloyalty. In none of my dealings with him (which are not amazingly extensive) have I ever seen anything that implies he would want anything less than honest critical friendship.

And we all say, 'Amen!'. Of course, as former colonials, what we say may not count. Still, I commend Bishop Alan, and I only wish a greater number of bishops in the Church of England had his courage.

Picture from Wikipedia.

BISHOP ALAN WILSON ON THE ANGLICAN COVENANT

Bishop Alan is Bishop of Buckingham in England. He blogs at Bishop Alan's Blog (Surprise!).

The article is from The Anglican Covenant: a Church Times guide, which also includes an annotated copy of the text of the covenant.

I tried to choose quotes from the article, but I couldn't decide what to leave out, because I think the article is splendid, so I decided to post the entire piece. Bishop Alan does not mince words, and I'm quite fond of direct speaking. And I do love his chocolate teapot as a metaphor for Part 4 the covenant.

A USEFUL COMPENDIUM, BUT LOSE THE CHOCOLATE TEAPOT

IN THE village where I began my ordained ministry lived two clans who had feuded, off and on, for 500 years. Local lore says that their young men were having a customary New Year punch-up down by the riverside, when their neighbours hit on the novelty, for the 1920s, of telephoning the police.

The brawl on the banks of the Thames was reaching positively Glaswegian proportions by the time the Keystone Cops from the city lurched into view in their shiny new paddy-wagon. At this point, both tribes laid aside their ancient quarrel for 20 minutes, dealt with the police, hurled their paddy-wagon into the lock, and then got back down to business. A copper’s lot is not a happy one.

If the Anglican Covenant is supposed to patch up the Anglican Communion after the culture wars over sexuality which gave rise to the Windsor report, it has probably already failed. Those whose consent would be necessary for it to achieve that purpose have said openly that they just don’t buy it. The paddywagon is in the lock, and it won’t be taking anyone off to the cells tonight. The thought may allay liberal fears as much as disappoint conservative aspirations.

This failure is probably a mercy, because seven years is a long time in politics — even church politics. Much has changed. As the dust settles on what some felt was sub-Christian bickering about sexuality, colonialism, and biblicism, perhaps a real opportunity is opening up to work out who we really are and what we stand for.

None of the contentious issues of 2003 has gone away, but the energy has drained away from fighting over them. Certainly, in the pews around here, people would sooner stick their heads in a food mixer than see the Anglican dog return to this particular vomit. The Christian faith is about following Jesus Christ, and loving God and neighbour, not having punch-ups by the riverside to feed the self-importance of our most zealous pharisees.

When all is said and done, Anglican Churches are no more than delivery systems for the Kingdom — expressions of discipleship. We did not become Anglicans to build an Anglican brand, but in order better to follow Jesus Christ. We are Anglicans to be Christians, not the other way around. Our ecclesiology, largely implicit, points to this fact by its very incompleteness.

THE first three sections of the Covenant clearly express a reformed Catholic view, based on Archbishop Fisher’s principle: “We have no doctrine of our own — we only possess the Catholic doctrine of the Catholic Church enshrined in the Catholic creeds, and those creeds we hold without addition or diminution.”

The procedural fourth section is a chocolate teapot. Do with it what you will, but do not expect it to hold boiling water. I would detach it from the useful stuff as quietly and as tactfully as possible. Lawyers say that this cannot be done, but I seriously question whether a civilisation capable of conquering space can really be that incapable.

The useful compendium in sections 1-3 could seriously help dioceses and deaneries to explore what being Christian means for them. It could unlock some fascinating questions that are all too seldom addressed.

What does it mean to be a Christian today? How far is an Anglican a member of a global society, and to what extent simply a Christian living out faith in a particular local culture? What kind of local inculturation for mission requires central regulation, and what kind do Churches have to trust other Churches to handle for themselves?

Just what does it mean to be Anglican? Does it involve membership of a global denomination?

The New Testament knows of local churches — small “c” — as part of the whole mystical body of Christ, the first-fruits of the whole human race redeemed: Church with a capital C. What room is there, in that scheme of things, for “denominations”, self-contained mini-Churches developed over the past 300 years, defining themselves over and against each other about particular dogmas?

Perhaps we are supposed to organise our life around deominations. Different as they are, they all use much the same grandiloquent biblical sound-bites to capture their unique selling points. How much authority should we invest in defining and defending the corporate brand?

THESE questions may lead to others. Homosexuality, the main bone of contention in 2003, was not even defined in a modern sense until the last century. There is nothing in any historic creed about it, and next to nothing in the Bible — possibly three or four verses, at a pinch. So how do we deal faithfully with new issues beyond the scope of our base formularies?

What part should bishops, synods, rules, and lawyers play in the Church? When people in the family fall out, do we tinker with the system, or address the problem itself? If we could not use effectively the instruments that we had, what chance is there that we will use new ones better?

What do we mean by church unity? How can legal engineering create unity, and how can it impede it? Is it about producing a single visible organisation in some ideal sense, or does it transcend particular organisations?

Is the Church, ultimately, a smooth-running spiritual society, or humanity as a whole, fully redeemed in Christ? If the latter is God’s purpose, the people you chuck out now come back in the end anyway; so you might as well learn how to live with them.

These are big questions. I hope that, as the Covenant goes out for discussion, lay people’s answers will be as carefully received as those of lawyers and ecclesiastical technocrats have been so far in this process. And if the ordinary people of God, the plebs sancta Dei, who came through the gay wars with their credibility far more intact than that of their bishops, should be allowed a voice, I hope our elders and betters will be listening.

Dr Alan Wilson is the Bishop of Buckingham

In the Study Guide, Bishop Gregory Cameron, amongst other contributors, makes the case in favor of the covenant. The full text of his article is available at Lesley's Blog.