So the government has put forward legislation to allow Civil Partnerships to be carried out in religious buildings. What possible responses would make me feel loved and appreciated by the Church of England if I was lesbian, gay or bisexual? Err…
“We think it is a wonderful thing that homosexual people want to express commitment to each other, and particularly wonderful that they wish to do it in a religious place (after all, given the way the church has treated LGBT people you would think that they would never darken the doors). We are thankful that it turns out that faith and spirituality aren’t completely irrelevant to people (after all, the way we act sometimes feels completely out of step with the things society are questioning). We will look into whether the mind of the Church of England is in favour of performing Civil Partnerships in our buildings. Please be patient with us as we deliberate this. But be assured that you are always welcome as sons and daughters in the family of the Church of England, you always have been and you always will be.”
Or alternatively we could try this approach:
“The House of Bishops’ statement of July 2005 made it clear that the Church of England should not provide services of blessing for those who register civil partnerships and that remains the position. The Church of England has no intention of allowing Civil Partnerships to be registered in its churches”. (Emphasis mine).
That comes as close to F Off as anything, as far as I’m concerned. And we wonder why folks think we are judgemental, immoral and irrelevant?
I wonder why we would issue such a statement that offers no hope of LGBT people being married in church? Is it because we are trying to kowtow to the Provinces who think LGBT people should be killed?
Related articles
- Church of England vetoes services of blessing for same-sex couples (guardian.co.uk)
- Has the blogosphere gone all soft? (revdlesley.net)
It does seem to be quite final without any room for discernment or even hope for LGBT people, who despite all of the overt or covert discrimination, continue to come to church. I often wonder how they cope with the pain that it must cause them.
This smacks very much like ‘Covenant speak’ and not the words of a church seeking to be inclusive, or at least to seek ways of avoiding the hurt is has caused or continues to cause to LGBT folk.
I don’t have any hope that this line will change until eventually, new, more inclusive clergy are given preferment and become bishops or arch bishops. I await the introduction of women bishops to soften the hard line and to bring a fresh, inclusive perspective into the debate, having suffered unfair discrimination themselves for so long.
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head, Lesley, with the kowtowing comment, and sadly, minidvr, I don’t think having a more inclusive priesthood is necessarily a solution to this.
At the moment, the ‘church empire’ model of the communion means that ++Rowan’s day job has turned into throwing people under the bus by the fistload, lest the most ugly conservative elements storm off in a huff. Hundreds and thousands of hours (and no doubt a fair wodge of money, too) are being devoured by the Anglican Covenant, a frippery which does absolutely nothing for suffering, vulnerable or seeking people anywhere. Meanwhile, the Church of England limps on as a state church which most of the English population are not members of. In some sort of dreamworld of the communion, these things are not related.
You’d think that for all the effort put into fretting about whether bishops must have willies, the CofE would be well-placed to grow the proverbial pair.
You’re right about the approach – and did you notice the deafening silence afterwards? No-one even bats an eyelid any longer and only a few progressivs and the lgbt groups complained.
But, as Colin Coward pointed out, this statement has no legal force whatsoever. Church of England spokesmen don’t make policy, General Synod does, and GS is committed to a new consultation process about Civil Partnerships.
This sounds more like one of the PR desasters so typical of the church than a real closing of the doors.
Weep…and wonder. The last gratuitous statement that the CofE ‘has no intention of allowing Civil Partnerships’…is just plain spiteful. Also above the pay grade of whoever said it. I agree with Erika – the Church should choose its spokesmen more carefully: if they sacked George Pitcher, this man should be keel-hauled – not quite sure what that entails, but it sounds suitably uncomfortable.
Makes it even more important that lots of English dioceses reject the Covenant, so LGTB people can see that the mind of the C of E is not set against them, whatever those at the top think. Please can some more of the bishops stop saying that loyalty to Rowan is the most important thing to guide their actions, and start siding with the rejected instead. If they can do it with the St Paul’s protesters, why not with faithful, committed gay couples?
Truth is the Church of England is not and never has been an inclusive church. Many sections of our society are excluded from services and involvement, implicitly and explicitly. Anyone who is considered unacceptable to the mainstream of society will be excluded either indirectly,or more increasingly directly.
Heres a quick list to be starting off with:
Protesters, offenders, married lesbians etc.. homeless people, radicals, poor people (General synod is very good at that as it expects you to pay and be reimbursed) the young, the infirm, the mentally ill….
We do like to take some of these people and treat them to a special time in church though.
MrC
Laura,
painful indeed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keelhauling
Should one consider medieval punishment for people stuck in the middle ages or should one exercise Christian compassion – I will have to think about that!
The point is, of course: if the Covenant is passed by the C of E then the spokesperson will be correct. Then what will you (all) do?
It’s an interesting question, Adrian. Me, I’ve had my marriage blessed at a wonderful event in which no fewer than 4 priests actively participated. What relevance the official stance of the church? It’s getting to be a bit like watching a toddler tantrum. You can see it’s happening, you can see why the toddler believes she’s right, but the only way to deal with it as an adult is to ignore it.
Pingback: Alan Craig and the Gaystapo controversy | eChurch Blog
Pingback: The Church of the England is a third of the way to gender equality | Lesley's Blog
This is just the sort of thing which makes me hang on to the Freehold. And – the closer I get to retirement – makes me think ‘ Screw you, I’ll do what I think is right’.
Pingback: A stirring talk on Women Bishops | Lesley's Blog
Pingback: Please don’t go | Lesley's Blog