• Coupled Together

    Perhaps one of the most unexpected things that could have happened this year in religious terms is that in the last days of the year, both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church have moved to similar positions on same-sex couples.

    Now, precisely what those positions are is complex, almost falling into the realm of holy mystery. However, it is clear that some form of prayer is going to be allowed in each of those churches for which the context of those prayers is a public recognition of such a couple. Both churches seem to want to have their wedding cake and eat it however and seem to be saying that whilst such love is the context for such a blessing, it is not the fact of that love or the union, partnership or marriage which is being blessed. It is a position that isn’t easy to understand, not least because it is nonsense. However, that’s where each church seems to be.

    In the Church of England this comes after an enormously long and expensive process which has resulted in the bishops of the Church of England publishing a set of prayers and commending them to that Church. These can be used during already existing services but not as yet in stand-alone services. This is a curious position as it seems to stand a good chance of annoying just about everyone. Generally speaking, my view has been that the best answer to people who don’t approve of same-sex marriages/partnerships/blessings/hand-fastings/broom-leapings or whatever is that they simply shouldn’t enter into them and they don’t have to go to them. However the Church of England bishops by insisting that their pseudo-blessings have to take place during pre-existing kinds of services are basically insisting that those who go to church regularly and who don’t approve of such ceremonies are going to have their noses rubbed in them. Cue maximum offence all around. The pseudo-blessings are not really what the vast majority of what people who want same-sex couples to be treated with dignity and respect want to happen and they are going to be force-fed to at least some of those who don’t approve of them at all. The texts of the prayers themselves don’t seem particularly innovative either – they seem pretty much to be texts of the kinds of prayers that C of E clergy have been able to do all along.

    Meanwhile, in the Roman Catholic Church there’s also been a process of introspective reflection going on for the last few years. The Synodal process is far less like a decision making process that Anglicans are familiar with but there is more than a whiff of change in the air. Today’s announcement from the Pope that in some circumstances those in same-sex coupledom may be blessed by priests is a wonderful Christmas surprise for those in that church who find a blessing in the Pope’s emphasis on mercy and pastoral care. Again, it is not the coupledom that is being blessed but the people in the couple being blessed. But again, the very fact of the coupledom of the couple is the only context that gives rise to such blessings. Once again, much like with the Church of England, it is difficult to make much sense of this without an extensive knowledge of the church as a political animal with leaders trying to bring about change whilst also being buffetted by forces that are not within their control, forces whose own leaders have a completely different vision for the future. Again, the suggestion is being made that what the Pope is saying can happen is no different from what Roman Catholic priests have been able to do in the past. All he seems to be doing is making that position a matter of public record.

    I am reminded of the Roman Catholic priest that I know who claims that on the day that the Roman Catholic Church first ordains women as priests, the liturgy will begin with the words, “As the Roman Catholic Church has always taught…”

    All of this seems a world away from the position of the Scottish Episcopal Church in which same-sex couples can just get married in exactly the same way as opposite-sex couples. Indeed, we’ve largely stopped talking about this and moved on since it simply became a matter of conscience after our General Synod in 2023. It isn’t a controversy any more and it is difficult to think that the position that we’ve come to is not the one that others will come around to in the end. Respecting everyone’s consciences is the only place that the Church of England can logically end up on this issue but respecting conscience isn’t to be underestimated within Roman Catholic thinking either.

    A curious and unexpected thing is how closely the positions of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church are at the moment. At least in the UK, they are both quite a long way behind public opinion. They are also significantly behind the position of those who claim to be their members. People are often surprised that the Roman Catholic Church has been shown in a number of social attitudes surveys to have a membership that is more strongly behind same-sex marriages than the other churches in this country.

    These two churches seem unexpectedly coupled together in offering blessings that fall a long way away from what those they want to bless seem to want. However, the most curious thing of all is that despite moving to the same position, it feels as though the Church of England is moving backwards whilst the Roman Catholic Church is moving forwards.

    Neither has ended up with a stable position that will stand the test of time. I wouldn’t like to place a bet on which one moves to a more inclusive position first.

10 responses to “The Tim Farron Question and the Archbishop of Canterbury”

  1. Bro David Avatar
    Bro David

    This brings up an interesting memory with the long-time leader of Changing Attitude England (CA). This leader was taken in by Andrew Marin, founder of the Marin Foundation (MF) when he visited the UK in conjunction with some big outdoor Christian festival you lot hold anually. Marin and his followers were attending Pride Marches/Parades around the US and getting their photos taken hunging GLBTQ folks in the marches. His foundation claims to be attempting to build a bridge between the LGBTQ community and conservative Christian communities.
    Marin was invited to comment on the CA blog. He spouted his pablum message of love for LGBTQ folks. Then, in a comment, I point blank asked Marin if he believed that we LGBTQ folks were sinners and needed to repent and become straight. He refused to answer the question. He said that I was asking the “wrong” question. Then he gave this answer verbatim from the Marin Foundation website;
    “We call these the “Big 5.” They are:
    Do you think that gays and lesbians are born that way?
    Do you think homosexuality is a sin?
    Can a LGBTQ person “change?”
    Do you think that someone can be gay and Christian?
    Are LGBTQ people going to hell?
    “The one common theme of these “Big 5” is that they are all close-ended, yes-or-no questions. Each of them must be answered with one word and they are all meant to end conversation. Based solely on one’s close-ended answers, it is easy to label, judge and dismiss the other community entirely. Thus we dehumanize a community based off of a word rather than create a productive conversation. In essence, by close-ended answers either the conservative or the LGBTQ community judges who you are, what you believe, whose team you’re on and how you should be treated.
    “Rather than answering close-ended questions, The Marin Foundation seeks to elevate the conversation and continual fruitful dialogue, as tense as that may be. This is a model taken from Jesus throughout the Gospels. Of the 25 times Jesus was asked close-ended questions, only three times did he respond with a yes or no. These three times were only after he was arrested and admitting he was the Messiah. Prior to this, Jesus never answered close-ended questions with a yes or a no. Instead, he elevated the conversation.”
    I spent the next three days searching the MF website and reading through articles and white papers. I realized that it was a ministry to the LGBTQ of wolves in sheep’s clothing. These people were trying to love vulnerable LGBTQ folks into their embrace, to slowly chip away at them until they had brought them to realize that their sexual/gender orientation was false, acting upon it was a sin and they needed to seek the help of Jesus to beome heterosexual and accept their gender assigned by birth.
    I posted my findings on the CA blog and was promply chastized and barred from further posts. In a personal email from the leader of CA I was ripped a new arsehole and declared anathema. Sadly, even LGBTQ folks in prominent positions are taken in by these folks. I think that we need to continually ask the Big 5, of everyone, epsecially those non-LGBTQ folks who profess to be our allies and supporters, secular or religious.

  2. Peter Davison Avatar

    Good column.
    So who is entitled to express opinions on ethical issues? I’ve long understood it’s the duty of all of us to have INFORMED consciences and to obey them. We may wish to consult people we believe to be more informed than we are, such as our presumed leaders, but in the end, when asked, we should at least be ready to state, however firmly or tentatively, where we stand. As for our leaders, they may or may not be better informed than we are; but we also know that ‘experts’ may be people who know more and more about less and less – and that politics often intrude into our public morality. Much of ethics is situational. That said, Jesus seems to have had much more compassion for alleged ‘sinners’ than for those who chose to label them as such. And much of our present troubles seem to stem from our desire to label and scapegoat people who appear to be different. What would happen if we simply accepted people for who they are and learned to accept that love is indeed ‘a many splendoured thing’?

  3. Graham Evans Avatar
    Graham Evans

    A very interesting new perspective and certainly a question that should be put to all the Anglican bishops who sit in the house of Lords.

  4. The Rev Sr Helena Barrett, OSB Avatar
    The Rev Sr Helena Barrett, OSB

    Absolutely spot on, Kelvin. The ABC should be asked The Question until he is sufficiently exhausted to give a clear and honest answer (whatever it may turn out to be) instead of the usual yards of ecclesiastical flannel.

    1. June B Butler Avatar
      June B Butler

      “The ABC should be asked The Question until he is sufficiently exhausted to give a clear and honest answer…”

      Justin Welby wails piteously: “I’m not the pope.”

  5. the Rev. Grant Barber Avatar
    the Rev. Grant Barber

    I always wondered how the preachers in Pepys’ diary could preach such long sermons. I think I understand better now. So glad we’ve already settled the matter in the Episcopal Church. (Oh, the answer can be a succinct “no, not sin just by its nature).

  6. Bernard Silverman Avatar
    Bernard Silverman

    if I asked an archbishop whether deliberately stamping on someone’s toe is a sin they would give a direct answer. So they should be asked the Farron question over and over again until they do similarly. If the Prime Minister can do that so can they. Indeed the question should be “the PM thinks that gay sex is not a sin. Was she right?”

  7. Kate Odling Avatar
    Kate Odling

    Very interesting. I always think that if someone does not give a clear answer to a question that they have something to hide or that their true belief/thought would be unpopular. I think the ABC has looked very uncomfortable when any direct questioning about LGBT issues are raised. So someone should ask & not accept anything but a straightforward answer. My final thought is that we are all qualified to have an opinion – what’s wrong with that?

  8. Bruce Gulland Avatar

    Whatever I think about the answer to the question, I did rather enjoy the style of your post – you had me on the edge of my seat!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Advent and How Religion Works

    Religion is a funny thing. It is on the one hand about doing what comes naturally to people. And on the other hand it is about doing the very opposite. Let me explain. Some aspects of religion are about what comes naturally and easily to people – things like prayer and things like the way…

  • Statement regarding Prayers for Prince George

    Nearly two years ago, I wrote a piece about how campaigners might change the Church of England to make it more inclusive of LGBT people. The post was copied and pasted elsewhere and commented on widely at the time. In those two years I can’t remember any negative comment about it. It included the suggestion…

  • Inclusive Language and Politeness

    Every now and then I learn how to be just a bit more polite to someone. It isn’t that I’m particularly rude, at least, I hope not. It is more that I’m still learning about people and still learning about how people prefer to be treated. Meeting a lot of people as I do means…

  • The Episcopal Way of Death

    I shall spend a considerable part of my work today thinking about how to help the congregation here to face death. Face their own deaths and face the reality of the deaths of those they have known through the years – the reality of those whom they have loved with a passion and the reality…