Gay Bishops, angry Archbishops and Deans speaking from beyond the grave

It has not been a good week for the Church of England.  This week, Andrew Brown revealed in the Guardian details of a memo written by Colin Slee in which he detailed some pretty unpleasant goings on at the highest levels in the Church.  Colin died last year, soon after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.  Before he died he was Dean of Southwark Cathedral and had been part of the Crown Nominations Commission which selected the successor to Bishop Tom Butler as Bishop of Southwark.

This selection process hit the headlines when a leak from the CNC revealed that Jeffrey John, the gay Dean of St Albans Cathedral, was in the running for the job.  At the time, it was reported that Rowan Williams was furious with the leak and blocked Jeffrey John's appointment.

The latest revelation was a memo written by Colin Slee as part of an internal Church of England enquiry into the first leak.

So we have the rather embarrassing situation of a leak enquiry producing a far more damaging leak than the one it was set up to investigate.

Good work.

As for what Colin Slee claimed and alleged, Mouse will allow you to read it for yourself.  The bottom line is that he felt he was blamed for the original leak, which was wrong.  The journalist involved, Jonathan Wynne-Jones from the Telegraph, has stated for the record that it wasn't Colin who leaked the details.

Following that Colin Slee claims that there were two horrible days of the CNC meeting during which the Archbishops were angry, bullied the other members and blocked Jeffrey John and Nick Holtam, Vicar of St Martin in the Fields, who is married to a divorcee.

There has been ample coverage of this already, noting some important points.  Firstly, the double standards to which gay candidates seem to be treated during this selection process, asking a lot of detailed questions about their sexual past that would never be considered for a straight candidate.  They also point out that a celibate gay man fully meets the criteria set out in "Issues in Human Sexuality", the CofE's "policy" on homosexuality in the clergy.  Anything beyond that is outside the Church's formal policies.

Some have reacted angrily and accused Rowan Williams of betrayal and hypocrisy.  Mouse hasn't heard anyone defend him yet, or the selection process under which this all took place.

Mouse has a few of things to add.

1. The process for selecting bishops is clearly broken.  Mouse has pointed this out before, and is backed up by Colin Slee in his memo.  At the end of the selection process, each member of the CNC is asked whether the process is fair.  Colin says that this time he said "Well it was done according to the rules, but the whole system stinks".  One of the reasons why this sort of thing is allowed to fester on is that it is going on in secret under a system designed for another age.  Not many people argue for a democratic electoral system for selecting bishops, and Mouse has reservations about it, but the system must be reformed to give more transparency and accountability to those making the selections.

2. The current "rules" surrounding issues of sexuality are a total fudge and must be sorted out.  Rowan Williams stated recently that there were absolutely no issues with gay people becoming bishops, as long as they complied with the celibacy rule.  Indeed, we already have several.  They just don't talk about it.  However, if the candidate is open about his sexuality, then the "rules" which in themselves simply ask that they confirm they are celibate, seem to fly out of the window.  The absurd list of reasons why you can block the selection of a gay person to bishop should be thrown out completely - it really is outrageous that someone could seriously suggest asking a candidate for the office of bishop whether they had repented of their past sexual sins.  If this question were asked in virtually any other context, Mouse can't imagine what kind of answer would be given.

3. Someone should come to the defense of Rowan Williams, who has taken the brunt of many attacks this week.  Colin Slee's memo doesn't make pretty reading, but there is quite a lot of context missing and we don't have accounts from anyone else there.  His claims that the Archbishops were set on blocking both Jeffrey John and Nick Holtam are a little odd, particularly since Nick Holtam has subsequently become Bishop of Salisbury.  Mouse's reaction when he heard that Jeffrey John was in the running for Southwark was that it would be a big step for someone who hadn't been a suffragan bishop to become diocesan bishop of one of the largest dioceses in the country.  Perhaps Rowan had other reasons for taking the position he did than basing his decision purely on Jeffrey John's sexuality or Nick Holtam's wife's divorce.

Rowan's anger, even in Colin Slee's account, is not due to Jeffrey John or Nick Holtam being considered, but from the leak.  It must be a very difficult position if you think someone in the room you are discussing these issues with is then briefing the press.  Colin Slee seems to think that the leak most likely actually came from lawyers who Rowan Williams had consulted on the issue.  However, that is pure guesswork, and wouldn't account for how subsequent leaks discussed issues "in the room", not just vague legal advice.  Jonathan Wynne-Jones was able to report, accurately as we now know, that Rowan was angry and blocked the candidates.  This couldn't have come from lawyers.  Mouse reckons Colin Slee got that one wrong, and that Rowan's anger is understandable, even if is bad behaviour is not what we would expect.

4. There is a lot of talk at the moment of outing gay bishops.  This is foolish.  If you aren't aware, some bishops are gay.  But we don't talk about it.  Colin Coward from Changing Attitude has written about how he feels let down by these people, and is tempted to name some names.  However, he shouldn't, and Mouse doesn't think he will.  It would certainly bring the issue to a head if one or some of these people were to come out themselves, but it would also put them under a huge amount of personal pressure and would totally divert them from doing the job that they are actually there to do.  Mouse does not condemn them for trying to get on with doing what God called them to do without seeking out the anger of a vocal wing of the Church.

These leaks are very damaging, and Mouse can only imagine how hard it is for Jeffrey John in particular to read about himself in this way.

But it is more damaging that the Church operates under these farcical and outdated rules and procedures.

Some have drawn the comparison with the way the Church of Scotland is taking this issue forward.  After a pretty dignified debate, they are planning a report on the way forward.  Whether that approach would work in the Church of England is anyone's guess.  But what won't work for the good of the gospel is to go on fudging our way through these issues, and allowing this kind of secret war to go on under the surface.