Qualified thanks to the LLF Next Steps Group

Last time I raised three questions of the LLF Next Steps Group. I asked about -  

• the nature of the LLF advocates;
• the impossibility of safe spaces in church discussions around sexuality;
• the absence of any mention of LGBTQ+ people in their documents, and indeed from their plans - except possibly from an advisory group that would be used at some stage (and which would have people chosen for age, class, churchmanship, gender, race & sexuality in it to give a real good mix).

Well, it seems the February meeting of the Next Steps Group has tried to answer two of my questions: Thank you!

Here’s the full text of the (brief) write-up of that meeting in mid-February on the LLF site (bold type where they go for my questions):

The second meeting for 2021 of the LLF Next Steps Group was held on 10 February remotely via Zoom.

In line with its decision to do the LLF Course together, the group spent the first part of the meeting engaging with Session 1, Learning Together.

Following the decision at the last meeting to produce clear guidance for creating safer and braver spaces for LLF engagement, a draft was considered and agreed entitled, ‘Braver and Safer: Creating Spaces to Learn Together Well’. The guidance will be made available on the LLF Learning Hub after it has been reviewed and approved by the National Safeguarding Team.

The group suggested further changes and clarification in relation to the ecclesiology workstream.

The group agreed that the process of ‘listening to the whole church’ is a vital part of the LLF project. A four-stage approach to the task of gathering and communicating feedback from groups and individuals who have engaged with the LLF resources was discussed and agreed, with further work to be undertaken on refining the process.

The formation of a diverse Reference Group was discussed and agreed to be a matter of priority. The membership, role and task of the group is in the process of being finalised.

The meeting closed in prayer.

1. Back in January there was no mention in any external document of the word ‘braver’ or ‘brave’ along with the words ‘safe space’ when it came to LLF. Nowhere. But a bit of ret-con is always allowed, and I’m not begrudging the presence of the concept now! The futility of ‘safe space’ is being recognised, and that means that LGBTQ+ people are - to some extent - being heard. Thank you.

However - is it churlish of me still to find room for growth? In the document Braver and safer: Creating spaces for learning together well which the Bishop of London sent out to her fellow bishops along with a letter dated February 16th, I think the term ‘brave space’ is needs some definition work.

I said last time that brave space can be a flawed concept; I’m afraid that what we have here is pretty much a bulls-eye on some of those flaws. Again, a lengthy quote is needed. Bishop Sarah writes:

Creating a brave space is about cultivating the desire to understand each other’s perspectives better, and so to be open, enquiring and gracious in our attitudes to learning about the perspectives and lived experiences of others. For genuine dialogue and learning to take place, individuals need to feel safe enough to ask questions of each other and of the resources, and to share personal convictions and life stories. 

This involves taking risks, however, as we encounter new and different ways of seeing things and as we make ourselves vulnerable to others. That is why participating in these conversations will at times be uncomfortable and will take courage. It won’t be easy to listen to claims that any one of us – regardless of the nature of our convictions or lived experiences – may find upsetting and offensive. Creating brave spaces is about growing as disciples of Christ through our learning together, knowing that he accompanies us in our efforts to hear, to understand and to love one another. 

The main problem with using this definition of ‘brave space’ for LGBTQ+ people entering into LLF conversations, is that there is a false equivalency going on. I talked about this last time, too.

For LGBTQ+ people, we come into spaces like LLF knowing that our very lives are up for discussion - and (by some) dismissal. That’s not safe. It’s not nice. It does take bravery to enter into that space, and to engage with people in generous and vulnerable conversation, not knowing the detail of what will happen in that space today - but reckoning that something unpleasant is more likely than not. It is not an equal risk that is being taken by all participants, and this isn’t recognised here. We aren’t talking simply about theology, we are talking about life. Some will have our marriages trivialised or talked of as intrinsically sinful and displeasing to God. The people we love will be de-personned. Some will have our own very being judged. ‘Uncomfortable’ doesn’t quite capture the emotion that goes with this experience. It’s not simply about disagreeing on theology. I love my Bible - I am very committedly an evangelical - but there are deeper things in life than arguments over 1 Corinthians 6. 

It is not just about learning together. It is not just about listening to different claims or perspectives. It is not just about hearing something new. It is not just about loving each other. It is not a level playing field.

This document nowhere understands this. LGBTQ+ people are being asked to offer a special bravery, and to come into a space which may be anything but safe. Our safe space is somewhere else, not here. We need to be able to go back there after engaging, bravely. 

Creating brave spaces is about being authentically Christian as Christ has made us to be, offering ourselves in vulnerability, knowing this gift may be misused, and knowing also that we have safe spaces to go back to where we are cherished, loved and accepted as the fully human, totally loved members of Christ’s church that we are. 

Repeatedly my critique of the Next Steps Group is that it doesn’t know what it doesn’t know. 

And this, I’m sorry, is the definition of systemic abuse. Systemic homophobia is not all about intentional, knowing, malicious acts of physical violence of emotional abuse; or about applying stereotypes or assumptions; or using hostile, hurtful or offensive language; or applying abusive and coercive spiritual practices - it’s mostly about thoughtlessly doing and saying things (repeatedly) that powerfully demean people who are different. It’s about same old same old producing same old same old, and those who have never noticed this is a problem still not noticing. Why? Because they don’t know what they don’t know. Systemic abuse is not usually done by bad people, but by good people acting in ignorance. 

The Next Steps Group wants to get things right: the fact that the February update reflects issues I and others have raised shows this. I thank them for this. But they don’t know what they don’t know, yet think they do know enough to sort us out. I called them out for having a ‘straight saviour’ complex last time. 

Hmm. It’s still there.

2. One of the other things I called the Next Steps Group out on last time was nowhere mentioning LGBTQ+ people in anything they wrote. 

That has changed - again, thank you.

It’s not changed a lot, and we don’t feature heavily. They still like to think that saying LLF means they have talked about us, but they do use ‘LGBTI+’ a few times and I will take that. We use all sorts of versions of our letters - well, take your pick.

One of the mentions of LGBTI+ in their recent output is because LLF are taking a leaf out of Oxford Diocese’s book and suggesting “LLF or LGBTI+ chaplains”. 

The role of chaplains is to be available to anyone within the Diocese who wants a safe space to reflect on whatever has been stirred within themselves as a result of the process of engaging with the Church of England’s Living in Love and Faith (LLF) resources. 

Maybe I should book in with one of those chaplains…

Though Oxford Diocese found that from deciding to begin their chaplaincy programme, to establishing its boundaries, to finding the people to oversee it, to advertising and interviewing for it (and discovering that this process was not simple - because ensuring the right people came to the fore was not simple) and then offering training and then launching the chaplaincy - this was not a short process. LLF seem to think that one sheet of info, and Hey Presto! 

A little more care is needed in order to care for people who are making themselves vulnerable and putting their lives in unsafe places.

 

But the bigger issue comes perhaps in the February update where the Next Steps Group says they are now making the formation of the diverse Reference Group ‘a priority’. (Diverse, you will recall, not just in terms of being LGBTQ+, but in terms of age, ethnicity, sex, gender identity, sexuality, relationships, disability and church context.)

I want to be able to say thank you. But again, my thanks comes with some qualifications. 

The description document for the Reference Group calls them as ‘a “diversity sounding board” for the Next Steps Group’s plans and outputs’, which makes it feel about as patronising as it could possibly be. To be fair - I don’t think this is intentional. I think the Next Steps Group maybe here sees they don’t know everything, but, if so, they have no idea how much they don’t know. If I was asked to be on a ‘diversity sounding board’ I think I’d ask if I was being intentionally insulted, or if the person asking would like to attend diversity education classes…

Dear Bishops,

Thank you for listening last time. Thank you for actually mentioning us LGBTQ+ people in some of your documents since January. Please keep talking about us.

But please talk to more of us too. “Nothing about us without us."

It’s OK not to know stuff; if you talk to us, you will find that your knowledge gaps are pretty big on some areas - as we, in our conversations, will find out is true for us too. 

You can’t sort this for us. We have to work together. We are all God’s children, but that doesn’t mean any of us should be left feeling like infants. 

I live in the brave space, and work in the brave space, and am grateful for safe spaces that feed me and keep me going. Please be careful you don’t belittle those others whom you are expecting to step out into such spaces by suggesting that a vulnerability of ideas comes close to the vulnerability of life this process asks for. 

I know everything you are suggesting is meant to serve and help and take us forward. I too really want this process to work. So please forgive me if I press hard. This isn’t simply a project ending up with proposals and a vote for me and for very many of people I know and love. 

It’s our lives.