And last night the Archbishops of Canterbury and York had
their work cut out as question after question was tabled about the recent
Church of England response on same-sex Marriage.
'Who was the author?’ Synod
members wanted to know. Who saw it? What was the membership of the group who finalised
it? Who voted on it and by what
authority was it submitted as “the view of the Church of England”? Who can truly claim to speak for the ‘Church
of England’ on an area where there is such diversity of opinion? Why was Synod not consulted? Why are the votes of the House of Bishops not
recorded and published?
To be fair, the Archbishop of Canterbury took it on the
chin. He tried to be helpful, and took
the final responsibility with the Archbishop of York for signing off the
response before it went to the Government.
As a result of the Archbishop's answers, we now know that the response was drafted by ‘staff’ at
Church House in Westminster and presented to the Archbishops Council and House of
Bishops in May. The basis for the
response was Canon B30 which says:
The
Church of England affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching, that marriage is
in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better or worse, till death
do us part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either
side, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the hallowing and right
direction of the natural instincts and affections, and for the mutual society,
help and comfort which one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and
adversity.
Suggestions were made and the House of Bishops “agreed the
general shape of the response, considered a number of detailed suggestions …
and invited the Archbishops to finalise the draft.”
But the answers only raised more questions…
A key question is who were the mysterious and anonymous ‘staff’
who drafted the response? This is
significant because we know of staff at Church of House who are sympathetic to
the aspirations of same-sex couples, and we know of staff who are definitely not! Without knowing which members of staff were
tasked to write the response, we cannot know if it the group or individual was
balanced, neutral or partisan.
Other questions followed from members of Synod…
If Canon
B30 was the basis for opposing same-sex marriage, how is it that the Church of
England can embrace the many church members (and indeed members of Synod) who
have not lived up to its rigorous ideals of life-long union to the exclusion of
all others? Many
marriages are not permanent and lifelong, but the Church does not exclude or
oppose 2nd, 3rd or further marriages after divorce.
If marriage
is for the procreation of children, what about couples who cannot or do not
want to have children? The Archbishops
answer appeared to stretch Conon B30 to breaking point when he responded that “The
Church of England has never regarded the validity or value of marriage as dependent
on the possibility or intention of having children.”
What
consideration was given to the pastoral impact of issuing such an unequivocal
rejection of the possibility of same-sex marriage, as many same-sex couples (including
many Church members) woke up on the 11th June to find their hopes
and aspirations crushed? The response
was non-committal.
Were there
any plans to revisit and review Canon B30? “No” was the clear and definite answer.
Is the
House of Bishops aware of the level of dismay and discontent the response had
produced among faithful Anglicans?
“One cannot be anything but aware of this” the Archbishop said in
response.
Last night was very revealing as Synod members probed the response which had been made in their name, but as often happens, the answers raised more questions than they answered.
1. Who were
the ‘staff’ authors of the draft response and what personal perspectives did
they bring to the task before them?
2. If the
Church is able and willing to recognise divorce and participate in remarriage without
contravening Canon B30 insistence that the “nature”
of marriage is “permanent and lifelong”,
why is the church not also able to consider recognising and (perhaps one day)
participating in marriage of same-sex couples?
3. If “the Church of England has never regarded the
value or validity of marriage to be dependent on the possibility or intention of
having children”, how is it that opponents of same-sex marriage can hold up
the issue of procreation as a reason why gay people can’t get married?
4. Given the
coach and horses which these answers drive through the Church’s definition of
marriage, why are there no plans to revisit and review Canon B30?
This is an issue which won’t just go away…
Indeed, the issue simply isn't going away. I think the question I would have like to ask is when ++Rowan so radically changed his views on this issue, and why...
ReplyDeleteFrom a meeting with ++Rowan which I attended about 3 years ago, I am clear that he has not changed his views. He repeatedly made a distiction between himself as an individual and the office of Archbishop which had been entrusted to him.
DeleteI believe that he has been living in the impossible tension between his own convictions and his responsibilities ever since he was appointed to the 'Chair of St Augustine' (as he himself expressed it).
It will be interesting to see what happens when he steps down later this year.