The breaking news is that Sandi Toksvig has demanded a meeting with God, over a friendly cup of tea. The BBC broadcaster has grown impatient with his vacillating human intermediaries and wants to explain to him what should happen in the religion that he allegedly launched. Love should come first, she plans to tell him. If he can’t reorganise his religion around this simple principle, he no longer deserves to be taken seriously as a modern deity.
The gay vicars that I know are sanguine
Toksvig is presumably unimpressed by the latest news from the Church of England’s Synod. As expected, bishops have got approval for their compromise: no to gay marriage, yes to church blessings for same-sex couples. It’s not enough, say progressives, including some MPs. But in reality it is enough: it allows most liberals to feel that the Church is moving on the issue. No surprise that it didn’t move all the way all at once. The gay vicars that I know are sanguine: slowly slowly catchey monkey. None is planning jumping ship to Methodism.
It looks like no further decision will be taken for another five years. Of course it might be that the Church decides to stay where it is in five years’ time. Or it might be that a conservative mood takes hold and we go to back to Biblical basics. But the bishops seem to expect otherwise. This is part of the joint statement made by the two archbishops following the vote:
‘It has been a long road to get us to this point. For the first time, the Church of England will publicly, unreservedly, and joyfully welcome same-sex couples in church. As Archbishops, we are committed to respecting the conscience of those for whom this goes too far and to ensure that they have all the reassurances they need in order to maintain the unity of the Church as this conversation continues.’
At the risk of over-analysing a metaphor, the implication is that they expect the Church to keep moving in this direction. For the current arrangement is clearly no final destination. And the pledge to welcome same-sex couples ‘unreservedly’ is a hint that the official line on gay sex, that it is sinful, will soon be dropped. (As I wrote recently, the Church’s conservatism on gay marriage is actually a useful cover for this crucial shift to be made).
The emphasis on respecting the consciences of the conservatives bears a subtle message: they are now the outsiders, the dissenters, the rump. They are the new version of the anti-women priests lot, who will be patiently tolerated but should understand that they are no longer central. So in fact it’s Evangelicals who should be considering jumping ship.
Can I briefly return to Toksvig? What irks me is that she picks on the CofE. If you’re going to berate religious traditions for homophobia, why pick on one that is earnestly on the fence, and moving in the direction you favour, when there are bigger beasts that have no interest in going anywhere near the fence?
Let the witty quiz-host have a go at the Muslims and the Catholics before she turns on the semi-liberal national Church. Ah, but as the established Church it ought to reflect the morality of the nation, you might say. Well, maybe, but it’s a complex matter, and I’m not sure that outsiders like Toksvig (she is an atheist) can really contribute to it with much authority. In their book, the Church ought not to exist at all. So it’s pretty meaningless for them to give it moral advice. Her position sounds obvious but is interestingly wrong. Like on QI when the obvious-but-wrong answer flashes up behind you, with a shaming siren noise. I want to make that noise at Sandi-monious.
Comments