Breaking News - Nothing Changes

Gay Bishop?What is it with the media? They have a perfectly well laid out news report in the Church Times which is followed up by a reasonable and easy to comprehend press release from the House of Bishops. Result? Apparently the policy of the Church of England changes overnight and the Church is in crisis.

Lets get the timeline clear. When the House of Bishops responded to the introduction of Civil Partnerships the pastoral guidelines indicated that there was nothing intrinsically incompatible with being a priest and being in a Civil Partnership, as long as priests remained celibate. Then Jeffrey John was nominated as the new Bishop for Southwark (along with a number of other names) and as a response the House of Bishops sought legal advice as to what grounds would or wouldn’t be reasonable to form a judgement around whether a candidate was suitable. That advice was eventually leaked and then released and I wrote about it here.

The grounds for consideration were as follows.

  • whether the candidate had always complied with the Church’s teachings on same-sex sexual activity
  • whether he was in a civil partnership
  • whether he was in a continuing civil partnership with a person with whom he had had an earlier same-sex sexual relationship
  • whether he had expressed repentance for any previous same-sex sexual activity
  • whether (and to what extent) the appointment of the candidate would cause division and disunity within the diocese in question, the Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion

On the basis of bullets three and four (and probably five) the Archbishops decided that Jeffrey John was not a suitable candidate. No news there.

When the House of Bishops set-up their committee to explore issues around Civil Partnerships, for the sake of not having any precipitative action that would pre-judge the deliberations of that consultation it was decided to have a moratorium on appointing anybody in a Civil Partnership as a Bishop. All that has happened yesterday is that the Church has clarified that such a moratorium has now been lifted. We are essentially simply back to where we were before. Issues in Human Sexuality is still the document the House of Bishops agrees to base their collective policy around, the legal advice issued over Southwark has not been rescinded and nothing really has changed.

But look at the response! Liberals are claiming some form of victory and conservatives are digging bunkers and threatening all-out war. What is that about? Did they both actually read the House of Bishops’ press release, because here’s what that said.

The House of Bishops’ Pastoral Statement on Civil Partnerships issued in 2005 did not address specifically whether clergy who entered such partnerships should be considered for the episcopate. What the House has now done, following the work undertaken by the group chaired by the Bishop of Sodor and Man set up last year, is to look at the matter again last month.

The House has confirmed that clergy in civil partnerships, and living in accordance with the teaching of the Church on human sexuality, can be considered as candidates for the episcopate. There had been a moratorium on such candidates for the past year and a half while the working party completed its task.

The House believed it would be unjust to exclude from consideration for the episcopate anyone seeking to live fully in conformity with the Church’s teaching on sexual ethics or other areas of personal life and discipline. All candidates for the episcopate undergo a searching examination of personal and family circumstances, given the level of public scrutiny associated with being a bishop in the Church of England. But these, along with the candidate’s suitability for any particular role for which he is being considered, are for those responsible for the selection process to consider in each case.

It’s very clear that the only acceptable candidates for Episcopacy are those that “live fully in conformity with the Church’s teaching on sexual ethics or other areas of personal life and discipline”. On top of that “all candidates for the episcopate undergo a searching examination of personal and family circumstances, given the level of public scrutiny associated with being a bishop in the Church of England” which seems to suggest the same kind of moral and legal reasoning that is encompassed by the legal advice given at the time of the Southwark row.

So Liberals are blowing the trumpets of victory too soon. But the same can be said for the response of some conservatives. Rod Thomas said (Reform) “If someone were to be appointed who was in a civil partnership, that would be a very divisive step, both within England and across the Anglican Communion”, but that seems to miss the point that (a) this possibility has been in place since 2005 and (b) if we knew we had a candidate that was avowedly celibate and taught wilfully a Biblical morality, what would it matter if for purposes of companionship and inheritance tax arrangements he had entered into a Civil Partnership? Are we that scared of friendship? I mean, if we believe its right to ask clergy questions about their sex lives (and for someone being asked to be a Bishop I can’t see why this should be a problem given the role of a Bishop), can we not trust them to answer truthfully? Doesn’t the approach of “We can’t accept any Bishop in a civil partnership, celibate or not” smack of homophobia? Would the advocates of such a position be happy with a celibate gay bishop not in a Civil Partnership but living (with clearly demarked boundaries) with a friend? How is that any different?

The problem over the past six or seven years around this issue hasn’t been clergy not being truthful, it’s bishops who haven’t asked them to be truthful. If conservatives want to lay out some grounds for conflict and draw their lines in the sand, wouldn’t it be better to concentrate on those responsible for enforcing discipline and Biblical pastoral care rather than those caught in the cross-fire over this issue?

The Church of England is trying to walk a very fine line between maintaining its traditional sexual ethic and seeing how such an ethic fits in within the statutory and cultural frameworks of the society it lives in. The policy it has in place at the moment (demanding celibacy of priests / bishops who are not married) is not incorrect and neither is the view that Civil Partnerships are not themselves intrinsically sexual. It is however the practice of this policy and view at a Diocesan level where the problems occur, so those opposed to further revisionism would best concentrate their efforts in that sphere if they want to see real results.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
  • http://twitter.com/youthpasta Phil Taylor

    But could this not be death by 1000 cuts? Things used to be really clear, but people broke the rules. Now, rather than disciplining the bishops and clergy who broke the rules, the HoB have decided to change the rules slightly and muddy the waters some more. This doesn’t help anyone and as good as says “Being a practicing homosexual is theologically fine” because everyone knows that, whilst they mention celibacy, civil partnerships are designed as a supporting legal framework for those in homosexual relationships that, almost certainly, include a physically sexual dimension.
    People will claim celibacy, and some may well actually be celibate, but given that so any have lied/withheld the truth about their sexuality in the past in order to become priests or bishops what is to stop them lying now?
    And, getting back to my starting point, we are now at a point of saying civil partnerships are not a problem. It is not a huge step to then say that actually, some physicality in a civil partnership is fine. Then, eventually, you will have a fully sexual civil partnership being fine and then practiced homosexuality becomes fully accepted by the CofE.
    If this step is acceptable, where do we draw the line? For me the line is already behind us.

    • Guglielmo Marinaro

      Yes, it does look as though the C of E is moving by slow degrees to a position comparable to that of, for example, the Protestant Church in the Netherlands. Sound scheme too, by Jove.

      • http://www.peter-ould.net Peter Ould

        I disagree. We have simple reverted to the post-Southwark position. Nothing has changed.

        • http://twitter.com/youthpasta Phil Taylor

          Andrew Goddard, writing on the Fulcrum website, would disagree with you, Peter:

          http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=773

          His line, at the end of the section titled “Has anything changed?”, is “The decision is, therefore, a reversal not a confirmation of the existing policy.”

  • jillfromharrow

    This seems to be the way things work these days. I think there is a distinct possibility that this was leaked to the press who, not being too fussed about accuracy and knowing that sex sells (especially gay sex), leapt upon it with gusto. (Witness how they handled the Synod vote on women bishops!). I know I have a nasty suspicious mind, but could this be in the hope that it will have blown over to some degree before the new Archbishop of Canterbury is in post? (Although I see that Crannie, being in charge during the Interregnum, has posted on it. Must read what he says!)

    • http://twitter.com/mattwardman mattwardman

      Isn’t this post-facto fabrication rather than a leak?

      Fine, the MSM are thick enough to get it wrong or someone could be trying to generate a panic.

  • cerebusboy

    Isn’t this one of the problems with evangelicals (publicly) bending over backwards (but not forwards ;-)) to claim that it’s just gay sex they have a problem with? You know and I know that a Newman type – even if entirely chaste – wouldn’t last five minutes in leadership in a contemporary evangelical church. Is a man having another man as his primary, Civil Partnershipped Life Partner really not problematic to you? If so, I think you’re quite in the evangelical minority!

    • http://www.peter-ould.net Peter Ould

      Wrong on the Newman analogy. Vaughan Roberts seems to be doing just fine.

      • cerebusboy

        Vaughn Roberts has a male partner?

        • http://www.peter-ould.net Peter Ould

          No and neither did Newman.

          • cerebusboy

            Really? Gay relationships are not friendship love+ sex. Someone with a SS romantic partner, like those in Civil Partnerships, is in a gay relationships. Would you have no problem if a nominal evangelical told you that he has a boyfriend, but they don’t have sex, so it’s all good?

            • http://www.peter-ould.net Peter Ould

              Two issues,

              i) Why did we suddenly stop talking about Newman?
              ii) I think I’d want to talk to that person about what exactly the nature of the relationship was and what structures they were putting in place to keep the relationship moral.

              • cerebusboy

                It could be argued that Ambrose was Newman’s partner/companion

                Right. Disclosure of having a male partner is in itself potentially problematic. Why isn’t that true of those in Civil Partnerships?

                • Tom Jones

                  Ryan, on Ann Widdecombe’s documentary on Newman Diarmaid MacCulloch told her as much and even pronounced the g word.

                  • http://www.peter-ould.net Peter Ould

                    Which is nice but there is almost no evidence they were “involved” apart from innuendo and supposition

                    • Tom Jones

                      Of course, we have Fr Kerr, Newman’s biographer’s assurance, Newman was a red-bloodied heterosexual.

                    • cerebusboy

                      Well, in his defence, Newman doesn’t seem significantly camper than your average heterosexual evangelical ;-)

                    • http://www.peter-ould.net Peter Ould

                      This is the point where mockery loses you the argument.

                    • cerebusboy

                      Mockery?! Camp is good!

                    • http://www.peter-ould.net Peter Ould

                      And yet you mocked. You know it….

  • gerv

    “(b) if we knew we had a candidate that was avowedly celibate and taught wilfully a Biblical morality, what would it matter if for purposes of companionship and inheritance tax arrangements he had entered into a Civil Partnership? Are we that scared of friendship?”

    Given what most of the country thinks civil partnerships are (gay marriage with a different name), I think it’s very hard for a clergyperson entering a CP to pass the Ephesians 5:3 test. They’d have to spend all their time explaining to people that their relationship was not, in fact, sexual, and then deal with the fact that some wouldn’t believe them.

    • http://www.peter-ould.net Peter Ould

      Close all the monastries!

      • gerv

        If the cap fits… Do you think monasteries pass the Eph 5:3 test in today’s world? Perhaps they might. But I’m pretty clear entering a CP doesn’t. Do you disagree?

        • http://www.peter-ould.net Peter Ould

          I’m open to the possibility a CP *may* pass the Ephesians 5:3 test. I’m certainly open to believeing clergy when they say they’re celibate and the issue is actually that question not being asked in the first place.

          • Tom Jones

            It might be the exception that proves the rule; but they were not created legally as sexual relationships but as homosocial bonds. Why not follow EIR’s principle and refuse to open a window into men’s souls?

      • Tom Jones

        Why? Good places to go if you are a believer, gay and wish to stay celibate. They are homosocial communities but not sexual ones.

Login

Wisdom...

Sin is not confined to the evil things we do. It is the evil within us, the evil which we are
Karl Barth

Vanity

Ebuzzing - Top Blogs - Religion and belief

Peter on Twitter

Comments

Archives

  • 2014 (150)
  • 2013 (310)
  • 2012 (207)
  • 2011 (230)
  • 2010 (236)
  • 2009 (336)
  • 2008 (453)
  • 2007 (373)
  • 2006 (141)