Same-sex marriage and the second Jeremy
As nigh of the nationals reported (in adequately short articles), a second clergyman has had permission to officiate refused past the Bishop of Winchester, Tim Dakin, considering he has entered a same-sex activity spousal relationship. Every bit with the previous case, this also involves a Jeremy. (What is it with Jeremys? Is in that location some nominative determinism at work?!) Jeremy Davies was Precentor at Salisbury Cathedral for more than than xx years (I knew him a little when I was in the diocese) and has been partnered with Simon McEnery, an opera singer, for effectually xxx. They entered a Civil Partnership when these became bachelor; it was on his altogether, and the political party which followed the ceremony, and which the then bishop David Stancliffe attended, was said to exist in celebration of his birthday rather than the partnership, to save episcopal face (or to add another i, depending on how y'all look at it). Jeremy retired from his role, and then in 2022 he and Simon married nether the new marriage legislation.
The press coverage has been less extensive than of the case of Jeremy Pemberton, and less error-strewn; the sensational language of 'senior chaplain BANNED' is the best that they tin can do to wring some drama out of it. This is perhaps because at that place are some of import differences betwixt the ii cases.
- Jeremy Davies (JD) has retired, whereas Jeremy Pemberton (JP) continues in employment.
- JD therefore just has Permission to Officiate (PTO) in either diocese (Salisbury or Winchester) and so the circuitous differences between PTO and a licence are non relevant as they were for JP.
- JD's ministry relationship is straight with the Church building, whereas JP's was indirectly with the Church building through the appointment process of a hospital trust.
- JP had initiated a legal process through a tribunal, whereas JD has taken no such activeness (and is in no position to exercise so).
- JD'due south media response has has a very different tone from JP's.
You can listen to the interview with Justin Webb on Radio iv'sToday from yesterday morning, starting ane hour 23 minutes into the program. Jeremy's tone is modest and (to some extent) cocky-deprecating. When Webb reminds him of the Church's instruction position, he talks of his own self-understanding, and the qualities of relationship that he has aimed to model. More importantly, when Webb suggests 'It all makes the Church building look a fleck dizzy, doesn't information technology?', Davies showtime response is 'No…' rather than 'Yeah', and he talks of the Church building being 'on the move' in this area. The sceptical listener might then ask 'If the Church building has a procedure, why did you pre-empt information technology past marrying against the bishops' explicit teaching'. Just I didn't recollect the interview was biased in its content, equally some have suggested. If in that location was bias, it was in declining to hear comment from the side of the Bishop of Winchester or the central Church.
(I think at one level Jeremy does less well in his interview on BBC South Today; when challenged about the Bible's 'plain instruction' well-nigh homosexuality, he responds with the Bible'southward 'obviously education' that if your hand causes you to sin, y'all should cut it off. To anyone who knows anything about reading texts, this is just silly—but just to anyone who knows annihilation.)
There are three reasons why something now needs to modify, and they all come from rather surprising sources.
The get-go arises from a quick glance at the i,728 comments on the Guardian report. I would normally expect these to exist of a predictable kind: the Church is neanderthal and needs to get with it, probably be disestablished and preferably be obliterated. Only there was a surprisingly persistent thread of comments along the lines of 'Really, the Church is non here to mirror social club; information technology has said what it has believed; and if you want to join the 'club' and so you need to follow the rules.' Within that at that place was a frustration less with the determination and more than that it has not been implemented consistently:
Absolutely correct that he should exist refused permission to officiate. What saddens and baffles me is that the refusal isn't implemented in EVERY diocese. The Church of England's official position is quite clear. It is not open to contend or variance depending on if a bishop feels similar it….
Someone here has to get their act together…Whatever your position on the outcome, all this vacillation is doing is pain people to no real effect.
Do nosotros know why one diocese says nay and another says yeah? What influences one diocese to follow the "Church of England'southward position on same sex marriage, equally gear up out in the House of Bishops' Pastoral Guidance" , and another to feel costless to condone it?
If the activeness here involves hypocrisy, and then the fault lies not with Tim Dakin in Winchester, simply with liberal Nick Holtam in Salisbury. At the fourth dimension of the 2022 Bishops' argument, Colin Coward of Changing Attitude accused bishops of 'hypocrisy and dishonesty'. As has been the case for some time, this dishonesty has mostly been on the part of liberal bishops maxim i matter but doing another (and those evangelicals who accept gone along with it); for the most part, whatever else their faults, evangelicals have been consistent in opposition to same-sex sexual relationships in speech and action.
The second reason why Holtam needs to take activeness comes from Christina Rees of WATCH, who campaigned for women'due south ministry building and now wants to encounter the Church modify its teaching on union. Although I disagree with her aim, I think she is spot on with her observation on the process. She doesn't announced to have much sympathy with the 'sob story' angle:
When Canon Jeremy Davies married his long term partner Simon McEnery he must have known what he was doing. Neither he, nor anyone else, should actually be surprised that he's been refused permission to take services in i of the two dioceses (an area of church assistants nether the ward of a bishop and divided into parishes) in which he currently officiates.
She rehearses the reasons for this—that in that location has been a long succession of discussions, during which the Church has repeatedly stated its theological reasons for its electric current position. In doing then, she points out the depth of issues that would have to be untangled for the Church to alter its position, and the consequences of that in every direction:
Jeremy Davies has as well said that the bishops involved in the decision against him are hiding "behind the barricade of canon police force". Thank God for that. Canon law is passed in General Synod – an elected body that functions as the Church of England'south Parliament. The processes may exist maddening and seem interminably wearisome, merely it works. If it hadn't been for canon constabulary, we wouldn't accept the Church's official and universal credence of women'southward ordination – something I campaigned for, as chair of WATCH (Women and the Church building) for 13 years.
In other words, the piecemeal approach of those who would want to continually test the Church building and its bishops with private cases like this, and meet bishops adopting different practices, are leading the states to canonical, theological and pastoral chaos—and that is going to help no-ane.
The third reason for action comes from an unexpected corner, and a connection only Tyson Fury would brand. Equally part of revising its safeguarding processes, last July General Synod passed Typhoon Amending Canon 34 which revises Canon B 34 and C 8—essentially requiring much greater consistency and uniformity over who is allowed to minister where. In order to ensure proper safeguards are in place, those inviting someone from another diocese to minister must be certain that that person is 'in good standing', and the bishop in the diocese visited should be informed. So, for altogether unconnected reasons, it will but be impossible for bishops to decide independently of 1 another whether or not a clergy person is 'in good standing'.
This implies that these individual exam cases which probe the bishops' resolve will reach null in the curt term, and might fifty-fifty brand the consistency of current do clearer to those who are inclined to be sympathetic to it. It also implies that bishops are going to have to human activity more consistently with one another, in line with stated policy, even if individual bishops didn't actually hold with that policy when information technology was formulated.
I wonder whether this is likewise the moment for the Church building to get its PR act together a piffling more convincingly on this outcome. The one thing that was absent from all this media coverage was a live voice speaking on behalf of Tim Dakin or the Church'due south position. All information technology needed to say was 'We are not here simply to mirror society; nosotros are thinking and listening; in the meantime we do have a position, and we expect clergy to adhere to that.' In the light of the Equality Commission's statement on the cinema and the Lord'south Prayer, defending the Church and criticising DCM, at that place seems to be a pregnant (growing?) number who don't call back that is unreasonable.
Follow me on Twitter @psephizo.Similar my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is washed on a freelance basis. If you have valued this postal service, would you consideraltruistic £1.xx a calendar month to support the production of this blog?
If you enjoyed this, exercise share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my piece of work is washed on a freelance basis. If you accept valued this mail service, you tin make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Adept comments that appoint with the content of the post, and share in respectful debate, tin can add together real value. Seek first to understand, then to exist understood. Brand the about charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view debate as a conflict to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/same-sex-marriage-and-the-second-jeremy/
0 Response to "Same-sex marriage and the second Jeremy"
Postar um comentário