Nine Church of England Bishops, including the Archbishop of
Canterbury, this week
voted
for Lord Dear’s amendment attempting to derail the government’s Marriage (Same
Sex Couples) Bill. Five abstained. Ten chose not to attend. The amendment was
passed by a 390-148 majority.
There has been
speculation
in the press that the Church of England had made a deal with government
over trading abstentions for later amendments and that pressure had been put on
bishops by church officials to suggest they abstain so as not to evoke a government
backlash against the church.
However this has been
firmly
denied by the church’s parliamentary and political advisors.
Now that the bill has passed its second reading in the House
of Lords the leader of the ‘Lords Spiritual’, Bishop of Leicester Tim Stevens,
has issued a
statement
on behalf of the church about its strategy for the days and weeks ahead.
In this he says that ‘it is now the duty and responsibility
of the Bishops who sit in the House of Lords to recognise the implications of
this decision and to join with other Members in the task of considering how
this legislation can be put into better shape’.
He adds that ‘the issue now is not primarily one of
protections and exemptions for people of faith’ but rather ‘improvement (of the
bill) in a number of other key respects, including in its approach to the
question of fidelity in marriage and the rights of children’.
As a result it has been
reported
widely in the press, perhaps not surprisingly, that ‘the Church of England
has effectively accepted defeat over gay marriage signalling that it will no
longer fight against a change in the law’.
The words and actions of bishops in the coming weeks and
days will no doubt undergo careful scrutiny, but my purpose in this blogpost is
rather to comment on the
speech
that the Archbishop of Canterbury gave before supporting the Dear amendment
last Monday, because I suspect I am not alone in finding it rather disappointing.
I have reproduced his speech below (in italics) from
his
own website and placed my own comments after each section in non-italicised
script (marked >>). The speech is 864 words and runs to ten paragraphs.
It has been quoted widely but selectively and I think it is therefore
important to consider it as a whole.
Archbishop Justin's speech to the Lords on the government's gay
marriage Bill
Monday 3rd June 2013
My Lords, this Bill has arrived
in your Lordship's House at great speed. The initial Proposals, when published
at the end of the autumn, have needed much work to get them into today's form.
Much of that work has been done through detailed legal effort and discussion,
and I am deeply grateful to the DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport)
teams – and especially to the Secretary of State for the thoughtful way in
which she has listened and the degree to which she has been willing to make
changes in order to arrive at the stage we’ve reached today.
>> It is part of House of Lords tradition to be polite even to
those with whom you strongly disagree. But the Archbishop has gone much further
than this in complimenting the government for their handling of this bill. And
yet the bill was launched with no democratic mandate, seeks to redefine the
biblical
concept of marriage as a lifelong union between a man and a woman enshrined
in British law and poses a
serious
threat to civil liberties. To commend the Secretary of State for the
‘thoughtful way she has listened’ and ‘the degree to which she has been willing
to make changes’, given that the government ignored half a million public
submissions to its consultation and then sought to block every amendment put
forward to make the bill more safe during its passage through the House of Commons,
is curious to say the very least. Not
only are the Archbishop’s commendations inappropriate and unnecessary; they are
actually a slap in the face to those many Christians, MPs and others who in
good conscience have stood against the bill in the face of great opposition.
We all know, and it’s been said,
that this is a divisive issue. In general the majority of faith groups remain
very strongly against the Bill, and have expressed that view in a large number
of public statements. The House of Bishops of the Church of England has also
expressed a very clear majority view – although not unanimous, as has
been seen by the strong and welcome contribution by the Bishop of
Salisbury.
>> Why does Welby consider
it necessary to single out Nicholas Holtam, Bishop of Salibury, for commendation
and call his contribution ‘strong and welcome’ when in fact Holtam takes a
position diametrically opposed to what the Scriptures teach and has also
likened
opponents of gay marriage to those who used the Bible to justify slavery and
apartheid? Should he not rather be saying that Holtam does not represent the
church’s view or, at very least, not dignifying his words and actions with a comment? How
does Welby’s approach to Holtam square with the Apostle Paul urging his
co-workers to ‘command certain men not to teach false doctrines’ (1 Timothy
1:3), to ‘gently instruct in the hope that God will grant repentance’ (2 Timothy
2:25) and to insist that false teachers ‘must be silenced’ (Titus 1:11)?
The so-called Quadruple Lock may
have some chance of withstanding legal scrutiny in Europe, and we are grateful
for it, although other faith groups and Christian denominations who’ve written
to me remain very hesitant. There have been useful discussions about the
position of schools with a religious character and issues of freedom of
conscience. And I’ve noted the undertaking of the Noble Baroness the Minister
on those subjects, and I’m grateful for what she has said. The Noble Baroness
the Minister has also put forward all her views today with great courtesy and
persuasive effect, and I join in the remarks of the Noble Baroness, Baroness
Royall, in appreciation of that.
>> Why is it necessary to thank the government for the ‘quadruple
lock’ when there is considerable doubt about how legally robust it is and when
it is a government’s primary duty to protect its citizens anyway? Why has he identified
with the Labour leader Baroness Royall in commending the Minister for ‘useful
discussions’ about religious schools and freedom of conscience when all
attempts to obtain legal protection for teachers and conscience have been so
far been blocked by the government working in tandem with the Labour Party?
And I have to say that personally
I regret the necessity of having to deal with the possibility of a division at
this stage, on a bill passed by a free vote in the other place.
>> Why does Welby ‘personally regret’ having to vote against a bill
which undermines the Christian definition of marriage? Is it not his Christian
duty (and joy) to stand up for Christian truth? And why does he need to say so?
I was particularly grateful to
hear the speech of the Noble Baroness, Baroness Royall, and agreed with the
proud record that was established by the last government during the years in
which it held office in this area. I also, if I may, will pass on her comments
with gratitude to my colleague the Most Revd Prelate the Archbishop of
York.
>> Why is it necessary for Welby to commend the previous Labour
government and what does he mean by its ‘proud record’? How is this even relevant?
It is clearly essential that
stable and faithful same sex relationships should, where those involved want
it, be recognised and supported with as much dignity and the same legal effect
as marriage. Although the majority of Bishops who voted during the whole
passage of the Civil Partnerships Act through your Lordships' House were in
favour of civil partnerships a few years ago, it is also absolutely true that
the church has often not served the LGBT communities in the way it should. I
must express my sadness and sorrow for that considerable failure. There have
been notable exceptions, such as my predecessor Archbishop Ramsey who
vigorously supported decriminalisation in the 1960s.
>> On what basis is Welby saying that ‘faithful same sex
relationships’ should ‘be recognised and supported with as much dignity and the
same legal effect as marriage’? What biblical or church teaching supports this
view? And is he suggesting that the church should have served the LGBT
community by endorsing and blessing same sex civil partnerships? This is
certainly the most natural reading of his speech and yet it is not even the
position of the church which he leads.
It is also necessary to express,
as has been done already, total rejection of homophobic language, which is
wrong – and more than that, sickening.
>> What does the archbishop actually mean by ‘homophobic
language’? And why, if so many people
have already mentioned this, does he feel it necessary to mention it again?
Welby has now used 516 of his 864 words and seven of his ten paragraphs. Thus
far he has commended the government, the Labour opposition and a bishop that
many regard as a heretic, given his blessing to same sex partnerships and apologised both for the church’s
past record and also for having to vote
against the bill. Not a good start and the clock is steadily ticking.
However, I and many of my
colleagues remain with considerable hesitations about this Bill. My predecessor
Lord Williams of Oystermouth showed clearly last summer, in evidence during the
consultation period, that it has within it a series of category errors. It
confuses marriage and weddings. It assumes that the rightful desire for equality
– to which I’ve referred supportively – must mean uniformity, failing to
understand that two things may be equal but different. And as a result it does
not do what it sets out to do, my Lords. Schedule 4 distinguishes clearly
between same gender and opposite gender marriage, thus not achieving true
equality.
>> Now at last we see some arguments against the bill and it is
this paragraph that has been most quoted in the media. Welby is absolutely
right that the bill contains ‘category errors’, ‘confuses marriages and
weddings’ and misunderstands the difference between ‘equality’ and
‘uniformity’. But why didn’t he leave himself more time to unpack these
arguments and why does his opposition amount to nothing more than ‘considerable
hesitations’. If he rejects the underlying principle of the bill, why does he
not say so?
The result is confusion. Marriage
is abolished, redefined and recreated, being different and unequal for
different categories. The new marriage of the Bill is an awkward shape with
same gender and different gender categories scrunched into it, neither fitting
well. The concept of marriage as a normative place for procreation is lost. The
idea of marriage as covenant is diminished. The family in its normal sense,
predating the state and as our base community of society – as we’ve already
heard – is weakened. These points will be expanded on by others in the debate,
I’m sure, including those from these benches.
>> Again some good strong words, but could he not have expanded
on some of these points rather than confining them to two paragraphs totalling
204 words – the length of a short letter to the
Times? Why has he spent more than
twice as many words already on unnecessary commendations and apologies that
have actually served to undermine his position? And should he not, as
Archbishop of Canterbury and Head of the Church of England, be saying something
about what a distinctively Christian understanding of marriage actually is?
For these and many other reasons,
those of us in the churches and faith groups who are extremely hesitant about
the Bill in many cases hold that view because we think that traditional
marriage is a corner stone of society, and rather than adding a new and valued
institution alongside it for same gender relationships, which I would personally
strongly support to strengthen us all, this Bill weakens what exists and
replaces it with a less good option that is neither equal nor effective. This
is not a faith issue, although we are grateful for the attention that
government and the other place have paid to issues of religious freedom –
deeply grateful. But it is not, at heart, a faith issue; it is about the
general social good. And so with much regret but entire conviction, I cannot
support the Bill as it stands.
>> If there are ‘many other reasons’ why has he not outlined what
some of them are in his first seven paragraphs? Why, as head of the Church of
England, does Welby see legal same sex homoerotic partnerships as a ‘valued
institution alongside (marriage)’ which he ‘would personally strongly support
to strengthen us all’? How does he believe that legalising same sex
partnerships ‘strengthens us all’? And why is this ‘not at heart a faith issue’
when the
teaching
of both the Bible and the church on the matter is so clear and when our
current law on marriage was historically based on this biblical definition? Why
does he say that he cannot support the bill ‘as it stands’? Does he not oppose
its underlying principle? Or is he saying that he would actually support it with
various amendments?
It is notable that the Archbishop of Canterbury’s speech does not
mention God, Jesus Christ, the Bible or even the historic position on the
Church of England. Nor does it explain how the Christian concept of
complimentary heterosexual marriage is a creation ordinance for all mankind
supposed to mirror Christ’s own relationship with his bride the church.
You might argue that parliament would not have been convinced by such
arguments. Quite probably not. But the
Archbishop of Canterbury has a responsibility to bear witness to Christian
truth in the public square. He should
also not be granting needless and unbiblical concessions. He is after all the
Archbishop of Canterbury.
Welby’s speech was a wonderful opportunity to speak for Christ and
Christians and to explain why Christians believe that marriage is so precious
and should not be redefined.
Sadly, for both church and society, it was an opportunity he largely
missed and some of the concessions he has made are very worrying indeed.
