Seems like we’ve just lost a battle, but we’re winning the war.
So sad to see the Archbishop of York standing up in the House of Lords to fight for the church’s right to discriminate against those who work for it. Extraordinary to see the Bishop of Winchester say that he “should be very surprised indeed if the noble Lord [Ali] had any evidence of any clergy being put at any kind of risk at all simply on the grounds of their orientation, in the sense that the churches use the word, as opposed to their conduct in matters sexual…” (Hansard 25 Jan 2010 : Column 1198).
Its hard to understand that, isn’t it? The obvious public example is Jeffrey John, and that was pointed out to him, but you don’t have to go far in the church to find gay people who believe that they are discriminated against on the ground of their sexual orientation.
What was the Bishop of Winchester up to in making that claim? Did he believe what he was saying at the time? Because we are people of goodwill and generosity, we have to believe that he did. So what was in his head?
I am afraid I have zero liking for the Lord Bishop in question. he attended a meeting of the Clergy Consultation in London which I was at and displayed little more than pompous arrogance and an ability to lecture rather than listen. A High Church Tory of the old school. And that’s not a compliment!
Which one, Dougal, York or Winchester?
Although you’re absolutely right that some opposed Jeffrey John’s nomination simply on the grounds that he was gay, the more considered conservative objection was on the grounds that he was an unrepentant sinner – i.e. that he had engaged in sex outside of marriage and that he refused to repent of that. It would have been exactly the same issue with anybody in a similar situation, regardless of the sex of the person they had slept with.
So perhaps the ball is back in your court to give us a clear example of someone who has been denied employment purely on the grounds of sexual orientation?
Sorry Peter, I’m not going to discuss Jeffrey’s private life any more than I have done above.
I’m far from convinced that the “considered conservative opinion” was really the view that held sway at the time. Indeed, the subsequent statement from at least one of the bishops who held forth on the topic to the effect that he regretted the manner of his involvement seems to show that at least some of the loudest voices were far from considered.
My concern in this issue is that rather than the church coming to appreciate the essential dignity of every human being through theological reflection, it is being forced to make an outward show of that appreciation. My problem with this is twofold. For one thing, it’s not actually progress if the new paradigm is arrived at by threat of legal action. Secondly, it re-opens an issue thought long settled by the blood of Thomas Beckett – namely, can a church controlled by the state actually function freely as an agent of the kingdom of God? So long as the state is promoting issues with which we agree, it’s all well and good. But what happens if the state, as it has in the past, aligns itself with oppression or violence? What will we then do with the precedent set by allowing that same government to dictate our morality?
I say all of this as an unabashed liberal who wants our church to be open and welcoming. I just worry about the means, and what cans of worms we might be opening up.
hi Aaron – thanks for your comment.
Its even more complicated when you live in a composite country like the UK. Where I live, Anglicanism is not the state church, yet English Anglican bishops get their place within parliament.
Thomas Beckett came no-where near to resolving what happens when your parliament has an inbuilt set of seats belonging a church with which you are in communion and yet whose leaders seem to be siding with forces of conservatism and oppression. And all this in the face of social opinion reports which suggest that the country has moved on.
I think that the connection between Church and State in England is corrupting of both sides.
Bluntly, I think it is largely demographics. It is older men who have the biggest problem with same sex relationships, and C of E bishops tend to be older men.
MTA – they will inevitable be left stranded by the receding tide….
Amazing how trolls appear as if On Que. Could someone teach me how to configure a search engine to find all the relevant posts on any given day for the entire internets based on my chosen key words? I want to be able to just pop in like that.
Winchester – all I know of Yorki s that he plays the bongos!
Kelvin,
I know its unpleasant for some to talk about sex lives, but unfortunately Jeffrey John’s sex life WAS the issue with his nomination so unless you’re willing to address it you can’t use him as a case to support your argument. That’s a bit like wanting to prosecute a case but not allowing the defence to examine any of your evidence.
And I note that you haven’t responded to provide any other examples of clergy dealt with negatively purely on the grounds of their sexual orientation.
Ah Peter, that’s you thinking that I’m going to post the details of the private lives of colleagues in public for you to look at again. Once again, thanks for the invitation, but no.