• Why I’ll be Marching at Pride (2024)

    I slipped into an unknown pub in Middle England to get out of the rain and have a pub lunch. It was welcoming and cosy. Steak and ale pie, since you ask.

    The part of the pub I was sitting in was right next to the bar. A small snug. The kind of room where you can hear everyone else’s conversations though it wasn’t too busy. Just a group of fifty-something men in for their pies a table a few feet from me, right next to the bar. It wasn’t terribly busy and so our host behind the bar joined in with their conversation, which soon turned to the result of the General Election. Everyone was interested in what it might mean for them. (Bartenders round here want firm action on business rates, I can tell you.)

    After a while, one of the pie-eaters suddenly said for all to hear, “Did you know that 61% of the new MPs are gay?”  The others at his table and the host at the bar expressed surprise that it should be as high as that. “It just isn’t right – not that number, that’s far too many of them. How have we become a country where 61% of our MPs are gay?”.

    And I remained silent.

    I remained silent because I was in a strange place and didn’t want to risk any unpleasantness.

    Well no, I remained silent because homophobia stalks my world. I remained silent because I didn’t know how anything I might say might be taken. It probably wouldn’t have led to a punch in the face but the truth is, you never know.

    The person making the claim about the number of gay MPs was wrong. Spectacularly wrong. I suspect he’d been told that 61 MPs were gay and had heard it as 61% and accepted that as being true. It was true in his inner world, a world in which the gays were getting above themselves. It was also a believable fact for those around him. They were surprised it was 61% and yes, that did seem a bit high. And yes, the gays were getting a bit above themselves.

    I gather that a few more LGBT+ MPs exist than 61 – the number is about 66. That means that it is about 10% of the MPs in the House of Commons. LGBT+ people are sometimes estimated to account for about 10% of the population. So 60-odd members of parliament who fit that profile is something to be celebrated as a good example of representation. Once upon a time, every one of those MPs would have been subject to blackmail or worse. Once upon a time, every one of them would be silent.

    Me remaining silent in the pub for 10 minutes and then, after finishing the pie, going off without a word, is minor when compared with the violence that many gay people face on a daily basis in other parts of the world.

    Yet that incident played in my mind the rest of the day. I went over it again and again. Should I have spoken up and called out this nonsense? I can argue that both ways. But the thing that I care more about than putting someone right in a pub is that this nonsense claim inhabited my head for half a day. Not so much the absurdity of the suggestion that 61% of MPs were gay but the commonplace assumption, held by a group of apparently nice people in an agreeable country pub, that yes, the gays were getting above themselves. Too many in parliament. Too many in power.

    Power that should, apparently, be exercised by the dominant majority. By people who are not like me.

    How many gay MPs should we have anyway? And how many is too many?

    It is these thought patterns which form the framework in which homophobia thrives.

    Kelvin Holdsworth at Pride MarchI rejoice in the progress that we’ve made. But I’m impatient for more. I’ll carry my placard on Saturday at Pride and put a smile on my face. Blessed Are The Fabulous I’ll proclaim and I’ll mean it. But I’ll still be walking on streets in which it only feels safe for most same-sex couples to walk hand-in-hand for a couple of hours a year during Pride itself.

    I’ll also be marching wearing a black suit, clerical shirt and a white clerical collar because of the thousands who will be there for whom that will be an extraordinary thing to witness and something that they can scarcely believe possible.

    Yes, my own small corner of the world still has a lot of work to do. In my own diocese, the clergy asked clearly during the last Episcopal vacancy for intentional work to be done on racism, sexism and homophobia, recognising that these were all issues that were real in the diocese and that our attitudes to difference had played an ugly part in our attempts to try to choose a new bishop. A few years later, we are going into another Episcopal vacancy with none of that work done. And yes, what I experience as homophobia is deeply related to what my female colleagues experience and it is made out of the same basic material as the racist presumptions that black colleagues know well. And even since that time, anti-trans prejudice has grown and grown like an invasive new plant species. It poisons and diminishes all who taste its fruit.

    There’s nothing new about that poison either. Lots of us know it all too well.

    The easiest prejudice to counter is that which is most obvious. In-your-face discrimination is easy to point out if you are able to speak from a place of safety. Much harder is the bitter prejudice of the well meaning – that of those who couldn’t possibly be homophobic because they went to such a lovely wedding only last month, who can’t be sexist because isn’t it wonderful that we have lady vicars now and who couldn’t possibly be racist because that would be just unthinkable!

    Prejudice is part of the psychological air we breathe. It forms part of who each of us are.

    Think you don’t have any yourself?

    Think again.

    Think I don’t have it?

    I wish.

    How long will it be before it is unthinkable that women colleagues will ask whether another woman will ever be elected as a bishop due to accusations being made about the alleged behaviour of a bishop who happens to be a woman right now? How long before the qualifications of those who arrive in the church who happen to be black will be treated as being on a par with those who happen not to be? How long before I can simply sit and eat a pie?

    For all these reasons and 10000 other micro and macro aggressions, I’ll be marching at Glasgow Pride on Saturday.

    Anyone who shares the dream of a world where we are all treated equally and treated well is welcome to join me.

    Blessed are the fabulous.

    And blessed are the impatient too.

10 responses to “The Church of England and its Bishops”

  1. Joan H Craig Avatar
    Joan H Craig

    You put it well, and I agree with all that you say. In one sense it is a very sad day for priests who are women. In another, parity is crucial 🙁

  2. Patrick Smith Avatar
    Patrick Smith

    I am not a regular C of E communicant now but have been so in my life and I unequivocally support the proper human rights entitlement of women to serve equally as Bishops.I think that the women priests appear to have been too inclined, cap in hand, to compromise that would still have deemed women bishops, as second class.This Vote, according to some of their spokespersons was as far as the talented women priests could get, amongst the conservative antis, in the C of E.

    Surely,that in our enlightened world men do not hold a monopoly on either the aspiration to achieve good in their work or to eclipse human goodness in prayer,mission and faith in the ranks of the C of E? The Bishops and Clergy have seen that women are now do one third of active work in the C of E but do not have parity at the top table.

    Why is it the case that women are ordained in the US and NZ and have served their communities equally, as men, over 20 years? Whereas, in the C of E at home, the vision of the Laity Synod threatens to derrogate the status of women, as if the clock had been turned back into Victorian times and before the Suffragettes had started their quest for universal suffrage and equality in work for women.

  3. Duncan MacLaren Avatar

    Nigel McCulloch said in the debate, “If you wait for the perfect piece of legislation, you’ll be waiting for ever.”
    I can understand the principled position that you don’t want to pass flawed and discriminatory legislation: but I can’t help thinking this would be better than acquiescing for another 5 years in an even more discriminatory status quo.
    Had women bishops been voted in, they would have had five years to demonstrate practically to their opponents that they were competent, valuable, indispensable, talented and undeniably called leaders in the church. Instead, we now have the task of creating legislation the opponents will like even less (because it won’t make space for their position), and then trying to get it voted through. And five years of practical experience – perhaps the best argument – wasted.
    If there were six lay liberals (the margin of votes) who voted ‘no’ on principle this evening, I wonder how long before they will rue the day? Principle is all very well, but possession is nine-tenths of the law. Had women been granted this possession, we could have spent the next five years chasing down the discriminatory clauses: as it is, we are back to square one. Barren theological argument now prevails over the witness and example of flesh and blood women.

    1. kelvin Avatar

      I understand that view, Duncan. I’d agree with it if there was any evidence in the last 20 years of anyone either trying or succeeding to eliminate the flying bishops that were created last time around. It is much, much easier to create good legislation than to repeal, tinker and undo bad legislation.

    2. Augur Pearce Avatar
      Augur Pearce

      As I see it part of the problem was the large number of Synod members who wanted to see women bishops but thought that unity was more important than principle, and were therefore prepared to compromise. The ideal scenario would not have been rejection of the Measure, but an amendment to get rid of the discriminatory clauses. That wasn’t possible because the ‘unity party’ (for want of a better name) would have allied with the fundamentalists to defeat it. I hope that those who made up this ‘unity party’ will now realise the time for compromise is past and support legislation which, as you say, the opponents will like even less because it won’t make space for their position. I believe such legislation would pass, but would lead the fundamentalists to dissent from the C of E and form their own conventicles (as many have done before them, for better reasons). There would then be some hope of the General Synod addressing other equality issues, such as marriage…

  4. Tim Avatar

    Could it be said that it spent too long cooking?

    The impression I get is that the SEC was quite decisive in dealing with the Covenant earlier.
    What I’ve seen with the CoE looks like internalized via-media meeting a half-open door – and no wonder some people use the word “irrelevant”. As such, I’m wondering if it shouldn’t have simply been “women bishops, yes or no?” a while ago and then there wouldn’t have been such clumsy inaccuracy of reporting, at least…

  5. Ritualist Robert Avatar
    Ritualist Robert

    I have to say, regretfully, that I am relieved it didn’t pass because, imho, it allowed for far too many ‘provisions’ for so-called traditionalists. Their arguments seem to be based on one of the most vile theological concepts ever invented – ‘taint’ – though, of course, nobody admits to it. I understand the Evangelicals’ objections (though I disagree with them), but I am flummoxed by things like the ‘traditionalist’ catholics’ demand for ‘flying bishops’ (a concept which fails any test for catholicity) and attacks the very basis of Anglican Church structure and order – that of a bishop acting as the Ordinary in his/her diocese. Choosing one’s bishop based on whether one likes their theological outlook is quite a novelty, but it’s one that the so-called traditionalists insist on being allowed. Moreover, to claim to be catholic surely means to support the Church. When the Church of England ordained women for the first time surely it was up to those catholics who disagreed to either (a) conform their minds to the mind of the Church – surely the duty of anyone who calls themselves catholic – or (b) to have enough integrity to part with the Church and find another spiritual home.

    Instead we have so-called traditionalists promoting what are essentially congregationalist novelties whilst claiming – falsely, I believe – to be catholics, all the while arguing for a distinctly non-catholic version of the Church.

  6. Justin Reynolds Avatar
    Justin Reynolds

    If politics is ‘the art of the possible’ then surely all liberals should have backed the measure, whatever its flaws. The notion that one day we will all be marching hand in hand towards the sunlit progressive uplands is somewhat fantastic, I think.

    Everyone who joins the C of E, or indeed the SEC, knows what kind of church it is: essentially progressive (as witnessed by the Synod vote) but with significant minorities opposed to change. And it isn’t like a political party where arguments are conducted in the field of political philosophy and politics with a realistic hope that the mind of the party might change decisively over time in one direction or other. In the case of the church disputes are necessarily more intransigent, concerned with the interpretation of revelation and long standing traditions. These disagreements take decades, indeed centuries, to resolve, in so far as they can be resolved at all.

    Perhaps those who can’t live with compromise, be they conservative or liberal, should consider whether they are actually in the right denomination at all, rather than hoping that one day – sooner rather than later – everyone will agree with them. It’s often noted that conservatives can go Orthodox or Roman Catholic, as indeed some have. It’s less often suggested that liberals might consider Unitarianism or Quakerism. I say that as a liberal who has at various times wavered between those two – and others – and Episcopalianism. I’ve ended up as an Episcopalian, but I did so knowing full well the intractable nature of the disagreements besetting the denomination, and that I had to live with them or simply go elsewhere. It seems to me that Christians are far too sentimental and attached to particular denominations.

    Also, with respect Rowan Williams’ tenure can hardly be seen as an ‘abject failure’. Everyone knew he believed in conciliation and compromise when he was selected. His liberalism on a number of issues only formed a component of his theology. And his intellectual contribution over the past decade to British national life has been significant, particularly in regard to political and economic issues. His archepiscopate has gone some way towards restoring Anglicanism’s intellectual credibility: witness the tributes from secular as well as religious quarters on news of his retirement.

  7. Seph Avatar
    Seph

    Apparently Diana Johnson MP (Lab., Hull North) is planning to bring a ten-minute rule bill in the new year which will include a clause calling for women bishops. Parliament could succeed here where General Synod failed.

  8. Rosie Bates Avatar
    Rosie Bates

    Check out Bristol Diocese action re Vote of No Confidence in Synod! How lovely on the mountains are the feet of Him who brings Good News! Hope the rest take note and follow a fine example. Hope in this Advent message. Bishop Mike was an Area Bishop in Oxford Diocese and likely to be very clued up to certain of their Synod Reps games which cannot be stopped before July without reform or, at the very least, tough love.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Sermon for Oliver Brewer-Lennon – 27 October 2019

    In the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Amen. Oliver! The time has come! The removal van has departed. You told me this week that you can see the floor in every room in the flat. And you spoke as though that was your greatest ever achievement. After what seemed to take forever: advertising…

  • Tosca Review – Scottish Opera 16 October 2019 – ****

    If the fascists came to power, how far would you go to stand up to them? Would you save a prisoner on the run? Would you betray a friend? Would you be prepared to die for love? Scottish Opera’s endlessly revived production of Tosca asks all these questions and more. Thirty nine years ago, almost…

  • Sermon – Reading the Signs of the Times

      In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. One of the nicest things that I’ve been at this week was the annual dinner that the Shia Muslim community put on to celebrate Eid-al-adha. The festival of the sacrifice. Islam has the same story that Christians and…