THE consistory court of the diocese of Leicester has refused to grant a college for the introduction of a latest altar frontal at St Nicholas’s, Leicester, displaying the Progress Pride flag and incorporating a cross within the design.
The Progress Pride flag was “not a Christian emblem”, the Chancellor Naomi Gyane said. While it was “an indication of welcome for people from the LGBTQIA+ community, and although not itself political,” it was, she said, “a secular contemporary emblem used for a lot of causes and contemporary discourse”.
St Nicholas’s is a Grade I-listed early medieval church built on the unique site of Leicester Cathedral. The cathedral was short-lived, as the realm was invaded by the Vikings and the bishop fled. St Nicholas’s is certainly one of the ten oldest churches within the UK, and has a nave dating from 879.
The worshipping community at St Nicholas’s has doubled in size since 2022. It is intercultural, and its congregation is essentially under 35 years of age. It has a growing popularity as a protected place for LGBTQIA+ people of religion, most of whom have experienced conditional acceptance, rejection, or spiritual abuse in other churches. St Nicholas’s has faced continued hostility and vandalism due to its clear and visual welcome of LGBTQIA+ people.
In September 2022, it was given an altar frontal displaying the colors of the Progress Pride flag. It was displayed on the nave altar until a criticism was made to the archdeacon by someone outside the diocese. The altar frontal was then removed, and permission was sought by the use of a college petition.
The registry received nine objections to the petition, and the Deputy Chancellor, David Rees KC, considered the query whether any of the objectors were “interested individuals” inside the meaning of the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2015. He concluded that two of the objectors, the Revd Brett Murphy (News, 22 December 2023) and the Revd Dr Ian Paul, had sufficient interest within the petition for the needs of the foundations.
The proposed altar frontal is a bespoke piece of material sewn from high-quality cotton to display the colors and design of the Progress Pride flag. The petitioners also wished so as to add a cross to the design. The proposal was for the frontal to be placed on the nave altar for Sunday services, and on Saturdays when the constructing was open to the general public.
The petitioners explained that the continued popularity and the viability of the church as a protected place for LGBTQIA+ people were signalled by the proposed altar frontal; that the design was a universally recognisable sign of welcome to different racial groups of LGBTQIA+ people; that the inclusion of the cross was a transparent expression of God’s love and acceptance of all; and that the easy recognisability of the design was necessary to the ministry team as an indication of welcome to all.
In response to the petition, the vice-chair of the DAC didn’t recommend the everlasting use of the Progress Pride flag as an altar frontal, but said that some thought is perhaps given to its use on the altar on an occasional basis.
St Nicholas’s, Leicester/FacebookSt Nicholas’s, Leicester, is lit in rainbow colors in celebration of Pride, last yr
Dr Ian Paul, who’s a member of the General Synod and the Archbishops’ Council, didn’t want to turn into a celebration opponent, but made written objections.
He stated that the aim of the table at which holy communion was celebrated was to focus the congregation on remembering the death of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins, and never to concentrate on contemporary and political issues; and that the presence of the Progress Pride flag introduced a tension with the teachings of Jesus and the scriptures as an entire into the centre of the rite of communion.
In addition, he stated that the teaching of the Church of England was that marriage was between one man and one woman, and the proposed frontal delivered to the centre of the rite a contradiction to the Church’s teaching; that placing a logo that introduced the concept of sexual identity on the centre of the service was inappropriate attributable to the presence of youngsters, and due to this fact caused a possible safeguarding issue; that there was contemporary debate in wider culture on facets of the ideology underpinning the flag; and that the usage of the frontal could be divisive as there was strong feeling and debate inside the Church of England on the matter of doctrine underpinning it, in order that those with contrary views, including clergy or laity, might feel excluded from worship at St Nicholas’s, and/or unable to take part in the central rite of communion.
The Chancellor said that, having taken under consideration all relevant points, she had found it helpful to concentrate on one aspect of the petition that was at its core. The petition related to one of the vital symbolic parts of the constructing, the altar. The vice-chair of the DC had equated it with that of the font, pulpit, and lectern.
Canon F2.2 states: “The table, as becomes the table of the Lord, shall be kept in a sufficient and seemly manner, and sometimes repaired, and shall be covered within the time of divine service with a covering of silk or other decent stuff, and with a good white linen cloth on the time of the celebration of Holy Communion.”
The Chancellor said that the Progress Pride flag was not a Christian emblem. The “decent stuff” referred to in Canon F.2.2 was material that was readily related to ecclesiastical heritage that pointed towards, or maintained the concentrate on, the celebration of the holy communion. The focus, purpose, and celebration of the holy communion was for all to return to Jesus and remember his sacrifice, she said, and we come to the communion table to not forget who we’re, or our identity, but to recollect the sacrifice of Jesus and our identity in him.
It was clear that there was not a unified belief that the proposed altar frontal achieved that purpose of oneness in Christ, and that, within the Chancellor’s view, was the aim of an altar frontal. The petition was on the idea of drawing to the communion table one group inside the Anglican Communion, albeit a marginalised one. It was due to this fact inherent in that objective that not all were represented within the design and the decision to attract near.
While those from the LGBTQIA+ community could resonate with Christ’s suffering, the remembrance of Christ’s suffering related to its saving grace and our redemption through it; the Chancellor was not persuaded that the petitioners’ response provided a great reason with that core purpose in mind, and for that reason she had decided to not grant even occasional use of the proposed altar front.
Any concern in regards to the impact on mission and pastoral care at St Nicholas’s was outweighed by the Chancellor’s view that the altar frontal must be of a design that every one could gaze on, and immediately concentrate on, in remembrance of the saving work of Christ and Christ alone.
The Chancellor expressed “grave concern” on the petitioners’ view that the consequence of their petition would indicate whether there was support for St Nicholas’s and affirmation and acceptance by the Church as an establishment of LGBTQIA+ people.
The Chancellor said she appreciated that, for some, her decision is perhaps “viewed as a rejection of them, their experiences, their traumas. It was not.” Her judgment related simply to a petition for an altar frontal. A rejection of a petition didn’t equate to saying that LGBTQIA+ people weren’t welcome, nor did it imply that. The two notions mustn’t be conflated, she said.
While she had not granted the petition, the Chancellor said, she hoped the clergy and church community at St Nicholas’s remained “happy with their successful efforts in making a protected space inside the Church of England for LGBTQIA+ people”.
