 |
| Who should get to wear purple? |
A declaration by the House of Bishops (why they get to decide this but a General Synod has to decide on women bishops is another question!) has said that: “the requirements in the 2005 statement concerning the eligibility for ordination of those in civil partnerships whose relationships are consistent with the teaching of the Church of England apply equally in relation to the episcopate.” This means that clergy in civil-partnerships can now be considered for jobs as bishops as long as they say they are celibate.
Many pixels have been and will be created about this topic. I'll to confine myself to observing just one irony: a clergyman who gets married to another man under the forthcoming legislation will (presumably) not be eligible to be a bishop (or serve in any ordained ministry) and will not be able to get married in a CofE church, because the church's understanding is that this monogamous, exclusive relationship is only for a man and a woman.*
A civil partnership is an equally monogamous, exclusive relationship which is generally sexual in nature (the fact that clergy are meant to declare that theirs are not demonstrates this, even though some have refused and no action has been taken). But a minister in a civil partnership will be able to be a bishop presiding over a whole diocese of churches: none of which will be able to offer marriages (or, by definition, civil partnerships) to gay couples!
What a tragedy that we have come to a point where the people who are widely perceived to represent Christianity to our nation make decisions which have every appearance of being based not on a careful examination of the Scriptures,** or even on some unbiblical but at least internally coherent logic, but on the wild caprice of the culture and its largely unbelieving elected representatives and media types.
There is great danger in this for evangelical Anglicans, especially those who advanced the argument that it is unjust to deny somebody a ministry they are gifted for in favour of women bishops, but who would be (rightly in my view) opposed to a celibate bishop in a civil partnership.
There is greater danger, however, for all Christians, whatever our church, in seeking to speak into this entire tinder-box issue with clarity about what actions God declares to be wicked and immoral, and equal clarity about the compassion and grace God extends to all of us sexual sinners when we come in repentance and faith to the Lord Jesus.
*It's not clear what would happen if he was both married AND in a civil partnership or, indeed, if such a thing will even be legally possible!
** I'm not saying none of those involved advanced Scriptural arguments, and I recognise that reporting is heavily slanted. But, even trawling the web for the fullest arguments offered in both this and the women bishops discussion I think most people would have to admit that discussion based on Scripture and historic doctrines was not the dominant note.
8 comments:
It pains me a great deal that conservatives/traditionalists have leaped into the foray in the way that they have. The approach seems to be to shoot first and then...well will they ever ask questions? The Church of England's position is one that is pastorally sensitive and faithful to scripture and tradition (cf. 'Issues in Human Sexuality' [1991]).
It is responsible that, as Christians, we think through these complex questions slowly and carefully and precisely. In recent months Vaughan Roberts, Rector of St. Ebbes' in Oxford, 'came out' publicly as being gay, though he prefers the term 'same-sex attraction'. In the interview he says that "There is no objection to people being church leaders because of a homosexual orientation." Indeed, there is then no problem with 'gay' bishop provided that they are celibate, which is the teaching of the Church.
Now imagine that you are gay, this can be a very lonely existence. You form a friendship with another man whom you love dearly and for companionship you live together, but you remain celibate. You decide to enter a civil partnership with that man, this being a legal relationship, exclusively for same-sex couples, distinct from marriage which grants you both rights regarding: Tax, including inheritance tax; employment benefits; most state and occupational pension benefits; income related benefits, tax credits and child support; inheritance of a tenancy agreement; recognition under intestacy rules; access to fatal accidents compensation. There is nothing sexual in the nature of civil partnerships (unlike marriage), even if those who undertake one engage in sexual activity. I find absolutely no biblical argument to say that you should not be a bishop.
Richard,
I'm not sure why you presume that I haven't asked any questions and am leaping in? I have read extensively on this, both the theology of it and the discussions of the issue inside the Church of England and in my own free church tradition. The post was made more than a week after the decision by the house of bishops, hardly an unreflective action.
It rather sounds like you are assuming that because you disagree with my conclusions it must mean I haven't listened carefully enough!
I simply do not agree (nor, I suggest, would Vaughan Roberts who you cite) that allowing ministers to enter civil partnerships is pastorally sensitive to Christians like him (and other I know) who seek to deal with same sex orientation in the appropriate biblical context of chaste singleness rather than putting themselves into a situation which, for the vast majority of gay men, would be at least a major sexual temptation.
I agree that there are some financial benefits to civil partnerships. I can see that it is possible for some people to use the law to access these benefits in a way that is not sexually immoral. But I cannot agree that in a culture which more or less entirely equates civil partnership with gay marriage a gospel minister entering into a civil partnership can ever satisfy the NT requirement of avoiding the appearance of immorality and that therefore civil partnerships are NOT "faithful to Scripture."
Your comment that "there is nothing sexual in the nature of civil partnerships" is frankly disingenuous. Civil partnerships are designed by their nature to be exclusive and sexual partnerships (and not the kind of antidote to loneliness you suggest). This is shown by:
a) The fact they are not available to straight couples - because marriage is considered the equivalent. This will remain the case even with the introduction of gay marriage and civil partnerships will still not be available to heterosexual couples.
b) Civil partnerships can only be entered into by two persons. If they were about sharing financial resources or companionship why can three or more parties not enter them?
c) They have to be dissolved before you can enter a new one.
d) The parties in a civil partnership must not be closely related, as with marriage.
Since the rights conferred by civil partnership on gay people are the same as the rights of a married couple it is frankly ludicrous to argue that the other essential component of marriage, the sexual one, is entirely absent!
Your scenario is touching but so little resembling the real world of a would-be bishop as to be absurd. I am sure the church if England could easily change its rules on pensions etc to provide for this kind of situation without having to resort to civil partnerships! Any bishop who dies intestate is clearly not administratively qualified for his job and, not surprisingly, for most gay clergy the issue of child support is hardly a major one (unless they have children from a previous marriage or non married relationship in which case there are almost certainly going to be other questions about their suitability for the post).
My apologies, my opening statement was not directed specifically at you but the various statements made recently by various Archbishops of the Global South and representatives of GAFCON.
You may believe my claim to be 'disingenuous,' yet I would ask for you to show where in statute law sexual intercourse is linked to civil partnership. To my knowledge it is not, whereas marriage is not complete until a man and wife have “ordinary and complete” intercourse. Section 12 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 states that a marriage is voidable if it has not been consummated due to the incapacity of either party to consummate it. There is no such equivalent in Civil Partnership, which illustrates my claim that there is nothing sexual in the nature of civil partnerships. The points you claim in a-d prove nothing I'm afraid.
It also speaks volumes that the only biblical argument you cite is the NT requirement of avoiding the appearance of immorality. This is wholly subjective, should we then stop Christians from going to pubs or nightclubs to avoid the appearance that they engage in drunkenness etc?
A historical enquiry is also of help; in 'The Marriage of Likeness: Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe' we find the argument that the adelphopoiia liturgy is evidence that early Christians did, on occasion, accept same-sex relationships.
Richard - I could be wrong, but I'm not aware that the proposed legislation for same-sex marriage will include details about sexual intercourse. If so, presumably there wouldn't be any problem with a bishop being married (in the eyes of the state) to someone of the same sex, as long as he/she committed to remaining celibate in that relationship?
Anthony, Edward Leigh MP has noted that the proposed legislation for same-sex marriage will result in sexual intercourse being removed from the law of marriage. Under existing law, marriages can be annulled on the grounds that a couple have never consummated their union. This was defined by a 1967 hearing where it was declared that consummation must include erection and penetration by the man of the woman with "emission of seed". This definition would not work for same-sex marriages. When the government put the proposals out for consultation earlier this year, it said that "Non-consummation and adultery are currently concepts that are defined in case law and apply only to marriage law, not civil partnership law." Moreover, a spokesperson for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport has said that "It is currently not possible for same-sex couples to annul their civil partnership on the grounds of non-consummation."
This highlights sexual intercourse is not part of the essence of a civil partnership, and that the proposal of same-sex marriages is complex. It also raises the question of the extent to which sexual intercourse between male and female is the 'essence' of marriage, especially in the light of those marriages where consummation is impossible through serious physical disability or impotence or age etc.
If sexual intercourse is removed from the civil definition of marriage then you are correct to ask whether there would be any problem with a bishop being married to someone of the same sex, providing celibacy was practiced. I am not sure the answer to that is straightforward.
Richard/Anthony
You're both right that the issue of sexual intercourse and its necessity or not for civil partnership/marriage is complex and it will be interesting to see how it unfolds.
But we must not confuse a relationship in which penetrative intercourse is possible with a sexual relationship. It is perfectly possible to have the latter without the former. My contention is that having bishops in a civil partnership is inappropriate because it is on many grounds (exclusivity, exclusivity, prohibition of partnership with relatives etc) clearly a homosexual relationship.
Andrew - I agree. If we make penetration the only factor, I think Jesus would have words with us in Mt 5:27-30. We tend to interpret that as external vs. internal righteousness, but I think it's better as minimal vs. maximal righteousness. Some were asking the question, what is the least I have to do? Do not commit adultery. Okay, so I can do "everything but" with my lover, except adultery (presumably understood as penetration). No - the kind of righteousness Jesus is seeking is a maximal righteousness. In avoiding adultery, he wants us to avoid even the hint of adultery. No passionate hugging and kissing, no long-term exclusive emotionally dependent relationships - in fact, not even a sexually provocative meeting of the eyes! I can't imaging Jesus saying, "Of course, civil partnerships are fine, and if the legel definition of marriage does not explicitly mention penetration, then it's fine to marry that person - just make sure you don't look at them in a lustful way"...
Andrew,
I understand your objection, I simply disagree that having bishops in a civil partnership is inappropriate, to my mind it is clearly not a sexual relationship.
The House of Bishops' pastoral statement addresses the Civil Partnership Act. It states that the Act leaves ‘entirely open the nature of the commitment that members of a couple choose to make to each other when forming a civil partnership. In particular, it is not predicated on the intention to engage in a sexual relationship.’
This ambiguity over the nature of a commitment in a Civil Partnership informs the statements attitude to clergy: ‘The House of Bishops...does not regard entering into a civil partnership as intrinsically incompatible with holy orders, provided the person concerned is willing to give assurances to his or her bishop that the relationship is consistent with the standards for the clergy set out in Issues in Human Sexuality.’ It reiterates that ‘the Church’s teaching on sexual ethics remains unchanged.’
The House of Bishops, in its statement on Bishops in Civil Partnerships confirmed 'that clergy in civil partnerships, and living in accordance with the teaching of the Church on human sexuality, can be considered as candidates for the episcopate.'
As far as I can see, the Church's position is thoroughly biblical and consistent with her teaching on sexual ethics which is that 'sexual intercourse is an act of total commitment which belongs properly within a permanent married relationship' and 'homosexual genital acts also fall short of this ideal, and are likewise to be met by a call to repentance and the exercise of compassion'.
Post a Comment