Maltby, Women Bishops and the Twisting of Words
Judith Maltby, the Chaplain of Corpus Christi College in Oxford, has written a piece for the Guardian’s Comment is Free section on their web. In it she unfortunately demonstrates a lack of real engagement with the theological objections of those who oppose women’s ordination and consecration and indeed shows how she simply won’t engage with the reality of what people actually say, instead choosing to judge upon what she believes they mean.
Here’s the text with my comments interspersed:
When I was ordained a deacon in 1992, a few months before the historic vote on women priests, I was like most people shortly to be ordained: overly anxious and overly serious. Added to that I had recently finished my doctorate on an aspect of the English Reformation. This meant, unlike most Anglican ordinands, I had actually read the 39 Articles to which one must assent before being ordained in the Church of England. I had scruples. I told my diocesan bishop that although most of the thirty-nine were fine, one or two were a real problem. Article 37 for example, endorses capital punishment, a position I find incompatible with the Christian gospel – a fact that seems to have been overlooked (or has it?) by those who wish to impose the Articles as a touchstone of orthodoxy and morality on the whole of the Anglican Communion. I received from my bishop just the right response for the occasion: he told me that by ‘assent’, I was saying ‘Yes bishop, those are the 39 Articles’. His pastoral, intelligent and humane response to my somewhat precious scrupling carried me through the day.
For one who has completed a doctorate on the 39 Articles, Maltby shows an extraordinary laxity of approach to the actual text of those Articles. Here is the original text of Article 37 :
The King’s Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction. Where we attribute to the King’s Majesty the chief government, by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended; we give not our Princes the ministering either of God’s Word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify; but that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers.
The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.
The Laws of the Realm may punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous offences.
It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.
Notice the exact wording of that article. "The Laws of the Realm *may* punish men with death…" For those who are familiar with leading worship, we get very used to the difference between "may" and "shall". The "may" here indicates that such a position is not a command upon Christians but rather an understanding that some may come to the conclusion that capital punishment is in certain circumstances justifiable. And yes, Maltby is writing for a secular audience, but note how she doesn’t at any time attempt to justify her position on the subject from Scripture. Rather she uses it as an example of her willful dissemblance at her ordination when asked to assent to and affirm the 39 Articles, a perjury that she seems to implicate the Diocesan bishop as being complicit with.
Imagine folks if I had taken that attitude upon ordination to the first five articles?
The draft legislation to consecrate women as bishops published on Mondayand the supporting documentation makes a great deal of Anglicanism‘s gift for holding together diverse, at times, contradictory points of conviction in a wider context of pastoral common sense. Often derided by others for this as the fudge producers extraordinaire of Christianity, we Anglicans tend to make a virtue of it and if it makes us less prone to witch-hunts and the gleeful doctrinal purges of the purity police, I’m all for it. Human beings, let alone God, are rather complicated.
Anglicans disagree about more things than I could live long enough to enumerate: how is Christ present in the Eucharist, if at all; does Baptism make people regenerate or does it anticipate later conversion; what does it actually mean to say that the Bible is the Word of God; is the death of Jesus redemptive because he took punishment which should have been ours or through his death, God shows the profundity of the divine identification and commitment to the human race; is ordination ontological or merely the authorizing an individual to perform a set of ecclesiastical functions ndash; oh and can women, as well as men, be priests and bishops? Yes we disagree about that too as well as not agreeing just what a priest or bishop actually is in the first place. I haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of the things over which Anglicans differ.
I just want to comment at this point that though Maltby seems to lay out here a position that Anglicanism allows itself to be open a number of different theological interpretations, only two paragraphs previously she has presented a position on capital punishment that indicates that in her mind it is *not* acceptable to disagree with the position that capital punishment is ungodly. It appears that less than half way through her essay she is already wrapping herself up in a web of authoritarian confusion.
In the midst of all this merry muddle, what we have never done as a church until the Act of Synod in 1993, is to deal with differing convictions by setting up a class of bishop to give pastoral care to one group based solely on their views on one issue. The draft legislation carries on this idea with its proposal of ‘complementary’ bishops to serve the minority in the church unhappy about women bishops. Not only would these bishops be men, they would have to be men untainted by sacramental association with women clergy – please understand: just being a bloke isn’t good enough, the bloke must be pure. I get angry emails from time to time for describing this as a theology of taint, but I honestly can’t think of a more candid description for this position.
What Maltby neglects to tell her readers at this point however is that that votes in 1993 introduced women priests on the understanding that the doctrinal discernment in this area was not yet complete and that the Church of England, as part of the wider catholic church, was in a period of reception as regards this innovation. That meant that the Act of Synod and accompanying documentation explicitly acknowledged that those who objected to the ordination of women on theological grounds did so (and still do so) with integrity and as fully participating members (and clergy) of the Church. There was therefore absolutely no "theology of taint" intended by the provisions for discenting parishes and furthermore, the Synod understood the necessity for such provision.
And it’s worth pointing out here of course that there are plenty of us opposed to women’s ordination who have no issue with male bishops who have ordained women. We have, after all, read Article 26:
Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.
Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty, by just judgment be deposed.
On with Maltby:
The point is this: I have a very ‘high’ view of the Eucharist – if my bishop does not share this view, by the reasoning that gives us complementary bishops, I should be entitled to a bishop who agrees with me for surely Eucharistic theology is as important as disputes over ordination. But no. From disagreements over the Eucharist, the Bible, even the theological meaning of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we Anglicans feel no need to haul in a complementary bishop.
Not even in the slightest. The Anglican position on the Eucharist from the Articles can be easily seen:
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.
It’s very clear that if you believe in transubstantiation and yet assent to the 39 Articles you are perjuring yourself, pure and simple. In the same way, to take a Zwinglian view (that the elements are only ever bread and wine and do not in any sense becomes tools by which we receive from Christ in the Eucharist) is also proscribed by the first paragraph of the Article. So the Anglican position is actually rather clear – what happens at the Lord’s Table is neither simply a memorial nor the magical transformation of the elements into Christ himself, but some other mystery somewhere between these two rejected heresies. Many priests like myself are more than happy with such a position, and for those who believe that doctrine cannot be expressed in such a manner (the denial of what is not true rather than the explicit affirmation of what is true), then they need to take another read of the Athanasian Creed.
So back to Maltby. It’s very clear that the Anglican Church has settled its mind as to what occurs on the Lord’s Table, but furthermore, it has also decided that no provision needs to be made for those who might afterall believe something slightly different to their Bishop in this regard (for example my Bishop might take a position more akin to Calvin, I one more akin to Cranmer or Hooker). It has however decided that since the final discernment as to whether it is correct to ordain women has not been made, it is perfectly acceptable to make provision in this regard for those who object to the 1993 innovations.
It is therefore simply incorrect for Maltby to argue that "if my bishop does not share this view, by the reasoning that gives us complementary bishops, I should be entitled to a bishop who agrees with me". The Articles show very clearly that on the matter of the economics of the Eucharists there are incorrect interpretations and there are correct interpretations (or to be more precise, there are interpretations that are not incorrect). On the matter of women’s ordination however the Synod has clearly argued that there is no one valid correct interpretation (we are in a period of reception) and that therefore allowance can and should be made for those who object to the innovation.
On to the killer paragraph:
Why is that? One is left with the sad conclusion that the draft legislation and its code of practice isn’t really trying to deal with genuine theological difference – the Church of England has that in abundance – it is trying to deal with women. I don’t blame the hard working members of the drafting group for this – this reflects state of the Church of England. Women are the problem, not a gift, which needs a solution. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘complementary’ as ‘completing and perfecting’. What, I wonder, could possibly be ‘incomplete’ about a woman in episcopal orders (answers on a post card, please)? Maude Royden, the first Anglican woman to preach in the Church of England in 1919, sparking enormous controversy at the time (as it still would in Sydney), once remarked ironically ‘I was born a woman and I can’t get over it’. The Church of England, it would appear, bereft of any irony, cannot get over it either.
Maltby’s argument descends to the usual position of those who object to the objectors – that they are afterall just misogynists and the provisions being made for them pander to such prejudice. And really, one cannot fail to see why she should resort to such a response, because she doesn’t use Scripture in her argument and the procedural / ecclesiastical objections she raises are simply incorrect. The only way therefore to argue against those who have genuine theological and ecclesiastical objections to women’s ordination and consecration is to allege that our objections are not afterall theological but stem from prejudice. If we can be portrayed as prejudiced and bigotted against a certain group then it becomes much easier to demonise us and dismiss our arguments, not on the basis of good Bible study or reasoned ecclesiology but simply because our viewpoint is not acceptable in the enlightened 21st Century.
Prejudice is, afterall, a bad thing.
One more thought. Back in 2003, whilst studying at Wycliffe Hall in Oxford in preparation for ordination, I was asked whether I would be prepared to act as a link point to the Christian Union in Corpus Christi college. The idea of the link was that I would be someone with a bit more experience and wisdom (?) than the undergraduates running the college CU, someone to pray with and perhaps run ideas past, not to run the CU for them but someone just to refer to for advice and counsel. As a matter of courtesy I emailed the chaplain of the college and asked whether she would be comfortable with the arrangement. The chaplain responded and quite bluntly refused me any permission to act in any pastoral manner with the undergraduates in question. I offered to meet with her so she could get to know me and perhaps realise that I wasn’t the chapel burning, icon smashing, authority ignoring puritan thug that she seemed to believe I was (I didn’t of course use that language – I suggested a nice cup of tea to get to know each other). She refused. I believe the lady in question is still in position.
Prejudice, as I’ve said before, is a bad thing.
I read Peter’s last post and thought to myself .. “Ah, so THAT’s how men slipped from dominion into the sin of domination.” Â
You may indeed have proven that the matter has been under consideration for a long time Peter, but your reply is far from ‘friendly’ towards women.
The issue at hand was whether the question of female presidency only began recently. The quotes I have given do demonstrate that it has been a debate for the life of the Church – for example the St Epiphanius quote about women being priests de facto refers to the matter, since priests preside.
For the record I do not agree with all the texts presented and you’re absolutely right Rosemary that some demonstrate attitudes that are quite unchristian (IMHO). However, they do demonstrate that the issue was the topic of discussion in the early years of the church.
Leaving aside for one moment the theological arguments – in my view, it will never be proven beyond all doubt from scripture that women should be priests – I would like to pick up on Rosemary’s last paragraph in her penultimate post.
Â
It must be obvious by now that a Code of Practice is not going to be enough to keep a significant minority in the Church of England once we get women bishops. Leaving aside too the question of where do we go, those of us who don’t want to go to Rome, or Orthodoxy, or become Methodists or Baptists – who will be left in the C of E?Â
Â
It must be apparent also that once 2,000 years of tradition is overturned, the wall has been breached, and innovations will be able to flood in. Who is to stop them? The Church of England lost around 600 orthodox clergy in 1992/3, and countless laity, and many more will be lost when women bishops come upon the scene.  In no time at all we will have practising gay bishops (key WATCH people are tucked snugly up in bed with Inclusive Church, and have been for some time) and then what? Will people still be debating the finer points of Junia/Junius and the ‘priesthood of all believers’ as the believers depart?
Â
We are following blindly down the road which TEC has taken, and which has emptied churches.
Â
We can only see through a glass darkly; only God has the whole picture, and I believe that He intended men to lead in His church. I should add here that I haven’t always thought this way – and I personally know two women priests, who are doing a fine job – it has dawned upon me over a period as I saw unforeseen and unwelcome happenings, and felt that this wasn’t how it was meant to be.
Â
I am encouraged to see that a number of blogs are now carrying threads discussing women’s ordination, when even just a few years ago it was regarded as a done deal, and thought that dissenters would just get used to it. It is now apparent that we will not, and that we will be unchurched. This might please some, but I think a great many people feel a lot of unease about it.
First it was Sarah, now it is I who feel sad. I’m not quite sure what to say to you Jill. How difficult it is to share of oneself through this medium. If I’m somewhat blunt, I hope you will forgive me.
Jill, when we got our new Bishop [a lady], one clergyman left this Diocese and returned to the UK, to a chaplaincy job I think. That person was a genuine Anglo Catholic! I say that because we don’t actually have too many of those around at all. His conscience absolutely would not let him remain believing as he did. I understood. I’m extremely sorry, because this Diocese needs him .. but I understood.
Among the ordained Evangelical community here, by far the majority have no problem with the fact that we have a female Bishop, but it hasn’t been as easy or as straightforward for those of us who believe as I do. It was relatively easy to function, and function well, before .. but we’ve had to really search our hearts and allow Jesus to talk to us through His Scriptures to arrive at the place where we can say .. with our hands on our hearts .. “Yes, this IS a second order issue.” A matter of adiaphora as the Windsor Report has it. If we leave, WE make it a first order issue, and this is what you need to do at this moment in time I suggest. Take time to let that sink in. Pray about it, look for answers in your daily readings.
It’s entirely possible that those who oppose us will themselves make this a first order issue, and find a way to exclude us from our ministry. This is in fact already happening. In that case, it’s a whole different ball game as our American brothers and sisters would say. Meanwhile, I have a couple of suggestions ..
1. The successful parishes in this Diocese are ALL evangelical
2. We personally have a very successful women’s ministry both paid and unpaid. Perhaps other women might envy that work? Also support for one another amongst our womenfolk is BIG, especially for young mums.
3. We must make every effort to support the ministry of clergymen in our area, but ESPECIALLY those who themselves support the ministry of women!!
I said in a previous post that I believe [but not in my lifetime] that without rescinding the synodical decision, eventually the huge numbers of women being ordained will lessen. I think that is true. Women can be and ARE extremely good at ministry in SOME areas, but we need our menfolk, and they need us to be whole. I think eventually that will be recognised. But if everyone who believes as we do has left..??
I don’t know you Jill, I don’t know your theology, so I may be talking entirely out of turn and your conscience may indeed not permit you to stay. But I would ask that you allow the sense of what I say above, to have time to ‘sink in’ .. and I believe that will take some time, it did with me anyway.
Rosemary, I was touched by the tone of your post, which was very kind – I have been posting on this topic for some years now, and am far more accustomed to hostile and angry responses, such as some of the ones Peter received earlier in this thread, heavily laced with references to my moral defectiveness! It is not often I get any sympathy, I can tell you, either for myself or the many thousands of others in my position! As to my theology, I am more of an Anglo Catholic but certainly lower ‘down the candle’ than some – I was brought up on the Book of Common Prayer (1662), so am fairly typical of C of E ‘traditionalists’ (for want of a better word).
Â
But this is not about me – even though I was hoping that our current system of flying bishops would see me out!! (I am still praying for a miracle!) It is my grandchildren, and the future of the Church of England, that I worry about. Since 2006 we have more women being ordained than men. I don’t know when the ‘tipping point’ will be reached when we have equal numbers of male and female clergy, but my belief is that, once that happens, men will gradually stop coming forward for ordination. I might of course be wrong, but it happens in other walks of life. Once we have women bishops it could all happen quite quickly, as many more male clergy would depart, of that I am certain. I cannot see a weak and effeminate church being very attractive to either men or women.
Â
There are other practical reasons why I think women priests are less suitable – not the least of them being that women are the family nurturers and cannot devote the whole of their energy to their calling in the same way that men do.  This will no doubt anger feminists, but that is the way things are! Neither can it be denied that part-time, or approaching-retirement, ministry is not such a good proposition as full-time.Â
Â
Just one other thing is this: Anglo Catholics were quite happy to work alongside proponents of women priests provided we were allowed to continue to believe what the church had always believed – that the priesthood should be male. Proponents of WO do not want to co-exist with us (as was shown in the recent Synod vote – they want us out if we do not conform to their ways, or be at the mercy of their whims and vagaries. Just what kind of a Church do we want to be?
Jill – can we just be clear that we actually DO have practising gay Bishops in the C of E and have had for years. That’s why many of us believe that integrity is really being pushed beyond the limit by those who protest about the matter. The new chairperson of CEEC is an interesting case. I presume he must be very very naive, because he really doesn’t have to look very far in his own C of E diocese to see a partnered gay bishop, (and numerous partnered gay clergy too) . The kind of Church we want to be is one that has integrity. You will find that Anglo Catholics simply don’t want to debate the matter of gay clergy – there are far too many partnered gay clergy and laity in the ranks of anglo catholic churches for the debate to be comfortable.Â
  Â
Secondly, it is very clear that the vast majority of people regard the issue of women’s ordination as a second order one, as Rosemary has carefully pointed out.   Now I can only guess from here and elsewhere,  that you regard it as first order issue. But that is not how the Anglican church sees it – witness the fact the vast majority of provinces ordain women as priests. It is NOT that we want you out if you disagree. It is simply that we want you to recognise that a decision has been made that can’t be reversed. You can’t un-ordain all the women across the world in the Anglican church, and you can’t un-decide something that has already been decided.  By all means stay – but don’t stay in some pretend world. Peter has amply demonstrated the mental gymnastics that are required to do that. And it is just something else that lacks integrity.    Â
Sound,
I’d like you to have the courage of your convictions and to publicly name who the same-sex partnered (or sexually active) Bishops are. I think most of us know who the person in London Diocese who you are intimating is, but you are suggesting he is not the only one. Who then?
Peter I don’t think naming gets us very far does it? Peter Tatchell has done that and it doesn’t get anyone anywhere. I think you are bright enough to work out what’s what. And I think Richard Chartres is sufficiently clear to know that ‘we don’t open windows into men’s souls’. But he also knows the Diocese of London won’t survive without the black suited clergy, especially in certain episcopal areas, many of whom happen to be gay and partnered.   Or do you want to actually deny their existence?  Integrity is very important….but so is discretion.   Â
I think, to be fair, at the moment you’re the one who is trying to deny their existence. Just come out and name them. What of integrity?
Well at least it seems we are agreed that we have gay, partnered bishops in the C of E (and I assume Jill will take note). That is a step towards integrity. I have no need to name them. Where would that get us? Do you want to stand outside their houses and seek proof? Do you think it *is* right to open windows into men’s souls? Â
I know ‘sound’ that you’re what is known as a ‘troll’ in internet jargon .. but that is just what Jesus does .. opens windows into our souls.
That matter you are treating with less than ‘integrity’ IS a first order issue, a matter of salvation .. and not to be treated lightly.
Rosemary, I don’t think having a debate about integrity *is* to be treated lightly, and neither do I think it is a matter of ‘trolling’. I’ve seen the word used casually, and mostly by conservatives when they simply don’t like being reminded of certain facts.Â
The Church of England has the Elizabethan settlement as one of its foundations. It was Queen Elizabeth who refused to ‘make windows into men’s souls … there is only one Jesus Christ and all the rest is a dispute over trifles’;  So I am sure that she (and indeed I) would agree with you that Jesus Christ *does* open windows into our souls, and we are content to leave it to him to do so. Â
As to homosexuality being a first order issue: that’s clearly a matter of debate within the Anglican Communion at the moment, and that’s the reason this blog exists. But my point is very simple. The debate does not change the fact that we have partnered gay bishops in the C of E.   Peter and I clearly agree on that very fact, but Jill, in her post,  was denying it.
Tsk Rosemary, you know better than to feed a troll .. off to bed with you. Night all
Sound,
The House of Bishops themselves have said very clearly that they demand of clergy that they are celibate and that that demand should be confirmed by clergy who (for example) enter into a Civil Partnership. I think you really need to take it up with the Bishops, not me.
Peter, I understand what you are saying, but I’m not actually taking anything up with you. I’m talking about integrity as a point of debate with Jill, who raised the matter on your blog and who seems to think we don’t have any gay bishops in the C of E. In fact the point about celibacy doesn’t bother me so long as there is fidelity.  So I have no need to take that up with the bishops. The point about integrity I *have* taken up with the bishops, and simply get the response that ‘we don’t make windows into men’s souls…’ I suspect that is simply a way of not wanting to know don’t you?   Â
Sound,
We finally agree on something!!! Yes, it sounds to me that the response you are getting is a way of simply not wanting to know, the Church of England equivalent of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.
As to the wider issue of whether there are homosexually active bishops in the CofE, I am aware of Bishops who would happily self-identify as homosexual, but to be honest, I have never had a definitive evidence presented to me about current homosexual activity, including the specific example you have alluded to above. I think I will reserve judgement on that until someone provides me with the relevant proof.
The wider issue I was raising was that we simply can’t use the “Of course we all know there are homosexually active Bishops” argument unless someone is happy to name them. Until that moment it’s a bit like me saying “Well yes, we all know that there are Bishops living in polygamous relationships”, but not being willing to identify the specific individuals. Hardly helps in my ongoing campaign to be allowed to marry as many women as I want!!
For the record, for those who take these things a tad too seriously, I don’t actually know of any polygamous Bishops (well, not one’s who aren’t Mormon) and I don’t actually want to marry any other women.
Please point me, Sound, to the part of my post where I have denied that we have gay bishops. I know perfectly well that we have – always have had, and always will.  We have had a homosexual Archbishop of Canterbury (although celibate).  You say we should not be peering through windows into men’s souls – well, that’s a bit rich, when we can’t turn round without having homosexuality shoved into our faces! I actually prefer not to know what people do in their bedrooms. It’s none of my business. What I resent is it being forced upon me. The former Archbishop of York resisted all Peter Tatchell’s attempts to ‘out’ him by declaring his sexuality to be a ‘grey area’, and nothing to do with anyone but himself and God. Many men live Godly and chaste lives, and should be left in peace. That is what I call integrity. Forcing ‘acceptance’ of unbiblical practices upon people is just a pernicious form of bullying.
Â
Having the vicar’s male partner move into the vicarage with him is a surefire emptier of churches, as we have seen from TEC. Many people in TEC are now looking back at women’s ordination and realising it was just a step along this road. It’s a pity we in the Church of England are not learning from them.
By the way, I only know of one gay bishop at present, and have no idea whether he is ‘partnered’ or not – which suits me just fine.Â
Yes Peter, I suspect it is the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ approach. My guess, from what Jill writes,  is that she supports it.Â
Jill – just for clarity – you said  ‘In no time at all we will have practising gay bishops’. and you said it on January 23rd at 5.10pm on this thread. Â
My point is that we do, and always have had.Â
I agree that Petert Tatchell’s technique is not especially helpful – but that doesn’t mean he was wrong in his facts. Â
I think the truth is that many people live ‘split’ lives, and the Church colludes with it. I don’t think that was Jesus’ approach. The story of the women at the well demonstrates that amply.Â
Now, personally I don’t care that we have had successive area bishops in London Diocese who are gay and partnered. It’s a pretty open secret in the Diocese. But it does challenge your assumption that women’s ordination will be closely followed by gay bishops, as by and large, those gay bishops we HAVE had in the C of E have been pretty openly opposed to the ordination of women. If you look at the list of Bishops ‘outed’ in 1994 you will see that several of them were vehement opposers of the ordination of women. So I don’t see your logic Jill.Â
Damian Thompson wrote an excellent piece in his blog back in 2007 about the don’t ask don’t tell’ approach and I quote just some of it here:Â
  ….  an article has appeared in this week’s Church of England Newspaper claiming – quite correctly – that the C of E is the most gay-friendly Church in the world, easily outstripping any other province of the Anglican Communion.
That is because its bishops routinely ignore their own official guidelines on homosexuality – and especially civil partnerships.
The article is by Christopher Morgan, a well-connected religious commentator who, many years ago, was best man at Rowan Williams’s wedding. It’s a good piece – he has done his homework – but it will shock some of the Church of England Newspaper’s evangelical readers.
It is not available free online, so let me quote the relevant passage. The background is that, according to a House of Bishops’ “pastoral statement”, a bishop is supposed to inquire into the nature of a priest’s gay relationship, to ensure that it is non-sexual, before giving a civil partnership his approval.
Morgan writes: “I do not think even one bishop has enquired into the bedroom arrangements of clergy in civil partnerships, as the statement suggested, but I heard recently of an absurd consequence of the statement.
“A priest about to enter into a civil partnership thought it would be courteous to tell his diocesan bishop of his plan. The diocesan in turn asked his suffragan, himself widely rumoured to be gay, to contact the priest.
“And, of course, the conversation never touched on the private aspects of the relationship.”
Morgan goes on to talk about gay bishops in the Church, and says that George Carey told him on tape that he had ordained at least two. In fact, Dr Carey actually named the two bishops. One of the names came as no surprise, since (if my memory serves me) the bishop had, as a priest, once served as a judge for Mr Gay UK.
My senior source, as I say, reckons that 20 bishops are obviously gay; probably there are more. And the conclusion I draw from this is the same as Chris Morgan’s: since homosexual bishops are a fait accompli, isn’t it time for both sides in this increasingly boring debate to pipe down?
  Â
“20 Bishops are obviously gay”?
Blimey – send me the list (just out of curiosity, of course).
Well that’s a question for Damian Thompson I guess! But I expect his response will be (as yours has been on here before now, and mine has been, tacitly, to you above) Â that a good journalist does not reveal sources or name names! I am pretty sure, from my own enquiries, that the figure is not wrong. And I’m also pretty clear that George Carey knowingly ordained some, as is claimed in the blog. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
He doesn’t have to reveal his source, he just has to tell us the names!!
Sound, I thought I had said ‘openly practising gay bishops’ so I apologise. We may well have practising gay bishops – it is the ‘open’ bit that is the rub.Â
Â
I am not exactly justifying ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ – I am saying that we don’t know what private struggles people have with any addiction, sexual or otherwise – clergy are certainly not immune from these. There may be numerous same-sex attracted bishops, for all I know. That isn’t the issue. Nor is it the issue that George Carey would have consecrated some. I daresay he consecrated some alcoholics too! We can’t defrock everyone who falls by the wayside occasionally – bishops are human, too, after all, and nobody wants a witch hunt.
Â
No, my problem is what you call ‘partnered’ bishops (and clergy) – those who publicly flaunt their sexual misdemeanours. What would you say if the vicar booted his wife and children out of the vicarage and moved his mistress in? I include in this category not just SSA men, but those who teach that same-sex sexual relationships are Godly, when they are plainly not.
Â
But you are right, this is boring, but it will not ‘pipe down’ as you put it, it will eventually empty the churches. And even Gene Robinson recognises that women bishops are necessary for ‘inclusion’ of gays and lesbians into the Episcopate. The movers and shakers of the Inclusive Church movement are involved in WATCH (Women and the Church). Also, the comprehensive 1992 survey of Church of England clergy showed that the ‘belief quotient’ of women clergy was significantly lower than their male counterparts, not only in credal doctrine but on moral and ethical issues including ordination of practising homosexuals (which 48% of women supported, as opposed to 29% of men.) (Source: Mind of Anglicans Survey 2002, conducted by Christian Research.)
Â
I’m afraid I simply don’t believe that there are 20 homosexually ‘partnered’ bishops in the Church of England. If there are, they cannot be ‘openly’ so, because Peter obviously hasn’t heard of them, and neither have I. If you are right, this is a powder keg just waiting to explode!
Jil, do read Damian Thompson’s bit again. Clearly we don’t have 20 ‘openly’ gay bishops – but that is not what he claims. Obviously is different to ‘openly’.  Â
I do know several clergy in civil partnerships and their experience is just as described in the piece quoted above… and frankly to assume that at least some are not having a physical relationship would be just naive.Â
I beg your pardon again, sound. Obviously gay – by that I assume you mean with effeminate characteristics. I don’t think I have a problem with that. When I was young we used to call them ‘bachelors’, or ‘not the marrying kind’.  I would not like to discover that they were sexually active, but if I don’t know about it, then I am not required to judge, and we can co-exist harmoniously. I believe that God will be their judge, and I am perfectly happy with that arrangement!
As to the Civil Partnerships, I think it was a bad mistake for the C of E to allow them. It has created a ridiculous situation, and puts the onus on individual bishops, which is unfair. It is also unfair on their brother priests. A blanket ban would have been a far better way forward.  The current situation has made the Church a laughing-stock.
  Hmm, interesting thread (we had a gay bishop in Glasgow you know, although he didn’t come out until retiring which is cheating somewhat). Think the Scott Rennie Church of Scotland case will have quite an impact on these debates (incidently,I’m curious how the evangelical aversion to divorce comes into play when men leave their wife and kids for male partners; surely we wouldn’t *expect* Christian women to stay married to such men even if one *did* believe that gays can change?)Â
 I’m not really sure how apparent sex-free Civil Partnerships are ok from an evangelical perspective either. I thought celibacy , in the priestly sense, involved more than just abstaining from sex?
Â