Mixing Signals

At the end of March, the legislation allowing people of the same sex to marry under the State comes into force. A month ago the House of Bishops sent out their Pastoral Letter and attached Advice relating to same-sex marriage.

Now, the bishops are struggling to come up with some way of proceeding which preserves their sense of themselves, and the Anglican Church as a whole, as nice, liberal, tolerant people, and their equally compelling self-image as people attempting to follow conscientiously Scripture and the tradition of the Christian Church. They don’t want to be horrible to anyone, and that isn’t actually a bad thing to aim at. The trouble, of course, is that where there are irreconcilable opinions you can’t help doing or saying something that one side or another will interpret as being horrible. There is a lot in the statement which is positive, and even humble: in fact, the bishops seem to fall over themselves in their insistence on ‘acknowledging that as yet our knowledge and understanding are partial’. The whole document gives the sense of groping towards understanding rather than trumpeting a settled opinion of the magisterium, and that, too, is not a bad thing. The negative aspects of the statement – that clergy, subject to ordination vows and canon law which demand a certain representative mode of life which is not that of laypeople, should not marry members of their own sex themselves and that people in a same-sex marriage will not be recommended for ordination – are convoluted, handwringing efforts to bring about some sort of consistency of behaviour where no consensus exists; or, viewed more cynically, efforts to make it look as though the bishops want such consistency for the benefit of hostile observers. But I can see where they’re coming from.

I saw a letter from a bishop to his own local clergy, passing on the link to the document to ensure they all knew it was there. He went on, again, in what I think is a tremendous effort to be positive:

You will notice, that a pastoral response of prayers is encouraged, where appropriate, to gay couples who may enquire about the possibility of some form of service. This would not be any formal rite or liturgy but, as paragraph 22 of the Appendix states, a 'more informal kind of prayer, at the request of the couple, might be appropriate in the light of circumstances'.

It was the last sentence which made my heart sink:

My own view is that this might be best done in the couple's home.

Why might that be? I’m writing as somebody who doesn’t think two people of the same sex can celebrate the sacrament of matrimony, and when I said that some time ago was regarded with incredulity by some of my more liberal Christian friends who couldn’t believe I could express such wicked and objectionable opinions. And even I gib at this. Surely, if we’re trying to be consistent, a person, thing or activity which can be prayed for in private can be prayed for in public? To say otherwise in this case implies either that you think the relationship you’re praying for is sinful; or that you think others will, and so publicity should be avoided. The former idea would be bizarre: to ‘pray with’ a homosexual couple surely assumes that there is nothing inherently sinful about their relationship; you wouldn’t go to someone’s house to pray, say, for God’s purposes and will to be revealed as they were about to engage in adultery – would you? If it’s the latter thought behind the bishop’s words, well, the best you can say is that it’s understandable. What it really represents is the desire to make the Church appear welcoming and pastorally sensitive while not actually being willing to follow through and face the trouble that would result even from the comparatively moderate position of praying for gay couples in a church.

Note, also, the conditional, personal tone of the sentence: ‘my own view’, ‘might best be done’. The bishop knows that we clergy are canonically bound to do what we are told when given direct instructions, and quite rightly. But this stops short of issuing an instruction and instead disguises it as a personal opinion. I wonder which it’s actually intended to be. I suppose it may also be the case that this bishop suspects there are some clergy who would actively disobey any instruction not to pray for gay couples in church, so he doesn’t issue one, to avoid the confrontation.

It’s really trying to have one’s cake and eat it in two entirely different matters, sex and authority, within a mere 14 words, and tells you a great deal about how the Church of England works – or doesn’t.