The end of ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’
Last Sun morning I was speaking (briefly) on Radio Nottingham. I had been asked to come in because the presenter, Sarah Julian, had conducted an interview with Justin Welby. In it, she pressed him (several times) on what ought to happen to Jeremy Pemberton, who is the first ordained Anglican to enter a same-sexual practice marriage, and has a license in this diocese. (Yous tin can listen hither until 18th May 2014, starting at 02:09:30.) And, several times, Justin refused to be drawn.
I was asked to explain what was going on, why he refused to answer, and what would happen. My kickoff point was that it is never correct to comment on an individual, peculiarly if there might be action pending inrelation to that private. But I also felt it of import to clarify two things of which observers are not always enlightened.
The outset, as Justin Welby said clearly, is that the Archbishop is non CEO of the C of E, but is 'kickoff among equals'. Sarah's line of questioning assumed that bishops are the 'bosses' of the clergy nether them, and that the Archbishop is 'boss' of the diocesan bishops, so that they in turn do what he tells them. (Any clergy or bishops reading this are currently holding their sides in pained laughter at this notion.) The Firm of Bishops aim to work collegially, agreeing shared policy together—and in fact on this issue made a clear statement in February. I retrieve Justin is right: it is non really his chore to knock heads together to make people follow this; the bishops demand to do this of their own initiative.
The 2d reality is that the C of E has, since the 1960s, been operating with ii realities. On the one hand, there has been an official position, fairly consistently stated:
The i declining of the [House of Bishops' February] statement (for opponents of information technology) is that it is crystal articulate. And in fact it has washed more than than that: it has rooted the current position of the Church building in a whole series of statements, going all the way dorsum to the liturgies of the BCP and Common Worship, to catechism law, to the previous statements from the House of Bishops, the Dromantine Declaration, and including the Announcement of Assent which all clergy make at ordination. If, in two years' fourth dimension, there is a change of position, then the House of Bishops volition have to explain why all these previous statements now demand reinterpreting or abandoning.
(Hither, I remember that Mike Higton on his blog and Andrew Davison in the Church Times were quite mistaken in their assessments.)
On the other manus, there has been a 'minority view' which dissents from this, and has been encouraged past a policy of 'don't ask, don't tell', where clergy are in aforementioned-sexual practice relations which have been allowed to continue, so long as no-1 makes a fuss. In many ways, it has suited both sides of the contend to let this to continue. For 'revisionists', it has meant staying out of the media spotlight, and not having to fight big doctrinal battles over a personal issue. For 'conservatives', it has meant avoiding the risk of bad publicity and looking unpastoral.
But this era is at present coming to an end—and not considering of annihilation happening in the Church.
A couple of weeks ago, I was speaking at a study day at a theological higher in Cambridge. I made a passing reference to my recent challenge to Alan Wilson, Bishop of Buckingham, on what I thought was illegitimate use of 'surreptitious cognition' almost partnered gay bishops. In a coffee break, someone pointed out that there is a Wikipedia folio entitled 'Gay Bishops' which lists all those who accept been identified, by anyone, at any time, as being gay, and what their situation is. It doesn't accept long in reading this to observe the person (nether 'Church building of England') whom Alan claimed was a 'partnered gay bishop', and also to see why Alan's merits virtually this person is quite wrong.
The challenging thing about this is that, similar all internet communication, it only and immediately past-passes whatever attempt to disguise what is really going on. The Wikipedia page, for instance, lists the ten bishops that Peter Tatchell had threatened to 'out' in 1994, something all of the print media at the time refused to reveal. Yet here they are, listed for all to meet. And it is this which makes the past 'two realities' unsustainable; there can exist no more 'secrets'. Ane reality is going to take to converge with the other: either official educational activity will need to marshal with practise on the ground; or practice on the ground will have to be (slowly, and painfully or perhaps speedily and more painfully) be aligned with official teaching.
One particular issue of what this means is set out helpfully past Andrew Goddard in a recent article on Fulcrum nigh SSM and Catechism Police. In information technology, he takes the nigh charitable assumptions possible about clergy who enter into SSM in the lite of the House of Bishops'south statement, and draws some challenging conclusions:
If the assay above is accepted and so the state of affairs seems to be as follows. Those clergy who ally someone of the same sex activity believe they should live in accordance with canon C26 and that they are doing so and that their problem is just with canon B30. However, the general category of "according to the doctrine of Christ" in C26 has within the canons i very clear specification – the definition of marriage in B30. This is the canon that, in a form of conscientious ecclesial disobedience, they are not only questioning and asking the church building to reconsider only actively contradicting past their actions. I think this raises three key questions.
Kickoff, can the clergy concerned (and those supportive of them) recognise that given this state of affairs they accept a responsibleness to seek an urgent change to catechism B30?…
Second, can the clergy concerned (and those supportive of them) therefore recognise that whatever bishop would be totally justified, perhaps even have a moral responsibility, to take action against them when they enter a same-sex activity marriage? …
Third, what does it really mean merely to "concord to differ" over sexuality? …
The simply other option for "agreeing to differ" is that those marrying their same-sex partners seek to establish, and the church building should accept, the following:
• despite the canons saying that Christ teaches something and that clergy should order their lives by his teaching, in practice clergy should be free to decide for themselves to live in a manner contradicting this teaching;
• bishops should then accept the clergy'due south own private judgment that, in this expanse, they are ordering their lives by our Lord's pedagogy, over and above the church's canonical statement of this teaching every bit regards marriage which clearly entails that the clergy are non doing and so.
His conclusion is that, if we are to avoid 'messy theological and ecclesiological incoherence', then either Canon Law will need to exist changed, or those breaching it will need to face discipline.
My final comment in the interview on Radio Nottingham was that cases like Jeremy Pemberton's are forcing the collapse of the 2 realities at a pace no-one is ready for—and so I think all sides would adopt that such cases practice non ascend. Merely the immediate question for the Firm of Bishops now is: do their statements really mean annihilation? I hope they do, for many reasons, and I cannot run into that it is in anyone'south interests for the bishops to be told (mayhap by lawyers) that they are powerless to enforce Canon Law.
Prayer needed for all sides…
If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Similar my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance footing. If y'all take valued this post, you can brand a unmarried or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Good comments that appoint with the content of the post, and share in respectful debate, tin can add real value. Seek first to understand, and then to be understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view debate as a conflict to win; accost the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/the-end-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/
0 Response to "The end of ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’"
ارسال یک نظر