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

Clergy Discipline? Remember Cranmer!

It’s not often I find myself referring to Thomas Cranmer (the Archbishop that is) but, having read the House of Bishops Pastoral Guidance on Same Sex Marriage, I found myself rushing to him for guidance and inspiration. 
It seems to me that their Grace’s need to re-examine the history of the Church in England.  Or have they conveniently forgotten that at a time when the Church demanded celibacy of its clergy Cranmer, having married his second wife Margaret before he was consecrated, proceeded to hide her from view when he became Archbishop. Perhaps the legacy of this founding act of deception and subterfuge has so deeply entered the psyche of the Church of England that it’s now overlooked. Whatever, I am surprised the bishop's forgot this precedent when they wrote in their Pastoral Guidance: 'Nevertheless at ordination clergy undertake to 'accept and minister the discipline of this Church, and respect authority duly exercised within it.' We urge all clergy to act consistently with that undertaking'. 

Isn't there a saying that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander....

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.

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" ...