Civil Partnerships in the Church of England

Background:

To many of you it will be no news that the Bishops of the Church of England yesterday published a statement outlining their guidelines regarding clergy who want to enter into civil partnerships (i.e. legally formalising same-sex relationships).

The statement can be found here and an excellent survey of media reaction can be found on the typically excellent and comprehensive Thinking Anglicans blog. Another useful document (and not too long either) is this briefing paper by Andrew Goddard for Fulcrum (which is a sort of centreist evangelical spokesgroup). If you don't have time to read the whole document then read the section called "CPA - An Assessment" and then "Option III" and "Towards Option III".

My comments:

There is noticeable in a great many of the responses to the bishops' document and in the wider debate about the question of same sex couples within the church the assumption that somehow the sexual lives of clergy should be regarded as existing in some kind of isolated, sacred realm into which public intrusion is unacceptable. Snide comments about whether the bishops intend to install CCTV cameras in vicarage bedrooms to check there is no funny business going on abound. The fact is that sexual activity has public consequences and thus a public dimension. It is not a private, autonomous realm which belongs to me alone, but my decisions affect others. The claim is then made that what consenting adults do together is up to them along. This rather assumes that one has the right to be able to see the negative consequences of an act before one will accept it is immoral, as if ultimately we are the arbiters of right and wrong, based on our near-perfect knowledge of the consequences of our actions. Jesus and his first followers made it clear otherwise: being in ministry is not just about what you do, it is also about who you are. It is not a job nor a profession nor a career, although it may bear some aspects of all of these. It is a calling - and calling involves the whole person, not just the hours of the working day, not just particular skills or training, not just particular activities (although again all of these things matter to some extent). And it because it involves the whole person, there can be no autonomous area, no private sphere in which your actions have consequences only for oneself. Ones 'private' life must be an attempt to be an exemplary expression of the good news that in Jesus God has set us free from the power of our rebellion against God into a new way of life. It will fail in that attempt, and when it does there is of course patience and forgiveness - but it cannot persistently refuse to make such an attempt without requiring public censure from the church. The old-fashioned word for this concept is integrity.

This situation is essentially one of the bishops' own making. Over many years now they have uncritically accepted contemporary norms by refusing to acknowledge the public significance of the sexual sphere, and most of them have consistently turned a blind eye to couples in long-term same-sex relationships, not treating an open and honest discussion of every aspect of a person's life as important and relevant to his or her suitability for ministry (be it sexual, financial, prayerful or whatever - all things that might be perceived as belonging to the private sphere but which in fact have crucial public implications for clergy whose calling and lives must be integrally related). This has created the present situation in which it is now de facto perfectly acceptable in most dioceses for clergy to be in a practising same-sex relationship, even whilst the church de iure teaches that such relationships are wrong. These clergy can hardly be criticised for being upset when the church suddenly turns on them to demand that they either lie, lose their jobs or not avail themselves of the opportunity to secure legal protection for their partnership. The bishops have permitted them to remain in ministry instead of confronting them with that troublesome but evangelical choice: your lifestyle must either be consistent with Christian teaching or you cannot be in a publicly recognised ministry as a representative of the church. Jesus calls us to repent and believe - but it has become fashionably sufficient simply to believe. The solution is a long-term and painful one for the bishops: start consistently upholding the teaching you have signed up to and be prepared to confront people about their lifestyle choice as Jesus was. If people refuse to bring their lives into conformity with Christian teaching then simply do not appoint them to roles in public ministry, unless you want to be left without a legal, moral or pastoral leg to stand on.

Comments

[Jeff]

Thank you for this! Well said. May God bless the C of E and you for your faithful witness!

Jeff

[janny]

I was pleased to read the C of E has finally made it clear where the church stands. Now it is up to the bishops to uphold those teaching. I'm a first time reader and will return. Thanks