Over three months ago Changing Attitude England wrote to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York asking them to clarify what was meant by the radical new Christian inclusion to which Archbishops Justin and Sentamu committed themselves in 2017, and whether that inclusion is genuinely radical for LGBTIQ+ people.
On July 11 the Bishop of London and Dr Eeva John presented a report ‘handing over’ the work of the Next Steps Group to the new Synod that will meet for the first time in November 2021. Dr John talked about the radical new Christian inclusion described by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York in their letter published in February 2017. The inclusion offered in the presentation was deemed by the Changing Attitude England steering group to be neither radical nor new nor Christian nor inclusive.
We wrote again to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York on the 2nd August, describing the inadequacies of the content of radical new Christian inclusion as outlined to General Synod and sending our definition of what Changing Attitude England believes to be the basics of inclusion, both in general and specifically for LGBTIQ+ people.
We received an almost immediate response from Bishop Tim Thornton, the bishop at Lambeth, assuring us that we would get a reply and that our email and attachment had been forwarded to the Bishop of London and Dr Eeva John to answer from the Next Steps Group.
We received a reply from the Bishop of London, chair of the LLF Next Steps Group, on 26 August. On Monday 14 September, following conversations among the CAE steering group, we sent this response, copied to the Archbishops and each member of the Next Steps Group:
Letter to the Bishop of London
Dear Bishop Sarah,
Thank you for your letter of 26 August 2021 replying to our letters, the first to the Archbishops inviting them to set out their understanding of ‘radical new Christian inclusion’ and the second critiquing the understanding of radical Christian inclusion as set out by you and Dr Eeva John at General Synod in July.
In your second paragraph you confirm that inclusion “first and foremost relates to our equal standing as God’s beloved children: every single person is equally human, created in God’s image and unconditionally loved by God. It means justice for all people, including and, especially, LGBTQI+ people.”
In your third paragraph and the remainder of your letter you say nothing further about the issue which is Changing Attitude England’s prime concern, the full, radical and equal inclusion of LGBTIQ+ people in the Christian Church. We set out our understanding of radical Christian inclusion in the second section of our statement:
Radical Christian Inclusion embraces unconditionally lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer people. Radical Christian inclusion is not new. It is the essence of Jesus’ teaching and at the heart of the Gospel. Radical Christian Inclusion embraces LGBTIQ+ people in countries and provinces of the Anglican Communion where LGBTIQ+ people are persecuted and criminalised. Radical Christian Inclusion will speak out to defend LGBTI+ people against discrimination in this country, throughout the Anglican Communion and in every country where prejudice, homophobia and transphobia are present.
It means substantively more than “justice for all people”. Justice for LGBTIQ+ people means our full inclusion in ministry and relationships in the life of the Church of England.
Understanding of radical Christian inclusion is integral to our assessment of the value of the Living in Love and Faith process for us. You write that: “The aim of the Living in Love and Faith project has always been to set the specific questions about where there is disagreement in the Church into the bigger framework of our Christian understanding of what it means to be human.” But the prime issue which LLF is dealing with is not, as you suggest here, the idea of disagreement, but rather the full equality of LGBTIQ+ people in the Church: the basic inequality of C of E structures and processes towards LGBTIQ+ people, reinforcing the culture of prejudice and abuse characterising the Church of England.
Further, you say that LLF “is also about engaging with the realities of our disagreements in a way that deepens our understanding of our own and of one another’s convictions and lived experiences. What makes Christian inclusion radical is that it refuses to exclude anyone, including our ‘enemies’ – those with whom we have deep disagreements.”
You introduce the word ‘enemies’. It is not one I have ever used in thirty years of advocacy and campaigning. You polarise disagreement intensely by labelling people as enemies. Changing Attitude England is not seeking to exclude, let alone demonise, anyone. Conservative evangelicals may claim they will be excluded if the Church of England changes its teaching and practice but they will not be excluded. They might choose to exclude themselves. We are not asking for any change in their status in the Church that might lead to their exclusion. We are not opposed to their continuing full and equal inclusion nor their freedom to maintain different views and practice. We are, however, opposed to teachings that are hostile, prejudiced and abusive towards LGBTIQ+ people. The present reality is that LGBTIQ+ people are excluded from full equality in relationships and ministry. Some who have disagreements with us are opposed to our full and equal inclusion.
You say “It is the call “to exercise the same kind of active, self-giving love that Jesus embodied in his life and death that makes inclusion possible.” Yes indeed, and that is what we actively believe and model and are campaigning for. We also note that you have written about the transformation of individuals but not about the transformation of the institution and its prejudiced understanding of the nature of God and humankind.
In your fourth paragraph you write that “We are being called to the kind of self-awareness and humility that recognises our own need for transformation before insisting on that of others.” My experience and the experience of many other LGBTIQ+ people, as revealed in meetings of the Lesbian and Gay Clergy Consultation and the Southwark Diocese Lesbian and Gay Christian network over two decades is that LGBTIQ+ people, have already been doing that transformative work. As people who have been on the receiving end of prejudice and discrimination from the church and from people claiming Biblical authority for their oppression of LGBTIQ+ people, we have had to develop a self-awareness and an identity focused on Christ. We have done the transformative work that means we can now call on the church as an institution to start that same process. We have already done the personal and theological work that is needed for change. We are already living the active, self-giving love of Jesus for LGBTIQ+ people that Jesus embodied and makes inclusion possible. We have been doing this throughout our lives in our ministries and relationships, in prayer and worship, and in the quality of our life lived in unconditional love that we model.
In the fifth paragraph you say “’Radical new Christian inclusion’ is therefore embedded in the methodology of the LLF process ... in learning together ... about identity, relationships and marriage.” You omit the requirement for the LLF process to learn about the experience of LGBTIQ+ people as such, and our experience as members of the Church of England, lay and ordained. The focus of the LLF course is not on the systemic exclusion of, abuse of and prejudice against LGBTIQ+ people but on a generic learning process about identity, relationships and marriage.
In the same paragraph you say that “Responsibility for this discernment lies ultimately with the bishops. It will take trust – and transparency on the part of the bishops.” LGBTIQ+ people are excluded by the ultimate requirement that bishops alone carry responsibility for discernment. There is only one openly gay member of the College of Bishops. There are no open lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex or queer members of the College of Bishops. LGBTIQ+ people are, with one exception, excluded from the final decision-making process about our future in the Church.
We would like you to set out in detail exactly how the final discernment and decision making process is going to be made totally “transparent”, as it is this to which you have committed the House and College of Bishops.
In your final paragraph you say that “Transformation ... requires a more dialogical, inclusive approach that enables people to assimilate, process and articulate ideas and convictions for themselves.” It seems you have read Alex Clare-Young’s paper and blog about the importance of dialogical and not monological process, relating it to the current stage of the LLF process. It must be at the core of the final discernment process. We therefore pose a question to you, the Archbishops, the Next Steps Group and Dr Eeva John - how will this be achieved? We ask you and the Archbishops and every member of the Next Steps Group to set out your understanding of what radical Christian inclusion is for LGBTIQ+ people.
With prayer and good wishes,
Covering email – key questions
In our covering email we asked two key questions.
Bishop Sarah wrote that “Responsibility for this discernment lies ultimately with the bishops. It will take trust – and transparency on the part of the bishops” and that “Transformation ... requires a more dialogical, inclusive approach that enables people to assimilate, process and articulate ideas and convictions for themselves.” This idea is drawn from a paper written by Alex Clare-Young about the importance of dialogical and not monological process, relating it to the current stage of the LLF process. Alex, of course, replaced Tina Beardsley on the Coordinating Group.
We would like to know how the final discernment and decision making process will be made totally transparent.
Related to this, we would like to know how the present process can evolve to become more inclusive as recommended by Alex as a result of his experience in the Coordinating Group. LGBTIQ+ people are excluded from the Next Steps Group by the ultimate requirement that bishops alone carry responsibility for discernment. There is only one openly gay member of the College of Bishops. There are no open lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex or queer members of the College of Bishops. LGBTIQ+ people are, contrary to Alex’s recommendation, excluded from the final decision-making process about our future in the Church.
How can you reform the process to make it more inclusive?