|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
Permalink: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/773
Fulcrum Subjects: Anglicanism, Church of England / Sexuality Other articles by Andrew Goddard are available from this site Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum See the 28 comments on this article
Church of England Bishops and Civil Partnerships by Andrew Goddard
What is the background to the announcement? The announcement is set in the context of the House receiving an interim report from the group chaired by Sir Joseph Pilling. This is due to report next year and is engaged in a wider and potentially much more significant review of the church’s response to sexuality issues. It is, however, intriguing that no mention is made of the group chaired by the Bishop of Sodor and Man which was specifically tasked by the House to provide “a review of the 2005 statement in the light of subsequent developments” and to “include examination of whether priests in civil partnerships should be eligible for appointment as bishops”. Has anything changed? By applying the requirements of the 2005 statement in relation to the episcopate it could be claimed that nothing important has changed but there are important issues for those who are committed to the position of the CEEC’s St Andrew’s Day Statement that the church (italics added) assists all its members to a life of faithful witness in chastity and holiness, recognising two forms or vocations in which that life can be lived: marriage and singleness (Gen. 2.24; Matt. 19. 4-6; 1 Cor. 7 passim). There is no place for the church to confer legitimacy upon alternatives to these.
Such a position leads to a commitment to stand with, and strongly affirm, all Christians, whatever their experience of sexual attraction, who remain faithful to biblical teaching and the teaching of the Church within these two vocations. It also values celibate same-sex friendships. This traditional stance would therefore welcome the appointment of bishops who experience same-sex attraction and live faithfully in one of these two vocations. The difficulty is that it is unclear how being in a civil partnership relates to these two vocations. The press release describes the decision on civil partnered bishops as one of “confirmation”. This implies continuity with current policy. In fact, no priest in a civil partnership has ever been appointed as a bishop and the 2005 statement did not address this issue. That is why the review group was set up to determine whether priests in civil partnerships should be eligible for appointment as bishops. Furthermore, in setting up the review group the bishops clearly stated that “to avoid pre-empting the outcome of the review the House has concluded that clergy in civil partnerships should not, at present, be nominated for episcopal appointment”. The decision is, therefore, a reversal not a confirmation of the existing policy. Why no further statement but a change of policy? Normally a change of policy requires, and is announced alongside,some explanation. It could be argued that there is continuity as clergy in civil partnerships must be in relationships “consistent with the teaching of the Church of England” to be considered for the episcopate, presumably meaning they must give assurances the relationship is not a sexual one. However, the reason the moratorium was put in place was a recognition that there remained major questions about the nature of civil partnerships that needed to be reviewed. The problem is that civil partnerships are a form of quasi-marital same-sex union and It is clearly the case that a significant number of Anglicans, on grounds of strongly held religious conviction believe that a Christian leader should not enter into a civil partnership, even if celibate, because it involves forming an exclusive, lifelong bond with someone of the same sex, creates family ties and is generally viewed in wider society as akin to same-sex marriage (para 26, GS Misc 992). This is presumably why, as the bishops said in setting up the review on civil partnerships, (italics added), The House believes there is a theological task to be done to clarify further our understanding of the nature and status of these partnerships. The method of such a task was also clearly set out – “Within the Anglican tradition our theological thinking is formed by a reasoned interpretation of Scripture, within the living tradition of the Church informed by pastoral experience” – but the fruit of this work has not been made public. The House’s failure to offer such theological clarification is particularly concerning given the questions raised widely across the church about the 2005 statement, the changed social reality seven years on from the first civil partnerships and in particular the current debates about same-sex marriage and the relationship between civil partnership and marriage. Without clarifying the church’s “understanding of the nature and status of these partnerships” appointing a bishop in such a partnership would send out a confusing message in our contemporary social context given the church’s teaching on sexuality. To move from the current stance is therefore a significant step which requires further explanation and justification. In order to enable the wider church to understand this development, ideally the bishops should publish the review’s report and recommendations. These presumably led them to the decision not to revise the earlier statement but nevertheless to lift their moratorium and introduce a policy of opening the episcopate to civil partnered clergy. Taking and announcing the decision to allow civil partnered bishops in this way at this time without issuing a further pastoral statement leaves a number of important issues unclear. Issues needing clarification 1. Teaching on marriage and singleness The fundamental problem is that civil partnerships are a form of quasi-marital same-sex union. The House of Bishops has made quite clear the Church’s continued opposition to same-sex marriage but during the introduction of civil partnerships, the Church of England stated concerns that they are equivalent to same-sex marriage. That is primarily why, despite some impressions to the contrary recently, the Church was far from wholehearted in supporting civil partnerships when they were introduced. It is also why the government is proposing that civil partners should be able to convert their partnership into marriage in a manner that would not be seen as the legal ending of one relationship and the start of another and would require no formal ceremony. 2. Ambiguity, public witness and being a focus of unity The 2005 statement from the bishops made clear that it would be inconsistent with the teaching of the Church for the public character of the commitment expressed in a civil partnership to be regarded as of no consequence in relation to someone in- or seeking to enter- the ordained ministry. Partnerships will be widely seen as being predominantly between gay and lesbian people in sexually active relationships (para 21). Because of the ambiguities surrounding the character and public nature of civil partnerships, the House of Bishops would advise clergy to weigh carefully the perceptions and assumptions which would inevitably accompany a decision to register such a relationship (para 22) In such a situation the wisdom of permitting civil partnered clergy to become bishops, particularly given their role as a focus of unity, is highly questionable as the message such an appointment would give potentially undermines the church’s official teaching. 3. Civil partnerhips and the church’s blessing The 2005 statement makes clear that “the ambiguity” surrounding civil partnerships means “it would not be right to produce an authorised public liturgy in connection with the registering of civil partnerships. In addition, the House of Bishops affirms that clergy of the Church of England should not provide services of blessing for those who register a civil partnership” (para 17). There is therefore at least a tension if not a contradiction in the decision that it would be legitimate to appoint a civil partnered bishop. If this is a pattern of life the church cannot recognise and bless liturgically in any form and which most people see as equivalent to same-sex marriage, further justification is needed to explain how a bishop as senior pastor can be in such a partnership given they promise to fashion their own life and that of their household according to the way of Christ. 4. Implementing the 2005 statement The press release simply refers to the “requirements in the 2005 statement” concerning relationships “consistent with the teaching of the Church of England” being applied “equally” in relation to episcopal appointments. It is, however, unclear what this means in practice. Clergy in civil partnerships should already have been “willing to give assurances to his or her bishop that the relationship is consistent with the standards for the clergy set out in Issues in Human Sexuality” (para 19) and they should “expect to be asked for assurances that their relationship will be consistent with the teaching set out in Issues in Human Sexuality” (para 21). It is unclear whether, in consideration for the episcopate, it will simply be assumed such assurances have already been sought and given and if not whether the relevant Archbishop or someone else will seek and receive them before consenting to consecrate. It is also unclear whether or how the advice offered in “Choosing Bishops – The Equality Act 2010” (GS Misc 992), which allowed consideration of more than simply whether the partnership was currently a sexual relationship, continues to apply in relation to considering civil partnered clergy as bishops. 5. The Anglican Communion and its moratorium The review group was, in its work, to “be consistent with the approach taken by the Anglican Communion in Resolution 1.10 of the Lambeth Conference 1998 and subsequently”. The wider Communion struggled to understand the Church of England’s stance in 2005 and this latest announcement clearly opens the way for those in a form of legally and socially recognised same-sex union to serve as bishops within the Church of England. Particularly given the lack of explanation, this decision will be viewed by many Anglicans in the Church of England and across the Communion as representing a departure from the Communion’s clear call for “a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges” (Windsor Report para 134). While some would welcome such a departure from this moratorium which has been supported by all the Instruments, the majority of Anglicans worldwide believe it would be wrong and for the Church of England to act in this way would seriously damage the Communion. 6. The peace and unity of the Church of England Given the current tensions in the Church of England over women bishops, the Global South’s concerns as to how the new Archbishop of Canterbury can restore their confidence in Communion structures, the debates about same-sex marriage in British society and the ongoing work of the Pilling Group on sexuality, this decision to reverse existing policy, with no rationale, further increases tensions in an unnecessary manner. What now? Given the serious issues raised by this decision, great caution will need to be shown before someone in a civil partnership is nominated to the episcopate by a diocesan bishop or the CNC. It is to be hoped that, on the basis of their review, the House will, early in the New Year, provide both General Synod and the wider church with a fuller explanation of its new policy addressing concerns such as those noted above. In addition, the many bishops sharing these concerns may consider making known their response to this development and offer a clearer commitment to biblical and Anglican teaching than has been offered in the short statement announcing the House’s decision. Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum Forum Posts About This Article:Posted by: Bowman Thursday 2 May 2013 - 01:55pm Angela-- Yes. Your post is clear about the two relatively recent convictions that have brought about the confusion: (1) Long before the movement for gay rights, marriage had already been reframed in quasi-romantic terms that discounted the old procreation understanding of it, and (2) A life-long commitment is too important a venture in a person's life not to be blessed by God in some way. The problem, if you like, is not simply that people do not believe in basing social policies on the Bible, but that they really do believe in basing social policies for marriage on these two moral intuitions. The reason the Church today seems nasty for not marrying gay people is that thousands of weddings a year through decades convinced people that the Church itself had already introduced or confirmed these widely-shared social values, so that it now seems deeply inconsistent and unfair to hold one last miserable constituency to the letter of scripture as if nothing had changed for everyone else, including the great mass of actual churchgoers. People who can't quite remember just who said something about man and the sabbath are sure that everyone but a bishop can see that this is just about what is good for people, and that it is better for people to be blessed by God than not. There are worse problems to have than a society that wants more people to be blessed. But the trouble is that, for Christians, marriage has been explicitly tied to Genesis 1:28 and hence procreation by a very notable authority indeed, and the first generation or two of Christians made this their central social teaching. If you sever the link between marriage and procreation, what makes marriage Christian? And if that link has already been severed in the public mind, what could possibly restore it now?* And how, in particular, does a national church restore it to some good effect in a country where other faiths are strongly represented? It's too late to say that the Christian idea, whatever the bishops decide that is, will inevitably be the English idea as well. Disestablishing to avoid these dilemmas is just cowardly. A thought-- perhaps not the best, but a clear one anyway-- is that a national church should recognise and teach the difference between relationships that are ends in themselves and relationships that are about giving new life a start in the world. The difference is real, it is intelligible without reference to any particular religion, and societies can only be healthier when they understand it. A clear legal distinction between partnerships and marriages merely reflects a real distinction among couples. It can work as secular public policy. However, in shifting the moral centre of marriage from that thing couples do in bed to the children that normally result, this distinction retrieves the core significance of marriage as Christians understand it, yet without disrespect to, say, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu understandings of it. Marriage is not, after all, what distinguishes these religions from each other, and there is something gained by stressing their unity on these matters where one can. Please note that even if the issue of gay marriage had never arisen, something like this would be needed to strengthen ordinary heterosexual marriage in a postmodern society. But some of the problems we have with gay marriage fall away when a gay couple is being married to support a child. If the Church is not blessing sex at all, it is not blessing gay sex. And this would be, not a change in the Church's teaching about what heterosexual relationships mean, but a very firm insistence that this meaning belongs to the children they produce by right, and that, for their sakes, even gay couples have more right to that meaning than negligent heterosexual couples do. There is a certain natural justice in giving the wedding to those who are living up to its responsibilities. And what of the romantic revolution itself? The last century's recognition that the subjectivity of a couple's life also has moral weight is not denied-- it is finally institutionalised in partnerships-- but the fullest celebration of that subjectivity is reserved for those relationships that are truest to it, the ones in which love overflows into generous sacrifice. ____________________ * During last year's Republican primary season in the US, a Roman Catholic candidate for president took his turn in the spotlight to stand up for the older view that marriage is strictly about procreation, saying that Federal law should better reflect this. This would reverse a trend that has been clear in American life since the 1950s, and so the nation's most conservative voters found themselves in a position to vote their minds about the greatest moral shift of their lifetimes. Their response to his position was telling. Republicans who patiently indulge so many other lost or cranky causes found that particular one to be simply unintelligible, and his candidacy sank from view. I could be wrong, of course, but my sense is that the English would be even less patient with it. Posted by: WATERANGEL Wednesday 1 May 2013 - 11:05pm user 5050 and Bowman i think that the explanation for this is simpler than it would seem. The church does have a moral duty, but the opinions as to what that moral duty is differs between bishops. I see it like this that for some to deviate from the O/T original text of the bible would be a failure of moral duty to remain true to their calling as they understood it. This may sometimes seem like nastiness and certainly if they feel threatened i m sure that they are not beyond being blinckered. The distinction between relationship and procreation being defined a the union of male and female in marriage, now th deviation of humanity appears to them to come purely in the form of the fact that natural procreation cannot happen between people in same sex relationships. However they fail in this to take account of all the other deviations in relationships, where they would not refuse to marry a couple. This could be lifestyle choices which are not condusive to a healthy relationship or parenting. I feel that a couple however that is defined that chooses to make a commitment for life is better blessed and guided by god than it is without. I undertand the concern of the bishops, but i also see that to reject people who are not able to be the people some think they should be would seem to show a lack of trust in Gods ability to see and hear all things and to be in control. As i understand it trusting God is not just about believing him when eveything is in order and the way we think it should be ,but believng him when nothing is as it seems it should be. I do believe that the church is there to repond to all who call on jesus it is also there to enable people to call on jesus. Unconditional. Posted by: WATERANGEL Wednesday 1 May 2013 - 11:05pm user 5050 and Bowman i think that the explanation for this is simpler than it would seem. The church does have a moral duty, but the opinions as to what that moral duty is differs between bishops. I see it like this that for some to deviate from the O/T original text of the bible would be a failure of moral duty to remain true to their calling as they understood it. This may sometimes seem like nastiness and certainly if they feel threatened i m sure that they are not beyond being blinckered. The distinction between relationship and procreation being defined a the union of male and female in marriage, now th deviation of humanity appears to them to come purely in the form of the fact that natural procreation cannot happen between people in same sex relationships. However they fail in this to take account of all the other deviations in relationships, where they would not refuse to marry a couple. This could be lifestyle choices which are not condusive to a healthy relationship or parenting. I feel that a couple however that is defined that chooses to make a commitment for life is better blessed and guided by god than it is without. I undertand the concern of the bishops, but i also see that to reject people who are not able to be the people some think they should be would seem to show a lack of trust in Gods ability to see and hear all things and to be in control. As i understand it trusting God is not just about believing him when eveything is in order and the way we think it should be ,but believng him when nothing is as it seems it should be. I do believe that the church is there to repond to all who call on jesus it is also there to enable people to call on jesus. Unconditional. Posted by: Bowman Tuesday 30 April 2013 - 08:37pm Unfortunately, the confused, wobbly comments are probably the most representative ones. Reading them, I sometimes wonder whether the "faultline" should be an explicit and lawful intention to raise children in the Church. If you have it-- gay or straight-- marriage in the Church. If you don't have it-- gay or straight-- a civil union with optional prayers is sufficient for an attachment without deeper social significance. This would, ironically perhaps, enlist gay couples in the renewal of the older and more functional Genesis 1:28 understanding of marriage. It would also encourage adoption, and support all couples in that noble undertaking. "Marriage is about kids" is as subtle as a bat to the head, and in a generation or two people might understand it. The idea has flaws, but at least it's simple. Thoughts anyone? Posted by: User 5050 Tuesday 30 April 2013 - 01:03pm Doesn't the Church just have a moral duty to marry gay people? To deny them the right to a Christian ceremony just seems silly and deliberately nasty - and it makes us church-goers look bad to the outside world and to God. Posted by: User 4980 Thursday 25 April 2013 - 10:06pm Surely it is the ongoing ‘witness’ of the married lives of civil partners that is driving the push towards legalising same-sex marriage – the law catching up with the reality of society’s experience. It will be a bit of a hotch-potch for a while but I doubt we will all have to keep a note of which same-sex couples have civil partnered, which couples have married, which couples have civil partnered but then upgraded to marriage and which couples have civil partnered but declined to marry (for any number of reasons – let alone to 'bear indirect witness to marriage as created by God’)? Will this have any fallout – will civil partnered but not intending to marry couples garner extra respect in our churches on this basis? (civil partnered couples....extra respect...in our churches: no, does not compute, Captain.) Will same-sex married couples receive correspondingly less respect in our churches (not least for daring to muddy the waters)? Won’t many Christian gay couples who have integrated faith and sexuality, find that ‘marriage’ fits the bill for their Christian commitment, however much that upsets a contingent who are determined to be upset by it? Won’t all these relationships in their day-to-day outworking be pretty much indistinguishable five years down the line? I must get one of those 42-inch Toshiba TVs for £850 before they all sell out...which store, Andrew? Posted by: Bowman Monday 22 April 2013 - 09:44pm The prior question is this: how should the Church respond to the mere fact that more than one form of union will be legally protected in the UK? Ideally, perhaps, there would just be one form, it would work for everyone, and it would be modeled on Christian teaching. Whilst the ideal may be worth retaining as long as it can be, there is obvious reason to think that at least one of these legs of the stool is coming off, if not two. In that event, what would the criteria of a wise Christian response be? Is it more important that a society unite around some common model, even if imperfect from a Christian point of view, or that an integral model of Christian marriage survive, even if only at the social margin? And if models are to multiply, should the faultlines between them reflect differences over sexual orientation, over secularity and religiosity, or over something else? And finally, in what dialogues and alliances should Christians seek to influence the national understanding? Posted by: Ken Petrie Monday 22 April 2013 - 05:42pm Andrew has highlighted (though perhaps unwittingly) the fundamental problems with the traditional position - "sex outside marriage, whether gay or straight, is wrong". In what sense, from a Biblical viewpoint, can sex be outside marriage? St Paul describes an hour with a prostitute as falling within the Biblical definition of marriage (1 Cor 6.16). It is wrong not because it is outside marriage, but because it is, and the resulting obligations are not honoured. In what sense is intimacy between two people of the same gender sex? Sex is the one thing that is not at issue when that aspect of human diversity is missing. Muddled thinking alway leads to irrational decisions. Posted by: Dave Monday 22 April 2013 - 04:50pm If this were true would we not have a Liberal Democrat government? An alternative theory of politics is that if there are only two parties, the voters are spread on a line. There is a point between the two parties and everyone to the left of it votes Labor or Democrat. This is a strong motive for both parties to be moderate or centrist. Irrational choice reminds be of the old allegation that the cheapest wine in a restaurant is good value but the next one up is the inferior one he makes the profit on. Should we be considering the timing of the churches judgment and comparing this to remarriage after divorce. Even if we cannot declare God's blessing on an institution where he has not done so can the the church declare God's continuing love for those who have entered into such a commitment. In the same way should a army chaplain declare God's blessing on the soldiers even if he is unsure of the justice of the cause? Dave Posted by: John Watson Monday 22 April 2013 - 03:22pm Dear Friends We publish a new article by Andrew Goddard entitled Predictably Irrational? - which explores the context and forces which shape our decisions. He reflects on the issue of the redefinition of marriage in the light of this. Best wishes John Watson Posted by: David Baker Saturday 19 January 2013 - 03:33pm Andrew has published a new item following up on his previous article - it can be read at http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2013/01/18/bishops-and-civil-partnerships-ii-still-more-questions-than-answers/ Posted by: Richard W Monday 14 January 2013 - 12:47pm We stand in firm agreement with the church's clear and biblically-faithful statement that sex is exclusively for heterosexual marriage. What a missed opportunity. Nowhere does the bible speak out against lifelong same sex partnerships, or marriages, as we should call them. Posted by: Bowman Sunday 13 January 2013 - 06:00am Thank you, vernpeace and NormanP, for exchanging views from the heart that we all must feel from time to time. Most of the time, I feel more like NormanP, but for at least a few days of every third July, I nevertheless feel rather like vernpeace. Posted by: NormanP Thursday 10 January 2013 - 05:29pm Hi Vernpeace. I share your concern for the integrity of the church. The wheels always seem to be coming off! But it would seem to me the steering wheel is actually the problem: we, and I do mean all of us, have a tendancy to grab the wheel and wrestle control from what we see as bad drivers. Alternatively we stop the car, jump out, slam the door, and find some new car to drive where we are in control. (And I've certainly done that from time to time, metaphorically speaking.) I find in moments of church-related stress it's helpful to think of the church as a sailing ship, dependent on the wind; it reminds me of John Wesley's experience in an Atlantic storm, when he was impressed by the calm and steadfast praying of the Moravians who were on board. (I shan't press any points about 'being clear what is the destination', 'keeping clear of rocks', 'taking soundings', 'using a compass', or 'trimming the sails to the wind', because I'm inclined to think that metaphors don't always provide an answer, though they may, possibly, clarify the problem!) Posted by: vernpeace Thursday 10 January 2013 - 11:53am hi, integrity...wholeness...steadfastness ...unshakeable...Truthfulness...these...are ...the...timeless...principles...that...give ...the...word...its...meaning...and...indeed ...power...and...authority...consider...a...car ...with...no...wheels...or...a...steering...wheel ...this...is...whats...happening...to...our...church ...the...fickle...opinions...of...the...times...are... being...allowed...to...remove...the...wheels...and...steering ...from...our...faith...please...please...please...wake-up... and...see...that...if...we...allow...this...to...continue... un-abated...then...the...end...of...the...integrity...of...the... church...is...nigh! peace&love...vern p.s...marvelousness...is...a...foot! Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Wednesday 9 January 2013 - 10:47pm Pastorally astute? You have to be joking! I'm all for supporting anyone who feels they have a call to a celibate life, whatever their sexual orientation. But Church Society clearly has no understanding of the damage that a policy of religiously encouraged repression has and continues to inflict. Sexuality is not about simple choices of courses of action (or not), it is part of who you are. The message of this dreadful statement is that to be gay is somehow both a burden and a risk. No wonder there are so few out, proud and well-adjusted gay people in con evo churches. The simple truth is that self-accepting gay christians who can freely integrate their sexuality into their lives, either as single people, or in a loving partnership, will be as good or as bad human beings as their discipleship and the work of the holy spirit lets them be. Just like all you unburdened straight folk. Posted by: David Baker Wednesday 9 January 2013 - 02:52pm The statement from Church Society below under its new Director Lee Gatiss is pastorally astute (http://churchsociety.org/press/PR_2013-01_CivilPartnerships.asp) If nothing else, it is quite nice to have the two wings of Anglican evangelicalism singing from the same hymn sheet... Civil Partnerships and Christian Leadership The church is open to all people, whatever their sexual orientation, to respond to Jesus' call to "Repent and believe the good news!" (Mark chapter 1 verse 15). We stand in firm agreement with the church's clear and biblically-faithful statement that sex is exclusively for heterosexual marriage. We recognise how pastorally unhelpful the existence of civil partnerships is for gay, lesbian, and bisexual disciples in our congregations who are positively committed, in response to God's word, to celibacy and fleeing sexual sin daily. Like many heterosexual believers, some have given up long-term relationships in their pursuit of Christ-like godliness in this area, often with great pain and immense difficulty. Our prayers are with them, and we would ask the whole church to be sensitive and supportive, as they look to Christ Jesus our only Lord and Saviour. In this context, we do not believe that church leaders at any level should confuse and undermine the call of the gospel — to deny oneself and follow Jesus — which unfortunately would be the case if those who have chosen a different path by entering civil partnerships are permitted to undertake authorised public ministry in the church. Church Society Council Posted by: Bowman Wednesday 9 January 2013 - 04:28am Thank you, David Baker, for two thoughtful links. Your own article is the clearest I've seen thus far. Posted by: David Baker Tuesday 8 January 2013 - 11:24am I have written an article about this on the Christian Today website: http://www.christiantoday.com/article/jesus.the.bishops.and.civil.partnerships/31406.htm Posted by: Bowman Monday 7 January 2013 - 08:40pm Is it possible for the nomination of an otherwise faultless nominee to fail because he has no record of helping the Church of England to grow and change more lives for the better? Conversely, if God used a faulty bishop to decisively turn around a failing diocese, who would care about the fault? In dark days of the American Civil War, advocates for temperance objected to President Lincoln that General Grant was a heavy drinker (and sloppy dresser), and suggested that the Commander-in-Chief should give his command to a better exemplar. In truth, drunkards are not often good field commanders, though few who win are altogether dry. Lincoln replied that if only things were that simple, he would send a case of his only winning general's favourite scotch to all his several honourable but losing generals. Such criticism faded with the Battle of Vicksburg. # Both sides of this debate over episcopal chastity make things much too simple when they fail to connect their views every day and in every way to the single objective of demonstrably reversing the Church of England's decline among those who need it. After all, if this is not God's will, then what is the point of any of it? And if it is God's will, then he may have empathised with Lincoln when the last census results were released. # Indeed somebody somewhere sometime will decide somehow what, exactly, on a spectrum from lifelong biotelemetry to a Christian's solemn word given once, is adequate proof of adequate chastity. The level of accountability for this will be somewhere berween a bishop's own confessor and a global authority of guardian angels for Anglican bishops. But the relation of means to ends must be set aright. When we give the sex lives of nominees the sort of global public scrutiny that we give the drug use of Olympic athletes, Tour de France cyclists, or (in my country) pageant contestants, we think of church itself as something more like a cultural game for talking heads than like hard spiritual warfare with consequences in lives, and we seem indifferent to a nominee's actual effectiveness in battle. That the faithless see things that way is inevitable because they can see the uniforms and hear the band, but miss the war around them; real believers see real wounds and real triumphs and demand much more battlefield realism. # Both sides in this debate suppose that there is a connexion between their views on episcopal chastity and their visions of a stronger church. These connexions are not proven, and believing in them has policy consequences. A truly serious debate-- one that is necessarily public-- would expose those supposed connexions to the hazard of final refutation in the places where they would matter most: the dioceses where membership is thinning fast, and where desperate human need cannot be addressed without faithful leadership. A helpful competition of ideas and practices would class boutique ministries effective in niches with the welterweights, whilst giving the big prizes to heavyweight ministries that do well and do good where the need is greatest. Each side champions paradigms of ministry-- how do they perform when put to well-observed tests in the north or in the countryside? We learn a little from winning and a lot from losing, but we learn only dangerous overconfidence from facile suppositions never seriously tested. In short, the public debate should change from one that helps the Church of England to shrink to one that helps it to grow and save. That war must not be lost. Posted by: David Baker Saturday 5 January 2013 - 11:00am This from Peter Ould is also very helpful... http://www.peter-ould.net/2013/01/05/breaking-news-nothing-changes/ Posted by: David Baker Saturday 5 January 2013 - 10:20am Thank you for this thoughtful and helpful article, Andrew. Posted by: User 4974 Friday 4 January 2013 - 08:29pm The Church should welcome the Bishop's move towards a more inclusive and diverse episcopate. Posted by: Ambrose StJohn redivivus Friday 4 January 2013 - 12:20pm Can't get the piece to open ! Is this a Sign form on High ? May be the Lord is not so keen on it ..... Posted by: Dave Friday 4 January 2013 - 10:52am The Church seems to be making the right pragmatic decision, without an adequate moral basis. At a parish level priests in a civil partnership have been accepted in some parishes but would be unacceptable in others. Opposition could be expected to their elevation to bishop which would mean they would not be a focus of unity. The arguments presented, however, are moral and akin to those against divorced priests. These go back to the biblical discussion of eldership and are equally applicable to priests and bishops. David Posted by: Erasmus Friday 4 January 2013 - 01:19am Andrew is suggesting a worrying degree of dissimilation by the HoB if, as he suggests, their statement that the policy was not to change in fact changed the policy. Are you suggesting that they may be openning the door to creating a "fact on the ground" because the Chilcot report looks like it will not open the door to "gay bishops"? Are you thinking that the HoB may have wobbled under pressure from HMG? Hopefully the HoB will issue a clarification that "nothing has changed" by way of the additional restraint for Bishops, before we get caught up in yet another frenzy of speculation and anger! Posted by: Swithun Thursday 3 January 2013 - 11:03pm Happy New Year indeed -- unless of course you happen to be ordained and in a civil partnership, and recommended for the episcopate. Thank goodness for Evangelicals like Benny at Affirming Evangelicals: “There’s a long way to go but the hardest work has been done,” concludes Mr Marks. “There’s a younger generation of evangelicals growing up now who don’t have an issue with same sex relationships and can’t understand why others do. And Church leaders are beginning to realise that if they don’t soften their attitude soon, their churches will become irrelevant.” (The Independent) Posted by: John Watson Thursday 3 January 2013 - 09:20pm Dear Friends We publish an article today by Andrew Goddard who makes some serious considerations about a recent communique from the Church of England House of Bishops about Civil Partnerships and the episcopacy. Please use this thread to add your own thoughts on the issue. Happy New Year!!! Best wishes John Watson |
LATEST
|
Tucked away within a wider press release just before Christmas it has been