"In the Times interview, Archbishop Rowan said “there’s no problem about
a gay person who’s a bishop … there are traditionally, historically,
standards that the clergy are expected to observe. So there’s always a
question about the personal life of the clergy.” The interviewer
commented that it is an unappealing idea that the Church makes such
unnatural demands on its clergy.
If there is no problem with a celibate gay person being a bishop, why are none of the 3 gay Primates in the Anglican Communion able to be open about their sexuality and why are none of the 10 to 13 gay bishops in the Church of England able to be publicly open? Some are married, some are single and celibate, some are not, all are closeted. The recently published survey estimated that 1.5% of the UK are gay or bisexual. Eight percent of Anglican Primates are gay and 10% of Church of England Bishops."
If there is no problem with a celibate gay person being a bishop, why are none of the 3 gay Primates in the Anglican Communion able to be open about their sexuality and why are none of the 10 to 13 gay bishops in the Church of England able to be publicly open? Some are married, some are single and celibate, some are not, all are closeted. The recently published survey estimated that 1.5% of the UK are gay or bisexual. Eight percent of Anglican Primates are gay and 10% of Church of England Bishops."
So there are three gay Primates and 10 to 13 gay bishops in the CofE. Who might they be?
The ethics and politics about disclosure or self-disclosure is a bit unclear to me (I am sure others will help me in that) but the assertion that 8% of the primates of the Communion are gay does raise the question: why are they not able to come forward and openly stand with both bishops Robinson and Glasspool AND with the church in which those two serve? Silence keeps trouble from the door, but it sends trouble elsewhere to other doors.
We can suppose that not all of these Primates are in celibate relations, or all of the 10% of CofE bishops. Some of these bishops then are precisely the sorts of bishops the that the ABC might have "trouble" with.
If Coward is right we can reasonably ask, "when will any of those come forward so that the two who are clearly out and the church that ordains them to not take the whole brunt of condemnation alone?"
And for that matter we may ask if is it time for all of us to put on the pink triangle so that when in Anglican land they come to bash the queers who are troublesome we are all queer, or at least trouble?
But some argue there are reasons to keep it all quiet.
I have recently heard again the argument that the actions of The Episcopal Church in confirming and ordaining gay bishops has put our fellow Anglicans elsewhere in danger, and that therefore we ought to restrain our actions for our brothers and sisters sake. I don't know the accuracy of the charge, but I've been thinking on the "therefore" for several days now and have some suggestions for possible directions we might consider.
This business of Restraint:
Restraint because it might cause someone to harm to another is a mixed bag. The reader can follow out various scenarios - but the point is that there is no direct connection between our restraint and other's actions. Specifically, in areas where Muslim and Christian communities are in conflict, association with TEC may add fuel to the fire, but the fire is already ablaze.
Still, the point is taken. When someone says we are putting them in danger, messing with their minds or faith or otherwise confusing them, we need to take them seriously. Likewise when others call homosexuals worse than dogs, they need to take seriously the danger that presents for gay and lesbian people.
So here is a thought - just a thought for consideration:
Perhaps for the safety of others The Episcopal Church ought to stand apart from the Anglican Communion for a while.
If we stand with our gay and lesbian members in affirming their full inclusion in The Episcopal Church, perhaps we can also stand with them in their exclusion from those churches who find this stance impossible. If Bishop Robinson can not celebrate in England and can not go to Uganda and be honored as a bishop there, if our Presiding Bishop can not celebrate in England and is shunned at the Eucharistic table by some Primates, then perhaps all Episcopalians ought to take on the honor of being so excluded.
An example: In the mid eighties I went to a conference of campus chaplains in England. My host, knowing the anglophile ways of us Episcopalians asked if I would like to celebrate the Eucharist in the chapel of the cathedral where we were meeting. I would have loved to have done so. But I said, "No, thank you, but my sister priests can not celebrate here, so I join them in that limitation. Until they can, I can not." My host, a fine and gentle person, understood completely. Perhaps it is time for us all to join the excluded.
Perhaps we could say, if it happens to any of us, it happens to all of us.
We may need to say, "I am an Episcopalian," and just that. If asked, are we Anglican we would say, "No." In this way those in other parts of the world who are in danger of being identified with us as as Anglican, and fear that, could clearly say they are Anglican and we are not.
Perhaps we need to open a way to disassociate The Episcopal Church from these churches so that IF they desire to continue the association with us they do so of their own free will and by their initiation.
And, we, in order to make this work, would have to identify ourselves, all "ourselves" with those parts of this body that are despised and rejected. If women are rejected, we are. If gay and lesbian persons are rejected, we are. If vocational commitment is discounted, so it will be for all our commitments. We will need to be one body.
Following on this possibility: We ought not expect others in the world to stand with us when our actions put them in danger, rather we ought to empty ourselves of that expectation and live in hope that it may come anyway at some point when God in God's mercy so allows. Meanwhile, we are The Episcopal Church and we work out how we are true to the Gospel as we can and must.
And, should The Episcopal Church find itself without cognate churches, close relatives, sister churches, etc, in various parts of the world so be it. If TEC withdraws and no new affirmation of connection takes place, and the Anglican Communion goes on without us, so be it.
Short term autonomy is not the end of the story, for it is in Christ that we are united, not in the broken churches of Christendom.
But woe to the church that believes our leaving is an invitation to step in and join those who consider us unsafe, presenting themselves as the Anglican Communion in North America, untainted by this peculiar form of inclusion, safe from all the unwelcome dangers of association with homosexuals, or women clergy or bishops, and so forth. They will have their reward.
And woe to the churches that claim purity before their far neighbors because they are not like us, their near neighbors. No one can claim purity, no one is without sin. They will have their reward.
No, better it is that for all of us, our "yes" should be "yes" and our "no," "no." When asked, "are you part of the same church that those Episcopalians are?" they would be better to say, "no" and leave it at that. And we will say, "yes, that is true." But one day we will together again have courage to say, "yes, we are one."
Well it is just a "perhaps." But I am of a mind to go in that direction. We have said yes to some possibilities and others have said no. It is a marker of many joys and sorrows, and perhaps it is time to empty ourselves of the world of compromising restraint, a restraint that does not grow from the love of others in Christ, but from a fear of rejection by others.
