THE CHURCH POST-PANDEMIC

In my ministry of supervising such people I listen to the concerns brought by a varied group of men and women, from mostly Anglican and Roman Catholic backgrounds, accompanying clergy and lay-people in their journey with Christ. Without breaking the confidentiality of such groups, one of the pressing and fundamental matters emerging from some directees at present is the way their churches are not engaged in any process of reflection on what the pandemic has revealed – how it affected people's relationship with God and the positives and negatives involved – there are even, it appears, a few churches against such an activity.

It’s clear that some lay people have been exposed to a variety of forms of online Christian gatherings for almost 18 months (often not with their own parishes) and have profound questions as churches re-open. This is especially true for those who have discovered new ways of being fed and nurtured by what they’ve experienced online which can have given them fresh insights into their relationship with God through prayer groups encountered, sermons heard, or different forms of worship in which they've shared.

As a consequence, it appears that a number don't want to go back to church; that in light of their experience during lockdown, what 'going to church' offered pre-pandemic no longer satisfies. Whilst, clearly, this doesn’t apply to all I wonder how many churches are engaging in any organised reflection on the experience of the pandemic? A reflection that would enable people to talk about how it affected their faith-journey and asking what God might be telling us through the pandemic; what there is to learn and how we might now grow.

I wonder how many are engaged in this process or might consider such a possibility?

HOLY MEN AND WOMEN of England

 

The Church of England, along with the rest of the Anglican Communion, recognises that we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses who are part of the Communion of Saints.  Some of those are named but the majority are known only to God.

Towards the end of the 20th century, the church recognised a number of men and women whose lives it wished to celebrate and these were named in revisions of the Prayer Book.  But in researching for my new book, What Do You Seek - Treasures of Religious Life - I discovered a number whose lives ought to be celebrated and whose omission from our calendar both robs the church from learning from their commitment to lives of prayer, whose valuable witness and ministry should be recognised and whose omission from the Calendar prevents their sanctity and enormous works of pastoral and social care from being recognised.  If any had been Roman Catholic, I believe the cause for their canonisation would already have been advanced.  Listed below are a number of them together with the dates when their lives can be celebrated:

January 16^th              Richard Meux Benson SSJE, priest and religious

February 6^th              Lincoln Stanhope Wainright, priest

March 25^th                 Br. Edward VE, priest and evangelist

March 28^th                 William of Glasshampton, priest, friar, solitary

April 7^th                     Roland Walls, priest, religious, theologian, solitary

September 7^th           Douglas SSF, religious

December 24^th          Dora CHR, holy woman

KEEPING FAITH IN A TIME OF CRISIS

I'VE RECENTLY HEARD a number of people talk about feeling utterly defeated by the way the government is pursuing a hard, ‘no deal’ Brexit.  The petitions they’ve signed, marches they’ve attended and letters they’ve written seem to have proved useless and they now view severing ourselves from the EU as inevitable, unnecessary and toxic. And all over the world they see demagogues and dictators stirring up strife and damaging the planet to the benefit of a few rather than the good of future generations.  Others complain that the 'democratic mandate' is being ignored; that it's people vs. parliament, or the judiciary or media. Anger stalks the land and there seems a darkness moving over the face of the earth that’s clouding people’s hearts and minds.

Clergy and spiritual crisis

St. Ignatius Loyola taught that desolation was the consequence of  the heart being overwhelmed by 'evil spirits'.  Sadly that’s become a term associated with fundamentalists, but the loss of such an insight into the way we are influenced – for good and ill – by the movements of spiritual forces beyond our control means we can become affected – subjected – by those which are not life-giving.  I don’t think we should be shy of reclaiming the term.  Of course  we also need to be aware of the ease with which we can project the ‘darkness’ which exists in our own hearts on to others – something which is usually indicated by the strength of our negative feelings about an individual or group who differs from us.  We need to own our sin – that darkness which exists on our hearts – and seek to love the other.

Unfortunately at a time when we need to look more deeply into our hearts I'm aware that the church seems to ignore the spiritual dimension of this crisis.  Clergy, in particular, rather than being advised to give priority to the development of their relationship with God are often encouraged to consider 'well-being' divorced from any religious or spiritual teaching.  This ignores the need to give priority to their relationship with God as they seek to cope with the pressures of life and the effects of that ‘darkness’ which can permeate their hearts.  And if clergy aren’t being taught and encouraged to attend to their spiritual life, if courses designed to help them neglect this essential dimension, then no amount of secular 'well-being' can address our deepest needs at this or any time of crisis.  In my book 'Enfolded in Christ' I pleaded for the church to take the spiritual life of priests seriously and give priority to its development, a matter that continues to need attention as diocese's organise 'resilience' courses for clergy but often seem to ignore what is often, at heart, a spiritual matter.  No wonder, then, that when we are faced with such an existential malaise ordinary Christians don't look at the spiritual roots of such desolation. Unless priests are relearning the basics of being rooted in Christ it's likely they won't be helping the laity in this vital task.

Spiritual warfare

There is a spiritual warfare going on which requires us (as it always has) to embrace faith in the power of the Incarnate, Crucified and Transcendent Christ.  We're called to keep our heart fixed on Him lest it become the victim of anger and rage or ceases to return to the Fountain of Life.  If we are not being refreshed by those streams then we'll become exhausted – drained of the grace offered by God.  Whilst we should not cease from opposing corruption we need to do so because we are rooted in Christ, who has conquered the powers of darkness.  We need faith that this darkness has ultimately been overcome and then face life with the compassionate love of God – with faith and hope and love.  To deepen our prayer, meditate on the scriptures and realise the need to Retreat from time to time from the ‘battleground’ of life and immerse ourselves in places of prayer.  There’s no doubt that we are, as always, facing a time of warfare and we need to tools which will help us:

‘Take up the whole armour of God, so that you may be able to withstand on that evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. Stand therefore, and fasten the belt of truth around your waist, and put on the breastplate of righteousness. As shoes for your feet put on whatever will make you ready to proclaim the gospel of peace. With all of these, take the shield of faith, with which you will be able to quench all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.’ (Eph. 6.9ff)

We will need the support of a spiritual director, the grace of the Sacraments and a deepening of contemplative prayer.  That's why I developed the Spiritual Association of the Compassionate Hearts of Jesus and Mary  - to try and offer some on-line resources to nurture the heart as we face hard times.  The Church of England needs to remember the importance of the spiritual tools she has but which are turning rusty and to reclaim our spiritual heritage.

God of reconciling hope,
look with mercy upon us
and guide us through the turmoil of the present time.
Protect us from the snare of the Evil One
and from the forces of darkness.

As we give you thanks for all that has been
so we commend the future into your hands,
that we may live together in righteousness and peace,
in bonds of love and mutual respect.

We ask this in the power of the Three in One.
Amen.

PRIESTS OF THE HEART OF JESUS

‘The priesthood is the love of the heart of Jesus.’ (St John-Marie Vianney)

_________________________________

And with those few words the Cure d’Ars identifies the heart of the priestly vocation. Every priest is called to live out of the Heart of Jesus.

Often I hear of people saying they’re going to be a ‘vicar’ or asking what it’s like to be a vicar – but no one’s ordained to be a vicar!  Or rector, chaplain, padre or whatever; these are simply some of the roles priests inhabit. What we need to do is to reclaim the centrality of ‘being priests’, priests of the Heart of Jesus.  We should not be afraid to reclaim that word for it speaks of sanctification even though many of us fail in that calling. The role – vicar, rector, chaplain etc. can overwhelm anyone but the vocation will always be refreshing. For our vocation is rooted in Christ in whom we are enfolded and who feeds our hearts in His love.   The book I have written concerns that calling.

It’s also apparant that people are being attracted by, and encouraged to consider, being a ‘leader’ as if priesthood and leadership were the same. They are not. When I was a Franciscan it was clear that priest-brothers were not, necessarily, called to be leaders of communities. If the church wants leaders then there is no need for them to be ordained. But if it wants priests, pastors of the flock and ministers of the altar that is a different matter. Not all priests are called to be leaders and not all leaders are called to be priests.

So my book isn’t about leadership but it is about priesthood and what needs to nourish and nurture that vocation. The way in which the Church of England is placing so much emphasis on leadership begs questions about the nature of the Church. I know that many sense a ‘business’ model is influencing the hierarchy and wondering whether this is what the church needs, wondering what has happened to the notion of the primary call of the Reign of God, of Christian sanctification and pastoral care. So my book is an attempt to address this growing imbalance; an attempt to re-focus into the Heart of Him who invites us to share what lies deeply in His Sacred Heart.

BREXIT AND THE REFORMATION

Having listened to Mrs. Emily Thornbury MP being questioned by Evan Davis on Newsnight recently I began to understand the Labour Party’s position on Brexit.  Unlike the Tory Party (which seems to have wholeheartedly embraced a ‘hard’ Brexit) or the Liberal Democrat Party (which clearly opposes it) the Labour Party, containing as it does large numbers of both Leavers and Remainers, recognises it needs to be a Broad Church.  Whilst the country voted by a margin of less than 10% to leave the EU, it needs to accommodate members of both camps.  And, in that, I see clear parallels with the Church of England.

Whilst I am not a Church historian I recognise (as I am sure others do) the similarities between Brexit and the age of Reformation.  Until the 16^th cent. the Church in England had owed allegiance to the Roman Church and many of the laws of this country were dependent on decisions in Rome.  Both the separation of the Church in England from the Church of Rome and Brexit were preceded by many years of agitation.  Popularist preachers, like John Wycliffe and the Lollards, stirred up anti-Catholic feelings and prepared the way for the Acts of Supremacy which gradually made English law supreme and led to the declaration that ‘the Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England’ (Article 37). 

In spite of this formal separation there was a substantial minority who objected and wished to remain part of the Roman Catholic Church.  It is a fact that Henry VIII (1509 – 1547), inspite of initiating the separation of England from Rome did not intend to adopt Protestantism in its entirety and religious doctrine didn’t change ⁽¹⁾.  Whilst Henry persecuted extreme Protestants there were many views as to what separation meant.  As has sometimes happened in the aftermath of Brexit those who wanted to remain part of the Roman Church were abused and persecuted and some were killed.

It was under the Regency Council which governed during the minority of his successor, Edward VI (1547 – 1553), that Protestant teaching began to change the faith of the English Church and eroded much of the Catholic heritage which Henry VIII had desired to retain.  This resulted in unrest and a number of protest marches including the Western Rebellion (1549).

Mary I (1553 – 1558) was declared Queen by popular demand (clearly not a Referendum but something similar) after people re-acted against the perceived excesses of Edward.  Many realised she would reverse most of the previous legislation that had separated England from Rome and those who had financially benefited from the break were determined that would not happen. ⁽²⁾  This only caused greater division, persecution and disorder in the country which lasted until her death.

The genius of Elizabeth I (1558 – 1603) was to unite a divided country.  This she did by enabling the Church of England to be broad enough in its doctrine to hold various views whilst maintaining the separation that had occurred.  The ‘Elizabethan Religious Settlement’ was a response to the religious divisions in England.  A series of Acts and revisions to the Prayer Book intended to avoid adopting any one theology to the exclusion of another with the intention of enabling people with many different theological perceptions to belong to the one Church.  The Church of England was not part of the Roman Catholic Church (thus fulfilling the desires of the Leavers) but nor was it wholly Protestant and its teaching was still rooted in much Catholic theology.  Thus, hopefully, appealing to remainers. 

It seems to me that the present difficulties faced by the Labour Party are not dissimilar to the situation in England in the late 16^th cent.  Both leavers (Protestants) and remainers (Catholics) were struggling to dominate society and Catholics were hated for wanting to remain united with Rome.   Is it overly simple to say that whilst ‘Leavers’ have a clear home with the Tories and ‘Remainers’ with the Liberal Democrats the Labour Party is, like the Church of England, seeking to offer a place for all.  And, like the Church of England, is accused of not knowing where it stands?  Or not having any clear teaching?  It seemed to me that Mrs. Thornbury was saying that the Labour Party was trying to find a way for people with different views to live together realising that if we don't we may be eternally divided or dominated by one view.  It is not an easy choice – to try and be broad enough for all – it won’t satisfy those seeking a clear choice and it might anger those who can’t cope with difference.  It is not easy to create a home where those with different views can live together.  But, like the Elizabethan Settlement, it may offer an umbrella under which many can shelter and the Labour Party might take heart from looking into this period in the history of England which occurred almost exactly 400 years ago.

⁽¹⁾ ‘The Religious Policy of King Henry VIII’; Jeff Hobbs

⁽²⁾ ‘The Church 1553 to 1558’; C. N. Trueman

THERE IS NO LONGER MALE OR FEMALE: FOR ALL OF YOU ARE ONE IN CHRIST JESUS *

The matter of male-headship has just re-emerged with the announcement that the Rev. Rod Thomas,  chairman (sic) of the fundamentalist group, Reform, has been chosen to be ordained as a bishop Reform is a network of 'individuals and churches within the Church of England (who are) committed to reforming the Church of England from within according to the Holy Scriptures.'  In particular they believe that ‘the Bible clearly teaches that …. men (should) take self-sacrificial responsibility for the spiritual oversight of the domestic and church family.’

This is such a fundamental tenant of belief for some evangelicals that it must emanate from a deep part of the psyche fed by such arguments proposed by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy.  Yes, they say that women and men are equal, but cannot exercise the same functions.  Many of their arguments, from a conservative point of view, seem reasonable.  But there is a sense of an iron fist in a velvet glove: a ‘passive-aggressive’ tone to their argument.  What might happen to them if they allowed themselves to live under the authority of a woman?  What would happen to their sense of power if they had to assume the feminine?  This is the same line of reasoning that leads to women having to be veiled in some Islamic countries.  I realise that some speak of the way it affirms their religious convictions, yet it seems an extreme way of doing so when compared to men and requires the complete hiding of identity.  I also note the way in which those cultures which assert such norms (i.e. male supremacy) also persecute homosexuals and  much of the argument for doing so is based on the way the feminine is ‘confused’ with the masculine.

Beyond this, what also concerns me is that the wider church seems unable – or unwilling – to confront this argument that men must have the power over women.  There is no doubt that, whilst the number of churches that teach this principle is small, it is also flourishing and many of those going into training for ordination come from such backgrounds.  It is not only conservative Islam that seeks to deny women an equal place with men and support a masculine power and authority that is unable to be open to the feminine. 

In light of this I have written the following letter to Archbishop Justin:

‘I am aware that Mr. Thomas is chairman of Reform, an organisation which states that its members ‘are working to identify practical ways of reforming the Church of England’.  Two of the more objectionable aims of this ‘reform’ concern its approach to gay people and women.  I assume you are aware that it publically states: ‘Gay male love flourishes with ‘variety’, and lasts longest with non-monogamy. Monogamy tends to lengthen heterosexual relationships but shorten homosexual ones’ and am surprised, to say the least, you are prepared to ordain someone who supports this outrageous statement.  Just how does this accord with being a person of ‘sound learning’ which the Ordinal requires? And will Mr. Thomas be expected to take part in the ‘shared conversations’ on sexuality that are currently taking place or will he be excused from this process?  

Reform’s promotion of ‘male headship’ and the consequential subjection of women is another deeply divisive and aggressive belief.  In my ministry I have sat listening to the stories of many women who have been deeply hurt and damaged by those who promote this view, just as I have sat with gay men and lesbians who have been subjected to emotional, spiritual and psychological violence by their treatment from ‘biblical’ Christians.  How does the requirement for a bishop to agree to promote peace and reconciliation in the Church and in the world; and … strive for the visible unity of Christ’s Church (Ordinal) accord with someone whose views are a cause of division and are unacceptable to the majority of people?

In 2011 I resigned my Living having reached the age of 65 but retain a passion to see the Church of England able to attract people of this generation to the gospel.  If Mr. Thomas is ordained bishop this can only show that someone who promotes bigotry in the name of Christianity can be a leader of the Church.  Whilst this may appeal to extremists, what message does it send out to most people who no longer are prejudiced against gays and lesbians and are seeking to be inclusive of women? 

Whilst the Church of England may be a broad church, I would like to know if you really want these - extremist - views to “flourish” when they are contrary to the declared beliefs of the Church of England?’

* Gal. 3: 28

ARK OR YEAST? REFLECTIONS ON THE NATURE OF THE CHURCH (1)

The recent failure of General Synod on November 20^th to pass the necessary legislation that would allow the ordination of women to the episcopate has created an unexpected maelstrom which may result in fundamental changes to the governance of the Church of England.  The central matter, of course, concerns how to make provision for those who cannot accept this development in the exercise of ministry and, no doubt, the debate as to how to do this, will continue for some time. 

However, it also raises for me questions of ecclesiology that do not seem to have been aired in the debates.  At a basic level this concerns a theology of the Church which is rooted in two images that are in conflict: on the one hand is the sense of the Church as the Ark of Salvation, and on the other that the Church is called to be the Leaven which leavens the whole.  It seems that these two ecclesiology’s, when taken to their extremes, will always be in conflict and I wonder if this (amongst other things) lies at the heart of our present dilemma?

Taken to its extreme, belief that the Church is primarily called to be the Ark of Salvation appeals to those who need to define its nature and control the exercise of its purpose.  It provides a safe-haven for those who seek its shelter and needs a strong sense of leadership to maintain its course through the rough seas that constantly threaten it.  Those who dwell within it are assured of their salvation and have a strong desire that all are ‘brought on board’ lest they perish forever.  What lies beyond its walls can be viewed with a mixture of feelings and there will be a deep fear of the ship being damaged if it succumbs to pressure from outside and a fear of allowing on-board those who might damage the vessel.  The purity of the vessel is paramount.  But, as someone remarked to me, ‘What did Noah do about the woodworm?’

The other dynamic, that the Church is called to be the Leaven that leavens the whole is less concerned with itself than its effects on the rest of society.  Attention will be given to the world and there will be a recognition that God is present in all things; the Holy Spirit does not just work within the Church but (like the Leaven) throughout creation.  Such a view of the Church is co-operative and believes that there will be times when it needs to change because of the movement of the Spirit working in the world.  It is arguable that this theology emerged from a more ‘holistic’ time when there was no division between church and state and is prevalent in theocratic societies such as the Judaic world from which Christianity sprang.

These two theories, pushed to their extremes, may result in either the Church becoming simply an ever-diminishing Sect or a dangerous ideological movement, or it will become so identified with the world that it has no separate identity and will lose any sense of the Divine.  But these are extremes.

(to be continued)

THE SACRAMENT OF MARRIAGE IN RELATION TO SAME-SEX COUPLES (2)

In 'Marriage: A Teaching Document' the bishops state:

‘The words ‘till death us do part’ are not a special religious ideal; they describe the form of relationship that God has given to human beings as a natural endowment. Knowing that they must both one day die, the partners offer each other a security and continuity in life that will help them to approach death with humility and a good conscience. Yet it is important that those who marry know the full extent of what they are doing. And Christians believe that that requires an understanding of the love that God has shown mankind in Christ, a love which marriage is called to reflect. Those who understand God’s love to them will understand their own love as a part of God’s work in the world, and will be better equipped for what they undertake. Precisely because it is a lifelong partnership, marriage is chosen by God to express the permanence of his love for us, which accompanies us through all the changing scenes of life not only until the day we die, but beyond death to resurrection.

The description of Christian marriage as a ‘sacrament’ is valued because it has its source in the New Testament (Eph 5.32) ().  It means that the pledged relation of husband and wife is a sign of the pledge of love that Christ has for his Church, the promises he has made to it, the faithfulness, forgiveness, and patience that he has shown it, the delight he takes in it.

The grace of God in the Holy Spirit is given to all who enter marriage in the conscious desire to hear his call, seeking his strength to live together as they have promised. This is why marriage in the context of worship, properly prepared for by a process of reflection and discussion about the life of faith, is an important ministry of the Church.’

Apart from the mention of ‘husband and wife’ in para. 2. this statement could clearly apply to the marriage of same-sex couples.

At one time I was clear that the concept of marriage should be restricted to the commitment between a man and a woman. Since my own Civil Partnership my views have changed and I now believe that if a life-long, pledged, faithful partnership is the sign of marriage, then same-sex couples can fulfil this definition. The religious dimension, as outlined by the bishops, clearly applies to both.

It seems to me that marriage is, firstly, a fundamental commitment that enables human beings to overcome what Genesis identifies as our existential alone-ness – it is not good to be alone. Our humanity finds it’s fulfilment within relationships and the uniting of two human beings (regardless of gender) is the means not only of overcoming that existential aloneness but also to becoming fully human. In religious (Christian) terms that is reflected in the way God can only be God in relationship as revealed in the doctrine of the Trinity: ‘God is not only loving, he is love (1 John 4:8, 16). Love must have an object, argued Richard of St Victor in the twelfth century. If God is love and has always been love then he must always have had ‘another’ upon whom to direct his love. Furthermore, argued Richard, love must have a third party otherwise it’s self-indulgent. True love desires the beloved to be loved by another. So the Father and Son desire to share their love with another: the Holy Spirit’ (Tim Chester – ‘God is a Divine Community’)

If we accept that we are made in God’s image and likeness then we, too, find our completion in a loving union with another. But what of those called to a life of celibacy? What of those called to Religious Life or to the Solitary Life? The principle remains the same except the object of love is not discovered within a one-to-one relationship but through love for others. And, even with Religious, this love is constantly tested through the particular relationships that they experience (1 John 2: 9-11). Even the solitary hermit must realise this love for the Other for love only directed at the Self leads to disintegration.

Socially, of course, marriage has been understood as the union of a man and a woman, the two ‘opposites’ which can create new life. Yet there is nothing to preclude this principle of the union of opposites bringing about a new creation holding true for members of the same sex. It is not the union of sexual opposites that defines marriage but the fulfilling of the need for us not to be alone. I can only be I if I am in relation to Thou, and the more committed I am prepared to be in that relationship, the more I discover my-self. As the opening paragraph of Marriage – A Teaching Document states: ‘Marriage is a pattern that God has given in creation, deeply rooted in our social instincts, through which a man and a woman may learn love together over the course of their lives. We marry not only because we love, but to be helped to love. Without the practice and disciplines of marriage, our love will be exhausted and fail us, perhaps very harmfully to ourselves and others. When publicly and lawfully we enter into marriage, we commit ourselves to live and grow together in this love.’

Again, whilst the Document uses gender-specific terms the principle is not about gender but about human need.

Marriage is also a social convention, a contract between two people, and this is of equal importance to the theology of humanity. Since the law came into force allowing Civil Partnerships to take place people have become far more accepting of same-sex partnerships and the use of the word ‘marriage’; to define these has become common-place. Indeed, when such couples seek to define the relationship they are in then ‘married’ is the easiest term to use and one which is, gradually, being accepted by British society.

It is obvious that the academic and theological question of whether same-sex couples can be married is going to be heatedly debated. But it seems that there is a general movement going on in our society which simply accepts what it sees – that two people of the same sex can enter into loving, monogamous, creative relationships which benefit not only them but society at large. I believe it is this movement cannot be stemmed and will, eventually, lead to the acceptance of same-sex marriage even if there remain those whose convictions mean they will become increasingly marginalised. My hope is that the Church does not argue itself into that position.
John-Francis Friendship

THE SACRAMENT OF MARRIAGE IN RELATION TO SAME-SEX COUPLES (1)

Recently the Government has announced its intention to enter a process of consultation with a view to allowing same-sex marriage. It has also indicated that it would be prepared to lift the ban on such an event taking place in a religious building.

Many religious groups have been quick to condemn the proposal. Traditionally, marriage has been understood as: ‘a gift of God in creation through which husband and wife may know the grace of God. It is given that as man and woman grow together in love and trust, they shall be united with one another in heart, body and mind, as Christ is united with his bride, the Church.’ (Marriage Service – Common Worship - Preface) The argument against allowing same-sex couples to marry (or, for that matter, to allow Civil Partnerships to be celebrated in church) hinges on this phrase ‘a gift of God in creation’.
In the Book of Genesis we read that: ‘a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh’ (2:24).  This verse is taken from the Second Creation Narrative and may come from older Middle-Eastern sources. It follows the account of woman being made from Adam’s rib as his helper and partner because God realised ‘It is not good that the man should be alone’ (2:18). This passage, of course, needs to be understood in the context of the way woman, historically, have been subservient to man – after all, God created woman from man, not the other way round! Our views on this have, of course, changed dramatically over the past century. The issue of whether God intended same-sex couples to ‘cling to each other’ have been debated, and the late Gareth Moore OP in his masterly work concludes that ‘There is no divine blueprint; there is only what makes glad the heart of each of us. Or, rather, it shows that the divine blueprint is that each of us should have the companion that delights our heart.’ (A Question of Truth, p.147)

Another argument cited for the distinctiveness of Christian marriage is based on St. Paul’s bridal paralleling of human marriage with Christ’s relationship with the church (Eph. 5: 21-end) as noted in the Preface to the Marriage Service . The male-female, divine-human encounter and commitment has been a rich source for the theology of marriage between men and women as has the inevitable comparison of the inability of same-sex couples to act in a sexually re-productive manner. But neither this argument nor that based on marriage being ‘a gift of God in Creation’ precludes other approaches to the issues.

For example, there is a long tradition of religious Vows being seen as a form of marriage, and consecrated women were long called the ‘brides of Christ’. Catholic Christianity has accepted that some are called by God to celibacy yet this has never been understood as diminishing the ability of those so called to find union in God (indeed, for centuries it was promoted as the superior way), although some evangelicals maintained that God could not invite people to celibacy because it did not allow them to be pro-creative.

There is also the question of those married couples who cannot, or choose not, to have children. As the Preface to the Marriage Service states: ‘(Marriage) is given as the foundation of family life in which children are [born and] nurtured’. There is a theological argument which sees the pro-creation of children as the sign of our god-likeness – the fruit of becoming ‘one flesh’ and there are some who take the argument to its logical conclusion - that not having children diminishes us as human beings.  The House of Bishops statement Marriage - A Teaching Document (1999) states us that: ‘The three blessings that belong to marriage are traditionally described as the procreation and nurture of children, the hallowing and right direction of natural instincts and affections, and the mutual society, help and comfort which each affords the other in prosperity and adversity.’
 
So how does this inform thinking on same-sex marriage?

To be continued…

Children’s, Schools and Families Bill

Like many others I view with deep concern the recent decision of Ed Balls, under the provisions of the Children’s, Schools and Families Bill, to allow schools with a religious character the freedom to teach faith-views where these are at variance with equality and diversity legislation. Whilst I recognise they now have that right and applaud his comment that they cannot suggest their views are the only ones, I sense there will be those who place greater emphasis on their own faith-view.

I am aware of the Archbishop’s recent comments to Synod that “The freedom of government to settle debated moral questions for the diverse communities of civil society is not something we should endorse too rapidly.” However, that does not stop my concern at the way children will be affected by teaching that homosexuality is at unacceptable to God who, at worst, rejects them. Whilst I do not believe this will be the case in Church of England Schools, it leaves others open to continue teaching that God condemns homosexuality.

As a Governor of two schools, one a Church of England Secondary School, who listens to the stories of many gay and lesbian people who have had to grow up in the ‘real world’, I am deeply aware of the way in which children are bullied because of their sexuality and the immense damage this causes. The ability of faith schools to teach an alternative to the full equality of gay and lesbian people before God can only give support to prejudice and bigotry.

If an unelected and unrepresentative body of men had successfully exerted pressure on our democratic Government to allow children to be taught that other human beings as less than equal there would, rightly, be an outcry. That our hierarchy has done so in the name of God I find deplorable.

THE CHURCH AND EQUALITY

Once again religious groups are being allowed to act in a discrimiatory manner.  As a parish priest and Governor of our Diocesan Comprehensive, I view with alarm the proposal to allow Faith Schools to opt out of teaching certain aspects of Sex Education. In particular, I am concerned that this will allow such schools not to promote equality for gay and lesbian people. It is clear that many gay and lesbian children already suffer abuse within their schools: any opt-out will only underline their vulnerability and help create a divided society. 

I deeply regret that, once again, the Church of England is supporting discrimination: whilst it may excercise a more liberal approach in these matters, I fear that other relgious groups - fundamentalist Christian and Muslim, for example - would emphasise that gay and lesbian people are rejected by God, thus lending support to those who would bully and persecute them.

I think this poem, by Maya Angelou, should be sent to all our relgious leaders.  I know it's written about black women, but it seems like a cry for all whose identities are suppressed, who suffer abuse and who would be silenced by these religious leaders.  It might make them pause and consider...

STILL I RISE
You may write me down in history
With your bitter, twisted lies,
You may trod me in the very dirt
But still, like dust, I'll rise.

Does my sassiness upset you?
Why are you beset with gloom?
'Cause I walk like I've got oil wells
Pumping in my living room.

Just like moons and like suns,
With the certainty of tides,
Just like hopes springing high,
Still I'll rise.

Did you want to see me broken?
Bowed head and lowered eyes?
Shoulders falling down like teardrops.
Weakened by my soulful cries.

Does my haughtiness offend you?
Don't you take it awful hard
'Cause I laugh like I've got gold mines
Diggin' in my own back yard.

You may shoot me with your words,
You may cut me with your eyes,
You may kill me with your hatefulness,
But still, like air, I'll rise.

Does my sexiness upset you?
Does it come as a surprise
That I dance like I've got diamonds
At the meeting of my thighs?

Out of the huts of history's shame
I rise
Up from a past that's rooted in pain
I rise
I'm a black ocean, leaping and wide,
Welling and swelling I bear in the tide.

Leaving behind nights of terror and fear
I rise
Into a daybreak that's wondrously clear
I rise
Bringing the gifts that my ancestors gave,
I am the dream and the hope of the slave.
I rise
I rise
I rise.

"NOT IN MY NAME!"

Having just read the Archbishop of Canterbury’s ‘Reflections on the Episcopal Church's 2009 General Convention’ (Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future) I find myself profoundly disquieted at what he has written.

I am the Rector of a traditional, inclusive and growing Anglo-Catholic working-class parish. Three years ago I ‘married’ my partner in a civil ceremony but with the prayerful and loving support of my parishioners. As Governor of two local Schools (including the Diocesan Comprehensive), Chaplain to the Air Training Corps and member of the Borough Police Advisory Group I have sought to be open and honest concerning my sexuality and relationship and the secular community has respected and supported me in this.

I therefore find much of what he wrote concerning clergy like myself both offensive and at odds with the society in which we live. As others have observed, being gay and in a relationship is not a “chosen life-style” any more than marriage is a ‘chosen’ life-style. I married my partner because we love each other and wished to express, publicly, our life-long commitment for better and worse, richer and poorer, in sickness and health until death parts us. Which I take it to be the essence of marriage.

His assertion that my state of life is analogous to “a heterosexual person living in a sexual relationship outside the marriage bond” is deeply repugnant. I can only infer that the consequence must be that, for fear of sin, I should abandon my partner. I fear that the statements he made (Para. 9) forgets the Catch 22 principle (cf. Matt. 23:15) and would value his thoughts on how two people of the same sex can make a commitment to each other which is not sinful. I wonder when he last talked with celibates who, from my long experience as a Franciscan, recognise it as a vocation that cannot be imposed.

In a similar way his comment that it is “hard to see how they can act in the necessarily representative role that the ordained ministry … requires” leads me to conclude that my role as Parish Priest, School Governor and representative of the church in the community is negated by the community knowing that I am in a Civil Partnership. I wonder where he found evidence for this? The consequence is that anyone who does not accept the Church of England’s stand on a particular issue (e.g. the ordination of women) cannot exercise a representative function. From my experience it is those whose tradition is exclusive who do most damage to society’s view of the church. I am sure the Archbishop knows many people who have been deeply damaged by the teaching of ‘biblical traditionalists/fundamentalists’.

One of my deepest fears is that the increasing disrespect our society has for the church is fuelled by the perception of the church being hypocritical and the bible having nothing to offer. Whilst he repeats that he is opposed to “prejudice and bigotry” there will be many who can only infer such an attitude from what he writes. If he is seeking to uphold the teaching of the “Church Catholic” I fear his words can only give support to those who are prejudiced to the full inclusion of lgbt people and whose bigotry will be reinforced by the ‘Reflections’ of someone in his position.

In light of all this I wonder if he can help lgbt people know how they can take part in “becoming the Church God wants us to be, for the better proclamation of the liberating gospel of Jesus Christ” and just what that gospel is for us? I had found that ‘liberating gospel’ as prejudice in this country was replaced by acceptance and now legal recognition. But he has reminded me that God’s liberation is not for me unless I return to that state of repression which once existed.

The Lord is Compassionate and Merciful

Last night the Primates of the Anglican Communion issued their Communique and draft proposals for an Anglican Covenant. From all parts of the world they met to deliberate over one simple issue. Not poverty, the AIDs crisis, global warming or the looming environmental crisis - but what to do about a genial American who was accclaimed and ordained bishop, and Rites of Blessing. What's the problem, we may ask? Well, it's all about - gays and lesbians ... At least, that is the presenting issue.

Of course, those who met did so in the name of the Church - or at least the Anglican Communion. Naturally many have been hurt by the nature of their declarations. People already suffering (maybe not in the West, but certainly in most parts of Africa) are, once again, the target. "You are not wanted" may not have been the text, but it is certainly the sub-plot. So, once more, the church affirms it has no place for same-sex couples within its ranks. Nor does it want to officially recognise what so many others do - the existence of loving, fruitful, divinely blest relationships.

Musing on this I fell to wondering 'just who is the Church that has decided this?' It's not the People of God - mostly they have not even been consulted. Indeed in some areas they have been fed falsehoods by these appointed 'shepherds of the flock' of whom some are, clearly, more Prince Bishops in all but name. They are not the plebs sancti Dei - the holy common people of God. Most are not even elected (except, of course, those terrible Americans who've caused all this fuss and bother).

Then, after reading the staements and some of the pained comments that flowed on webs and blogs, I listened to the Reading from Ecclesiasticus at Mass this morning:

My child, when you come to serve the Lord, prepare yourself for testing. Set your heart right and be steadfast, and do not be impetuous in time of calamity. Cling to him and do not depart, so that your last days may be prosperous. Accept whatever befalls you, and in times of humiliation be patient. For gold is tested in the fire, and those found acceptable, in the furnace of humiliation. Trust in him, and he will help you; make your ways straight, and hope in him.

So let the holy common people take heart! The liturgy is not the preserve of the bishops, it is the work of the people. And many have long escaped the bound of legalism to create liturgy with the people they serve. We will continue to bless what God has made holy - his people. We will celebrate the fruits that come from the love between two people and, maybe, we will say to the bishops, "you may control the portals of the hierarchy, may declare who is to be accepted and who is not but we, the people, recognise who are the true shepherds who will tend the flock.

You who fear the Lord, wait for his mercy; do not stray, or else you may fall. You who fear the Lord, trust in him, and your reward will not be lost. You who fear the Lord, hope for good things, for lasting joy and mercy. ... For the Lord is compassionate and merciful; he forgives sins and saves in time of distress.

Winchester adds fuel to flames !

So +Michael Scott-Joynt has added his comments in an article in this weeks Church of England Newspaper. It is, of course, a free country and, thankfully, he can say what he likes (though I gather +Rowan has complained about the liberal 'chattering classes').

His statement, following +Tom Wright of Durham, has made me realise that, because of the way they come to their authority as bishops, they can speak for no one but themselves. We didn't choose them - the People of God did not elect them - so who do they represent? The power they have is that of position and influence: I wish I might say their charism, but that would require their appointment to be by a process of discernment by the Church. Whatever +Michael and +Tom say about the Episcopal Church, at least their bishops speak with the authority of the People of God who elected them.

I have come to sense that the Church of England is still a feudal fiefdom of the bishops. I wonder when +Michael listened to the voice of gay and lesbian Christians? My experience of him is that he has never truly 'listened' for his mind has been made up on the subject for many, many years. No theological arguments (or imaginative insights) can touch him, I regret. His voice, as always, only speaks for what he regards as 'orthodox Christianity'.

Who was it said, "There's none so blind as those who will not see" ...

Cost of Conscience

Recently I read the Archbishop of Canterbury's statement concerning the issue of conscience in relation to the law. It arose from the plea of the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster for the RC Church to have their adoption agencies excluded from The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations - SOR - which would 'outlaw discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on the basis of sexual orientation' on the grounds that the SORs would "oblige our agencies in law to consider adoption applications from homosexual couples as potential adoptive parents would require them to act against the principles of Catholic teaching."

Archbishop Rowna has stated that he "would like to see some more serious debate now about that particular question – what are the limits, if there are limits, to the State’s power to control and determine the actions of voluntary bodies within it, in pursuit of what are quite proper goals of non-discrimination."

Quite apart from the fact that it has been pointed out that the RC adoption agencies already place children in homes that hardly reflect 'the principles of Catholic teaching' I am intrigued that our own Archbishop (of Canterbury) has chosen to step in to support the Cardinal. Whilst not a devotee of The Thirtynine Arctiles (often quoted by traditionalists to attack others), I note that Article XXXVII Of the Civil Magistrates unambiguously states that 'The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.'

Now, whilst Archbishop Rowan has nailed his comments to the issue of 'conscience' ("The rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well meaning." - initial letter to the Prime Minister), it has been pointed out that the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster is, ultimately, under the authority of Rome. His hands, in a sense, are tied. However, we had a Reformation to deal with just this matter and I find it intriguing that this smallpiece of our history, which has shaoped the development of England, seems to have been forgotten. As Article XXXVII states in its opening lines:

'The King's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction.'

Can conscience be above the Law unless those laws are unjust? I guess this is the argument - whether equality for all under the Law can be superceded by justice for those who wish to - or have to - uphold discrimination.