• “Issues” is no more

    Earlier today, the General Synod of the Church of England took a hugely significant step. It removed a document called “Issues in Human Sexuality” from the discernment process for people being assessed for clerical vocations in the Church of England.

    Oh, I can hear you yawning from here. But it really is important and this is a significant step forward.

    “Issues” as it has come to be known became a touchstone for the Church of England. It was originally a statement from the Church of England Bishops about what they thought about sex and sexuality. It was never intended to become something that people had to agree with before they could be considered for ordination but it became so. Of course being the Church of England, people tried to make a distinction between agreeing with the document and agreeing to live in compliance with the document. Such corrosive thinking simply led people to tell lies and I’ve always thought that all Christians were agreed that telling lies was a bad thing that none of us should do.

    Issues was horrendous back in the 1990s when it was introduced. It set different sexual standards for clergy and laity, it referred to gay people as homophiles, it stated that bisexual people were inherently unfaithful to partners, it seemed to condone conversion therapy and much more. It didn’t just use language that we now find outdated, it used language that was prejudicial at the time and deeply harmful to huge numbers of people. I was trying to become an ordinand when it was published. It was devastating.

    It affected other parts of the Anglican Communion too. I know people who trained for ministry in Scotland who were told that living within the no-sex-for-the-homophiles boundaries of Issues was expected of them too. And many of us went to Selection Conferences for ministry that took place in the Church of England where the selectors were trained to expect potential ordinands to indicate that they would live within the boundaries of this document. For a while, we sent clergy from Scotland on Selection Conferences in England with a letter stating that this document didn’t apply in Scotland. But we were still using a system that was based entirely around discrimination against lesbian, gay and bisexual people. (I don’t think transgender people were addressed in the document).

    My thoughts today are with those whose vocations were crushed by Issues. And those who managed to have vocations upheld but whose personal lives were damaged by it. Some people lived unhappy lives that might have been completely different. My particular thoughts tonight are of a wonderful priest I once worked with whose love never spoke its name. He loved another priest and remained closeted – living or seeming to be living within Issues because that is what his church expected of him. When he died, his obituary in the Church Times did not mention the love of his life. He was presumed to be living within the boundaries of Issues and he died being presumed to be living within it. It is a simple reality that some people were expected to lie in life and could not have truths told when they died. (And that meant others who were beloved by clergy sometimes went unacknowledged and were ignored at funerals). 

    For the sake of him and hundreds of others whose lives have been harmed by this document both within and beyond the Church of England, I welcome the fact that Issues is now gone.

    And now the next questions.

    Will the Church of England stop selling Issues and presumably making money from the wretched document? It is still on sale on Amazon after all.

    And more importantly for everyone.

    • When will we hear apologies from church leaders for the harms that churches have done in relation to policies on human sexuality?
    • How will UK churches communicate their repentance for previous harms done, to churches in other parts of the world which have enthusiastically endorsed such policies in response to their adoption here – particularly those churches which think of the Church of England as their mother church?
    • What will compensation for the anti-gay policies of churches eventually look like?

23 responses to “Nuptials Review”

  1. Hermano David | Brother Dah•veed Avatar
    Hermano David | Brother Dah•veed

    It is funny, Ryan, that you mention that the couple have been “living together” for some time. I mentioned that at Padre Bosco’s Liturgy blog in a conversation about Kate’s private confirmation service and felt I was poo-pooed for being a traditionalist. I had mentioned that I felt the confirmation seemed like legalisms so that he could still be the future King and playing church for a couple who had been publicly cohabiting for some while already.

    Agatha, you jumped to that conclusion by yourself, you naughty girl! I was suggesting just the opposite, that had Adam found a suitable companion there would not likely have been any hanky panky in the story.

    BTW, what you hint about is illegal here also.

    The primates of Ireland and Wales were invited, as well as, the Archbishop of York, but I have not noticed them in the BBC video.

    What I did not realize by watching the Royal Channel feed directly from the BBC, was that folks who watched the feed on the TV networks were subjected to the mindless banter of ill informed news commentators, including the American Broadcasting Company’s insipid, cotton candy-ish Tournament of Roses Parade commentating team, whose repartee is usually constrained to such fascinating topics as the array of exotic barks and the number of celery seeds applied to a particular parade float!

    On the Royal Channel there was no prattle, just the events as they unfolded with a crisp HD picture for my 24″ display, great color and excellent audio, the music was wonderful. I have raced through the on demand video and listened to the music and played it for others a few times now.

    1. kelvin Avatar

      I certainly saw the Primate of All Ireland on the video. I think he was in the quire rather than by a tree, but I’m not sure now. It is turning into an Ecclesiastical version of Where’s Wally, isn’t it.

      Whilst on the topic of the Archbishop of York, it’s worth taking in his comments on cohabiting, milk and cows.
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/8481736/Royal-wedding-Archbishop-backs-William-and-Kates-decision-to-live-together-before-marriage.html

  2. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    any excuse, eh? 😉

    Plus, evangelical churches (say) tend to be more MILFalicious than most, so I suppose that the scenario I describe could have happened to *some* clergyperson.

  3. Hermano David | Brother Dah•veed Avatar
    Hermano David | Brother Dah•veed

    It appears that Kate also forgot an important family tradition! This was begun by the late Queen Mother at her wedding, and was followed by the Queen, as well as Princess Diana and it had been reported that Kate would also lay her bouquet on the Tomb of the Unknown on her way out of the church. But I recall that she still had it in the state carriage and at one point she had handed it to the Prince as she was climbing into the coach.

    1. kelvin Avatar

      I believe that the plan was always to carry the bouquet back to Buckingham Palace and then send it back to the Abbey to be put on the tomb later.

      I think it may be something to do with having the flowers for the official photographs.

  4. Stewart Avatar

    @Hermano David | Brother Dah•veed – Diana would not have done on the way out after the service as her wedding was at St Paul’s – not the Abbey.

  5. Hermano David | Brother Dah•veed Avatar
    Hermano David | Brother Dah•veed

    That will teach me to accept what Statesonian commentators say, rather than research it myself. The Wiki says that the brides send their bouquet that day after the wedding to the tomb.

    That is right Stewart, Diana’s funeral was help in the Abbey.

  6. Agatha Avatar
    Agatha

    I guess Kelvin, you have never met a bride who was marrying the second in line to the throne. Surely their marriage is all about procreation. Not to say they don’t love each other etc but it is a hereditary monarchy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Leah’s Sad Eyes

    I have a question for those of you who went to Sunday School when you were young. What’s the least appropriate thing you remember being taught there? As we’ve been going through the stories from Genesis over the last few weeks, I keep thinking to myself – gosh, I remember learning this story in Sunday…

  • Eid, Pride and Abraham’s Sacrifice

    The first thing that I tend to notice is that there seems to be more sweet things in the shops in Great Western Road than usual. And then on the day itself it is obvious that there’s more people going about their business all dressed up for an occasion. Some of them are carrying food.…

  • Sermon preached on BBC Radio 4 for Music Sunday

    A couple of weeks ago, I sat on the sand in the blazing sunshine on the West Coast of Scotland chatting to a friend. I was to come away from that conversation with a furiously sunburnt face but also with a snatch of conversation that I remember that was about singing. My friend was telling…

  • Easter Sermon 2023

    In a few week’s time, something will happen that hasn’t happened before. At 3 pm on the 23 April, all our mobile phones will be all a-tremble. They will begin to wail. The government is going to be testing a new emergency alert system. They have chosen the time carefully. The emergency alert is to…