From the Revd Martin Jewitt
Sir, - The Revd Dr Hannah Cleugh and others write (Letters, 21
February) that "the Pastoral Guidance note issued by the House
of Bishops has just made it all very much harder" for their
generation to "hear about love, cherishing, fidelity, and the
intrinsic and infinite value of each individual as created and
loved by God".
Your leader comment (same issue) notes a change in the
Archbishop's presidential address from "love" in the context of
female bishops to a tone that "mirrors the sternness at the end of
the House of Bishops' statement" in the context of sexuality.
You and your correspondents are probably referring to the
section at the end of the appendix which says: "Getting married to
someone of the same sex would . . . clearly be at variance with the
teaching of the Church of England. The declarations made by clergy
. . . need to be honoured as a matter of integrity." "At ordination
clergy undertake 'to accept and minister the discipline of this
church, and respect authority duly exercised within it'. We urge
all clergy to act consistently with that undertaking."
The question is, are love and discipline contradictory? And is a
note of discipline necessary in this matter? The appendix also
points out that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act comes into
force in March 2014. It reminds us that "from then, 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 as held by the Church of England and reflected
in the Canons and the Book of Common Prayer".
This is a new situation, and it seems to me that it requires
clear instructions for the clergy in how to respond - in the
context of all the positive, encouraging, and open paragraphs also
in the appendix.
You suggest that the current situation is "a holding position".
It is probably true that we will be in a different place in ten
years' time. If it were only a matter of "Church of England
doctrine", it wouldn't be difficult to guess where changing secular
culture would have taken us. But scripture makes all the difference
to the authority of church doctrine. It may be that we are heading
for a radical rethink of how we read the Bible, akin to that which
followed scientific findings in the 19th century. But it needs to
be much deeper than pick-and-choose interpretation, and at least as
good as the principle that Old Testament law is best read in the
light of New Testament affirmation or reformation. At the moment,
that principle radically challenges the alleged assumptions of the
current generation in matters of sexuality.
MARTIN JEWITT
12 Abbott Road
Folkestone
Kent CT20 1NG
From Mr Jon Payne
Sir, - So, if you're gay, you can now have a wedding blessing,
but it won't be called a blessing, because you're gay, and being
gay is naughty. It'll be called "prayers", because, although it's
naughty for you to be gay, and you can't, therefore, be "blessed",
it isn't quite naughty enough for you to be denied "prayers" -
unless you're a priest, in which case you can't have a blessing or
"prayers", because being gay and wearing a clerical collar is
very naughty.
If you're not a priest, but want to become a priest, that's
fine, so long as you don't have a blessing (sorry, "prayers"),
because, if you do, you'll be stopped from becoming a priest. If
you're already a priest and go for broke with a blessing, well,
frankly, that's so naughty that there's probably a special dungeon
reserved for you at Lambeth Palace.
This is the sort of crystal clarity that the issue has been
needing for so long, and I am sure we would all want to thank the
House of Bishops.
JON PAYNE
The Wardens, Widney Lane
Solihull B91 3JY
From the Revd Dr Joanna Collicutt
Sir, - Jesus made no recorded statements about same-sex
relationships. He was, however, a first- century Galilean Jew, and
so he is likely to have been as troubled by the notion of gay
marriage as he was by an importuning Syrophoenician woman. But he
did have something to say about the religious leaders of his day:
"They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the
shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a
finger to move them" (Matthew 23.4). As his followers, our calling
is not to burden, but to bless.
JOANNA COLLICUTT
Karl Jaspers Lecturer in Psychology and Spirituality
Ripon College, Cuddesdon
Oxford OX44 9EX
From Canon John Goodchild
Sir, - Your leader comment suggests the St Valentine's statement
will not hold because it is a pastoral disaster. This deeply held
cultural taboo will not hold because there is no convincing New
Testament evidence that consensual, faithful, loving, and equal
same-sex relationships that are neither promiscuous nor abusive are
against the mind of Christ.
JOHN GOODCHILD
39 St Michaels Road
Liverpool L17 7AN
From Canon Daniel Burton
Sir, - What on earth is going on in the House of Bishops? One of
their stated aims in expediting the process for women to become
bishops was to regain some credibility in the nation. Yet, in the
same week, they issued their statement on same-sex marriage, which
can only be interpreted as a very firm NO to all who are committed
to equal marriage, thus losing all credibility with the very
constituency that they were trying to impress.
Most worrying of all is the claim that this statement is
"generous" when it is the very opposite. The Church and the nation
deserves better than this: the Bishops should be ashamed.
In my church last Sunday, a wedding album was being passed
around, showing photographs of Laura and Helen's Civil Partnership
Ceremony at Manchester Town Hall in December: Laura is the
grand-daughter of a former incumbent. Everybody wanted to see the
album and to share their joy. This is not Islington or Brighton:
this is Salford. This is the real world -but the Bishops do not
inhabit it.
DANIEL BURTON
The Rectory, 92 Fitzwarren Street
Salford M6 5RS
From the Revd Dr K. G. Riglin
Sir, - From a time when there was strong disagreement about who,
if any, of the ordained ministers of the Church of England should
marry, Article XXXII gives us clear teaching: "Bishops, Priests,
and Deacons, are not commanded by God's Law, either to vow the
estate of singlelife, or to abstain from marriage: therefore it is
lawful for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their
own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to
godliness."
This surely provides sufficient guidance for today's
disagreements: it leaves the discretion and judgement to individual
ministers, avoids the threat of sanctions, and does not divide the
Church.
KEITH RIGLIN
Chaplain, King's College, London:
St Thomas' Campus
Prideaux Building
Lambeth Palace Road
London SE1 7EH