On Tuesday in General Synod, seven members of the Living in Love and Faith Co-ordinating Group presented an insight into the work of LLF in the form of a conversation between them on the floor of Synod which Synod members were later asked to join to ask a question. The presentation was a brave attempt to show something of what has happened in the group. Eeva John, Co-ordinator of the Living in Love and Faith process, introduced the group and asked the first questions.
The Bishop of Coventry said we just need to tell the Christian story of salvation because we are all within the story of salvation and we are all within the foundations of the faith.
This is not true. The Christian story of salvation is not obvious to me and uses a model of theology that probably never made sense and certainly doesn’t work for me now. What am I to be saved from and what am I to be saved for? Neither is it a truth that we are all within the foundations of faith. I no longer find a home in a parish church because of the assumptions about God by those who preach and teach, because of the failure of pastoral practice and because of the inability of the church to recognise and authorise my priestly ministry as a married gay man.
The Bishop of Coventry also spoke about the power of a grace-filled conversation within the story of salvation around the scriptures.
I have been involved in conversations across difference for over twenty-five years and I have attended meetings and events organised by those with whom I radically disagree. The Co-ordinating group may have achieved a new level of grace-filled conversation. I have no idea how such a level of conversation can be guaranteed in the next stage of the process at diocesan, deanery and parish level. It requires a level of trust and understanding that can only be built up by a group meeting regularly over an extended period of time with significant resources and skilled facilitation.
Giles said the LLF process as completely grounded in scripture but questioned whether the group or the church had a common mind. Following him, Jason talked about the differences in the way we approach scripture. He noted that we are divided in the ways we interpret scripture and what we even think the Bible is. He used the phrase “God’s breathed out voice” and in that phrase, I find a potential opening towards my way of experiencing God and using scripture, but I didn’t get the impression that the LLF process has captured such a potentially open vision.
Ian Paul, asking a question, wanted to know if there was a real commitment to re-engage with the teaching of Jesus and Paul and said that what we need to hear is the teaching of the New Testament. In response, the Bishop of Coventry said each person is committed to listen to Jesus and the inheritance of scripture and faith. There are different ways of understanding the teaching of Jesus and he is hoping for resonance between people, beginning to see whether it is possible to come to a deeper understanding together of Jesus. The Bishop of Salisbury asked what the mind of Christ is, saying that we need to live the Christian life in the present context, quoting “study this world, sense its need, speak to its condition. Elaine Storkey asked what is Jesus teaching us? Giles Goddard talked about the group reading the Emmaus story and the need to engage in a gritty way with Jesus.
I suspect the Co-ordinating Group and the LLF process in general has barely scratched the surface of the questions about Jesus, God, Paul, Scripture, and Christian life and teaching raised in this exchange. Under the surface there are huge differences of understanding that were implied and avoided. The House of Bishops speak and issue statements from a mindset that has failed to explore these questions. No movement towards a common understanding will be achieved until these questions surface and are explored with fearless courage on all sides.
Jayne Ozanne raised the Archbishops’ ideal of radical Christian inclusion. LLF is not a safe space, she said, and LGBT people are being put in a place of un-safety resulting in mental health issues. The Bishop of Coventry said it was the responsibility of bishops to create a safe space and ensure they are safe. How on earth are bishops going to do that? Jason noted that many people are hurting including those who are same-sex attracted and committed to living celibate lives (the Living Out position). Elaine Storkey said that many people in our present culture don’t feel safe and that it can be a lonely place. She wants people to feel safe, and for the church not to create hostile zones because that’s what people outside the church do. The Bishop of Dorking said there are no guarantees in this process.
I note that two members of the Co-ordinating group, both heterosexual, articulated a plea for two groups who experience themselves being in unsafe spaces, Jason for same-sex attracted, Bible-believing Christians and Elaine for Christians in general in a secular culture. Indirectly, both of them were challenging Jayne’s heart-felt plea that LGBT Christians suffer mental health issues and worse. A member of the group resigned and another friend withdrew her involvement and a third member describes how on edge he feels. Giles talked about his ambivalence. I trust neither the LLF process nor the bishops with having the competence even now to understand how unsafe society and church have felt for LGBTI people.
Jayne also said she feared that the can was just being kicked down the road. The Bishop of Coventry responded that there is a strong commitment for LLF not to go on forever and to map out a clear process in a relatively limited time. This didn’t sound like a confident commitment to me.
Tony Baldry asked whether the church can allow people and churches the freedom of their own consciences because being gay is not a matter of choice and gay people are not sinful. He said we may never be able to persuade each other [to respect our differences]. The Bishop of Salisbury replied that there is a recognition of difference now, God-given diversity and space that does not compromise our conscience. He wondered what policy implications are involved. That felt like a question that got closer to the practical outcomes for LLF.
Andrew Lightbown, straight, spoke from personal experience and immediately challenging what had just been said. A parish priest, he is dreading the report arriving. The bishops’ recent statement undermined the mission of the church. The willingness of his parish to engage was somewhere around nil. An archdeacon asked where Andrew’s daughter might go for midnight mass and feel safe, offered ten parishes not to go to, and one where she might. Andrew’s parishes have already moved to a different place ahead of where LLF is at the moment. He hates and viscerally loathes the process and doesn’t want to do what comes next, but out of obedience, has to. The Bishop of Dorking said we are all here under obedience, looking for Jesus in each other’s faces, and she hoped that’s what Andrew’s church members would do. She said we need to tell the story to get people to listen to our question.
I feel angered by her response. If Andrew’s parish is anything like the parish of which I was parish priest for fourteen years, ending twenty-four years ago, his congregation already see Jesus in each other’s faces and have no interest in listening to a question that concerns LLF because they have been living the answer for years. This is what makes me really angry – it is perfectly possible now as it was thirty years ago for congregations to be totally committed to Jesus and radically open and loving to LGBTI people, and right now, very angry and frustrated that same-sex couples can’t marry and be blessed in church. This is the current reality for thousands of Christians and who knows how many parishes. Part of the problem is the church has no idea how many parishes already practice radical inclusion. I’m sure Giles does, but I’m not sure whether the membership of LLF fully represented radical inclusion.
The Bishop of Coventry’s solution to Andrew’s testimony about his parish was that LLF was offering a suite of resources including films and a pod cast as a way in.
Bishop Christopher, Andrew spoke with passion and conviction and you didn’t hear him. His parishioners have already “got it.” They don’t need films or pod casts. Who is going to access the soon to be revealed resources on the LLF web site? Not all those parishes that already practice radical inclusion and whose relationship with Jesus has already transformed prejudices and homophobia.
Sophie Mitchell, a CYC rep on Synod, said that young people will potentially be affected the most. Giles reinforced this, noting how differently young people see gender and sexuality. For them it isn’t an issue at all. Who are we before God is the first question to be asked, and how do we live alongside one another.
Now those are questions that interest me, Giles!
I headed this blog: what are we missing, what are we not understanding?
I don’t think we the church are understanding young people
We the church are not understanding people and parishes who have already got ‘radical inclusion’
We the church don’t understand the radical freedom and equality LGBTI people experience in society and in many parishes now compared with forty years ago
We church don’t understand the many same-sex clergy couples, cohabiting, married, or civil partnered, who enjoy sexual intimacy and pleasure in private
We the church don’t understand the fluidity of identity, sexuality and gender that is increasingly common in society.
We the church don’t understand the teaching of Jesus that well
We the church don’t understand what “God is doing” in creation
Who or what is stopping us molling radical inclusion?
Tuesday’s presentation took place as if the language of the Christian community and the working assumptions about God, Jesus, and the Bible held by General Synod are commonly held and accepted in the wider Church of England community. I don’t think they are. I don’t think the House of Bishops or General Synod have the courage to explore this.
What exactly does radical inclusion mean? Has LLF agreed an understanding? I don’t think LLF corporately has the insight, the wisdom or the courage to discern the difference between healthy integrated, emotionally literate and mature, open hearted human beings and conflicted, defensive, closed, somewhat addicted human beings.
LLF has failed to acknowledge and explore what are now the commonly held ideas in society about sexuality, gender, God and Jesus. This Jesus that gets talked about in Synod was a profoundly healthy, integrated, deeply self-aware, unconditionally open and loving human being endowed with wisdom, insight, truth, clarity, anger and justice who knew how to make time for himself and for God and time for others, intimate time for others.