Has anything changed?
By applying the requirements of the 2005 statement in relation to the episcopate it could be claimed that nothing important has changed but there are important issues for those who are committed to the position of the CEECâ€™sÂ St Andrewâ€™s Day StatementÂ that the church (italics added)
assists all its members to a life of faithful witness in chastity and holiness, recognising two forms or vocations in which that life can be lived: marriage and singleness (Gen. 2.24; Matt. 19. 4-6; 1 Cor. 7 passim).Â There is no place for the church to confer legitimacy upon alternatives to these.
Such a positionÂ
The press release describes the decision on civil partnered bishops as one of â€œconfirmationâ€. This implies continuity with current policy. In fact, no priest in a civil partnership has ever been appointed as a bishop and the 2005 statement did not address this issue. That is why the review group was set up to determineÂ whetherÂ priests in civil partnershipsÂ should beÂ eligible for appointment as bishops. Furthermore, in setting up the review group the bishops clearly stated that â€œto avoid pre-empting the outcome of the review the House has concluded that clergy in civil partnerships should not, at present, be nominated for episcopal appointmentâ€.Â The decision is, therefore, a reversal not a confirmation of the existing policy.leads to a commitment to stand with, and strongly affirm, all Christians, whatever their experience of sexual attraction, who remain faithful to biblical teaching and the teaching of the Church within these two vocations. It also values celibate same-sex friendships. This traditional stance would therefore welcome the appointment of bishops who experience same-sex attraction and live faithfully in one of these two vocations. The difficulty is that it is unclear how being in a civil partnership relates to these two vocations.
Issues needing clarification
1. Teaching on marriage and singleness
The fundamental problem is that civil partnerships are a form of quasi-marital same-sex union. The House of Bishops has made quite clear the Churchâ€™s continued opposition to same-sex marriage but during the introduction of civil partnerships, the Church of EnglandÂ stated concernsÂ that they are equivalent to same-sex marriage. That is primarily why, despite some impressions to the contrary recently, the Church was far from wholehearted in supporting civil partnerships when they were introduced. It is also why the government is proposing that civil partners should be able to convert their partnership into marriage in a manner that would not be seen as the legal ending of one relationship and the start of another and would require no formal ceremony.
2. Ambiguity, public witness and being a focus of unity
The 2005Â statementÂ from the bishops made clear that
it would be inconsistent with the teaching of the Church for the public character of the commitment expressed in a civil partnership to be regarded as of no consequence in relation to someone in- or seeking to enter- the ordained ministry. Partnerships will be widely seen as being predominantly between gay and lesbian people in sexually active relationships (para 21).
Because of the ambiguities surrounding the character and public nature of civil partnerships, the House of Bishops would advise clergy to weigh carefully the perceptions and assumptions which would inevitably accompany a decision to register such a relationship (para 22)
In such a situation the wisdom of permitting civil partnered clergy to become bishops, particularly given their role as a focus of unity, is highly questionable as the message such an appointment would give potentially undermines the churchâ€™s official teaching.
3. Civil partnerhips and the churchâ€™s blessing
The 2005 statement makes clear that â€œthe ambiguityâ€ surrounding civil partnerships means â€œit would not be right to produce an authorised public liturgy in connection with the registering of civil partnerships. In addition, the House of Bishops affirms that clergy of the Church of England should not provide services of blessing for those who register a civil partnershipâ€ (para 17).
There is therefore at least a tension if not a contradiction in the decision that it would be legitimate to appoint a civil partnered bishop. If this is a pattern of life the church cannot recognise and bless liturgically in any form and which most people see as equivalent to same-sex marriage, further justification is needed to explain how a bishop as senior pastor can be in such a partnership given they promise to fashion their own life and that of their household according to the way of Christ.
4. Implementing the 2005 statement
The press release simply refers to the â€œrequirements in the 2005 statementâ€ concerning relationships â€œconsistent with the teaching of the Church of Englandâ€ being applied â€œequallyâ€ in relation to episcopal appointments. It is, however, unclear what this means in practice.
Clergy in civil partnerships should already have been â€œwilling to give assurances to his or her bishop that the relationship is consistent with the standards for the clergy set out inÂ Issues in Human Sexualityâ€ (para 19) and they should â€œexpect to be asked for assurances that their relationship will be consistent with the teaching set out inÂ Issues in Human Sexualityâ€ (para 21). It is unclear whether, in consideration for the episcopate, it will simply be assumed such assurances have already been sought and given and if not whether the relevant Archbishop or someone else will seek and receive them before consenting to consecrate. It is also unclear whether or how the advice offered in â€œChoosing Bishops â€“ The Equality Act 2010â€ (GS Misc 992), which allowed consideration of more than simply whether the partnership was currently a sexual relationship, continues to apply in relation to considering civil partnered clergy as bishops.
5. The Anglican Communion and its moratorium
The review group was, in its work, to â€œbe consistent with the approach taken by the Anglican Communion in Resolution 1.10 of the Lambeth Conference 1998 and subsequentlyâ€. The wider Communion struggled to understand the Church of Englandâ€™s stance in 2005 and this latest announcement clearly opens the way for those in a form of legally and socially recognised same-sex union to serve as bishops within the Church of England.
Particularly given the lack of explanation, this decision will be viewed by many Anglicans in the Church of England and across the Communion as representing a departure from the Communionâ€™s clear call for â€œa moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emergesâ€ (Windsor Report para 134). While some would welcome such a departure from this moratorium which has been supported by all the Instruments, the majority of Anglicans worldwide believe it would be wrong and for the Church of England to act in this way would seriously damage the Communion.
6. The peace and unity of the Church of England
Given the current tensions in the Church of England over women bishops, the Global Southâ€™s concerns as to how the new Archbishop of Canterbury can restore their confidence in Communion structures, the debates about same-sex marriage in British society and the ongoing work of the Pilling Group on sexuality, this decision to reverse existing policy, with no rationale, further increases tensions in an unnecessary manner.
Hmmmmm…. What’s going on?