Richard Chartres plays very hard ball indeed
Here’s the letter the Bishop of London sent to all London clergy, readers, church wardens and church wardens’ dachshunds today.
18th June 2008
Dear Friends,
Many of you will have seen the publicity over the weekend around the service which was held at St Bartholomew the Great on May 31st. I attach a letter I have written to the Rector which sets out the situation as I understand it.
So much good work is being done both nationally and internationally by the Church as it seeks in the spirit of Jesus Christ to address some of the global issues of peace, justice and poverty that confront the peoples of the world. It would be a tragedy if this episode were to distract us from the big agenda.
With thanks for our partnership in the Gospel.
The Rt Revd & Rt Hon Richard Chartres DD FSA
Want to read the attached letter? Go on then…
18th June 2008
The Reverend Dr Martin Dudley,
St Bartholomew the Great Parish Office,
6 Kinghorn Street,
London,
EC1A 7HW.Dear Martin,
You have sought to justify your actions to the BBC and in various newspapers but have failed more than two weeks after the service to communicate with me.
I read in the press that you had been planning this event since November. I find it astonishing that you did not take the opportunity to consult your Bishop.
You describe the result as “familiar words reordered and reconfigured carrying new meanings.” I note that the order of service, which I have now received, includes the phrase “With this ring I thee bind, with my body I thee worship”.
At first sight this seems to break the House of Bishops Guidelines which as I explained in my letter of December 6th 2005 apply the traditional teaching of the Church of England to the new circumstances created by the enactment of Civil Partnerships.
The point at issue is not Civil Partnerships themselves or the relation of biblical teaching to homosexual practice. There is of course a range of opinion on these matters in the Church and, as you know, homophobia is not tolerated in the Diocese of London. The real issue is whether you wilfully defied the discipline of the Church and broke your oath of canonical obedience to your Bishop.
The Archbishops have already issued a statement in which they say that “those clergy who disagree with the Church’s teaching are at liberty to seek to persuade others within the Church of the reasons why they believe, in the light of Scripture, tradition and reason that it should be changed. But they are not at liberty simply to disregard it.”
St Bartholomew’s is not a personal fiefdom. You serve there as an ordained minister of the Church of England, under the authority of the Canons and as someone who enjoys my licence. I have already asked the Archdeacon of London to commence the investigation and I shall be referring the matter to the Chancellor of the Diocese. Before I do this, I am giving you an opportunity to make representations to me direct.
Yours faithfully.
The Rt Revd & Rt Hon Richard Chartres DD FSA
If I were Martin Dudley, I’d be freshing up on the other parts of my CV that weren’t connected to theology.
Peter, if you were Martin Dudley there wouldn’t be quite so much hatred of gay people on the internet.Â
You fail to understand the nature of freehold. Shout and scream as much as you want; Martin Dudley has made a pastoral response to a request, as the Bishops’ ‘guidelines’ (and they are only guidelines) suggest that he do. If I were you, I’d be inclined to read the Church Times leader about this matter. Very wise words. And some good theology rather than self righteous shouting .    Â
I think you’ll find that freehold without a licence to operate as a Church of England clergyman will not get Dudley very far. The bottom line is that he has used a form of service that deviates from the doctrine of the Church of England, and that will be his come-uppance.
Alas, if Bishops were to spend their time looking at services that deviated from the Church of England doctrine they would be really rather busy. What do you suggest Richard Chartres does about Anglo Catholics who use the Roman Missal routinely (and there are huge number in London dsiocese), to name but one example. Â
Fact is that many of us have personally witnessed Bishops (including the Bishop of London) ordain and license clergy who they full well knew to be gay. How is that different to blessing a couple in a London church?
Oh..I should have made it clear before you come back with some pedantic comment..they full well knew them to be ACTIVELY gay.
The texts of the Roman Missal don’t deviate from the doctrine of the Church of England. That is the crucial issue.
“The texts of the Roman Missal don’t deviate from the doctrine of the Church of England.”
You are kidding aren’t you?  Church of England doctrine now includes the sacrifice of the mass, specific prayers for the dead, an indication that the Pope is the head of our church??…I could go on. What a ridiculous suggestion.Â
We might also refer you, the Bishop of London and others to the blessing (in church) of the Prince of Wales and Camilla. That marriage was in direct contradiction to the doctrine of the Church of England in that Camilla was instrumental in the break up of the first marriage. Ok they were married in a civil ceremony. But the union was blessed in church. Very publicly.  Â
Come on Peter, you will have to do rather better than this homophobic nonsense.
You also fail to address the point about Chartres and other Bishops ordaining and licensing actively gay clergy in full knowledge of that fact. How is that NOT blessing them whereas Dudley’s service did?
Yes, sound, you’re right about the Roman Missal.
Â
Almost at the beginning of the Mass, in the Confiteor, we have these words:
Â
“Therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-virgin, all the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.â€
Â
The perpetual virginity of Mary certainly isn’t a doctrine of the Church of England, although some Anglicans believe in it – I don’t know why – and are presumably free to do so. But asking the Virgin Mary and the saints to pray for you seems to contradict Article XXII of the 39 Articles of Religion, even if the Anglo-Catholics say that it doesn’t.
Â
The Church of England removed all prayers for the departed from its services after the Reformation, but it may be disputed whether praying for the dead actually contravenes the doctrine of the C of E. I would have thought that it doesn’t. No-one, I think, would deny that we are free to pray for all living people at any rate – of any religion or none – but the references to Benedict [or whoever the Pope may be at the time] our Pope in the first, third and fourth Eucharistic Prayers is difficult to reconcile with Article XXXVII.
Â
In the first Eucharistic Prayer, the reference to venerating “the glorious and ever-virgin Maryâ€, St Joseph, the holy apostles and martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew, many others (whose names are given in an optional list) and all the other saints, together with the supplication that their prayers should give us God’s constant help and protection, would seem once again to contravene Article XXII.
Â
In the concluding part of the same prayer the priest prays that “your angel may take this offering to your altar in heaven†after referring to the Eucharist as a sacrifice of the “pure, holy and immaculate victimâ€, which is compared to the sacrifices offered by Abel, Abraham and Melchizedek. In the third Eucharistic Prayer God is asked to look with love on the Church’s offering, “the victim sacrificed for our redemptionâ€, and to grant through this sacrifice peace and salvation to all the world. In the fourth Eucharistic Prayer Christ’s body and blood are offered “for the salvation of the entire worldâ€. How about Article XXXI?
Â
(I haven’t got a copy of the English edition of the Roman Missal by me at the moment, so I’ve had to rely on a combination of memory and translation, but I think that I’ve given the substance of the text accurately, even if I haven’t managed to give the words of the English version verbatim.)
Â
Yes, I know: John Henry Newman had a damn good try in Tracts for the Times at reconciling the doctrines expressed in the 39 Articles, and in the Book of Common Prayer generally, with Roman Catholic doctrine, but his attempt was a failure, and I think I’m right in saying that in his later years he admitted as much himself.
Â
Â
In which case I stand corrected. Which of you wants to write to Richard Chartres to complain about him permitting the Roman Missal?
Well, it won’t be me. I’m not a member of the Church of England, so it’s none of my business.
Peter I suggest that as you are complaining about the use of a pastoral service in a London church that it is you who need to be consistent and complain to the bishop of London about the use of the Roman Missal. And I suggest you might want to address my point about the ordination and licensing of countless actively gay and lesbian clergy in Dioceses like London and Chichester…cosistency and integrity is not, alas, a hallmark of the so called ‘conservatives’.  Â
And those of us who have been ordained rather more than 5 minutes and have freeholds do have a little more understanding of what they actually mean Peter. Â
I have a very clear position on the ordination of those who are actively homosexual, and that is that they condemn themselves the moment that they are ordained and wilfully sin, just like all of us who are fallen. These days, candidates for ordination are asked very clearly at their selection conferences whether they will abide by the teaching of the church on sexual matters. I would hate to be one of those on the Final Day who perjured themselves on this issue.
You must be very pleased that when it comes to the final day that you will not have told any lies about anything in your life then Peter. Your contining ability for self righeousness is quite astonishing. Â
The teaching of the church on sexual matters is, of course, a little confused at present, and as the Archbishops themsleves have suggested, quite open for questioning and reform. The way that some of our fellow clergy (including bishops) find it right to do this is by clear example of faithful, stable, same sex relationships. That may not be considered right by some.  But as you have been reminded on several threads and in other places, it is a fact you simply have to get used to.    Â
Oh no, without the blood of Jesus, my sins won’t be covered, it’s just that I don’t go around saying that what is a sin isn’t.
The teaching of the Communion and the CofE is very clear. Lambeth ’98 1:10 is unambiguous and so is the last General Synod motion on the subject and the House of Bishop’s statements. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
Then you will be aware of the carefully worded Lambeth 1.10 resolution where it says:
“We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ;”
It assumes that homosexual persons have experience of their homosexuality. Â You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
And the point (in case you had missed it all these years) is that there is not a general agreement about the ‘sinfulness’ of faithful same sex relationships. That is why Lambeth 1.10 assures such people that they are full members of the body of Christ. Â
I presume you’ve read the study guide produce by Phil Groves’ team?
My question to you would be, what is the end of listening? Do you think we should continue to listen until we ignorant homophobes change our minds, or are you willing to accept that having listened, the Conference may yet come to the conclusion that those advocating revision of the theology of sex are wrong?
There IS general agreement on the sinfulness of same-sex relationships as clearly outlined in the 1998 resolution. Their faithfulness (same-sex relationships) has nothing to do with it in the same way that the faithfulness of a polygamous relationship would have no bearing on its morality.
Oh yes I’ve read things from all sides. One of the most impressive is from your Dean. Referred to and commended in Bishop Alan’s blog. Â
Yes, I think we should listen until ‘ignorant homophobes’ (your words) change your minds. Then when the ignorance and homophobia is gone, we can have a proper discussion.
Where does Bishop Alan commend “Permanent, Stable, Faithful”?
Bishop Alan commends it in his blog and then in comments responding to his blog. He writes:Â Â
Jeffrey John’s book (Permanent, Stable Faithful) and responses moved the mutual listening and learning process forwards.
and
I commended Jeffrey John’s work because it brought about an intelligent engagement that actually changed some people’s minds and hearts. I believe that’s the way to go. Yet zealots on both sides are actually closing down communication channels.
Excellent words….
Many of the mainstream Protestant churches in Europe have had similar problems and disagreements but are now light years ahead of the Anglican Communion on this matter. That should give gay Anglicans hope for the future. “Keep right on to the end of the road”, as Sir Harry Lauder’s song puts it.
Hello William, unfortunately the mainline churches in Europe have also mainly abandoned the gospel. As a consequence, (I would argue), here in Germany (where I live), the protestant church is practically a corpse. The only area which goes against the grain slightly is the state of Baden-Würtemburg, where the pietist form of evangelicalism has had a positive influence.
It is of course interesting to note in the Bishop of London’s letter to Martin Dudley that the Bishop agrees that there is no consensus of opinion in the Church about the matter: Â
“The point at issue is not Civil Partnerships themselves or the relation of biblical teaching to homosexual practice. There is of course a range of opinion on these matters in the Church and, as you know, homophobia is not tolerated in the Diocese of London.”
We weren’t disagreeing about there being a range of opinion – we were disagreeing about what is accepted as the *correct* opinion on this issue. On that Lambeth and Synod and the House of Bishops are very clear.
You accept it as the *correct* version; not all of the Anglican Communion does. And it becomes clearer as each day goes on that even Gafcon is something of a shambles and the Bishops (a minority in the Anglican Communion anyway) who are attending haven’t got the guts to leave despite all their huffing and puffing.
The Bishop of London recognises that there is a range of opinion. He also recognises that the kind of operation you support won’t be tolerated in the Diocese of London. As has been explained to you on other threads here if the actively gay clergy were removed from some areas of the Diocese of London, there would be no priestly ministry in significant areas of it.  That has always been the case. Â