Those who know me well know that my thoughts jump around. As others are speaking ideas flow, I making apparently random connections, and the relationship between these apparently random, free flowing thoughts fascinates me.
Three meetings were held last Friday, 30 September, in the new Lambeth Palace Library. The second and third meetings were between representatives of the eight coalition members of progressive organisations, two bishops from the Living in Love Faith Next Steps Group and Dr Eeva John. There were different representatives and bishops at the morning and afternoon sessions. The third meeting was between bishops and representatives of the HTB Network and New Wine.
Shared experience
Before the two groups met for lunch, I got into a discussion with other representatives, disagreeing about whether there is a commonality about the way human beings experience and interpret reality, mentally and emotionally. I argued that there had to be a common essence to all experience, they argued that there isn’t. On reflection, I think they were right. I work with the conviction that there is a seamless essence to creation and the universe. We are all ‘of the same substance’. But scientific evidence indicates that each of us is experiencing the world in our own unique way – my image of a colour or sense of a smell may not be the same as theirs. It was certainly true that I was not in quite the same place as the others at the meeting that followed lunch. There were many ways in which each of us was not quite in the same place as others.
Prayer
Two weeks ago I walked to the letter box at Marston to post a letter – a rare event. Next to the letter box is an old phone box, now used as a book exchange. I browsed and found a book that interested me: Post Truth by Evan Davis. On Thursday I had finished re-reading The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle. On Friday I started reading Post Truth.
Reading The Power of Now, I decided that I would suggest at the beginning of the NSG meeting that we should spend five minutes in silence, breathing slowly and deeply, being present in the Now and with our own energy and feelings. I know from experience that meetings tend to flow more creatively when they begin in silence, with space to centre and get in touch with ourselves and our feelings. Others agreed this would be a good thing to do.
We arrived at the meeting, were greeted, introductions were made. At various points in the day, people prayed. Each time the prayer was instant, straight in, no pause, a prayer involving God as if we all knew this God well and believed the same things about ‘Him’, Amen at the end, straight onto next business. At the beginning of the meeting I should have calmly intervened and suggested we spent 5 minutes in silence - but I didn’t. Why? For a variety of reasons. One, I don’t have the courage to invite people to do something that is counter-cultural to what “the church does”. It is to me, a form of prayer predictable, formulaic - and unhelpful. We don’t all believe the same things and we don’t all work in the same way. Jesus spent a lot of time alone, in ‘prayer’, early in the morning. I spend extended time alone every morning in deep silence and presence. I know that meetings and conversations go better if I take time to pause, check my consciousness, breathe, and enrich my deeper feelings.
Assurance
The meeting that followed was good. We, the representatives of the organisations, had a common agenda. All of us had things we wanted to say – of course – but we managed to cede space to each other. No one dominated. Conversation flowed between us and the bishops. We said what we wanted to say and we were heard – and reassured. But in the course of the meeting and in the days since the meeting I have wondered whether the assurances we were given could really be trusted. The bishops were realistic, pointing out that in effect they had no ultimate authority – all decisions were in the hands of the autumn meetings of the College of Bishops and the General Synod meeting in February.
Among other things we want Equal Marriage. We want an end to the episcopal prohibitions on those priests and lay people who have chosen to marry. We want PTOs and licences to be returned. The Listening to Love and Faith resource published in September was very clear on the need for the bishops to be decisive and make change happen Now. We presented the bishops with the list of elements agreed by the coalition that need to be changed.
Issues in Human Sexuality
We talked about Issues in Human Sexuality, its use with ordinands and the effect of the diocesan postcode lottery with some diocese extending restrictions on clergy to include people in lay ministry. Issues in Human Sexuality should be withdrawn as a document to be read by prospective ordinands.
Post-truth
Evan Davis writes about the way modern communicators try to persuade us of things and the effect of living in a ‘post truth’ age. There is an assumption that when Christians meet and discuss, even though our ideas about gender and sexuality may be very different, our faith ideas, about God, Jesus, and the Spirit, are sufficiently held in common that we are in agreement and don’t need to identify differences. But I am not ever fully in agreement with every other Christian in the room.
I disagree strongly with the salvation history theology that underpins the Living in Love and Faith book, and said so at the meeting. Some of those involved in the process of formulating the material for the book found themselves side-lined, ignored, distanced, and abused in the course of the Co-ordinating Group and the Thematic Working Group meetings. Serious, scholarly attention to queer theology, trans theology, lesbian theology, black theology, gender and sexuality theology, wasn’t welcome. As a result, the LLF book and course are narrowly and somewhat exclusively focused. The Church of England authorities don’t want to create space for imagination and the incorporation of wide-ranging experiences into our common life.
One result is that I find very little space in the Church for my contemplative spiritual need for silence and reflection, let alone my need to have my gay self truly and openly loved, welcomed and celebrated. Any response to those two needs was, for me, largely absent from the meeting. The sense that each of us experiences and interprets life differently is not understood or accommodated in the contemporary Church, even when, as some of us know, the rich wisdoms of contemporary society could deeply enhance Christian life and practice. We told the bishops about the need to centre everything on lived experience. Things look different from outside and inside.
A curious representation
I note a curiosity about the afternoon session. We were five men and four women. Four of the five pro-gay representatives were men. The four men were all priests and all in a legal same-sex relationship – three marriages and one civil partnership. None of the married priests have Permission to Officiate or a bishops’ licence – of course not. Yet here we were, representing organisations campaigning for the freedom of lesbian and gay licensed clergy to marry. To achieve this will require the dismantling of the legal quadruple lock, passed into legislation to protect those Christian denominations which object on Biblical and theological grounds to same-sex marriage, primarily between men.
We talked about the reality of clergy living in concealed relationships, hiding their partners from their bishop, congregation and parish. Bishops claim this is not the case – they have been firmly told this is the reality and it is unhealthy, creating fear of being open about sexuality and with implications for people’s careers. LGBTQIA+ people are vulnerable but it is also true that bishops are vulnerable. They are reluctant to admit this. Bishops are vulnerable, but they have layers of protection around them that others do not. We collude with them by not disclosing to bishops things that they would not want to know but should know because then they would have to deal with it.
Transparency is a key part of safeguarding, and churches are not transparent about what they mean when they claim to welcome LGBTQI+ people. Churches may offer only a ‘pretend welcome’ to gay people, and use coded language which non-church goers are unlikely to understand.
Where next?
General Synod resolutions of intent paved the way for the subsequent passage of legislation to enable women to be ordained as priests and subsequently as bishops. What might similar resolutions look like for the LLF process? The problem with the settlement over women bishops is that it enshrines misogyny as a protected characteristic in the church. How might a settlement for LGBTQIA+ people be achieved that does not enshrine homophobia and transphobia as legitimate characteristics of Christian teaching but ensures that such attitudes can be challenged?
No more talking about us without us
Changing Attitude England has repeatedly told bishops that we want no more conversations about us without us. On Friday we were present with bishops, we spoke, we were heard, we have been included in the conversation. But the three key meetings of the College of Bishops in which our immediate future, at least in terms of Synod in February, will be discussed will take place without us. We would like to be confident that we are represented at those College of Bishops meetings. Members of the NSG Reference Group will participate and, we are told, will represent us. But they do not represent us. They are not directly engaged with the various coalition groups, listening to the synthesis of goals we have developed. Given that, rightly, no information about their personal identities is revealed, it is impossible for us to know whether we are fully represented, let alone ensure that members of the Reference Group articulate the views of the Coalition groups.
The idea that we can be represented by people who do not directly engage with us is a post-truth idea. No wonder I felt a degree of suspicion all through the meeting. I trusted the bishops. I am rightly unsure whether to trust the next, crucial stage of the process. We know that a more open and inclusive episcopal process, drawing on ideas from across the spectrum, would almost certainly result in a more positive outcome.
Conclusion
Have objections to equal marriage and the blessing of same-sex relationships melted enough as a result of the Living in Love and Faith process to enable real progress towards change to be made at Synod in February? The feedback says people want the bishops to stop prevaricating and act now to make real progress. Have the bishops found enough mutual confidence to do this? Living in Love and Faith has achieved far more than many of us expected. Three years ago we would never have anticipated that last Friday’s meetings would have taken place. The process won’t be finished by the February meeting of General Synod. We can hope at least for a confirmed direction of travel after Synod, knowing that proposals will take time to implement. We hope and pray that the College of Bishops and General Synod have the confidence to come to a strong common mind leading to the full inclusion of LGBTQIA+ people in the Church of England characterised by a radical new Christian inclusion that is both possible and essential.
To support Changing Attitude England’s campaign pursuing a vision of the Church where LGBTQIA+ people will be welcomed and loved unconditionally you might like to join Changing Attitude England on Facebook.