Well, if you read my piece on gay marriage earlier you already know I am not one of those who says 'it's a human right' and so stops there. There are many ways in which I get the official-church position. I get it that the legislation is a substantive and not a negligible change. I get it that that requires serious not spurious consultation. I get it that we have not had that. I get it that marriage is about sexual/carnal/physical love (or love that is perfectly free to express itself sexually/carnally/physically) and the legislation-as-is takes us away from that (no adultery, no non-consummation). I even get the irony that here is the Church asking our highly 'sexualised' society to think a bit more about sex, rather than romance/liking each other. I still think the Church is right that sex is formative. So we need to get our sexual relationships right, or rather as right as we can (a bit different!). Something is at stake in our sexual relationships, and if the world cannot hear that, then that is the world's loss.
But! But I cannot defend the action of my (Church of England) bishops one second longer. I've heard just too much about how the church welcomes and has welcomed civil partnerships as the correct righting of the legal wrong. This is just, well, to use the Greek, bolloxai.There was not the hint of a shred of a rumour of a remainder of an official church welcome for civil partnerships, and bishops opposed it in the legislature.
And! And I am even prepared to admit that for some bishops the above arguments (and others) mean that they genuinely think that same-sex marriage will 'undermine' all marriage.(I disagree, but I 'see where they are coming from'.) But if that is the case, they are of course morally obliged to oppose the legislation at every point and turn. To believe that, and then to believe that the country has spoken and so one can no longer vote against is to believe that the matter is not that important, at the end of the day. We can treat it as not so much an undermining of a basic social strucure as an unwelome tweak. But... if so, your rhetoric of opposition was, again, bolloxai.
There is a common thread to these two points. It is that what is missing from the remarks of our Fathers-in-God is any true sense of metanoia, teshuvah, a humble and vulnerable willingness to admit that they have got it wrong. And that is a tragedy. For it need not be that way. Politics in this country and beyond runs on the assumption that, while one can say - frequently, if necessary- 'I am sorry that you felt offended', you can never say 'I got it wrong'. But the beautiful, unpsoken truth is that there is no need for this. It is perfectly acceptable to say, 'I got it wrong'. That does not make you a person unworthy of attention, if anything the reverse. But why is it that our bishops are as blind to to this as our politicans? Why can they not say:
When civil partnerships were introduced, the Church as a body was divided and suspicious (though some were in favour). That was wrong of us. It was ungenerous and ungracious of us. As such it was (among other things) a mark of how we had failed to listen to lesbian and gay people, both in our congregations and in the wider society. We seek to turn from that. When gay marriage was introduced we compounded this fault by (at times) pretending we had been in favour of civil partnerships throughout. That was sinful of us. It may be that such unreasonableness on our part made those who longed for civil and legal equality for gay and lesbian partnerships feel they had no choice but to oppose the Church outright. Certainly, when our representatives spoke of the legislation 'destroying' marriage, they overstated their own case in ways which made it that much harder to relate what they were saying to the current realities. What they were saying was not always sheer bigotry. It was not always wrong. But we as a Church recognise that our only (proper) way back into the discussion now is by a frank admission of just how wrong we have got things. On the basis of how we have been, we have no particular right to be heard. We ask only that you will hear our repentance, and in the same spirit hear our penitent proposals about some details of the legislation, which come from the practical prudence we have gained from having a lot to do with weddings.
Such an admission is possible. I offer it as graciously as I can!
As ever, P, your deep thoughtfulness leads to a profundity of position. Metanoia is only possible through humility. Sometimes, as with Paul, it has to be forced through. Better to ease the way ourselves with self awareness. I hear your prayer!
ReplyDeleteWell said.
ReplyDeleteThank you silver girl and pncblessed. I am not trying to dismiss the bishops. But I have a sense that if they were able to say with all calm and candour 'we messed up' that would improve our public life over and above this issue. But there would be a cost to it.
ReplyDelete