Sexuality, Celibacy and Bishops

Chief Inspector of Sodomy

This weekend one of the bishops of the Church of England was outed. He was approached by a journalist who appears to have been in conversation with a great many people last week in the Church of England. The journalist apparently approached the Bishop of Grantham and asked him whether or not he was gay. The consequence of this was that the bishop chose to give an interview to another journalist and a story subsequently appeared in the Guardian.

I don’t wish to comment on the Bishop of Grantham’s situation other than assert that I don’t think that he was a good candidate to be outed and then to wish him well. It seems to me that enough people have had enough to say about him that we must leave him be.

As I have written before, there are some circumstances in which it is appropriate for someone to be outed. Indeed writing from Scotland after the Cardinal O’Brien affair, I think I’d say that there are circumstances in which to out someone who is engaged in the active oppression of other gay people is in itself a moral and commendable act. However, all outing situations have consequences, some of them unexpected.

I don’t happen to know the Bishop of Grantham and just about all that I know about his ministry is a report from someone who told me that he had been heard to preach in favour of the introduction of same-sex marriage. Now, one ethical matter does not make one a saint, but that’s enough for me to think that he was one of the good guys and might have been better left to work for justice and come out at a time of his own choosing.

There are a couple of things that do need to be commented on a little further though that are not immediately about the Bishop of Grantham himself.

Firstly, to note that we seem to be no further forward in getting either a common or a common-sense understanding of what celibacy is. The indignity of people being forced to declare what happens in their bedrooms is hideous. Moreover, the idea of someone being in a “celibate relationship” is entirely absurd.

I’ve written about celibacy at some length before in a blog post which enraged a good many people. (Beware of the Celibate)

I have not fundamentally changed my mind since then. It seems to me that celibacy in the Christian tradition is a turning away from romantic relationships in order to be able turn towards God and turn outwards to others. The idea of an exclusive partnership which is in some way celibate is bordering on being a contradiction of terms. What is really being discussed in England is whether individual bishops (and others) are choosing to abstain from certain sexual practises. There is an enormous difference between celibacy and abstinence and the confusion in the Church of England doesn’t just make Anglicanism look foolish but discredits Christianity as a whole, makes a laughing stock of the wider Anglican Communion and makes it much harder to share the love of God to those who need most to know about it.

I an indebted to my colleague in Edinburgh, Stephen Holmes for drawing to my attention that the idea of a “celibate relationship” is not in fact something that is entirely new within the sphere of Christianity and that something similar was condemned at the Council of Nicea and amongst many of the early theologians of our faith. The third canon of the Council of Nicea explicitly condemns the idea of clergy living in merely spiritual marriages. Basically, male clergy could only have close female relatives living with them. No chance then of having a bidey-in but telling the newspapers that it doesn’t matter because nothing is going on in the bedroom.

Check out this post on wikipedia if you want more on the idea of “celibate relationships” being condemned way back in the Christian tradition – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syneisaktism

Since the outing incident of last weekend, there has been considerable comment about the fact that the bishop has done nothing wrong because he has been celibate. Now, leaving aside that I don’t accept that he’s making a claim of celibacy so much as abstinence, it is worth seeing where all that leads us.

The first trouble is the Anglican Communion whose Secretary General this afternoon wrote an extraordinary note assuring others than he had been assured himself of the lack of hanky-panky in the Bishop of Grantham’s life and so all is well in the Communion. There are two dangers here. One is the danger that he will have to give a report on the sex life of every bishop in the Communion. (Something I can promise you I personally don’t want to hear about). The other is that the Secretary General finds himself unable to distinguish between the mores and norms of the Church of England and those of the Communion itself. He is dangerously close to this in his statement today, and perhaps needs to be reminded that a far greater sin than homosexuality is the inability in his office of being able to distinguish between the Church of England in particular and Anglicanism in general. There are, to put it bluntly once again, churches within the Communion which don’t accept the moral teachings of Lambeth 1.10, never accepted the moral teachings of Lambeth 1.10 and never will accept the teachings of Lambeth 1.10. For the Secretary General to persist in the fantasy that the Communion is united in believing in Lambeth 1.10 is the equivalent of believing that there are faeries (albeit perhaps celibate faeries) living at the bottom of the Lambeth Palace gardens.

The second trouble this weekend is what happens to the Archbishop of Canterbury when such a story as this comes along. The blunt reality is that there needs to be more to the role of being Archbishop of Canterbury than to be the Chief Inspector of Sodomy in the mind of the general public. I can’t believe that Justin Welby wants to exercise that function either in his own church or any other church but if he wants to avoid being thust into that role, he is going to need to do better than simply parrot the idea that just because someone claims their life is lived under the banner of celibacy that all is somehow well.

The banner that we are supposed to live under is love. And we are not yet seeing the Archbishop call us to a place where we can all affirm that as the birthright of all of God’s children.

If he is to do so, he needs to find ways of resisting being the Chief Inspector of Sodomy whenever Gafcon, the Church of England Press Office or any other conservative campaigning group try to nudge him towards that role. If he does resist it, he will find a world waiting to applaud him. When he doesn’t manage to do so he doesn’t just make a fool of himself but of the rest of us too. And I think people are wearying of that.

Justin Welby is a better man than these statements make him appear.

England will not be won for Christ whilst the structures of the Church of England make Christianity look like a religion for narrow-minded fools.

I happen to think that the next thing that we should expect to hear from the Bishop of Grantham on the matter of homosexuality is whether or not he agrees with the document “Issues in Human Sexuality” – the absurd pseudo-doctrinal statement that the Church of England has somehow committed itself to.

He should be expected to answer that question and do so clearly and unambiguously, but not, however, before every last one of the other bishops has had a chance to answer the same question in public. (After all, what is the point of a diocesan synod except for asking just that question of every bishop in England?).

I hope that comes soon. Very soon.

However, until it does, I think the Bishop of Grantham deserves a bit of peace.

Comments

  1. Jonathan Dodd says:

    Perfectly put. “The banner that we are supposed to live under is love.” Pretty close to a perfect one-sentence summary of what it should mean to be a Christian. That sentiment – belief – is conspicuously absent in the doings of the Church, at the top level, in so many instances.

  2. flexdoc says:

    Im am Episcopalian. It is way past time we leave the Anglican Communion.

    • I don’t think so. Though it could come to that.

    • Daniel Berry, NYC says:

      I’m an American Episcopalian. While the idea of simply leaving the Communion is tempting, not the least of the reasons for which are that doing so can feed my self-righteousness; nevertheless, I want everyone to stay at the Table. More than almost anything else, I believe that without everyone at the Table, or at least extending an unconditional invitation to be there, we got nothing. And that invitation must come from all of us–not just from priests, bishops or primates: the ministry of reconciliation belongs to every baptized person.

  3. Chris says:

    Why doesn’t the Anglican Church just grow up and recognise that gay people are made by God. All this ‘how many angels can fit on the head of a pin’ nonsense is enough to make me hand in my orders of 30 years. What a sad old verbose aunty my church has become. Jesus would hardly recognise her, and he certainly wouldn’t be welcome in her pews. He certainly wouldn’t be wearing a preposterous rochet and chemere…God save us.

  4. Tom Kent says:

    I have a few questions & comments. Maybe ill post them one at a time. Lets see.

    You write that the ABofC “… needs to find ways of resisting being the Chief Inspector of Sodomy whenever … any other conservative campaigning group try to nudge him towards that role. If he does resist it, he will find a world waiting to applaud him.”

    But in light of what Jesus said about applause from the world, wouldnt that be a clue that he’s probably doing something wrong? Consider
    John 15:19 –
    “If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.”

  5. Helen King says:

    Thanks for putting the celibacy/abstinence point so well. And I love the idea of the celibate faeries at the bottom of the garden. I wrote a piece on the question of what the C of E means by ‘sex’ on https://sharedconversations.wordpress.com/2016/01/20/what-is-sex-anyway/
    It may be of interest?

  6. Liz Badman says:

    Excellent.

  7. Susang says:

    He’s a bishop, he’s gay, he’s living with a bloke, and he’s taken a vow of celibacy? In the minds of most of us ordinary C of E folk, we tend to take a view of healthy scepticism. We are probably wrong, but we are inclined to think that saying they are celibate is a face-saving way of conforming to the outdated C of E view on gay relationships within the clergy. A way of keeping their jobs, in other words. This view certainly makes the C of E a laughing stock, out of touch with how most people think these days, which, I posit, is that sexual orientation is irrelevant. As long as no one is harmed, what does it matter what two consenting, loving adults do with their bits? We should indeed all live under the banner of love, whatever our sexual orientation.

  8. Well the church is supposed to represent Jesus. The church (the Christians) are to live Holy lives. That means everything I do should be governed by scripture. Christ’s ambassador to the world. We all sin. But should always be in a state of repentence or sober thinking. If the Pope was gay would that be a good thing or a bad thing.? If your gay you need to resign from any leadership roles in the church setting. In a bank or secular job is OK because you are not professing Christianity. But sin is sin. So if you are not Christian then live as you wish within the law of the land. God hates sin. Homosexeuality and gay relationships is also sin.

    • Bless you for commenting here, Mick. Just to confirm I’m quite as gay as you fear.

      For the benefit of sensible discussion, further comments welcome about the issues raised in my post which don’t include whether or not being gay is legitimate.

  9. The line about the Hob Policy on Human Sexuality is a reality. Every potential Ordinand is required to answer in the affirmative that they accept the policy, not that they agree with it.

    When I was in the discernment process a few years ago, and that question arose, I said that I accepted that it was the current policy, but that I didn’t agree with it and was praying and living in hope for the day when it would be rescinded. I am not Gay, but don’t accept that we should treat our Brothers and Sisters in Christ should be discriminated against, because they are.

    So, your blog post deserves wider circulation than it will receive in the CofE, because the current process is both inadequate and unfair, and perhaps some of those currently on the committee in the HoB, considering the outcomes of the Conversation process who are thinking of maintaining the policy as is, will think again and propose a move forward, which will allow both Gay relationships and Same Sex Marriage on a par with those outside the church who enjoy the full equality that those inside it can’t.

    • David Beadle says:

      The system now is that the DDO has to give assurances in the sponsoring papers to the BAP that they have had a discussion with the candidate about Issues in Human Sexuality, and that the candidate will happily live within it’s guidelines. I was asked in the discernment process if I’d be happy to do that, and I said no.

      I echo your remarks concerning opinion on it – candidates are *theoretically* free to hold whatever views they like on it, and express their own views on it, but they are “supposed” to live within its recommendations.

  10. Well said, as usual. Good to make the distinction between “celibacy” and “sexually abstinent” (or “continent” as used to be said). Until fairly recently (last half of last century) “celibate” simply meant unmarried, which of course assumed sexual abstinence… though the assumption was likely ill advised in many cases.

    Perhaps the biggest moral problem with the current English approach is the reductive view it imposes on human relationships. The “what bits go where” is an awfully inhuman way to understand either individuals or their relationships. It is demeaning.

  11. Wm (Bill) Paul III says:

    Seems to me both the far right and the far left deny in different ways the reality of psychosexual development. I take it to be a mystery and, while not wholly persuaded of the revisionist case, will defer and do defer in many ways to the revisionists.
    Haller’s comment above, sadly, ignores the witness of anatomy, kind of repeats the VGR line about “plumbing not important”, and opens himself up to the charge of Gnosticism (of a sort) which is usually aimed at conservatives who don’t acknowledge the givenness of sexuality. Kind of ironic.

  12. Stopping by to express my appreciation for the term ‘Chief Inspector of Sodomy’, which, besides raising a wry smile, draws attention to the disproportionate focus on the penis in this whole debate – ‘what bits go where’, as another commenter has put it, but only *male* bits…

  13. I feel very sorry that the Bishop of Grantham’s privacy has been shattered and hope he and his partner are ok. This encroachment of privacy is truly horrible.

Speak Your Mind

*