Support the Café
Search our site

Church of England sexuality “fudge” makes everyone gag

Church of England sexuality “fudge” makes everyone gag

The Church Times reports that the bishops’ letter on same sex relationships is causing lots of push back from all parts of the Church of England:

The Bishops’ guidance repeats the ban on a formal blessing for a same-sex couple, though it does give clergy licence to pray with them informally, a move that has drawn criticism from conservatives.

By far the greatest criticism, however, has come from the other wing of the Church. The LGBTI Anglican Coalition said last Sunday that it was “appalled” by the House of Bishops’ guidance. “In this document we see no acceptance of disagreement at all, but instead a heavy‐handed and legalistic imposition of discipline.”

The Coalition said that it was “ludicrous” to assert that the Church welcomed LGBTI people while it was impossible to have a C of E gay wedding or a church blessing for same-sex couples. The Coalition also criticised the production of the pastoral guidance in the light of a professed desire for dialogue. “The statement was made without any consultation with openly gay people, and fails to acknowledge that some of the bishops who are signatories are understood to be gay themselves. This heightens the corrosive sense of hypocrisy and cynicism with which this issue is surrounded in the Church.”

A group of 21 academics, including Professors Linda Woodhead and Diarmaid MacCulloch, have written that the guidance is wrong. The correspondence between Dr. Woodhead and the members of the House of Bishops is here.

The Thinking Anglicans Website has published a letter from Prof. Linda Woodhead (and others) which has been sent to members of the House of Bishops of the Church of England. In her letter Prof Woodhead says “Our attempts to resolve this matter by writing to Mr Arora and Mr Fittall have failed.”

That correspondence is reproduced below in chronological order for those interested in such matters.

In addition there has been a limited discussion on twitter which can be viewed via the @LindaWoodhead or @RevArun accounts.

The first exchange of correspondence between Prof Woodhead, Arun Arora and Prof Diarmaid Macculloch covers the dates 17 Feb – 18 Feb. The second exchange of correspondence between Prof Woodhead and William Fittall covers 24-27 Feb.

The Rt Rev. Alan Wilson weighs in, on the letter to bishops, on his blog:

I wrote today to fellow bishops, along with many academic colleagues more skilled in the field than me, to see if they might care to correct a foolish historical howler in the understanding that informed their recent letter on same-sex marriage.

It seems to me vastly unfair on those who struggled against Deceased Wife’s Sister marriages between 1842 and 1907 to suggest that a marriage setup that ran counter to Leviticus 18:18 should be a minor matter of “accidents” whilst one that potentially breaches Leviticus 18:24 should be a fundamental, matter of “substance.”

The letter:

27th February 2014

Dear Bishop,

Error in the Bishops Guidance on Same Sex Marriages

We write to alert you to the fact that an important statement in the Bishops Pastoral Guidance on Same Sex Marriages issued on 14th February is wrong.The guidance claims that: “There will, for the first time, be a divergence between the general understanding and definition of marriage in England as enshrined in law and the doctrine of marriage held by the Church of England and reflected in the Canons and the Book of Common Prayer.” – House of Bishops, 14th Feb 2014, Appendix, para 9.

This is inaccurate. Civil law and church teaching have diverged before, on at least two occasions. The first was in relation to the marriage to a deceased wife’s sister, the second in relation to the remarriage of divorcees.There has been a robust discussion of this topic between experts on ecclesiastical history, law and sociology which Dr Scot Peterson summarises here. We are all in agreement that the statement in the Bishops Guidance is mistaken and misleading. Since it forms an important part of the case which is being made, we felt it was right to draw the mistake to your attention. We respectfully ask that it be corrected.

Our attempts to resolve this matter by writing to Mr Arora and Mr Fittall have failed. There is growing concern amongst the academic community about the situation.

Looking to the future, some of us are anxious to improve channels of communication with the Church, so that our research and scholarship can be used constructively. If you would be interested in a meeting to discuss this issue, we would be very grateful if you would reply to Professor Woodhead.

Yours truly,

Professor Callum Brown FRSE, University of Glasgow

Professor Arthur Burns, King’s College London

The Revd Dr Mark Chapman, Ripon College Cuddesdon

Professor Grace Davie, University of Exeter

The Revd Duncan Dormor, St John’s College, University of Cambridge

Professor Kenneth Fincham, University of Kent

Professor Sarah Foot, Christ Church, University of Oxford

Dr Matthew Guest, University of Durham

The Revd Dr Carolyn Hammond, Gonville and Caius College, University of Cambridge (member of FAOC)

Professor Gerard Loughlin, University of Durham

Elizabeth MacFarlane, St John’s College, University of Oxford

The Revd Dr Judith Maltby, Corpus Christi College, University of Oxford

Professor Iain McLean FBA, Nuffield College, Oxford

Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch FBA, Saint Cross College, University of Oxford

The Revd Professor David Martin FBA, London School of Economics

Dr Charlotte Methuen, University of Glasgow (member FAOC)

The Revd Dr Jeremy Morris, King’s College, University of Cambridge

Dr Scot Peterson, Balliol College, University of Oxford

Professor Alec Ryrie, University of Durham

The Revd Dr Robert Tobin, Oriel College, University of Oxford

Revd Dr William Whyte, St John’s College Oxford

The Rt Revd Dr Alan Wilson, Bishop of Buckingham

Professor John Wolffe, The Open University, President of the Ecclesiastical History Society

Professor Linda Woodhead, University of Lancaster

Dislike (0)
0 0 vote
Article Rating
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

2 Comments
Newest
Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
tgflux

At the very least, Gary, I think TEC dioceses&parishes that will MARRY same-sex couples should take out some advertisements in Blightey proclaiming same: "Cross the Pond, Grooms and Brides! Your nuptials await!" ["You might have to wait 4 days, but not 40 years"]

JC Fisher

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Gary Paul Gilbert

The Church of England practices a different religion from that of the Episcopal Church, apparently. The unpastoral letter from the Bishops of the C of E can be paraphrased as saying same-sex couples are to be treated as second-class members of the church, and LGBT clergy are not to be allowed to enter a civil marriage. That a separate and unequal institution called the civil partnership is to be tolerated, though clergy in civil partnerships are to promise their bishops they will be celibate, shows how little the C of E as an institution cares about LGBTs.

This apartheid theology is written by straight (and closeted gay) white men.

Maybe I should be charitable and we can give them another forty years to discuss human sexuality.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Facebooktwitterrss
Support the Café
Past Posts
2020_001

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café