Lay Anglicana, the unofficial voice of the laity throughout the Anglican Communion.
This is the place to share news and views from the pews.

Get involved ...

Open Letter To The Bishop Of Birmingham: Chris Fewings

Dear Bishop David

I am writing this as an open letter from a half-faithful irregular worshipper delighted by the hospitality of various parishes in your diocese which welcome me as a fringe member. It will be published on the web. I would like to publish your reply but will only do so with your express written permission. However, I will let people know whether I receive a substantive reply.

I would like to thank you for your openness in calling a public meeting in Birmingham Cathedral just after the Synod vote on the gender of bishops. It was good to hear individual clergy and laity freely expressing their views and feelings.

In my view the ‘official’ Church of England (represented by Tim Stevens and anonymous press statements from Church House) is making a fool of itself on the subject of gay relationships, willing to sacrifice the innocence of gay couples who simply wish to celebrate their love openly and unequivocally before God and their community. (I welcome Tim Stevens’ strong statement on homophobia to the House of Lords, but in the current context it will not be heard.)

And yet these official pronouncements do not represent the range of opinions among Anglican clergy, laity and even bishops in this country. They are not even consistent with the known views of Rowan Williams. They show a woeful ignorance or ignoring of the history of marriage. The Bishops of Buckingham, Salisbury and Grantham have made their alternative views known, although to my knowledge among serving bishops only Alan Wilson has spoken out repeatedly, and Nicholas Holtam is the only serving diocesan to have raised his head above the parapet in recent years. Richard Harries assures us that others in the House of Bishops dissent but dare not speak their minds. What is stopping them?

In the past some de facto marriages (such as that between Peter Pears and Benjamin Britten) could flourish privately in a culture of secrecy. It may be that some gay bishops and others still see such secrecy as a protection against homophobia. In a society whose culture and legal framework has changed hugely since the bishops (and I) were growing up, to most people now secrecy seems like an undermining of loving commitment and an endorsement of homophobia. My impression is of a powerful lobby determined to create the public perception that the Church of England regards same-sex unions (however committed and long-term) to be at best second-rate or suitable only for non-Christians – and generally they are succeeding, as most non-Anglicans probably now assume this is how we all think.

I would like to hear every bishop tell his own story. How does each of you interpret scripture? Have your views of human sexuality changed over the last few decades, a period of intense study and re-evaluation of sex and gender issues in the fields of psychology, biblical studies, and cultural history? Could some bishops (of whatever orientation) tell us how they were called to celibacy in the service of Christ? How do they experience love and joy and pain in that context? Surely such stories would be a witness to love.

It seems to me that the silence of individual bishops promotes a simple message to those outside the churches: Christians oppose gay relationships. The nuances of stances within and between churches are lost. And opportunites to nurture life-long loving relationships (including those of many couples who are very active members of the Church of England) are missed. To be a locus of unity in the Anglican tradition surely implies acknowledging the diversity within that unity.

If silence is the best policy, are you free to explain why?

Wishing every joy of the last week of Epiphany as the light bursts into our world once again

Chris Fewings


The illustration is a statue of Bishop Charles Gore, the first Bishop of Birmingham, uploaded to Wikimedia by  oxyman

18 comments on this post:

minidvr said...
avatar

Great open letter from Chris.

I wonder if the Bishop will respond in an honest and open way, without all of the prevarication that pervades and passes for ‘Statements of the Mind of the church’ which are issued by Church House.

If the mind of the church was as stuck in the past as those making such half-baked statements, we’d still be wearing skins, woad and living in caves.

Everyone I know has no objection to the idea of Gay Marriage, and would like to see same sex unions honoured in our parishes by blessings or the actual sacrament of marriage being equally available.

It’s time for the HoB to get of it’s high horse and actually do some prayerful listening to the voices that are speaking out now.

25 January 2013 17:49
annebrooke said...
avatar

Brilliant, Chris, brilliant – I entirely agree with you. It’s time we called the Church of England to account for itself, and also to LISTEN to our voices rather than telling us what we think … We want gay marriage in our church and we want it just as soon as we can dang well get it.

25 January 2013 18:03
Phil Groom said...
avatar

Good stuff, Chris: well said!

25 January 2013 18:28
Chris Fewings said...
avatar

This is an article by Tim Ellis, the suffragan bishop of Grantham, last June: http://fatherowl.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/not-in-my-name/

Here is an address by the Nicholas Holtam diocesan bishop of Salisbury last April: http://thinkinganglicans.org.uk/uploads/holtam-2012april.html

This is the blog of the redoubtable Alan Wilson, suffragan bishop of Buckingham, who has repeatedly emphasises his support for equality for same-sex couples online and is a rare example of a bishop who enjoys conversing on Twitter and Facebook: http://bishopalan.blogspot.co.uk/

Changing Attitude, which works for the full inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in the life of the Anglican Communion, lists some retired and overseas bishops among its patrons, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu: http://changingattitude.org.uk/about-changing-attitude/who-we-are/patrons

25 January 2013 21:28
Matthew Caminer said...
avatar

Rather like my comment to Laura a week or so ago. What response are you realistically expecting to get, Chris?

Chris Fewings said...
avatar

If I knew the answer I wouldn’t have written the letter Matthew. I don’t understand why the House of Bishops which by all accounts must be deeply divided on this issue allows one view to be presented as the view of the Church of England. If others do understand, they could explain in the comments. I would like to know David Urquhart’s view on same-sex unions; if he feels it’s not appropriate to tell me, perhaps he can explain why. Perhaps not. I have a great respect for him.

If the reason for presenting a single view has to do with ‘cabinet government’, surely the presentation should be that the matter is under consideration, that there are many reservations, rather than the stark view consistently presented by one bishop and by anonymous Church House press releases.

I think it’s an issue which calls into question something about the way the Church of England is governed and led. What do you think?

Phil Groom said...
avatar

It’s bizarre; haven’t quite decided whether it’s dishonest or disingenuous, but it’s certainly frustrating having to explain to people that the C of E PR dept does not speak for the C of E, only for itself. Any other organisation would have fired its PR people long ago for gross misrepresentation; and whoever runs its twitter feed is hardly any better: “We’re here to learn and to engage with the Twitter community” they say, but I’ve yet to receive a response to any of my enquiries or comments.

Chris Fewings said...
avatar

I think at least we deserve a clear explanation of how the House of Bishops comes to collective decisions and who oversees public relations.

26 January 2013 20:46
26 January 2013 20:02
26 January 2013 12:42
26 January 2013 11:45
Matthew Caminer said...
avatar

I believe with a passion that it is critically important that people with a ‘burden’ in particular areas should take every opportunity to lobby, to challenge and everything else. But I think that there is equally a real risk of an ‘issue’ equivalent of ‘compassion fatigue’.

For myself, I am simply exhausted by the drip-drip focus on issues of Women Bishops, Same Sex Marriage and LGBT issues. They are simply NOT the only thing on the table, I simply don’t believe that they are the all-consuming concerns of all congregations up and down the land, and I am getting weary of having them thrust at me as if they WERE the only issues on the agenda of Christianity and/or the church. What about world poverty, hunger, commercial sexualisation of children to name just a few?

I know that hasn’t answered your question directly, Chris, but it does show why I comment in the way that I do. What is unfair is that I am liable to be criticised and assumptions are likely to be made about where I stand on these issues without any evidence, but I don’t find it helpful to join the debate, because I find that quality listening and genuine discussion are sadly lacking. It’s a bit of a case of “If you are not fully and utterly for us, you are against us”, and the M and H words get trotted out as a knee-jerk reaction. Sorry: but on these issues, I think there are enough people stating their opinions without me adding my own… not worth the emotional angst!

Chris Fewings said...
avatar

I would welcome posts on world poverty, hunger, commercial sexualisation of children, people trafficking, the sixth great extinction, multi-purpose Anglican churches, the saints, hymnody, liturgy, church architecture, ecumenism, journeys of faith, inter-faith encounters and many more subjects on this blog. I would love to see contributions from the global South. In my experience Laura has been very open to suggestions for new topics and shout-outs for new contributors. I’ve contributed poems and reflections on poetry, and musings on the ‘royal priesthood’, the Jesus Prayer, and All Souls Day, as well as articles on gender issues. I’ve also sometimes being on the lookout for people who disagree with her to contribute.

I take your point about people banging on about one topic, though there are lots of reasons why this could happen. If something grabs your interest, be it stamp collecting or women priests, you often delve into more deeply and pick up on this topic in the news, and so learn more about it and have more to say about it. There’s always the temptation to talk mainly to people who broadly agree to you and to shout your message at everyone else. (I wrote ‘Touch, Untouchability and Change’ because I’d noticed people shouting about gay issues as if it was all obvious, and the temptation to do so myself, whereas I suspected the majority of people over 40 had once thought differently. I was pleased by the sincerity of the response.)

Unfortunately I don’t believe it’s possible to communicate with people without making some assumptions about them, but hopefully you and I will continue to revise our assumptions about each other as we interact. As it happens, I’m not that interested in sex; my over-riding concern is in the human destruction of the rest of the biosphere and the ways some people exploit others; I’ve tried to describe my interests on my blog.

I hope you have time to write more for Lay Anglicana Matthew, and that your submissions find favour with our Editor!

26 January 2013 16:53
Chris Fewings said...
avatar

By the way, your comment reminded me that I’d been meaning to add a link to Peter Ould’s personal story from his ‘post-gay’ perspective to the comments on Touch, Untouchability and Change, which I’ve now done. Personal perspectives interest me more than dogma. But I wonder if one of the dividing lines isn’t so much between ‘pro-gays’ and ‘anti-gays’ as ‘closet’ and ‘open’ – and by closet, I mean the practice of not disclosing much about oneself, whether one’s sexual proclivities or any other part of one’s private life.

Matthew Caminer said...
avatar

Somewhere between closet and narcissism is probably a well-balanced place to be, I agree, but of course personality, introvert/extrovert etc play their part too.

Matthew Caminer said...
avatar

Have you come across the Johari Window? Much used in life-coaching in terms of how much one knows about oneself and how much other people know about oneself…. suggests that the more we know about ourselves and each other, the more effective (and functional?) we all are. Worth looking at if it is new to you… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johari_window

Chris Fewings said...
avatar

I knew the basic schema but not the details of the technique – thanks for the link.

26 January 2013 20:42
26 January 2013 17:38
26 January 2013 17:36
26 January 2013 17:17
26 January 2013 13:33
Matthew Caminer said...
avatar

I’ve not been black-balled so far, Chris. Seriously, you strike me as a wise person. Thanks for your balanced response!

Chris Fewings said...
avatar

Christ is our peace.

27 January 2013 22:37
26 January 2013 16:55
Rev. David Gray said...
avatar

The Progressive Christian Alliance, which includes Anglicans and Catholics as well as Quaker and Unitarian folk whose leadership already speak out for inclusivety and marriage equality, are looking to offer a discussion tool to congregations of all hues to help them work out where they stand with a view to identifying churches where people currently waiting on the margins can reasonably expect a genuine welcome.

We are also linking with Muslim’s for Progressive Values; Jews for Equal marriage and others who understand the global benefits of removing the redoubts of concept to lift the whole human family.

My local Anglican diocese (Manchester) has admitted being afraid of the far right of church and politics in justifying some of its less wholesome decisions, but perhaps with a new bishop imminent a more courageous stance might emerge.

Those afraid to be honest to self, others and God need our love and support to take the lead of the LGBT community and come out – out of fear, confusion, self and other loathing.

26 January 2013 21:59
Chris Fewings said...
avatar

The Bishop’s chaplain acknowledged the copy of the letter I sent to Bishop David by email (I also sent a typed letter to Bishop’s Croft), but he did not reply or acknowledge the letter personally. In view of the Bishop of Salisbury’s courageous breaking of ranks this week ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/10087889/A-letter-from-the-Bishop-of-Salisbury-to-Lord-Alli-of-Norbury.html ), and the vote in the House of Lords next week, I have just written to Bishop David again, by hand.

30 May 2013 12:16

Leave a Reply to Matthew Caminer Cancel reply

We rely on donations to keep this website running.