Andrew Goddard on the Bishops Statement
Up on Fulcrum – it’s very good.
The swiftest and strongest criticism of the statement was to its conclusion (para 27, in bold), that
The House is not, therefore, willing for those who are in a same sex marriage to be ordained to any of the three orders of ministry. In addition it considers that it would not be appropriate conduct for someone in holy orders to enter into a same sex marriage, given the need for clergy to model the Churchâ€™s teaching in their lives.
This has caused outrage with clergy stating they will flout it, inevitably leading to disciplinary processes which will be costly financially, missionally, relationally and in terms of unity.Â There has, however, been little or no argument against the clear logic of the guidance which has a solid basis in law â€“ the canonical definition of marriage remains part of the law of the land and the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) ActÂ Schedule 7Â amended the Equality Act so that, in the words of the relevant Explanatory Note, â€œa church may require that a priest not be married to a person of the same sexâ€.
In ordering her own life in this way the Church of England is simply continuing to do so on the basis of her own canon law and doctrine.Â Criticisms therefore needÂ eitherÂ argue that the Church must rewrite her canons, liturgy and teachingÂ orÂ propose better alternative applications of the churchâ€™s current law and teaching.Â The former is a major challenge legally (requiring 2/3 majorities in all Houses of Synod) and theologically and risks appearing as the churchâ€™s capitulation and subordination to the state in how it orders its life and ministry in relation to marriage.Â The latter would need to address the clear logic of the guidance: â€œGetting married to someone of the same sex would, however, clearly be at variance with the teaching of the Church of England.Â The declarations made by clergy and the canonical requirements as to their manner of life do have real significance and need to be honoured as a matter of integrityâ€ (para 26).
Both these paths are very difficult so it is perhaps unsurprising that the alternative that has been chosen is the well-worn but wholly destructive one of disregarding and undermining both church teaching and episcopal authority through threatening unilateral acts of â€œecclesial disobedienceâ€ by creating â€œfacts on the groundâ€. Although this path is well-worn, we now face a new situation.Â The church has never formally suggested that clergy can be in a sexual relationship other than marriage as defined by canon.Â In the past, with both civil partnerships (which clergy can still enter) and non-registered same-sex partnerships, the tension with ordained ministry was in relation to sexual behaviour which was a private matter and private assurances were to be sought and given. We are now in a situation where two public statuses â€“ marriage to someone of the same-sex and ordination â€“ are, in effect, declared by the bishops to be incompatible. We have therefore sadly now reached the crunch where the gap between church teaching and society is such that either the church draws a line and makes clear clergy are to order their lives in this area by the teaching of the church or it does not do so.Â In other words, this new public incompatibility moves the disagreement and conflict â€“ between church and society and within the church â€“ to a totally new level.
Andrew Goddard is the embodiment of an “open” evangelical. As I just pointed out over on Thinking Anglicans, this ought to show, once and for all, that all types of evangelical take a radically different approach from liberals.
Kind of misses the point though. The issue “liberals” have with the statement is that it reads like a closed door on the topic, when “the liberals” thought Pilling was telling us that the differences of opinion were legitimate and we should talk about them more.
As for where “open” evangelicals are on this, you’ll find that they too have a diversity of opinion, including within the Fulcrum leadership.
If Jody Stowell felt she had to resign from Fulcrum just to have an open mind on this, there’s not much diversity!
There are evangelicals who take an affirming stance, but they’re very much in a minority, and are furiously contested by their fellow evangelicals.