![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This morning's Grauniad presented me with an article detailing the Church of England's official response to the Government's proposal to allow same-sex marriage in England and Wales. It made for pretty sour reading.
In short, the Church says that the connection between religious marriage and civil marriage will be broken by allowing same-sex marriages (as most religions will not perform them). It states that it believes that court action in the European Court of Human Rights will force the churches to witness same-sex marriages on church premises. It does not believe that the Government can change unilaterally the definition of "marriage" as being between one man and one woman, since that definition has persisted through time. It frets that, since a heterosexual marriage is not actually effected until the partners consummate it through intercourse, a same-sex one will not have the same definition as a heterosexual one and thus the heterosexual one will be made less of a marriage by legalising same-sex marriages.
And, finally, it unleashes the "D" word: disestablishment. It fears that allowing same-sex marriage, even if only civilly, will require the Church to be disestablished, with the attendant mess, bother, and upset that would cause.
All this is in aid of trying to get the Government to abandon the proposal for same-sex marriage and leave lesbian and gay couples in England and Wales with the second-class civil partnership.
Unfortunately, they are coming up with egg on their mitres over this. Pressure for disestablishment of the Church of England has grown over the last, say, 20 years. People from all walks of life, including many committed churchgoers, believe that establishment of the Church has stifled diversity in the hierarchy, attached the Church to the State with an umbilical cord of velvet, and ensured that the Government of the day has a veto over the selection of its bishops and cathedral deans and clergy. None of this is good. And if the Church is saying that the civil government of the country is forcing it to consider asking for disestablishment, then most people will say, Good! Bring it on! Go for it!
Many C of E clergy defend establishment because (in their view) it means that the Church of England is here to serve the entire nation in times of greatest need, such as with baptisms, marriages, and funerals (all of which the incumbent of the territorial parish of the parents, bride and groom, and the deceased are required by civil law to provide). I have always countered with this: what would prevent the Church from requiring its clergy to provide these occasional offices to anyone who approaches them if the Church were disestablished? Nothing, is the answer to that one. The Church gets no money from the Government, so being disestablished would not decrease its income (all things being equal). The Queen could still be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England—she is a patron of many charities, Colonel-in-Chief of regiments in the Armed Forces, and many other things that have nothing to do with her legal position as Monarch and Head of State. Bishops could then be elected by Diocesan Synods and confirmed by General Synod in the same way that bishops in the Episcopal Church are elected by Diocesan Convention and confirmed by the House of Bishops and the Standing Committee of the several dioceses.
The Church would be free to criticise the Government of the day without compromising its 26 bishops in the House of Lords, as they wouldn't be there as of right of office. And House of Lords reform would be made easier, as there would be no requirement to consider the positions of the bishops who now sit in it.
What is most comforting is that my friend, Dr. Louie Crew, the founder of Integrity/USA, started all this decades ago when he placed an ad in the national Episcopal Church newspaper looking for other lesbians and gay men of faith to gather together for comfort and support. Before Louie, the subject was not on the docket, no one was interested, and clergy discouraged gay men and lesbians from joining and taking an active part in the church. Afterwards, the closet was no longer as attractive a place to be. Gay and lesbian rights for full inclusion in the church began there. Look where we are now.
Canon Dr. Giles Fraser, the Priest-in-Charge of my neighbouring parish, wrote a response on the Grauniad's website which blisteringly attacked the Church and the bishops. He's a straight man on the side of the angels, and I'm proud that he's in the deanery of which I am the Lay Chair.
How will this all end? I suspect that the bishops have shot their wad on this one. There has been so much opprobrium heaped on their heads in the last half a day, so much scorn, contempt, and derision laid at their door that their intervention has done their cause (keeping the status quo) irreparable harm. They have shown us the bogeyman at the church door, and everyone is now laughing. The bogeyman is blinking and wondering what all the laughing is about.
In short, the Church says that the connection between religious marriage and civil marriage will be broken by allowing same-sex marriages (as most religions will not perform them). It states that it believes that court action in the European Court of Human Rights will force the churches to witness same-sex marriages on church premises. It does not believe that the Government can change unilaterally the definition of "marriage" as being between one man and one woman, since that definition has persisted through time. It frets that, since a heterosexual marriage is not actually effected until the partners consummate it through intercourse, a same-sex one will not have the same definition as a heterosexual one and thus the heterosexual one will be made less of a marriage by legalising same-sex marriages.
And, finally, it unleashes the "D" word: disestablishment. It fears that allowing same-sex marriage, even if only civilly, will require the Church to be disestablished, with the attendant mess, bother, and upset that would cause.
All this is in aid of trying to get the Government to abandon the proposal for same-sex marriage and leave lesbian and gay couples in England and Wales with the second-class civil partnership.
Unfortunately, they are coming up with egg on their mitres over this. Pressure for disestablishment of the Church of England has grown over the last, say, 20 years. People from all walks of life, including many committed churchgoers, believe that establishment of the Church has stifled diversity in the hierarchy, attached the Church to the State with an umbilical cord of velvet, and ensured that the Government of the day has a veto over the selection of its bishops and cathedral deans and clergy. None of this is good. And if the Church is saying that the civil government of the country is forcing it to consider asking for disestablishment, then most people will say, Good! Bring it on! Go for it!
Many C of E clergy defend establishment because (in their view) it means that the Church of England is here to serve the entire nation in times of greatest need, such as with baptisms, marriages, and funerals (all of which the incumbent of the territorial parish of the parents, bride and groom, and the deceased are required by civil law to provide). I have always countered with this: what would prevent the Church from requiring its clergy to provide these occasional offices to anyone who approaches them if the Church were disestablished? Nothing, is the answer to that one. The Church gets no money from the Government, so being disestablished would not decrease its income (all things being equal). The Queen could still be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England—she is a patron of many charities, Colonel-in-Chief of regiments in the Armed Forces, and many other things that have nothing to do with her legal position as Monarch and Head of State. Bishops could then be elected by Diocesan Synods and confirmed by General Synod in the same way that bishops in the Episcopal Church are elected by Diocesan Convention and confirmed by the House of Bishops and the Standing Committee of the several dioceses.
The Church would be free to criticise the Government of the day without compromising its 26 bishops in the House of Lords, as they wouldn't be there as of right of office. And House of Lords reform would be made easier, as there would be no requirement to consider the positions of the bishops who now sit in it.
What is most comforting is that my friend, Dr. Louie Crew, the founder of Integrity/USA, started all this decades ago when he placed an ad in the national Episcopal Church newspaper looking for other lesbians and gay men of faith to gather together for comfort and support. Before Louie, the subject was not on the docket, no one was interested, and clergy discouraged gay men and lesbians from joining and taking an active part in the church. Afterwards, the closet was no longer as attractive a place to be. Gay and lesbian rights for full inclusion in the church began there. Look where we are now.
Canon Dr. Giles Fraser, the Priest-in-Charge of my neighbouring parish, wrote a response on the Grauniad's website which blisteringly attacked the Church and the bishops. He's a straight man on the side of the angels, and I'm proud that he's in the deanery of which I am the Lay Chair.
How will this all end? I suspect that the bishops have shot their wad on this one. There has been so much opprobrium heaped on their heads in the last half a day, so much scorn, contempt, and derision laid at their door that their intervention has done their cause (keeping the status quo) irreparable harm. They have shown us the bogeyman at the church door, and everyone is now laughing. The bogeyman is blinking and wondering what all the laughing is about.
