The Church of England’s new document Men and Women in Marriage was published on Wednesday. According to the accompanying press release the reason for publishing it is to oppose blessings of gay partnerships, and it certainly reads as such. It stresses that marriages must be between a man and a woman, lifelong, exclusive and legally sanctioned. It then offers rather unconvincing explanations of the polygamy in the Bible and the current permission to remarry divorcees.
Yes, it’s yet another of those what-the-hardline-conservatives-believe-is-what-the-Church-has-always-taught statements, the like of which have been published with increasing frequency of late.
Modern Church always was going to be critical of something like this, and we’ve just put a response on our website. We hope you like it.
Significantly, this time we have allies. Even the Church Times criticises it. Usually the Church Times can be relied on to report on official Church of England documents without the slightest hint of dissent, but this time it’s different. Today’s Editorial (p. 12) states that ‘the kindest thing to do’ with it ‘is to ignore it…. It speaks of a unique relationship between a man and a woman without ever explaining this contention. Seldom clear, the text adopts a particular obscurity whenever a contentious matter is touched upon, such as the complementarity of the sexes. Yet it combines this with a dogmatism that is at odds with its purpose as a study document’.
Quite so. The document tells us that ‘public discussion at this juncture needs a clear view of why Christians believe and act in relation to marriage as they do, and this statement is offered as a resource for that’ (§4). Yet the authors know perfectly well that Christians believe and act in a wide variety of different ways, many quite contrary to what the document recommends. In other words, while claiming to tell us how Christians believe and act, it is really telling us how they think Christians ought to believe and act. It is an example of that technique we used to associate with conservative evangelicals, of claiming that anyone who disagrees with their opinions cannot be a Christian.
Perhaps the saddest thing about it is that it’s yet another example of the batten-down-the-hatches mood in the Church’s higher echelons. After a disastrous year last year – Anglican Covenant, women bishops, gay marriages – they still haven’t, apparently, learned that they can’t stop the world. If they think gay partnerships, divorce et al are all to be condemned, they should explain their reasons and allow truth to emerge from open debate – not pontificate from on high, and so erroneously, about ‘how Christians believe and act’.
One cannot help suspecting that this document is all about power relations in the hierarchy. The proposal for an Anglican Covenant began as an attempt to ‘discipline’ churches with openly gay bishops. That and the chaos over women bishops revolved around threats of schism. At times of intense disagreement, some are quick to put on their boxing gloves while others are determined to keep the peace, whatever the cost to those whose needs don’t fit the theory. We should be able to do better than this.