The Lead

The Archbishop of Canterbury has responded to recent advances by the British government to incorporate church buildings and liturgies into the weddings of same-gender couples. The move throws into sharp relief a number of restless questions.

Yesterday brought Telegraph reportage on a high-level meeting (set up by MP Tony Baldry of the Church of England's Second Church Estates Commissioner office) in which it was said that Rowan Williams, despite refusals to offer public commentary, had spoken out firmly against the government's advances. This morning, after overnight ruminations about whether any of this was true, @churchstate retweeted the item, which we now take as confirmation of its authenticity.

Williams

... has broken his silence to tell MPs he is not prepared for the Coalition to tell the Church how to behave.
He told a private meeting of influential politicians that the Church of England would not bow to public pressure to allow its buildings to be used to conduct same-sex civil partnerships.

The comments are the first time he has spoken since the Coalition unveiled plans to allow religious buildings to be used to conduct homosexual partnership ceremonies.

This account also produces a number of unaddressed questions pertaining to both the definition of marriage and the effects of establishment, as well as to the Archbishop of Canterbury's authority to speak unilaterally for each and every parish within the Church of England.

In short, we're left wondering about statements like this:

Dr Williams told MPs that the Church of England would not host same-sex unions

and this:

[Williams] said [the Church of England holds] a clear position that marriage is between a man and a woman and would not consider changing this stance

and this:

[Williams] stressed that [the Church of England] would not countenance weakening its teaching on marriage and said that it would not be dictated to by the Government.

In the face of such bald talk, perhaps we might just want to start with the basic facts and ask for a clear answer to a straightforward question: Just what does the Archbishop of Canterbury mean when he proposes resistance?

So long as we're at it, In a country where Anglican churches are required by law to hold any marriage requested within their geographic parish, Is this the first step to disestablishment? In light of Archbishop of York John Sentamu's recent warning salvo in the matter of marriage, it'd be a difficult question to dismiss.

‘Nor do I want somebody to tell me, “But the Church of England must do it, but the Roman Catholic Church must do it”, because actually that’s not what equality is about.
‘You mustn’t have rights that trump other rights.’

Comments (10)

‘You mustn’t have rights that trump other rights.’ Oh? When did this start?

"[Williams] stressed that [the Church of England] ... would not be dictated to by the Government." Well, good. He's beginning to get the picture. (It's called "Disestablishment." A cake does present a binary choice, Your Grace.)

But I sure wish he'd picked a better issue to have this fight about.

Posted by Bill Moorhead | February 27, 2011 1:39 PM

Somehow, I suspect that same-sex marriage in the CofE is just a single court case away.

I don't see how the established Church can get around it.

Posted by Matthew Buterbaugh+ | February 27, 2011 1:47 PM

Several quick things:

1) RW has in the past (prior to Canterbury) written in favor of disestablishment. Check the archives. This may be just what the Doctor (of Theology) ordered.

2) It would always be possible to work around this by amending the law affecting the requirement for churches to perform religious marriages. There are already limits for divorced persons. Full disestablishment is not needed. Such a change, re SSM, would breeze through Synod, and likely through Parliament.

Posted by tobias haller | February 27, 2011 3:28 PM

BTW, just to avoid any misunderstanding, I think the Church should be blessing civil partnerships, and once SSMs are legal, those as well. But I don't think it is going to happen (as approved -- I'm sure it's already happened under the radar!) within this Archbishop's tenure.

Posted by tobias haller | February 27, 2011 3:34 PM

Here's what Rowan said about disestablishment in a 2008 interview,

http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2008/12/williams-archbishop-lambeth

When I asked the Archbishop if he recognises the case for disestablishment, he said immediately: "The answer's yes." He went on: "Because I grew up in a disestablished Church; I spent ten years working in a disestablished Church; and I can see that it's by no means the end of the world if the Establishment disappears. The strength of it is that the last vestiges of state sanction disappeared, so when you took a vote at the Welsh Synod, it didn't have to be nodded through by parliament afterwards. There is a certain integrity to that."

Yet he was clear that ultimately it is not on the agenda. "At the same time, my unease about going for straight disestablishment is to do with the fact that it's a very shaky time for the public presence of faith in society. I think the motives that would now drive disestablishment from the state side would be mostly to do with . . . trying to push religion into the private sphere, and that's the point where I think I'd be bloody-minded and say, 'Well, not on that basis.'"

He gestures towards the Houses of Parliament on the other side of the Thames from his study in Lambeth Palace. "People sometimes ask me - and it's very interesting to hear it - does being in an established Church mean you have to watch what you say? While there might be many reasons for watching what I say, being a nuisance to the people across the river is not a big consideration," he says, laughing. "It really isn't."

Posted by John B. Chilton | February 27, 2011 3:47 PM

I do have a question. Since what the government has in is granting church's permission, not compelling them to do something, how does disestablishment become an issue? I'm missing something, I'm sure.

Posted by John B. Chilton | February 27, 2011 4:35 PM

John, the issue is that under English law (which in part governs the C of E because it is the established church) a church must perform a marriage for anyone who lives in the parish (the geographical parish, that is, not "members" of the church) who wishes a marriage to be performed there -- with exceptions in the case of divorce, age and consanguinity. (There was a time when ALL marriages had to be performed in the C of E, though exceptions were made for Jews and Quakers!). So if SSM becomes the law, the C o E will not be able to refuse to perform such marriages, unless the law is changed to add sex as a limiting factor -- as I noted above that could be done.

The Establishment is something we in the US have a hard time grokking, because it is so far from our experience. Rowan, who lived free from it in Wales, admits it is not his highest priority for change, but every opportunity he has to take a swing at it, he takes!

Posted by tobias haller | February 27, 2011 5:28 PM

What is absolutely gobsmacking to me, is the CofE using its Establishment Conundrum re Marriage (a parish being compelled to perform them for all in that parish), as excuse to PROHIBIT OTHER FAITH COMMUNITIES from doing so!

How can they POSSIBLY *rationalize* denying Quakers or Unitarians or Reform Jews (etc etc etc---and those "etcs" WILL come!) from living out their faith as THEY see fit?

Using oppressive Power-Over, due to the Establishment Conundrum, is INEXCUSABLE.

And I think Rowan knows it. Shame! >:-(

JC Fisher

Posted by tgflux | February 27, 2011 6:37 PM

I have to say that I'd side with Rowan on this one. Even though the state happens to be on the right side, it should not be bypassing synod. Doing so may harden resistance in the church, and it reinforces pre Oxford movement Erastianism.

Posted by Bill Carroll | February 28, 2011 11:43 AM

I have to say that I'd side with Rowan on this one. Even though the state happens to be on the right side, it should not be bypassing synod.

Bill, you're being spun. This has NOTHING to do w/ "the state...bypassing synod."

It's about the CofE coercing the state to BLOCK FREEDOM OF RELIGION to non-CofE groups!

Posted by tgflux | March 1, 2011 2:02 AM

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

CATEGORIES

Organizations