Gloucester Diocesan Synod met yesterday evening and debated the legislation to allow women to be bishops. The synod voted overwhelmingly in favour of the main motion (to approve the legislation).
| Main Motion |
For
|
Against
|
Abstentions
|
| Bishops |
2
|
0
|
0
|
| Clergy |
55
|
5
|
0
|
| Laity |
44
|
5
|
0
|
A following motion seeking greater provision for the opponents of women bishops was heavily defeated (8 for, at least 93 against).
St Edmundsbury and Ipswich Diocesan synod also debated the legislation earlier this month, with similar results.
| Main Motion |
For
|
Against
|
Abstentions
|
| Bishops |
2
|
0
|
0
|
| Clergy |
41
|
3
|
2
|
| Laity |
51
|
2
|
3
|
| Following Motion |
For
|
Against
|
Abstentions
|
| Bishops |
0
|
2
|
0
|
| Clergy |
7
|
36
|
2
|
| Laity |
5
|
41
|
9
|
The Sydney Morning Herald reported that Same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy, says Jensen
ALLOWING same-sex couples to marry could lead to the acceptance of polygamy and incest, the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen, has warned.
Writing in the church’s newspaper, Southern Cross, Dr Jensen said the push for same-sex unions to be enshrined in the Marriage Act was not a drive for the extension of rights but the redefinition of ”one of the indispensable foundations of community”…
The full text of Archbishop Jensen’s article in Southern Cross titled Real Marriage can be found here (pdf).
Reaction in Australia was quite strong, see these letters, and also this report: Jensen gay marriage comments alarmist: AME.
35 CommentsAustralian Marriage Equality convenor Alex Greenwich hit back at the comments, saying any amendments to the Marriage Act would only mean that celebrants outside the Anglican community could perform same-sex marriages.
“The Archbishop should acknowledge we live in a secular, multi-faith society, and as such he must understand that his views should not be imposed on those religions that want to perform same-sex marriages, such as the Quakers and progressive Synagogues,” Mr Greenwich said in a statement on Saturday.
“Not one of the alarmist predictions made by the Archbishop have come to pass in any of the countries that allow same-sex marriages to take place, including Catholic Spain, Portugal and Argentina.”
Affirming Catholicism is holding a day conference on Thursday 30 June at St Matthew’s Westminster.
The full title is: Thy Kingdom Come! Prayer and Mission in the building of The Kingdom.
Details can be found here.
Speakers include:
Updated Wednesday and Thursday
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has released the following statement regarding recent violence in South Kordofan, Sudan:
Along with the Christian leaders represented in the Sudan Ecumenical Forum and Council of Churches and many more throughout the world, we deplore the mounting level of aggression and bloodshed in South Kordofan State and the indiscriminate violence on the part of government troops against civilians. Numerous villages have been bombed. More than 53,000 people have been driven from their homes. The new Anglican cathedral in Kadugli has been burned down. UN personnel in the capital, Kadugli, are confined to their compound and are unable to protect civilians; the city has been overrun by the army, and heavy force is being used by government troops to subdue militias in the area, with dire results for local people. Many brutal killings are being reported.
This violence is a major threat to the stability of Sudan just as the new state of South Sudan is coming into being. The humanitarian challenge is already great, and the risk of another Darfur situation, with civilian populations at the mercy of government-supported terror, is a real one.
International awareness of this situation is essential. The UN Security Council, the EU, the Arab League and the African Union need to co-operate in guaranteeing humanitarian access and safety for citizens, and we hope that our own government, which has declared its commitment to a peaceful future for Sudan, will play an important part in this.
The Diocese of Bradford is linked to the Diocese of Kadugli in Northern Sudan. There is an appeal from the Bishop of Bradford on the diocesan website. This has links to information about what is going on in Sudan.
Wednesday update
The Diocese of Salisbury also has a link with the Episcopal Church of Sudan. It has published a response to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s statement. There is more information on the diocese’s link at Sudan Link.
From the Anglican Communion News Service: Anglican agencies to work together on humanitarian crisis in Sudan.
ENI News has Christian leaders condemn terror in Sudan’s Kordofan.
Thursday update
William Haigh, the British Foreign Secretary issued this statement on Sudan to the House of Commons yesterday. The Minister of State answered an oral question in the House of Lords.
2 CommentsVictoria Coren has written this: Bashing the Bishop.
… Dr. William’s oeuvre has caught the imagination, snatched headlines and triggered a national debate. Maybe we should swap jobs? Except I’d make a terrible archbishop.
It’s exactly what he should be doing, of course: getting stuck in to matters of public ethics, questioning the national conscience, being a strong and relevant voice on issues of social concern. I can understand why some in the press feel obliged to disagree with him – and this is a good thing; we all want to live in a country of robust debate – but the way that some have slammed him for speaking out at all is just embarrassing. It’s like they don’t understand who he is, what he does or what the role’s about…
(The NoTW article she mentions is here.)
Paul Vallely wrote at the Independent on Aid and what the Archbishop should have said.
Those naughty people at the New Statesman. Apparently when the Archbishop of Canterbury arrived to do his week as guest editor he was planning to write the main editorial on aid to Africa. But Rowan Williams was persuaded to offer, instead, his thoughts on the state of the coalition government one year in. The paper got the headlines it wanted but we have been deprived of his thoughts on the place we used to call the dark continent. So what might he have said? And why does it matter?
At least one other bishop has spoken up in support of the archbishop:
John Pritchard of Oxford is reported in the Witney Gazette Bishop John joins attack on ‘disastrous’ Government cuts.
3 CommentsUpdated Monday evening
The Church of St-Matthew-in-the-City in Auckland, New Zealand published this petition on its website: Petition to the Anglican Bishops of New Zealand. The heading reads:
Stop White Collar Crime – Ask NZ bishops to end their discrimination against gays and lesbians
Following an explanation of the specific NZ circumstances, it says:
We respectfully ask the bishops of the Anglican Church in New Zealand to be true to the values of the Gospel and end the discriminatory practices that prevent the selection and ordination of gays and lesbians who are in committed relationships.
Bishop Philip Richardson, Bishop in Taranaki then wrote this response: White collar crime?
And the anglicantaonga website also published a news article about the exchange, Bishop refutes “white collar crime”.
A new petition urging bishops to end their “discrimination” against gays and lesbians misunderstands both church law and the power of bishops to change church doctrine.
That’s the view of Bishop Philip Richardson, who has released a public response to the “Stop White Collar Crime ” petition being driven by Auckland’s St-Matthew-in-the-City…
Both Kiwianglo’s Blog and Anglican Down Under have drawn attention to this. Both seem to think this dialogue is a good development. Scroll down here to see Ron Smith’s comments. Peter Carrell has identified the following key passage from Bishop Richardson’s response:
I believe that General Synod needs to reach an agreed position on these three inter-related issues, in the following order:
First , whether sexual orientation towards those of one’s own gender is a consequence of wilful human sinfulness, or an expression of God-given diversity. This in itself requires the process of collective biblical exegesis, prayer and discussion and debate which we are engaged in.
Depending on our collective answer to the first question, the church might then be in a position to move to the development of a formulary for the blessing of committed, life-long, monogamous, relationships other than marriage.
It is worth making the point that as bishops of the Diocese of Waikato and Taranaki we have suspended the licenses of heterosexual ministers living in relationships other than marriage (for example, in civil unions) for exactly the reason that there is no agreed position in this church on the status of committed relationships other than marriage.
Thirdly, the church could agree that such relationships so blessed and formally recognised by the church meet the standards of holiness of life that is the call on every Christian life, and is required to be reflected in the lives of those called by God and affirmed by the church to holy orders.
Update
Bosco Peters has written a response to this: Gay Ordinations Invalid?
For our earlier report on the New Zealand situation, see New Zealand Maori diocese rejects Covenant.
Now, Bosco Peters reports that a second Maori diocese has also voted against it. See Maori momentum growing against Anglican Covenant. Below is the text of the motion, see Bosco’s post for further analysis.
1 CommentTE HUI AMORANGI O TE TAIRAWHITI
ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
TURANGA-NUI-A-KIWASaturday 11 June 2011
Motion concerning the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant
IT IS MOVED:
That for the purposes of providing feedback to Te Hinota Whanui (General Synod) and Te Runanganui o Te Pihopatanga o Aotearoa, Te Hui Amorangi o Te Tairawhiti wishes to express the following:
- We have carefully considered the text of The Anglican Communion Covenant, and what we know of the context in which it was proposed;
- In terms of our shared Mihingare and Anglican heritage, our call to communion, and our call to ministry and mission, the Covenant offers us nothing new or more compelling than the Spiritual Covenant that we already have with each other through faith in Jesus Christ;
- We see that Section Four of The Anglican Communion Covenant propose measures of compliance and discipline – including “relational consequences” and being declared “incompatible with the Covenant” – that go against our Gospel imperative to “love one another” (John 13:34-35).
We note that our sister Amorangi, Te Hui Amorangi o Te Manawa o Te Wheke, has stated its opposition to The Anglican Communion Covenant because:
- It is a threat to the rangatiratanga of the Tangata Whenua;
- It does not reflect our understanding of being Anglican in these Islands; and
- We should instead focus on the restoration of justice for Tangata Whenua under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
We agree with Te Hui Amorangi o Te Manawa o Te Wheke, and choose here to stand in solidarity with them.
For the reasons expressed above, Te Hui Amorangi o Te Tairawhiti states that it is opposed to the adoption of The Anglican Communion Covenant.
MOVED: Rev Don Tamihere SECONDED: Rev Connie Tuheke-Ferris
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH ACCLAMATION
Today was the last day of the meeting of the Scottish General Synod.
Here is an official summary of today’s business: General Synod – Saturday 11 June.
The Edinburgh Evening News has this very brief report of yesterday’s business: Synod talks on gay issue.
2 CommentsHeather McDougall writes for Cif belief about St Francis of Assisi: a saint for our times.
The message of St Francis was uncompromising and simple: greed causes suffering for both the victims and the perpetrators.
Also at Cif belief Andrew Brown writes Social cohesion needs religious boundaries.
The new Prevent strategy shows an old pattern of social organisation is emerging in a new form, around new doctrines.
John Blake writes for CNN that Actually, that’s not in the Bible.
Bishop Pierre Whalon in The Huffington Post asks Many Mansions in Whose House?
And in his latest essay for Anglicans Online The Ministers of the Church Are … Bishop Whalon argues that an upside-down pyramid is just the kind of church organisation Jesus would want.
A Private Member’s Bill has been introduced into the House of Lords by Baroness Cox entitled Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill.
To make further provision about arbitration and mediation services and the
application of equality legislation to such services; to make provision about
the protection of victims of domestic abuse; and for connected purposes.
The full text of the bill is available as a PDF file, and there are also explanatory notes.
Some news reports:
Guardian Bill limiting sharia law is motivated by ‘concern for Muslim women’
Telegraph Plans to curb influence of sharia courts to be unveiled
This bill has won support from an improbable alliance of lobbying groups:
Andrew Brown explains, in The state cannot curb sharia law alone.
A bill to limit the scope of courts is laudable, but sharia law’s discriminatory aspects must be undermined by Muslims.
He writes:
3 Comments…What is politically interesting about this is that it represents an alliance of Christians and atheists along with what one might call normal secularists who just dislike institutionalised sexism and exploitation. The campaign against sharia law has long been confined to a leftwing atheist ghetto. Cox has broken it out of that. It’s to the credit of both parties that Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society appeared next to an American Christian missionary at the launch of the bill yesterday.
There’s no doubt that the bill will be used by some people to stir up distrust and hatred of Muslims. But I don’t think that is in itself a good enough reason to oppose it. What it does is to make explicit the fact that Islam is practised like any other religion in Britain, under the rules that parliament makes…
From the Anglican Journal New resources help unpack the Anglican Covenant
Canadian Anglican parishes and individuals who would like to learn more about the proposed Anglican Covenant will soon have a study guide at their fingertips.
The Anglican Church of Canada’s Anglican Covenant Working Group has released the study guide on the national church’s website in time for Pentecost, June 12.
“We’re encouraging people to look at the [details of the Covenant] and to reflect on what its implications are,” diocese of Ontario Bishop George Bruce, chair of the working group, said in an interview.
And on the official church website, Anglican Covenant study now available.
The Anglican Church of Canada has released a study guide to help parishes and dioceses consider the Anglican Covenant, a document that, if adopted, would define the relations among the provinces of the Anglican Communion. The material was prepared by the Anglican Communion Working Group, chaired by Bishop George Bruce…
Exploring the Anglican Covenant is available as a PDF file from here.
6 CommentsHere is an official summary of today’s business: General Synod – Friday 10 June 2011.
Below the fold is the Primus’s introduction to the today’s discussion (in Indaba groups) of the Anglican Covenant.
Kelvin Holdsworth has continued to blog from the floor of Synod.
0 CommentsUpdated again Friday evening
This is a selection from the huge volume of articles written today (Thursday) in response to the New Statesman article by Rowan Williams.
Church Mouse What Rowan really said in the New Statesman
Nick Baines Feeding frenzy
Andrew Brown Cif belief Rowan Williams is not interested in party politics
Gary Gibbon Channel 4 News Will Archbishop’s criticism spark repeat of 1980s?
Jonathan Wynne-Jones Telegraph Anyone who wants Britain’s Christian heritage preserved must be glad that Rowan Williams spoke out
Cranmer Three cheers for the Archbishop of Canterbury
Friday morning update
Church Times Primate criticises ‘policies for which no one voted’
Giles Fraser Guardian Archbishop of the opposition
Guardian editorial: Welfare reform: Canterbury tales
Financial Times editorial: Pundit in purple
Telegraph editorial The Archbishop should not have played politics
Independent Leading article: Voice in the wilderness
Gregory Cameron interviewed by BBC Wales video Archbishop of Canterbury ‘right to ask questions’
Friday evening update
Daily Mail editorial Politics, morality and a discredited archbishop
Jonathan Wynne-Jones Telegraph Why the Catholic Church stands to gain from Rowan Williams’ outburst
Church Mouse Top five silly things said in the news yesterday
Nick Spencer Cif belief An archbishop who can spark national debate
Stephanie Flanders BBC God, poverty and the government (includes video interview with Ian Duncan Smith)
Simon Barrow Ekklesia Daily Mail tries to launch a ‘holy war’
15 CommentsUpdate Monday evening
The brief note below about the Anglican Covenant may be misleading. To clarify, a decision in principle on whether or not to adopt the covenant will be made at the General Synod in 2012. Formal adoption requires canonical legislation, and it is this that will require a further two years. Full details are in the Paper from Faith and Order Board.
Update late Thursday:
Kelvin Holdworth reports that the Primus actually said more about the Anglican Covenant in his charge than was included in the official text, and gives a transcript, in What the Primus actually said.
The Scottish Episcopal Church is holding the 2011 meeting of its General Synod in Edinburgh from today until Saturday. There was a official preview published last month, General Synod 2011, and all the papers can be downloaded.
There are these official reports of the first day’s business.
Primus’ charge at the opening Eucharist
Brief summary of business General Synod – Thursday 9 June
There is also an official Twitter stream.
Kelvin Holdsworth is blogging from the floor of Synod.
The business included a paper on the process of considering the Anglican Covenant: Paper from Faith and Order Board. The process described in this paper was accepted by the Synod; this will involve making a final decision on whether to adopt the covenant at the 2014 meeting of the Synod, although a decision not to adopt it could be made earlier.
There is background information on the Scottish General Synod here.
5 CommentsBy an extraordinary coincidence, Theos has chosen today to publish its report, Turbulent Priests? (link to PDF copy)
2 Comments‘Turbulent Priests?’, by Daniel Gover, examines the political interventions of Rowan Williams, George Carey and Robert Runcie since 1979.
Covering issues as wide ranging as asylum, criminal justice, military conflict and church schools, the report seeks to answer the question: does the Archbishop of Canterbury contribute a moral voice in support of the common good that is much needed in contemporary British politics?
Updated again Thursday noon
Update the New Statesman has now published the full text of the leading article: The government needs to know how afraid people are by Rowan Williams.
I can imagine a New Statesman reader looking at the contents of this issue and mentally supplying: “That’s enough coalition ministers (Ed).” After all, the NS has never exactly been a platform for the establishment to explain itself. But it seems worth encouraging the present government to clarify what it is aiming for in two or three key areas, in the hope of sparking a livelier debate about where we are going – and perhaps even to discover what the left’s big idea currently is…
other updates at the bottom
Tim Ross has a front page story in Thursday’s Telegraph, headlined Rowan Williams condemns ‘frightening’ Coalition.
Dr Rowan Williams will launch a sustained attack on the Coalition in the most outspoken political intervention by an Archbishop of Canterbury for a generation.
He warns that the public is gripped by “fear” over the Government’s reforms to education, the NHS and the benefits system and accuses David Cameron and Nick Clegg of forcing through “radical policies for which no one voted”.
Openly questioning the democratic legitimacy of the Coalition, the Archbishop dismisses the Prime Minister’s “Big Society” as a “painfully stale” slogan, and claims that it is “not enough” for ministers to blame Britain’s economic and social problems on the last Labour government.
The comments come in an article he has written as guest editor of this week’s New Statesman magazine.
His two-page critique, titled “The government needs to know how afraid people are”, is the most forthright political criticism by such a senior cleric since Robert Runcie enraged Margaret Thatcher with a series of attacks in the 1980s.
Lambeth Palace is braced for an angry response but Dr Williams, who became Archbishop of Canterbury nine years ago, is understood to believe that the moment is right for him to enter the political debate…
Damian Thompson adds that Rowan Williams returns to Old Labour sloganising as he desperately tries to distract himself from Anglican meltdown.
The New Statesman itself reports the story this way: Archbishop of Canterbury: “no one voted” for the coalition’s policies.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has launched a remarkable attack on the coalition government, warning that it is committing the country to “radical, long-term policies for which no one voted.” In a leading article in tomorrow’s New Statesman, which he has guest-edited, Rowan Williams writes that the “anxiety and anger” felt by voters is a result of the coalition’s failure to expose its policies to “proper public argument”.
With specific reference to David Cameron’s health and education reforms, the Archbishop says that the government’s approach has created a mixture of “bafflement and indignation” among the public…
Updates
The Telegraph also has these:
Rowan Williams: timeline of Archbishop’s political views
Friction between Church and State: a history of outspoken Archbishops of Canterbury
Guardian Downing Street hits back at archbishop’s broadside
Telegraph Archbishop of Canterbury defended by Lord Tebbit
New Statesman Philip Pullman on what he owes to the Church of England
24 CommentsAccording to a recent report in the Telegraph,
European judges have ordered ministers to make a formal statement on whether it believes Christians’ rights have been infringed by previous decisions in the British courts, which have repeatedly dismissed their right to dress and act according to their beliefs.
The move by the European Court in Strasbourg is because Christians who believe they have suffered discrimination for their beliefs are taking a landmark legal fight the court…
Their cases have been selected by the European Court as of being of such legal significance that they be examined further.
Once ministers have responded the court will decide whether to have full hearings on them.
You can read the two documents filed with the European Court of Human Rights first here and then here.
This analysis of the subject area by Philip Henson is very helpful: Discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief. Scroll down to Persecuted Christians? for his discussion of these four cases:
How many of you have forgotten about the “big four” – the cases of Lillian Ladele, Gary McFarlane, Shirley Chaplin and Nadia Eweida? What do these people all have in common? The answer is that they have all recently issued applications at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
The European angle has been massively overlooked almost all legal commentators, but it is the ECHR which will be the final battleground in the struggle for a superior right.
The British Humanist Association had this comment: European Court of Human Rights considers hearing cases which demand more privilege for Christianity.
The Christian Legal Centre had: European Court to rule on Christian discrimination cases.
4 CommentsEvan Harris writes for Cif belief that Religious groups have too much freedom to discriminate.
Now that faith groups are to become public service providers, the exemptions they have in British equality law must be narrowed.
The Huffington Post prints this extract from a new book by Desmond Tutu: God Is Not a Christian.
Simon Barrow writes for Ekklesia that The Kirk faces a challenging future.
The Vernacular Curate writes about Technology and God.
Theo Hobson writes for Cif belief about What Rowan Williams really dislikes about Freemasonry.
His distaste seems to have less to do with its aura of mystery, more with its roots in liberalism and the Enlightenment.
The Telegraph reports the Archbishop of Canterbury’s thoughts on the Bard’s religion: William Shakespeare was probably a Catholic.
The Archbishop of Canterbury preached at the Ascension Day Eucharist at St Martin-in-the-Fields: Sermon for Ascension Day 2011.
And Maggi Dawn writes this: Ascension Day 2011.
17 CommentsTwo recent articles on this topic:
Diversity and democracy: Reforming the Lords by Patrick McGlinchey at Left Foot Forward.
The inclusion in the white paper of a 20 per cent appointed chamber option is a cause for concern. However, it is the proposal to allow 12 Church of England bishops to retain their seats as Lords Spiritual that could fundamentally hold the House of Lords back from democratisation and diversification.
To give special law-making privileges to one faith group over all others is almost unheard of among democratic nations
Indeed, the only global equivalent is the ‘Islamic Consultative Assembly of Iran’, which gives Islamic clerics similar privileges to Church of England bishops. In modern Britain, this system is clearly an outdated one which does not enjoy the support of our citizens.
An ICM poll commissioned by the Joseph Roundtree Reform Trust as part of the Power 2010 political reform initiative found that two-thirds of the public think anyone who sits in the House for Lords and votes on laws should be elected, and 70 per cent of Christians believe it is wrong that some Church of England bishops are given an automatic seat in parliament…
Their Lordships should beware: there is an overwhelming consensus behind Lords reform by Alan Renwick at Reading Politics (A blog of the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Reading.)
7 CommentsThe government launched its proposals for reform of the House of Lords two weeks ago. At the time, there were widespread rumours that senior Labour and Conservative peers were gearing up to scupper the plans. A survey of peers reported in The Times this week appears to confirm this: 80 per cent of the peers who responded said they opposed a wholly or largely elected second chamber.
As The Times points out, if peers do indeed choose to oppose the government’s plans, they will be acting counter to the manifestos of all three main parties in last year’s general election. Labour promised “to create a fully elected Second Chamber” (in stages). The Liberal Democrats, similarly, pledged to “replace the House of Lords with a fully-elected second chamber”. The Conservatives were only slightly less reformist, saying, “We will work to build a consensus for a mainly-elected second chamber to replace the current House of Lords”.
But peers tempted to flex their muscles on this issue should be aware that the consensus across the parties surrounding House of Lords reform runs much deeper than this…
Updated Saturday
Giles Fraser has written in today’s Church Times The Bishops are seeking to enshrine gay exclusion.
…This advice shows how much the Bishops have been straining every legal sinew to exclude openly gay bishops — even celibate ones — from their number. Do we really think that straight bishops have been challenged to repent of whatever they might have got up to at university, as it were? Of course not. And this double standard is a clear symptom of the fact that what is really going on here is prejudice, pure and simple.
The other weasel construction that those who pick bishops have alighted on is that a bishop must be “a focus of unity”. No: first and foremost, a bishop must be a man or woman of the gospel. Sometimes this means arguing for the right not to bring peace, but a sword.
To insist that bishops must be “a focus of unity” is a recipe for having bishops whose primary identity is that they are unobjectionable. Indeed, there is something almost heretical about this phrase; for it makes the quest for a quiet Church more of a priority than that of the preaching of the gospel.
The trouble is that, at the moment, a whole world of grammar is being invented with the express purpose of keeping gay people out of senior church positions. From the dreaded Anglican Covenant (whose purpose seems to be much the same) to this new advice, our Church is constructing its ground rules specifically to exclude homosexuals. And there is another phrase for that: institutionalised homophobia…
And the Guardian has published a series of articles this week, under the title How should gay bishops be chosen? which are all linked in this earlier post More discussion on appointing gay CofE bishops which has been regularly updated, but which has fallen down the page due to the number of other news stories since the start of the week.
The most recent (third) item was this one by Colin Coward: Homophobia has infected the Church of England. Earlier items were by Lesley Fellows and Peter Ould.
Saturday update
The Guardian series has now been completed with this fourth piece from Mark Oakley Gay or straight, allow clergy to reflect the rest of us.
13 Comments…If the bishops were to follow their lawyers’ checklist in deciding on new colleagues, history will repeat itself as religious leaders make themselves both inhumane and hypocritical.
Why inhumane? Well, gay people have no choice as to their sexual orientation but, when recognised, they do as the rest do – try to find someone to love and grow old with. Although some are drawn to a celibate life, most feel that it is not good for them to be alone and they seek intimacy and a togetherness that, as married people know, is easier to make stable when celebrated and supported publicly and without fear. Priests and bishops are no different. To stop such people being ordained because a group doesn’t like the fact that some people will always be homosexual would be as unjust as not having made John Sentamu the Archbishop of York because there was a theological argument going round for a white man. If talk of unity is to have any authenticity there has to be diversity and bishops should be signs and enablers of both. Instead, to make gay Christians even more afraid to be honest about who they are, and their need to love and be loved by someone, is not only inhumane but shameful.
Why hypocritical? Putting aside the fact that the present bishops were not questioned on their own sexual pasts, it would be an extraordinary policy to pursue this checklist when so many bishops know and privately support gay clergy in partnerships as well as those who are single who have been partnered at some stage. It would be equally duplicitous to imply that such gay bishops would be an innovation. Truthfulness would be the innovation…