Postscripts Virtue of resignation Just three years ago, as a brand new member of Sea of Faith, wet behind the cars, green as grass, unsure of what ontological meant and not knowing my Wittgenstein from my Kant, I rashly undertook to edit four issues of this magazine when Clive Richards stepped down.
Twelve issues later, green behind the cars, wet as grass, still ontologically-challenged, and knowing what I know of Kant and Wittgenstein only from Cupitt’s crammers, it is time to practice the virtue of resignation.
I have hugely enjoyed my extended occupation of the editor’s chair - and not only because of the opportunities it offers for blatant self-indulgence. The magazine is the hub of the Network, and it has brought me into active fellowship with literally hundreds of SoFers from astonishingly varied backgrounds. It has been a real privilege to do the job. And, as with all privileges, I mustn’t be allowed to hog it.
So this one is my last. Anthony Freeman has agreed to edit the next issue, pending a new appointment.
I have the satisfaction of handing on a lusty, bawling infant in fine fettle. Network membership, and therefore magazine circulation, has more than doubled, and our recent survey of members’ likes and dislikes provides our new editor with a clear picture of his variegated readership. The potential of Sea of Faith magazine is enormous. I have barely scratched its surface, and my successors have the opportunity to dig deeper.
I step down because the time it now takes to produce the magazine has meant that I have seriously neglected other commitments in television and publishing. If I don’t make space for them now, they will never get done. But this is no farewell. I plan to remain an active SoFer - and even an occasional magazine contributor, editor willing.
Thanks... and apologies So some big thankyous: to the various steering committees whose changing members have given me so much support; to the many members who have sent me their contributions, whether or not I have managed to use them; to readers who have sent so many appreciative letters; to all who have helped, by their contributions, criticism or enthusiasm, to make the magazine a serviceable instrument. And particularly to Ronald Pearse and Stephen Mitchell, who respectively organised the circulation-lists and paid the bills.
But sume apologies too: to those I kept promising to publish ‘‘soon’’, but never found the space (your contributions will be forwarded to Anthony); to those whose pieces I turned down, not always, I fear, with adequate explanation; to those I offended by editing their offerings, not always entirely as they would have wished; and above all, to those whose contributions were acknowledged late or not at all. If I had written to all who wrote to me, I would never have found time to get the magazine out, let alone do a TV series in Russia, plus the book I am doing with Anthea on George Fox.
One day, perhaps soon, we shall need to take on paid staff to produce a bigger, better magazine to explore and promote the conviction that all our religious forms and moral or spiritual values are human constructs, and to help spread the sense of liberation that comes from taking leave of the old God, recognising that ‘‘no saviour from on high delivers’, and acknowledging that religious practice, like poetry and painting, music and drama, reflects and celebrates the wholly-human spirit.
More contrition And while in a contrite mood, my apologies to Jain McDonald (see Postbag, page 18) and any others I angered with my comments in the last issue. It did not occur to me that my gay comrades would be offended by being described as ‘‘often particularly sensitive, caring and loving’’, but I do see the point Iain makes about stereotyping - even positive stereotyping.
However, I didn’t ‘‘criticise gay clergy who do not come out for a lack of integrity’. I suggested that ‘‘a practising homosexual priest or bishop who condemns homosexuality, or silently acquiesces in its condemnation by the Church, cannot justly complain if his hypocrisy is exposed”, adding that it seemed tragic that ‘‘so few of the many gay priests have had the integrity...to say aloud that same-sex love is as good, true and beautiful as love between the sexes’’. I don’t withdraw that. Neither gay nor “‘straight’’ priest has an obligation to tell the world about his or her own sexual orientation or preferences.
But if they believe the Church they represent is wrong to condemn same-sex relationships, doesn’t integrity demand that they speak out and say so? Indeed, that we all do?