The divisions within the Church of England and the multiple challenges it faces in the light of the advent of same-sex marriage have become even clearer and more serious in the weeks since the House of Bishops Pastoral Guidance. In what follows I explore three areas where the bishops have been criticised and offer a defence of their stance. A subsequent article notes three areas where questions remain and concludes by describing the serious challenge now facing the Church of England in the light of the guidance and reactions to it…
Since there is no such thing as same-sex “marriage”, why do writers like this one continue to use the term? It would do all of us who engage the cause for the traditional, biblical definition a great deal of good to just strike that terminology from our writings and speech…..forever.
Call it whatever you want, just not marriage.
Canon Andrew Goddard writes:
[blockquote] “We have therefore sadly now reached the crunch where the gap between church teaching and society is such that either the church draws a line and makes clear clergy are to order their lives in this area by the teaching of the church or it does not do so.” [/blockquote]
I am not sure why the word “sadly” is there, although it may be tongue-in-cheek. But it is interesting that this is yet another well-known “moderate evangelical” who feels that he can no longer pander to the liberals, at least on this issue.
[blockquote] “In other words, this new public incompatibility moves the disagreement and conflict – between church and society and within the church – to a totally new level.” [/blockquote]
I am inclined to agree. If so, that means there will be a change in the nature and intensity of debate within the Church of England.
However, he then moves onto some shaky ground. Not surprisingly, it arises from his tendency to mainly support whatever the bishops of the Church of England say:
[blockquote] “All communicants are called to examine their lives before receiving the sacraments but it has never been the case that the Church of England refuses communion to a person simply because their life departs from faithful Christian discipleship in some area.” [/blockquote]
“Never been the case”? That is highly questionable.
The doctrine of the Church of England is said to be based upon that of the Book of Common Prayer 1662 (Canon A5). From the rubrics to the service of Holy Communion:
[blockquote] “So many as intend to be partakers of the holy Communion, shall signifie their Names to the Curate at least sometime the day before.
And if any of those be an open and notorious evil liver, or have don any wrong to his Neighbours in word or Deed, so that the congregation is thereby offended: ye Curate having knowledge thereof, shall call him and advertise him, that in any wise he presume not to come to the Lords Table, until he have openly declared himselfe to have truly repented, and amended his former naughty life, that the Congregation may thereby be satisfied which before were offended; and that he have recompensed the parties to whom he hath don wrong, or at least declare himse1fe to be in full purpose so to do, as soon as he conveniently may.
The same order shall the Curate use with those betwixt whom he perceiveth Malice, and hatred to reign: not suffering them to be partakers of the Lords Table, until he know them to be reconciled. And if one of the parties so at variance be content to forgive from the bottom of his heart all that the other hath trespassed against him, and to make Amends for that he himselfe hath offended, and the other party wl11 not be perswaded to a godly Unity, and remain still in his frowardnes, and Malice: the Minister in that case ought to admitt the penitent person to the holy Communion, and not him that is obstinate. Provided that every Minister so repelling any, as is specified in this or the next precedent Paragraph of this Rubrik shall be obliged to give an Account of the same to the Ordinary within fourteen Dayes after, at the farthest. And the Ordinary shall proceed against the offending person according to the Canon.” [/blockquote]
This surely gives more than sufficient basis for Holy Communion to be refused to those living in a sinful relationship, whether homosexual or otherwise (but not singling them out either – it applies equally to those who bear malice and hatred to each other, or have committed fraud or any other sin). This rubric existed in similar form in services going back as far as 1549, i.e. more than a century previously, which indicates that it wasn’t just a passing fad in the CofE.