Ebor replies

The Archbishop of York replied to my letter. At first I wrote "graciously replied" but one line was, perhaps, not gracious.

He begins by being thankful "that in Christ I am a member of a tribe which includes people of all races. I have also said frequently, and continue to say, that the body of Christ is inclusive of all, without prejudice on grounds of sexuality."

But, he says, "the church is not obliged to treat debates about race and about sexuality in relation to the ordained ministry [my emphasis] as if they were equivalent. There is widespread agreement throughout the Christian world on matters of racial equality. Christian teaching about sexuality however is not so widely agreed."

He then refers to the blessing of the civil partnership and observes "As I recall, this event did not receive a welcome from your own diocesan bishop either." That wasn't gracious! Truthful but not gracious....

The debate about civil partnerships, he says "continues both within the Church of England and in the wider Anglican Communion, as well as amongst our ecumenical partners" and meanwhile we must continue to be guided by Synod, Lambeth 1.10 and the House of Bishops.

On his silence about Peter Mullen, as against his public statement about me, he says that Dr Mullen's statement "was indeed reprehensible - but I do not find the time to respond to everything written in the press on this matter."

I don't intend to argue with the Archbishop but if you are discriminated against because of your sexual orientation, it is unlikely to feel very different from being discriminated against because of your race or colour, but notice that the Archbishop limits the discussion to the ordained ministry. He does not deal with discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in general but only as it applies to the ordained. At Saint Bartholomew the Great we refuse to discriminate (by which I mean treat people less favourably) on the basis of sexual orientation and that applies to the ordained and the lay. The same must apply with regard to ordination, treating men and women as equally able to receive ordination.

My difficulties, incidentally, with ordaining women to the episcopate at this time are just like those of the Archbishop over civil partnerships. Christian teaching about the ministry of women in the priesthood and episcopate is not as widely agreed as the attitude to race. Debate about it continues, within the Church of England, the wider Anglican Communion, and with our ecumenical partners. While the discussion continues, we should not take precipitate or unilateral action. Now the American Church has women bishops, which many in England want, but also has a gay bishop, when many in England apparently don't want. It seems to me that the American Church accepted the inevitable logic of its stand against certain types of negative discrimination and accepted that it should be much more welcoming. And that is my objection to the Archbishop of York's response; it refines the welcome. It takes the "all" of Jesus' "Come to me all..." and says "except the following".

I would also like an assurance that the debate about civil partnerships includes those who are in them and that they are not being discussed by others as "a problem" in and for the Church.