• Review of the year on the blog

    Well, everyone else is doing it so I might as well look back over the last year and pick out a few highlights from the blog.

    I began the year by declaring that The Archbishop of Canterbury is not a Pope and defended him from other people making demands that he rebuke the Nigerian Church. I don’t want an Archbishop of Canterbury going around rebuking anyone. (Though I did think that the Archbishop of York might be better placed to do some rebuking).

    A big part of the first part of the year was taken up with me standing in an election to become the Rector of the University of Glasgow. I didn’t win in the end but was a well placed second. The big surprise for me was that a good pro-Independence candidate did not do as well as I expected – the first indication for me that things were not going to go the Independence way later in the year.

    I wrote a Memo to Holyrood re School Chaplains back in January too, which was widely read. I suspect that the days of school chaplains are probably numbered. I also suspect that might be a good thing.

    I also had a go at those in Holyrood telling them not to shake hands with anti-gay politicians from Africa during the Commonwealth Games.

    My Radio 2 debut came this year with a jolly time on early one Sunday morning in February with Hardeep Singh Kohli. My piece was all about rainbows.

    Quite a lot of people wanted to comment on a post where I asked whether Jesus was nice to women.

    During Lent I declared I was not giving social media and didn’t understand those who do.

    Some people were amused by the number of different cures I had tried for what ailed me in the spring. However I wasn’t pleased to have bronchitis for 12 weeks or so.

    I did manage to get myself into the pulpit to preach the resurrection at Easter. Something I always enjoy. The video of the Palm Sunday procession was a record of another of the delights of Holy Week this year.

    Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury got a lot of attention for a dreadful phone-in he did on the radio.  I first had a go at him with a post about Understanding the Justin Welby Controversy and then addressed him more directly with You Condemn It Archbishop.

    When you encounter violence, you condemn it, Archbishop. When you encounter murder, you condemn it, Archbishop. When you encounter homophobia, you condemn it, Archbishop.

    You don’t appease it, Justin Welby. You condemn it.

    Why should any of us in any land expect anything less of you?

    Incidentally, I don’t think Justin Welby has done very well this year even given that his job is impossible. He started making the same mistakes that Rowan Williams made before him.

    I took a strong view on the Red Road Flats controversy and was quoted on the front page of the Herald for doing so. And we won in the end – the flats were not demolished during the opening ceremony of the Commonwealth Games.

    A terrible low for the city was the Art School fire in May which I witnessed and videoed at first hand.

    Lots of people seemed to appreciate a post on Where to Get Started With the Bible.

    General Synod came and went. This year’s was one of the poorest I remember I think. We don’t seem to trust ourselves in synod to decide anything, the bishops gave another inane presentation on their corporate life and I ended up posting about How not to have a synodical discussion. (This kind of thing ought to be a warning to the Church of England but it won’t be).

    I decided to give an Alternative Queen’s Speech because I continue to think I know better than Her Majesty’s government. Incidently, one of those ideas is one that I think I may take forward in the new year and ought to be giving those who manage church budgets the willies.

    My government will introduce legislation to ensure that charitable status is removed from all charities which discriminate on the basis of the Protected Characteristics of other equality legislation. For the avoidance of doubt, religious charities which campaign against other protected characteristics in terms of age, gender, sexuality etc will automatically lose their charitable status.

    I think that is achievable in 7 years or so and might well be worth throwing some campaigning energy behind.

    Peter Tatchell came to St Mary’s and gave a very interesting couple of talks. One bit of one of them drew national attention when he talked about Outing Bishops.

    I thought that Archbishop Carey was wrong and not for the first time. This time it was a different topic to the usual though – Assisted Suicide. I’m against, he was in favour. (And the fact that most people would have guessed it to be the other way round proves this is a different debate to other debates).

    Another thing which gained national attention was a spat with the Church of England’s Communications Director. Here’s the Guardian’s take:

    The Church of England’s director of communications communicated himself into a corner last week, after a well-meaning but homophobic tweet about Vicky Beeching, the gospel singer who’s just come out as gay. The Rev Arun Arora tweeted that Vicky was welcome in church because “we are all broken”. In a cringe-inducing exchange with Kelvin Holdsworth, provost of St Mary’s Cathedral in Glasgow, @RevArun defended his comparison of Vicky’s sexuality to the brokenness of humanity. Holdsworth tweeted: “It would be racist to say that black people are welcome in church because all are broken. It is homophobic to suggest same re LGBT.” The the reverend went strangely quiet.

    Arun Arora is still in post but seems to be tweeting a good deal less than he once did.

    I turned down the chance to audition for Big Brother. No, really…

    I took the view that Travelodge was right to remove Gideon Bibles from their rooms and that made quite a few people very cross indeed.

    One of the best things I preached all year was a wee homily for Derek and Nelson’s nuptials:

    The truth is, for a lot of us who grew up as gay people, this was completely outside our expectations. We never expected to be able to celebrate a partnership in this way. It just wasn’t conceivable.

    Yet here we all are.

    I don’t know whether you believe in miracles. But for some of us here today, we have watched things change over the last few years. They have changed in ways that once we could never have believed. Those of us who are gay have watched water change into wine in front of our very eyes. And we have begun to drink. And the wine tastes absolutely wonderful.

    Another post which drew some comment and no little amount of criticism was 10 things Evangelicals don’t tell you at first.

    I came out against Independence. (Which pleased and infuriated people in equal measure). And I had this to say the day after the vote.

    Yet another post to stir things up was Beware of the Celibate. I think there’s a good deal more to discuss in relation to that and in case anyone was wondering, I’m entirely unrepentant for publishing it. Celibacy spells trouble just as often as it spells freedom and we need to be able to discern the difference.

    Although initially very dubious, I loved having my picture taken with an owl.

    I came out in favour of retaining the option to out hypocritical gay bishops. I still think  it must remain and option.

    My six reasons that cathedrals are doing well was a post that did well for comments and for sparking other conversations. My assertion that we don’t have visitors at St Mary’s was part of my own reflection on why we are doing OK at the moment locally.

    I was named as someone on the Independent’s Rainbow List (the new name for the Pink List) and enjoyed going to London for the party associated with the event.

    At the end of November, quite a few people were interested in my asking whether Jesus chose the wrong brother.

    Towards the end of the year I’ve been posting longer articles than I did earlier in the year and have seen visitor numbers to the blog rise sharply as a consequence. An example of that is The Peace Unity and Order of the Church which I posted after the College of Bishops’ disastrous statement in December. That statement has seriously diminished the authority of the bishops and it remains to be seen whether they can change the tone of this conversation significantly enough to regain it. The emergence of 50 clergy and lay readers who have referred to the bishops acting outwith their moral and canonical authority is hugely significant and we don’t know yet what that means in an Episcopally ordered church.

    Rounding off the year, my post on the Comites Christi as gay icons has received quite a lot of attention and, as with other posts above, received a lot of commen on social media which is where much of the conversation takes place these day.

    During the year I’ve also said goodbye on my blog to Jim Cottar, Michael Hare Duke and Bill Fishman. May they all rest in peace. (If that is what any of them want to do in the afterlife).

    It is has been a good year for me though not without its ups and downs. I’m happy in my ministry in St Mary’s whilst also often feeling ashamed of the church I belong to. However, I sense a shift in attitudes that I think will grow in the coming year. There are many who want better leadership than we are currently receiving in the Scottish Episcopal Church and I’ve been delighted to see the re-emergence of blogging as a significant factor in our life together. I end the year hopeful and look forward to what lies ahead.

     

     

13 responses to “Peter Tatchell on Outing Bishops”

  1. Ann Avatar

    I agree — as The Rt Rev. Barbara Harris says, “it is okay to be in the closet as long as you are not using it as a machine gun nest”

  2. Erika Baker Avatar
    Erika Baker

    While the CoE policy is completely crazy and homophobic, it is consistent in itself.
    Gay sexual relationships are not permitted for clergy.
    So the official line is that all CP’s clergy follow this rule – and who knows, some may actually follow it! Stranger things have happened!

    But marriage is different because it is defined as a sexual relationship (and the Alice in Wonderland “I am not seeing reality” ignores marriages between people who cannot or do not want to have sex).
    And so no amount of looking elsewhere can distract from the fact that your married gay priest is not celibate.

    That’s the faultline.
    And outing non-married gay bishops, partnered or not, does not touch this.
    They can all to a man say that they are following church policy.

    1. Stephen Peters Avatar
      Stephen Peters

      Yes, Erica. But somehow, and more hugely, no. That Gay Bishops hide and allow gay clergy to be demonised on any front, is just not on. Church Policy or no = They should be working to change this appalling policy, not supporting it to harm the lives of truly loving couples.

    2. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
      Rosemary Hannah

      The whole insane situation is made more invidious by the fact that one of the arguments trotted out against marriage between people of the same gender is that they could not (in the eyes of some detractors) actually have sex. Sex was, to these people, certain acts and certain acts alone. I suspect the same arguments pertain in the HoB and that people in partnerships with another of their own gender can make what is, in the eyes of the HoB, a perfectly valid case they are not ‘having sex’ with their partner.

      The situation is nuts, perfectly nuts. The answer is for straight people, and for celibate people, who have the least to lose, to stand up, and shout. The higher up the ecclesiastical tree they are, the more important it is that they do this.

  3. Richard Avatar
    Richard

    Both Erika and Stephen make fair points. As I see things, those who scramble for scripture to justify treating people as second class citizens in a way that trench troops scramble for the last round of ammunition as the “enemy” marches inexorably
    forward, will view outing as inflammatory.
    If anything, this could widen the schism. Could this fracture the C of E in a way that women’s rights threatened to? As the breath of equality, dignity and fairness dominates the secular world and is very much present in many hidden corners of the church, possibly so. It could certainly further damage the church’s membership.
    If these are possibilities then perhaps the church’s leaders might be forced to discuss this in the open should outing occur. I remain sceptical that fundamentalists will cast aside their theological guns as it were, but the church will be a healthier place for having open and honest debate and reflection- and action. I’d rather see a reduced sized church that is founded on fairness and honesty rather than a larger body that hides behind the armour of theological confusion and hypocrisy on this issue.
    I’m saddened to reflect that I don’t believe that the main church will countenance or confer equality and dignity. Whatever the cost. Hopefully, I might be wrong.

  4. Dennis Avatar
    Dennis

    When you go outing an anti-equality CofE bishop be prepared for all sorts of ugly hate filled email. I saved a few of the nicer responses just because they were so amazingly horrible. A couple of emails were frightening and a right wing Anglican blog tracked down and posted my work contact information. Six and a half years later I still get sick at my stomach thinking about it. And honestly it has no impact on anyone other than the now out-of-the-closet bishop who will lie and deny deny deny. Do it but be prepared for an ugly situation on your hands.

  5. James Byron Avatar
    James Byron

    What’s to be gained? The ’90s mass-outing did nothing to change the church’s homophobic trajectory, and I doubt a repeat would do an any better. Either the bishop will refuse to comment, and the story dies; or they admit it, and are forced to resign. It could backfire hugely, making the people doing the outing look vindictive. Many traditionalists would sympathize with the outed bishops.

    Besides, what makes people think there’s any gay English bishops to out? Everything I’ve seen to date has been rumor and innuendo, usually nudge-nudge comments about Anglo-Catholics with a love of white port and vestments.

    The problem is, at heart, economic: rich evangelical parishes could bankrupt the church overnight if they chose. A handful of bishops can’t change that. Instead, open evangelicals need to be convinced to change their minds. Any fight for equal rights that isn’t supported by people like Ian Paul, N.T. Wright, Graham Kings and Nicky Gumbel will go nowhere.

  6. Peter Ould Avatar
    Peter Ould

    From the conservative side, if you’re going to out anybody, out them because they’re being hypocrites. There is nothing to be gained from outing men who have been sexually active in the past but are not any longer, or who have always been celibate. But if there are members of the House of Bishops who are sexually active with someone of the same sex, outing them is less to do with homosexuality and more to do with hypocrisy. It is unacceptable in any line of business to demand one thing of your staff and then to do the exact opposite yourself.

    Of course, what will happen in practice is that men will be named who are celibate, or who have repented of previous sexual activity and this will just backfire, because it will be seen to be vindictive and nothing more. As far as I know, there are no hypocrites in the House of Bishops on this issue, but please do correct me if you have any knowledge to the contrary.

  7. Fr Steve Avatar

    It seems difficult to justify perpetrating one sin towards another on the basis of the fact they themselves have perpetrated an act of sin(hypocritical abuse of power). This doesn’t seem to me like the Jesus who stood before Pontius Pilate.
    We may ask ourselves what then do you do?….do we really gain anything by not just fighting sin with sin. But by promoting sin (outing)…for surely such it is! We do nothing to advance the cause of justice.

  8. Kelvin Avatar

    It is not my view that we can derive our ethics from scripture – for that reason, I’m a little hesitant about the comparison with Jesus standing before Pontius Pilate.

    There are quite a lot of examples, I think, when Jesus did speak directly about hypocrisy.

    There’s also Nathan the prophet confronting David over Bathsheba.

    None of these proves anything – scripture doesn’t prove an ethical decision to be right one way or another. It is worth noting though that scripture seems to me to be far from one-sided on this matter.

  9. Fr Steve Avatar

    Was very mindful Kelvin of these examples when jesus was confrontationist…..but outing is just horrible

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      We are in a horrible situation. Yes.

  10. Fr Steve Avatar

    I don’t actually agree with the statement “scripture doesn’t prove an ethical decision to be right one way or another”
    but do understand the complexity of: ‘that scripture seems to me to be far from one-sided on this matter.’
    At Mass yesterday (my first in my new parish: stmarymags125.blogspot.com.au)
    I was harangued by a parishioner who objected to the fact that I had told the congregation that ABM-A (Australian Church’s Missionary Agency) has launched a campaign for funds for Gaza
    She told me, as rightists do….that all Palestinians are wrong!….didn’t seem to know that most Anglicans in the Holy Lands are Arabs of Palestinian origin.
    She obviously hadn’t heard my first sermon …that catholic means universal and that our God & Jesus loves everyone! That is what ‘universal’ means.
    The Church is just awful…hypocritical yet loved by God…just as She loves those who are different from us.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts