Clearly, it is to be hoped that the line holds. But can an institution that allows its clergy to enter into civil partnerships be relied upon to hold the line?
The shameful fact that openly immoral clergy continue to hold licences to officiate does not inspire confidence. Nor does the recent news that the Church of England is trialling an application form for posts that will not ask clergy about their marital status.
The change is supported by those who perceive ordained ministry as akin to a secular career where a person's private life is divorced from their capability for the job. But this essentially Clintonesque approach is contradicted by both the Pastoral Epistles of the New Testament and by the biblical doctrine of the Church of England as expressed liturgically in its Book of Common Prayer.
The Apostle Paul's epistles to Timothy and Titus could not be clearer that the marital and family circumstances of church leaders are decisive for their suitability for office (cf 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1). And the BCP Ordinal, reflecting the biblical doctrine of the Church of England, enjoins clergy to 'be diligent to fashion your own own selves, and your families, according to the doctrine of Christ'.
Anyone who thinks that Anglican doctrine embraces politically correct 'diversity' in its conception of the family would be advised to read the Form of Solemnization of Matrimony according to the Book of Common Prayer. It makes clear that the first God-ordained purpose of heterosexual, monogamous, life-long marriage is 'for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name'.
The Roman Catholic Church's refusal to host civil partnerships has a robust theological basis judging by the statement from the Archbishop of Southwark, the Most Reverend Peter Smith:
Marriage does not belong to the state any more than it belongs to the church. It is a fundamental human institution rooted in human nature itself. It is a lifelong commitment of a man and a woman to each other, publicly entered into, for their mutual wellbeing and for the procreation and upbringing of children.
Unfortunately, such clarity exposes the precariousness of the Church of England's current stance against civil partnership ceremonies on its premises.
Regarding a cleryperson's rights to behave as he/she likes in private (as Colin Coward's view, above), you could consider my article, where I argue that "we DO have a right to know what goes on in their bedrooms" (http://www.affirmingthefaith.com/bedroom.htm)
ReplyDeleteThere is yet no plan for the CofE to allow Civil Partnerships in its churches. It is highly unlikely the CofE will be forced to allow CPs - so why the fuss? - Is there nothing else you can think about other than threats here and threats there. It is actually a curious form of idolatry – ascribing power to something that has not yet happened. I know the Words and Example of Jesus are fairly peripheral to much Evangelical thinking, but I seem to remember somewhere he said:
ReplyDelete“...do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own” Matthew 6:34
I am sure St Paul may have said ‘this’ and the BCP may say that but I am sure these can be trumped by Jesus words that can be basically paraphrased as: ‘It is better to mind your own business than run the risk of being judged by the standards you have set for others but not yourself...” (cf. Matt 7: 1-6). Perhaps here you will defend yourself and state your standards ARE higher than those wicked homosexual clergy and wider public – if this is the case then you have missed the whole point of the Gospel and you’d be better off seeing if there are any openings at the local ‘Pharisee College’; for the Pharisees were morally upright and lived their lives to the letter of the Law. In today’s world, they would indeed be morally ‘squeaky-clean’. But it was this type of person Jesus appeared most angry with – and you have to ask why? Because they lacked both love and humility.
Jesus left us few commandments, ‘Love one another’ and ‘wash one another’s feet’ being the main ones. A perusal of your blog suggests neither of these are particularly important when they can be outshone by the far easier task of ranting about something that is unlikely to take place and concerns a class of people it is permissible, within Evangelical circles, to regard as less than human, and so fit for opprobrium disproportionate to their numbers in society or effect upon its fabric. ‘Easy morality’ that doesn’t cost much and plays on ancient prejudices and lazy righteousness. It is certainly easier and less inconvenient than scrutiny of one’s own Evangelical culture and far preferable to washing someone’s feet!
As I have got older in life, one thing I have learned and that is, if I find myself getting disproportionately angry or obsessed about a given issue then it is best to start looking at myself, because it more likely than not, that that is where the problem resides. Hope this is helpful?
Regards:
S.
Christian discipleship involves ongoing repentance. That is the consistent message of Jesus speaking through the Gospels and through the epistles of the New Testament.
ReplyDeleteAs a disciple myself I am called to repentance from sin in dependence upon the unmerited grace of God in Christ.
Have I ever said I wasn't?
I seems to me 'S' above doesn't accept that the Bible in its entirety is the infallible Word of God and the final and supreme authority for Christian belief and conduct. This seems evident in 'S's statement "St Paul may have said ‘this’ and the BCP may say that but I am sure these can be trumped by Jesus words", which to my mind implicitly downgrades Paul's Epistles in authority to that of the BCP. Jesus Himself said that revelation of truth was incomplete before the coming of the Holy Spirit, Who would guide believers into “all truth” (John 16:13), hence we have the completed revelation of the Gospel given by the books from Acts to Revelation. And Peter regarded Paul’s writings as part of the “Scriptures”… (2 Peter 3:16)
ReplyDeleteI think the author is right to worry whether the Church can hold the line; I strongly suspect the majority of people in the pews (not to mention in the whole of the parishes) would like to be allowed to celebrate CPs and same sex marriages. In the end the bishops will succumb to the inevitable (remember that the CofE wishes to remain the Church of all the people and cannot survive if it cuts itself off). Having the ABC justifying the status quo with statements that it is known he does not believe does not help at all and convinces no one.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not the “Bible in its entirety is the infallible Word of God and the final and supreme authority for Christian belief and conduct” it is not written in the form of an instruction manual and has to be read as a whole and interpreted. It is largely written as history, telling us stories and reporting events, which we must try to understand and take lessons from.
One things is plain, that God gave us, amongst other things, minds and brains to understand; we must presume that he did not intend thinking (divinely inspired or otherwise) to stop with the last word of the Bible.
Can we not open our minds to the thoughts that :
• All people are born equal in the sight of God
• That judgement belongs to God not ourselves
• That God created diversity in mankind and this should be celebrated not rejected
• That justifying the exclusion from society and Church of a whole set of people is such a serious undertaking that it requires more than an arguable interpretation of a few lines of scripture (out of so many)
• That people with different sexual orientations do have relationships & children and that the reasons for marriage (as per the BCP if you like) are equally valid and necessary for them as for all?
Of course thinking didn't stop with the last word of the Bible, indeed we need to use our minds in seeking to understand and interpret the Bible so that we can obey it. But the issue here seems to me to be one of authority: whether the variable and changing thinking of imperfect men influenced by trends in society should override unchanging non-negotiable truth set out in the Bible. Who knows best? Our Creator or His imperfect creatures?
ReplyDeleteI am sure we can all agree with Philip that, imperfect as we are, we must seek to follow the truth set out in the Bible, The problem for us is to try to understand is the multi-facetted nature of that truth.
ReplyDeleteSurely no-one would disagree that when a man and a woman cleave together, solemnize that union as marriage in the sight of God, create a family and live out their lives happily together, that is a wonderful, natural and blessed thing, ordained by God.
But does the Bible really require us, while celebrating the former, to utterly reject as unnatural (and, imperfect creatures that we are, to judge as unnacceptable to God) people whose nature leads them to cleave for life to someone of the same sex?
The underlying cause of human unrighteousness is idolatry - I suggest you read Romans 1 to see how homosexual practice results from God's judgement on our refusal to give Him the glory he deserves.
ReplyDeleteThe only hope for any of us is the righteousness that is by faith in Jesus Christ.
And Benjamin, if someone's nature leads them to cleave to more than one person at a time, or to minors, or close relatives...?
ReplyDeleteDan
I find Dan’s comment is typical of many who lump the homosexual issue together with paedophilia, adultery, incest etc. Thankfully as an Anglican I have Scripture (which even a brief knowledge of its history and a scant knowledge of its original languages calls the ‘inerrancy of Scripture’ into question), reason and tradition. Reason tells us that there is a marked difference between two adults of same sex who have both a physical and emotional attraction to each other and are able to live out a relationship that is monogamous, committed and costly; compared to paedophilia or incest etc. that are often abuses of power and are often rooted in base sexual desire and its fulfilment without thought for one’s fellow human beings.
ReplyDeleteReason has also demonstrated that homosexuality is not something that people choose. There are some people – Tom Robinson, the 1970s gay activist, springs to mind - who after many years living as a gay man settled down with a woman and fathered a child. Just as there are many people who marry someone of the opposite sex and then the marriage breaks down and they settle down with someone of the same sex. Again reason tells us sexuality is fluid and does not always conform to simplistic taxonomies.
For many years I was a member and on the staff of a large Evangelical church; I maintained a (mainly) celibate life. However at the age of 39 I decided to have a relationship with someone of the same sex. Eight years later we live together, own our own house and continue in domestic bliss in an unremarkable and rather ordinary life in London’s commuter-land. Friends and colleagues (two close friends both Anglican priests, with Evangelical persuasions (and both lecturers at Evangelical Bible colleges)) remark on the main difference between my ‘devout’ celibate state and present state being that I am a much happier, healthier, together person, who is a lot nicer to be around. Although some ‘anti-gay’ Christians seem obsessed with sex, sex is a very small – and decreasing – part of our relationship. I thank God for my relationship – tho’ I have no plans to have a Civil Partnership blessed in a church. Frankly I can’t see the point.
To return to the subject of the above post, according to a paper* Dr Hans-Christian Raabe co-authored (the GP who was allegedly thrown off a government advisory panel for his involvement in this very paper) only 1-3% of the population are ‘homosexual’ and only 0.5% cohabit. So we have vague rumours that the government might force Anglican churches to perform CPs – the government has stated it won’t and it seems doubtful it will happen. And we have around 0.5% of the population living in same-sex relationship and it is highly doubtful all these would even WANT to have their union blessed in a church.
I can turn on the news or have a look at the internet and without having to try I can see far more important things Christians could be thinking about, than something that is so vague as to be mist... It saddens me that such effort is wasted on something that affects so few. I can’t help thinking this is a case of ‘easy morality’, when there are far more important things Christians could be thinking about. Of course these other things tend to be more costly. So at least some thanks has to be given for the homosexual issue, that it can make one seem to be fighting a moral crusade, when the reality is often that one is straining gnats and swallowing camels...
* Having read this paper, and as an academic, I find it plays on half truths and glib manipulation of figures and language and would not be given shelf room in any decent academic library!
Fr Julian: sorry I forgot to sign the piece beginning "I find Dan’s comment is typical..."
ReplyDeleteS. is what I normally sign comments
Many thanks:
S.
Christians are called to holiness not 'happiness' as defined by the permissive society. It is regrettable that the lecturers at this 'Evangelical Bible college' are apparently not emphasising that.
ReplyDeleteS. -
ReplyDeleteThe "lumping together" was started by the homosexual movement which claims same-sex relationships are in every way equivalent to marriage and should be treated as such in law and by all society.
"Reason tells us that there is a marked difference between" the union of two people of opposite gender (with all the physical and psychological complementariness that implies) committing for life and engaging in the procreative act by which the next generation of the human race is born and bred properly, and a union of two people of the same sex with none of said complementariness (with the creativity and mutuality it implies) and no possibility of procreation.
Since the state has a vital interest in the well-breeding of the next generation of citizens, it is appropriate for the state to support marriage in law, including financially if thought appropriate. By contrast, the state has no interest in supporting or subsidising same-sex partnerships.
"So we have vague rumours that the government might force Anglican churches to perform CPs – the government has stated it won’t and it seems doubtful it will happen."
If you believe politicians (especially post 2009) you'll believe anything!
Apart from which, the credibility of assurances of this kind has been all but destroyed by the incremental legalised homofascism of the past ten years. (Forcing adoption agencies to take same-sex couples, forcing marriage registrars to officiate at CPs, forcing B&B owners to take same-sex couples they consider living in sin, forcing drugs advisors to toe a line on an irrelevant issue, etc.) If such politicians really want Christians to believe them now, they should start by cleansing the Augean stables and (re)building a reputation for genuine liberalism in these matters.
Dan
Stop press... please add:
ReplyDelete"...forcing foster carers to teach the goodness of YKW..."
Dan
I am very grateful to Julian for allowing me on to his site to make my contributions, even though he may feel me misguided; I feel it has been positive and I have tried to understand and sympathise with you all.
ReplyDeleteI was not unfamiliar with Romans 1 but was prompted to re-read it several times and ponder it again. It is certainly challenging. The reference to promiscuity and homosexuality is direct if incidental to Paul’s main theme and in reference to a specific historical (to Paul) period. My conclusion remains that, however one interprets this specific passage, it does not change the overall message of the Bible.
It is not for us to pass judgement on one another; we must leave that to God. All who put their faith in Jesus will come to the Father.
We have to accept that secular laws are not made on the basis of religion – if they were then I’m sure they would inevitably lead to one faction persecuting another.
As people who attempt to follow the teachings of Christ, how are we to treat each other? If we have two members of the community, one perhaps even our own child, who have been brought up in faith are apparently good and faithful Christians in all other ways but are by nature same-sex attracted and specifically to each other and wish to spend their lives together, as it were married, how are we to treat them? Do we reject them & cast them out of our home and our church? Is that the Teaching of Jesus? Are we to pity them and tell them they are doomed to judgement unless they reject each other and repent? Do we tell them to fight against their nature and marry someone of the opposite sex?
I cannot agree with S that this is a small issue and a waste of time because
It affects so few. If we use our Christian faith to justify persecuting per se homosexual people then why might we not do the same for Jews, Muslims, or other religious or racial groups or indeed any individual we find wanting(as we have done, to our shame, all through history). Could I venture to suggest that that which we do not do for one of the least of these we do not do for God.
I do wish some of the people here had the ability to distinguish between what is law and what is religious freedom. Article 9 of the European Convention sums up the difference quite succintly, the cases that Dan will never succeed in the UK nor Europe simply becuase of point 2 in this convention. Conventions are there for the protection of all people and in this case people with relgious convinction and those without.
ReplyDelete"1 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2 Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
I know Peter Smith personally (from some time ago) and agree that he thinks clearly on many matters. Unfortunately he doesn't think clearly about what the Bible teaches about salvation - the means of which, in the end, will matter more than anything else.
ReplyDelete