The Bishop of Grantham and ‘crossing a line’
This week I was planning to reflect on the human relationship between compassion and power in John 11, and on what helps disciples to grow. But quite a lot happened over the weekend, and it deserves some comment.
The one that has grabbed the headlines was the annunciation past the Guardian, belatedly on Friday night, that the Bishop of Grantham, Nick Chamberlain, was the 'first bishop to announce that he is in a gay relationship.' Of all the reports, the Guardian'southward was probably the well-nigh reliable, not to the lowest degree because it included towards the end the admission that the headline was completely misleading.
In 2003 the Times reported that the Right Rev Peter Wheatley, then the bishop of Edmonton, was gay and living with his partner. He said he was "a celibate Christian living by Christian teachings".
Wheatley retired early in 2014, presumably to avoid the kind of publicity that he could encounter coming and which Chamberlain is no experiencing. In fact, at that place is a Wikipedia page on gay bishops, which has a section on the Church of England. Information technology is not entirely accurate, and information technology took a whole day to exist updated to include the Bishop of Grantham.
And what is the significance of this non-first? Formally speaking, absolutely nothing. The Huffington Post puts it rather well: 'The Church of England has reacted with complete disinterest after one of its bishops became the first to publicly confirm that he is gay and in a human relationship.' Adrian Hilton reacted with customary spleen: 'The Bishop of Grantham is gay and celibate—SO BLOODY WHAT?' (There was a little irony that he hosted a contrary annotate from Gavin Ashenden the 24-hour interval before—merely we volition come back to that.) So, no line has been crossed; nothing has been tested; the teaching position of the Church has been observed, and in Nick Chamberlain's instance, always has been.
I was notified of the news prior to the Guardian commodity's publication, and it occurred to me that the first question that would exist asked was: is this news? Given that he was consecrated so recently, in November 2015, were those involved in the date aware of his situation? Justin Welby, in the Guardian slice, gives an unequivocal reply: yes, at every stage, and Christopher Lowson, Bishop of Lincoln, confirms this. And then all discussion and debate could probably end there. Except…
There is a minor host of other questions that have arisen from this incident. The first question some people ask is, why is it anyone's business? Isn't a church leader entitled to some privacy? Well, yes and no. The difficulty for all clergy is that, at ordination, we are asked:
Will you endeavour to fashion your own life and that of your household according to the style of Christ, that y'all may be a pattern and case to Christ'southward people?
to which nosotros reply: By the help of God, we will. We have made a public commitment in relation to our personal lives, and information technology is non unrealistic to await some scrutiny here. Just that tin can easily be abused, and I recall that is what has happened in this example. Nick Chamberlain decided to go to the Guardian later on a 'Sunday paper' (probably the Sunday Times) 'threatened' to out him. In fact, this cannot technically happen, since it is confronting the printing regulation rules. Colin Coward, on the Changing Attitude Facebook folio, put upwards a sort of apologia, explaining that, according to his conversations with journalists, the Dominicus paper in question was simply going to report on an 'unnamed gay, partnered bishop in the Church' and they consulted the Bishop of Grantham as to whether he would like to be named or not. I think most people will treat these weasel words with the antipathy that they deserve. Wayne Plimmer, a clergy colleague in Beeston, commented to me:
I besides have in mind the human being at the centre of this … a faithful friend of xxx-five years standing who has sought to reply faithfully to God'southward telephone call.
Information technology looks very much as though this 'not-outing' was timed to coincide with a letter from Andrew Foreshew-Cain and other same-sex married clergy and laity, designed to 'put pressure on the House of Bishops' to modify the Church's position. But of the eight clergy signing the alphabetic character, four were already known of, one holds no licence (and hasn't for a decade), one is retired, ane is in academia, and ane is an incumbent about to retire. If the letter does anything, I would take thought that it would encourage the House of Bishops to think that the procedure of field of study is working rather well—and the great irony is that this letter has largely been lost in the debate about the Bishop of Grantham. So Colin and/or Andrew's action has backfired spectacularly.
Is the thought of being in a celibate human relationship possible or helpful? Jayne Ozanne argues vehemently that it is not possible to define or distinguish a sexual from a not-sexual relationships, since no-i tin can give here a listing of things that you tin can and cannot exercise in either state of affairs. (In fact, Sean Doherty has offered an respond to that question.) Merely that is a nonsense position; in that location is no end of situations where two people are required not to be in a sexual relationship, including a school teacher and student, or a professor and undergraduate educatee. Is it really the example that all such limitations are meaningless? This is the upstanding situation of the hair and the beard: suppose (for wellness and safety reasons) an employee is required non to have a beard. How many whiskers are actually allowed earlier this constitutes a beard? If I don't shave for a day, am I contravening this? Or two days? or iii? There is no objective answer—subjective judgement is required—but this does non make the regulation meaningless.
Gavin Ashenden argues online and on the radio that Nick Chamberlain's appointment is very unhelpful. I do similar the way he starts the broadcast with a personal expression of back up and sympathy for Chamberlain, and that he immediately goes on to agree that the date, in principle, is perfectly reasonable, and has clear historic precedent. Only he and so goes on to criticise Chamberlain's utilize of the word 'gay', every bit buying into a sub-Christian and mistaken anthropology which defines usa by our sexuality. I disagree with Gavin hither, since Chamberlain says very clearly to the Guardian and his sexuality is only part of who he is, and he would much rather talk about ministry. It is notable that he makes no comment forth that lines that he wants the Church to modify its position.
Then of class there is the intervention by Peter Jensen from Sydney in the proper name of GAFCON. I don't really empathise why Jensen believes he has a brief to comment on affairs in the C of Eastward; I accept never taken information technology on myself to pronounce on the way he leads his diocese. The letter notes that the appointment is in line with the current position of the Church—but still thinks the date is a 'major error.' That doesn't really make sense. What I recollect he intends to say is that the Church building's current position is a major error. The objection is to 'same-sex relationships which are not sexual.' The difficulty here is that I am in a number of same-sex relationships which are not sexual; I call them my friends, and Nick Chamberlain appears to be doing the same. It was interesting to notation that, in his interview on Radio four's Lord's day programme yesterday, he underplayed information technology as an 'exclusive' relationship, saying of his friend that 'he, amongst many others, helps me stay sane.'
A fourth objection is of quite a dissimilar kind. Some have suggested to me (on the basis of a Reformed theology reading of Romans) that 'same-sex attraction is a sin, whether or non one engages in same-sex activity sex'—that is, desire itself is sinful, and that to experience same-sex activity attraction, even if not acted on, is problematic in relation to ministry and leadership. I think this is a poor and mistaken reading of Paul'south language of 'want'; if the Reformers read it this way, then I call back they demand to be reformed by Scripture; I think it is a very odd way to empathise emotion, temptation and sin (if I accept depression, am I sinning by thinking negative thoughts?); information technology looks like it is ownership into a discredited approach to 'healing' same-sexual activity attraction; it undermines the ministry building of those who experience same-sex attraction and are either celibate or other-sex married; and it is pastorally unhelpful.
[In the offset version of this blog, I erroneously attributed to Lee Gatiss, chair of Church Society, the idea that being same-sexual activity attracted was a bar to ministry. He has at no time said this, and information technology is not a view he holds. His comments to me, in an earlier discussion, were: 'Whether information technology's the correct thing to put on a placard or lead with in apologetic conversation, I'yard wondering whether it is actually true (or non, which Ian says) that homosexuality (aforementioned-sex allure) is sin….I'k maxim that information technology looks to me like Protestant theology and interpretation of the Bible has always said information technology is….Commodity 9 would seem to be saying that a aforementioned-sex allure is a sin, whether or not ane engages in same-sex sex. All sinners are disqualified from the kingdom, unless they repent and believe.' Though I disagree with Lee's view hither, I wrongly inferred from that a view on ministry, and I am very happy to fully and publicly apologise to Lee.]
No doubt those in Lincoln diocese will have other questions about Nick Chamberlain's own educational activity position on this question. Merely I would like to finish with Wes Colina's very helpful reflection:
Without intending to overstep any of my boundaries as a layman, here is the kind of thing I would love to hear Bishop Chamberlain say i mean solar day:
Yes, I am in a committed, faithful human relationship with some other man. I beloved him deeply and hope to spend the remainder of my life in his visitor. And no, we don't sleep together. But I think it'southward important for you lot to know that we don't sleep togetherbecause of our love for each other. You lot run across, we're Christians, and Christians believe that God hasmade u.s. and that He set up sexual relations for a specific purpose. God intends sex to bind a husband and married woman together in intimacy and to lead to the gift of new life through procreation. And, too, God intends same-sexual practice closeness, guarded by chastity, to build upwardly each of the same-sex activity friends in beloved of Himself and love of neighbor. Information technology would actually, then,diminishthe closeness my partner and I enjoy if we were to sleep together. Information technology would be taking ane thing—sex—and using information technology for a purpose other than what its Designer intended information technology for. And, equally nosotros all know, when we misuse the Creator'due south gifts, nosotros don't gainmore intimacy; we simply find ourselves further alienated from Him and from one another. And so, no, we're not having sex. And we're living our lives as celibate men in the hope that we'll be able to love each othermore deeply, more truly, and more in line with how God in Christ has made us and redeemed united states of america to exist.
Something similar that, at to the lowest degree, is what I detect myself praying for Bishop Chamberlain—and for all the gay folks in my cleaved, beloved Anglican Communion.
Follow me on Twitter @psephizo
Much of my work is washed on a freelance basis. If you take valued this postal service, would you consideraltruistic £i.20 a month to support the production of this blog?
If you enjoyed this, practise share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this mail, you tin can make a unmarried or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Skillful comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful debate, tin add real value. Seek first to sympathise, then to be understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to acquire from their perspectives. Don't view contend as a conflict to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.
mcconnellonat1989.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/the-bishop-of-grantham-and-crossing-a-line/
0 Response to "The Bishop of Grantham and ‘crossing a line’"
ارسال یک نظر