The C of E is right to prevaricate on gay marriage – The Spectator
On Tuesday morning it was theology hour in the House of Commons. The Labour MP Ben Bradshaw had requested an urgent question on the Church of England’s latest prevarication on homosexuality. Ahead of next month’s synod, the bishops have decided that gay marriage will not be up for discussion, even though a full debate was expected after six years of consultation.
Can the established Church continue to be out of kilter with the law of the land? Can MPs legitimately put pressure on it to reform its teaching? Bradshaw and others, including Penny Mordaunt, are muttering threats of disestablishment. Their case is weakened by the fact that parliament promised, ten years ago this week, that religious groups would not be coerced into performing gay marriages. As the C of E is widely agreed to be a religious organisation, the MPs amicably concluded that this circle could not be squared.
To placate progressives from inside the Church and out, the bishops last week gave the green light for the blessing of same-sex unions. Sort of. Clergy will be permitted to bless couples in same-sex unions, but not the actual unions. Because the distinction is difficult to monitor, conservatives are probably right to see it as the beginning of a slippery slope to the straightforward blessing of gay unions. Unplacated progressives are planning to table an amendment to scrap the blessings and instead ‘bring forward immediate legislation to provide for equal marriage in church’. But few think that there is a majority at the synod for such legislation.
I have a confession to make about the Church’s stubborn determination to prevaricate. I’m in favour. It seems to me that snail-paced change is the right approach. And I think that I speak for the quiet majority of Anglicans. The average Anglican is a moderate liberal, with mixed feelings that are difficult to express. She’s not exactly on the fence, because there isn’t really a fence to sit on, but she rather wishes that there was one. In the absence of such a fence, she sees glacial slowness as necessary.
Some changes in the moral landscape are properly slow. We need time to adapt, to work through our doubts
But in fact another development is quietly under way. It seems that the bishops want to end the rule that gay clergy must be celibate. This rule has been in place since 1991, and was reaffirmed in 2014, when gay clergy were permitted to enter into civil partnerships if they promised to remain celibate. Now that all the emphasis is on the full acceptance of homosexuals in the Church, this rule is being dropped in the long grass. In effect, taking a conservative line on gay marriage allows the Church to be reformist on the issue that used to be central before 2014: the ordination of homosexuals.
From one perspective, the Church is charting a moderately liberal course with impressive skill. This sounds odd, because we’re so used to media reports of an institution in terminal disarray. But the fact is that the C of E has kept its traditionalists on board, and its progressives too. It has kept a lid on the civil war.
Many liberals will see my laid-back approach as a failure of moral urgency: justice delayed is justice denied. But as I see it, some changes in the moral landscape are properly slow. We need time to adapt, to work through our doubts and misgivings. And sometimes we should air them, however awkward this is. In particular, it might be good for conservatives to see that not all liberals are full of zealous certainty on the issue; some of us remain a bit conflicted.
Though a liberal Anglican, I have been reluctant to counter the assertion that homosexuality is sinful with a fulsome affirmation of gay rights. It’s hard to say why. But let’s try, though it will doubtless cause irritation. I suppose I have been wary of homosexuality for two reasons. First, its racy, hedonistic side, its special ability to detach sex from commitment. Yes, it’s unfair to suggest that this is intrinsic to homosexuality, but stereotypes can’t really be avoided if we are to discuss any cultural phenomenon.
Also, I have felt wary of homosexuality’s association with moral righteousness and spiritual depth. I can see that this is a natural response to being marginalised and despised, but I still felt wary of gay rights as an alternative evangelism. For a while this was embodied by Gene Robinson, the openly gay bishop of New Hampshire. When I interviewed him in 2008 he came close to saying that being gay made one a better Christian.
When I started writing about religion, I wanted to focus on big ideas about faith and reason and church and state, not sexuality. Frankly it annoyed me that the gay issue got all the attention. But I was a liberal Anglican, and so I put the case for reform. Let’s hurry up and let clergy be openly gay (as that was the issue then) so the whole matter could fade away.
Then came David Cameron’s push for gay marriage. And the issue became more difficult still. Moderate liberals like me had swallowed our doubts, which were maybe just prejudices. Now the goalposts had suddenly shifted, and we had to reconsider. I was instinctively opposed to gay marriage. It felt like a clumsy tampering with the reassuring traditionalism of marriage, the trusty old narrative of a man and a woman producing a family together. Don’t we need such simple narratives in a confusing world? Also, I vaguely felt that marriage was part of my ‘identity’. I was uneasy about it being redefined. Aren’t straight people allowed an identity too?
But when gay marriage was voted into law, I began to feel that the Church had better back it. Otherwise it was at odds with the morality of the liberal state. Otherwise a reactionary image would get in the way of its mission.
But what does a moderate liberal really believe about homosexuality? That it should be affirmed as a fully valid alternative to heterosexuality, but also that the natural conservatism of human culture should be respected, so change should be slow. I think that we should emphasise that the overwhelming direction of the New Testament is anti-legalistic. Although Paul condemns homosexual acts, his wider message is that holy rules are dubious, even a barrier to the knowledge of God. And in this he seems to follow Jesus: there’s one passage to this effect that seems accidentally relevant to homosexuality. It is not what goes into a person that condemns him, but the words and actions that come out of him. I also see great relevance in the simple command: ‘Judge not.’