Jonathan Wynne-Jones reports (supposedly) the “first gay wedding” in the C of E. He then goes on to claim that this is a test of Archbishop Williams’ ability to act. I would be very surprised if this were the “first gay wedding” as opposed to the first to get public attention, and I suspect Mr Wynne-Jones would be also. I would also be surprised if he, as a specialist journalist, wasn’t well aware that Rowan Williams has virtually no power to exercise here. That is why I think he’s guilty of malicious journalism.
Having said that, this whole farrago (should that be virago?) sounds pretty ghastly. As “gay weddings” go this has a touch of the Wayne and Colleen about it, albeit a few centuries out of date. The pretentious order of service combines an illegal rite of blessing with an equally illegal Eucharistic prayer, and various other pseudo-traditional elements.
I am one of those who believes that any public liturgy that pretends to be an act of the church when the church has failed to agree the theology is fundamentally dishonest.
I’m all for recognising civil partnerships. If the church was agreed about what it was doing, I would be quite comfortable blessing them. But that’s not where we are, and I fundamentally disagree with using acts of worship for political statements.
Whether we are talking about traditional theological categories of marriage, or doing contemporary queer theological analysis, it seems to me that we’re a long way from any kind of agreement. Traditionalists are still in a kind of fantasy land about equating biblical views of marriage with nineteenth and twentieth century heterosexual romanticism. Their serious argument about linking the sexual relationship with procreation might work a lot better if they were RCs condemning contraception. Gay people have yet to produce a coherent argument for the marriage model other than conformity to the straight world, and in fact are seriously conflicted about this. Is marriage just too straight to do justice to the God who queers our human conventions?
Rowan Williams can’t actually do anything, except make (probably unproductive) public statements. He could, however, do a lot worse than encouraging the Bishop of London to require his clergy to only use forms of service authorised and allowed by canon, as they swore in their ordination oaths. Nearly every evangelical and catholic traditionalist would be equally guilty of breaking them. By and large they have done so with more coherent arguments and better taste, nonetheless legally they are guilty of the same offence.
6 responses so far ↓
1 John Hobbins // Jun 15, 2008 at 6:11 am
As an outsider to Anglicanism, I find the role currently accorded to bishops and to trans-congregational structures of the church of England to be too minimal. In my current setting, United Methodist, all kinds of things done by clergy, including presiding over same-sex ceremonies in an official capacity, are actionable offenses. It’s called the rule of law. Bishops can and do intervene; ecclesiastical courts and clergy sessions can and do require colleagues to relinquish their credentials according to established procedures if they violate church discipline.
It’s no fun to force someone out who violates oaths of office. But, within limits, surely it makes no sense not to.
I assume there is some sort of rule of law in the C of E. If so, how does it work?
2 doug // Jun 15, 2008 at 7:42 am
I don’t know enough about the specifics of some of this, John, so my answer must be a little general. The situation in England, as opposed to elsewhere, is complicated by both the hangover trappings of establishment which makes proceedings against disobedient clergy extremely cumbersome, extraordinarily expensive, and in the past they have often been counter-productive. This situation is currently being changed, but the new legislation is not yet in place. The other complicating factor is the freehold rights many clergy have to their parishes which in many respects means that there is no halfway house between the full legal trial and doing nothing. Over the last century this has led to anarchy as first anglo-catholics and now evangelicals and liberals break their vows with both exuberance and impunity. The anglo-catholics broke theirs and justified it by tradition. The evangelicals break theirs and justify it by the Bible. The liberals break theirs and justify it by the rule of love. So the answer to your question is yes, there is some sort of rule of law in the C of E, but no, it doesn’t work.
3 Andrew Bourne // Jun 15, 2008 at 1:36 pm
I wondered if any of you have read John Boswell`s book `The Marriage of Likeness`. Boswell`s thesis is that in the First Millenium of Christianity that there were liturgies for same-sex relationships whether these were sexual or not it is difficult to see, however Boswell was attempting to show an essentialist view of homosexuality that the Church itself had accepted and legitimised by liturgy a form of same-sex relationship. It may be for the Church to rehabilitate these forms of liturgy to give people a way of having a liturgy that recognises covenantal commitment between two people. interestingly with the Catholic Church seeming marriage as a covenantal act between two people rather than a contractual act the Catholic CHURCH may have the theology of Relationships akin to marriage that may suit Christian acknowledgement of same-sex relationships.
4 doug // Jun 15, 2008 at 5:52 pm
I think that one of the big issues is precisely where one looks at covenant friendships and where one looks at marriages as the model for gay relationships. (I’m unconvinced Boswell proves any sexual activity component in friendships, and suspect that it was precisely their different kind of intimacy that made them so valued.) For example, what is the equivalent of procreation if marriage is taken as a model? Or why is there any permanence or exclusiveness if friendship is taken as a model? The problem with the terms of the debate (or war) underway is a narrow fixation with a limited range of texts, that means we’ve still got to get to the theology, and I must be quite blunt that whatever my instincts, I’ve never heard a fully persuasive argument mounted by either side.
5 Peter Kirk // Jun 17, 2008 at 3:02 pm
I hadn’t read this when I posted on this subject. If I had, I would have given you an honourable link.
Yes, clergy should be expected to fulfil their ordination vows. But a distinction can and should be made between minor adjustments and simplifications to services which are known to have the support in principle of the bishop, even if not formally approved, and perversions of services like this, attempts to define a new sacrament, which have been explicitly forbidden by the bishop. If a bishop cannot do anything about this, and an archbishop cannot publicly encourage the bishop to do so, then the Church of England is in such a mess that there can be no hope for it.
6 Bishop Alan Wilson // Jun 17, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Thanks, Doug. As I read your take, I felt this is pretty much the way it is, really, for anyone who sees themselves as owning Catholicism as a living principle into which we are baptised and to which we are accountable, rather than just a designer accessory for people “randy for antique.” I’ll link.
+Alan
Leave a Comment