Back in the 80s, before the publication of “Issues”, the Church of England commissioned a report on homosexuality. The so-called “Osborne Report” (named as such because it’s chair was the Rev June Osborne) was never formally published back then, but has now been released by the CofE. You can download it here or read below.
It’s fascinating reading. The outcome was basically a call for the Church of England to work towards some kind of deeper theology around the area of human sexuality, sexual identity and relationships. The specific recommendations were:
One further immediate thought. There has been much comment elsewhere about how this report was essentially junked and then Issues in Human Sexuality created. However, it seems clear to me that whilst the House of Bishops did choose not to publish this paper, it did respond to it. Section 349 reads,
and on reflection that is exactly what the House of Bishops did in issuing “Issues” and then over the past two decades increasingly officially enforcing that position at Bishops’ Selection Conferences.
Your thoughts? If you take the time to read the report, what are the bits that stand out to you? Is anything in it prophetic? Is there content that could obviously be revised 30 years on?
The Church long ago decided there was essentially nothing to stop a gay man who lived a life of celibacy from becoming a bishop. Even within the orthodox wings there was acceptance it would be difficult to exclude someone who was living in an entirely celibate civil partnership – for most traditionalists the line in the sand was engaging in a physical, same-sex relationship.
But a grey area remained concerning clergy who at one time or another had a same-sex relationship but had since abandoned it in favour of celibacy. Could someone who had been physically homosexual ever become a bishop?
The Church’s legal note provided a stark answer. Only those who had “repented” their physically homosexual past could be considered for a bishop. You could be a gay bishop, but only if you vocally shunned your sexual past, a condition which is not imposed on heterosexual applicants.
Within conservative wings the caveat quickly became gleefully nicknamed “The Jeffrey John clause” – after the openly gay Dean of St Albans who was humiliatingly made to relinquish his appointment to the Bishop of Reading in 2003 following traditionalist outrage over his promotion. Dr John lives in a celibate relationship but has always said refused to apologise for his past.
In effect, the decision meant those who remained in the closet could climb the ecclesiastical pole, but those who were honest about their sexuality were disbarred. To the liberals it was a slap in the face – another clear indication that senior leaders within the Church of England had no desire to rock the boat or confront an issue that has deeply divided the Anglican Communion for much of the past 15 years.
Further on there’s the exclusive.
The Independent also understands Dr John was not even long-listed for the currently vacant post of Bishop of Edinburgh, meaning no church leader was willing to put him forward for another key diocese with liberal leanings.
This originally in the Sunday Times (behind a pay-wall) and now in the Mail on Sunday.
A controversial gay dean has threatened to take the Church of England to court after he was blocked from becoming a bishop.
The Very Rev Jeffrey John, Dean of St Albans, has instructed an eminent employment lawyer to complain to Church officials after being rejected for the role of Bishop of Southwark.
Sources say the dean, one of the most contentious figures in the Church, believes he could sue officials under the Equality Act 2010, which bans discrimination on the grounds of sexuality. Such a case could create a damaging new rift within the CoE.
Dr John was at the centre of a storm in 2003 when forced to step down as Bishop of Reading by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams after it became known that he was in a gay, though celibate, relationship. The furore fuelled a bitter civil war within the Anglican Church that has dominated Dr Williams’s decade in office.
The dean was again a cause of infighting in 2010 when he was a candidate for Bishop of Southwark. A respected theologian and former canon at Southwark Cathedral, he had strong backing from senior Church liberals and it was said even David Cameron was supportive.
But the Crown Nominations Commission, whose members are responsible for selecting bishops and include Dr Williams, appointed another candidate. Dr John was said to be furious and his supporters’ anger was stoked by a memo by another member of the commission, the late Dean of Southwark Colin Slee, claiming Dr Williams was one of those who tried to ‘wreck’ Dr John’s chances.
Dr John has instructed Alison Downie, partner and head of employment at London lawyers Goodman Derrick, to write to the Commission to suggest it risks breaching gay equality laws if it is blocking the dean over his homosexuality.
Ms Downie previously acted for a gay youth worker who successfully sued the Church in 2008 after the Bishop of Hereford Anthony Priddis refused him a job.
It is understood there has been a lengthy correspondence between Ms Downie and Church lawyers in an attempt to resolve the dispute. No legal action has been launched but it is thought Dr John has not ruled out the possibility, although one source said Dr John suggested he would drop his legal threat if he felt he would not be ruled out for future posts.
Church lawyers published new guidelines last summer which said that under the Equality Act, candidates cannot be barred from senior Church posts because they are gay as long as they do not have sex. The guidance added that candidates could be blocked if they were regarded as divisive because their views or behaviour had angered a significant number of their flock.
Ms Downie refused to comment last night. A Church spokesman also refused to comment.
OK, what to make of this? When I first heard the story breaking last night my initial reaction was, “That doesn’t sound anything like something Jeffrey John would do”. However, one conversation with Jonathan Wynne-Jones later and it appears that it all stacks up. What is going on?
Back when the fuss over his nomination for Southwark emerged, I made some suggestions about how to proceed. John Richardson also had some wise words to say.
Secondly, it would be difficult to condemn Dr John’s appointment on the grounds that he is in a relationship with someone of the same sex. The Church of England accepts the existence of civil partnered clergy, and although some (including myself) may think this is a mistake, the House of Bishops has made it clear that this acceptance is based on the provision of assurances that such relationships are sexually celibate. Moreover, Dr John has (as I recall) declared that this is the case for his own relationship.
There are therefore no current grounds within the Church of England’s teaching and practice regarding Dr John’s domestic arrangements for condemning his appointment as a bishop.
In fact, the only grounds I can see for objecting to Dr John’s appointment in principle lies in his teaching about human sexuality.
Some years ago, Dr John famously wrote a short book called Permanent, Faithful, Stable in which he advocated the acceptance of homosexual relationships, including non-celibate relationships, which showed those three features. I havereviewed this elsewhere, and detailed the difficulties I have with his approach, and I believe it would be entirely proper to object to Dr John’s appointment on the grounds of the position he adopts in this book.
However, if that is the basis on which an objection is to be made, it must be realized that the same would apply — as I have pointed out already — to a number of other existing Anglican bishops.
In other words, if Dr John’s appointment is seen as a potential casus belli, it needs to be appreciated that we are potentially at that point in more than one other diocese. Personally, I do not think this has been understood, and I am not at all sure that the implications have been considered as they ought to have by those who might think this is an ‘open and shut’ case.
Before any fierce objection is voiced to the mooting of Dr John, therefore, it needs to be asked, “Why him? Why now?” And if the objections are, nevertheless, made and actions do in fact follow, then for consistency’s sake this should not just apply to Dr John’s appointment, which may, in any case, never happen.
John Richardson is absolutely right – the Church of England is now in some sense reaping the mess it has created by constantly trying to fudge this issue. We are getting nearer and nearer to the point where the institutions will have to decide one way or the other.
Of course, there is one more question to answer, and that is who to sue? Welcome to the complicated structures of the established Church…
Update
Just remembered the Bible speaks very pertinently to the situation.
When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers!
(1 Corinthians 6:1-8 ESV)
The Core Issues Trust conference to be held in Belfast on Friday 20 and Saturday 21 January 2012 will explore the role of evangelical and orthodox churches in supporting men and women with unwanted same sex attractions. The event focuses primarily on issues around practical theology rather than psychotherapy.
Dr Jim Reynolds will call fellow ministers and believers to live out the redemptive role of local churches in affirming those men and women, both within and outside the church, who seek to live according to orthodox teachings of the bible. His message will underscore the institutional and hypocritical failure of evangelical Christianity to recognise heterosexual sin whilst ostracising those inclined to homosexuality. He calls all to repentance.
Core Issues Trust does not offer so-called “Reparative‟ or „Conversion‟ therapy but does offer support to individuals conflicted in religious and sexual identity, within a specific ethical frameworki. It recognises the fundamental human rights of the LGBT community to live in partnerships that are happy, fulfilled and respected. It acknowledges that Christians have different understandings of the teachings on the bible around human sexuality. It reserves the right to offer alternative orthodox views to those who choose to prioritise a religious identity over a sexual identity, or when these identities collide.
The conference organisers recognise that the event‟s title “The Lepers Among Us” has caused some misunderstanding, being taken as a call for the church to treat LGBT people in the way that lepers were treated by society in biblical times – shunned and regarded as untouchable. In fact the intention is the opposite. This conference criticises the church for behaving in this very way – treating LGBT people as „outcasts‟ – and calls upon it to help end prejudice wherever it is found, especially within the church.
Towards this end, the organisers request the Royal College of Psychiatrists, BACP, UKCP and other like-minded professional bodies to pay careful attention to the dangers of prematurely foreclosing on an LGB-affirmative stance when working with individuals conflicted in their religious and sexual identities. It requests more thorough discussion about how to deal with competing religious and cultural values, and for these groups to recognise the poor quality of currently available scientific data and the lack of adequate evidence around both proving or disproving sexual orientation change efforts.
The organisers welcome any individuals wishing to participate in or to observe its event, and requests that attendees are not harassed or intimidated in their right to free association.
This could be possibly the most important 60 minutes or so of audio around the whole Conservative Christian response to homosexuality that you have listened to for decades.
Alan Chambers was part of a panel at the Gay Christian Network Conference two nights ago and answered questions about his view on human sexuality and the current emphases of Exodus International. It’s remarkable piece as he outlines a shift in the emphasis of Exodus. The two parts of the session are below. Part One is an introduction to the four panellists and Part Two is the main interaction with Chambers (and others). I strongly recommend you take the time to listen to at least Part Two.
Part One
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Part Two
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Some of the reporting of this event has slightly missed the point. Here for example is the quote of Chambers referenced at Episcopal Cafe.
The majority of people that I have met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them have not experienced a change in their orientation or have gotten to a place where they could say that they could never be tempted or are not tempted in some way or experience some level of same-sex attraction. I think there is a gender issue there, there are some women who have challenged me and said that my orientation or my attractions have changed completely. Those have been few and far between. The vast majority of people that I know will experience some level of same-sex attraction.
The Cafe have taken that to mean that Chambers is saying that no-one ever sees a shift in their orientation, but that is not what Chambers actually means. Rather he is saying that most of the people who attend an Exodus affiliate programme do not come out “100% straight”. That however is not the same as saying that nobody ever sees any change in their sexual attractions and identity. As the ongoing Jones and Yarhouse study clearly shows, some people do experience some form of change, but that is normally a move to some degree of heterosexual attraction rather than a complete switch to “straight”.
Does this signal a shift in Exodus’ emphasis? I think it does. What has been happening for the past few years (and this blog has been a constructive part of that movement) is that those of us with any integrity writing and ministering in this area have realised that we need to say something different to describe what we actually see and experience in this work. In some senses, what Alan shared at the GCN conference is part of a movement towards a conservative Christian position that I think will look something like this.
More openness to the fact that for those of us who have seen some form of shift in orientation, that shift is simply along the sexuality spectrum and almost certainly not to the point which is “Kinsey 0″ (exclusively heterosexual). Such a move almost never happens. If there is more openness about what our sexual attractions actually are then we can move away from the idea that “gay = bad”. There is still, like it or not, plenty of “homophobia” in some conservative churches and this needs to be addressed. We need to have safe spaces where people can say “I’m gay” without people running a mile, taking folks off children’s’ church rotas and instantly trying to cast out demons or book them onto a course that will “fix them”.
This means that ministries like Exodus will seek less to “change orientation” but rather will simply strive to help those who have same-sex attraction and who want to live lives inalignment with the traditional sexual moral to do so. This might mean at times opportunities to undertake courses like Living Waters, but it should never be suggested that such a course will “fix” someone. Indeed, we need to be honest about where people will probably end up (either still with exclusive homosexual attraction or “bisexual”). We need to be very clear that courses will not fix people (if “fix” means 100% straight) and that the real fix is to surrender a life to God, regardless of “becoming straight” or not. That is not to say that some courses cannot help with minimising and disabling the power of some sexual attractions, but they cannot guarantee “healing”.
Part of the above means accepting that some of the things done in the past by some ministries were wrong. This is going to be very painful.
The ministry emphasis will move towards sexual identity as a key. This was one of the findings of the Jones and Yarhouse study, that whilst the participants who saw change in orientation saw on average a shift of one point on the Kinsey scale, almost the more significant thing that happened was a change in their understanding of themselves. Interestingly, this was the emphasis of a new publication by Andrew Goddard and Glynn Harrison (not available online yet unfortunately) for the Christian Medical Fellowship. It basically argues this very point, that whilst there is some evidence of some orientation change amongst some people, the real pastoral work that succeeds is helping people to integrate their sexual desire with their conservative moral framework.
Finally, that this will be VERY hard to communicate and many people will, deliberately or accidentally, not understand what is being communicated.
Needless to say I am very excited about this because it fits exactly into what I have been trying to articulate with the language of “post-gay”. If you want to get some idea of what my position is, read this, this and this.
Over to you. Is this the start of something new for Exodus, something better, a learning from the past few decades? If so, what does the future hold? Can a coherent Conservative pastoral response by formulated that doesn’t make promises that can’t be kept but does offer hope to those with same-sex attraction who seek to live a chaste life?
Man never achieves a clear knowledge of himself unless he has first looked upon God's face, and then descends from contemplating Him to scrutinize himself. Jean Calvin
Aber mit der Heimat
geht man immer herum,
durch die Welt,
dort und dort
Peter Handke
No one could describe
the Word of the Father;
but when He took flesh from you, O Theotokos,
He consented to be described, and restored the fallen image to its former beauty.
We confess and proclaim our salvation in word and image.
Kontakion of the Triumph of Orthodoxy
About Peter and Family
Welcome to An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy. To find out more about Peter click here
Want to join the other 313 subscribers to Peter's RSS feed? Click here.
Thomas Aquinas
Eternal God,
who enriched your Church with the learning and holiness
of your servant Thomas Aquinas:
give to all who seek you
a humble mind and a pure heart
that they may know your Son Jesus Christ
as the way, the truth and the life;
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.
God’s Word
Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. (Galatians 6:1, ESV)
But the Crown Nominations Commission, whose members are responsible for selecting bishops and include Dr Williams, appointed another candidate. Dr John was said to be furious and his supporters’ anger was stoked by a memo by another member of the commission, the late Dean of Southwark Colin Slee, claiming Dr Williams was one of those who tried to ‘wreck’ Dr John’s chances.
