From the Revd Toby Sherring
Sir, — The Dean of St Albans, the Very Revd Dr Jeffrey John, has described the Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage as “patently unprincipled” (News, 16 March).
Would it not be more accurate, and consistent with his expectation that the Church should “uphold justice and truth”, to say that the opposition is based on principles with which he disagrees? This looks like another example of so-called liberal and inclusive ecclesiology, which is only dogmatic and exclusive when it comes up against other points of view.
TOBY SHERRING
11 Meath Mews, Mosman Park
WA 6012, Australia
TOBY SHERRING
11 Meath Mews, Mosman Park
WA 6012, Australia
From the Rt Revd Michael Bourke
Sir, — Professor James Grayson’s interesting anthropological perspective on the definition of marriage (Letters, 16 March) draws our attention to the shift in the perception of sexual relations from a reproductive to a recreational focus.
It is customary to date this shift to the 1960s, but the way was prepared theologically by the Lambeth Conference of 1958, which affirmed the freedom of married couples to make their own conscientious decision about the use of contraceptives. Within marriage, this certainly opened the door to a more “recreational” approach, and also to the far-reaching changes in gender roles with which society and the Church are still coming to terms.
The Church, of course, may err, and Christendom’s largest communion still refuses to endorse this development. But if Anglicans have departed from traditional ethical norms, this must surely be dated to 1958 rather than to the ordination of Bishop Gene Robinson.
Those who share Professor Grayson’s concerns need to clarify the scope of what they propose. Is their counter-cultural challenge aimed at the lifestyle of the vast heterosexual majority, within as well as outside marriage? If so, it will be fascinating to follow its pastoral, evangelistic, and ecumenical outworkings. Or is their criticism merely aimed at the narrower and easier target of homosexuality, where it can conveniently be reinforced by ancient prejudice?
I believe that, in the perspective of history, the issue of homosexual relations will be seen as a footnote to the broader question of contraception, and that the Church’s affirmation of faithful, covenanted relationships of both a “reproductive” and “recreational” nature follows logically from the 1958 decision.
MICHAEL BOURKE
The Maltings, Little Stretton
Shropshire SY6 6AP
MICHAEL BOURKE
The Maltings, Little Stretton
Shropshire SY6 6AP
From Mr Hugh Harries
Sir, — “Love is love wherever it is found” (Letters, 16 March). Is it the view of the Revd Raymond Avent and others that adulterous relationships are therefore acceptable, as presumably they must be? “Anyone who lives in love lives in God and God lives in him” (1 John 3.16). One wonders how the writer of the New Testament letter would have felt if he had seen his words used in this way.
HUGH HARRIES
19 Keynshambury Road
Cheltenham, Glos GL52 6HB
HUGH HARRIES
19 Keynshambury Road
Cheltenham, Glos GL52 6HB
From Mr Humphrey Clucas
Sir, — The Archbishop of York invokes the Book of Common Prayer while arguing against gay marriage (News, 16 March). The BCP service gives three reasons for matrimony: the procreation of children, a remedy against sin for those who “have not the gift of continency”, and the “mutual society, help and comfort” of the two persons concerned.
The second and third would clearly apply to gay marriage. As for the first, the rubric before a prayer for fruitfulness states that it may be omitted “when the woman is past child-bearing”. So procreation is not essential to Christian marriage.
Of course, the BCP talks of a man and a woman. I suggest, nevertheless, that it may be invoked by either side.
HUMPHREY CLUCAS
19 Norman Road, Sutton, Surrey SM1 2TB
HUMPHREY CLUCAS
19 Norman Road, Sutton, Surrey SM1 2TB
From the Chancellor and Vicar-General of the Diocese of London
Sir, — I wish to trouble your readers one last time on the subject of the House of Bishops Pastoral Statement on Civil Partnerships.
The reason why the Revd Gavin Foster (Letters, 16 March) and I have come to different conclusions on this matter is that we have adopted different approaches. I have adopted a judicial approach without any preconceived ideas about what I think the Statement says or should say. I looked at the words of the whole Statement to see what they did in fact say, not just the passages I quoted, and I also looked at Canon B5, which is relevant to the issue.
There was no interpretation on my part, as the Statement is clear and unambiguous; and I stated the legal situation, giving the words of the Statement their ordinary natural meaning in the context of the Statement as a whole and in accordance with Canon B5. I was not seeking to have anyone believe anything, as it is not a matter of belief.
Mr Foster has come up with something entirely different because he has not approached the matter with an open and independent mind. He has started from what he believes the Statement was intended to say and has then interpreted what he says he thinks the Statement means, even though that is not what the words actually say. That is not the way somebody acting judicially can, or should, approach the question, which is why I did not.
NIGEL SEED
3 Paper Buildings, Temple
London EC4Y 7EU
NIGEL SEED
3 Paper Buildings, Temple
London EC4Y 7EU