London, UK - There are some kinds of letters that you so don’t want to receive from your boss. The Rev Dr Martin Dudley has today opened just such a letter from his bishop, Dr Richard Chartres, which pulls no punches in pointing out, in a pithy page-and-a-half, just what a miscreant Dr Dudley has been in conducting a so-called “gay wedding” in his ancient church last month.
Not for the Bishop of London the relatively abstruse statement of the Archbishops in response to Dr Dudley’s initiative in adapting the 1662 solemnisation of matrimony, who said that English clergy “are not at liberty simply to disregard” the Church’s teaching. Dr Chartres opens his missive by identifying the discourtesy with which Dr Dudley has made his case in the media, including the revelation that he had been planning the service since November, without once taking “the opportunity to consult your bishop.”
He then dives into the substance of Dr Dudley’s misbehaviour. He refers to Dr Dudley apparently breaking the House of Bishops guidelines on the new circumstances created “by the enactment of civil partnerships” and he writes that “the real issue is whether you wilfully defied the discipline of the Church and broke your oath of canonical obedience to your Bishop.” He concludes: “St Bartholomew’s is not a personal fiefdom. You serve there as an ordained minister of the Church of England, under the authority of the Canons and as someone who enjoys my licence.”
Dr Dudley will try to pass this letter off with insouciance. He has made much publicly, since the “gay wedding” story broke last weekend, of how the Bishop of London is not his boss. He claims that ancient right of incumbency at his church, which means that he has a freehold tenure. He answers only to God.
Dr Chartres disagrees. And his references to wilful defiance of Church discipline and broken oaths of canonical obedience will chill Dr Dudley’s blood, whatever his outward style, because this is the vocabulary of canon law being brought to bear on dismissal proceedings; it is, if you like, the equivalent of the secular warning letter that refers to “gross professional misconduct”.
But the truly fascinating aspect of this disciplinary letter is that it is a microcosm of the intelligent Church as it comes to terms with same-sex civil partnerships. Dr Chartres’ letter makes it clear that his issue is not with “civil partnerships themselves or the relation of biblical teaching to homosexual practice.” He adds: “Homophobia is not tolerated in the Diocese of London.”
Only those who have never heard nor read Dr Chartres would call him anti-gay. He is a pluralist and rejoices in the range of Christian witness across his diocese. He wants “many spoons in the soup.” But his Christianity is orthodox; the teaching of the Church is in constant dialogue with scripture and it moves forward through authority, not through acts of disobedience, civil or otherwise.
Dr Dudley, by contrast, is a flamboyant performer, well-known on the City livery dinner circuit, not so much high church as high camp (though unambiguously heterosexual). Here we have the real stand-off in the Church of England. Not between the Church and gay activists, but between orthodoxy and ultra-liberalism. They are not necessarily enemies, but they respond to civil changes in different ways and at different paces. Importantly, liberals can delay change to orthodox teaching through unilateral and unauthorised stunts.
How these factions respond to one another at next month’s Lambeth Conference will prescribe how the homosexuality debate plays out during a difficult summer for the Church.