Homophobic Disintegration

This time it is the Archbishop's Council, making its anti-equality statement, regarding marriage, whereas the mess on the legislation for women to become bishops is the responsibility of the House of Bishops.

The consultation of the government with the Church of England does not seem to extend to the Church of England consulting its own bodies of authority. Perhaps it has an authoritarian view of itself, at the top.

The position of the Church of England is that of, recently, the Archbishop of York. It is hyperbolic and the same strained nonsense. It merges its own doctrine of marriage with apparent social custom. But social custom shifts, and can do rapidly, and is doing. Even its own Book of Common Prayer is not as secure as it thinks for reasons of so-called complimentarity (do they mean plumbing?) as it gives reasons for marriage that would support gay marriage. Thus the dubious document of response quotes Common Worship instead.

It says the government is confusing religious ceremony and civil ceremony as different marriages, whereas there is one marriage. But then one marriage comes about through social custom, and that custom is by consent, and that consent is changing. You might be fooled that doctrine carries objective truth, but there is no objective truth in social custom.

The Church never welcomed civil partnerships, and it says these are enough to maintain legal equalities. But it is not about legal equalities but social custom!

If the Church wants unique access to maintain its religious route to social and legal custom, then it has to change. Otherwise it has to be a private provider of marriage ceremonies and to those for which it discriminates. It can say it will provide for any heterosexuals connected with a local church in a church, and to no homosexuals regardless. But then it must cease to be the State Church.

Its argument should be that it provides true marriage and does so via the religious route of its own believing, according to doctrine, and it happens by social custom not to marry those married by civil means, even if that is an inadequate method to marry. In other words, it ought to be honest that the ceremony does matter and is, in fact, crucial.

But already someone with a Civil Partnership cannot also marry, so someone with such a Partnership cannot marry in Church. So the Civil Partnership clearly does impinge on marriage and is not some other legal tidying-up nicety. But if the Church married people privately, it could do so, dismissing other forms of partnership that it regards as irrelevant from the point of view of emotional partnership forming. That is, the Civil Partnership is not simply some means to make forming a will easier or conveniently tying up some legal knots, but the Church could imagine that it is for its own purposes. It can do that if it is not connected with the State.

It is all the sociology and theology too of institutionalised homophobia. It doesn't really see Civil Partnerships properly: it regards them as legal niceties that may or may not have some emotional aspect. It won't offer blessings for Civil Partnerships even though they are part of the State and social custom.

The statement has been explosive, with an immediate 'Not in my name' campaign started.

But others are leaving. My online friend Erika has decided not to sign a petition but to leave. My sometime debating partner, who would persist in her theological argument being loyal to this Church, and accuse me of always undermining basic arguments, has cut the rope. Once upon a time I used to debate with Merseymike, who was a theist to my non-realism. He ended up leaving the Church and dropping Christianity and is now a 'materialist', regarding the Church of England with contempt. It will be interesting to see how Erika changes her views now she has no obligation towards the homophobic institution. In my last months within a church and parish, I made a distinction between the locality and the national Church, but increasingly one could not maintain the local and try to dismiss the national. I was identifying with both, and that was not ethically possible. However, I also had theological difficulties that meant withdrawal locally too in terms of ceremonial participation.

It seems to me that as a society we should allow social custom to evolve (if rapidly at present) and to do this have marriage available to couples regardless, and also Civil Partnerships available to couples regardless. The latter could then develop its own definitions, particularly based around friendship and a different level of emotional association and be an agreement about sharing. Marriage implies a stronger unit and bonding, and indeed involves personal resources. Religious bodies could provide ceremonies for marriage and indeed for partnerships, as they see fit, but these are registered with the State.

If a Church does not care for social custom as it develops, then it should stop trying to serve it. The Church of England ought to be disestablished. A body that is homophobic (and cannot even raise women to equal leadership) ought to be removed from its legal connections with the State when it has found itself at such a distance from the State and social custom. In any case, the notion of establishment seems very archaic and irrelevant. We can choose our religions and religious ceremonies, thank you very much.

Tories Starting to Lose Wagon Wheels

I've gone along with the idea that, even with short memories, the effect of the Liberal Democrats as props of the right wing government is that if you want Tories then vote for them, or be progressive then you'd vote Labour. The Liberal Democrats have done themselves no favours, but of course worse than this was the electoral promise over Higher Education that they reversed, despite the same-time campaign for political honesty, and their last minute adoption of the Tories' austerity approach. The Lib Dems also were sold a up of the Alternative Vote scheme and subsequently lost, instead of going for proper electoral reform. Given MPs and constituency relationships, it might be that they drop to some 20 MPs after the election. If Nick Clegg was to resign in advance and a new leader elect come in, the losses would be less.

But some weeks ago there were quiet mumblings and corridor echoes of Liberal Democrats talking to Labour. The context is the fixed term parliament by which a Prime Minister has lost the power simply to call an election when he chooses.

When Tory MPs started attacking Liberal Democrats for frustrating their anti-European stance and making House of Lords reform another non-event in improving the constitution, some Liberal Democrats decided they'd had enough. Now the opportunity has arisen for which real and actual damage can be done, and one that might even see Liberal Democrats as bystanders as the political damage gets done.

It comes about with the identification of the top of the government with privilege and with the News International people. The Tories promised in opposition to close down OFCOM and there was, one, a real danger that our media could have been concentrated in the hands of Murdoch with the BBC wings clipped. Indeed, the BBC has already responded by trimming its activities (as in magazines and the extent of its website, so to be sensitive to competitors). The licence deal pushed on the BBC involves contraction. The Tories made these promises while socialising with the powerful media owners and employing them. Jeremy Hunt and his political advisor expressed very pro News International views: he claims, however, that he acted neutrally. Of course the Tories did not win, and a coalition took place, with necessary proper cabinet and civil service operations, and Vince had the media job at first.

It all looks very sleazy and there are some non-central but not unimportant Liberal Democrats appearing on TV and sticking the boot in about the socialising, the bad judgments, the emails and texts, and about the personalities. But the point about these government mixers is that they are so easily identified, and it is the frustrated Tories who are getting angry with their own side, never mind their dislike for the Liberal Democrats.

It is quite possible that, in the context of a fixed parliament, where bringing down your prime minister does not change the electoral arithmetic (the government used to fall with a prime minister), the Tories could go after a sleaze drenched and Liberal Democrat compromised top of the party and attempt to replace it with a more right wing leadership. Never mind the Liberal Democrats splitting, as Liberals once did with the Tory-like National Unionists and then the others, the Tories could also split as this government continues with its sleaze and its economic failure and overall lack of direction.

The poll ratings are dropping now, and for the Conservatives in particular. My own view is that Cameron and Osborne are like privileged amateurs, politicians for appearances rather than of substance. Should this little elite tumble, the parliament could rapidly rearrange itself. Clegg would have to go, but a new arrangement before the election date could involve that grand coalition of the left. It may not be a dominant government, but the Conservatives would be weaker. It might be just enough to reverse some policies, to understand that the economy is a dynamic relationship of economic actors and not some zero-sum game of costs - where the flat money curve at a time of deep recession means spending on infrastructure to get capital and people working.

If the Liberal Democrats could switch, they might just redeem themselves as progressive, and as having a role in forming government between fixed election dates.

The Leveson Inquiry is putting a spotlight on to elites and power, and a particular elite that came to power on a coalition (and one it quite enjoyed at first). The wheels are wobbly and they could soon start coming off. If they do then the political results could be quite fascinating.

Liturgy (Emergency) Service 3

Again, it fell to me to provide a service at short notice. I wrote liturgies to be picked up rapidly for the purpose, but this time I had enough notice to write another. So this is the third produced, and follows the structure of Orders of Worship (1932) Service 7. Now Service 7 is itself an amalgam of two services written by James Martineau. He embodied the principle of evolving and changing liturgies as beliefs changed, although he still used forms that were of more 'dogma' than he believed - in other word, liturgy was still a conserving form. This is also my view, to give a pathway and content, but the language is far too flowery and Christian in assumption than I can maintain. To the structure is added nature and related themes in content: they are there simply to have readily-available material for the last minute let-down by a preacher. There is a given CD too, but with notice these can be varied.

Our newest attender appreciated my service, but it was also her last visit. We always wanted more university students to attend, but she is now back home and any higher postgraduate degree would be on a visiting basis. She came to us ex Church of England and cited the gay debate as a reason for leaving. She was quite Christian in orientation - we had a good chat about that once, like on a checklist. Back home the nearest Unitarian church meets earlier and is a good journey away. I said the minister there blogs a kind of postmodern Christianity and I wonder, within Unitarianism, why he can't relax a bit: why try to retain a Christian path if he is pretty much atheist regarding the existence of God and go to such effort for a non-foundational Christianity. It makes more sense inside the Church of England where liturgies are fixed. The Unitarian route, including for written liturgies (a practice mainly dropped in the 1950s and 1960s), is when you stop believing something you actually make that known in what you say and do.There is less chance of a sense of misrepresentation. The potential for being postliberal is, obviously, rather limited in a liberal setting: there is no need to be postliberal. But, then, liberalism contains all sorts, including imaginary liturgists like me.

Scotland's No

It's another No to the Anglican Communion Covenant within Britain. The Scottish Episcopal Church overwhelmingly (112 to 6) rejected the Covenant at its General Synod, in that it threatened its independence and was against the Anglican Communion in how it involves relationships betwen its Churches. It was a document and idea seen as unnecessary and unwanted. Now this may take several years to come to the notice of those bureaucrats favourable to the Covenant: they have yet to hear that the Church of England failed to endorse it which, in terms of a yes or no - either you have agreed to it or you haven't - the Church of England said no. Someone in Scotland called it a blancmange with shards of glass in it.

Big Church First Gay 'Wedding'

This is how it gets done -  a report on television.

Watching those Lines

So, Richard Holloway was a person in denial, a PID, when he once advised a parishioner to stay clear of Don Cupitt. The PID over, Holloway likes what Cupitt says. The analogy is with the equator. The realist expects to see a black line at the equator (and others crossing it), the critical realist a grey line, and the non-realist realises it is human made. But I expect to see the sun rising at 6 am and setting at 6 pm, regardless of black or grey lines. Yes we drew the lines, but the sun rises and falls the same time always (that is, this is where there are no seasons). Now the science has to be right, and the history has to be right, and both are subject to transience and limitations, but the point is not the lines - nicely human - but the reality represented. And this is why I am the softest of non-realists, and the most critical of critical realists. The problem is not realism or non-realism, or narrative, but the misleading nature of much of the Christian narrative. If the story is rooted in research, it will work at the level investigated and give a positive return.

Radio Chadderbox and a QC on Anglican Latest

Peter Levite: I'm joined by arch Anglican bureaucrat, Anglican General Secretary Keiron Kenneth, to discuss broad Anglican affairs, incluiding the resignation of Rowan Tree, and by Bishop Pete Straitasadie [sounds like straight a Sadie] who, among such things, is going to help explain the current women bishops legislation. So, Keiron Kenneth, are you sad to see him go?

Keiron Kenneth: Who?

Peter Levite: Rowan Tree. He's thrown in the ecclesiastical towel.

Keiron Kenneth: Is that a ritual?

Peter Levite: It could be. What do you think about it?

Keiron Kenneth: No one has told me about it. Where does it come in the liturgy?

Peter Levite: No, his resignation. Surely you know he is going. You mean it is news to you?

Keiron Kenneth: I need to see reports.

Peter Levite: I'm a reporter and I am reporting.

Keiron Kenneth: Why are you scratching around your crotch?

Peter Levite: I can't keep still. Bishop Pete Straitasadie [sounds like straight a Sadie], help us out.

Pete Straitasadie: My name is Strait-as-a-die. Like in opposite of bent.

Peter Levite: The Bishop of Willie's Den, in the Big Smoke.

Pete Straitasadie: Indeed. Is there something wrong with your willy's den?

Peter Levite: It's just nerves. I'm behind a desk.

Pete Straitasadie: I think he had a very difficult job. He had a grand vision of an international Church and overstretched himself - a herculean task that even he could not achieve. As he tried to give the international entity more coherence, to try and bring it together, he forgot the home front and the 'There is No Alternative' publicity gave space for people to develop an alternative. The enemies had a space and place to gather and they undermined him.

Peter Levite: Serious accusations, strong words.

Pete Straitasadie: Really? I don't think I can get into any trouble over these.

Peter Levite: And this is all news for you, Keiron Kenneth?

Keiron Kenneth: Well, he is an Archbishop and a colleague. I'll have to check the minutes to see if he is not coming to the next meeting.

Peter Levite: Of course what Bishop Pete is referring to is the defeat of the Covenant in the dioceses. As a General Secretary this must trouble you.

Keiron Kenneth: I have no idea what you are talking about.

Peter Levite: The vast majority of dioceses did not adopt the Anglican Communion Covenant. It cannot return to the General Synod for three years.

Keiron Kenneth: So far, with various wordings, eight provinces have adopted the Covenant. The Church in England, like any province, has to decide its own timescale of adoption of the Covenant.

Peter Levite: You surely have some idea when the Covenant comes into being.

Keiron Kenneth: When provinces adopt it.

Peter Levite: But what about a timescale after which you can say well so many have and so many haven't?

Keiron Kenneth: No, there is no timescale. Indeed, we agreed that there is no timescale. The whole effort is one of bringing together, encouraging, and adopting the Covenant whether provinces have adopted it or not.

Peter Levite: I put it to both of you that the Church in England has not told your international Council that it was defeated in the dioceses because it is embarrassed. Yes or no?.

Pete Straitasadie: I don't think there is a mechanism for saying that the Covenant was defeated because there is not a timescale by which it can be said that it hasn't been adopted.

Peter Levite: I don't understand that. Was there ever a press release about the dioceses not accepting the Anglican Communion Covenant?

Pete Straitasadie: To say what?

Peter Levite: What I have just said.

Pete Straitasadie: But in three years...

Peter Levite: In three years the dioceses have the same view, surely.

Pete Straitasadie: But in six years... This is the long game.

Peter Levite: Talking of long game - could be so with women's ordination as bishops.

Pete Straitasadie: We ought to just get on with it.

Peter Levite: Is that your view, Keiron Kenneth?

Keiron Kenneth: What happened?

Peter Levite: To accept - hang on while I look at these research notes -  what the Gang of Six have said about what the House of Bishops has done in terms of the amendments to the legislation and bring the ordination of women bishops into force. Or something. The Gang of Six said small changes only but others think big consequences from the House of Bishops.

Keiron Kenneth: Well, if and when this happens I might pass an opinion about it. I'm not aware of changes in this general matter.

Peter Levite: Have you not even discussed this at Lambeth Walk Palace?

Keiron Kenneth: What's that?

Peter Levite: Where the Archbishop of All England lives. The one that is retiring is there now. A tied cottage, isn't it.

Keiron Kenneth: Oh. I'll have to see some maps. And read some reports.

Peter Levite: I'll try you, Bishop Pete. Now you were one of those who decided on the amendments. These amendments have really annoyed some pro-women's ordination folk. Some say you have introduced 'Pick a Bishop' and something called doughnutism.

Pete Straitasadie: Describe what you mean by doughnutism.

Peter Levite: It's not, not, on my notes. It was said on the Skype by some blogger to my researcher after our meeting. Presumably, like parliament, you create a bishop for the people who don't like women bishops and then crowd all around him to give him support. He is like the hole in the middle. Prop him up. Tell you what. You look like that bloke I see in the pub. Every time I see him I say here comes the Bishop of Willie's Den.

Pete Straitasadie: I've not heard of doughnutism. I have heard of donatism, which is about choosing a pure, perfect, minister, to preside over you, otherwise the sacraments are invalid, whereas we have always allowed for the Holy Spirit to work through anyone so long as general faithfulness has been evident among the whole people. Presumably in this case donatism means people picking their bishop according to approved theology rather than accepting who is available, and it is a charge I reject because we are not doing it that way.

Peter Levite: My head hurts and my stomach wants some sugar. There's no VAT now is there if someone heats up my doughnut? Just thinking - is it like then the opposite of doubt nut ism or dough-unt know ism?

Pete Straitasadie: He was Donatus Magnus, a bishop.

Peter Levite:Magnus? Doughnut Magnus Magnusson?

Pete Straitasadie: For a minute, I thought you knew what you were talking about. But you are clueless aren't you.

Keiron Kenneth: I think this is something that can be arranged.

Peter Levite: According to this, you've got priests and parishes who say in the Bible a woman cannot be head of a man - they are limited to flower arrangements and Sunday school - and you've got others who say the same but also a man bishop cannot have been ordained by a woman. So they need a man. So a parish PCC like this now, because of your amendments, says please send a bishop who agrees with us.

Pete Straitasadie: Now you really are clueless. Did you read the press release?

Peter Levite: Not only did I read it, we all read it in planning for this interview and discussion, and none of us had a clue what it was on about and had to ask those in the know via Skype and several blogs.

Pete Straitasadie: Bloggers? What do they know? They are the curse of the moment. They've wrecked the Covenant. And I should know, being a bit of a blogger myself, sort of, when not forced to be quiet. Just about every blogger has this wrong. No one understands the sheer subtlety of the amendments brilliantly produced by the wriggle room the Archbishop suggested, before he goes.

Peter Levite: He's left you a double train wreck, hasn't he?

Keiron Kenneth: Is he going?

Peter Levite: Do parishes pick their bishops like a person at the sweeties counter in Woolworths, at the Pick'n'mix. Yes or no?

Pete Straitasadie: No. Someone is coming in.

Peter Levite: Who are you?

J. Robert: I am J. Robert, of the Levitating Media Inquiry.

Peter Levite: Why are you here?

J. Robert: I'm investigating radio stations at the moment and dismal content. Yours was the station with the two old women providing cheap radio?

Peter Levite: You are interrupting my interview.

J. Robert: I simply thought I could do it better. So, if you just look at the research notes by your side, Mr. Straitasadie.

Pete Straitasadie: Yes.

J. Robert: I had better introduce myself. I am J. Robert QC. Your evidence, Mr Straitasadie, is that there is no pick-a-bishop because of the diocesan scheme. Is that correct?

Pete Straitasadie: Yes.

J. Robert: But the contention is that the brought in bishop, as it were, to oversee the parish requesting a different bishop from the diocesan; well, the parish still gets a bishop that is agreeable with the parish's own theological opinions. Is that not so?

Pete Straitasadie: It is so but it is decided by a diocesan scheme.

J. Robert: But is this not a technicality? For example, in how the diocesan scheme is drawn up.

Peter Levite: Is this man allowed to do this? By the way, bishop, are you looking forward to the Diamond Jubilee?

Keiron Kenneth: I'd have a nurse examine your crotch area.

Pete Straitasadie: It is drawn up according to the Code of Practice - how the diocesan scheme is drawn up, not the Diamond Jubilee.

J. Robert: And no one knows what this Code of Practice looks like yet. For example, the Code of Practice is bound to direct the diocesan bishop to investigate the theological views of the parishes that are requesting different oversight. And in that way they are picking their bishop.

Pete Straitasadie: The important thing is this is directed.

J. Robert: But the alternative view is that it is a technicality, is it not, if the theology of the delegated bishop has to be compatible with the parish. This is where the charge of donatism comes from.

Pete Straitasadie: Not if this is the Canon Law of the Church in England.

J. Robert: It isn't just a case, say, of one alternative bishop per diocese, is it Mr Straitasadie?

Pete Straitasadie: Why not?

J. Robert: One parish for example wants a bishop who theologically agrees with the view that a pregnant woman or a menstruating woman cannot bless the Eucharist.

Pete Straitasadie: That is sophisticated sexism.

J. Robert: Well, what is the difference between sophisticated and simple sexism? Presumably sophisticated sexism has a theological argument.

Pete Straitasadie: I can't see a diocesan scheme providing for that level or detail of argument.

J. Robert: Why ever not when the legislation as amended calls for theological compatibility?

Pete Straitasadie: It was always going to be selection of a bishop even without the amendments.

J. Robert: I'm talking about theological compatibility. Who, for example, is going to define the basis of agreement?

Pete Straitasadie: The diocesan scheme under the Code of Practice.

J. Robert: But if the legislation - never mind the Code of Practice - calls for theological compatibility, how is it met unless it is met according to the views of the parish? Do you see what I am getting at?

Pete Straitasadie: I think the important point is the initiative comes from above.

J. Robert: Humm. OK. But let us take a Conservative Evangelical parish. They would have a Conservative Evangelical bishop too. Is that right? It couldn't be you, for example, as you do not have those views?

Pete Straitasadie: Yes that is right, on both points.

J. Robert: Let's take two Conservative Evangelical parishes. Suppose one of those was universalist and another Calvinist in terms of theological belief. Would they each be entitled to their own kind of Conservative Evangelical?

Pete Straitasadie: Not if not in the diocesan scheme under the Code of Practice.

J. Robert: Well why not? Let me try and develop this. Other than not knowing the Code of Practice yet, and even without knowing it, the amended legislation is calling for theological compatibility. It does not say how wide, how compromised, how precise: just compatibility. And what is not important to the diocesan bishop might well be important to the parish - including, is it not so, acquiring a priest of that parish too. This is very wide-ranging legislation.

Pete Straitasadie: Er, it is unlikely some would be Calvinist and some universalist and make that matter.

J. Robert: Well, why not Western rite and Eastern Orthodox in some other cases?

Pete Straitasadie: This is ridiculous.

J. Robert: Do you see what I am getting at? It is not that it is a diocesan scheme as such, but the compatibility that matters. Perhaps that could be in broad terms, perhaps it could be in narrow terms. Is that not a possibility?

Pete Straitasadie: How do we measure broad and narrow?

J. Robert: Quite so. That is my point, I think. Moving on. Does this not, then embed sophisticated sexism? Women bishops will not be equal.

Pete Straitasadie: They will. From their perspective, they are the full deal. That's the clever wriggle room.

J. Robert: Well you say that but there will be a range of alternative bishops, many of whom regard women with theological - sophisticated sexism no doubt - taint. And others will still have problems with a woman delegating - I mean Evangelicals - even if others accept derivation.

Pete Straitasadie: Some might see the existence of taint. I might see they have that view. But I won't have that view. If you don't have that view, then it doesn't exist.

J. Robert: Accepting those who do embeds sophisticated sexism, Mr Straitasadie, unless one adopts a position of extreme subjectivity, presumably. Do you not agree, or how else would you put it?

Pete Straitasadie: So what is the alternative, Mr Robert? Have the traditionalists go to Rome, the Conservative Evangelicals go to some Free Church?

J. Robert: Presumably it is a question of the price being paid in ecclesiology for not seeing them go. But some would say they are leaving for the ordinariates anyway or indeed some Conservative Evangelicals are setting up their own structures of statements, fellowship, ministry selection, payment trusts, if nominally within the Church in England. You see the argument - that you might stop some leaving, and yet they are already going, and the changes proposed are too innovative for the benefit of keeping these people.

Pete Straitasadie: Innovative?

J. Robert: Like with the Covenant: you are introducing changes that are far reaching in consequence. The consequence of these changes is an uneven status of bishop, some multiple oversight in dioceses, and selection by theology. I am suggesting that selection by theology was never in the Church in England.

Pete Straitasadie: Ah, not formally. Perhaps this is more honest.

J. Robert: Which is the difference, is it not, between racism and apartheid. Do you see the distinction? We know there is racism, but we don't then embed it with apartheid.

Peter Levite: You might be some sort of clever clogs but you're no good reading the clock. We've missed George Hudson and the weather.

J. Robert: No doubt we will pause for tea at this point. Your other guest seems to be asleep.