For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
As I reflected on the events that are unfolding at the University of Kent this past week, I was reminded of the proverb quoted above. This reminds us how small things can have far-reaching consequences. The organisers of Lambeth 2020 wanted to smooth over what they may have thought was a relatively minor problem — one which could cause potential offence to some of the bishops due to attend the Lambeth Conference. A decision was made not to invite a small number of episcopal partners who are in same sex relationships. This fateful decision has now blown up to become a major crisis. The Council of the University of Kent, whose buildings are being used for the Lambeth gathering of bishops from all over the world, have been alerted to the decision that such partners are not being included in the official invitations. As the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion announced publicly on February 15th, ‘it would be inappropriate for same sex spouses to be invited to the conference.’ Wives have always been included in the Lambeth invitations. Clearly there is a blatant discrimination at work in this statement.
None of us know exactly how this decision was arrived at. In all probability it was a pragmatic decision which avoided, seemingly, giving offence to those who maintain ‘biblical’ objections to such relationships. If these same-sex partners are left at home, this thinking might have reasoned, the Conference can pretend that same-sex partners do not exist. Anglicans are quite good at this kind of thinking. If a problem, such as the continuing needs of the sexually abused, is buried, then everyone can pretend that it does not exist. Making sure that only heterosexual relationships are visible at Lambeth preserves the myth that only orthodox and ‘biblical’ marriage is to be found within the Communion and its bishops.
Excluding a small number of same sex spouses might have been, from a pragmatic point of view, a price worth paying to preserve harmony and unity at the 2020 Lambeth gathering in Canterbury. Surely everyone recognises that although a few people might protest, this action is not illegal. The Equality Act of 2010 certainly allows for the Church to make such distinctions between hetero and homosexual partners. This calculation seems to have been a miscalculation and protests began almost immediately it became known. What began as a small nail being lost, started to become a massive headache for the conference organisers. Although it is not uncommon for people to expect a degree of discrimination against gay partnerships in the churches, this attitude is far from universal. One particular factor in the protests and debates that have followed this Anglican decision is the siting of the Lambeth Conference gathering in a university campus. The one segment of the population that will never easily acquiesce in the conservative rhetoric about gay relationships are students. Enormous amounts of money are spent across the world promoting the anti-gay message of the religious Right in the States and countries like Uganda. Very few however among the under-30 generation are impressed by this message and they normally will not tolerate what they see simply as homophobia. Even if church authorities argue their right to discriminate according to the religious exemptions of the Equality Act, students will not stop making their opinions known. These protests have now come to the attention of the most senior members of the University of Kent and they have issued an official statement.
The letter sent by the Chair of Council and the Vice Chancellor of the University of Kent is a piece of powerful prose. They make it clear that they are not withdrawing their invitation to the Lambeth Conference to their campus but they wish ‘to bring the Council’s concerns to their (the organisers’) attention and discuss the issues’. They also pointedly extend an invitation to the excluded same-sex spouses to come to the campus. This is a ingenious way of allowing honour to be preserved on both sides. The Conference is to go ahead but the uninvited will be welcomed and they will be honoured according to the values of the University. To quote the letter, this welcome places ‘great value on diversity of opinion, open, respectful debate, recognition of difference, and the central role of constructive engagement and dialogue…’ There are many in the Anglican fold who could say Amen to such sentiments, while recognising that there are those who want to turn their backs on such values.
A compromise seems to have been reached which will no doubt protect the Conference for 2020. Conservatives in the Communion can pretend that they have preserved ‘gospel’ boundaries against gay partnerships among the clergy by making these partners invisible. The University by welcoming the ‘invisible’ ones have stood up for humane and liberal values that they feel are central to academic life. The balance of honour may be claimed on both sides. But can it? Can we really say that the organisers of a future conference will be allowed to plan for 2030 without a thorough vetting by the University in advance? The patch up that seems to have been worked out for next year is only that – a patch up. No vice-Chancellor or anyone else involved with the University is going to allow such a situation to occur again. I for one cannot see that the University of Kent will ever allow a future Lambeth Conference to take place unless there is a radical shift towards the liberal values that the University itself embodies. If the Anglican Church is able to move in this direction, then there is a chance that it can meet again on the campus above Canterbury city. If the Church does not move but remains infected by the reactionary values of GAFCON etc, so amply funded by the wealthy foundations of the American Right, the University will simply tell the Conference to look elsewhere for its 2030 gathering.
On practical level the campus at the University of Kent is perhaps the only site possible for a large conference the size of Lambeth. Its relative proximity to the mother cathedral of the Anglican Communion makes it particularly suitable to be a meeting place for 700 bishops and their partners. Also being close to the ancient church of St Martin where St Augustine began his mission in 597 AD gives a further powerful symbolism to this unique expression of Anglicanism. The organisers of Lambeth 2030 will have a choice. Will they insist on doctrinal purity by excluding same sex partners of bishops, or will they accept that all spouses and committed companions of bishops are here to stay? Will they by then understand that faithfulness and commitment is more important in the eyes of God than biological sex? The nail that was lost when a decision was made to limit who comes to Lambeth in 2020 could mark the end of the Lambeth enterprise altogether. The kingdom was lost … all for the want of the horseshoe nail.
Can I offer a brief explanation of the CofE’s opt out from Equality legislation that I heard at General Synod from one allegedly “in the know”.
David Cameron announced his Gay Marriage initiative without warning. It was not in the Manifesto and took everyone by surprise. In belated consultation with the Church his side of the table were taken aback to be reminded of Tudor legislation that prevents the CofE from having Canon Law contrary to the Law of the land. Because it had been sprung on them, the Bishops did not have the time let alone the certainty that they could pass the required legislative change in a time frame within the expectation of the Government.
Worse, to get the two processes into lock step would have delivered massive delay and egg on faces of those who had not thought it through.
Worse, if the Government met the secular legislative expectation, and the Church did/ could not get in line, the PM would de facto have disestablished the Church of England by accident!
Worse, the CofE is so woven into the fabric of the nation’s laws that a whole slew of legislation would have needed to be revised and this would probably have occupied the legislative time of the next two full Parliaments! It would have been a problem of Brexit proportions.
So you are right Stephen, for want of basic competence the whole project was nearly lost until the Government came to the table and said “ I’ll tell you what, why don’t we just give you an exemption?”
So the important thing is not that the Church was obstructive ( though undoubtedly it did and will have difficulties changing ) but the reason we have the exemption was to get Cameron off the hook. We didn’t happen to be the ones asking for it although many
would have been relieved to kick the can down the road.
It makes no difference now but folk might be interested.
I think that Martin’s ‘in the know’ friend was not fully in the know. I was helping to represent Quakers at the time, who, as you know, are one of the denominations that favour same-sex marriage. From that perspective I can confirm that the Church (of England ) did happen to be the ones asking for the exemption.
The Church of England also asked for exemption from the Equality Act to enable to discriminate against women.
Stephen, I think you are right about the “pretending”. But it hardly seems a sustainable policy.
Thank you Martin for your explanation. The Equality Act formed part of the University’s response to the Church so I had to mention it even from my situation of ignorance. It seems to form an increasingly heavy weight to carry forward into the future and I imagine every time the Church is reminded of it there is a lurch of embarrassment among the powers that be.
It sounds like a graceful compromise. I wouldn’t worry too much about the next one. Opinion has changed hugely in the last ten years, and will change again in the next.
Opinion in the UK has changed over the last ten years, but I don’t know that views on homosexuality in African, Asian, and Middle Eastern provinces has changed – or is likely to. There are still many countries where homosexuality is illegal and, sadly, gay people are regarded as anathema. Anglican Christians in those countries have made representations to successive Archbishops of Canterbury that Western liberality on the issue leads to Christians in their own countries being classed as degenerate, by association. In some cases, it is claimed, this leads to persecution.
So when considering questions like this in the Anglican Communion as a whole, I can see that Archbishops of Canterbury have s some very difficult decisions to make. What is right for the Church in Britain, the US, Canada and elsewhere may be wrong for the Church in Uganda, Pakistan or Nigeria. I think this makes the Anglican Communion very difficult to sustain.
Even so, Abp. Welby could perhaps have prevented this crisis becoming so serious with the exercise of a little generosity and imagination. If only the spouses of those bishops who are in ‘one man, one woman, for life’ marriages are invited, are there any divorced bishops whose spouses have been told not to come? Did that even occur to those who made the decision? Nothing seems to have been said about it, but it was bound to become an issue int he circumstances.
As for generosity, the blow might have been somewhat softened if Abp. Welby had announced that he realised the decision would be difficult for the gay bishops and their excluded partners, so his own wife would not be attending. This would have shown a willingness to share the pain and somewhat shielded him from the charge of hypocrisy. The decision might even have been made to invite no married partners at all. This would have the advantage of saving a lot of money.
For want of a nail…
…. Or maybe don’t invite any female bishops on account of some countries don’t do equality! It’s never ending. I do think that if time had been taken to change the law, same sex marriage would have been hugely delayed.
I’m not aw not aware of any countries that have the death penalty for female clergy; whereas there are countries within the Anglican Communion that have the death penalty for homosexuals.
It’s very difficult. I have long been convinced that full equality is right for the Church in the UK and that being part of the AC is holding us back. On the other hand, I’m very uneasy about Western culture being imposed on non-western countries – there has been more than enough of that with the Empire and some missionary work. And I can see that there’s still some value in the AC. But this issue may spell the end of it.
I hope the strength of reaction here will at least demonstrate to Abp Idowu-Fearon and others that this kind of compromise damages our standing and our mission here. I doubt if that has been argued forcefully enough by successive archbishops.
No, I know. But prejudice against women is terribly common in this country, and often gets forgotten. I think same sex partners is a circle you can’t square, really.
Having returned for a quick view of this website I see that you are still on sex with a shared view of what’s right. There are other websites sharing an opposite flavour but I’ve yet to find one with a genuine cross party debate. Brexit seems to be matched by Sexit in the Church.
I think we do a reasonable job of listening to each other here. And I don’t think any of us agree with punishing people for being gay. But there’s no doubt that the church focuses too much on what goes on in people’s bedrooms.
No Athena, I’m afraid the current liberal trend listens but doesn’t hear what orthodox others are saying or believing.
And vice versa, Leslie! If a very orthodox person says that all human beings are much loved by God and deserve equal respect, there’s no problem. If someone says all gays are paedophiles, or all gays should be stoned to death, there is! And then there’s the school of thought that says intersex doesn’t exist. What happened to “the truth will set you free”? Or gay girls can be “cured” by rape? The extremes are pretty horrible. But, of course, not everyone who would like to discuss what it says in Bible holds opinions like these.
Athena – Your first sentence really displays my issue of not hearing; right in what it says, wrong in its conclusion. Q.E.D. I wonder what you think I believe? However I have already said I would depart this site whose highlighting of spiritual abuse is its main purpose, my caveats came in when I saw liberal petticoats being trailed self-righteously and I wanted to add my pennyworth. All theological sides can be abusive.
I don’t think you believe these unpleasant things, not at all. That is why I engage with you. I was reminding you of the awful things some people on the “no sex please” side believe. Not you personally. And that is not acceptable. It was the awful things Peter Akinola said that made me think I didn’t want to be in his gang. I get cross when people accuse anyone who wonders about the Biblical teaching of being prejudiced. You need, not you, one needs, to have a proper discussion about what we all used to think, and why and in what ways that needs to change. Asking for that is not homophobic. I never thought beating people up because they were gay was alright anyway, and I’m sure neither did you.
Athena – I really mustn’t annoy Stephen by continuing on this theme but when I said “the first sentence” I meant the one where you said if a very orthodox person agreed that all human beings were much loved by God and deserved equal respect, there would be no problem. I was saying that that wasn’t true. Agreeing with the first part there actually WAS a problem the issue never being about who people were or whether they were loved as they were but about how they intended to live.
I thought I’d understood. Some people say awful things, thus showing that they at least don’t really accept that first half. All the best, Leslie, anyway. I know you’re a decent chap!
Bye for now. The site really is better when it sticks to the important matter of abuse and how to tackle it and doesn’t stray into the high-nosed “we’re better, more caring, moral and intelligent than you” mode.