The Church of England has realised that its decades of dithering over homosexuality must end. It must finally bite the bullet, and introduce liberal reforms.
To be more precise, most of the bishops have realised that reform is necessary, and that delay is disastrous. Most of the clergy and most of the laity share this view. But the opposition of a determined minority renders this clear majority position impotent.
Liberal Anglicans are only now waking up to the fact that full clarity is needed on homosexuality
Next week’s Synod was meant to be the breakthrough. Back in February, Synod voted in favour of blessings for gay couples, as a provisional ‘experiment’. In addition, the bishops promised that new ‘pastoral guidance’ would soon be issued, which is expected to allow clergy to be married in civil ceremonies, and to drop the old requirement for gay clergy to be celibate. So the plan was to unveil the ‘experimental’ blessings, and issue this new guidance.
Instead, the bishops are announcing a further consultation, taking at least another year. What went wrong?
Evangelical conservatives complained that the reform lacked legitimacy, though it was passed with majorities in each of Synod’s three houses (bishops, clergy, laity). A two-thirds majority is needed in each house for a change of this doctrinal magnitude, they said – and it only secured such a majority in the house of bishops. Last month the House of Bishops met and decided that the conservative critics were right.
It’s an odd mess. The bishops tried to force the reform through, in a slightly underhand way. And then, when called out on this approach, they backtracked. The Church’s leaders look domineering and arrogant – and also indecisive.
Why all this muddle and dishonesty? The Church’s leadership wants to introduce reforms on this huge contentious issue, without admitting that this is happening. The bishops have repeated the dishonesty, claiming in September that the proposed reform ‘does not change doctrine in any essential matter but changes our practical pastoral response and the way we relate within the church.’
Technically it is true that the introduction of experimental gay blessings does not mean the changing of the doctrine of marriage. But the old teaching would be hugely weakened, especially if it is accompanied by new guidance tacitly allowing gay clergy to be sexually active.
Why can’t the Church’s leadership be honest – that it seeks a major change in the Church’s teaching on sex and marriage?
Because it is still unsure whether it really seeks this. Of course the unsurety goes right to the top. Justin Welby seems to back the proposed reform, despite his conservative evangelical background. But he is hardly likely to argue for the wider change.
What about the other bishops? It’s a fast-moving picture. Just a month ago, only a few stated a clear reformist position. But the recent U-turn led 44 bishops to protest, insisting that the experimental blessings should not be delayed. But how bold are these liberal bishops willing to be? To advocate major reform is to lose the backing of the (often rather rich) evangelical parishes within one’s diocese.
Surely it all comes down to whether the Church really wants to reform its teaching on sex and marriage. If a clear majority wants such a change, then Synod will vote it through, with two-thirds majorities in each house. This is what happened with the ordination of women (just).
This is what Welby said, in a rather bad-tempered meeting with progressive campaigners earlier this month. Instead of complaining about the slowness of the process, he told them, you should get on with trying to win the argument. This annoyed the progressives, for they feel that they have won the argument in the Church as a whole, but that Synod is packed with well-organised conservatives who keep obscuring it.
But Welby is right. Advocates of reform must up their game. Yes, a majority of Anglicans back reform, but it is as yet a soft majority. Of course the Church must move away from its old homophobia, says the person in the pew, and re-connect with the new liberal consensus in the wider culture. But does he mean it? Does he really want to get off the fence? Does he really affirm the equal validity of gay sex?
Liberal Anglicans, and I include myself here, are only now waking up to the fact that full clarity is needed on homosexuality. There is a deep desire to sit on the fence, and hope that a sort of semi-liberalism somehow prevails. If I’m honest, I’d quite like straight marriage to retain its traditional primacy, and for homosexuals to be tolerated rather than fully affirmed. But it doesn’t add up. Such semi-liberalism is not enough, it enables homophobia to linger on. One really does have to get off the fence.
For a church to change its position on homosexuality is a very big deal. It means confronting all the age-old assumptions about religion and sexual morality, rethinking them from scratch almost.
Of course this has been half-happening for about sixty years: Anglican thinkers have tried to rethink Christian teaching in relation to cultural change, and new understandings of scripture. Well, the effort continues – and must even be stepped up, now that the crisis has intensified.
Quite apart from homosexuality, there is need for honest reflection on sex in general. Does it make sense to hedge it round with religious rules? Can we move away from legalistic moralism without becoming complicit in our culture’s blasé attitude?
We can, I believe, but only through difficult honesty. At July’s Synod, for example, the Reverend Miranda Threlfall-Holmes challenged the notion that sex is only holy within a straight marriage. She did so by telling us about her pre-marital sex-life. She had one, and enjoyed it, and did not see it as ungodly, then or now. When she married her boyfriend she did not feel that sinful carnality was suddenly transformed into something godly, and she refused to pretend otherwise. Such iconoclastic honesty can get Anglicanism through this crisis, and maybe even contribute to its renewal.
Comments