An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy

Same-Sex Marriage – The Killer Argument

Peter Ould — Sun, 13 May 2012 12:40:50 +0000

Irish General Synod does a U-Turn

Peter Ould — Fri, 11 May 2012 15:22:40 +0000

Who’d have thought? This is not going away…

THE Church of Ireland will debate gay relationships tomorrow after a decision to stop the debate taking place was effectively overturned following behind the scenes negotiations in Dublin today.

A motion brought to the church’s General Synod by two bishops to re-affirm the church’s teaching that marriage is only between a man and a woman was ruled out of order by the Archbishop of Armagh, Alan Harper, on Thursday in dramatic scenes which led to two other motions about same-sex relationships being withdrawn.

But between Thursday night and Friday morning, conservative members of the church succeeded in bundling all three motions together and re-introducing them for discussion on Saturday morning under Standing Order 31 (d) in what could be a bitter debate.

Tomorrow’s motions will allow for the church to publicly discuss homosexuality for the first time since the News Letter revealed last September that Dean Tom Gordon had become the first serving Church of Ireland cleric to enter a civil partnership.

The three original motions had been presented by the liberal Archbishop of Dublin, Michael Jackson, and the evangelical bishop of Down and Dromore, Harold Miller in a public show of unity.

But on Thursday as the first motion came to be debated the liberal Bishop of Cashel and Ossory, Michael Burrows, raised a point of order about his fellow bishops’ motion which led to Archbishop Alan Harper ruling that it could not be discussed.

Bishop Burrows, who was aware of Dean Gordon’s civil partnership before it took place, was openly jeered by large sections of the synod in Dublin’s Christchurch Cathedral but applauded loudly by others in a public sign of the considerable strain within the church.

Reintroducing the motion has infuriated some liberal members of the church who yesterday believed that they had defeated a motion which they believe will make it harder to get the church to accept gay relationships at a later point.

The Newsletter report is interesting as it names Bishop Burrows, not Dean Nigel Dunne, as the instigator of the Point of Order. Bishop Burrows is not a popular boy at the moment in the Irish Church.

The most significant thing however is that the new motion has exactly the same wording as the old motion. To do this the proposers will have to have been absolutely sure that any further Points of Order similar to the ones yesterday would fail (so that in effect the arguments I made earlier today will be used if necessary to stamp on any attempt to block the motion). This is to all intents and purposes a clear signal that Archbishop Harper got it seriously wrong in agreeing to the Point of Order and makes it much more likely that the motion will pass and that with it the official orthodox stance of the Church of Ireland on human sexuality will be reaffirmed.

The key signal that the conservatives are winning this battle in Ireland will be the way that liberal blogs spew about this over the next few hours. Watch this space…

Advertising Standards Authority ‘Persecutes Cranmer’

Peter Ould — Fri, 11 May 2012 11:04:06 +0000

This is extraordinary!

Apparently there have been a number of complaints about one of the advertisements His Grace carried on behalf of the Coalition for Marriage. He has been sent all manner of official papers, formal documentation and threatening notices which demand answers to sundry questions by a certain deadline. He is instructed by the ‘Investigations Executive’ of this inquisition to keep all this confidential.

…

The advertisement in question is reproduced above. His Grace would like to make it clear to the ASA that he is reproducing this ‘offensive and homophobic’ advertisement as an educative illustration of allegedly offensive and homophobic advertising; not as an offensive and homophobic advertisement per se. Naturally, His Grace apologises in advance to all those who find this educative illustration offensive and homophobic, for it is never his intention to be either offensive or homophobic. But those of you who do find it offensive and homophobic are free not to visit His Grace’s blog whenever you wish.

The specific complaint relates to:

c. An online ad, seen on the blog of ‘Archbishop Cranmer’, featured photos of couples on their wedding day on the first frame. The second frame stated “I do”. The third frame stated “70% of people* say keep marriage as it is … (Source: ComRes poll for Catholic Voices)”. The final frame stated “Help us keep the true meaning of marriage. PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION Click here … Coalition for Marriage”.

The ‘Issue’ here is that 24 anonymous complainants, ‘including the Jewish Gay & Lesbian Group’ (doubtless disclosd to give weight to the allegations), challenged whether the claim ’70% of people say keep marriage as it is’. However, His Grace is not required to respond to that point, since he did not conduct the research. But it transpires that 10 of these 24 complainants objected that the ads were ‘offensive’ and ‘homophobic’, and he is requested to respond to these allegations ‘under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 4.1 (Harm and offence)’.

He is informed:

We intend to deal with the complaint as a formal investigation, which means it will be considered by the ASA Council. We will then draft a recommendation for the Council based on your response to us. Once the Council has made a decision, the adjudication will be published on our website.

…

We require you to explain your rationale for the ad and comment specifically on the points raised in the attached complaint notification

They need to see ‘robust documentary evidence to back the claims and a clear explanation from you of its relevance and why you think it substantiates the claims. It is not enough to send references to or abstracts of documents and papers without sending the reports in full and specifically highlighting the relevant parts explaining why they are relevant to the matter in hand’.

…

Well, His Grace won’t be censored. He is further minded to provide the ASA with a copy of his well-publicised ‘bottom line’ (from the right-hand margin):

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse.

Unless, of course, we are no longer free, our democracy is no longer liberal, and it is now an offence to express the moderate view of the majority and promote the orthodox teaching of the Church of England Established.

I am speechless. What is possibly offensive about the advert? The research is quoted from a ComRes poll, one of the leading agencies in the country. In that survey people were asked a specific question, namely “Do you agree or disagree with the statement ‘Marriage should continue to be defined as a life-long exclusive commitment between a man and a woman’?”. You can see from the data table I’ve linked to that 70% of people did indeed answer “Yes”.

This is nothing short of censorship. Nothing in the advert is factually incorrect or offensive. It is an advert to campaign to simply keep the law as it is. It is outrageous to suggest it is homophobic and the fact that the ASA are even considering such an allegation is ludicrous and displays evidence of a lack of even basic research by them before making the demand of Cranmer that they have done.

If you’re interested in downloading the advert to use on your own website, simply click here. Alternatively, you might like the one below.

Let the reader understand.

Procedural Nonsense in the Church of Ireland

Peter Ould — Fri, 11 May 2012 08:42:58 +0000

Yesterday’s vote in the Church of Ireland’s General Synod on Motion 8 was withdrawn on a proceedural technicality, as reported in the Irish Times.

A MOTION affirming traditional church teaching on marriage could not be taken at the Church of Ireland General Synod in Dublin yesterday, on a point of order. Speakers argued that as wording of motion 8A could be construed as proposing a doctrinal change, it ought to be a Bill not a motion.

The motion on Human Sexuality in the Context of Christian Belief stated that the church “continues to uphold its teaching that marriage is part of God’s creation and a holy mystery in which one man and one woman become one flesh, as provided for in Canon 31”.

It continued that the church “recognise for itself and of itself, no other understanding of marriage than that provided for in the totality of Canon 31”.

Raising the point of order, Dean of Cork Rev Nigel Dunne said that the church’s teaching on marriage “as expressed in Canon 31 stands in conflict with an understanding of same as expressed in Marriage Service Two in the Book of Common Prayer”.

He continued: “Canon 31 gives first place to the procreation and nurture of children. Marriage Service Two does not. Marriage Service Two is quite clear that sex and sexual intercourse is firstly to strengthen the relationship. The procreation of children comes second.” Motion 8A, he suggested, could “constitute a modification or alteration of doctrine” and ought not be considered as a motion but ought to be a Bill.

Following some debate on the matter the Church of Ireland primate and Synod president Archbishop Alan Harper, concerned with “the avoidance of doubt”, ruled that the motion not be taken. Related motions 8B and 8C were withdrawn by proposers Archbishop of Dublin Michael Jackson and the Bishop of Down and Dromore Harold Miller, who had also proposed motion 8A.

OK, let me spell out the alleged problem for you. Motion 8A read in part as follows.

The Church of Ireland continues to uphold its teaching that marriage is part of God’s creation and a holy mystery in which one man and one woman become one flesh, as provided for in Canon 31:

‘The Church of Ireland affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching that marriage is in its purpose a union permanent and life-long, for better or worse, till death do them part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and affections, and for the mutual society, help and comfort which the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity’.

The argument therefore is this. Canon 31 describes the reasons for marriage as follows – (i) Procreation and Nurture of Children, (ii) Hallowing and Right Direction of Natural Instincts and (iii) Mutual Society, Help and Comfort. However, if you look at the second marriage service in the 2004 Book of Common Prayer, you find the reasons given as such:

Marriage was ordained that husband and wife may comfort and help each other, living faithfully together in plenty and in need, in sorrow and in joy.

It is intended that with delight and tenderness they may know each other in love, and through the joy of their bodily union they may strengthen the union of their hearts and lives.

It is intended that they may be blessed in the children they may have, in caring for them and in bringing them up in accordance with God’s will to his praise a

Basically, it’s the same three purposes, but in reverse order.

Now, the Dean of Cork, the Very Rev Nigel Dunne was claiming that the order in which these three come is vitally important. By stating so he was claiming that the ordering gives primacy, so that the reason which was stated first is the most important, the second the second most important and so on. If this is so, then Canon 31 has a different order of primacy then Marriage Service Two, and therefore implies a contradiction in the doctrine of the Church of Ireland.

Got that?

So many holes in that argument…

Firstly (and I’ll leave it to you to decide whether this is the most important argument), there is a huge assumption that the ordering of the reasons for marriage implies a primacy based on that ordering. Nothing in either Canon 31 or Marriage Service Two indicates as much. Marriage Service Two simply says, “It is intended… It is intended… It is intended…”. It’s the liturgical equivalent of a shopping list for the weekly trip to Tesco’s. The fact that you’ve put milk on the top of the list and bread half-way down doesn’t mean that you need milk more than you do bread, it just means that it was the first of the things that you needed to buy that you thought of. In the same way, the list of marital reasons given in Marriage Service Two isn’t a list of primacy, it’s simply a statement of completeness in its entirity.

Secondly, if there is a contradiction between Canon 31 and Marriage Service Two then it has existed since Marriage Service Two was introduced. It is not the fault of this motion, but rather the 2004 Irish Book of Common Prayer. One would think that such contradictions would have been identified during the process of compiling and editing the 2004 Prayer Book.

Thirdly, just look at Marriage Service One in the 2004 BCP. It has the following wording.

First, for the increase of mankind, according to the will of God, and for the due ordering of families and households, that children might be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his
holy Name;

Secondly, for the hallowing of the union betwixt man and woman, and for the avoidance of sin;

Thirdly, for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.

This takes the order that Canon 31 has and is therefore the opposite order to Marriage Service Two. Does not the fact that this ordering is alongside Marriage Service Two in the 2004 BCP indicate beyond any doubt that the ordering is not one of primacy? Surely those who framed the 2004 BCP would have spotted such basic “mistakes”? The same “contradictions” occur in the Church of England between the marriage service in the 1662 BCP and Common Worship. Has anybody over the past decade once raised the issue that the reversed order of reasons for matrimony means there is contradictory doctrine? Has anybody done that in the Church of Ireland in the past eight years? If this was such a concern for Dean Nigel Dunne, why didn’t he point it out in 2004 when the new Irish BCP came in? To all intents and purposes, what Nigel Dunne did yesterday was to accuse the entire Committee behind the 2004 Irish BCP of being theological numpties who couldn’t spot a basic doctrinal contradiction sat right in front of them.

This wrecking Point of Order was a liturgical nonsense and didn’t have any substance to it. For the Irish Synod to agree to it means that they believe implicitly that their own 2004 BCP contains contradictory doctrine. I can’t understand why Archbishop Alan Harper let it stand, but then he isn’t exactly the most conservative of Primates.

All of this is probably very familiar to our friends over the Pond who have suffered this kind of legal nonsense for years (decades?) in TEC, actions which dragged it year by year towards the apostate nadir it now lies in.

By the way, did I mention that Dean Nigel Dunne is heavily involved with Changing Attitude Ireland? No? Who’d have thought…

The Religious Politics of Same-Sex Marriage

Peter Ould — Thu, 10 May 2012 10:05:55 +0000

Fascinating developments in the USA where, as North Carolina comes out and votes yes on Amendment One (banning the recognition not just of gay marriage but Civil Unions in the State), President Obama comes out and declares his support for gay marriage. This was followed up by Romney declaring his opposition, but the big story was Obama trying to make a religious case for the innovation and the way that was reported.

This is something that, you know, we’ve talked about over the years and she, you know, she feels the same way, she feels the same way that I do. And that is that, in the end the values that I care most deeply about and she cares most deeply about is how we treat other people and, you know, I, you know, we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids and that’s what motivates me as president and I figure the most consistent I can be in being true to those precepts, the better I’ll be as a as a dad and a husband and, hopefully, the better I’ll be as president.

Cranmer has some interesting thoughts about how the media is two-faced when it comes to reporting these events.

His Grace has noticed something: when right-wingers quote Jesus or other verses of Scripture in defence of the traditional view of marriage as a union of one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation , they are increasingly cast as religious wing-nuts and homophobic bigots. But when left-wingers invoke Scripture or Christ to the cause of same-sex union, there is a veritable frenzy of enlightened jubilation that they have grasped profound truth and seen the light. Those believers who once walked exclusively in the heterosexual valley of the shadow of death have found true comfort in the gay staff of righteousness; those who once insisted on blind gender complementarity can now see; those who were lame in arguing for mothers and fathers can run a marathon of rainbow joy that one may have two fathers (or mothers). When the antediluvian heterosexual-marriage bigots repent of their medieval myopia, the angels weep for joy and all the heavenly host rejoices.

Now, that’s an interesting point to make and has some basis, but I’m far more fascinated as to why Obama has made a religious argument for gay marriage. I think it has far less to do with Obama being convinced from Scripture that gay marriage is a good thing (I think he justs thinks it is period, and it goes down very well with his core vote) and far more to do with his opponent’s religion and the problem that raises for Romney.

Here’s the thinking that went on in the White House (one supposes): “What we really need is to fracture the Republican core vote and make sure that as many Evangelicals as posible don’t vote for Romney the Mormon. But how do we do that without making Romney’s mormonism an explicit issue which would open us to charges of religious intolerance? Why not raise religion as a side issue to another issue and in doing so make all those Evangelicals think about how their natural candidate doesn’t have the same faith they have. By keeping religion on the front burner we constantly implicitly remind the Republican core vote that Romney is, in their minds, part of a cult.”

I think that’s actually very clever politics, but it has the possibility of back-firing if it actually prompts some Evangelicals to vote for Romney because he opposes gay marriage. The way that the White House will continue this narrative may very well depend on the response to polling asking questions like “Would support for gay marriage make you more / less likely to vote for Obama / Romney”. If the Obama camp determines that this approach is actually gaining them an electoral advantage, watch for much much more of this kind of thing coming out of the White House.

Of course, we need to remember that marriage (and civil unions) are a State issue, not a Federal issue, but then that plays into Obama’s hands. He can safely express an opinion on something that he acknowledges he cannot legislate on. He gets to make policy statements, split the Republican vote (ideally) without having to commit a cent of Federal budget.

The Case for Equal Rights

Peter Ould — Tue, 08 May 2012 21:12:30 +0000

A very moving video via @pme200.

It’s not an argument for gay marriage in any sense, but it does show how without the rights that civil partnerships / unions bring some people are left in a complete legal limbo when their partner dies.

The Ante is Upped in the Church of Ireland

Peter Ould — Tue, 08 May 2012 12:13:59 +0000

The Archbishop of Dublin and the Bishop of Down and Drowmore have put forward the following motion to be debated at the General Synod of the Church of Ireland this Thursday.

8 A: HUMAN SEXUALITY IN THE CONTEXT OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
THE ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN
THE BISHOP OF DOWN & DROMORE

Having regard to the present discussions in the Church of Ireland on Human Sexuality in the Context of Christian Belief, the General Synod affirms that:

• The Church of Ireland, mindful of the Preamble and Declaration, believes and accepts the Holy Scriptures as revealing all things necessary for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ;

• The Church of Ireland continues to uphold its teaching that marriage is part of God’s creation and a holy mystery in which one man and one woman become one flesh, asprovided for in Canon 31:

‘The Church of Ireland affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching that marriage is in its purpose a union permanent and life-long, for better or worse, till death do them part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and affections, and for the mutual society, help and comfort which the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity’.

The Church of Ireland recognises for itself and of itself, no other understanding of marriage than that provided for in the totality of Canon 31;

• The Church of Ireland teaches therefore that faithfulness within marriage is the only normative context for sexual intercourse. Members of the Church of Ireland are required by the Catechism to keep their bodies in ‘temperance, soberness and chastity’. Clergy are called in the Ordinal to be ‘wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Jesus Christ’.

8 B: HUMAN SEXUALITY IN THE CONTEXT OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
THE ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN
THE BISHOP OF DOWN & DROMORE

Having regard to the present discussions in the Church of Ireland on Human Sexuality in the Context of Christian Belief, the General Synod affirms that:

The Church of Ireland welcomes all people to be members of the Church. It is acknowledged, however, that members of the Church have at times hurt and wounded people by words and actions, in relation to human sexuality.

Therefore, in order that the Church of Ireland is experienced as a ‘safe place’ and enabled in its reflection, the Church of Ireland affirms:

• A continuing commitment to love our neighbour, and opposition to all unbiblical and uncharitable actions and attitudes in respect of human sexuality from whatever perspective, including bigotry, hurtful words or actions, and demeaning or damaging language;

• A willingness to increase our awareness of the complex issues regarding human sexuality;

• A determination to welcome and to make disciples of all people.

The Church of Ireland is mindful that for all who believe ‘there is no distinction’ and that ‘all have sinned and come short of the glory of God’ (Romans 3:22 – 23) and are in need of God’s grace and mercy. We seek to be a community modelled on God’s love for the world as revealed in Jesus Christ. We wish that all members of the Church, through the teaching of the scriptures, the nourishment of the sacraments, and the prayerful and pastoral support of a Christian community will fulfil their unique contribution to God’s purposes for our world.

8 C: HUMAN SEXUALITY IN THE CONTEXT OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF
THE ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN
THE BISHOP OF DOWN & DROMORE

That the General Synod requests the Standing Committee to progress work on the issue of Human Sexuality in the Context of Christian Belief and also to bring a proposal to General Synod 2013 for the formation of a Select Committee with terms of reference including reporting procedures.

That’s quite bold, especially part A. You should read it as a clear marker that clergy are not allowed to enter into sexual relationships outside of marriage.

No wonder the revisionists are fuming.

Reflections on Outing

Peter Ould — Tue, 08 May 2012 06:54:26 +0000

A reminder of some words I wrote a year ago.

—

The core of the argument against having Jeffrey John as the Bishop was laid out in a legal opinion offered from the legal team at Church House. In it they suggested a number of issues that could be considered when debating how a particular candidate could be (or not be) a focus of unity for the diocese and the wider church. These were as follows:

whether the candidate had always complied with the Church’s teachings on same-sex sexual activity
whether he was in a civil partnership
whether he was in a continuing civil partnership with a person with whom he had had an earlier same-sex sexual relationship
whether he had expressed repentance for any previous same-sex sexual activity
whether (and to what extent) the appointment of the candidate would cause division and disunity within the diocese in question, the Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion

These are interesting points for two reasons. First, they represent a particularly conservative position coming out from the senior church hierarchy. The five points see a clear distinction not just between sexual orientation and sexual behaviour but also between unrepentant and repentant attitudes to previous sinful behaviour (for it cannot be argued that the problem with a candidate having had previous sexual relationships outside of marriage is simply “what will people think”). Secondly, they are interesting because they are practically identical to the objections given for the appointment of Dr Jeffrey John in 2003 to the suffragan position in Reading, Oxford. The legal opinion is therefore also a tacit acceptance by the powers that be in Church House that the conservative objections to Jeffrey John back in 2003 were valid. In particular, it is the emphasis on the repentance from previous sexual activity that is the key factor. Of course, one might be repentant in a different ways, for there is a fair difference between, “I am sorry that I engaged in sexual activity that I now recognise was sinful”, and, “I am sorry that I disobeyed the church’s teaching”.

…

Most readers of this blog would agree that it would be hypocritical for the Church of England to refuse to appoint Jeffrey John to a Bishopric whilst it continued to have bishops installed who were in identical situations as Dr John and his partner. But, I am led to believe, that is not the case and the bullet points above have been drawn up because they cover safely in their five points any of the men that some might wish to out in their angry response to the leaks of this week. If it were not so then the Church of England, quite rightly, would open itself wide up to the charge of blatant hypocrisy and despite the fact that people at Church House and in the highest echelons of the CofE do make mistakes, they do not deliberately make those kind of mistakes. Those kind of mistakes lead to resignations at the highest level. If that is all true, then what would the outing of gay bishops in the Church of England actually achieve?

Well firstly, it would expose to public view as homosexual a number of men who have been faithfully celibate and abiding to the church’s teaching steadfastly for all of their lives. They would be outed for the only reason that they were single and gay rather than single and straight, outed by folks who argue vociferously on their blogs and websites that people should not be singled out just because they were gay and for no other reason. Who at this point would be the hypocrites?

Secondly, it would expose to public view men who had in the past engaged in sexual activity outside of marriage, who had repented of that sin and had then ordered their lives to be very clearly in line with the church’s teaching. Attempting to out these men would simply show for public view the glory of the good news of forgiveness for sin repented of. It would demonstrate to all that the church does grace and restoration and does it for any and all who will accept their sinful error. Whilst initially it might be embarrassing and uncomfortable for the individuals involved and their families and friend, it would then provide ample opportunity for the clear distinction in the church’s teaching between orientation and behaviour to be explained and to be shown to be perfectly manageable for individuals to live, even individuals who had erred in the past. The men outed would become instantly heroes of orthodoxy, icons of repentance and grace.

Thirdly, and controversially for some in the conservative camp, it might even expose to public view men who had managed for well over a decade to live in a “covenanted friendship” without any sexual activity whatsoever. It would demonstrate to all that deep friendships do not need to be sexualised and that Christians can find ways of ordering their lives clearly, of committing to others whilst staying faithful to the purity of the marriage bed.

Finally, it would not change the position of the Church of England. What it would do though is undermine the position of those who engaged in the outing, namely because the only direct effect of the outing would have been to shame certain individuals for not supporting the position of those who did the outing. Such a goal (the shaming of individuals because they do not agree with you) is base indeed and not worthy of anybody who takes clearly Christ’s call to love your neighbour as yourself. Those who engaged in the outing would be seen clearly by all to be self-serving and operating out of a position of anger, bitterness and envy, a position of sin. Moreover, they would not have demonstrated that there are gay bishops in the Church of England, for most informed people already understand this to be so. Rather they would have demonstrated that they themselves were willing to sacrifice on the altar of public intrigue the lives of men living faithfully to the full breadth of the Church’s teaching of holiness in present life and past reflection, a sacrifice that was entirely self-serving (so not a sacrifice at all).

Euro 2012 Prediction Competition

Peter Ould — Sat, 05 May 2012 14:44:21 +0000

Do you remember the 2010 World Cup Prediction competition we had two summers ago? We’ll be repeating it next month for the Euros.

To enter you will need to be a registered user of the site. Simply go here and fill in your details. Then when the matches actually begin to be played you can enter your predictions and join in the fun.

You must be logged in to predict.

Clock

Let joy and celebration be unconfined in the comment thread below.

Mountains out of Molehills?

Peter Ould — Fri, 04 May 2012 15:20:48 +0000

A story that has been doing the rounds on the internet for the past week has finally made it to the mainstream media (but not into print yet). Here’s the Daily Telegraph on a kerfuffle in Southwark Diocese.

Peter Gowlland, 78, was accused of sowing discord among worshippers at the liberal-leaning All Saints Church in Sanderstead, Surrey, by inviting them to sign a petition against the Government plans to introduce same-sex weddings.

Despite being told by his Archdeacon to “withdraw” from ministry for two months as a result, Church authorities continued to insist last night that he had “not been suspended”.

The retired science teacher says he was told “we don’t do that here” by a fellow lay reader when he set out a pile of leaflets promoting the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey’s Coalition For Marriage before a Sunday service last month.

Matters came to a head shortly during the service when he urged parishioners in his sermon to be “bold like the apostles” and register their opposition to the redefinition of marriage.

It prompted what might pass in the Church of England for a public showdown: a brief and polite disagreement with two other lay readers in front of the congregation, a retired bishop and the visiting Worldwide President of the Mothers’ Union.

The two women who stood up in front of the church during the parish notices and advised parishioners told them not to sign the petition, adding: “There are other views”.

The Rt Revd David Atkinson, the retired Bishop of Thetford, who was leading the worship, stepped in to advise that the service was “not the correct time and place” to discuss the bitterly contentious issue, according to Mr Gowlland.

The incident was not mentioned again until just over a week later when Mr Gowlland went what he thought would be a routine meeting with the Revd Canon Dr Barry Goodwin, the acting Archdeacon of Croydon, to have his licence to preach renewed.

Instead he was accused of “bouncing” the issue on the church, which currently does not have a full-time vicar, without consulting the other lay preachers and wardens, leading to a “regrettable” public show of disunity.

He was asked to stand although no action will be taken against the women to stood up to object to his sermon.

…

In a carefully worded letter to Mr Gowlland the following day Dr Goodwin said that there was “potential for disunity” at the church following the sermon and insisted the problem was not with what he said but “the way” he raised the issue.

“I asked you to withdraw from preaching and leading worship for two months, just to let the dust settle and in no way am I wishing or suggesting we suspend or revoke your [licence].

“The parish is in a vacancy and we have not been successful in finding a person to lead the team and I am endeavouring to reduce the tensions a long vacancy brings.”

Mr Gowlland lodged an appeal against his suspension with the Bishop of Southwak, the Rt Revd Christopher Chessun, but received a reply insisting that he had not been “suspended” but simply asked to take a “cooling off period to create space for reflection”.

Mr Gowlland said last night that the pains taken to avoid calling his suspension a suspension were “Orwellian”.

A spokesperson for the Diocese of Southwark said:”The Reader in question has not been suspended.

“Some members of the congregation had raised some pastoral concerns with the Archdeacon and he discussed these with the Reader. During the meeting it became clear that there are disagreements within the parish concerning how some matters are handled.

“The Archdeacon asked the Reader to refrain from ministry in the particular parish for two months in order for there to be time for these pastoral matters to be resolved.

“The Bishop of Southwark has put measures in place to try to resolve the difficulties within the parish.

“The issue is not about the traditional view of marriage but related to matters of church order and authority during an interregnum.”

Right then, some thoughts.

Although Bishop David Atkinson was probably right to step in and settle the matter for that morning, we need to remember that Mr Gowlland was expressing the official position of the Church of England on this matter. If he was preaching at a church that is more liberal, it is the church that is out of step, not Mr Gowlland.
It appears that the Archdeacon handled this badly. What should have happened was a gentle meeting where Mr Gowlland and the Archdeacon discussed how the issue could have been handled more politically and then moved on.
The real issue is the “suspension”. Of course, the Diocese is not admitting that this is a suspension but rather it has asked Mr Gowlland to take some time to reflect on the issue. However, if the call was for all of those involved to take some time to reflect then all the Readers involved should have been asked to withdraw for the same period. Although I’m sure that the Archdeacon (and Bishop who was probably consulted as well) didn’t intend this to be an “anti supporting traditional marriage” move, in the light of all that has happened recently in Southwark Diocese, and knowing that Mr Gowlland was one of the committee members of the Diocesan Evangelical Union, surely they should have realised how this would be interpreted given that Mr Gowlland was the only person requested to take a cooling off period?

How should Mr Gowlland have responded? Well, it depends how much of any issue he (and others) wanted to make of it. It looks as though what he has done is to shake the dust off his feet and move to a different parish (and let’s see whether he’s allowed to minister there over the next few weeks). But let’s read the exact content of the letter from the Archdeacon (as detailed on the Christian Institute website).

“I asked you to withdraw from preaching and leading worship for two months, just to let the dust settle and in no way am I wishing or suggesting we suspend or revoke your [licence].”
Emphasis added

See, the Archdeacon is very clear that Mr Gowlland’s licence hasn’t been suspended and it’s only a polite request for him to withdraw from ministry. There is no instruction to do so, the licence is still in place and he can technically still minister as before. This means that if Mr Gowlland and others wanted to be confrontational (and there’s a bit of that mood now surfacing in Southwark) the response should have been to thank the Archdeacon for the offer of a cooling off period but to state that it wasn’t considered necessary, and that Mr Gowlland looked forward to ministering as usual in the parish next week. Such a response would then challenge the Diocese as to whether they really were or weren’t suspending him.

Now that would have been entertaining.

Poland			Greece
Group A – Warsaw – June 8, 2012 6:00 pm
Russia			Czech Republic
Group A – Wrocław – June 8, 2012 8:45 pm
Netherlands			Denmark
Group B – Kharkiv – June 9, 2012 7:00 pm
Germany			Portugal
Group B – Lviv – June 9, 2012 9:45 pm
Spain			Italy
Group C – Gdańsk – June 10, 2012 6:00 pm