First woman bishop appointed in C of E

The big news is that the Rev. Libby Lane has been appointed as the suffragen bishop of Stockport serving under the Bishop of Chester.

A little-known vicar from a Lancashire village will become the first woman to smash through the stained-glass ceiling when she becomes Bishop of Stockport in January.

The Rev Libby Lane, 48, was announced yesterday as the first woman to become a bishop in the Established church. Her appointment comes just a month after church leaders made a historic vote to allow women into the episcopate. 

Ms Lane, who is currently Vicar of St Peter’s church in Hale, Greater Manchester, and St Elizabeth’s church in Ashley, Cheshire, was an outsider for the landmark Church of England job. She was not among the bookies’ favourites and has been a dedicated local clergywoman rather than a public figure.

An important note made by the Guardian:

As a suffragan bishop, Lane could be appointed without passing through the tangle of committee meetings required to choose a diocesan – one who has their own cathedral and may sit in the House of Lords.

This may explain why the Rev. Libby Lane is unexpected.  I bet some of the heavy favorite names, such as the Very Rev. Vivienne Faull, Dean of York Minster, will be more likely to be considered as Diocesans.  And as Thinking Anglicans tells us, that may come with a seat in the House of Lords, with the introduction of the Lords Spiritual (Women) Bill:

Currently, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Bishops of Durham, London and Winchester automatically take seats in the House of Lords. The remaining 21 seats are occupied by Bishops in order of seniority (length of service). Under the current system, it would be many years before women bishops were represented in the Lords. 

The Government’s Bill, which is supported by the Church of England, proposes a modification of this rule for the next ten years, so that if a female bishop is available when a Lords Spiritual seat becomes vacant, they will automatically be appointed to the House of Lords. If no female bishop is available, the vacancy would be filled by the next most senior male bishop, as currently happens…

Not everyone is reacting well. One anti-women group called Reform wrote a very mean comment.  On a public facebook page, the new Bishop's husband the Rev. George Lane commented,

I have read some horrendously unkind comments directed at my wife from complete strangers who know nothing about Libby, her family, her friendships, her ministry or her character. (She's already had homophobic abuse on the grounds that she has short hair and must therefore be a lesbian!)

That's sad, but hardly surprising, given the hang-ups over women .  Indeed, it's no coincidence that the ire against including women is similar to that against including LGBT.   Of course, there are no open LGBT bishops in the C of E, and gay clergy there are forbidden to marry.  Inclusion remains a work in progress. 

Let's hope that most C of E members can agree to disagree civilly, as necessary, and wish the new Bishop much luck.   Congratulations!  And Merry Christmas!

Bishop Gladwin gets it

St Paul's Cathedral, London, has a series from retired bishops on "What I want to say now". The first speaker was The Right Reverend John Gladwin, retired Bishop of Chelmsford. And Bp Gladwin clearly "gets it":

There is a crisis of faith. The outcome of our failing to address the medium and language through which we offer the faith of Jesus Christ today will be that people will connect orthodox Christian faith with outmoded ways of thinking and being. The impression is being given that if you are a scientist you cannot with intellectual integrity be a Christian. I suspect that feeling is especially strong among younger students. If you believe in human diversity and the fundamental equality of all human beings whatever their human experience and character you cannot be a Christian. If you are gay or lesbian and entering into a marriage partnership the church is not for you. It is no good blaming the strident voices of secular humanism and scientific atheism for this outcome. We Christians have vacated the field still wielding intellectual weapons that are distinctly rusty and decaying.

It is deeply serious that increasing numbers of people of real principle and integrity of life feel that their own integrity and conscience would be compromised if they came anywhere near the church. We are speaking here of the Church of England which has a duty to all the people of our country. The Archbishop is right. We are a Christian country. The formal relationship of the church to our society gives the church a duty, in partnership with everyone of good will towards it, to serve the people of this nation with the good news of Jesus Christ. That is the foundation on which our history has been built. A failure to understand the importance of this in relation to how we offer the faith and seek to enable the diverse and changing needs of our people to connect with the gospel opens the door for the voices of secularism to eat away at our historic culture.

Describing a TV program about a gay couple adopting children, he says, 'How can the local church be seen to be supportive and encouraging of their commitment to offer loving family life to these children if we spend our time nationally criticising such action? "  and goes on

....Our task is to risk the journey of faith following Jesus Christ as we engage with people and communities today. If we really believe that the mystery of the love and power of God is at work for the protection of the vulnerable, the defence of the humanity and rights of minorities, the care of the excluded, and the struggle for justice – as we see in the face of Jesus Christ – then that surely defines the mission and priorities of the church in any age and culture. ....

More about the series at Thinking Anglicans.

ABC Justin explains that marriage equality = dead Christians

As if the tired old C of E didn't have enough trouble with things, now Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby has compared gay people to adulterers,

Although he continued to uphold what he called the historic position of the church, of "sex only within marriage and marriage only between a man and a woman", he agreed with the presenter, James O'Brien, that it was "completely unacceptable" for the church to condemn homosexual people more than adulterous heterosexual people.

and claimed that marriage equality in the US is the cause of Muslims murdering Christians in Africa.

African Christians will be killed if the Church of England accepts gay marriage, the archbishop of Canterbury has suggested.

 And not a peep did he make about the Anglican Church in Africa supporting criminalization of homosexuality.

IT's OUR FAULT, people!  Us gay folks!  If we would just go back in the closet, and live inauthentic lives of fear and hiding, then none of this would happen!  It's our cross to bear!  We're in too much of a hurry!

Oh, my.  The Rev Martin Luther King, a modern prophet, had words for Justin Welby, written in a Birmingham Jail  (paragraphs broken for ease of reading).  Perhaps someone should send the Abp the link.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? 

We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. 

I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. 

More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood.    

CoE Bishops start interrogating gay clergy

You will recall, church geeks, that the Church of England Bishops released a report recently (so called "pastoral guidance")  in which they unwillingly admitted that some gay people will be married, but this WILL NOT happen in church.  And while blessings might be provided, grudgingly, they should be private, preferably in a closet.  And under no circumstances should gay clergy (who are supposed to be celibate anyway, wink wink) even CONSIDER marrying their partners.  (And lets not even mention those closeted gay bishops).

Yeah, how do you think that's going to work?  There are gay clergy in the CoE and some of them are planning weddings.

And the Bishops are looking into it.

From the Church Times:

GAY clergy have this week been describing the ramifications of the pastoral guidance on same-sex marriage, issued by the House of Bishops last month. Bishops have begun meeting gay clergy, at least five of whom are reported to be planning to marry. 

The Vicar of St Mary with All Souls', Kilburn, and St James's, West Hampstead, the Revd Andrew Cain, said on Tuesday that speaking publicly about his plans to marry his partner of 14 years ( News, 21 February) had resulted in an "uncomfortable" meeting with his bishop, the Rt Revd Peter Wheatley, on Wednesday last week. 

"It was very uncomfortable for both of us," he said. "He was with HR, and I was with a union rep. That would not be normal for a meeting between a bishop and a priest. I could not honestly say it was particularly pastoral. It was awkward."

Ya think?  Wow.  Apparently the Bishop is trying to get them to change their mind.

He suggested that perhaps I would consider having a civil partnership, and I said my partner and I had deliberately not done that because we believe in marriage, and now it is possible for us to marry, we will marry."

Of course.  BP and I deliberately did not get a Domestic Partnership because, d'uh, IT'S NOT MARRIAGE.  We held out for the real thing (coming up on 6 years married, in October).

And the other feature of this is that the CoE Bishops were generally against civil unions, before they were for them.

Reminds me of that recent case in Washington where the vice principal was fired by a Catholic school for marrying his partner, and they offered him a blessing if he would just get a divorce.    You cannot make up this stuff.  

Meanwhile, back to the Church Times article:

On Monday, the Chaplain at Portsmouth University, the Revd Andy Marshall, confirmed that he plans to marry his partner of six years, despite the House of Bishops' statement.... 

Since the publication of the guidance, he has had conversations with people who have been told by their diocesan director of ordinands to sign a document stating that they are single or celibate. 

They had asked him "whether I feel they should end a relationship of several years, in order to sign the document and pursue ordination. 

"What was intended as a discussion document was used to oppress and bully people."

And really, CoE, how do you think that's going to go down in a country where same sex marriage is legal, starting next week? Not only is this greasing the skids to irrelevance, it's giving a large push towards the death of the church.  Anti-women, anti-gay, and placating a bunch of southern bishops whose countries want to imprison and punish LGBT people.

Can you spell "Disestablishment"?  Because, by George (or should that be, by Justin?), I think it's coming.

C of E Bishop recommends gay blessings are held in the closet

Well, not quite, but almost.  The Bishop of Dorking wants to tell everyone that really, they aren't anti gay.  Because a small, hidden prayer MIGHT be held for a gay couple, as long as it isn't in church and not formal, and no one knows.

Inevitably, the media have highlighted what is seen as the negative outcome rather than the many positive things which the Guidance has to say. ...a pastoral response of prayers is encouraged, where appropriate, to gay couples who may enquire about the possibility of some form of service. This would not be any fomal rite or liturgy but, as paragraph 22 of the Appendix states, a ‘more informal kind of prayer, at the request of the couple, might be appropriate in the light of circumstances’. My own view is that this might be best done in the couple’s home.

Dear Bishop:

When in a hole, STOP DIGGING.

(from Thinking Anglicans)

Heartbreaking response to CofE Bishops

From a guest blog at St Laurence's Cowley,  in which the writer responds to the recent letter of the Church of England Bishops that forbids any formal recognition or blessing of gay couples (note that this individual refers to ze's beloved partner as BP as well....)

In withholding the possibility of a blessing ceremony in our own consecrated places of worship, overseen by our own priest and in the presence of our Christian brothers and sisters, the Anglican Communion, The Catholic Church and others, are essentially cursing us in the name of God.

This sounds very harsh and I am quite certain that many will vehemently challenge my understanding of the situation. But, from our perspective everything that is denied expression in the Light of Christ is forced outside that Light and into the darkness. Above all BP and I want to walk in the Light. Consequently we are very unlikely to take up the opportunity for civil marriage but would leap at the chance of a blessing in our own church.

We are not young and anyway due to health issues we have had to recognise that this year is the time to take out the 'bucket list' and get on with it. If only it could include with reasonable expectation of achievement, the blessing of our special and precious relationship in the presence of God.

Pastoral, Bishops?  Really?

The anguish is heartbreaking.

Oops, they did it again: Tone Deaf CofE Bishops refuse recognition of same sex marriages

Those of us who are church geeks (and I am one, even though I'm not a believer -- life's funny like that) are commenting with horror on Facebook about the latest example of tone-deaf stupidity from the Bishops of the Church of England.

To catch up on  where we've been, the UK legalized same sex civil unions a number of years ago, and then this year approved of same sex civil marriages.  The Church of England opposed both of these, with some vigor, and as the established church in the UK, made sure that it will never be required to formalize same sex marriages.

This goes on in a context where the CofE has grudgingly acknowledged that there are gay clerics but insists they live celibate lives with their partners (right) and it is widely accepted that there are a number of deeply closeted gay bishops.

You can read our previous posts on some of this under the label Church of England.

The new Archibishop of Canterbury at least acknowledges that there's a problem.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has told the Church of England it may have to accept changes many members do not like for the sake of unity – as it prepares for a battle over wedding-like blessing services for gay couples. 

The Most Rev Justin Welby acknowledged that many Anglicans would view it as guilty of “betrayal” and even “apostasy” if it implements a landmark Church report which includes a recommendation to hold special services honouring same-sex relationships. 

But he warned that others would see the Church as increasingly “irrelevant” and promoting attitudes “akin to racism” over its response. 

In a personal address to the Church’s decision-making General Synod, which is meeting in London, he urged members not to be afraid of “incoherence and inconsistency” in some cases and “untidy” arrangements to avoid splits. 

He insisted that it was not “wishy-washy” to attempt to accommodate people with opposing views and said it was time for a massive “cultural change” in how it approaches disagreement.

Well, i don't think this is quite the way to solve the problem, Archbishop.  The bishops' latest is to say that while gay people are going to get married, they certainly won't and never will be married in church, and the best they can hope for is an informal blessing.  And those partnered gay clergy better not try to marry, no sir!  You can read the full text here.  So if they were trying to thread the needle, they have failed spectacularly.

As one blogger writes,

Members of my church have often said to me, ‘Rachel, we want you to be happy.’ They know I can be a miserable so and so (:-)) and they know that I am alone, without a partner. They want me to have a partner. They also know that this will not be the solution to everything, but who does not want the joy, challenge and reality of a loving relationship? ...  

But now if I and another woman fell in love and became deeply committed to each other we could – in the eyes of the secular state – get married. And there would be much rejoicing! There would even be bishops who’d be invited along to share in our joy. My congregation would no doubt want to come and throw confetti. 

And yet…the church qua church might ask me to leave a cherished ministry. In truth, if it wanted me and people like me so little, I’d probably just go. But the joy of being married to one’s beloved would bleed into the pain of being seen as one who is failing in God's love as it is being shown in the Church. 

I weep for all my sisters and brothers – good, ordinary and faithful LGBT Christians and clerics – who are in committed relationships and yet are being pushed ever to the outside where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth. I sense God is weeping too.

Honestly, can they manage to be more tin-eared about this? And on Valentine's Day?

They are writing themselves into oblivion.  The Brits are far more supportive of marriage equality than the Yanks.  And the C of E is making itself increasingly irrelevant to the lives and experiences of the people of England.

Update:  The estimable Rev. Tobias Haller calls it incoherent hypocrsy, and writes,

It is as if we were living on Animal Farm: the values of monogamy, permanent fidelity and mutual love (which the document cites as evident in at least some same-sex relationships) can be erased from the constitution, leaving only "man" and "woman" — the crucial defining adjective "one" no longer being applicable, even, as has been noted, for the likely future governor of the church. The Bishops have hinged the sole significant virtue (fidelity and so on being all very well but not restricted to mixed-sex couples) upon heterosexuality itself. Gender has become a virtue, and virtue insignificant. And they have the gumption to call this the teaching of Christ.

The C of E continues to stumble around the wood

Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby writes,

Building real community means leaving space to accept all who come through the door and giving them the sense that the place to which they have come, the gap at the table, was there waiting especially for them. They may have disabilities (like many of us), or appear very on top of life. Either way the reality is of a community that is not there for its own sake but to bring those who find a place at its table to find a place at Gods’ table, where immeasurable love opens the way to extraordinary healing.

Very nice.  But coming on the heels of his speech in the House of Lords against the equal marriage bill,   it rings a bit hollow to the LGBT community, who apparently are still not really welcomed to that community.

Yesterday, the House of Lords continued debate on amendments to the bill.  Via twitter, I followed the debate via #equalmarriage, a hashtag heavily used by the equality supporters in the UK and Australia.

It was the Archbishop of York who took up the mantle of disapproval in yesterday's reading. Move along, nothing new to see here... but today, Andrew Brown shows some exasperation in the Guardian 

The archbishop, John Sentamu, asked: "What do you do with people in same-sex relationships that are committed, loving and Christian? Would you rather bless a sheep and a tree, and not them? However, that is a big question, to which we are going to come. I am afraid that now is not the moment."

No. It isn't. That moment passed years ago, when civil partnerships were first brought in, and the archbishop's was one of the loudest voices demanding that the Church of England have nothing to do with them. The bishops still don't realise what damage they did then.... 

.... they failed to listen to the weak because they thought the noisy bullies mattered more.

When civil partnerships came in, the two archbishops fought hard, along with the rest of the Church of England, to ensure that they had no religious or spiritual content at all. This was a monumentally stupid position for an established church to take, and the nation duly went ahead and injected its own spiritual contents, leaving the church looking like a whitewashed tomb.

Truly, it is quite amusing to see the CofE point at Civil Unions as a Very Good Thing when they vigorously opposed them.

Brown goes on to point out that the donnish types of the Established Church "got it" for years, and were tolerant.  But:

When the great evangelical backlash against gay people came in the 90s – culminating in 1998, when opposition to gay rights became one of the tests of orthodoxy within the Anglican communion and the main cause of its subsequent schism – the dons were all swept away.....

Retreating from the actual condition of the Church of England full of gay and tolerant people into a fantasy of an Anglican communion that had neither but would be "a global significant player" as George Carey once told the United Nations, the evangelical party made a church which could neither lead the nation morally nor even move with it and made instead a virtue of being out of touch. Looking at their church now, I remember Kipling's brutal epigram on a soldier shot for cowardice: "I could not face my death. This being known, / men led me to him, blindfold and alone."

ABC Justin and the march of history

Does anyone else find it faintly amusing that Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby is supposed to be promoting healing and reunion? His expertise is in conflict resolution. But as Diarmaid MacCulloch comments in the NY Times, the Bishops of the C of E are caught between a rock and a hardplace, with gay people out of the closet and conservatives trying to shove them back inside.

The dilemma was captured in the performance of the archbishop of Canterbury during the Lords debate. A man normally characterized by shrewdness and sensitivity, he delivered an inept speech that began by saying how sad it was that the church had not supported equality for gay people in the past, and then went on to give some bizarre reasons as to why it would continue not supporting equality for them in the future. Having sort of hinted that his colleagues might be best not voting for Lord Dear’s amendment, he went on to vote for it himself.

The least the ABC could have done is abstain.  Don't tell us that there are sterling examples of gay partnerships and then slap us about the face.  promoting healing?  HA.

And then, of course, MacCulloch points out how the Bishops are now claiming to support civil partnerships, which of course they didn't, originally.

They insist that when Tony Blair’s Labour government introduced civil partnerships for same-sex couples, the bishops in the Lords were supportive of the introduction of civil partnerships. Read in detail the parliamentary proceedings at the time, and you will see that this claim has the plausibility of saying the dog ate their homework. But now they’re stuck with supporting civil partnerships, even for clergy, whom the Church of England ludicrously insists have to be celibate. (We are all waiting for the church to issue a code of conduct on exactly what this might mean: Which areas of the body should a clergy couple avoid mutually contacting, and how many inches away from them is O.K.?) 

"We've always been at war with Eastasia". Yeah, not so much.

Calling the C of E to account

As I reported in my last post, Andrew Brown in the the Guardian noted

If there is one thing that I have learned from the comments on this site in the last four years, it is that homophobia breeds hatred in return. A really significant proportion of the commenters who hate and despise Christianity do so because they feel that Christians stand for the hatred and contempt of gay people.

And for the CofE this is a powerful J'accuse.  While ABC Justin Welby admits that the C of E has treated LGBT people badly, he still voted to kill equality.  And despite the rumors, they were NOT in favor of blessings...

Gerry Lynch calls him to account:

Over the past 15 years, there has been a revolution in how same-sex relationships have been treated in law in the United Kingdom, as in most Western societies. The Church of England opposed nearly every step of that process, and in the few cases where it didn’t do so formally as a denomination, its Evangelical wing did so vociferously in the media, usually led in the public charge by Archbishop Carey and other senior bishops. And I mean every step – the equalisation of the age of consent; the abolition of the hateful Section 28; the granting of adoption rights to same sex couples; same-sex marriage. The introduction of civil partnerships was accompanied by an attempt to strip them of any social or spiritual meaning and constant denigration of gay and lesbian relationships; it remains forbidden to give civil partnerships any blessing in church. The outlawing of discrimination in employment saw the Church of England attempt to carve out as wide a scope as possible where it could continue to discriminate against queers. And, yes, it was about orientation rather than practice – ask Jeffrey John. 

That is the record. There is no point in trying to minimise or obfuscate it. A couple of hours with Google and Hansard will reveal it in almost every detail.
Justin Welby was mostly silent when all this was going on, and when he wasn’t he supported a homophobic party line.
...
But if the Church of England is serious about loving, including and accepting LGBT people, it needs to stop patronising us and it needs to stop deluding itself about its own record – for it deludes neither us nor society in general. 

‘Authenticity’ is one of the big mission buzzwords at present. There’s a need for a bit of authenticity here, and a good dollop of humility with it. If you only started saying nice things about same-gender relationships when the ‘threat’ of gay marriage emerged, be honest enough to admit it. As it stands, I doubt there is a LGBT person in the whole of England who actually believes you when you claim to oppose homophobia. 

The ‘party line’ is morally bankrupt and only leaves us divided and angry at one another. We desperately need some truth in the Church of England. In Christ, the truth is what sets us free.

On Bishops and Marriage.

In a big surprise, the British House of Lords voted overwhelmingly to approve the 2nd reading of a bill that would make marriage equality the law of the land.   Somewhat unexpectedly, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby voted to kill the bill.  I say "unexpectedly" because he had been offering an olive twig, acknowledging that gay relationships can be admirable.  But apparently, actually recognizing a marriage like mine will destroy straight marriages, cause people to divorce and cease procreating....well, we've heard all this before, and Welby is just the same-old same-old. 

 The Church of England certainly includes dissenting bishops, and marriage equality is strongly supported by the British people, but none of the 14 "Lords Spiritual" in attendance actually voted in favor of equality (though 5 did abstain).  Greasing the skids to oblivion.

From Welby, let's turn to Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Ill.  He attended an event discussing same sex marriage with pro-gay Sister Jeannine Gramick. And he got an earful.  Here's what the National Catholic Reporter tells us:

Paprocki said the church would love to welcome gay people but is forced into a defensive position by "activists pushing an agenda." That set off [Anne] Gray, who has a gay son... 

"Here I am," she said. "The big scary gay agenda."
...
"It is all about anecdotal stories," she said. "My son is a perfect human being. There is nothing intrinsically disordered about him. I know because I am his mother."... 

"You need to listen to mothers," she said.

Now, pay attention to the following bit (my emphasis)

One of the youngest people in the room said she was a devout Catholic, but when her aunt and sister told her they were gay, she was put on the spot. She asked Paprocki if she could remain a good Catholic and still support her family members in their desires to form lifelong relationships.

"It is a struggle to be a good Catholic while supporting gay marriage," the bishop said. "It strains your relationship with the church."

He said those who oppose the church on the issue should become Protestants. "They do a lot of good things too," he said.

Polls show that upwards of 60% of Roman Catholic laity upport marriage equality. Is the bishop really suggesting that they all leave the church? Because that will leave the pews awfully empty.

Writing in the Guardian about the UK situation, Andrew Brown notes

If there is one thing that I have learned from the comments on this site in the last four years, it is that homophobia breeds hatred in return. A really significant proportion of the commenters who hate and despise Christianity do so because they feel that Christians stand for the hatred and contempt of gay people.

Both Welby and Paprocki have the same problem. Their efforts to demonize gay people are leading to couples--mothers, and others-- to reject what their church has to offer, reject the church, and leave faith. This is not a strategy for long-term survival.

What's wrong with the Church of England?

This is a recipe for extinction not just for the CofE, but the Roman Catholic Church, and any other institution that is too ossified in its tradition, so that its reason to be is to maintain itself.

"What has happened is a complete disjunction between the values of the church and the values of the population," says Woodhead. "The church has clericalised until it's just clergy and lay ministers talking to each other. The public are not an audience for this debate. And you can't have a minority gospel for a majority religion." 

Nowhere is this clearer than in the absurd and humiliating tangle that the Church of England has got itself into about women priests. On Monday the church's bishops begin a two-day meeting that is meant to result in legislation that will lead to the appointment of women bishops in three years' time – assuming agreement is reached. And that really is the quickest that anything can happen.

While critics have argued that accepting women or LGBT people is "swaying with the popular culture",  I think it's more a case of evolution.   I think we can see, especially in the wake of GC 2012, that the  Episcopal Church is working to adapt.  And in biology, the rule is to adapt or die.

The Church of England, on the other hand, seems to hope that if it keeps doing the same thing, something will change.  

I believe that is called the definition of insanity.

Gay Bishops in the C of E?

Reflecting on the latest lunacy from the Church of EnglandGiles Fraser nails it:

"So, bishop, are you having sex with your partner?" I can't imagine anyone asking that question with a straight face..... Yet the new line from the C of E – ludicrously, that gay men in civil partnerships can be bishops as long as they refrain from sex (or to put it another way, we'll have gay bishops as long as they are not really gay) raises the question: how on earth will the authorities ever find out? .... No, the only way the bedroom police could ever really know is if they ask and play a moral guilt trip about honesty on those being interrogated. So do sexually active gay priests or bishops have a moral responsibility to tell the truth? Actually, I think not. I'd go further: in this situation, they have a moral responsibility to lie.

....It is perfectly proper that ordinarily people should maintain a strong presumption in favour of truth telling. But the situation in which gay people in the church find themselves is far from ordinary. Physical intimacy is a moral good, the very incarnation of love. Those who enforce celibacy on the basis of sexuality are maintaining a system of oppression that brings misery and loneliness to many.

I believe all Christians have a moral duty to resist this cruelty. Lying to the church authorities, in these conditions, is a bit like disobeying an unjust order. It's a form of non-violent resistance.

If there is blame for all of this it must lie with the church itself. Through fear, it encourages people to live a lie, to build their whole identity upon untruth. Thus so many gay clergy have clandestine existences, lavender marriages and unexplained holidays....

This outward lie makes a certain sort of truth possible. After all, sex between partners is, at best, a precious communication of truth. And this is the greater truth here, a truth that is as much about our relationship with God as everything else. For the love that dare not speak its name is love itself. This is the truth that needs protecting – by a lie if necessary.

When Bishops are Afraid

From PinkNews, an update about the Church of England's response to the UK government's effort to lock them out of performing same sex marriages  (my emphasis):

The Telegraph now reports church officials have acknowledged that they could potentially “live with” the government’s proposals and its specific legal safeguards..... 

Meanwhile, the House of Lords heard claims that several bishops secretly support the principle of equal marriage but are afraid to speak out because it would contradict the official policy of the church. 

Lord Harries of Pentregarth, the former Bishop of Oxford, said that many bishops not only accept the protections the government proposes but would actively support equal marriage.
He said many church members “warmly welcome” the government’s plans, adding: “A fair number of individual bishops in the Church of England also support it, but are not able to say so publicly at the moment because of the political situation in which the Church of England now finds itself.” 

The Bishop of Salisbury and the Bishop of Buckingham have so far openly supported marriage rights for gay couples.

That's a sorry state of affairs, leaving Bishops of Salisbury and Buckingham on their own.

Now, some will say that because Bishops are in it for the long haul, collegiality in their body is important.  But surely it's possible to disagree politely.  Surely it's worth it to explain to the public that not EVERYONE in the C of E hierarchy is stuck in an Angela Thirkell novel ca. 1935.

It's of a piece with the essay I wrote here  back in 2011 on the need for C of E bishops to come out as leaders.  And those who are gay should come out, period.  It's time to get out of the closet and stand in the light.

It's called leadership.

It's called honesty.

And it's the right thing to do.

No weddings in the C of E: government to make them illegal

From the BBC:

THE Government's Bill to introduce same-sex marriage will make it clear that it is illegal for any Church of England minister to marry a same-sex couple.

The Government therefore assists the Church of England to make it official: the C of E will have no measurable relevance to the lives of modern people.

From Benny's Blog:

While the opportunity will be created for churches in general to ‘opt in’ to celebrating same-sex Marriages, Anglican churches will not have this provision. The statement today made it clear that one of the ‘quadruple locks’ to protect religious belief and practice, will be specific legislation making it illegal for the Church of England (and Church in Wales) to conduct same-sex marriages.

For me and many others this will be a safeguard too far.It will mean that even when (in years to come) the CofE changes its mind, it will require a change in primary legislation before same-sex marriages can take place in parish churches. Unlike other religious institutions, the CofE will not be able to vote to ‘opt in’ – it will have to ask the Government to change to law.

This has been presented as a further reassurance to the Church of England (& Wales) but it only reassures those who want to stop same-sex marriage in the first place. There are many others who have been appalled by the Church response to these issues. We do not want the CofE excluded from the ability to ‘opt in’ when that view achieves a majority. We do not want to be treated differently from other churches and religious groups. We do not want to see such discrimination cast into law.If the Church of England welcomes these new ‘safe-guards’ the real effect of the ‘quadruple lock’ announced today will be to ensure that LGB&T couples are left in no doubt that the Church of England is locking and bolting the door to them for as long as it possibly can. It will send out a clear message – “You are not welcome here.” 

....If the CofE welcomes these safeguards today, it will be demonstrating that the Church of England only now exists to protect itself against social change – in relation to women, in relation to LGB&T people, and in relation to the State.

The trouble with locked doors is that they tend of keeping everyone out who doesn’t have the right key. Is that really the kind of church we want to be?

Has the established C of E outlived its usefulness?

Poor old Church  of England; first it drops the ball on the issue of women bishops, as an unsatisfactory compromise measure liked by no-one fails to pass;  then, it issues a huffy response to the Government's push for full equal marriages for gays, the government including the ability to solemnize said marriages in churches willing to do so.  Political observers comment that the Government is probably done listening to the C of E, because after the debacle over women bishops, they seem to be completely out of touch with modern Britain.

Giles Fraser looks at the history of the Church of England, and how historically its media via helped paper over the differences between the "sides" and avoid another Civil War.

We saw ourselves as the world's natural compromisers. Unlike those of continental Europe, we prized ourselves on being uncomfortable with ideology and strong feelings. The big idea was the big tent. All are welcome as long as they leave behind passionate religious and political differences. That was the price of social togetherness. And that, indeed, was the value of established religion to the state. 

But this big tent idea of the Christian religion, enshrined in law, has been undone from two directions. From an increasingly secular society where religious differences are no longer a threat to wider civil society; and from a church that has given up on the project of national togetherness as it has been replaced by global Anglicanism – complete with aggressively homophobic Ugandan bishops and the like. The reason the failure of the female bishops measure feels like a historical watershed is that it marks the clear point where the church is no longer of any use to the state. Indeed, it has become a liability. If divorce was an easy option, we would now be divvying up our DVDs. 

There is also a wider lesson in all of this. For the failure of the C of E's big tent experiment is parallel to the failure of New Labour's big tent experiment with which it had so much in common. Chantal Mouffe rightly argues that the third way was a mistaken attempt to bypass the inherently conflictual nature of the political. Bland, suffocating unanimity cannot replace the reality of political differences. In theology as in politics, conflict is real. The important thing is not that we mustn't fight. That is inevitable. It's rather that we mustn't draw blood when doing so.

Meanwhile, today David Cameron, the Prime Minister, came out firmly in favor of same sex marriages in church (if said church is willing) .

Mr Cameron said: "I'm a massive supporter of marriage and I don't want gay people to be excluded from a great institution. 

"But let me be absolutely 100% clear: if there is any church or any synagogue or any mosque that doesn't want to have a gay marriage it will not, absolutely must not, be forced to hold it. 

"That is absolutely clear in the legislation...."

Will Dr Welby be the right medicine for the C of E?

Another election has been going on, that of the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, current Bishop of Durham.  Of course, it's really only an election within the Super Secret Crown Nominations Committee.  And we found out early,  because the bookies in England saw a run up on his name;  apparently some people did the equivalent of insider trading prior to the announcement.  Yet the British find our democratic polity "unseemly". Go figure.

From the Guardian

Bishop Welby is an interesting guy, very Establishment (Eton and Cambridge), with a distinguished career in the oil business.  So he had a profession apart from the Church, reminiscent of TEC Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori.  It seems that his path started to change with the tragic death of his infant daughter 30 years ago.  Since ordination in '93, he's had a meteoric rise, including Dean of Liverpool Cathedral, and has only been Bishop for a year.

He represents the "Evangelical" side of the Church of England, not to be confused with the American definition of Evangelical (which in the US is often paired with "fundamentalist" or "wingnut").  It's apparently traditional to go back and forth between the Evangelical and Catholic sides for ABC;  think of this as the long-standing balance between low Church and high Church, Roundhead and Cavalier, Wesley and Newman, Cambridge and Oxford....

He also has a strong background in conflict resolution particularly in Africa, which he'll need to wrangle the Anglican Communion and the disparate parts of the Church of England.  I suspect this is a huge part of his nomination.

Welby is pro-women bishops and while he has been an opponent to marriage equality in the past, apparently his views are "evolving". Really?  Hmmmm.

This matters in the UK, where there are robust civil unions but a strong movement (driven by the Tories, believe it or not....take a lesson, Republicans) for civil marriage.  The CofE has been adamantly opposed.  Welby's a supporter of the emphatically negative Bishop's statement, as discussed in these comments at The Lead, and has reaffirmed his support for it.  So perhaps he's just being politic.  Yes, I'm a cynic.

Remember,  there is no separation of Church and State in the UK.  The bishops of the CofE sit in the House of Lords, along with life peers and hereditary peers.  (Think of our Senate not being elected, but full of Bishops and Romneys and Bushes!)   And if you are the average Brit, pretty much you are entitled to get married in the Church if you want to, so they can't just send you along to the registrar's office for not being a formal member.  And therefore, they get to make the rules for all the other churches too.

I have many friends in the UK, most of whom are scientists and basically small-r republicans.  They don't really like the idea of the Queen, and most are not believers or practitioners of faith.  The CofE is relevant to them only as a residual cultural identity. For the Church to adamantly opposed civil marriages is infuriating to them, and driving the church into complete irrelevance.

It's the challenge of how to be prophetic in a modern world, rather than wistful for a past long gone.

Generally, people seem to be hopeful about Welby.  And he has a sense of humor.

“I’ve got a better barber and spend more on razors than Rowan Williams.”

I hope he has a better idea of how to unite his fractious Communion than Williams did.

Quote of the day: electing an Archbishop

From Nelson Jones in the New Statesman:

What Anglicans on Twitter are emphatically not being invited to do is to help the committee in more obviously practical ways, for example by suggesting names. Indeed, the release of the prayer, like the secrecy of the committee's meeting-place, only underlines the exclusion of rank-and-file Anglicans from any real choice in the identity of their next spiritual leader. ... 

Giles Fraser suggested yesterday that the Archbishop of Canterbury too should be elected, and of course he is right. An electoral process - perhaps via a special session of the General Synod - would be more legitimate and, more importantly, give the new Archbishop a real mandate to speak out on behalf of the Church of England and a stronger connection with the grassroots. It would look like a modernising move, bringing the mother church into line with other Anglican provinces, but it would also be a return to the tradition of the early church which upheld the principle of Vox Populi,Vox Dei ("the voice of the people is the voice of God"). It might even help to solve the problem of his divergent and contradictory roles: as leader of anotriously unleadable church (which has been described as "an organised anarchy"), as national spokesman for faith and as the largely powerless head of the worldwide Anglican communion. At least, a more open decision-making process might lead to a more conclusive discussion about what an Archbishop of Canterbury is for.

(H/T Andrew Sullivan)

More from London and St Paul's

You know, it's hard to imagine how they could have handled this worse.

From the Telegraph , an unflattering exposé

One figure who is understood to have taken a particularly dim view of Canon Fraser’s outbursts is the cathedral’s registrar, Nicholas Cottam, a retired Major-General. He has, so far, managed to keep a low profile, but he is described as “the power behind the throne”, and central to convincing the dean to support evicting the protesters. ....“He runs the cathedral like an army operation and sees the canons as his troops who should follow orders and not speak out of turn,” says one insider. ....

Senior figures at the City of London Corporation had decided that the protesters must be evicted, and backing from the cathedral Chapter was the last touch needed to give it moral authority. As the fallout from the Chapter’s poor handling of the row has descended into an embarrassing debacle, it has cast the Church in an unflattering light. The canons have been accused of selling out to the wishes of politicians rather than carrying out their gospel duties to care for the poor and downtrodden. ... 

The Rt Rev Alan Wilson, the Bishop of Buckingham, said that it was not just the public who were bemused by the closure. “Cathedral deans I’ve spoken to are mystified as to why they would do it,” he said. “It’s made them look like idiots. Anyone who looks at the camp can see that it is complete nonsense to claim that it was done for health and safety.” The health and safety report published on Monday listed “rope/guy-lines” and rodents among potential dangers posed by the presence of the camp. Sources close to the Dean say that he was baffled as soon as he saw how weak the evidence was, and moved to have the building reopened as quickly as possible.... 

Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, has spoken out at the damage being caused to the Church’s reputation, but Dr Rowan Williams, the current incumbent of Lambeth Palace, has remained silent. 

 From the Independent:

A highly critical report into the moral standards of bankers has been suppressed by St Paul's Cathedral amid fears that it would inflame tensions over the Occupy London tent protest. 

The report, based on a survey of 500 City workers who were asked whether they thought they were worth their lucrative salaries and bonuses, was due to be published last Thursday, the day that the Canon Chancellor of St Paul's, Giles Fraser, resigned in protest at the church's tough stance. 

But publication of the report, by the St Paul's Institute, has been delayed in an apparent acknowledgement that it would leave the impression that the cathedral was on the side of the protesters. 

The Independent on Sunday understands that the decision has upset a number of clergy, who hoped that the report would prove that the church was not detached from a financial crisis that had its heart yards from the cathedral itself. The decision will fuel the impression that the wider established church is attempting to stifle debate about the tent protest, as leading members of the Church of England, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, have failed to comment publicly about Occupy London....  

Shocked!  Shocked! There's gambling going on in this establishment!

Update:  And now the Dean of the Cathedral has resigned.  What a mess.

St Paul's, Occupy London, and a sitcom....

You may be unaware of the drama in London, where the Occupy London protesters have camped next to St Paul's Cathedral. While at first the Cathedral welcomed them in the interest of social justice, they soon got cold feet, leading to an unprecedented shut-down of the Cathedral, threats to remove the peaceful protestors, and a resignation of the Canon Chancellor, Giles Fraser in response.

The BBC report is here. Needless to say, the Cathedral is not coming across well in this, looking like a defender of its own wealth and that of its City allies, rather than peaceful protesters. When the Pope calls for worldwide discussion of economic inequality, St Paul's looks to maintain the income from a stunning £14.50 entrance fee. That's over $20!

On the serious side, the Guardian, of all papers, called out the Cathedral:

If the dean and chapter continue their steps towards evicting they will be playing the villains in a national pantomime. There will be legal battles and, eventually, physical force. At every step, the cathedral authorities will be acting in the service of absurdity and injustice. Yet this is where the logic of their position is leading them. They must see this, and stop. Jesus denounced his Pharisaic enemies as whited sepulchres, or shining tombs; and that is what the steam-cleaned marble frontage of St Paul’s will become if the protesters are evicted to make room for empty pomp: a whited sepulchre, where morality and truth count for nothing against the convenience of the heritage industry.

while other commenters have decried the union of the established church with the Establishment:

The problem with these good intentions is that over the centuries what has evolved is a naturally cautious and inherently tepid Church. ... by and large we remain, as a Church, suitably compliant and that is because we have been genetically engineered to be that way.

...At best the Church's role is to act as a counter-balance to the predations of power and the aching emptiness of materialism – to provide a different perspective on wealth and poverty.

Over the past 50 years we have all felt the cold hands of capitalism squeezing more and more of our humanity out of us. We have all by and large allowed it to happen, believing it was progress. The Church of England has just gone along with it, and we are now utterly embedded in that system.

Under the banner of balance, we at some point took it upon ourselves to "steady the ship" even if it is – as now many of us feel intuitively – going in the wrong direction. As priests we are not supposed to uphold the needs of the State – we are here at best to provide balance against the excesses of power, both political and financial. But we have not remained true to our calling.

And there is also the delicious irony that the Cathedral has been leading efforts to study executive pay , which might prove a bit embarrassing....

It can also be disclosed that a damning report Canon Fraser had been due to publish on Thursday about bankers’ lack of ethics, had been shelved by the cathedral amid concerns that it would only escalate the row.

Of course, true tonational character, there's already a satire sitcom script. The British do this kind of humor so well. Go have a look.