You’re invited to come and hear Peter Tatchell give a human rights lecture on Saturday 19 July 2014 at 6.30 pm in St Mary’s.
He’s also going to be doing a forum after the 10.30 am service on Sunday.
5 responses to ““Issues” is no more”
-
Oh I well remember the day ‘Issues’ landed with a loud thud through the letter box. I had been ordained for over 10 years by then. And I reeled in reading it.
Before then the general culture of conversation about sexuality in the Church was ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’. And most bishops acknowledged that among their most able and effective clergy many were gay men, some in relationships, and often deployable in parishes where others would not contemplate living and working.
But remember the context. This was also a period when AIDS was an international emergency and in Britain the Thatcher government sought to outlaw the ‘promotion’ of homosexuality through section 28 of the Local Government Act. And for sure, ‘Issues’ was a direct consequence of the passing of the amended Tony Higton General Synod private members’ motion declaring all ‘homosexual acts’ as sinful. The consequent noise of the shutting of closet doors was deafening.
In my diocese the bishop asked one of the archdeacons to convene regular confidential meetings with a few gay clergy to offer them an opportunity to talk about the effects of all this on their lives and ministry. Some would not trust the Church to participate in such enterprises. Understandably. And huge numbers of vocations were thwarted and lost. And are to this day, as the toxic debates continue in the C of E in a social context which has changed beyond imagining.
So thank you Kelvin, as ever, for your insightful questions.-
Cedric, I recall you speaking to the LGBT Network at the Cathedral about Issues and that it was reaffirmed by the C of E around about that time too. I wasn’t so aware of it when it was published (being about eight years old at the time and also a Roman Catholic), but I remember so clearly from what you said how devastating it had obviously been and still was. I remember thinking at the time of that reaffirmation, “oh, I can never go home”. It became so clear to me that the Church of England wasn’t somewhere I could feel welcome as long as it was allowed to stand.
-
-
Kelvin, I can understand why you are glad that the offensive language of Issues has gone. Ironically, it was actually a statement written by liberals of the day; the main author was Richard Harries.
And conforming to Issues was never the real question. The real question is conforming to Canons B30 and C26, so that the pattern of life of clergy should reflect the doctrine of the Church ‘according to the teaching of Jesus’. All Issues did was make that clear and unambiguous (though in an unhelpful and obsessive way) with regard to sexual intimacy. Ironically, it was the liberal ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy which cemented Issues in place as a response.
And of course, with Issues gone, the Canons remain in place, and the demand is the same. The good thing about GPCC is that it sets this one issue in the context of many others, which is much healthier.
But on the question in hand—nothing has changed. You seem to have missed that.
-
No Ian. It isn’t that I’ve missed that. It is that I don’t believe that.
Issues was a massively offensive document that coloured absolutely everything the Church of England had to say about sexuality. Changes to Canons will look significantly different in the light of its removal.
A great deal is changed by its removal.
-
-
Jesus preached love, but he also forgave sins with the instruction ‘to sin no more’.
Deciding not to sin when the sin in question is something that we enjoy so much that life may feel miserable without it, is a real sacrifice. It really is ‘bearing your cross’ to follow him. But that is what Christians are called to do.
We may wish to question our translation of the Bible, or quibble over the exact meaning of a phrase we find challenging, but Christianity is not a ‘pick and mix’ faith where we just have to accept the bits we like and can ignore, or condemn, the bits we don’t like. We do not get to negotiate – we must take it or leave it.
Previous Posts
-
Akinola on +Idris
Well, last week it was the meeting of Primates of the Anglican Communion in Egypt. You can read +Idris’s take on the events here. Rather more interestingly, an angry and despairing letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury purporting to be from Archbishop of Nigeria has been issued (on an American website) which quotes +Idris directly.…
-
Sermon
Here is last Sunday's sermon, which one or two people have been asking for. The Gospel reading that I have just read contains within it something of a conundrum. There is a hidden puzzle in it. An embedded surprise. We are reading just at the start of Mark’s gospel – the first of the gospels…
-
Flyposting for Jesus
To the University of Glasgow yesterday for a seminar in the theology department. One of the questions we were looking at was, “Who owns clergy bodies?” (Answers on a postcard, please). The other one was about whether churches attitudes to same-sex couples inhibits people’s human rights. In in dealing with these questions, I was quite…
-
Primates Meeting Communique
The Primates of the Anglican Communion have been meeting this week in Egypt. Their communique can be read here. I see also that they have been hobnobbing with Pope Shenouda III of the Coptic Church. Just before being ordained, I spent some time in Egypt, including a very memorable and enjoyable evening at one of…
Leave a Reply