But, if there is a threat against LGBT clergy here, the English can be expected to react strongly.
First though, there’s a specific reason why a dispute about same-sex blessings in the US or Canada is a very poor argument for having a schism in the Church of England now.
Few know this, but the Church of England has, as a matter of plain fact, remained in communion with the Lutheran Church of Sweden, and also with some Old Catholic dioceses in continental Europe, throughout the past decade, in full knowledge that each of these bodies had given official approval for same-sex blessings at various times during the 1990s. So breaking communion with North Americans on this issue now makes no logical sense.
The Church of Sweden recently made its position on same-sex blessings very clear in a letter to its ecumenical partners. This letter was mainly concerned with a new proposal under consideration, to develop a gender-neutral marriage rite, because Swedish civil marriage law has been revisised to eliminate civil partnerships, and treat all couples identically.
Since no one goes to church in Sweden, the population is well safe of their clergy. So I guess it’s not the best example.
Same is true for C of E, yes? TEC too, right? And coming soon to an empty church near you … ELCA congregations …
This does seem to ignore the letter sent by the Archbishops’ Council to the Church of Sweden Further the fact that people have disobeyed their bishops by operating under the radar does not mean either that the argument is settled or their conduct been approved. It is particularly disappointing to have ‘liberals’ threatening to out gay priests and list those who may well become subject to discipline.
It is a straw man to claim that clergy may be under attack, the only threats so far have been from those who have been speaking to Ruth Gledhill. The issue is whether the CofE has the right to consecrate gay partnered bishops or bless same-sex unions.
But it is doubtful that this will impact on the trumpetings of Mr Sarmiento or Canon-to-be Fraser or those who allude to TEC parishes being set up here in the future on various gay-activist sites. As schismatic as some of the FCA.
It is going to be a long hot-air Summer. Whatever.
[blockquote]”So breaking communion with North Americans on this issue now makes no logical sense.”[/blockquote]
This is simply incorrect. He is confusing consistency in timing with logic. Failure to act in a first case – when action is merited, is not valid justification for failure to act in a second case. The logical approach is to act in both cases, correcting the first case.
🙄
I am also intrigued that the original title of this piece when it appeared in the Grauniad was:
[blockquote]The English care about their clergy: It makes no sense to split over same-sex unions, when churches in the communion already sanction them. And we will not let our LGBT clergy be hounded out[/blockquote]
It seems at the moment that the biggest threat to the clergy comes from those trumpeting about “outing” them?
“And we will not let our LGBT clergy be hounded out” – by ‘Inclusive Church’ “outing” them?? Sounds like an own goal to me. But fine – let them go ahead and do this. Not good living a lie etc.
I’m intrigued by the ‘B’ clergy. Are there active bisexuals among the English clergy?
And the ‘T’. I think any ‘transgendered’ clergy would be well known by now.
It is worth being aware of the broader European picture. Not just the Chuurch of Sweden and Old Catholics, but also the Church of Iceland amongst Porvoo churches openly bless same-sex partnerships. The Church of Norway has not yet approved a liturgy, but its clergy are blessing same-sex marriages in the meantime. The Church of England is in full communion with all these churches.
Also, the Church of Denmark, the Swiss Reformed Church in the majority of Swiss cantons, and a large proportion of the Landeskirchen of the German Lutheran Church, as well as the main Protestant churches in the Netherlands and Belgium all offer public same-sex church blessings. All these churches are comparable to the Church of England in their history and position in the wider society. There are also many other same-sex blessings being conducted in churches across Europe, including in the RC Church. I have posted up a lot of details of these here http://viaintegra.wordpress.com/
I don’t think there is any possibility, in such a context, that the Church of England can reasonably expect to tarry behind them all for long in this respect. Increasingly, religious opinion across Europe is coalescing: British people, while similar to Americans in their politics, do not think or speak like Americans when it comes to religion, but are very much sceptical North Europeans.
On church attendance in Sweden: I think the figures show very similar church attendance across all the North European countries, in fact, Protestant and Catholic. Obviously the cause of low attendance is more complex than how liberal the largest church is.
Sweden, Norway and Iceland all have women bishops, of course, as well.
Welcome Fr Mark.
In response to 4 above, the original strapline was inserted by a sub editor who had not fully understood the article. I therefore requested a change to what is there now. (In the process the second sentence got lost, but this was I think entirely accidental.)
“I don’t think there is any possibility, in such a context, that the Church of England can reasonably expect to tarry behind them all for long in this respect. Increasingly, religious opinion across Europe is coalescing: British people, while similar to Americans in their politics, do not think or speak like Americans when it comes to religion, but are very much sceptical North Europeans.”
Apples and oranges. The English may be heathens as much as the Nordics, but so what? European Lutheranism walks in lock step and has little connection with African Lutheranism or Missouri Synod. The global center of Anglicanism is in Africa. That – and the strength of large evangelical charismatic churches in England who can pull the plug on the COE – makes the difference.
azusa: but you are perhaps unaware of the increasing growth in the sense of pan-European everything. If British people have to take sides between being European Christians and being African Christians, I wonder which they will choose? The Conservative Evangelicals may make a lot of noise in the C of E, but they are not the majority. In my deanery in England, we had 3 out of 13 parishes which supported the Conservative Evangelical line on Jeffrey John. I would think that would be a fairly representative proportion: Conservative Evangelical parishes never exist within close proximity to each other, and are pretty thinly spread. They are not necessarily parishes with high attendance figures, either, though some are very large. They are also not necessarily net contributors to central funds, though some are. St Aldate’s in Oxford gave the diocese no end of trouble by saying it would go its own way financially if Jeffrey John didn’t stand down, and then, just a couple of years later, was only able to finance its building work with the aid of a large loan from central church funds. Such are the bullying techniques employed by many loud Conservative Evangelical clergy in England, I am afraid.
Fr Mark: I’m fairly familiar with the English scene through visits and study, and doubt if the Euro-skeptic, UKIP voting English know or care anything about Porvoo. The lively churches in England are orientated toward the Anglosphere as well as the ‘free churches’, not the state and ex-state Lutheran churches that nobody attends. The “British people” (itself an increasingly questionable notion in a fragmenting union) will not ‘take sides’ in a matter that doesn’t interest them. In any case, the majority church by attendance in the UK is the Roman Catholic Church. Maybe you don’t see many of them in Denmark, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there were more RCs in church in Denmark than Lutherans (not to mention Muslims in mosque).
Nor would I be surprised if the three ‘Conservative Evangelical’ parishes in Oxford outnumber the other 10 in attendance. St Aldate’s gave the diocese ‘no end of trouble’? Just like Leonidas gave the Persians ‘no end of trouble’? Who was the troubler of Israel? Was it not Bishop Richard Harries, who tried to slip that episcopal appointment under the door, in his typical Establishment manner, de haut en bas?
As for St Aldate’s borrowing from the diocesan funds: I’m sure it has donated to those funds for many years, so what’s the problem with it borrowing? Should it have gone to a bank instead? Very many of its congregants are students with no income to speak of, and I doubt St Aldate’s has much in the way of historic reserves – unlike the foundations that support the largely empty college chapels.
azusa: I am British and spend a great deal of time in my own country: I am perfectly familiar with the UK ecclesiastical scene. The RC Church in the UK is only buoyed up by the recent huge influx of Polish immigrants. Prior to their arrival, it was in steeper decline than the C of E, a situation that will no doubt recur shortly when the Poles either return home due to the recessions, or stay in the UK and become as liberal about religion as the rest of the British population, as happened to the previous generations of Irish immigrants.
I think you should avoid calling the Nordic societies “heathen”, though. Approx 80% of Danes voluntarily pay a church tax of c £500 per annum; the baptism rate here is incredibly high; the Scandinavian monarchies are the world’s highest per capita aid donors (surely a sign of Christian morality?); they are Europe’s most equal societies (also a sign of the Christian ethic?), and provide free education and health provision to a very high standard to all their citizens (unlike the much more churchgoing USA, for example). They are also places where equality for women is probably greatest in the world, and for gay people too: all signs, I would contend, of a truly Christian ethic.
Mark, you call yourself (on your blog) an Anglo-Catholic and refer cryptically to your ‘spouse’ (why not ‘wife’?). If you *are an Anglo-Catholic rather than an ‘Affirming Catholicism’ liberal catholic, I would expect you to be looking more to Rome for theological and ethical guidance. Instead, you seem to endorse decidedly UN-catholic – and pronouncedly liberal protesant – views about homosexuality and women bishops. So why do you call yourself an ‘Anglo-Catholic’? Is Catholicism a sectarian wax nose? Doesn’t it mean ‘the consentient witness of the undivided church’? Are you really an Anglo-Catholic or a liberal protestant who worships in a certain way?
What will happen with British Catholicism, neither you nor I know. Maybe it will go back to declining, maybe it won’t. But British Catholics of Irish ancestry are not as post-Catholic as you suggest.
No doubt there is a high level of social care in the Nordic countries (as there was, relatively speaking, in the poorer former Soviet block). That has as much to do with Nordic socialism, the wealth of the countries, and the fact that they’ve never had to spend much on defense or postwar reconstruction. But their churches are largely empty (not the mosques in Malmo, though).
I know Swedish Christians (a pastor as well) and they don’t have the rosy view you project. ‘Heathen’ is a good Nordic word, by the way.
[We encourage commenters to address the issues in the thread and not other commenters – this comment is pushing it – Elf]
azusa: why do some religious Americans hold such strident views about other people and their countries, I wonder? Understanding Europeans is not really the Religious Right’s strong point, is it?
The Scandinavians are pretty ambivalent about ‘Europe’]. Does the fact that they, the Dutch and others in Northern Europe, eat pickled herring make it inevitable that we will do so too?
I am not sure that either the Religious Right or the Irreligious Left understand Europeans.
By the way it is disappointing to see Simon Sarmiento trumpeting scurrilous and disgraceful attacks on the Bishop of Durham from Colin Coward of Changing Attitude today. It seems to me that you lose the argument when you have nothing but abuse to hurl at those who you disagree with. The comments following it are not much better. It makes ugley reading.
But there you are – is it impotent frustration that is causing a small part of the Left to lose its rag?
Pageantmaster: “I am not sure that either the Religious Right or the Irreligious Left understand Europeans.”
It was the American Religious Right I was thinking of; though, now you mention it, it is very strange that the historic Reformation churches of Europe – the ones you would expect Conservative Evangelicals in Britain to be most interested in, as representing the tradition they claim to be the true vein of the C of E – are all very much more liberal on women and gay people than British Evangelicals. Even Calvin’s Swiss Reformed Church is blessing same-sex couples: one would imagine a Church of England crypto-Calvinist to be influenced by that!
I think the reason is, that the churches in Europe whose decision-making is informed by a wide range of the populace are the most sane when it comes to women and gay people. The Scandinavian churches are MUCH more democratic than the C of E or RC Church, and they draw on involvement from far wider range of the general population; whereas the C of E is run by a very small clique of those who have the stomach for endless synod meetings at various levels. I fear that what we are seeing in England at the moment is the result of a long process of exclusion of ordinary people from a connection with the Church, such that basic feet-on-the-ground common sense is absent from our discussions. Just look at how wacky Graham Dow, Michael Nazir-Ali or Tom Wright’s pronouncements on the gay issue seem to the wider public – they are quite off the wall: no normal bloke in England today launches into an Alf Garnett diatribe in the way they do regarding gay people. I think this indicates the way in which church leadership is drawn from an ever-shrinking group of the inward-looking, unfortunately, rather than people with a handle on how to live ethically in modern Britain.
[Slightly edited by Elf]
Hello Fr Mark
Most Brits I suspect don’t have a clue what the “historic Reformation churches of Europe” are up to, although I would require some persuading that they are all conducting blessings of gay unions. Europe is a place we go on our hols and buy cars and good things to eat and drink and most of us don’t take much interest in anything else.
I would be surprised if there were many cryto-Calvinists here as you prosaicly put it; we turned our back on the Puritans long ago after they had run riot for a bit, smashing up our cathedrals and stopping our fun. I am certainly not a Calvinist.
I am sure that the average Canon, Dean or priest on the Putney, St Albans or Tivoli omnibus does think that he is in touch with what the ordinary bloke in England thinks, although whether the members of this talkeratti really do I am doubtful. I suspect that Bishop Tom is more in touch with what the average pewsitter in England thinks.
I did not read his piece as a ‘diatribe’ against gay people. Gay people should be in church, along with the rest of us sinners, that is not the point.
The church not accepting that it has the right to bless gay unions or promote partnered gay priests to the episcopate does not make it out of touch ethically. It is a very serious thing to say that the church may give God’s blessing to things out of step with its traditional teaching and the view of the 3 European and world majority churches, the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox and of course the 55-78 million Anglicans concur.
Could it be that those arguing from a ’60’s liberal viewpoint may well be drawn from “an ever-shrinking group of the inward-looking”, rather than people with a handle on how to live with a Christian ethic in modern Britain?
Pageantmaster: I’m not a 60s liberal at all! I think it’s really weird that all these ageing trendies (and Tom Wright is one – I used to be in his seminars looking at his oh-so-seventies shirts and suede shoes!) have been so liberal as to accept remarrying divorcees in the way they have; and to completely give up telling straight unmarried people they are “living in sin”, as they used to do. It’s really bizarre that they all became so liberal – even George Carey, and the current Bishop of Winchester, Michael Scott-Joynt, are amazingly liberal when it comes to anything to do with straight people.
I just don’t understand the logic, though. The Bishop of Winchester urges the C of E to accept remarrying divorcees; he commends this latest marry-&-baptise-your-kids-at-the-same-time liturgy – how incredibly liberal a view of sex is that for a Christian! – yet, at the same time, he won’t extend the logic to looking kindly on gay people. It’s weirdly illogical, and just looks unkind.
And, Pageantmaster, if you’re in doubt about what the main Protestant church in Europe are doing re same-sex blessing, look at the material I’ve posted up at
http://viaintegra.wordpress.com/
The Lutheran and Calvinist churches of the continent are much more liberal on the gay issue than those in the C of E who share their theology in every other area. Protestants in the C of E only agree with the Vatican in its attitude to gay people: increasingly, the only agree with other European Protestants on everything except their attutude to gay people. It doesn’t make sense, and just looks as if British Evangelicals have an illogical hang-up about gay people. But that couldn’t be true, could it?
Fr Mark,
Sounds to me as if Bishop Tom managed to get your attention in seminars which is the mark of a good teacher. Whatever he and the Bishop of Winchester think about remarriage, at the moment it is not something which the CofE does. I certainly think that we have not been clear about explaining as much to ourselves as anyone else what the Christian life entails.
As for the two for one offer of marry and get baptised, I don’t see any problem with that. What is wrong with committing to God and to a Christian marriage at the same time? Particularly with an unchurched generation who nowadays do not have even a basic understanding of Christianity it seems a practical thing to do, provided it is accompanied by proper and caring instruction on both fronts. My only concern would be that one would upstage the other, but it enables those who want to regularise their commitment to each other and commit to bringing their children up in the Faith the opportunity to do so. Repentance, commitment to God and to seek to follow him in marriage and baptism seem to me to be entirely grounded in our canons even if lumping them together is novel.
Which brings us to the question of gay marriage and gay partnered episcopacy. I think that my post above explains the concern the church has about blessing or marrying or consecrating just because the culture accepts it or some European Protestant nascent communion may have moved towards it here and there.
Is culture or prevalence a reason for the church to endorse something? No doubt a question which faced the prophets faced with a people who thought it was OK to incinerate their children to please Molloch.
I think you are actually going to have to come up with a persuasive theological and scriptural justification. Can you do so?
Pageantmaster: “Whatever he and the Bishop of Winchester think about remarriage, at the moment it is not something which the CofE does.” Yes, it does, of course: it is common practice for clergy to remarry divorcees in church; and for clergy to be, in fact, themselves remarried divorcees. Many of the leading Evangelicals in both the C of E and America are remarried divorcees. Were you unaware of that? Perhaps you should come up with a “persuasuve theological and scriptural justification” of that practice, then?
Do you not agree with me that there is a complete lack of consistency in “conservative” Anglicans being liberal about straight sexuality but not with regard to gay people? If that isn’t constructing theology around personal convenience, I don’t know what is.
Pageantmaster wrote:
“Whatever he and the Bishop of Winchester think about remarriage, at the moment it is not something which the CofE does.”
Hullo? Am I in a time warp? The Church of England has been remarrying divorced persons for quite some time now.
#22 Fr Mark and #24 Simon Sarmiento, the advice is rather peculiar and does make space for remarriage in limited circumstances where there is a living former spouse:
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/papers/mcad
We seem to apply a strange no fault test inter alia where the new relationship has not contributed to the demise of the last.
I have never seen a church remarriage although I have attended post registry office services of dedication/thanksgiving. The individuals had been told that they could not remarry in church and I know of a friend who went to Scotland recently to remarry. I haven’t enquired into the circumstances.
Fr Mark
Re your point #23 I don’t agree; the conservative position is so far as I am aware that marriage is between a man and a woman. This both the Church of England and the Anglican Communion has consistently affirmed and indeed we should be consistent. That is the church’s teaching and it applies to men and women, gay and straight. It is equally challenging for everybody, as is the Christian life.
btw Fr Mark, and Simon Sarmiento if so inclined, my invitation still stands from #21:
[blockquote]Which brings us to the question of gay marriage and gay partnered episcopacy. I think that my post above explains the concern the church has about blessing or marrying or consecrating just because the culture accepts it or some European Protestant nascent communion may have moved towards it here and there.
Is culture or prevalence a reason for the church to endorse something? No doubt a question which faced the prophets faced with a people who thought it was OK to incinerate their children to please Molloch.
I think you are actually going to have to come up with a persuasive theological and scriptural justification. Can you do so?[/blockquote]
So far all I have heard is 1. that the Scandinavians are doing it; 2. that it is culturally inevitable that we will do so; 3. that there is a claimed inconsistency in the churches policy on remarriage with particular reference to the Bishop of Winchester.
I would be interested to hear your own answer rather than some more red herrings, not that I promise to change my mind [although you never know]. It seems to me that if you are proposing to push the CofE in the same way that has turned TEC into a basket case, and perhaps at their behest, that you should be able to at least explain succinctly your theological and scriptural arguments for the same.
I am all ears.
Why are you demanding theological and scriptural arguments in favour of accepting same-sex couples but not for divorved and remarried people?
Can you see my point – which is that the C of E acts out of pastoral solicitude for the latter group, in a way that places it in the front rank of the world’s most liberal churches; but refuses to do the same for the former group, which puts it amongst the least liberal of Europe’s churches? Now, isn’t there some faulty logic there somewhere? Either be pastorally sensitive or be hard-line to everyone, please: otherwise it just looks like untheological prejudice against one particular group, surely?
You appear a little out of touch with the remarriage of divorcees in Anglican churches. It is very common, and parish clergy can decide whether to undertake them or not. A large number of leading Evangelicals are remarried divorcees [names removed]. Does this really not strike you as simple hypocrisy?
[Edited by Elf}
Hello Fr Mark
[blockquote]Why are you demanding theological and scriptural arguments in favour of accepting same-sex couples but not for divorved and remarried people?[/blockquote]
Actually it was for the church marrying or blessing the unions of same-sex couples and the consecration of gay partnered bishops. I am not demanding anything, I was just interested in what you had to say.
Sorry for any offence caused.
Well, I think there are lots of good theological and scriptural reasons why we should bless loving relationships between people (as opposed to nuclear submarines, for example, which the recently retired and very homophobic Bishop of Carlisle was fond of doing); not least because our religion is supposed to be fundamentally about the awareness that God is love and those who love are of God; and not least because the experience of gay people as social outcasts and scapegoats for many centuries places them exactly amongst the people that Our Lord spend all his time with and showed rehumanising respect towards. I think there is a lot in our tradition of the theology of covenanted loving friendship (Aelred of Rievaulx wasn’t exactly straight, was he?) which we should be positively applying to the modern understanding of gay relationships – if Conservative Evangelicals weren’t so focused on sex, they might be able develop a healthier theology of love. I also think that justice and the dignity of all created in God’s image are powerful themes that resonate throughout the Bible, particularly the Prophets – as such they were used to justify the ending of slavery (and segregation and apartheid), for example, in the face of determined Chtistian opponents quoting other Bible verses for their own ends. I think Jesus also frequently condemned the hypocrites who make burdens for other people – there is a lot of that going on in the Church of England at the moment.
But I know, from experience, that when an Evangelical says “convince me from Scripture” what they will generally do is get into a proof-text slanging match, because they tend to use the Bible as a series of pretexts for justifying their own social prejudices, which I think is not the best way to read the Bible. The Anglican tradition is rather to come at the Bible from a standpoint of reason, as the Roman Catholic tradition is to approach it from the standpoint of the Magisterium.
Thanks Fr Mark, I shall have a think about that.
Yes I see – I had thought this might have been James Alison but it is probably more Jeffrey John, the argument of covenanted relationships.
It is interesting how people on both sides can be at the same time pro and anti two sorts of covenants at the same time.
Suppose it won’t be long before David and Jonathan pop up.