Today presents more pressing concerns than a House
of Bishops’ report on sexuality. I trust that most of us are seeking to
concentrate on them and find ways of speaking into and acting into the
geo-political fissures of our world. I trust that we who are ministers of good
news are seeking to model that in the communities in which we are set. Today,
like most days, shall be quite busy. For me, as someone with ‘the cure of
souls’ in an unfashionable part of Manchester, there are a lot of pastoral,
financial and liturgical matters to take up my time this week.
However, I want to write a coda to the events of
the weekend and try to articulate in a more nuanced, less emotive way some of
the things that have been going through my mind. For me, I hope this shall be
the last thing I write on the Report for a while.
I must admit ‘achieving thought’ re the Report it
something of a challenge. For - as I’ve discovered after chats with LGBTI
friends and colleagues over the weekend – a common response to the Report is
profound tiredness. It has triggered a kind of bone-deep weariness. Part of the
issue at stake in the Report is ‘newness’ – a new tone, a new teaching
document, a new beginning to how we discourse around relationships. And, for
many of us, we cannot believe that after all the energies spent and personal
lives laid on the line in recent years, we’re being asked to ‘start again’.
However, let’s take the Report’s ‘newness’ at
face-value. One is inclined to agree that there is a profound need for a new
teaching document on marriage and relationships. How on earth ‘Issues in Human
Sexuality’ ever became regulative for the church’s discourse on sex is
bewildering.
However…I suspect we’re all kidding ourselves if we
imagine the ‘newness’ of the new teaching document will lead to a kind of
Wittgensteinian ‘Now, I understand!’ moment for all concerned, including LGBTI
people.
Why? Well, as I read the Report, a restatement of
the established doctrine of marriage 'as between one man and one woman’ will
form the cornerstone of that new document. Precisely one of the questions at
stake for LGBTI people has been pre-determined before we approach the new stage
of discourse.
So what might that newness consist in? Perhaps, a
clear (‘clarity’ is an important part of what the HoB statement prioritizes)
and compelling theological, 'biblically-informed' presentation of the nature of
‘Holy Matrimony’. So clear that anyone – gay, straight, trans, non-Christian,
Christian of every flavour – will read the document, hold up their hands and
say, ‘Oh! Now I get it. When they say same-sex relationships aren’t in the
running for being called ‘Holy Matrimony’ I understand! I’ve made a
category-mistake.’
Yes, a category-mistake. Because I sense that’s
what is being implied in the Report’s discourse. And, indeed, one implication
of the annex is that what’s up for grabs in a new teaching document is also the
option of the Church saying something ‘new’ like this:
CHURCH: ‘Hey! You! Straight people! You ones in
state/civil marriages…’
STRAIGHT PEOPLE IN CIVIL MARRIAGES: ‘Who? Us?’
CHURCH: Yes, you! Now listen up. We know you’re
‘married’…
STRAIGHT PEOPLE…: Yes, rather splendid isn’t it? We
hear you approve of marriage…
CHURCH: We-ll, yes we do…We love it…Well, we did…as
a rule we do, but…
STRAIGHT PEOPLE: Go on…
CHURCH: You see, marriage is all rather
splendid…perfect for having babies and all that…the ONLY place for sex (I’m
sure you all agree…) but you see, what you’re doing isn’t OUR idea of
marriage…we’re into something called ‘Holy Matrimony’…it’s marriage…
STRAIGHT PEOPLE: Yes, like what we have…
CHURCH: Well, not quite…you see, it WAS!…but then
that gay thing in 2013 spoiled it…damn shame that…though we don’t blame them
for messing stuff up. Oh no! It’s not their fault…
STRAIGHT PEOPLE: Oh we see! So what you’re saying
is that we’ve made a category-mistake too…we’ve mistook what we do when we get
married in a registry office or a castle or so on as the same thing as you mean
by marriage. Oh! I see! So when you’ve gone on about how LGBT people shouldn’t
get married…you’re not saying that they shouldn’t get married…it’s just that
marriage isn’t marriage like YOU mean it…indeed, our marriages aren’t like you
mean marriages…our marriages are more like LGBT ones…they’re more like LGBT
marriages than the marriages you have in church…’
CHURCH: Yes!
STRAIGHT PEOPLE: But we can still have a blessing
in church…
CHURCH: Ah…well…
And everyone lives in clarity, ever after…
OR…. Because of us, the Church, getting it so
messed up for so long, It might go like this:
CHURCH: Hey! You! Straight people! You ones in
state/civil marriages…we’ve got this amazing new document on marriage and
relationships that’ll make EVERYONE realise we’ve not been beastly to the gays
(they even helped write it, good isn’t it?) and maybe NOW we can all get on and
start coming back to church every week and not feel bad…It sets out brilliantly
what we mean…you know, how not every marriage is quite holy matrimony and your
state marriage is a bit, well, we wouldn't say lacking, but...And now we’re all
clear on this, you can stop thinking the church is prejudiced and stuff…and we
can be the National Church again…’
****Tumbleweed ***
CHURCH: Hello? Everyone? Anyone listening…?
I, like most Christians, want to be alert to the
new Creation coming into being. But so many of us in the LGBTI community who’ve
been asking for news, good news, from the church for what it seems
like…well…forever (the personal cost certainly creates that effect!)…are tired
because now we’ve been told we’re starting again. Yes, we always start from
now, and that’s a ‘new’ place, but really? Really, are we simply going to go
around the houses again? YEs, the houses are going to have a make-over and
there will even be LGBT people on the street who can come around for very
chaste quiche, but…
I want to touch on two other pernicious effects (on
me) of digesting the latest Report. Again, anecdotally, I know from
conversations with friends that I am not alone in feeling this.
As people who’ve read this blog will know, I’ve
sought to commit wholeheartedly to the Shared Conversation process. I’ve
constantly sought to be eirenic, generous and allow those who I want to
stereotype as ‘the baddies’ to be more than ciphers for my frustrations, etc.
Sometimes I suspect I've failed. Always, I’ve found this extraordinarily
costly, while discovering interesting and rich things along the way. And, well,
as perhaps the above sketch indicates, my commitment is in danger of becoming
rather careworn.
What I want to be attentive to now is what that
commitment has meant in the light of the new Report. I want to outline what
might even be called a pathology; certainly, a psychological dissonance.
It’s this: Because of the tonal quality of the
S.C.s I now experience a dissonance between some of my (insofar as I can be
self-knowing) justified grievances with the report and my perception about what
I can reasonably say without being accused of ‘failing’ the new mood of the C
of E’s discourse on sexuality.
I have introjected a voice which says: ‘Well,
Rachel, you’ve bought into this process, you want to achieve good disagreement,
you are partly responsible for this outcome (the Report), even if in a marginal
way. So now you should suck it up and get with the programme because (AND THIS
IS THE RUB)…because if you don’t then you become the one who
breaks ranks and is no longer being respectful to those you disagree with.’
Let me be clear. This is not a good or healthy
voice, but it strikes me as – for me – an effect of my participation in the
process.
In short, I feel I would be
betraying the process set in chain by the S.C. if I step outside the carefully
constructed discourse of ‘generosity’ the process established and has ‘led’ to
this Report. Forgive me if this caricature, but one even senses ‘opponents’
just waiting for the likes of me to dare say anything other than ‘This report
is the way forward’ so that they can claim, ‘Foul! Look at them! The angry
LGBTI people who aren’t satisfied with the Bishops’ reasonable, generous,
eirenic report! Typical! That lot can’t help themselves.’)
In short, that we who have sought to have our lives
fully celebrated by the Church are, in our dissatisfaction with this considered
Report, are demonstrating once again that we’re the problem. We can’t
play fair and nicely and ‘move on’.
So, I come to my final point. It’s not an easy one
to acknowledge. Again, I know I am not alone in feeling this.
I feel – for want of a better term – a wee bit
‘gas-lit’. (I appreciate that’s quite a claim, but bear with me…)
For a full definition of the term, google it. I
want to be clear that I’m using it in a slightly different sense than the
classic definition. In the classic variant, a gas-lit person is one who is
deliberately manipulated to doubt the reality of their own convictions, their grasp
on the truth and the facts.
In the present case, I don’t want to suggest that
the authors of the Report are deliberately attempting, consciously, to damage
LGBTI people’s grasp on the realities of their lives. Yet, unconsciously, I
sense that this is one of the potential side-effects of what the Report
constructs.
I’ve read and re-read that document and been left
questioning my reading of the Church’s fullest intentions to welcome and
include LGBTI people. Personally, when I read phrases like ‘same-sex
attraction’ being given equal, unqualified weight with terms like ‘gay’ or
‘lesbian’ I am left doubting the Report writers trust in the terms which the
overwhelming majority of LGBTI people have found to locate and describe
themselves with.
Most of all, I feel messed-up by the double-think.
One moment, I read ‘Yes! Welcome! Repentance for past attitudes! New tone!’ and
the next, ‘But your relationships!’. Did I even sense in the document a claim
that were an ordained gay person to marry their same-sex partner that they’d be
so falling sort that – qua ministry – they’d count as (essentially) a bad
example to their congregation? A bad shepherd to the flock. (Forgive me if this
is a misreading.) If so, then ‘Thanks!’ Thanks for effectively traducing many people’s
deepest, richest commitments in their embodied, personal life.
Scott
Fitzgerald claimed that “an artist is someone who can hold two opposing
viewpoints and still remain fully functional.” So I try to remain an artist, of
sorts. Whether I'm still fully-functional, time will tell! I try to remain a
poet. So, forgive me for inflicting a poem, of sorts, on anyone who’s bothered
to stay with me this far.
The following
is a ‘found poem’. Fans of Dave Gorman will know what one of those is, though
poets have used the concept for far longer. This ‘poem’ is based on lines I
found in the Bishops’ Statement, loosely arranged by me.
I do not
claim it is even handed, though I like to feel that it offers a number of
readings. I believe one of our most distinguished bishops recently suggested at
a national Archdeacons’ Conference that the C of E might be richer if we all
wrote more poetry. Perhaps, Bishops’ Reports might be more fun/interesting if
they took to writing them in poetry. Well, otherwise, gadflies like me might do
it for them!
I offer it, I
hope, not in a spirit of bitterness, but of a deep, if bruised, affection for a
number of folk in the Episcopacy. I ‘get’ that Bishops speak out of
‘institutional’ mouths as much as they might ever out of ‘personal’ mouths, and
I pray that they always know the difference. I pray that some might be bolder
with their personal convictions, lest the nation thinks that ‘the Church’ only
has one take on biblically-informed, pastoral, and theological readings of
marriage and commitment.
We Believe
(A found poem based on the House of Bishops’
Statement on Sexuality 27/01/17)
We want to begin by reaffirming
The wellsprings of prayer,
Mindful of our calling as bishops.
We are confident that -
Read as a whole -
The psalmist rejoices!
If we are heard as lacking in love
It is felt keenly,
Nevertheless,
The challenge:
This is not just our problem.
We want to listen.
We seek to draw together
A received deposit,
Easy, painless, rapid;
It is hubristic
For anyone to propose.
We believe that.
We believe that
It is the responsibility of bishops
To help: not necessarily
Offer a solution,
But clarity.
We are called to live the gospel
Shared with those we find attractive,
Shared more effectively.
We fall short.
We must do better:
Earnest imperatives, smoke screens,
Dismissing those we disagree with.
Break us into fragments.
The next step:
The process of deliberation.
We describe some parameters,
We outline,
Indicate hopes;
Tone needs to be revisited
(full and nuanced)
a fresh tone of culture and welcome
and support, without changes.
Law, doctrine, mutual love,
Clergy – their lifestyle –
The most significant choices
That people make
Deemed to be unhelpful.
Express welcome to lesbians
And gay people – make good use!
Moral judgments
Will take time, consider
The significance of community.
Affirm the role of single people
Reaffirm the current doctrine,
A package of materials.
The same option should not be
Open to a double-standard –
It is clear then,
Questioning has been challenged.
We believe that
Moral questions remain:
Intrusive, sexual. The place of
Disagreements between bishops,
Unity itself, fundamental trust:
We are seeking to discern.
