Welcome to An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy. If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the RSS feed to keep up to date with what I'm writing. Alternatively, if you want to contact Peter in relation to issues of human sexuality, please use the contact form here. Thanks for visiting!
Table of contents for London Gay Wedding
This is the first of a series of post looking at the news this morning that a London Anglican Clergyman "married" two other male priests in a ceremony that mimicked marriage.
This post looks at the liturgy used in that service and compares it to a BCP marriage service to show that the explanation that this was only intented to be "a blessing" is specious.
This coloured text indicates language lifted directly from the BCP
This coloured text indicates language directly altered from the BCP (so as to use the language of marriage but to apply it to two men).
| BCP Marriage Service - from here |
St Bartholemew Service Liturgy - here |
| Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men’s carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained. First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name. Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body. Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace. |
Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together these Men in a holy covenant of love and fidelity; Such a covenant shows us the mystical union between God and God’s people and between Christ and his Church; The Holy Scriptures point to the offering and receiving of love as the principle sign of God’s presence; the union of two people in heart, body and soul is intended by God for their mutual joy, for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity; and that their love may be a source of grace and blessing to all whom thy encounter. Today Peter and David wish to commend themselves to each other exclusively and pulblicly, in making a solemn covenant as a seal and sacrament of their mutual love and devotion. This step has been carefully considered and is not enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God. |
| N, wilt thou have this woman to thy wedded wife, to live together after God’s ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt thou love her, comfort her, honour, and keep her in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all other, keep thee only unto her, so long as ye both shall live? The Man shall answer, I will. |
Peter, wilt thou have this man as thy partner, in the sight of God? Wilt thou love him, comfort him, honour, and keep him in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all other, keep thee only unto him, so long as ye both shall live? Peter shall answer, I will. |
| N. WILT thou have this man to thy wedded husband, to live together after God’s ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt thou obey him, and serve him, love, honour, and keep him in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all other, keep thee only unto him, so long as ye both shall live? The Woman shall answer, I will. |
David, wilt thou have this man as thy partner, in the sight of God? Wilt thou love him, comfort him, honour, and keep him in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all other, keep thee only unto him, so long as ye both shall live? David shall answer, I will. |
| I N. take thee N. to my wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to I love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God’s holy ordinance; and thereto I plight thee my troth. | I Peter take thee David as my partner, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to I love and to cherish, till death us do part; and thereto I plight thee my troth. |
| I N. take thee N. to my wedded husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to I love, cherish and to obey, till death us do part, according to God’s holy ordinance; and thereto I plight thee my troth. | I David take thee Peter as my partner, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to I love and to cherish, till death us do part; and thereto I plight thee my troth. |
| WITH this ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. | WITH this ring I thee bind, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. |
| ETERNAL God, Creator and Preserver of all mankind, Giver of all spiritual grace, the Author of everlasting life: Send thy blessing upon these thy servants, this man and this woman, whom we bless in thy Name; that, as Isaac and Rebecca lived faithfully together, so these persons may surely perform and keep the vow and covenant betwixt them made, (whereof this Ring given and received is a token and pledge,) and may ever remain in perfect love and peace together, and live according to thy laws; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. | ETERNAL God, Creator and Preserver of all mankind, Giver of all spiritual grace, the Author of everlasting life: Send thy blessing upon these thy servants whom we bless in thy Name; that, as David and Jonathan’s souls were so knit together, so these men may surely perform and keep the vow and covenant betwixt them made, (whereof this Ring given and received is a token and pledge,) and may ever remain in perfect love and peace together, and live according to thy laws; protect them from all trouble and danger, and bring them, with us, to the heavenly feast of your eternal kingdom; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. |
| FORASMUCH as N. and N. have consented together in holy wedlock, and have witnessed the same before God and this company, and thereto have given and pledged their troth either to other, and have declared the same by giving and receiving of a Ring, and by joining of hands; I pronounce that they be Man and Wife together, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. | FORASMUCH as David and Peter have consented together in a holy covenant, and have witnessed the same before God and this company, and thereto have given and pledged their troth either to other, and have declared the same by giving and receiving of a Ring, and by joining of hands; I pronounce that they be bound together, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. |
| GOD the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, bless, preserve, and keep you; the Lord mercifully with his favour look upon you; and so fill you with all spiritual benediction and grace, that ye may so live together in this life, that in the world to come ye may have life everlasting. Amen. | GOD the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, bless, preserve, and keep you; the Lord mercifully with his favour look upon you; and so fill you with all spiritual benediction and grace, that ye may so live together in this life, that in the world to come ye may have life everlasting. Amen. |
My next post will be a commentary on the text of the covenant service and its theological implications.
Tags: Anglican Clergyman, Appetites, Beasts, Cana Of Galilee, Carnal Lusts, Coloured Text, Fear Of God, Fornication, Gay Wedding, Holy Matrimony, Holy Name, Honourable Estate, Liturgy, Male Priests, Marriage Service, Mystical Union, Procreation, Saint Paul, St Bartholemew, Sunday Morning, Time Of Man
June 15th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Just two small points. First, it should be “sight of God” as in “before him”, rather than “site of God” as in “Heaven”.
Also, do you notice this line: “the mystical union between God and God’s people”? Call me paranoid, but why not “God and his people”, and why repeat “God and God’s people” and “Christ and the Church”? Aren’t they the same thing?
Incidentally, by making a homosexual union a sign of the mystical union between Christ and the Church we have reached the ultimate deconstruction of not only sexuality but salvation. But that is another story.
June 15th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Dear Peter,
Why bother doing all this analysis? It is clear that this service, whatever the name we give it, was intended to theologically affirm the relationship between David and Peter in a way that is to be equated with marriage.
The most important work to be done from your side of the fence it seems to me though is how you are going to live within the Church of England when there are blessings/marriages like this happening throughout the country, when there are hundreds of gay clergy working on the ground, and where there are thousands of churches full of people who do not conform to the traditional teaching on sexual relationships. If, for example, Peter Ould became the vicar of my church, and preached about his understanding of sexual relationships, most of the people would walk out and never darkens the doors again. It just is not important to us as a litmus test of Christian authenticity.
Of course, the conservative evangelical constituency may tell itself that it can rewind the clock on all of this, but it is unlikely that this is possible. Middle of the road Anglicans and liberal Catholic Anglicans (still the majority in the Church of England) just do not feel any sympathy with evangelical Anglicanism, and most people in our congregations would rather not come to church than be associated with such piety and doctrinal belief. I am not saying this with vitriol, but merely to describe where we are in relation to your constituency Peter, and ultimately where the real issues lie.
So, as a priest who is in a civil partnership, who has had a service of ‘thanksgiving’ for that partnership, who told my bishop about it, who ministers to a congregation like the one above, and who knows hundreds of gay clergy from curates to bishops, I want Peter to have a series discussion about the realities of where we are at, and not to debate what we all really knew took place at the ceremony described in the papers.
Of course, in the end, it is your blog and your agenda, but I wonder if this is some form of intellectual, head stuff rather than fully engaging with the realities on the ground. I am intrigued, for example, when you last did some cover in the many of the middle of road Anglican churches around you, and got to grips with what the Church of England is really like on the ground. I have to say, my significant experience, of covering some evangelical churches in my deanery is that it is like being in a different country.
June 15th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
John,
I have edited the text accordingly - thanks for pointing out the error.
As regards your second point, I have a post coming shortly that will address that.
June 15th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Why is it that I’ve only ever heard of one clergyman who has chosen to be honest, and leave the church because of the incompatibility of his homosexual behaviour with the church’s teachings and discipline?
I can quite understand how someone nowadays might believe that there is nothing wrong with a man “marrying” and/or having sexual relations with another man… But Christians, and especially clergy, have a calling - to believe in Christ and obey the apostolic teachings - on which the Church is built.
If these three clergymen don’t want to obey and teach the apostolic teachings about sexual behaviour, that the church has taught and followed (ish) for the last 2000 years, why don’t they just leave ? Then they would be free of criticism, probably admired by many!
By trying to stay aren’t they vulnerable to the charge of hypocrisy as well as sin?
June 15th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
In response to one point of Winston’s: “Of course, the conservative evangelical constituency may tell itself that it can rewind the clock on all of this, but it is unlikely that this is possible.” Rewinding the clock backwards on history is tricky, but conservative evangelicals are keen on looking forward and acting in the light of the future: on the day of judgement how will the members of Winston’s church fare if their current understanding of discipleship is such that they would walk out on Peter Ould’s scripture-based teaching on marriage and sexuality? That conservative evangelicalism’s message, motivated among other things by concern to prepare people for the day of judgement, is unpopular does not make it false, nor does it guarantee its continuing unpopularity in the next generation. Humanity has seen pro-gay phases of toleration come … and go.
June 15th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
I appreciate this comparison.
With regard to typos:
“the union of two people in heart, body and soil is intended by God for their”
It is hard to read in the PDF, but I think it has soul, not soil. But I don’t think you should necessarily change it in your post.
With regard to your next post, I look forward to it. The reason I so object to this is that it binds people in a covenant before God to remain in the relationship, and in the ring ceremony calls the same-sex behavior worship. This will create terrible psychological confusion for those who spiritually mature out of same-sex behavior.
June 15th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Thanks Perpetua,
I have corrected the typo and removed your bolding!!!
The new post is now up.
June 15th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Peter Carrell,
In the end, to be blunt, if the people in my church are wrong, we will face God’s judgement together along with all those throughout the world who have sought to live good lives at odds with a particular, narrow interpretation of the Gospel. So be it, who would want to be with a God who makes judgements on that basis.
I also have to say that I am not too concerned about post death existence, that is down to God - I am though concerned about human flourishing in relation to God and neighbour, and it is to this end that my parish sets its sights.
I do see that Peter O has posted his insights, theological musings about the service. I still maintain that this is a waste of time - the conservatives believe it was a ‘wedding service’ already, and the rest of us are getting on with living in solidarity with those who love one another, despite the church’s refusal to be honest about the realities of the people who sit in our pews.
June 15th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Well I’ve worked in three dioceses over 15 years and not even heard a single story about clergy disobeying the church’s teaching on same sex relationships. Now maybe I have led a sheltered life or maybe other folks are just more exposed to it than is actually the average across the Church of England.
Winston - what are you going to do when you discover that your part of the CofE doesn’t represent the whole of the church. Let’s have a serious discussion about that.
June 15th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Let me add that I find it deeply troubling that clergy feel free to ignore their ordination oaths. I think if one felt so strongly about the teaching of the church that one couldn’t obey it then the very least one should expect is to be disciplined.
If I broke my wedding vows I would expect to take some stick from my wife and wouldn’t want to say, “Ah but the wedding vows don’t apply to me or, I was simply being pastoral when I broke my vows.”
The current teaching on blessings inchurch after civil partnerships is clear - they are prohibited. Clergy are at liberty to argue against it. They are not at liberty to disobey it and should IMO expect to be disciplined if they do so.
June 15th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
No5 - clergy having ‘civil partnerships’ are not prohibited - the House of Bishops make this clear. However, if they enter into one, they must inform their bishop. This is something that I did. I also had a service of thanksgiving; again, Common Worship allows for such a provision in its pastoral offices. As someone who has blessed benches, rosaries etc, I do not see why I cannot bless, or asked to be blessed, the relationship of two people who love one another.
Clergy ignoring their ordination vows - I think you have led a sheltered life or do not know the clergy that you are associated with very well. How many priests truly can say they believe everything in the 39 articles? I just wonder - do you attend chapter, go to deanery synod, have pulpit swaps, engage with the liberal, middle of the road, anglo-catholic clergy in your area - do you talk about the things that you struggle to believe in - I could go on.
Lastly, I have to say that I do not think that I will discover that I am not in the mainstream of the Church of England. The average Church of England parishioner does not care about most of the things that we talk about on these blogs; they certainly would not understand half of the things that Peter O talks about in his writings. In the end, Mr and Mrs Anglican want to go to church, say their prayers, and get on with living their lives. What is also clear is that many of them do not like the way that some members of the Church of England are pushing us in a more conservative direction. For over two hundred years now, the Anglican Church in this country has on the whole moved in a moderate, liberal and sacramental direction. The present movement, amongst some, to move in a more conservative direction is not welcome to most moderate Anglicans, and they would rather stay at home and listen to the ‘Archers’ than subject themselves to the excesses of immoderate religion.
June 15th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Winston — what people like to believe is not necessarily true. our knowledge of religious truth can have its source in a number of things. Christianity, historically, has been convinced that God has revealed himself in nature, in Scripture, and in his Incarnate Son. Jesus Christ took Scripture as God’s revealed Word, and so do the Articles of Religion (which I do believe). Thus, we Evangelicals, and classic Anglo-Catholics, uphold a revealed and received faith, including a moral order that says that the only appropriate place for sexual intimacy is the marriage of a man and a woman.
You say, “In the end, Mr and Mrs Anglican want to go to church, say their prayers, and get on with living their lives.” What you are talking about is not Christianity, but some form of spiritual — or possibly only emotional — experience that, at best, tips its hat to the living God but does not engage him as he has revealed himself to be. They may not like or want biblical Christianity, but what they want does not mean that historic Christianity is not true.
There are times when I do not want biblical Christianity to be true — when it asks more of me than I want to give. But in the long run, only biblical Christianity makes sense. So I follow it, cost what it may.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Clergy providing blessings in church after civil partnerships is explicitly prohibited. I very much understand and respect what you think about what you can and can’t do. However for the moment you are bound by the Bishops’ Guidance which prohibits you doing it. Thus if you do provide blessings in church after civil partnership you are disobeying your Bishop’s instruction in the Guidelines.
It seems pretty clear to me and when the Archbishop has spoken about it to the Communion he has described the provision of such blessings as potentially a disciplinary matter.
My understanding is that, for the moment, clergy who enter into civil partnerships have should expect to give assurance that their civil partnership is in line with the teaching on issues on Human Sexuality - i.e. celibate. Am I mistaken to think that?
The ordination vows don’t commit you to believing the 39 Articles and haven’t done so for some time. You were asked to, and did, affirm that they bear witness to the historic faith of the Church.
I am thinking of the oath of canonical obedience to the Bishop which you also made. That commits you to obeying the Bishops’ Guidelines, doesn’t it?
My experience has been that the CofE is a very mixed bunch! There’s no single view on any issue and whilst over the last 140 years or so the broad church tradition has been a very significant element in the compound, so has evangelicalism and the traditional Anglo Catholic folks. Thus in my parishes I guess a few folks would celebrate the recent blessing, many folks wouldn’t care or know, some would be outraged. In the middle of the road parishes I have served, in none has there been a significant push to broaden our teaching or practice on human sexuality. In the deaneries in which I have served I knew of no church in which human sexuality was a “live issue” and no parish that was blessing same sex unions. In the dioceses in which I served I knew of no bishop who supported the blessing of same sex unions. (Maybe they did and just didn’t feel the time was right - but, once again, it hasn’t actually been a “live issue” at diocesan level).
June 16th, 2008 at 4:25 am
Winston — thank you for bringing laughter into my day … “I am not saying this with vitriol”
June 16th, 2008 at 8:10 am
I thought that I was asked to obey my bishop at my ordination in ‘all things lawful and honest’
Since, there are no canonical prohibitions, as yet, on these matter nor any legal impediment, I think my civil partnership and what followed was not illegal. In fact, as you say no5, these are ‘Guidelines’, and are, therefore, not canonically binding.
Secondly, in the diocese of Wakefield and London, both of my bishops know the reality of the number of gay clergy, but act as if they do not - they say one thing to the conservatives and another to the liberals - they also have failed to pass the test of ‘honesty’ in my mind. Maybe, no5, in the light of what you say about your experience, gay clergy are overloaded in certain areas - London, Chelmsford, Southwark, Chichester, Wakefield etc.
What I suggest is that the gay clergy of the Church of England come out en masse. If they did, in the diocese of London, there would be one bishop, a number of archdeacons, senior members of the bishop’s office, and hundreds of clergy. In fact, in the two cities areas, the whole area would stop functioning if these clergy were immediately dismissed. By the way, this is all in the public domain.
You will have to ask the bishop of London whether or not if he asked me if I was celibate, it was difficult to work out from what he said.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
I thought this was an interesting snippet from the Guardian:
‘Dudley is the freeholder of St Bartholomew’s, making it virtually impossible for him to be ousted. But he could face procedures which would involve someone proving there had been an irrevocable pastoral breakdown or that Dudley had acted in a manner unbecoming of a clergyman of the Church of England.
Nigel Seed, a church lawyer, said there was no prohibition on having a service after a civil partnership, provided it was not contrary to church doctrine.
“If you do not purport it to be a service of blessing there is nothing to stop couples from having prayers, hymns or a service of prayer and dedication,” he said.
Nigel Seed is actually the Chancellor of the Diocese of London.
So, how does one prove a blessing of two homosexuals is a blessing if there are non authorised to compare it with?
June 16th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Yes there are - the Bishops’ Guidelines have the force of enforceable directives. As Fr. Dudley is sadly soon to find out. Your Bishop has instructed you not to bless civil partnerships in church. You may choose to disobey that. Which was my point in the first place.
Fr. Dudley has already said it was a blessing and he saw nothing wrong with that. He misunderstood the legal status of the Bishops’ Guidelines.
The Tribunal will take a reasonable judgment. In this case - given that they basically used the 1662 solemnization of holy matrimony liturgy (including the blessing of the marriage) one might imagine that the decision will be rather simpler than it might be in other circumstances. That’s what makes Fr. Dudley’s actions so ill judged.
If he had taken a prayer service, or something that could reasonably be argued to be a service of thanksgiving then he would have a case - as the lawyer in the Guardian argues. As he chose to use a lightly adaped 1662 rite - I rather imagine he’ll have a great deal of difficulty arguing it wasn’t a blessing particularly when he has already said it was!
June 16th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Hello No.5 (…that reminded me of Blind Date… sorry!),
at the risk of getting terminally repetitive, as I raised this on the other thread, don’t the House of Bishops guidelines allow a little leeway for clergy to respond pastorally in individual cases?
in friendship, Blair
June 16th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Not in giving blessings of civil partnership - they are expressly prohibited.
June 16th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
No5 - you really do not seem to know much about the bishop of London. He will really do all that he can to get this out of the public eye - going to an ecclesial court would not be something that he would rush into. He is a skilled politician, he will not do anything that causes his diocese to splinter, and an ecclesial court would certainly do that. Remember, he is trying to hold St Helen’s Bishopgate and St James’ Piccadilly together - no easy task.
By the way, when did ‘enforceable directive’ become the language of the Church? I am still waiting for some canons that make ‘Issues in Human Sexuality’ into more than a discussion document, and a breaking of the ‘directive’ as something that is against an oath of canonical obedience.
I am glad though that you recognise that there is provision for liturgies to be used with same sex couples that would mean that Father Dudley ‘would have a case’ if he had used such a thing. I think many conservatives would not agree with you on that one in the light of their understanding of the ‘enforceable directive’ of the bishops.
I am still though intrigued what it is that constitutes a liturgy of blessing - the exact formula that is. Even if Father Dudley says that he has done one for this couple, how does he know, how are we to know, how are the bishops to know when we do not have anything to measure it against. How would we know whether one has taken place, in your eyes, in a possible ‘prayer service’, and as a result take action against said priest?
June 16th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
1. I knew Richard Chartres a little before he was a Bishop and I know the extraordinary diversity of the Diocese of London. Have you looked at the Clergy Discipline Measure - if a Bishop receives a formal written complaint he has to investigate it and if a prima facie case is presented to him by the Registrar he has to deal with it. The old days of bishops simply stuffing everything under the carpet have gone - in part due to human rights legislation.
2. It became your language when swore your oath of canonical obedience to your Bishop prior to ordination.
3. The Bishops’ Guidance expressly makes room for prayer (but not blessing).
4. Of course you’re right and when a disciplinary case is presented the Bishop or Tribunal will use their reasonable judgment to come to a decision as judicial bodies do all the time. In my initial view - the closer the service is to the liturgy of marriage the more reasonable it will be to argue that a blessing of a civil partnership has taken place. As there isn’t a gnat’s whisker between the liturgy that we’re discussing and the 1662 liturgy - I think in this case there is fairly reasonable grounds to make a determination!
June 16th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
So, if you are right no5, we will watch the diocese of London polarise and Bishop Richard’s holding of the tensions collapse - well, so be it! It will be interesting to see all those gay archdeacons etc (see earlier post) respond, maybe it is what we have needed. What I do know is Bishop Richard has not prepared himself for the fall out from his diocese at war over this issue. He is still appointing gay clergy in relationships to senior posts in his diocese. I suspect if he is forced to show his hand, he would support the traditional view while being surrounded by many that do not, and they will have to decide what to do.
Thankfully, I now serve in the Chelmsford diocese, here we have a bishop who is honest and open about what he believes, and he affirms and supports his gay clergy.
By the way, I am not willing to accept that the awful phrase ‘enforceable directive’ is now mine by virtue of my ordination. I will bide my time waiting for some form of a canon that makes ‘Issues in Human Sexuality’, the declaration of the Primates, the Lambeth Resolutions, the Bishop’s Pastoral Statement legally binding in this realm, and then will respond according to conscience.
Thanks for the discussion. I am not sure how far it has got us, but the call of deanery synod pulls me to a higher place.
June 16th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Winston,
I think you have a great idea here:
“What I suggest is that the gay clergy of the Church of England come out en masse. If they did, in the diocese of London, there would be one bishop, a number of archdeacons, senior members of the bishop’s office, and hundreds of clergy. In fact, in the two cities areas, the whole area would stop functioning if these clergy were immediately dismissed. By the way, this is all in the public domain.”
But I am a little confused about how the CoE functions. How many bishops are in a diocese? In this statement, are you outing the Bishop of London as gay, i.e., practicing same-sex behavior?
June 16th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Perpetua,
just quickly, I know winston can speak for himself, but I’m 99.999% certain he’s not ‘outing’ Richard Chartres. C of E dioceses have diocesan bishops (Richard Chartres in London), but also a number of assistant bishops (called suffragans for a reason I can’t recall) - I would suggest (from the gossip I once heard) that it’s an assistant bishop within the Diocese of London whom winston’s suggesting is a friend of Dorothy…
in friendship, Blair
June 16th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Hope deanery synod was good.
I’m not meaning to be difficult and hold no great affection to forms of words. So if another form of words works better for you that’s fine. All I mean is that you are obligated by your bishop’s instructions to you - contained in the Bishop’s Guidelines - so long as they aren’t illegal and aren’t lying. I believe the whole House of Bishops committed themselves to the Guidelines and so would be surprised to hear that your bishop isn’t upholding them in Chelmsford. Is that what you are saying?
Likewise, I know enough about the Diocese of London to know its diversity and was in London during the era of Brain Masters and John Klyberg. The current Guidelines don’t prohibit same sex relationships for clergy - they prohibit non celibate same sex relationships (as per Issues in Human Sexuality). Is it really true that Richard Chartres is appointing clergy to positions who he knows are in breach of the Guidelines? At the very least ordination candidates and those who enter civil partnerships should expect (so say the Guidelines) to give assurances that their relationships are in accord with Issues in Human Sexuality. Is this really not happening in London?
June 16th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Hi No.5,
OK, incurable pedant that I am, have now read the HoB guidelines and essentially you’re right - paragraph 17 says, “In addition, the House of Bishops affirms that clergy of the Church of England should not provide services of blessing for those who register a civil partnership”. I suppose the only hint of ambiguity in the guidelines is that para 18 says, “Where clergy are approached by people asking for prayer in relation to entering into a civil partnership they should respond pastorally and sensitively in the light of the circumstances of each case”, whereas the final paragraph has, “In its approach to civil partnerships the Church will continue to uphold that standard, to affirm the value of committed, sexually abstinent friendships between people of the same sex and to minister sensitively and pastorally to those Christians who conscientiously decide to order their lives differently” - one could say the last bit of that, about what exactly ‘minstering sensitively and pastorally’ can mean, is left open.
…but yes, that’s splitting hairs. In any case Rev Martin Dudley, the priest who did the service in question, has plainly said he disagrees with the guidelines - he is at least nailing his colours (rainbow flag?) to the mast. To my uncharitable eyes the guidelines themselves aren’t helped by what looks like the HoB’s wilful naivete in insisting that there’s “ambiguity” in the civil partnership legislation - if they were not intended as potentially sexual, why the prohibited degrees of relationship that are the same as for marriage? Given that, and the close mirroring of marriage legislation in other areas (property and taxation for instance), it’s remarkable that the Bishops say the legislation leaves “entirely open” the question of what kind of commitment couples entering a CP will make to each other.
But enough - as I said, it’s uncharitable, and in any case the Bishops’ guidelines had to fit within the positions held to in previous documents (eg Issues in human sexuality, Some issues in human sexuality etc), so it’s unsurprising that there’s an awkwardness about them.
Bit off-topic - oops.
in friendship, Blair
June 16th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
I agree largely but I think the House of Bishops point is that non consumation is not grounds for “annulment” (so to say) of a civil partnership - whereas it is a ground for a civil annulment of a marriage, as I understand it. Thus the perception is that civil partnerships may be, but are not necessarily, non celibate.
Hence the Bishops convoluted wording Yes - to prayer after civil partnership. No - to blessing. Yes - to laity entering civil partnerships with no questions. Yes - to clergy entering civil partnerships so long as they expect to affirm that the partnership is celibate. It’s the same awkward compromise as Issues in Human Sexuality.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:00 am
Oh my goodness me. I’ve stopped listening to the radio (for my childrens’ sake), we don’t have tv, and dh only reads the FT, so this all passed me by, and my mouth is just hanging open.
God have mercy.
I am not an Anglican, and it was this type of thing (but I never expected this) and female “priests” that contributed to my certainty that I could not be an Anglican.
I think Winston was talking about being aware of the realities of the people in the pews and ministering to them pastoraly. Which is fine. But the pews are full of sinners of all sorts, with a variety of besetting sins that need to be stamped out, and I thank God for priests who do care about life after death enough to get after us all and do all they can to stop us sinning. I don’t recall many special “blessing the housebreaker’s tool box” services, nor any “adulterous partnership blessings” either.
June 17th, 2008 at 3:27 am
Peter,
Maybe you’ve already seen it (I haven’t read all comments) but I just noticed this link to your post from a story in GetReligion.org http://www.getreligion.org/?p=3609
“But this is one case where it really helps to remember that this story focuses on the radical redefinition of an ancient sacramental rite in a church that claims apostolic ties to Catholic orders and creeds. This has to be a story about worship and doctrine.
That’s where another Telegraph story really shines. To truly grasp the importance of what is going on, and all the fine details, I suggest that GetReligion readers click here and print out a blogger’s close analysis of the actual text for this same-sex rite, compared and contrasted with the Book of Common Prayer rite that it is modernizing or postmodernizing, depending on one’s point of view.”
(Links to http://www.peter-ould.net/2008/06/15/gay-wedding/).
June 17th, 2008 at 8:18 am
No5
In answer to your questions - the Bishop of Chelmsford does not ask any questions concerning the sexual nature of any priest entering into a civil partnership; he is congratulatory and assures them of his full support.
The Bishop of London, likewise, refuses to see the obvious, and carries on appointing. My experience of him asking the question about sex is that he dresses it up in such tortuous language that it is difficult to know what he is asking.
I am intrigued by the ‘Clergy Discipline Measure’ in that London has organised it that Chelmsford nd Southwark are his investigating bishops - neither of them are going to be very keen to make this present case an ecclesial court issue.
It is all crazy, and the time it all stopped the better! You mention being connected to the Edmonton area - the press and anybody who eyes, all know that the Bishop of Edmonton is in a gay relationship - it is doubtful if anyone asked him if it celibate. There is also a great deal of hypocrisy amongst many of the ‘Forward in Faith’ priests in the Edmonton area, they preach orthodoxy in public in the sexual arena, but many behave differently in private. I find it amazing that ‘Reform’ and ‘Forward in Faith’ have become bedfellows in all of this - it is like chalk and cheese, and it is impossible to envisage them both coexisting in the same Church. Can you imagine Syndey Anglicans working alongside the clergy of Edmonton? I find it very interesting that there are 3 Anglo-Catholic parishes in the diocese of Syndey, all of who are battling against a new puritanism that has little room for the type of Christianity that goes beyond their understanding of the Bible.
By the way, do you know if using the ‘Roman Missal’ is still in contravention of the oaths a priest makes at their ordination? It is interesting that many Anglo-Catholics have done this for most of the twentieth century - I certainly grew up in such a parish, ASB - what was that? They even stopped praying for their bishop after he voted for the ordination of women, the Pope though remained central.
Sorry, to those of you who have no idea what I am talking about!
Sorry, I am moving off topic, but I think we really need to take a hard look at some of the alliances at the moment, and what they are really about. Maybe, if you are a conservative evangelical - you should find out about this stuff, as ’Forward in Faith’ is a constituency which is now fully aligned with the resistance to the so called ‘liberal’ agenda.
June 17th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Winston, I am very concerned by your comment that “the Bishop of Chelmsford does not ask any questions concerning the sexual nature of any priest entering into a civil partnership; he is congratulatory and assures them of his full support,” (no fault ascribed to you, of course).
The House of Bishop’s guidelines are quite clear on this: “Members of the clergy and candidates for ordination who decide to enter into partnerships must therefore expect to be asked for assurances that their relationship will be consistent with the teaching set out in Issues in Human Sexuality” (para 21).
Interestingly, this paragraph does not specify by whom such assurances may be sought. They could reasonably, I think, be sought by parishes making an appointment, by patrons and so on (compare para 23, “23.The House considers that lay people who have registered civil partnerships ought not to be asked to give assurances about the nature of their relationship before being admitted to baptism, confirmation and communion,” which clearly does not apply only to bishops).
However, since they are guidelines for the bishops, and since the bishop is responsible for ordination, licensing and so on, it is reasonable to presume that it is the bishop who will be expected to receive the assurances referred to in paragraph 21, and therefore that it is the bishop who will ask for them.
If a bishop does not ask for such assurances, is he not, therefore, avoiding what the guidelines are designed to achieve, and therefore effectively in violation of the guidelines at this point? I am conscious of the seriousness of such an suggestion, but if Fr Dudley is wrong to ignore the guidelines, surely so is a bishop.
In fact, we have already had a situation in the Chelmsford Diocese where a local clergyman, concerned about the status of a civil partnership and frustrated by his bishop’s response, had a very cordial meeting with the clergyman concerned who was happy to tell him it was not celibate. There was no personal animosity involved, but the two of them achieved over a cup of tea what the HoB guidelines would seem to require a bishop to establish.
Once again I ask, surely it is incumbent on bishops to make this enquiry? Otherwise the guidelines are being ignored. Incidentally, this doesn’t give me any confidence that a ‘Code of Practice’ applied on the issue of Women Bishops would be much provision for those who are opposed!
June 17th, 2008 at 10:40 am
I just want to say how how grateful, Winston, I am for your frankness and for your willingness to dialogue. For folks like me it is terribly, terribly disheartening to see our bishops say one thing and then to hear of them doing another. I find it heartbreaking. Nevertheless I really appreciate your desire to keep the conversation going and pray that God blesses you in your ministry.
June 17th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
I’ve only just begun reading and I haven’t read the comments, but I have a quick suggestion. On the BCP side, strike or color those parts of the text that were simply omitted, such as, “which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency . . .”
June 18th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Incidentally, this doesn’t give me any confidence that a ‘Code of Practice’ applied on the issue of Women Bishops would be much provision for those who are opposed!
Actually, I think the fact that there are gay-ordinations and gay parishes coexisting with pretty hardline conservative evangelical parishes in the same diocese - if anything, should give some confidence that Women Bishops won’t change much.
The CoE compromise is, of course, you can be as gay/straight/christian/pagan/femninst/traditional/catholic as you like - provided that you agree (at least in public) that all the bishops are bishops, all the priests are priests —- and if you do that, they they’ll leave you mostly alone.
June 18th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Whoah - what do you make of Bishop Richard’s letter to Fr. Dudley. Blimey - talk about breathing steam. I don’t think this is going to be swept under the carpet. Do you still think so? I think Fr. Dudley is going to be made a public example.
June 18th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
The Bishop’s letter is about as unambiguous as you can get. If Fr Dudley is shown to have clearly disobeyed the Bishop’s lawful instruction, then he’s history.
June 18th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Are the Bishops of Chelmsford and Southwark under the Bishop of London?
Winston says that Chelmsford and Southwark are the Bishop of London’s “investigating bishops”.
But I have seen elsewhere that it is the “Archdeacon of London” who is in charge of the investigation.
Is there any reason to think that any of these are the one referred to by Winston as the gay bishop in the Diocese of London?
Has the Bishop of London appointed a known advocate/ practitioner of homosexual behavior to investigate this matter?
Blair June 16, 2008 9:15 pm
C of E dioceses have diocesan bishops (Richard Chartres in London), but also a number of assistant bishops (called suffragans for a reason I can’t recall) - I would suggest (from the gossip I once heard) that it’s an assistant bishop within the Diocese of London whom winston’s suggesting is a friend of Dorothy…
winston June 17, 2008 8:18 am
In answer to your questions - the Bishop of Chelmsford does not ask any questions concerning the sexual nature of any priest entering into a civil partnership; he is congratulatory and assures them of his full support.
The Bishop of London, likewise, refuses to see the obvious, and carries on appointing. My experience of him asking the question about sex is that he dresses it up in such tortuous language that it is difficult to know what he is asking.
I am intrigued by the ‘Clergy Discipline Measure’ in that London has organised it that Chelmsford nd Southwark are his investigating bishops - neither of them are going to be very keen to make this present case an ecclesial court issue.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
While the bishops letter to Fr Dudley was to the point, I was a bit cynical when reading it, and could not help but wonder -is what he writes what he really means? Is it just a political stunt? This being the week of GAFcon and everything, is it not possible that he publicly releases a stern letter and then rings up Fr Dudley and says -’Don’t worry about it chap. I need to appear to rebuke you, but you have my full support. It will all go away after a while.’
June 19th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Hi Perpetua,
the short answer to all your questions is no. Chelmsford and Southwark are separate dioceses so the bishops of these dioceses aren’t ‘under’ the Bishop of London. The Bishop of Edmonton (whom Winston referred to and I was thinking of!) is (I believe) an assistant bishop within the Diocese of London, but is an entirely different person (and role) from the Archdeacon of London. I had to look this up, cos my understanding of C of E hierarchy is patchy, but in case you also were wondering, an archdeacon ranks just below a bishop.
Hope winston won’t mind me saying this but I’m taking it that he was saying the bishops of Chelmsford and Southwark won’t “be very keen to make this present case an ecclesial court issue”, because they themselves may well have partnered gay clergy in their dioceses, and/or churches in their dioceses have been used for blessing same-sex partnerships (the second of those is certainly true in Southwark).
…clear as mud? :)
in friendship, Blair
June 19th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Notice how nicely worded that is. It doesn’t say ”must be asked”, still less “the Bishop or Archdeacon must ask”, but “must expect to be asked”. I’ve expected all sorts of things in my life which have never happened. So clearly no-one has an absolute obligation to ask for assurances that … etc. No doubt many bishops profit from the Preacher’s wise advice that there is “a time for keeping silent, a time for speaking”. (Ecclesiastes 3:12 [show]Ecclesiastes 3:12
)
I perceived that there is nothing better for them than to be joyful and to do good as long as they live; (ESV)
June 19th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Blair makes the crucial point that there is the danger that if Fr Dudley is disciplined, it could all get very messy very quickly. I can foresee three equally bad scenarios:
i) Some Conservatives engage in a witch-hunt, outing clergy they believe are breaking the Bishops’ guidelines in “Issues” and in the pastoral guidelines on Civil Partnerships
ii) Some revisionists out themselves in a “what are you going to do about it” stance
iii) Some revisionists out senior Anglican clergy who are in gay relationships, not necessarily with their consent, in order to engage again in brinkmanship.
I’m not really sure what I think about this. Part of my is nice and puritan and wants a church that stands by what it officially believes instead of taking a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach. The other part of me knows that such a purge could be deeply disastrous, not just the public face of the church but also the thousands of parishioners suddenly left with no priest.
June 20th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Peter, if you had hundreds of vacant churches with no priest, you could always fly some in from Sydney or somewhere else! ;-)