At the end of last summer, a team of solicitors acting for the
Church of England drew up a five-page document detailing in which
circumstances a cleric could be legally banned from becoming a
bishop because he was homosexual. The briefing was one of a number
of dry, legal notes issued by Church House that year. But among
liberals it caused consternation.
The Church long ago decided there was essentially nothing to
stop a gay man who lived a life of celibacy from becoming a bishop.
Even within the orthodox wings there was acceptance it would be
difficult to exclude someone who was living in an entirely celibate
civil partnership - for most traditionalists the line in the sand
was engaging in a physical, same-sex relationship.
But a grey area remained concerning clergy who at one time or
another had a same-sex relationship but had since abandoned it in
favour of celibacy. Could someone who had been physically
homosexual ever become a bishop?
The Church's legal note provided a stark answer. Only those who
had "repented" their physically homosexual past could be considered
for a bishop. You could be a gay bishop, but only if you vocally
shunned your sexual past, a condition which is not imposed on
heterosexual applicants.
Within conservative wings the caveat quickly became gleefully
nicknamed "The Jeffrey John clause" - after the openly gay Dean of
St Albans who was humiliatingly made to relinquish his appointment
to the Bishop of Reading in 2003 following traditionalist outrage
over his promotion. Dr John lives in a celibate relationship but
has always said refused to apologise for his past.
In effect, the decision meant those who remained in the closet
could climb the ecclesiastical pole, but those who were honest
about their sexuality were disbarred. To the liberals it was a slap
in the face - another clear indication that senior leaders within
the Church of England had no desire to rock the boat or confront an
issue that has deeply divided the Anglican Communion for much of
the past 15 years.
But now the liberal wing may force the Church's hand. Over the
weekend it was reported that the Right Reverend John had finally
had enough of being passed over for promotion and had instructed a
specialist employment law firm to look into beginning proceedings
against the Church of England.
Under current equality laws religious organisations are are
given dispensation to discriminate against those who do not comply
with their teachings, allowing clerics like Dr John to be passed
over, and mosques to only have male imams, for example. Were the
Church's current stance on homosexuality to be tested in court the
Church would almost certainly win, for if it didn't the very
existence of many faiths would be under threat. But by forcing the
issue those at the top would be forced to confront some
embarrassing - and extremely divisive - issues.
Some of those who know him expressed surprise that he would take
such a step. "Jeffrey's always wanted to do things within the
church," said one. "He's not the litigious type."
Others questioned where the leak came from. "It's so obviously
deeply counter-productive to Jeffrey," said another colleague. "It
makes him look like he's saying promote or I'll sue. It's a rather
good way of smearing him."
Whether the Dean would go to the courts or not is a moot point.
But there is little doubt he and fellow liberals have become
frustrated at a form of discrimination that would be entirely
illegal outside a church, mosque or synagogue.
Two years ago the Dean was short-listed but lost out on becoming
Bishop of Southwark, an ultra-liberal London diocese with many
homosexual clergy members and laity. A leaked memo later claimed
that Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, blocked his
appointment. Written by Colin Slee, the late Dean of Southwark
Cathedral, the memo also pointedly lamented a well-known but
generally hushed up fact - that the Church had plenty of closeted
gay bishops who "have been less that candid about there domestic
arrangements and ... have been appointed to senior positions".
The Independent also understands Dr John was not even
long-listed for the currently vacant post of Bishop of Edinburgh,
meaning no church leader was willing to put him forward for another
key diocese with liberal leanings.
Ironically, neither liberals nor traditionalists are happy with
the current status quo and both want to see some final resolution
to the issue of homosexuality. But the Church of England's senior
leaders - not least the Archbishop of Canterbury - are loath to
wade into a theological quagmire at such a fragile time for church
unity.
For 2012 will be a crunch year for the Church of England. Over
the next six months the Church's parliament - known as synod - will
finally decide on whether to appoint women bishops and what
provision should be made for those theologically opposed to the
idea.
Rowan Williams - backed by the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu
- is expected to make a final plea to allow for a system that gives
traditionalists permission to refuse to be administered to by women
bishops. A failure to reach a compromise could see traditionalists
walk away from the church all together.
At a time when such rancour and disagreement already abounds,
there are few senior leaders willing to throw another spanner in
the works.
But some liberals believe now is precisely the time for them to
force the issue. "We are determined to campaign for full equality
right now," says Colin Coward, director of Changing Attitude, the
most prolific, pro-gay lobby within the Church. "There is no sense
of urgency among Church leaders. But the Church is sick, it needs
to be fixed right away."
