Tuesday, 8 January 2013

Things are 'coming to a point' in the Church of England


"If you dip into any college, or school, or parish, or family–anything you like–at a given point in its history, you always find that there was a time before that point when there was more elbow room and contrasts weren’t quite so sharp; and that there’s going to be a time after that point when there is even less room for indecision and choices are even more momentous.

Good is always getting better and bad is always getting worse: the possibilities of even apparent neutrality are always diminishing.

The whole thing is sorting itself out all the time, coming to a point, getting sharper and harder...”

(That Hideous Strength - by C.S. Lewis - p. 283)


Over the past few weeks, things certainly are coming to a point in the Church of England: the gloves are coming off, the wolves are discarding their sheeps' clothing, and the Christian and Anti-christian sides are revealing themselves with ever-greater lucidity.


On one side is Giles Fraser, sometime Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral, London and a hero/ martyr of the radical Left establishment in the Church of England.


'So, bishop, are you having sex with your partner?" I can't imagine anyone asking that question with a straight face. And what constitutes sex anyway? Snogging? Toe-sucking? (Is there a Church of England position on this?) Yet the new line from the C of E – ludicrously, that gay men in civil partnerships can be bishops as long as they refrain from sex (or to put it another way, we'll have gay bishops as long as they are not really gay) raises the question: how on earth will the authorities ever find out? A CCTV in every bedroom? Chastity belts in fetching liturgical colours? No, the only way the bedroom police could ever really know is if they ask and play a moral guilt trip about honesty on those being interrogated. So do sexually active gay priests or bishops have a moral responsibility to tell the truth? Actually, I think not. I'd go further: in this situation, they have a moral responsibility to lie.

Sometimes we lie for self-advancement. Morally, it's a no-brainer that this is wrong. But at other times, we lie because we don't trust another with the truth. Because we have good reason to believe that they will use it to hurt us or others. In the case of sexually active gay priests and bishops, this fear is wholly justified. It is perfectly proper that ordinarily people should maintain a strong presumption in favour of truth telling. But the situation in which gay people in the church find themselves is far from ordinary. Physical intimacy is a moral good, the very incarnation of love. Those who enforce celibacy on the basis of sexuality are maintaining a system of oppression that brings misery and loneliness to many.

I believe all Christians have a moral duty to resist this cruelty. Lying to the church authorities, in these conditions, is a bit like disobeying an unjust order. It's a form of non-violent resistance.

If there is blame for all of this it must lie with the church itself. Through fear, it encourages people to live a lie, to build their whole identity upon untruth. Thus so many gay clergy have clandestine existences, lavender marriages and unexplained holidays. Indeed, the irony of the situation is that it forces gay clergy into the position where the only way they can be true to themselves and their partners is when they deceive the sex-obsessed bedroom police.

This outward lie makes a certain sort of truth possible. After all, sex between partners is, at best, a precious communication of truth. And this is the greater truth here, a truth that is as much about our relationship with God as everything else. For the love that dare not speak its name is love itself. This is the truth that needs protecting – by a lie if necessary.

In forbidding this truth-telling love for gay people, the church authorities are responsible for the culture of deception by frightening people into a double life. Indeed, forcing sexuality underground is precisely the way to disengage it from stable loving relationships. Thus those who attack gay sex as immoral – thinking it's all about anonymous sex in toilets – are doing a great deal to create the very reality that they condemn. Honesty would probably make for more clergy having boring vanilla sex; the sort most people have, the sort that is not about a heightened transgressive thrill.

Years ago, a gay priest friend of mine, just coming out, asked me if I'd go along with him to a gay club in Birmingham. He didn't want to go on his own. But he needn't have worried. There were loads of priests in the club. The ridiculous thing was, that night they were having a vicars and tarts party. So the only people in the place not dressed as priests were the ones who actually were. "The truth will set you free" says the Bible. In circumstances of oppression, freedom and truth go underground. Real truth comes to be expressed in the gay nightclub and not from the pulpit.

"Everybody lies" says TV doctor Gregory House. That's too cynical. But you don't need to read much Freud to appreciate that deception and self-deception is endemic to the human condition, especially when it comes to something that makes us feel as vulnerable and fearful as sex. We may blithely use the language of honesty as a moral imperative but few people live up to the high-minded nature of that calling. Indeed, it may be worth extending the liar's paradox (everything I say is a lie) to suggest that people often lie the most when they are asking about truth. Truth language can be a red flag indicating evasion and bullshit. So come on, let's be a bit more honest about honesty. 


And on the other side, the Archbishop of Uganda:


It is very discouraging to hear that the Church of England, which once brought the Gospel of Jesus Christ to Uganda, has taken such a significant step away from that very gospel that brought life, light, and hope to us.

The recent decision of the House of Bishops to allow clergy in civil partnerships to be eligible to become Bishops is really no different from allowing gay Bishops.  This decision violates our Biblical faith and agreements within the Anglican Communion.

When the American Church made this decision in 2003 it tore the fabric of the Anglican Communion at its deepest level. This decision only makes the brokenness of the Communion worse and is particularly disheartening coming from the Mother Church.

We stand with those in the Church of England who continue to stand for the Biblical and historic faith and practice of the Church.

Our grief and sense of betrayal are beyond words.

The Most Rev. Stanley Ntagali


It has suddenly become very easy to discern the sides, and what each side stands for. 

Now we can - with our eyes open, and implications clear - choose which side to stand upon.


JP said...

There are so many things wrong with that Fraser piece, it's hard to know where to begin. It is a perfect inversion of truth and virtue, proposed as the acme of truth and virtue -- such a thing could have been written by Satan himself!

Bruce Charlton said...

@JP - Absolutely. Where does one start? But one striking aspect is that it is written as if the last 45 years had not happened. Yet what was theoretical 45 years ago is now a matter of knowledge and experience.

Such insatiable lust for destruction, immune to its own consequences, is indeed Satanic. But, until recently this aspect - doubtless present - was rather carefully masked and muted (at least in public) - whereas over the past few weeks it has become strident, aggressive, unashamed - unmistakable.

Daybreaker said...

That contrast defeats comment. How do you underline Giles Fraser's commitment to corruption and lies? The underlining is already there. He is gloating. How do you make Stanley Ntagali's Christian steadfastness any plainer? He has made it as plain as a man can.

What else can you add? I've got thoughts, but the clash between good and evil is so important that switching the topic to anything else would be obscuring the point.

ivvenalis said...

Ah yes, the Holy Gospel of Freud.

The hits just kept coming. How much longer do you think Archbishop Ntagali or his successor will stay in the Anglican Communion?

One thing to note, which ties into what you've been saying about resistance: when the Anglicans refused to disallow gay priests i.e. to acknowledge that homosexuality is a sin, of course it didn't stop there. Now instead of being called bigots, they are being called enemies of the truth.

Another: Now that the hated Church has accepted his premise that homosexuality is not a sin, Fraser--although he does have to qualify a bit--goes further and says _deceit is not a sin_. At least not a sin when it's being used to justify sexual sins.

Bruce Charlton said...

@D. Well said!

@ivvenalis - I think they will stay in the Anglican Communion, and I hope that real Christians will flock to place themselves under such Bishops. This is, indeed, already happening informally among conservative evangelicals in the Anglican community who ask such Bishops to ordain their pastors (rejecting the local Bishop).

But this may become formalized: real Anglican Christians (on the Protestant side) may formally leave the Church of England but remain Anglicans under African (or other non-English) Bishops.

Real Christians on the Catholic side will leave and join the Anglican Ordinariate, or make arrangements with an Orthodox Church - however the Anglo-Catholic wing is very weak now, and has indeed been corrupted by personal conflicts of interest on exactly this issue of sexuality - one *suspects* that threats of blackmail (from Liberals) may have been used to ensure the compliance of Anglo Catholic clergy whose own position is hypocritical and compromised.

Another factor is that Conservative Evangelical Anglicans are thriving and can afford to pay for new buildings and the salaries of their ministers; while this is not the case for Anglo Catholics.

Bruce B. said...

As a Continuuing Anglican, one thing I don’t understand is why it is considered so important to stay in the Anglican Communion. Yes, there’s a shared history and it’s nice to have concrete ties to Canterbury but Anglicanism doesn’t have a Pope and sees One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as at least somewhat of a spiritual abstraction as opposed to a concrete Ecclesial structure.

stephens said...

Giles Fraser's comments strike me as being totally un-christian.

Contrast his comments with this very good sermon from Jonathan Berry who, though not a Bishop, is vulnerable to this particular sin:-


Bruce Charlton said...

@BB - I think there are different reasons wrt Conservative Evangelicals and Anglo Catholics.

I am not sure, but I think that Continuing Anglicans are exclusively an Anglo-Catholic phenomenon in the UK, and because that style of Anglicanism is in decline, none of the Continuing Anglican groups in the UK seem to be healthy.

A lot of the serious Christians among Anglo-Catholics have, over the past few decades, left ether for Rome or Orthodoxy - more have left for Rome since the Ordinariate; and the remainder really are not in a position to set up as 'proper' churches, but can only survive (for how long?) with infrequent Eucharistic services from visiting priests.

But the Conservative Evangelical Anglicans value their solid basis in the Thirty Nine Articles of Cranmer's BCP.

So they want to remain Anglicans (if possible) and can fairly simply do so as long as there are a few sound Bishops somewhere in the world who will travel to oversee them, perform ordinations and confirmations etc.

My own church has a minister who was ordained outside of the usual structure by the Bishop of the Southern Cone.

There is now apparently only one Conservative Anglican Evangelical theological college (Oak Hill, in London) - but I understand the Bishops are prepared to ordain people (of proven aptitude and character) who have gained their training by informal apprenticeship rather than by attending theological college.

In sum, I don't see any compelling reason why serious Protestants would *need* to leave the Anglican communion as well as the Church of England.

And if they (we, I should say) stay within the Anglican fold, then perhaps at some time we can take-back the Church of England from the pseudo-Christian Liberal wreckers.

Bruce B. said...

As far as I can tell continuing churches are pretty much exclusively Anglo-Catholic here too. I think most accept the thirty-nine articles but interpret them in the most Catholic way possible.
Continuuing Churches are probably dying here in the U.S. too. My bishop would burn me at the stake for saying so but it’s probably true. They are old and cannot attract many families. For most of the time we’ve been at our parish, we’ve been the only family. The few children there are mostly brought by grandparents. I don’t see much evidence that it’s much different elsewhere. If your parish has poor teaching or practice, there is usually nowhere else to go. We are considering the Anglican Ordinariate.