Updated again Thursday
Church of England press release
Bishops propose prayers of thanksgiving, dedication and for God’s blessing for same-sex couples
The full text of the press release linked above is also in this PDF document: Prayers of Love and Faith 18.1.23.
There is a second press release here.
The Church Times has some additional information, and quotes from bishops, in this report: Bishops opt for blessings for same-sex couples in church, but not marriage.
And there is a further article reporting reactions to the press releases: Campaigners respond with fear and dismay to Bishops’ proposals to bless same-sex unions.
Thursday updates
Two further articles from the Church Times:
Conservative Anglicans add their criticism of the Bishops’ same-sex blessing plan
I wonder which one of the bishops will invite me in to his/her study to apologise for the homophobic abuse I’ve suffered at the hands of the church over the years. I won’t hold my breath because over those years I’ve also realised that they’re not keen to look you in the eye and say “sorry”.
‘The Bishops of the Church of England will be issuing an apology later this week to LGBTQI+ people for the “rejection, exclusion and hostility” they have faced in churches and the impact this has had on their lives.’
They will then recommend a process to continue to affirm the rejection, exclusion and hostility of LGBTQI+ people.
They can stick their prayers as they are worthless and not genuine.
Parishes are to be encouraged to welcome “unreservedly” those of us who call ourselves gay but yet the church refuses to marry us. The theology of this needs unpicking. We are to be welcomed but our relationships are not worthy of the sacrament of marriage. Even for a church which specialises in double speak (viz women can be ordained but it’s ok to believe they cant) this takes my breath away. After years of talk the fruits of LLF are at best limited and at worst insulting. I have made the decision to no longer wait patiently, to no longer… Read more »
No
I encountered so many lovely people in my years of ministry, they deserve to thrive. Problem is that the bishops and other senior clergy are so milquetoast that we are in this state of entropy and it’s dying in front of us.
It is not necessary to have the powers of Mystic Meg to have foretold this predictable response from the bishops after the totally pointless LLF exercise. Mr Welby’s profound conclusion is that some people will be pleased. Others won’t. That is the proverbial Anglican curate’s egg. What is amazing is that LGBTQ people are still campaigning to have a place in today’s evangelical Church of England. Why don’t they just leave? Let bible-believing ministers continue to smile as they spread their love for Jesus, while those they hate can look elsewhere for love and acceptance. It’s time to let the… Read more »
Clergy who did that would have to give up their buildings and their stipends.
True. But is it worth giving up a life of happiness to appease evangelicals?
But if the Church of England is so awful, why don’t those clergy in favour of SSM leave the Church of England and either form a new denomination or join one that actively supports SSM?
You may be right. The Church of England is awful. It used to be a loving, accepting Church with few questions asked. The rot set in with the Higton debate at General Synod which The Independent described as “the most popular private member’s motion in the history of the General Synod” It set off decades of hatred for gay people which evangelicals have continued since.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/the-clergymen-came-out-two-by-two-1611729.html
As I recall though, people signed Tony Higton’s Private Member’s Motion, not because they agreed with it but so that the debate on ministry to people with HIV could be separated from ‘human sexuality’. That worked but unfortunately the Synod was not prepared/ready for a grown up debate on sexuality and there was so much fear and turkeys voted for Christmas.
Some, perhaps not many, people simply do not approve of sectarianism and denominationalism. For such, their duty is to remain in the national church and reform it if they can.
Agreed, and in so doing strive to ensure that the Church of England remains faithful to the prayer book, the 39 articles, the apostolic faith handed down.
Even if that faithfulness means disregarding one of Jesus’s two great commandments, to love our neighbors as ourselves? Can we truly be said to be doing that if we deny them the same happiness we have in marriage?
Aspects of the 39 articles and the 1662 BCP are not part of the apostolic faith, and in some cases may be contrary to it.
…..and die?
Nothing in here about the few clergy in a civil marriage who have been denied licences and PTOs since 2014. They stamped down hard on us and cowed others into not getting married but having civil partnerships. It worked, but it was brutal. Do we get an apology, too? And, rather more importantly than a blessing, a PTO?
Jeremy, it would be a disgrace if your PTO was not restored to serve in any diocese in England. More than that though, even if priests in civil marriages get more leeway, what about all LGBT people *still* being turned down for marriage in the Church of England. That is just disgusting: the continued imposition of the conservative status quo on everyone else. It’s so deeply offensive and disrespectful to our partners, our devotion, our sacrifices. It just keeps on saying: your marriage is not acceptable in the Church, like straight people’s are. It’s still not right before God as… Read more »
Jeremy, without seeing the document, it is hard to say, but it is the logical outcome of what we’ve been told so far. I realize the use of the word ‘logical’ shows perhaps unwarranted optimism. If it wasn’t environmentally unfriendly, an enormous bonfire in Dean’s Yard of copies of Issues in Human Sexuality would be very satisfying.
I think the Valentine’s Day statement should be added to the pyre – and also that ridiculous piffle Men and Women in Marriage – which ends with this ripely homophobic and ludicrous statement:
“The reality of marriage between one man and one woman will not disappear as the result of any legislative change, for God has given this gift, and it will remain part of our created human endowment. But the disciplines of living in it may become more difficult to acquire, and the path to fulfilment, in marriage and in other relationships, more difficult to find.”
If they don’t even do that, Jeremy, then truly, this is nothing but a whited sepulcher. After all you’ve been put through by the English episcopate, you’re owed a fulsome and public apology, alongside generous compensation. I genuinely am praying that this talk of apology from the bishops has some meat, offered to those who’ve been so cruelly treated.
“Under the proposals, same-sex couples would still not be able to get married in a Church of England church… the formal teaching of the Church of England as set out in the canons and authorised liturgies – that Holy Matrimony is between one man and one woman for life – would not change.” Craven. The decisions outlined are a kind of worst-case scenario. They will cause huge offence to ‘conservative’ Anglicans, both in England and in the wider Communion. And as for the quoted statement above… It disrespects my devoted marriage to my wife, disrespects gay and lesbian marriage generally… Read more »
Susannah, this is not a contribution to the debate, but more a personal note to offer my prayers and best wishes at what must be a difficult time for you. All I can say is that I took the same step a few months ago, and don’t regret it. My strategy was to take great care to keep all my good friendships within the CofE, but to break official ties, and then to build relationships with other more friendly churches. That’s an ongoing process but it seems to be working. I am left with a great sadness that it had… Read more »
Thank you Simon. I feel very raw, but you are right. I have plenty of friends who will still be my friends. I’m looking to Iona, and building links with the Church in Scotland. But mostly I look to my convent, because there I am like a padawan in prayer, and my Reverend Mother has been simply awesome in guiding what God calls me to. That, and trying to live out my faith alongside others here in the secular world. My vocation is prayer, and that’s gift and blessing and privilege (in my own little way). I’m very glad you… Read more »
I can but echo Simon’s promise to pray for intercession on your behalf, Susannah, and to soften the stony hearts of the bishops, which at present appear to be as granite. Any church would be the poorer for your loss, and it says everything that needs to be said about those raised to the purple that they’ve driven you to this. Be well, and I wish you a blessed home in a church that values all regardless of who they love.
Sadly I am unsurprised by this ‘outcome’. It of course perpetuates the inequality at the heart of most decision-making with respect to LGBTI+ Christians. I left the C of E a year ago, as its toxic culture had become not only stifling but abusive. The abuse continues, since abusive and bullying behaviours are so solidly entrenched within the institition. It is now abundantly clear that LGBTI+ Christians can never ‘qualify’ for marriage in the Church of England’s eyes. Yet Jesus would not have been found on church committees after 40 years of imposed moral slurs on this community – those… Read more »
Didn’t Jesus also say in Matthew 19, 5. It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife.’ Surely this is God’s plan for marriage?
He also said that if a man divorces his wife and marries another he commits adultery with her. No one gets uptight about that verse anymore. We have bishops and clergy in ‘adulterous’ marriages in the CofE.
I note that it says man and wife. Same pattern of marriage.
I assume that Aramaic and Biblical Hebrew only had nouns for husband and wife and not a gender-free term like spouse. If I am correct then the only way the teaching around divorce could have been expressed was using the gendered terms. In which case there is no embedded teaching in the passage on the sex of marriage partners – it’s just a linguistic artefact.
My understanding is there is not a word for husband or wife in Hebrew and Torah as we would understand it. The word for man and word for woman can be taken as just that and could be a concubine, slave or simply a woman in relationship to a man. What is often translated wife in fact can be read as just woman. Given the woman is viewed as property and the power is totally male we should be careful not to read in our understanding of marriage into a different context. Orthodox women are still trapped if their husband… Read more »
Surely you are using a passage about divorce (a social justice issue for women) as a prooftext to support your homophobia. The divorce bit is absolutely clear, but ignored. So the hypocrisy is off the charts. I also think Kate has a point about the linguistics.
More than that. Biblical marriage involved women as chattel, it’s not the 1950s version. Traditional marriage would be men having up to 5 wives and would be an arrangement for property and heirs. Holding that up as “God’s plan” is exceedingly ridiculous.
Matthew 19:29
So that’s all lovely – but is this available for clergy who are in same-sex relationships? Can they have a blessing on their civil marriages or is that still out of bounds?
Will the traditionalist bishops release their clergy from imposed celibacy too?
This is basically an English variation on what might be called the “Wangaratta solution,” which is what is now allowed in a very small number of dioceses in Australia. Much Gafcon-sponsored carry-on has ensued down-under following the ACA Appellate Tribunal’s 2020 decision to allow a form of service for a church blessing of civil marriages that includes marriages between other than a man and woman. It was the rural diocese of Wangaratta that pushed things at least this far, and a tiny number of other dioceses have since followed suit by authorising such services. I am aware of fewer than… Read more »
In a previous thread earlier this week, somebody referenced Rosa Parks. Well… ‘Inclusive Churches’ have been good at signing petitions, and writing articles, but in terms of action most of them have remained compliant to authority. I regard that as failure of moral leadership. Failure to take a stand for LGBT people in their communities. Now with the conservative position on marriage in the Church being imposed yet again… with the harm that teaching is known to do… being compliant is frankly just accepting the ‘kick the can down the road’ game yet again. The renewal of that conservative position,… Read more »
My feelings, as a simple, middle ground (and still confused) straight layman is of frustration and disgust. If the bishops were to say black people were not allowed to marry in church, or not have their ordinations recognised by certain bishops, or any of the other injustices involved in this, there would be hell to pay. The fact that the church is allowed to do this by law is a gross afront to natural justice – I think that’s the phrase – particularly as it is totally illegal outside the world of cathedral cloisters. We are totally inconsistent in our… Read more »
It doesn’t say in the Bible that being black is a sin though, does it? They aren’t doing this just to be nasty.
Perhaps not a sin, but for a lot of Christian history the Bible story of the curse of Ham has been used for a theological justification for the subjection and slavery of black people. So there are some similarities.
What utter tosh
I am sorry Barrie but I stand by what I say. There is a long history of the Genesis Curse of Ham narrative being used by Christians to justify slavery and repression of black people. Just as people have used the Bible to justify both anti-semitism and anti-LGBTQ teachings.
So I think John Davies asks a very fair question. If anti-semitism and racism have been (mostly) put away in the church despite their history, why is anti LGBTQ teaching still allowed.
See “Black and Slave: the Origins and History of the Curse of Ham”
https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/sites/bibleinterp.arizona.edu/files/docs/Hampdf_0.pdf
Barrie, the Bible was most definitely used to justify slavery and the slave trade. Ignorance of this fact is not going to help. The “pro-slavery” passages may even be clearer than the passages that are misrepresented as homophobic.
I’m sorry, but if you’re going to deny really common knowledge, you’re hardly going to be taken seriously in your views. They are going to appear as bigotry rather than scholarship. Heartfelt homophobia rather than the product of integrity, study, and prayer.
Thanks Cynthia.
And I know it’s a total red herring, and nothing to do with the LGBTQ/same sex marriage debate at hand, but just by chance I found out about the “Slave Bible” today, and was fascinated, and as we were discussing slavery and the bible I thought I would link to it. It’s a brilliant story.
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2018/february/freedom-in-christ-how-this-bible-was-used-to-manipulate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvKUOuYn1-c&t=2s
Yes. The misuse of Scripture to justify and sustain slavery is hideous. It’s not a red herring at all to bring this up, because the anti-LGBTQ+ people (I’m trying not to say homophobes…) continue to weaponize Scripture against LGBTQ+ people. Weaponizing Scripture has also been the basis for misogyny. And it all so conveniently supports maintaining white straight male supremacy. Jesus warned us about false prophets and told us that we could tell the real prophets from the false ones by the fruits of their labor. Social science tells us that stigmatization of LGBTQ+ people leads to poor mental health… Read more »
The Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa used the Bible to justify apartheid. And yes, the abuse LGBTQI people have faced in the CofE is nastiness.
I’d just like to point out that in my experience cathedral cloisters (and the combined lay and clerical communities to which they are home) are often the homes of people who find a lack of acceptance in other parts of the Church of England.
Could I humbly suggest that Synod chambers and meeting rooms is a more appropriate image?
Indeed.
When the Scottish episcopate momentarily took leave of their reason and tried something similarly wrongheaded (forgetting that they’re not England’s unaccountable prince bishops, but priests freely and fairly elected to be pastors to the pastors), furious opposition from the clergy they’d abandoned ensured that it fell apart within days, and the Piskies now celebrate equal marriage.
So what do the Inclusive organizations in England propose?
The bus boycott was mass action at great cost to those involved. Rosa Parks was the face of opposition selected by the movement – previous action by people with possible communist backgrounds for example, were ignored to not provide ammunition for the authorities at the time to attack the whole body of opposition. The boycott went on for a long time – over 300 days – and needed great organisation and leadership to succeed. Dr King’s house was bombed and others were attacked for their stand. Is there that kind of courage and leadership now? I don’t know. James Baldwin… Read more »
Did we expect anything less? This is the classic via media response. A compromise, an Anglican middle of the road try to please everyone and please no-one. I am deeply sad but not surprised. I think the biggest millstone for bishops is “Unity”. They are trying to keep their geographical flock together, and ++ABC is trying to keep the Communion together. The cost of this obsession with Unity is, paradoxically, a greater fragmentation and a deeper hurt.
I too am sad, angry and appalled at this recommendation/decision. I wonder if Parliament might be inclined to say ‘If the C of E will not offer to equalize marriage by including same sex marriages then we will equalize it by removing the right of the C of E to solemnize any marriages at all’?
And the Bishops should say if the position of clergy and LLMs in same sex marriages has changed.
What’s the point of Parliament giving the CofE an opt out, if less than 10 years later Parliament is going to get its knickers in a twist that CofE has an opt out?
It would need a study of Hansard, but it was not the intention of Parliament for the opt-out to be permanent. They had to give an opt-out inter alia because otherwise the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 would have been in conflict with the marriage canon (also the law of the land). It’s complex. That way the act could expressly state that it was not in conflict with the canon law provision about marriage being the union of one man with one woman.
We need to wait to see the GS paper et al, but it is certain that there will be a lot of talk about whether Parliament might intervene. I have made this suggestion on a number of occasions. Removing the right of clergy to act as registrars for the marriage of opposite-gendered couples is a simple act of reprisal, but only has limited effect, and would not of itself act as much of a catalyst for change, although I’d vote for it. What is being suggested is that there is currently no super majority in General Synod for any change… Read more »
A simple Act of Parliament changing the canons and opening marriage in CoE churches to all, while granting the right of parishes and clergy to conscientiously opt out, would be entirely justified so long as the Church remains in England by law established.
With considerable prestige and power (ought to) come the attendant loss in independence. Equal marriage or disestablishment would be a clear and fair choice for the CoE to make.
“A simple Act of Parliament changing the canons and opening marriage in CoE churches to all, while granting the right of parishes and clergy to conscientiously opt out, would be entirely justified so long as the Church remains in England by law established.” (emphasis added) My view is that parishes should not be able to opt out, only clergy. If heterosexual couples have the legal right to marry in their local church, or a church with which they have a connection, and SSM is (finally, and soon, I pray) allowed in the CofE, all marriages should have the right to… Read more »
Excellent point, and yes, there’s much to be said for making the buildings available for weddings under alternative oversight. As well as avoiding a postcode lottery, it would reinforce that marriage equality was now the normative position of the Church.
I think you may well be right. ‘Marry all or none’ may be the choice ahead coming from Parliament.
I think this is right. I have cited below a recent work by Rebecca Probert, who remarks: “The laws regulating how and where couples can get married are now widely recognised as overly complex, restricted, outdated and in desperate need of reform. And such reform needs to be informed by the situation of the twenty first century rather than by the legacy of the nineteenth. That the structures established by the Marriage Act 1836 do not work for all faiths today is hardly surprising given that some faiths had no opportunity to shape them.” (at 273). In other words, the… Read more »
I will probably have more to say but my immediate reaction is that there is zero chance of Synod accepting this proposal as almost everyone will be united against it, albeit for different reasons.
Kate it’s hard to say without seeing the full proposals but I am wondering if all of the things that are being proposed can actually be done by the bishops without any reference to General Synod. ‘Issues’ was imposed by them so can easily be removed. The opportunity for public services of thanksgiving and blessing can just happen in a more obvious way without any risk of discipline. I know the bishops felt bruised by February 2017 GS and they won’t want a repeat of that. I suspect there is a green light here for quite a lot of latitude… Read more »
Unfortunately, latitude for the turning of blind eyes isn’t sufficient. What happens if the blind eye is replaced on promotion or retirement by a rule book Harry?
There’s a danger of a kind of Stockholm syndrome here, where we’re taken prisoner by somebody else’s theology, then urged to embrace sops which overlook the key theological issue that it’s simply disgusting that we’re not allowed to marry in church if we’re gay or lesbian. I don’t want more falsehood or ‘turning of blind eyes’. I’ve spilled too many tears over this. Opened up in vulnerability in the LLF interviews. Tried to appeal for a moderate outcome, respecting one another’s consciences, even though that made me unpopular with some LGBT people. For me, it was either respect conscience of… Read more »
Will Synod have to ‘accept’ the proposal? There’s mention of it being debated, but will there need to be a vote? There’s no change to the doctrine of marriage, and not every new liturgical/pastoral provision has to be voted on, does it?
You may be right but if, after being told that the “proposal” is being brought to Synod I think there would be real anger if Synod was side-stepped.
I guess we will see but it’s hard to imagine what the bishops could have proposed which would have less support than this.
I imagine that various groups on General Synod will suggest amendments to any motion. Who knows what the final form will be.
You are correct. The position taken by the bishops appears illogical. On the one hand they affirm current teaching that marriage is between one man and one woman, and on the other hand propose to bless what they don’t consider to be a marriage.
Sometime in ancient history, around 2006 or 2007, the Primate’s Theological Commission of the Anglican Church of Canada produced a report (The St Michael’s Report), commissioned by the Canadian General Synod to examine the theology of blessing same-sex unions. They called a spade a spade, and said that the issue was not blessings, but marriage. From there, the idea of blessings quickly disappeared from the debate, except for making the rite of blessing of a civil marriage available for all couples, as an interim step towards full marriage equality. Even though the canonical change failed to get the 2/3 majority… Read more »
I have read the Church of England Press Release and it says nothing at all about the requirement since 2005 for Lesbian and Gay clergy to be celibate. My understanding is that the House of Bishops could reverse this without reference to Synod since this requirement was imposed by the House of Bishops alone. Why does the Press Release make no mention of this burning issue ? I think we should say very clearly to the Bishops that unless this cruel and unjust requirement is immediately withdrawn then their apologies are meaningless. If the Bishops value Lesbian and Gay committed… Read more »
At present, I assume that the withdrawal of ‘Issues …’ is the bishops’ (squeamish) code for the removal of compulsory celibacy, but as ever, I leave room for them to disappoint.
Perhaps, it is time for the “church” to stop acting as agents of the state in the contracting of marriage altogether. In many countries around the world, all marriages are contracted by civil representatives. Married couples then go the church for blessing. I offered a resolution at our diocesan convention a few years ago that would have ended the church’s acting as agents of state. The resolution was, shall we say, unappreciated. Quite frankly, I understand the defensiveness. You see, this change remove clergy from one of their favorite theatrical public performances, and it would cost them and parishes money.… Read more »
I realise that I start from a position of privilege as someone whose relationship is fully affirmed within the historic understanding of the Church, and offer these comments in that light. I do not underestimate the hurt that is felt by those not so fortunate – and long for the time when the Church establishes full equality. Although wishing that a lot more had been done earlier, I think that what seems to be proposed is at the absolute limit of what bishops can do without needing the assent of General Synod. By my understanding, they are proposing every action… Read more »
So we let the Church of England be captured by (arguably) a minority, who block the key change, and impose their conservative views on the lives and consciences of everyone else? I recognise realpolitik problems they face, but there’s also the tone, the lack of daring, the lack of expressed commitment to gay marriage in the Church. They could have said that they categorically support gay marriage in church themselves. They could have said that they will not sanction priests and churches that use wedding service frameworks to carry out the deepest vows before God after folks get the ‘piece… Read more »
Bringing the world down on the Church would be a disgraceful thing to do. Does it not make you pause for thought for just one second that the world, which Jesus tells us so often and so clearly to be wary of and not take a lead from, agrees with you and the traditional apostolic teaching doesn’t? Which has more authority? The answer to that question, I’m afraid, sorts the wheat from the chaff.
I’m remembering the Jesus who upended the tables on the money changers and think that that sort of action is required now on behalf of the theological imperative of loving ALL of your neighbors.
I totally agree Susannah. What I think is very revealing about the attitude of our hierarchy is the failure to mention compulsory priestly celibacy anywhere in the Living in Love and Faith documents. Çompulsory Celibacy says very clearly that our Bishops think my Lesbian and Gay sisters and brothers are second best. If the Bishops “sincere apologies” have any meaning at all the Bishops would have withdrawn “issues” and apologized for it. Don’t we have a right to expect moral and spiritual courage and leadership from our Bishops ? The failure to invite the partners of Lesbian and Gay Bishops… Read more »
Realpolitik’s what you make it.
Individual bishops who support opening the sacrament of marriage to all could, in open, democratic partnership with sympathetic laity and clergy, vigorously advocate change, while also appealing to the Westminster Parliament to reclaim the mantle it set aside in the ‘70s (when the CoE was disestablished in all but name), and change the canons itself.
At the moment, the bench is not even trying to change Synod’s mind. Assume defeat, and you create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Hardly prophetic witness, is it?
For the last Six Years while the CofE hierarchy has been prayerfully discussing how to do as little as possible for fear of offending its ultra-conservative wing, any discussion of this matter outside that stratosphere has been slapped down on the grounds that we had to wait & see what they would come up with. The answer after those Six Years is that all that they have produced is a waffly fudge that will placate few if any of the ultras, while deeply angering & offending those who have been let down. Six years wasted, and all that has really been… Read more »
Would you rather they had suggested changes, such as same-sex marriage, that would have required a two-thirds majority in each of the Houses of Synod, and would certainly have fallen at that hurdle, leaving us in exactly the same place we are now? I want and will continue to press for same-sex marriage. But I agree with the commentator above who says that the bishops have done the absolute maximum they can do without having General Synod on side for change.
If the Bishops cannot do the right thing here because they fear that they could not sway General Synod, you do have to wonder whether the last Six Years have been a complete charade & why we have bishops. Those at the top should have the moral courage to take the right decisions – or is that too much to hope for?
Bishops – diocesan ones, anyway – are also part of General Synod. One of its Houses. Reports say that there would not be a two thirds majority for equal marriage in that House, never mind the other two. So the bishops are having the moral courage to stand up for what they believe – it’s just that more than a third of them do not support equal marriage, sadly.
Personally, in proper partnership with England’s synods, I’d rather the bishops had proposed opening marriage to all, even if synodic defeat looked certain (while allowing for the possibility of surprise: we are supposed to believe that the Holy Ghost can move our hearts, aren’t we?).
Better to lose doing the right thing than win doing the wrong one.
I agree James but would have suggested a different course of them saying that marriage should be equal so ask Synod to decide between marriage for all couples or none.
“Ultras” = those who support the Church of England’s current teaching on marriage in line with canon law. Not exactly an extreme position.
Sorry to disillusion you, but quoting canon law as an excuse cuts no ice with joe public. They know it can be changed.
And by the Westminster Parliament, if necessary.
England will sooner or later have to face up to the awkward responsibilities of maintaining a state church. I suggest the CoE be offered a choice: disestablishment, and internal autonomy; or like the Nordic countries, allow a legislature more representative of the nation to decide this. Is the CoE a church for all, or a church for her membership? One thing or the other, but not both.
I have learnt from bitter experience that it’s what you do that matters not what you say. I think our Bishops find it very easy to offer profound apologies for the hurt they have caused but if their hurtful behaviour behaviour continues it is actually worse than it they.hadn’t opened their mouths. An apology is only meaningful if it results in changed behaviour. If our Bishops think a Christian marriage is “a gift from God” do they also think a loving gay relationship is a gift from God ? Yes or No ? Or do they actually believe Lesbian and… Read more »
Here in the US, the Episcopal Church moved more slowly than you may remember. First, it was blessings on a Diocese by Diocese basis . My wife and I had a civil marriage in 2008 and when it was finally allowed in our Diocese in 2011, we had a rite for “Blessing of a Civil Marriage”. We had to jump through some Bishop-y hoops and it wasn’t perfect but it was important for us to seize the opportunity and show it mattered to us. Some of our gay friends disagreed and felt insulted by half measures. (I think m y wife didn’t really feel… Read more »
The key difference with TEC is that her episcopate are elected, and policy is driven from the ground up (such as with removing the sex-bar on ordination: the Philadelphia Eleven and D.C. Four forced TEC’s hand in the ’70s, two decades before England dropped her own ban, and three before she removed the glass ceiling and allowed women to be consecrated bishop). Instead of seeking election, English bishops are appointed by a secretive process that draws on people “of the right sort,” and being riven with class politics, sees the rest of the CoE treated not as equal citizens, but… Read more »
But the other big difference is that TEC had already ditched their equivalent of our Canon A5, which no-one appears to have noticed at all. Until that is repealed, I don’t see how there can be change.
Unless you believe, as I do, that the teaching of scripture and the tradition of the Church can accommodate same-sex marriage.
Hear! Hear! Ian just doesn’t get that TEC does equal marriage BECAUSE of Scripture. That our determinations are the result of rigorous scholarship, prayer, and discernment, rather than a knee-jerk acceptance of bits that can be used to justify bias.
Susan, I’m also a married lesbian in the Episcopal Church and we almost followed a similar trajectory. We got our Civil Union in 2013 and Marriage in our church in 2015. One difference, I think, is that in TEC we already had two different liturgies for heterosexual couples, one for those marrying in the church, and the other for those who had gotten a civil marriage but wanted a church marriage/blessing too. So when we Claimed the Blessing, we were claiming something that many, many straight couples had also used. It isn’t a bad liturgy, it has the God part… Read more »
The CofE does have liturgy for blessing a marriage following a civil ceremony:
Marriage | The Church of England
but it’s arguably tainted by the history of being used as a sort of “consolation prize” for those who had remarried while a former spouse still lived. It has associations of “too sinful for proper church wedding”.
Again just for information, the C of E also has two authorized liturgies – one for a wedding in church and the other for the blessing of a civil marriage – just as your Episcopal Church has. However, we are not authorized to use them for same sex couples. I would like to add ‘yet’ but that looks further away now for a church wedding, although a bit nearer perhaps for a church blessing.
So basically they’ve gone for “what is going to annoy most people, on both sides of the issue, the most it possible can, while giving us a fig leaf to protest to both sides that we’re doing our best”?
It’s intolerable for all, both within the CofE and outside.
CofE: “If everyone is upset and hates what happened then we MUST have been acting via media”
Exactly so.
Yup, a curate’s egg in perfection, which, despite the assertions of the “sophisticated moderates” who defend such fare, is indigestible.
I’m willing to read the liturgy proposed first, before allowing myself to be annoyed. If it’s a thinly disguised call to repentance and public promise to do better like the ‘act of dedication’ offered to straight couples after divorce however, annoyed won’t even begin to describe what I’ll feel.
I think it will also depend on how the relationship is described.
And again the Anglican confusion comes home to roost. Are we Catholic or Congregationalist? Do the Bishops decide or Synod? Answer that question and the rest falls into place, either they decide and you have no choice or they advise and your church decides.
My take from an Evangelical perspective is as with women’s ordination this will just about appease Open Evangelicals and Charismatics. Cons would not accept any change but the middle will say “well you could have a blessing but our theology of marriage hasn’t changed.” Comments here suggest it will not be enough regardless.
Actually, no evangelicals will be happy.
I expect not, since one of the most admirable qualities of evangelicals is their tendency to speak plainly and sincerely, the opposite of this murky release. Truly, a curate’s egg!
James, Ian Paul is now claiming on his own blog that he has had correspondence with an Archbishop who has told him that the language of press release – quoting as it does a number of bishops and both Archbishops – is ‘mistaken’. It’s hard to beleive that such an important press release would not have been agreed by both Archbishops but it will be interesting to see how wrong and mistaken this press release is. It will also be interesting to know why an archbishop is telling one member of GS one thing but saying quite another thing to… Read more »
This all reminds me, unfortunately, of the recent election of the Speaker of the House in the U.S. Congress. A small rump group has been able to drive the decisions to the far right by refusing to vote for anything else.
I don’t think that is the case. An appetite for changing the doctrine of marriage ebbed away amongst bishops, I think for some horrified by the quality of the case made in public.
Well this shabby compromise is just the worst of all worlds isn’t it?
If ‘Issues …’ and the cruelty of its compulsory celibacy are repealed, conservatives will be enraged, let alone blessing same-sex relationships. So that heat’s been drawn. Yet the joyful blessing of sacramental marriage is denied to loving Christian couples who happen to be of the same sex. All are punished.
“I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot. I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.”
It doesn’t matter if Issues is withdrawn. Clergy must still live by the doctrine of the Church and ‘fashion their lives’ according to the way of Christ…as the C of E has received it. As long as ‘the doctrine of marriage does not change’ how can this make any difference?
Practically, I assume that English ordinands won’t have to assent to ‘Issues …’ (which seems to’ve trumped the creeds and Articles in England!), and bishops won’t ask questions about the personal lives of same-sex couples (which they already promised to cease in ‘Issues …’ itself, but presumably they’ll mean it this time). Priests will no longer have to lie about their sex lives, nor will same-sex couples have to pretend that their union is a “friendship.”
Not that anyone believes an English DADT to be a sustainable position …
They already ask about the personal lives of all ordinands. This has never been a ‘gay inquisition’. And Issues has already been superseded by the new vocations process—in which just those questions continue to be asked. Some interesting things have been coming out!
The answer then is to cease all such intimate questions, regardless of sexuality (or perceived sexuality), and leave it to the consciences of candidates.
As a former DDO I would love to know what interesting things have been coming out!!
I have read the new criteria. They are significantly different to what has gone before. I would love to know why the previous criteria were ditched for a document with a considerably different “feel” and more about its provenance.
Dear beautiful queer Christians: Please do not consider having blessings in the Church of England. Don’t give them your money whilst being stigmatized as second class citizens. Go to the nearest registered Methodist or URC church that will marry you properly. I think I am reaching the conclusion that I accept, but don’t affirm, bishops. Like, yes: they exist. But their lifestyles? Homophobia, safeguarding failures, an appalling track record on supporting survivors of abuse, and a real lack of ethics around the church commissioners’ portfolio (with a strange persistence in the fairy tale of “influencing” Shell and other fossil fuel… Read more »
Just for info, in the C of E blessings of civil marriages have no fee.
Musicians, flowers, organists, ….?
Those, surely, are extras which if wanted one would expect to pay for anywhere – not a specific C of E matter.
Yes, but those fees would usually go to the people providing those services, as they would in a wedding or funeral. And you would not need to have any of those. There is no provision for a fee payable to the Diocese and/or Parochial Church Council (or the minister taking the service) for a service of blessing after a civil marriage.
Point remains the same though, if we don’t agree with the changes, we shouldn’t just go along with them and pretend its all ok. Don’t support CofE for its bigotry. I’m going to a more affirming church now. Leave the evangelicals to fight over the remains of the CofE.
There is… Notes, right hand side. An equivalent to the Marriage Service is suggested…
Several tentative observations: The failure to consult with Synod demonstrates that synodical government is a sham (as it always was) and that the Church remains a dictatorship of the episcopate. Sometimes an ineffectual dictatorship can be more oppressive than a ruthless one, although this decision was been characterised by a certain ruthlessness. Sometimes it is necessary to demonstrate that a dictatorship really is a dictatorship or, rather that an ersatz and pretend democracy is not a democracy. The bench did not consult Synod, not only because the liberals do not have the numbers (or anything approaching them), but because it… Read more »
“… the Church remains a dictatorship of the episcopate.” Yes indeed, since, unlike bishops in other Anglican provinces, the English episcopate don’t see fit to submit themselves to the verdict of electors.
Think how radically the CoE would be transformed if any priest knew that they might stand for and be elected bishop, instead of knowing from before they’re ordained that the purple’s generally reserved for those of a certain class, background and clubability.
Contd. What I suspect has happened is that the bishops wanted to control the narrative and news management re this decision, but lost control of the sequencing (was Mordaunt tipped off by a mole on the bench?). This may now be an opportunity for the ecclesiastical committee to exert suasion over the bench, which will demonstrate where the real power lies (as with Cameron’s intervention a decade ago). However, if the bench are pushed by parliament to bend to the latter’s wishes, then it may well ‘help’ the bench, because if the conservatives then blow up in response to parliamentary… Read more »
“There is no ‘Church of England’ really. There is only a loose confederation of disparate and mutually antagonistic factions …”
Just so, which begs the question, since there’s unlikely to be a new Act of Uniformity any time ever, why not face reality, and allow the various CoE groups to do their own thing? Altar and pulpit fellowship could be maintained: via the Porvoo Communion, every single member of the CoE’s currently in communion with churches that marry same-sex couples. What would be the difference?
This morning’s tea leaves tell me that the proposals could be shaped in a more conservative way during its journey through GS. A legal case not that long ago established the right for the CofE to discriminate based on its doctrine of marriage. That precedent could strengthen the conservative resolve to restrict what the CofE blesses and to keep bishops accountable to canon law.
Doesn’t all of this make a mockery of the oft quoted phrase concerning the Church of England – “Episcopally led, Synodically governed”? Judging by the overwhelmingly negative and adverse response to what the House of Bishops is recommending it would seem that there is a great reluctance to follow where the bishops are leading.
Running off to get married in Gretna Green has always been romantic. Perhaps running off to the Episcopal church North of the Border to celebrate ones nuptials may become an attractive choice for gay couples.
I have had friends swap to the Unitarian church for their wedding. They found the welcome so refreshing that they stayed there permanently.
I’m sure there’ll be a welcome in The Trossachs
“Oooh you are awful, but I like you”
SEC churches just over the border at Gretna, Eastriggs and Annan, and a very fine one with decent music in elegant Dumfries (St John’s). Trains to Gretna, Annan, Dumfries, change at Carlisle.
Professor! We could set up a little travel agency business whisking couples to their happy day with the Piskies.
I think every Scottish wedding reception should include couples dancing the Gay Gordons.
Actually, it’s one couples are already making. The Scottish Episcopal Church welcomes you. And we will marry you.
What a nightmare! How horrible that CoE continues to withhold the Sacrament of Marriage for LGBTQ+ couples!!! The bishops can save their apology as they CONTINUE to woefully wound LGBTQ+ people and treat us as lesser members.
I’m so sorry to see that CoE continues to cater to the homophobic bigots and none of the happy clappy talk from the bishops (claiming this is a 21st Century solution, no less) can put lipstick on this pig.
I am so sorry, my beautiful siblings in Christ in CoE.
I’m leaving the Church of England. My marriage is just as good as anyone else’s. I don’t think it’s safe for me or my wife to be in this organisation any longer, on mental health grounds. I won’t return to the C of E unless or until my marriage is not a sin. I’m exploring a non-denominational contemplative group, and I’ll maintain personal and private fellowship with the convent which has nurtured me for 12 years. Of course I have friendships I won’t abandon, but I’ve lost all trust in the Church leadership. I don’t want apologies from them when… Read more »
Susannah, I think it is testament to the horror show that is this action from the Bishops of the Church of England that you, who have so long been patient and generous to those who treated you abominably, are moved to this. I pray that your journey with Christ will one day lead you back to a wiser, more Christ-like CofE.
Dear Susannah, I am so sorry about all this. It’s exceedingly hurtful. The fruits of this labor is pain. I know that you will find a place where you, your wife, and your beautiful, sacramental, relationship are welcomed.
When you crave the eucharist, I’m sure you will be welcome in Scotland and Wales (right?) and certainly in the Episcopal Church (there’s one in Paris).
Peace and blessings to you and your family.
I can only join Susannah and many other friends on this blog in expressing anger and sadness at these proposals, which please no one. It’s over to Synod now to send the bishops back to the drawing board. Please.
On my Facebook page has just popped up a picture of a bowl of something green and glutinous. The caption is “Constipation green smoothie” and it advertises a remedy for said condition. I thought at first it concerned the C of E, but on second reading I saw that unfortunately it did not.
Facebook advertisements are, if I understand my nephew correctly, generated by algorithms based on the interests and characteristics of the user. Presumably they know you take an interest in the church and even the very algorithms can tell that the Church now needs a laxative and needs it urgently.
That must be it, so. The other obvious explanation is not applicable to me. Actually, come to think of it, cloacal comparisons are entirely apt in this whole affair.
In response to this move by the Church of England’s bishops – which some will applaud and others reject (either as supporters of, or objectors to) the pastoral accommodation of LGBTQI people in the Church) – we ALL need to understand how slow is our Mother Church of England to change its official doctrines on any matter at all! Despite the governmental initiation of decriminalisation of homosexuality; the granting of no-fault divorce; the provision of Same-Sex Civil Partnership and Same-Sex Marriage; the Church of England has been slow to incorporate these legal realities into their ritual and theological pastoral accommodation.… Read more »
This is just ridiculous! Why should we be expected to wait decades longer in this homophobic monolith. Many of us likely won’t even be here to see the overturning of the doctrine
There are two major problems with the discussion.
The BBC reports the following. “The Archbishop of Canterbury will not personally use proposed new prayers to bless same-sex couples. The Church of England this week said it wants to offer blessings to gay couples but would not allow priests to marry them. Justin Welby said he celebrates the change, but has a “responsibility for the whole communion”.” If Justin Welby can’t even bring himself to dirty his hands by blessing lesbian and gay couples then he is unfit to lead England’s National Church and most certainly unfit to crown Britain’s head of state at Westminster Abbey. Justin Welby should… Read more »