When clergy break the rules on same-sex marriage, they should face consequences

“In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” So ends the book of Judges in the Old Testament.

No matter which metric is used, when you look at the Church of England and how it has changed over the decades, a broad Church has, in practice, become one without boundaries.

As the Archbishop of York told General Synod recently: “A single parish isn’t a cohesive theological unit…the Church of England, you know, right at the heart of who we are, is that we’re the Church for everybody.”

A Church for everybody. It sounds so positive, so welcoming – and yet there is a danger that a Church for everybody becomes a Church for no-one.

The same-sex debate

The Church of England has been debating the rights and wrongs of same-sex relationships for decades. They supported the decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1967, and in 1973, Most Rev Donald Coggan, then-Archbishop of York, told the BBC that there were many gay clergymen. He continued: “They put up a tremendous fight against being practising homosexuals and when they give in to that, we must treat them with great sympathy and understanding.”

Nearly 60 years of sympathy and understanding later, the teaching, practice and discipline of the Church of England have become so disconnected that it appears incoherent to a watching world.

There is an inherent instability that comes from everyone doing what seems right in their own eyes

The official teaching of the CofE has not changed: Canon B30 describes marriage as: “in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better for worse, till death them do part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others”.

A much-quoted section of the House of Bishops’ teaching document on marriage states: “Sexual intercourse, as an expression of faithful intimacy, properly belongs within marriage exclusively.”

Some see this as outdated, but to change Church doctrine requires two-thirds of each of the Houses of Bishops, Clergy and Laity at General Synod to agree to a new position, which has not yet been possible. So those seeking change have just put facts on the ground, hoping that the teaching will catch up.

Compromise and confusion

As long ago as 1991, CofE bishops determined that lay people in faithful, loving, physical, same-sex relationships should not be excluded from fellowship. This freedom was then extended to allow laity to enter both civil partnerships and same-sex marriages.

This freedom is not offered to clergy. Official guidance says clergy can be in a civil partnership, but only on the understanding that their relationship is celibate. They are not at liberty to marry their same-sex partner.

When it comes to ‘blessings’ the bishops have split more than a few hairs. Same-sex couples cannot have a ‘standalone service’ of blessing, but they can invite their friends and family to come to church to join them in giving thanks and praise to God for their loving relationship; to mark their commitment to one another and seek “God’s help and blessing in growing in faith, love and holiness” using the Prayers of Love and Faith. Wedding dresses can be worn but rings cannot be exchanged.

The teaching, practice and discipline of the Church of England appear incoherent to a watching world

To cap it all, if this guidance is broken, discipline is patchy. It is hardly surprising; no bishop wants to investigate whether a civil partnership is celibate - or even define what ‘sexual intercourse’ means in a same-sex relationship. Similarly, bishops have better things to do with their time than check on every service involving the Prayers of Love and Faith.

Even clergy who choose to flout the bishop’s guidance by entering into a same-sex marriage are not formally disciplined. Rather, they receive an ‘informal rebuke’ from their bishop - which rumour has it, in one case arrived with a bottle of champagne and congratulations card!

The only penalty is that while such clergy are able to continue in their current role, they have not been permitted to undertake a new one. In February, the Bishops’ Statement suggested that this was causing “pastoral hardship and difficulty”, and that some bishops might choose to respond differently in future.

The need for clarity

Earlier this week, General Synod debated a motion which sought to cut through some of this vacillation. It affirmed: “that there are no fundamental objections to being in a committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationship, and that such a relationship can be entirely compatible with Christian discipleship.”

Such clarity was too much for Synod and, faced with the threat of losing the debate, the motion was amended to recognise a “range of legitimate theological perspectives”, including the original wording. After further debate, the amended motion received the backing of the Houses of Clergy and Laity but was rejected by the House of Bishops.

It would be encouraging to think that the bishops were persuaded by Rev Vaughan Roberts, who pleaded with Synod to face a stark reality: “These are first order issues on both sides of these debates. We do not agree. We will not agree - and we will not meet in the middle - and it will not be possible to affirm both.”

It is, however, more likely that the bishops who rejected the amended motion shared the Bishop of Sheffield’s concern that it would “upset the precariously stable place” set out in the earlier Bishops’ Statement.

There is of course an inherent instability that comes from everyone doing what seems right in their own eyes. In response, generations of bishops have tried to be sympathetic and understanding, seeking unity by attempting to hold together diverse opinions. This has left the Church in an ever more precarious position.

The time has surely come for a different approach – for the bishops to take a leaf out of Elijah’s book and stop limping between two opinions. Imagine what might happen if they each fulfilled their canonical duty, “to teach and to uphold sound and wholesome doctrine, and to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange opinions.”