On Sunday, the Leader of the House Penny Mordaunt wrote an open letter to the Bishop of Portsmouth (where her constituency is). In it she called on him to vote to ‘back reform’ and, as demanded by a coterie of radical bishops, change forever the Anglican stance on same-sex marriage. Today the Church of England has partially rejected that demand, and will not allow clergy to conduct same-sex ceremonies, although it is proposing to allow ‘prayers’ and ‘blessings’ for same-sex couples in civil partnerships.
Mordaunt’s intervention was perfectly legitimate, you might think. What’s wrong with a democratic representative pressing for her constituents to have the ‘right to have their relationships solemnised in their local parish,’ and for an end to the ‘pain and trauma’ of gay people who see themselves treated as ‘second-class citizens’?
Despite the fact that Mordaunt has called for a re-examination of the church’s theology, it’s not as if her arguments are particularly theological
In this case, actually, there is quite a lot that should worry us.
For one thing, what she is demanding from the bishops is theologically very awkward. The biblical view of homosexuality is admittedly convoluted, but one thing is clear: the disapproval of it which lies behind the prohibition of same-sex unions is not simply some kind of hoary Old Testament taboo which any enlightened worshipper can airily sidestep.
In scripture there is a consistent view of marriage as a special mystical relationship – rather more than just a commitment between two people who happen to be sexually attracted to one another. And there is Paul’s disapproval of sexual relations, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, outside marriage. To say that this all should be set aside by a vote of prelates, and that the Anglican hierarchy from now on not only condone, but actively approve and encourage relationships that scripture regards as a sin, is a big ask.
Despite the fact that Mordaunt has called for a re-examination of the church’s theology, it’s not as if her arguments are particularly theological. On the contrary, they are overwhelmingly and boringly secular. Parliament, she says, has approved same-sex marriage: so, therefore, should the church. Letting the matter ‘fester’ – her words for not agreeing to her demands – would detract from the church’s ‘positive contribution’ to society (unspecified, but presumably in the nature of comforting words and glorified social work). There should be uniformity of rights across the UK: if churches in Scotland and Wales have done it, so should the CoE. ‘As a Unionist,’ she says, she would ‘value consistency.’
Miss Mordaunt is undoubtedly well-meaning. But what we have here is a perverse upending of the Lord’s Prayer: not so much a plea for God’s will to be done on earth, as for the church to embrace the values of the world. If church doctrine on sex makes LGBT people feel uncomfortable, then it is up to the church to change it to accommodate them.
Hitherto we had been led to believe that it was the function of the church to welcome sinners (a term including not only LGBT people but all of us) and give us the chance of forgiveness. Now, apparently, its job is to amend the definition of sin and say that at least in some cases we don’t need forgiveness after all. If this is right, why bother with religion at all?
But leave the theology of gay marriage aside for a moment. Whether she is right or wrong, Miss Mordaunt’s peremptory call for the CoE to adopt and welcome it as part of its doctrine is poised to destabilise further the already fraught relation between church and state. Establishment already carries with it a need for highly cautious coexistence. Bishops do not, at least officially, tell people which political party to vote for; ministers rightly admonish them if they do.
As a quid pro quo, however, government should not be seen to dictate doctrine to churchmen or tell them what to believe. Unfortunately Penny Mordaunt has come close to doing just that. She is a government minister. She could quite properly have written to the bishop in her private capacity but did not, choosing instead to use her official constituency stationery, and to make demands which she knew could not be fulfilled without a change in church doctrine.
This is likely to make life more difficult for the church, and in particular for the delicate balance of establishment. If the bishops do not follow her lead, it will be seen as creating an open and embarrassing rift between Westminster and Lambeth. But if they do, things could get even worse. True, if the church’s stance on same-sex marriage changes, a few LGBT activists might drift back into urban pews and Mordaunt’s more fervent supporters would fall silent. One suspects, however, that many more worshippers would despair of the Anglican church’s latest bend to the winds of progressive politics and just walk away. Some completely, some in the direction of Rome and others to bodies like the Free Church of England. And this is before we contemplate further splits within the priesthood, involving either special treatment for those who cannot in conscience approve same-sex unions, or simple schism.
Even though bishops have voted against same-sex marriages, what will grow is the call for disestablishment. However picturesque it is a Christmas and Easter, a church split on major issues of theology, apt to bow to pressure from government ministers and political activists, has little if any convincing claim to participate in our government.
But there remains one chink of light. Disestablishment, however immediately shocking, might ultimately benefit the church. Think of the US, where a constitutionally separated church is still much healthier than that in England. True, it would be ironic if this was an unintended consequence of misguided government pressure and a failure by the church hierarchy to distinguish the sacred from the profane. But God works in mysterious ways, and as He knows better than any of us, stranger things have happened.
Comments