I visit churches in the hope of finding inspiration and wisdom, of finding something, anything, that communicates the essence of Christian love, truth and faith as I have experienced and known it through earlier periods of my life. There have been notably few places where love, God’s unconditional, infinite, intimate love, is the first truth the church wants to communicate.
The General Synod of the Church of England meets from 7th July for five days in York. There are a number of significant items on the agenda relating to issues affecting the well-being of our planet and members human race: climate change, Living in Love and Faith, safeguarding, and Church governance. Well, perhaps that last item isn’t of global or even personal significance, but it got me wondering: Who is responsible for the spiritual health of the Church of England and how does an institution with such an incredibly complicated structure better focus on what you and I might take to be the primary essence of being Christian.
We are living at a time of crisis, globally and individually. The crises are multiple: climate, ecosystem, political, economic, spiritual, religious, refugee, health, housing, pollution. Every member of the human race is at risk of being affected by and infected by this systemic state of crisis – emotionally, intellectually, physically and spiritually. In the Church of England, the drama last week about the sacking of the members of the Independent Safeguarding Group manifests the total mess that is safeguarding policy and practice in the Church of England. The Church is directly affected by the unhealthy magical thinking that is a normative part of today’s Christian teaching and thinking.
I anticipate that the work undertaken by the College and House of Bishops, integral to the Living in Love and Faith process and to the outcome at General Synod in February 2023, will be judged “incompetent, ineffective and unfit for purpose. This will be a tragic end to what has in many ways been an effective exercise. I hope I will be proved wrong, too pessimistic, but Church that is unable to ensure that its safeguarding practice is so inadequate is unlikely to produce proposals that are adequate to the most basic of LGBTQIA+ expectations.
Following the posting of the CEEC film and the Christian Concern video, members of the Christians for LGBTIQ+ Equality Facebook group expressed their fears that the risk of becoming involved in encounters with “those who have different perspectives and lived experiences” was too great. Alex Clare-Young, a member of the LLF Co-ordinating Group, asked the Facebook group members what safe space and safeguarding doer any ongoing LLF process would look like for them. Some of us have come to the conclusion that it may not be possible to guarantee safety. We propose that LGBTIQ+ people and our allies should have our own conversations in safe spaces facilitated by LGBTIQ+ community members. There we can discuss how to achieve the full, radical inclusion we long for.
Jayne Ozanne has written a powerful blog drawing on her own experience of mental anguish and trauma, suicidal thoughts and feelings of self-hate that she and so many other LGBTI people suffer as a result of Christian teaching that claims to be orthodox, traditional and biblically-based. Jayne identifies this Christian teaching and theology as the cause of a safeguarding issue of immediate importance. The House of Bishops cannot wait until 2020 when their complex Teaching Document is due to be published. They must take action now to end the teachings that fuel homophobia.
I have written a letter to Graham Tilby, the National Safeguarding Adviser, asking the Safeguarding Team to investigate the Bishop of Maidstone, Reform, the Church Society, and Christian Concern as key instigators of abusive and homophobic teaching and practice in the Church of England. Spiritual abuse is now recognised as one of the most serious manifestations of homophobia and prejudice against LGBTI people. The letter is copied to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the bishops of Newcastle (Pastoral Advisory Group) and Bath and Wells (the lead bishop for safeguarding).
The Archbishop of York has replied to my letter about the Bishop of Maidstone’s response to the Bishop of Lichfield. My letter is being referred to the Pastoral Advisory Group for advice. The views and practices directly advocated by the Bishop of Maidstone to his clergy could, if acted upon, endanger the physical or mental well-being of adults who may well be vulnerable in their faith and sexuality. I believe the Archbishops of Canterbury and York are the people responsible for taking action in this matter. It is a safeguarding issue affecting the practice advocated by a bishop.
