As the first same-sex marriages are conducted in England and
Wales, much of the country is celebrating with the happy couples, but there are
a significant group of LGB&T people who are being excluded from that joy by
the Church of England.
Benny Hazlehurst
critiques the Pastoral Guidance issued by the House of Bishops.
The Bishops’ Valentine’s Day guidance on same-sex marriage
was a shock to the vast majority of LGB&T clergy in the Church of England.
While apparently being magnanimous to lay people who get
married to someone of the same gender, offering ‘pastoral provision’ for
informal prayers and full access to the sacraments, the guidance also prohibited existing clergy
in same-sex partnerships from getting married and said that it would not ordain
anyone in a same-sex marriage.
At the stroke of a pen, it reintroduced a prohibition on
marriage for some priests in the CofE, opened the gates to ecclesiastical
guerrilla warfare in dioceses, and further distanced the House of Bishops from
a substantial proportion of their clergy and people, not to mention the
population at large.
There have been those in the church have said “What did you
expect?” arguing that there was no other option available to the Bishops. They argue that if the Church of England does
not recognise same-sex marriage, then of course it can’t allow its clergy to
enter into it.
But as the first same-sex marriages take place, the
implications of the Pastoral Guidance are looming large for both clergy and
bishops as they realise the implications of this statement, and the land mines it has
laid.
As I write this, I am mindful of that there is a variety of
opinion in the church on same-sex marriage.
Accepting Evangelicals, of which I am a part, has called for prayerful
reflection and theological discussion on the nature of marriage in the church
before making pronouncements.
Nevertheless, whatever our individual views on marriage, the Pastoral
Guidance issued by the Bishops is ill conceived and will not serve the church
well in the months and years ahead.
1. The re-introduction of marriage prohibition
for some clergy.
It is 465 years since priests in the Church of England were
last forbidden from entering into marriage.
As David Hope noted when he was Bishop of London, “The
requirement for celibacy in the clergy was formally abolished in the Church of
England in 1549. Since that time… there
is no requirement for celibacy even among single clergy within the Anglican
Communion.” That is, until now.
With same-sex marriage becoming a reality in England and
Wales, clergy in same-sex partnerships like anyone else, now have the opportunity to be married
according to the law of the land.
The Bishops’ Guidance however is attempting to put a stop to
that, stating “it would not be appropriate conduct for someone in holy orders
to enter into same-sex marriage, given the need for clergy to model the
Church’s teaching in their lives”.
This is then backed up with a thinly disguised threat of
disciplinary action against clergy who might dare to rebel, by reminding them
that at ordination they undertook to “accept and minister the discipline of
this Church, and respect authority duly exercised within it”. With the advent of the Clergy Discipline
Measure of 2003 there is a clear avenue for potential action against clergy who
break this prohibition.
Finally, just in case there might be any ambiguity, Tony Baldry MP (who is the Church
of England’s spokesperson in the House of Commons) sent a very clear message
this week when he said in Parliament, “The canons of the Church of England
retain their legal status as part of the law of England and I would hope that
no priest who has taken an oath of canonical obedience would wish to challenge
canon law and the law of England.”
This requirement for LGB&T clergy is not only at odds
with the Church’s own abolition of celibacy almost 500 years ago, it is also at
odds with the way in which the Church of England has treated Civil Partnerships
involving clergy.
Far from trying to enforce church discipline on clergy who
have chosen to enter Civil Partnerships, the CofE has fully recognised both the
reality of Civil Partnerships and the legal rights which they bring. Since 2005, the recognition of pension rights
for the Civil Partners of stipendiary clergy has been fully accepted by the
Church of England and the House of Bishops has said that “it does not regard
entering into Civil Partnerships as intrinsically incompatible with holy
orders”.
So why is entering into same-sex marriage incompatible?
The answer, one can only assume, is because of the thorny
issue of sex. Civil Partnerships did not
require sexual intimacy per sae, while traditionally, marriage does. However the same-sex marriage act does not
require or recognise the need for consummation of the marriage for same-sex
couples either –so the two are no
different in their legal requirements for same-sex couples in relation to sex.
So why do the House of Bishops treat one differently to the
other?
Perhaps it is because the Church of England does not
recognise same-sex marriage? But if the
church does not recognise it, then clergy who enter into it are not breaking
church teaching, because you can’t break the rules by entering into something
which church theology says does not exist!
Even if Equalities legislation has been amended to allow
faith groups to determine their own rules on same-sex marriage, there is a
clear inequality here. For gay and
lesbian clergy who want to marry their partner, selective celibacy in relation
to marriage has been re-introduced into the Church of England’s discipline
after discussion at just one meeting and behind closed doors.
2. Pastoral insensitivity.
While the Bishops’ Guidance has made provision for clergy to
‘respond pastorally and sensitively’ to same-sex couples who come to them
asking for a blessing, it seems little thought has been given to effect of that
response on gay and lesbian clergy.
Clergy in same-sex relationships are much more likely than others to be
approached by couples wanting a blessing or prayers for their marriage, and yet
in placing a responsibility on clergy to respond pastorally and sensitively to
these couples (ie have some kind of private ceremony to mark their marriage)
the Bishops seem to have given little thought to the emotional price which LGBT
clergy will pay in responding to that request.
Many lesbian and gay clergy have long experienced the pain
of longing when they are asked to officiate at a wedding knowing that they
could not enter into marriage. Now when
marriage is finally open to them (albeit in a Civil Ceremony rather than a
church wedding) they have been forbidden from entering into it. And yet they are being called to minister to
and pray with others who have got married.
To most people this will sound unremittingly cruel. Knowing that the law allows you to get
married but that the church you are called to minister in is both denying you
that right and requiring you to respond to others is both cruel and unjust. For some it will feel akin to being a midwife
who is prohibited by her employer from having children.
3. The prohibition on ordination is tantamount
to a process of same-sex cleansing.
Another clear and unequivocal statement of the Bishops is
that those in a same-sex marriage will not be ordained. I have already been told of one young person
who was exploring ordination but has now withdrawn because he hopes to be
married someday.
At present, there are estimated to be between 1,500 and
2,500 licensed LGB&T clergy in the Church of England. It is a fair representation to say that some
dioceses would collapse without their ministry.
Yet, it has been getting more and more difficult for
LBG&T ordinands to get to ordination.
I was asked to talk with one such young man recently who said to me
(with genuine fear) “But what do I say if they ask me?”
Now, however, the rule is quite clear when it comes to
marriage, and the answer is ‘No’ even before you start the long process of vocational
discernment. The next generation of
would-be ordinands will be growing up in a society where same-sex marriage is
normal, and for those who are LGB&T, they are likely to aspire to marriage
as naturally as anyone else.
From now on, however, they will know that the door is firmly
locked and bolted to prevent them entering ministry in the church. Faced with the choice of ordination or the potential
married life, very few will choose ordination.
The Church of England is already experiencing a shortage of
ordinands. Not only will this policy
reduce still further the numbers of people who want to explore a vocation to ordination,
it also continues the process of reducing the ‘embarrassment’ created by having
LGB&T clergy in their midst. As time
goes on LGB&T clergy will be ‘cleansed’ from the ranks of ordained ministry
and the church will be the poorer for it.
Many of us will be able to think of the ministry of a gay or lesbian,
bisexual or transgender priest which has helped or inspired us, yet under these
rules, many of them would not be even considered for ordination.
This ruling also flies in the face of the Church of
England’s claim to welcome and value the ministry of LGB&T clergy. While some on the conservative end of the
church may rejoice in this, we will all feel the impact.
4. Encouraging use of the Clergy Discipline
Measure
According to the Church of England’s website, “The Clergy
Discipline Measure… provides a structure for dealing efficiently and fairly
with formal complaints of misconduct against members of the clergy.”
As a result of the Pastoral Guidance, some conservative
groups are already sharpening their swords at last seeing the opportunity to
force bishops to take action against LGB&T clergy – action which they
believe is long overdue. One group, EGGS
(the Evangelical Group on the General Synod) has also called for the same rules
to apply to those lay people who hold a Bishop’s licence or commission.
Bishops themselves appear to be increasingly frightened of
the situation they have created for themselves.
I was told recently that while some bishops are saying “I don’t want any
‘martyrs’ in my diocese,” there are others who are considering their own
position if a Clergy Discipline complaint is brought against them for not
taking action against clergy who enter same-sex marriage. As a result of the Pastoral Guidance both clergy
and their bishops appear vulnerable to those who want to stir up trouble.
And yet it is the Guidance itself which has created this
dilemma. Linking words like ‘conduct’,
‘consequences’ and ‘discipline’ in the
statement has given a green light to those who want to force a showdown. It is far from the “distinctive and generous
witness to Jesus Christ” which the Guidance says it seeks to model.
5. Unwholesome
contradiction.
Yet the saddest contradiction of the whole statement is to
be found in paragraph 23 of the Guidance.
It says,
‘At ordination clergy make a
declaration that they will endeavour to fashion their own life and that of
their household 'according to the way of Christ' that they
may be 'a pattern and example to Christ's people'. A
requirement as to the manner of life of the clergy is also directly imposed on
the clergy by Canon C 26, which says that 'at all times he shall be
diligent to frame and fashion his life and that of his family according to the
doctrine of Christ, and to make himself and them, as much as in him lies,
wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ.'
Given the rest of the Guidance which follows, this is
clearly taken to mean that clergy in a same-sex marriage cannot be wholesome
examples to the flock of Christ.
Furthermore, the acceptance of Civil Partnerships by the
Church of England while at the same time prohibiting marriage strongly implies
that the Bishops consider it to be a more wholesome example to your flock to be
living with the person you love outside marriage, than within it!
In a society which often either dispenses with marriage as
irrelevant, or enters into marriage without the commitment to make it work, how
can it be that two people living together in a vicarage outside marriage is a more
wholesome example than being married and demonstrating how to take wedding vows
seriously?
Unfortunately, this kind of double-thinking betrays a deeper
problem with the Pastoral Guidance. Despite
the quotation earlier in the Guidance from the 2005 Dromantine Communique which
“affirmed the Anglican Communion’s opposition to any form of behaviour which
‘diminished’ homosexual people” the reality is that the House of Bishops has
once again succeeded in ‘diminishing’ LGB&T people.
They have unwittingly joined in with the “diminishment of
human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of their own
sex” (to quote the Dromantine statement) by failing to recognise the spiritual
longing of those clergy who want to marry their same-sex partners and by devaluing
their faith, love, and commitment.
They have said that it is a better example to be living
together outside marriage than within it.
They have failed to value the contribution which LGB&T people make
to church life and ministry by prohibiting clergy from same-sex marriage and
excluding LGB&T ordinands, who would naturally yearn to be married, from
any possibility of ordination. And they
have failed to see the emotional and spiritual price which they are asking
their LGB&T clergy to pay for the sake of a church unity which does not
exist.
This week, as same-sex couples celebrate their relationships
in marriage for the first time in England and Wales, my prayer is that the
Bishops who have approved this Guidance (as well as a rod for their own back)
will quickly reconsider.
There is an alternative.
The Church of England, which only approved marriage in
church after divorce in July 2002, also accepted before that date, that some of
its clergy could enter into a second marriage at a Civil Ceremony, and have a
thanksgiving in church, and remain in ministry.
If that could happen after marriage vows had been broken,
why can’t clergy who have only just gained the right to be married for the
first time be given that opportunity?
The Bishops have got it wrong – and it needs to be put
right.
