The church is too slow

It took 20 years for the Church of England to agree to ordain women, from the point where it was first raised. That is quite extraordinary, in modern society. At the start of this time, the ordination would have been a radical and groundbreaking step, identifying the church as a leader in equality politics.

By the time it actually happened, it was playing a game of catch-up, trying not to be one of the last bastions of male privilege. While it was great for those who could then be ordained, it indicated far bigger problems in the church.


It then took another 20 years to propose making women bishops, which is ridiculous. If anything, it highlighted the gender inequality even more, because it quite simply denied certain top positions to them, irrespective of their qualification for the role. The fact that the first vote rejected the idea was quite unbelievable. 40 years after it had been established that there was no theological reason to deny women positions within the clergy, some within the church had still not got the message.

The whole farce has, without question, lost the church many people who are tired at the slow pace of change.

I should make it clear that, while the Church of England is very much the focus of this, most other churches show the same type of slowness in dealing with other issues, or even this one. There are churches who will not let women into leadership still (not just the Roman Catholics, who have a far bigger mountain to climb).


And today, the church is still struggling with homosexuality. Having congratulated itself on allowing women to be bishops, as if this is a radical move, it then turns on alternative sexualities and rejects them, flying totally in the face of the rest of society.

I don't mean that the church should be mirroring society. I don't think this is the biggest danger at the moment. Rather, the church should be leading society in terms of acceptance. They should not be accepting gays because society is - they should have been accepting of gays way before society did, and seeking to encourage them into stable, long-term relationships, rather than promiscuity, which was, at one time, rather more common (before AIDS made this far too risky). The church should be ahead of the curve, rather than objecting to conforming after the fact.


And this worries me because the church is liable to spend many years tearing itself apart over homosexuality (and then many more years over bisexuality, asexuality and all sort of other alternative sexualities) before finally being forced to catch up, having lost many more people. To be clear, the church still seems to consider sexuality in a binary sense (Homosexuality vs Heterosexuality), and hasn't really started to understand the breadth of sexuality that people express.

In this time, it should be accepting people irrespective of their sexuality, and looking at issues of gender fluidity. This will become accepted within our society in the next few years, way before the church has even acknowledged that it is a question that needs consideration. People should - of course - be accepted irrespective of their gender definition, but more than this, the church should be helping people acknowledge and understand their gender in far more fluid terms than a simple binary.

I am sure that there will be those who say "We never had gender fluidity when I was young. It's just a fad." I disagree. In fact, it has always been around and an issue, but you may not have met it for two reasons:

1. So many who could not resolve their gender in a way that society would accept either hid it or took their own lives. Both of these involve a life lived in pain and denial.

2. People who have gender questions would probably not come to you or to the church, knowing that they would be condemned.


The church is too slow. By the time it comes to ask important questions, most people have moved on. By the time it comes to answer them, they are seen as a dinosaur. While this is bad for the church, I am more concerned at the many people who are condemned, hurt, rejected and damaged while this process goes on. It is not acceptable.

Desires

An article in The Guardian caused a lot of online activity recently, mainly with misunderstanding of what was actually being said. However, I want to discuss something else first.

Just before Christmas, my twitter timeline was getting full of people reacting strongly to a show "15 Stone Babies" on  Channel 4. So when I saw it was repeated, I thought it might prove intriguing to watch.

Disturbing is more like it. It dealt with a few people who are "Adult Babies" - they are adults, but they enjoy being treated like babies - dressed up, wearing nappies, being changed, sleeping in a cot, playing baby games.I should point out that, despite the reference to the article above, these people are not pedophiles, they are not sexually attracted to children or babies, and, for many, there is nothing sexual in their behaviour. There is absolutely no suggestion that these people are doing anything illegal or morally wrong.

The problem is that, in the program, many of them did appear to be seeking to evade the adult world, at least temporarily.While I accept that these people do not feel like they have a problem, I think they could do with some emotional counselling, because they are, on appearance, emotionally misplaced. I don't have a problem with what they do, I just think that, on presentation, it appears to be something they might need to get help for.

The Guardian article was arguing - gently - for something that John Bell talked about at Greenbelt in 2011. It was arguing that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, and should be treated as such. This has a number of important implications.

Firstly, and most critically, if it is a sexual orientation, then it cannot be changed. No more than homosexuality can be changed, and there have been enough attempts to do this, none of which have been successful. A persons sexual orientation would appear to be something that they are stuck with for life, although this does not mean that people have to live their life in accordance with their orientation.

Secondly, accepting that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, not a perverse and sick intention on the part of the perpetrator, means that there is a possibility of accepting these feelings and admitting to them. The problem is that someone who has these feelings cannot at the moment get any help, and is liable to simply be rejected and spurned. Until they commit a crime there is no help available, and then the only treatment was jail. Surely it would be far better if people could admit to this and get some help. If people who felt these urges could get help, then maybe less children would be abused and damaged - and if this is not the aim, then what is?

Thirdly, if it is accepted as an orientation, and people could admit to it, then those about them who care for them could assist in helping them to avoid difficult situations - not unlike an alcoholic, who can be helped by their friends to avoid places where they are tempted to drink. The current demonisation of pedophiles means that they don't admit to their feelings, and so are not helped to avoid problematic situations.

Just to make this clear, if we accept pedophilia as a sexual orientation - more, if we accept pedophiles as people who have a sexual orientation that is difficult - then we can work with them to avoid putting them in charge of young people (how many of those working with young people are pedophiles who have never offended or been caught? We have no idea), and we can help them in situations that they find themselves. Treating them as human means that we respect then as people, and seek to help them develop and grow an humans.

I should clarify a couple of points here. I am NOT suggesting that accepting pedophilia is a sexual orientation means that we accept it as reasonable and normal. It is not, and sexual abuse of young children is not "acceptable" in any sense at all. That is part of the point - accepting it is about providing support, help and control. It is not about deeming it acceptable.

Secondly, I am not arguing for Pedophile Rights, for a slow progress towards permitting it, making it normal, looking at pedophile marriage. This is not the aim not the goal. The goal is that someone who has these sexual feelings for young children could admit it to someone in confidence, and could then get help and assistance in dealing with it. It is about treating pedophiles as human.

Because Jesus was all about taking the demonised, taking the outcasts, taking the rejected people and treating them as human beings. And by treating them as human beings, he changed them,and made them less of a threat. That is worth working towards.