Not the C of E’s best effort surely? – The submission of the Church of England bishops to the UK government’s consultation on marriage has attracted a range and volume of criticism.
One of the first to comment in an article in Wednesday’s Times was Diarmid MacCulloch, professor of the history of the church at Oxford, who stated that the bishops response was in similar line to their attempt to straight jacket Anglicanism through the use of the Covenant which was rejected in a majority of dioceses. He said that the bishops were the very same group as was bedevilling the move towards women being ordained as bishops, despite 42 of the 44 dioceses approving of such a development. Further, he countered that the submission on marriage “told downright lies” in stating that a majority of bishops had backed civil partnerships in the House of Lords in 2004. Rather, he commented, the reverse is true. The majority had spoken in favour of and voted for a wrecking amendment.
The professor continued stating that the bishops are evasive about many things marriage has been in its history. “Marriage has been what human beings have made it to fit the reality of their lives”. He included references with one highlighting a period of early Orthodox same sex marriage ceremonies.
Giles Fraser also picked up the bishops claim to be supportive of civil partnerships. The wrecking amendment aforementioned had been supported by six votes to one. He continued, “The leadership of the C of E will do anything to keep gay people out of the church. It uses the sickly language of welcome but won’t let gay priests (even celibate ones) become bishops and is prepared to cut the Church of England off from the Episcopal church in the US because they do. At every turn, the Church of England treats gay people as an unwanted headache.”
He said it was erroneous to present this submission as representative of the C of E stating, “The other shameful aspect about this statement is that it purports to represent the views of the whole Church of England. “How can a church that is so divided on this issue produce so one-sided a statement?” asks a contributor to the Thinking Anglicans web site. Quite. This statement has not gone before General Synod for any sort of discussion. It has not been discussed at diocesan level. It has been put together by small team in Church House, Westminster, who purport to speak in the name of many thousands of people who will think the whole thing is complete tosh….
“And finally there is the absurd hyperbole of the thing. “The greatest threat to the church in 500 years.” Do us a favour. Worse than the dissolution of the monasteries? Worse than secularisation? It is telling evidence of the irrational fear that the church leadership has of gay people that they are prepared to make such ridiculous statements.”
The web site Ekklesia also picked up the unrepresentative nature of the submission. “….that the document does not represent the range of views to be found within the Church of England or in Christianity more widely. Same-sex marriage is supported by Anglican groups such as Inclusive Church, as well as wider Christian groups with Anglican members, such as Accepting Evangelicals and the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement.”
Symon Hill stated, “The C of E’s statement includes more scaremongering about the possibility of churches facing legal action for not carrying out same-sex weddings. This is extremely unlikely (not least because almost everyone campaigning for marriage equality respects the right of faith groups to make their own decisions on it). Further, it is only an issue because the Church of England is an established church. This position gives it both privileges and legal responsibilities. If top Anglicans want to have more freedoms, they need to give up their privileges.”
The Guardian carried a legal critique of the church’s stance:
“… the church may be right about a potential human rights challenge to the changes as proposed in the equal marriage consultation. But it has inflated the chances of the challenge succeeding. More importantly, even if such a challenge was successful, it is inconceivable that a court would force any religious institution to perform a gay marriage; the most that it would do is rule that religious organisations should be given the choice. This is hardly earth shattering. The church’s concerns may be real but they should not be a bar to the proposals becoming a reality.”
Some, including a Tory MP, have stated that the issue raises valid cause for the disestablishment of the C of E.
Methinks this submission may come back to haunt the C of E and strenghen the resolve of those who wish to challenge the church-state link. If so, one could hardly expect the drafters of this statement to acknowledge their responsibility. For certain, anyone this side of the Irish Sea who would wish to use this submission as ammunition against civil partnerships or indeed the hosting of ceremonies recognising such in religious premises, would be well advised to start with their own clean tablet.
Houston McKelvey