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 (2)

The so-called ‘Elizabethan Settlement’ which shaped the Church of England as a National Church meant that Anglicanism developed tasked with including all who could affirm three simple norms: ‘The Scriptures and the Gospels, the Apostolic Church and the early Church Fathers’ (Being an Anglican: http://www.churchofengland.org/our-faith/being-an-anglican.aspx) and it is arguable that inclusivity has been the benchmark of the Church.

Yet there is a strong drive in human beings to define what belongs and exclude that which doesn’t.  We tend towards the lure of dualism: light and darkness, flesh and spirit, male and female, good and evil etc…  Yet Anglicanism has held within itself the tension of opposites: it is both catholic and protestant; a church both existing in and relating to the temporal and spiritual worlds. 

There is much in scripture which suggests that we should make clear distinctions between the ‘saved’ and the ‘damned’ (to put it at its most basic whilst acknowledging all the other dualistic distinctions provided by religion).  This approach appeals to those who need religion to provide a sense of security (and they are both within and outside the church), yet is fraught with danger.  It is interesting to note that the picture provided by scripture is not so simple.  In the Book of Job, for example, Satan is not located in Hell but is part of the Court of Heaven, which suggests that the writer understood the need for some kind of integration of ‘good’ and ‘evil’.  How does one live with such apparently opposing movements?  Some traditions have developed to exclude the ‘impure’ and these tend towards the Ark principle and, arguably, feed -  and reflect - similar social movements.  The genius of the Elizabethan Settlement was to try to include as many as possible for the opposite led to ruptures in society.  One sees this constantly at work: at national levels this is evident in conflicts over land (Israel/Palestine; Unionist/Republican in Northern Ireland; Islamic militants/the West etc.) whilst in the Church of England it is most particularly apparent in the way evangelicals are focussed into excluding gay and lesbians from the church (or, at least, its structures) together with the heated debate as to how those opposed to the ordination of women to the Episcopate can remain included in the church.  Arguably the current energy being focussed into a demand that Britain leave the EU is fed by this same desire to exclude what is perceived to be a threat to the ‘purity’ of the nation.

The expression of desire to recognise we lived in ‘One World’ which gained popularity twenty years or so ago seems to no longer hold the appeal it did. As we move towards an increasing sense of a living in a global society we also seem to be tending towards its opposite.  The idea of moving towards living together in one world where those who ‘have’ see it as their duty to aid those who ‘have not’, together with the concept of a universal (catholic) church seems to be in the decline.  The ‘pure’ nation state existing in isolation from other states, only relating to them insofar as is necessary entices more and more people.  Yet, in the face of the fact we do live in a world which, increasingly, realises we live or die together with which will the church side?

‘Gay Marriage’ consultation – respond online here

Found this useful Government Survey link courtesy of 'Anglican Mainstream'!  http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/equal-civil-marriage/

On the Solemnization of Gay Matrimony

I listened to Canon Angela Tilby deliver ‘Thought for the Day’ during this morning’s ‘Today’ programme.  Her comments are always of interest and well thought-through but this time I found myself wondering at her reasoning during her reflection on the subject of gay marriage.  Whilst she presented the arguments for and against I was struck by the lack of any real depth to some of her reasoning.

She focussed into the principle that marriage between a man and a woman is a ‘gift of God in creation’ which, consequently, cannot be altered.  In doing so, reflected that God created Adam and Eve (not, as has been said, ‘Adam and Steve’) and went on to declare that, as marriage is a sacrament of the church, it is not for us to change the matter of the sacrament i.e. a man and a woman.  Just as the Eucharist uses bread and wine not “tea and biscuits” as the ‘matter’ of the sacrament, so the ‘matter’ of marriage is the union of opposite sexes, and cannot, logically, be two people of the same sex.

Firstly (and once again) I found myself uneasy with the claim that marriage is a ‘gift of God in creation’.  I know it is a phrase used in the Book of Common Prayer and derives from Genesis 2: 24: ‘Therefore a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh’ (NRSV).  The problem with this sentence is that there seems to me no real evidence in the Old Testament of marriage as we now understand the event (one man and one woman joined in a civil/religious ceremony).  There is, however, plenty of evidence that men took more than one wife.  Indeed, the Patriarchs seem to have no problem with having more than one, nor of owning concubines.  Abraham had a wife and an extra-marital relationship with his slave (concubine?) as did his son, Isaac.  King Solomon (the Wise) had “seven hundred wives and four hundred concubines.” (1 Kgs.11:1-3) and the great King David had at least seven wives and numerous concubines (1 Chr.3).  Clearly, having a wife was important – and the more the better…

I am indebted to the late Gareth Moore OP who pointed out in his book A Question of Truth (Continuum Books ISBN 0-8264-5949-8) that in the second Creation narrative God did not, in fact, determine that Adam should chose a woman to answer his solitude – in fact, when God realised that it was not good for man to be alone (Gen. 2: 18f) he first brought every living thing to Adam, arguably indicating that Adam had the choice of a “helper”.  Adam could, in theory, have chosen Pooh, Eeyore or Tigger.  It was his choice.  Or have I missed something?

On the next point, that marriage is a sacrament and it is not for us to change the matter of a sacrament, I was very surprised to hear this from a woman who, presumably, has faced opposition to her ordination to the sacrament of priesthood from those who use a similar argument: that if Jesus did not call women to be disciples, how can we ordain woman as priests?  Leaving aside the point that in our present culture he may very well have chosen women (and Adam may have chosen Steve) the Church of England has recognised it is not the gender that is the matter of the sacrament but the fact of our common humanity.  And, of course, Angela (as an Anglican) was wrong in saying that marriage is a sacrament according to the official formularies of the Church of England.  Many of us may believe it is, but Article XXV in the Book of Common Prayer states that ordination (and four others) "are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God."  Curiously, of course, the BCP goes on to describe marriage as “an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency” (The Form of Solemnization of Matrimony)…

As to her point that we use bread and wine to celebrate the Eucharist because that is what Jesus did (and thereby "remember him"), whilst the principle is right it completely misses the point that this Sacrament is not rooted in the Last Supper but on the Jewish Paschal meal that Jesus celebrated.  Maybe if the Jews ever decide not to celebrate Passover with unleavened bread and wine we might think again.  And where does her argument leave all those churches that don’t use fermented wine but grape juice or unleavened bread but Hovis?  Allowing that marriage is a sacrament, the matter (or visible sign) concerns human beings, not their gender. That is why Adam (or Eve) could not ‘marry’ Pooh but, arguably, could marry Steve (or Sue).

Come on, Angela, you can do better than that!

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.

ARCHBISHOP'S APOLOGY

Having written to Archbishop Rowan in the past to express my concern and that of others at some of the statements he has made concerning lesbian and gay clergy I have now written to offer my gratitude for his recent apology at the General Synod (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/09/full-text-archbishop-canterbury-speech)  I recognise that this apology will upset certain people and realise that this must have weighed in his decision as to whether to offer a public apology.
However, I recall that ‘actions speak louder than words’ and, whilst an apology is to be welcomed, so will future actions which show that gay and lesbian’s are welcomed into the church and priesthood.
I am a ‘traditional’ catholic and member of the Society of Catholic Priests of which he is Patron.  I am also parish priest of a growing congregation which is welcoming black Africans, many from Nigeria, into our community. Therefore I reminded him of the very large number of catholics in the Church of England who welcome a more inclusive approach to lgbt people, as well as to women in the episcopate.

REPRESSION IN NIGERIA

I am sure I am not alone in recognising parallels between the draconian legislation against gay and lesbian people being proposed in Nigeria and Uganda and that enacted against Jews in Nazi Germany.  In both instances an identifiable segment of society is being systematically and increasingly persecuted because of who they are.  It is not enough that they are 'different' from the majority of their fellow countrymen and women - their very existence is said to be the cause of so many of the ills besetting their countries.  They are being supported by an international conspiracy; their power to influence 'innocent' children is a threat and the only way to create a 'pure' society is to exterminate them.

I am sure I am also not alone in feeling utterly repulsed by what is happening there and feeling helpless to know what to do.  As in the 1930's, the churches in those countries are, at best, claiming they are not stirring up hatred and yet their apparant refusal to embrace a persecuted minority is reminiscent of the churches in Germany.  And what is the Church of England doing?  Seemingly also remaining silent, as so many of our bishops did in the 30's.  To state that, because we were the colonial power and that we cannot be seen to be seeking to influence the working of another country is facile.  It clearly did not stop the Church of England taking a stand, for example, against the apartheid regime in South Africa.  Yet we seem to be standing on the sidelines quite prepared to allow the persecution of a minority in countries which have a large proportion of fellow-Anglicans in their population.  

So I find myself incredulous at the apparant refusal of the Church of England to speak out against this evil being done in the name of religion.  For there can be no mistaking the fact that supporting this movement is the power of religion in those countries.  And I am left with the terrible sense that I am powerless: I cannot do anything.  And those who speak in my name,a nd in the name of Christ, refuse to.

RELIGIOUS ABUSE

For some time I've been moved to the point of tears at the plight of adults who have survived abuse - physically, sexually or emotionally.  More recently I have found myself aware that there is another form of abuse which us rarely mentioned, and that is what has been called 'religious abuse'.  In its most extreme form it is evident in the way some - maybe many - churches condemn certain sexualities and demand adherence to certain codes of sexual behaviour in order for people to belong.  For those who are  not heterosexual this frequently results in a sense of shame, guilt, rejection, abandonment and a desperate desire to hide the truth of their sexuality from others - and from themselves. 

A number of groups exist to help 'survivors' of such abuse know they are not alone, and some survivors will turn to therapists to help them deal with the abuse they have suffered.  But there is one aspect that may not receive as much attention as it needs, and that is the relationship of such victims with God.

Assuming that those emerging from an abusive church still have any form of faith, how can they be helped?  Groups, for example, for gay and lesbian Christians are of great importance.  But it is the underlying relationship of the individual with God which requires attention, for unless this is addressed there is the potential for a 'fault-line'.  I can know that my sexuality is acceptable by others.  I might be drawn to a church which is open and accepting of me.  And I might find that a therapist can help me deal with the issues that have arisen because of the way my sexuality expresses itself.  But what help is there which can enable me to face that most profound of questions - does God really love me as I truly am?

I raise this, partly out of my work as a Spiritual Director and partly because I am not sure that this need for someone who can help me sort out my relationship with God has been acknowledged.  For, beneath all the help I may be offered this one question can remain: How has my understanding of God been affected as I emerge from this situation of abuse?

As a Spiritual Director it seems to me that those churches which purport to accept everyone, regardless of their sexuality, have a duty to face the need to address the abuse that goes on in the name of God and to help those who have been abused to find someone who will help them in their desire to be themselves before the God who made them and desires that they are fully the people they are created to be.

"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.

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.

For all that has been, thanks...

I cannot but reflect on the way in which few of our leaders, in church or society, ackowledge the immense contribution of gay and lesbian people to our society. Without them, our culture would be diminished. In the field of the arts, which contributes massively to civilisation and a civilised society, can there be any others who have proferred as much? Yet who acknowledges this? And which of our religious, political, or social commentators will affirm all that gay men and women have given? Commentators in the media are quick to focus on what diminishes this body of people - who will sing loudly the praises of them?