Posted on 06/18/2008 4:32:44 PM PDT by hiho hiho
The rector of St Bartholomew the Great in the City of London, in the eye of storm over gay 'marriage', explains why he decided he must bless a gay relationship
Robustly heterosexual since early adolescence, unable to see that any love surpasses the love of women, and once branded by the odious Daily Mail as 'Dud the Stud', I may seem miscast in the role into which I have now been thrust, that of the turbulent rebellious priest who defies bishop and archbishop to bless two gay men, also priests, in their civil partnership.
Yet there is a sense in which I have been moving towards this point for more than thirty years. The 1970s shaped my thinking. Many factors were combined, among them existential philosophy, the campus war against American involvement in Vietnam, the challenge to apartheid and to discrimination based on race, colour and gender, and the sexual liberation provided by the contraceptive pill.
The Sunday Times in its golden age under Harry Evans was a major influence, creating a critical mindset that no longer accepted authority without question and the blue-back Penguin books provided a theoretical underpinning for future action.
On the bottom shelf of my bookshelf is one such fundamental text, The Death of the Family by existentialist psychiatrist David Cooper. The study of theology at King’s College, London, was rigorous, critical, comprehensive, and above all engaged with a rapidly changing world. As Dean Sydney Evans posed the existential “Who am I?” he taught us not to accept the “I” as a fixed point but a point in motion, always becoming.
For today’s Church of England it is as if the 1970s never existed; the lessons have been forgotten. There has been a retreat from exploring the depths, pushing the boundaries to the point where words strain, crack and sometimes break as we struggle to express in a suffering world the foolishness of God and the all-embracing love found in Jesus Christ.
There has been a return to uncritical fundamentalist use of biblical “proof texts”, ripping verses from their theological and literary contexts. There has been a flight to the safety of rigid law and inflexible dogma and a consequent desire to unchurch those who will not conform.
So on a day late in 2007 when my friend and colleague Peter Cowell asked me to bless the civil partnership that he was to contract with David Lord in May this year I was ready to answer “yes”. I did so not to provoke the so-called traditionalists and to deliberately disregard the guidelines published by the English House of Bishops, not to defy the Bishop of London, whose sagacity I respect, or Archbishop Rowan, who I have known and admired for 25 years, but because to respond in any other way would have been a negation of everything I believe, of everything that makes me who I am, as a man and as a priest.
We were in unchartered territory, seeking to find the words that would express the love of Peter and David and their commitment to each other. New words could not carry the burden and we turned to the old, to words shaped by centuries of use, redolent with meaning.
This bringing together of two men would be like a marriage but not a marriage, for I am clear that marriage is between a man and a woman, and the words I will say must be said with integrity. The words, vow and covenant, binding and union, were put under tension, slipping, sliding, perishing. They were imprecise, transferred from one relationship to another. We could not speak of procreation but we could speak of “the mutual, society, help, and comfort” that the one could have of the other, of loving, comforting, honouring and keeping, for these are good words and not limited to or by marriage.
On 31 May, my birthday and the feast of the Visitation, when Mary said “My soul doth magnify the Lord”, 300 people gathered in St Bartholomew the Great to celebrate the Eucharist, to witness Peter and David commit themselves to each other in an exclusive loving relationship.
Amazing flowers, fabulous music, a ceremony both solemn and oddly homely, familiar words reordered and reconfigured, carrying new meanings. Nothing jarred, nothing felt even vaguely inappropriate. New and untried but not wrong. Not a gay rally or demonstration, but a truly joyful celebration.
It is not we who have whipped up the whirlwind, replacing words of love and inclusion with those of hatred and exclusion. We set out to express, experimentally, pushing at boundaries, a love of a type which is not unusual or perverse but which is perfectly ordinary and accepted outside the Church. Why, then, can it not be accepted inside the community that is based, not on law, but on the loving presence of God in Jesus Christ?
Those who cannot ever accept same-sex unions and would rather divide from those who do, branding them as blasphemous and unchristian, have inevitably turned on us, and especially on me. I am clearly not naïve, so I must have been malicious, politically-motivated, intent on pushing forward my ungodly agenda. Every aspect of my life and ministry is being raked over, the Daily Mail’s old allegations of sexual impropriety, my failure to be elected as an alderman, my writing a book on clergy discipline, even the complaint from neighbouring flats that I will not silence the church clock which chimes at midnight and again at seven as it has for centuries. First discredit your opponent, then defrock him, and, as he is Rector of Smithfield, why not the stake?
I did not seek the role, the interviews, the publicity, but more than thirty years ago I began a journey, a process of becoming, that focuses on Jesus the Christ, not as lawgiver and judge but as the one who loves us and holds us and will not let us go until we know ourselves as loved by him despite our foolishness and imperfections, and because of that, when Peter Cowell asked me, I did not hesitate, not even for a moment to answer “Yes, I will.”
Once upon a time, two friends of the opposite sex were looked at askance. Now two friends of the same sex are looked at askance.
This guy’s “thoughts” are so inane that it’s hard to know where to begin. In fact, he’s such a twit that one almost feels cruel for confronting him with his twittitude.
No matter what happened, no matter who was involved, it was really all about him.
For a guy who was “Robustly heterosexual since early adolescence, unable to see that any love surpasses the love of women, and once branded by the odious Daily Mail as ‘Dud the Stud’”...
He sure does a good impression of a limp-wristed sob-sister.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
FReepmail Huber or sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (sometimes 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by Huber and sionnsar.
Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue
Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15
The 1970s shaped my thinking. Many factors were combined, among them .... the campus war against American involvement in Vietnam
____________________________________________
There see ????
Perfectly legit explanation...
America...
It’s Bush’s fault...
No mere priest, but a philosopher-priest!
The Sunday Times in its golden age under Harry Evans was a major influence, creating a critical mindset that no longer accepted authority without question and the blue-back Penguin books provided a theoretical underpinning for future action...
It's all about that OBEDIENCE nonsense...
I learned a new word today!
This Naughty Vicar is a caricature of the Trendy With-It Rector of the Church of What's Happenin' Now. Except in his case it all happened in the 1970s, and he's stuck there.
"Curse Nature; she gets ahead of you every time!"
- one of Kipling's characters in "The Village That Voted the Earth Was Flat".
Parts of Jim Crow are still alive, unfortunately (such as the "gun control" laws designed to keep black people from owning handguns in areas like Chicago and D.C.).
Hopefully, the Supreme Court will correct that injustice when they rule on the Heller case this month. Someone on FR said this could happen today or this coming Monday, but I don’t know what the schedule of the Court is.
“What really irritates me is the new public perception, no thanks to the homosexual lobby, that two (platonic) male friends must be gay.”
The same is true for friendships between women. Women are usually more physically affectionate with friends— hugging, patting, linking arms, cheek-kissing, etc., but women friends today are much less likely to be like that, and the reason is that people are so much more likely to assume that they are lesbians. If sin is whatever separates us from each other, then the legitimization of homosexual relationships in the general culture is one great big sin.
Women friends can’t even live together anymore, unless they’re quite young (college age and a bit after) and therefore assumed to be poor. So women stay isolated and lonely in their houses after being widowed or divorced. It’s sad.
As you can see, this is a major peeve of mine as well.
It seems to me that those who want to abuse the Bible to make it approve of homosexuality are the ones "ripping verses from their theological and literary contexts." The traditionalists are simply taking it back!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.