All Saints Church in Sanderstead is part of the Diocese of Southwark. The parish says of itself: ‘We rejoice in our diversity as churches - but rejoice even more in our unity, as we seek to serve God and our neighbour together.’ But it seems that their rejoicing in diversity does not extend to differences over the Coalition for Marriage petition, for a Lay Reader of 50 years standing and loyal service has been suspended over the issue.

Peter Gowlland, 78, was due to meet with Barry Goodwin, acting Archdeacon of Croydon, on St George’s Day for his Reader’s licence to be renewed for a further year. To his surprise, he was presented with some nebulous charges (with no prior warning) which concerned an incident eight days earlier, when he dared to suggest that the congregation at All Saints might like to sign the Coalition for Marriage petition. He had been preaching about the boldness of the Apostles, and told the congregation that the C4M issue called for a contemporary manifestation of like boldness.

As a result of this, there were one or two mumblings from members of said congregation who favour same-sex marriage, and so they complained to a higher level. Sadly, the Venerable (acting) Barry Goodwin didn’t exhort these believers to follow Scripture and take their complaint first to Mr Gowlland: he decided instead to suspend him for two months.

Bizarrely, the (acting) Archdeacon acknowledged that Mr Gowlland was ‘experienced and committed to preaching and teaching the Gospel’, but it appears that (retired) Bishop David Atkinson (and others) found him a little too committed to the cause of upholding the Church’s traditional teaching on marriage (which happens also to be the law of the land). And so he has been suspended because ‘there is a potential for division in All Saints’.

Well, there’s a bright Archdeacon. You suspend a voluntary and highly-experienced Lay Reader at a time the church has no vicar in order to sustain an illusory unity. Mr Gowlland is not merely a Reader of 50 years’ standing; he has a Diploma in Theology; taught A-level RS for 20 years; and was a headmaster for 24 years. He has been informed that the issue is not with his support for the biblical view of marriage, but with the way he introduced the subject and petition which were ‘bounced’ on his colleagues ‘without prior discussion’. For this reason, the Venerable (acting) Barry Goodwin has ‘withdrawn’ Mr Gowlland from preaching and leading worship for two months. This is not, however, a suspension.

Right.

The (acting) Archdeacon has listened to the complaints of a vociferous few who support same-sex marriage and without giving Mr Gowlland the chance to respond to the allegations has summarily ‘withdrawn’ Mr Gowlland’s licence to preach and lead worship for two months, but this doesn’t amount to suspension. And, moreover, the (acting) Archdeacon has done this during a interregnum, when the church needs all the lay expertise it can muster.

Incredible.

Mr Gowlland has appealed to the Bishop of Southwark, pointing out that the Chairman of the District Church Council was not only aware that Mr Gowlland intended to mention the Coalition for Marriage; he even offered to find a table for promotional literature. He told the Bishop that during the notices he read out the petition and encouraged people to sign it. The person leading the service was Mary Duncan, another Lay Reader, who made no comment to Mr Gowlland personally. It transpires that Ms Duncan didn’t approve of Mr Gowlland’s stance, and so made her feelings known to another Lay Reader, Penny Bird. And together, without warning or discussion, they came to the lectern and exhorted the congregation not to sign the petition. “There are other views,” they said. “Do not sign it without giving it very careful thought.” Ms Duncan turned to Mr Gowlland and said, “Just in the interests of balance, Peter.”

The Worldwide President of the Mothers Union, Rosemary Kempsell, then said that the Government was having a consultation and had asked people to respond. Bishop David Atkinson, who was leading the service, said that this was neither the time nor place to discuss this, but suggested a meeting in the near future to do so. It is quite incredible that neither Bishop David nor any of the Lay Readers expressed their concerns to Mr Gowlland privately. And neither has the Rev’d Andrew Watson (curate) nor the Rev’d Susan Atkinson-Jones (vicar-in-charge during the interregnum). This is a great shame, for the situation could easily have been defused with a quiet word in the vestry.

And now Mr Gowlland is suspended, but the (acting) Archdeacon isn’t calling it so, and neither is the Bishop of Southwark. What is significant here is that the Lay Reader whose licence has been temporarily ‘withdrawn’ for two months supports the Coalition for Marriage, while the Lay Readers who oppose it - and who stood up in front of the congregation to dispute publicly with Mr Gowlland – are not subject to any disciplinary action. Of course, Lay Readers are not employees, and so the (acting) Archdeacon is not bound by employment legislation. But, as a courtesy, one might expect the Church of England to uphold certain procedures and principles which accord with natural justice: viz. i) oral warning; ii) written warning; iii) final written warning; iv) suspension/dismissal. This would accord with the teachings of Jesus (Mt 18:15) and of St Paul (Gal 6:1ff).

Peter Gowlland has been charged, convicted and summarily sentenced without the right to present his case (cf Prov 18:17). The suspension (which it certainly is) is a manifest punitive action and a public humiliation. Mr Gowlland is elderly, fragile and very hurt: he and his wife now attend another church. He is not exercising his ministry. posted byArchbishop Cranmer

"Mr Gowlland is elderly, fragile and very hurt: he and his wife now attend another church. He is not exercising his ministry."

Hmm. Is he also a racist?

When i read and reread this, i thought is this a spoof, I know the names involved, is the church really behaving in this way??

I thought about my initial training in theology college, and that teaching was, and as in other subjects was that,  "you present both/all sides of any particular issue, this one happens to be marriage, there have been many others over the years..My experience over the years is it is what we observe of the actions and reactions of others in times of disagreements that become more important than the actual subject..

So two people take the pulpit and suggest that other views be heard before people sign the marriage covenant, part of me says it is very insulting to the public, if you take the stance they are not capable of making their own decision. But then another part of me says that the church has a pastoral duty to those who may be vulnerable, to protect them from making decisions which they not be equipped to make.

Marriage is legal from the age of 16 years but as we know some are ready at that age and others are not, so all decisions which affect peoples lives forever, whether to do with sexuality or medical intervention in childlessness, the pastoral duty must surely be to check and double check that the implications of action is understood in the short and  long term,  but above all of this the clergy have a responsibility not to put members of the congregation under such spiritual and emotional pressure that they make the wrong life choice, which would have a rippling effect not just on them but others..

Same sex unions and heterosexual unions need the same preparation, Marriage is not just about what goes on in the bedroom it is about far more than that..

The subject here is how is the best care given in that preparation and the joining of two people. I think for some this is a cultural shift that they cannot accept, and i don't think they should be judged for that, people will listen and make their own minds up, the emphasis should be on paying attention to the listeners and identifying anyone who may be vulnerable to making wrong life choices for them because of what they have heard..

It is not the role of the church to present one side of any argument, but to present both sides and then enable people to understand who they are in Christ.

But certainly I do not think that anyone should be sacked for having an opinion which is backed up by the gospel, the suspension might have been wise because there will be a lot of emotional pressure as a result of this and i hope this Man gets good no excellent care in understanding why this particular stance has been taken.

The church authorities really need to look at how they are handling these situations there are too many cases where good people have their lives altered forever, simply because they want to be heard, the very thing that you are told in evangelism training, you say what you find in the gospel and you stand by it and you back it up. Its like forgiveness the bible and the church says we need to forgive yet the church mirrors the world, when it says what we mean is we have the authority invested in  us by God to hurt you and you must forgive us, completely overlooking the fact that they also were called to forgive. This is one of those issues. The suspension will serve the purpose of protecting this man from verbal emotional and spiritual attacks,it will also protect same sex couples and other sinners from the same. Now forgiveness is needed for all to move "through" this.

Angela

David Atkinson is, I believe, one of the elder statesmen of the Fulcrum village. He appears twice in this article. Once he is moving a worship service on and stopping it degenerating into a debate or worse. This seems quite proper. It is also implied that he was behind the suspension of the reader. The article does not specify the reasons the archdeacon gave. Thus we cannot deduce from this David Atkinson's views on equal marriage or his role in the disciplinary action.

Dave

It is just sad, really sad..

You see i still dont get it, people are called to the ministry, because

1 they believe in Christ

2 they want to share Christ

3 they want to minister to the people

4 they want to see, hear know people are healed

5 they want to give comfort in times of distress

6 they want to be there at the beginning of life, at the joining together of people, at the passing away of people, at all these times they are the most important person in the world, to the people who need to know God is with them and within them..

Ministry is about communication and understanding, love and compassion, its about meaning and healing, but most of all its about sharing , the good times bad times and the indifferent times, and saying we are all Gods people..

Why does everything have to turn into power empowerment and disempowerment..What happened to the side by side?

If we are strong in Christ none of us have anything to fear from standing beside someone who is totally alien to us in our thinking, if that is shared in an equal way there is nothing to fear..

The church is there for the stranger, as well as the fellowship, now the stranger may or may not believe the same as us, but the humanity is one thing we can all share, people do all kinds of strange things with their bodies, but God still invites them to share in fellowship and to care for one another...Remember he ate with the leper..

No doubt again people will think i am being unrealistic, it is true that it is unrealistic to achieve any of this when there are emotional and spiritual blocks in the way, when we just cannot give them up, because to do so would deconstruct our personalities to such a degree we would not be able to function. But i also know this nothing is impossible if the right motivation is in place on all sides,the breakdown of communication is the only reason things do not get resolved..

Trust me you should resolve this quickly, because if anyone dies during this process it will be too late, and it will ripple further than you could ever imagine.

Angela