Is the idea of being in a celibate relationship possible or helpful? Jayne Ozanne argues vehemently that it is not possible to define or distinguish a sexual from a non-sexual relationships, since no-one can give here a list of things that you can and cannot do in either situation. (In fact, Sean Doherty has offered an answer to that question.) But that is a nonsense position; there is no end of situations where two people are required not to be in a sexual relationship, including a school teacher and pupil, or a professor and undergraduate student. Is it really the case that all such limitations are meaningless? This is the ethical situation of the hair and the beard: suppose (for health and safety reasons) an employee is required not to have a beard. How many whiskers are actually allowed before this constitutes a beard? If I don\u2019t shave for a day, am I contravening this? Or two days? or three? There is no objective answer\u201d\u201dsubjective judgement is required\u201d\u201dbut this does not make the regulation meaningless.<\/p>\n
Gavin Ashenden argues online and on the radio that Nick Chamberlain\u2019s appointment is very unhelpful. I do like the way he starts the broadcast with a personal expression of support and sympathy for Chamberlain, and that he immediately goes on to agree that the appointment, in principle, is perfectly reasonable, and has clear historic precedent. But he then goes on to criticise Chamberlain\u2019s use of the word \u201d\u02dcgay\u2019, as buying into a sub-Christian and mistaken anthropology which defines us by our sexuality. I disagree with Gavin here, since Chamberlain says very clearly to the Guardian and his sexuality is only part of who he is, and he would much rather talk about ministry. It is notable that he makes no comment along that lines that he wants the Church to change its position.<\/p>\n
Then of course there is the intervention by Peter Jensen from Sydney in the name of GAFCON. I don\u2019t really understand why Jensen believes he has a brief to comment on affairs in the C of E; I have never taken it on myself to pronounce on the way he leads his diocese. The letter notes that the appointment is in line with the current position of the Church\u201d\u201dbut still thinks the appointment is a \u201d\u02dcmajor error.\u2019 That doesn\u2019t really make sense. What I think he intends to say is that the Church\u2019s current position is a major error. The objection is to \u201d\u02dcsame-sex relationships which are not sexual.\u2019 The difficulty here is that I am in a number of same-sex relationships which are not sexual; I call them my friends, and Nick Chamberlain appears to be doing the same. It was interesting to note that, in his interview on Radio 4\u2019s Sunday programme yesterday, he underplayed it as an \u201d\u02dcexclusive\u2019 relationship, saying of his friend that \u201d\u02dche, amongst many others, helps me stay sane.\u2019<\/p>\n