• “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 It didn’t just use language that we now find outdated, it used language that was prejudicial at the time and deeply harmful to huge numbers of people.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?

8 responses to “End of Life (aka Death)”

  1. Bob Faser Avatar

    Kelvin, as always, you’ve made some important comments here, particularly given your high-profile stance on marriage equality and related issues. Some ultraconservative types try to convey the impression that all issues related to sex, marriage, families, and bioethics are a “package deal”. One either takes a conservative stance on the lot, or a progressive stance on the lot. Your ability to discern here on an issue-by-issue basis is refreshing.

    Another important thing is your question of “Who would actually benefit from lives being shortened at will? The patient is not the only person affected by a death, nor the only possible person to derive any “benefit” from life being cut short.” I honestly believe that it’s not only in Agatha Christie novels where a desperate person may be led to shorten the life of a old, ill family member for their own material gain.

  2. Beth Routledge Avatar

    I have no problem with the idea that a doctor might give a treatment that improved the quality of someone’s life whilst knowing that the life itself might be shortened by doing so.

    In medical ethics this is called the Doctrine of Double Effect and is a recognised thing.

  3. John O'Leary Avatar
    John O’Leary

    You show both profound good sense and Christian sensibility here, Kelvin. I hope that attempt at a seat in the British parliament won’t be your last. There is such a great need for your voice in a much more public arena than a blog, or a microphone in a church.

  4. Anne O'Connell Avatar
    Anne O’Connell

    A beautifully nuanced, and well constructed piece on a vexed argument. Thank you.

  5. Bob Chapman Avatar

    “I have no problem with the idea that a doctor might give a treatment that improved the quality of someone’s life whilst knowing that the life itself might be shortened by doing so.”

    It is all about intent. If the drugs are given to relieve pain, then it is the correct thing to do. If the drugs are given to shorten life, then it is the wrong thing to do.

    At no time should medical people feel compelled to keep a person alive simply to avoid a lawsuit or a criminal charge. There are examples of this happening in the US.

    At no time should treatment be given against the patient’s wishes.

    And, you can’t expect a one-size-fit-all approach to always be satisfying here.

  6. Pam Avatar
    Pam

    This is a sensitive subject. I can understand that people facing a terminal illness and in great pain may want to have control over their predicament. I agree that better quality palliative care would relieve much anxiety over this issue.

    Life is precious and should be treated as such. There’s too much potential for a lessening of the sacredness of life if euthanasia is legalised.

    Agree with your take on this issue Kelvin.

  7. Rosemary Sloan Avatar
    Rosemary Sloan

    It isn’t just about not dying in pain. It is also about living in pain. And about living with no dignity or control or choice. That bothers me just as much.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      And can you imagine that it might be better to tackle the problem of living in pain directly rather than presuming that battle will always be lost and instead giving people the opportunity to die, Rosemary?

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • The Friends of St Eucalyptus

    Some years ago now, I introduced readers of this blog to the twin churches of St Eucalyptus on the Rocks and St Anaglypta by the Skerry. They were dreamt up by me in order to illustrate a point. I was trying to get people to think about whether bread and wine could be consecrated by…

  • If you meet a God who is racist. Call it out.

    Content Warning. This gospel reading contains scenes which some viewers might find disturbing. Content Warning. Viewer discretion is advised. Content Warning. This exegesis contains strong language which some listeners may find offensive. Content Warning. The language used in this interpretation of the gospel contains expressions which were in common use at the time which may…

  • 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…