• “Issues” is no more

    Earlier today, the General Synod of the Church of England took a hugely significant step. It removed a document called “Issues in Human Sexuality” from the discernment process for people being assessed for clerical vocations in the Church of England.

    Oh, I can hear you yawning from here. But it really is important and this is a significant step forward.

    “Issues” as it has come to be known became a touchstone for the Church of England. It was originally a statement from the Church of England Bishops about what they thought about sex and sexuality. It was never intended to become something that people had to agree with before they could be considered for ordination but it became so. Of course being the Church of England, people tried to make a distinction between agreeing with the document and agreeing to live in compliance with the document. Such corrosive thinking simply led people to tell lies and I’ve always thought that all Christians were agreed that telling lies was a bad thing that none of us should do.

    Issues was horrendous back in the 1990s when it was introduced. It set different sexual standards for clergy and laity, it referred to gay people as homophiles, it stated that bisexual people were inherently unfaithful to partners, it seemed to condone conversion therapy and much more. It didn’t just use language that we now find outdated, it used language that was prejudicial at the time and deeply harmful to huge numbers of people. I was trying to become an ordinand when it was published. It was devastating.

    It affected other parts of the Anglican Communion too. I know people who trained for ministry in Scotland who were told that living within the no-sex-for-the-homophiles boundaries of Issues was expected of them too. And many of us went to Selection Conferences for ministry that took place in the Church of England where the selectors were trained to expect potential ordinands to indicate that they would live within the boundaries of this document. For a while, we sent clergy from Scotland on Selection Conferences in England with a letter stating that this document didn’t apply in Scotland. But we were still using a system that was based entirely around discrimination against lesbian, gay and bisexual people. (I don’t think transgender people were addressed in the document).

    My thoughts today are with those whose vocations were crushed by Issues. And those who managed to have vocations upheld but whose personal lives were damaged by it. Some people lived unhappy lives that might have been completely different. My particular thoughts tonight are of a wonderful priest I once worked with whose love never spoke its name. He loved another priest and remained closeted – living or seeming to be living within Issues because that is what his church expected of him. When he died, his obituary in the Church Times did not mention the love of his life. He was presumed to be living within the boundaries of Issues and he died being presumed to be living within it. It is a simple reality that some people were expected to lie in life and could not have truths told when they died. (And that meant others who were beloved by clergy sometimes went unacknowledged and were ignored at funerals). 

    For the sake of him and hundreds of others whose lives have been harmed by this document both within and beyond the Church of England, I welcome the fact that Issues is now gone.

    And now the next questions.

    Will the Church of England stop selling Issues and presumably making money from the wretched document? It is still on sale on Amazon after all.

    And more importantly for everyone.

    • When will we hear apologies from church leaders for the harms that churches have done in relation to policies on human sexuality?
    • How will UK churches communicate their repentance for previous harms done, to churches in other parts of the world which have enthusiastically endorsed such policies in response to their adoption here – particularly those churches which think of the Church of England as their mother church?
    • What will compensation for the anti-gay policies of churches eventually look like?

11 responses to “Equal Marriage – Questions people haven’t thought of #1”

  1. Stewart Avatar

    As I see Scottish Law, all partnerships are registered by the Civil Authorities. In the case of Glasgow you have to go to Martha Street and fill in the appropriate paperwork. All varieties of couples can have a civil partnership officiated by a Civil Registrar.

    However only Man-Woman partnerships can be solomnised in a religious setting. Kelvin, you should be allowed to solomnise all partnerships (Man-Woman, Man-Man, Woman-Woman) in St Mary’s.

  2. william Avatar
    william

    Do we mean a ‘moral difference’ in the sight of God, or in the eyes of a nation at a particular point in history, or in the understanding of practising homosexuals, or in the perspective of a christian church?
    Without defining the audience ‘moral difference’ is a slippery term!

  3. kelvin Avatar

    In this case, all that I’m interested in is what the Scottish Episcopal Church thinks it is doing.

  4. Erp Avatar
    Erp

    How does the SEC consider opposite sex couples who get a civil marriage and then years later want something in church?

    Now from my initial humanist point of view there has been no difference in moral status between a civil partnership, a civil marriage, or exchanging equivalent promises in cases where a legal ceremony is not possible (e.g., slaves in times past or same sex couples in many places) though there are legal differences.

  5. kelvin Avatar

    The SEC regards couples who get married in a civil ceremony and couples who get married in a religious ceremony as being equally married. There is no distinction between them

    This is, I think, different to the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland.

    1. Seph Avatar
      Seph

      If the SEC opts out of the same-sex marriage legislation, will it recognise civilly-wed same-sex couples as being married? If not, then the hypothetical same-sex couple are not married in the eyes of the church. If the SEC decides to recognise same-sex marriages but won’t perform them, there is no difference and we should stop messing around.

      I imagine people going from civil partnership to marriage will make as much or as little of a big deal of it as they like.

  6. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    For me the question is intent – if the couple intend to be married but are denied by a civil authority, they are married in the eyes of God. However it is very plain that currently the law wishes to consider they are NOT married, and it is a hard thing indeed to keep your end up against the law. Therefore they ‘need’ to be married to affirm to themselves and the society that they are indeed married.

    The question is ‘what makes a marriage: set promises made according to form: the understanding between the two marrying: the understanding of society of what marriage is.’ In practice it is very hard indeed to have a marriage without all three components.

    CU was designed to have no promises, and no understanding by society that it was marriage. Compassionate registrars saw at once that the former was impossible. Generally, society has not fully embraced the idea that the latter is fully true. They usually think it is just near enough. Some people then think it is near enough to consider it marriage, and others that it is quite near enough, thank you. Hence those pressing for equal marriage – to make it clear once and for all.

    1. Geoff Avatar

      Having been vexed by this question myself, I think Rosemary is onto something. After all, the ministers of marriage are the couple. I have long advocated that couples denied marriage “for fear of the religious authorities” exchange their vows and present themselves at the altar rail during Benediction of the MBS for a guerilla blessing.

  7. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    Interestingly, the church is still in places reluctant to marry some divorcees (where, for instance a new relationship has been formed before the marriage ended, and the new relationship killed the old) but once civilly married – married they are.

    1. william Avatar
      william

      In the eyes of God?

  8. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    @william. I am agnostic on the question of whether people whose adultery caused the end of an earlier marriage are married in the eyes of God, if that is what you are asking. It is an issue on which I have to admit I am incapable of dispassion. Maybe they are. God is endlessly forgiving and compassionate. It will hardly be news to anybody that I do not always rise to God’s standards.

    I am sure that faithful gay couples who consider themselves married and have taken all the legal steps they can to be as-close-to-married ARE married in the eyes of God, but this latter belief will hardly come as news to those who know me and my family.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • The Friends of St Eucalyptus

    Some years ago now, I introduced readers of this blog to the twin churches of St Eucalyptus on the Rocks and St Anaglypta by the Skerry. They were dreamt up by me in order to illustrate a point. I was trying to get people to think about whether bread and wine could be consecrated by…

  • If you meet a God who is racist. Call it out.

    Content Warning. This gospel reading contains scenes which some viewers might find disturbing. Content Warning. Viewer discretion is advised. Content Warning. This exegesis contains strong language which some listeners may find offensive. Content Warning. The language used in this interpretation of the gospel contains expressions which were in common use at the time which may…

  • Leah’s Sad Eyes

    I have a question for those of you who went to Sunday School when you were young. What’s the least appropriate thing you remember being taught there? As we’ve been going through the stories from Genesis over the last few weeks, I keep thinking to myself – gosh, I remember learning this story in Sunday…