Church of England one step closer to gay marriages in church: Vote against bishops' report that supported ban is hailed as a victory by liberal clergy
 |
| English: Logo of the Church of England (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
The Church of England was plunged into a damaging new split last night after its parliament threw out its bishops’ plan to end 30 years of conflict over gay rights.
The General Synod embarrassed the Church’s leaders by voting against a scheme that would have paved the way for church services to bless the unions of gay couples - while keeping the traditional teaching that marriage must be between a man and a woman.
The rejection was a major rebuff to Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, who had led a three-year campaign to smooth over the acrid and bitter dispute, which continues to split the Church. While a majority of the Synod backed the plan – which would have given ‘maximum freedom’ for gay clergy and gay couples under the rules of Church doctrine – the votes of clergy resulted in its downfall.
Evangelical conservatives opposed to gay rights joined with liberal clergy and gay activists to defeat the bishops’s scheme.
Clergy voted by 100 to 93 to refuse to ‘take note’ of the bishops’ report, and under Synod rules a vote against by one group meant the report fell.
The refusal to ‘take note’ means bishops cannot bring their plan back for reconsideration for another three years.
The Church has been divided over gay rights since 1987, when the Synod voted to reject gay sex as sinful.
Since 1991, the Church has operated an uneasy regime under which gay couples are welcome in churches but gay clergy must be celibate. The Church, which last suffered a major rebellion against its leadership in 2012 when the Synod rebelled against plans to allow women to become bishops, has been desperate to end its disputes over homosexuality following civil law changes that have allowed same-sex partners to marry since 2014.
The new scheme would have eased the pressure on gay clergy and prepared prayers for all Church of England churches to use to support gay couple who are married under civil laws or who take out civil partnerships.
The Archishop of Canterbury appealed personally to the Synod for support for the bishops’ plan.
Archbishop Welby said the bishops’ report ‘is not the end of the story’, adding: ‘We will as the bishops think again and go on thinking. We will seek to do better.’
The bishop primarily responsible for the plan, the Bishop of Norwich, the Right Reverend Graham James, said the debate had been ‘painful’.
A series of speakers from both liberal and conservative evangelical wings of the Church made plain their unhappiness with the bishops’ plans.
Gay activist Lucy Gorman, a Synod member from the York diocese, said gay people were dying because of discrimination.
She said a friend called Helen who committed suicide last year had said: ‘I love my local church and my faith but I feel conflicted about the Church of England.
‘It makes me sad and angry that it can waste so much energy in being inward-looking, that it misrepresents God’s generous love, Christ’s teachings, and as an established Church can be exempt from equality legislation.’
Another gay activist, Jayne Ozanne, a former member of the CofE’s cabinet, the Archbishops’ Council, said the report was not clear.
‘I chose to use the phrase unGodly in my reaction to it,’ she said. ‘We do not need cleverly-worded reports that can be read by either party any way they want.’
Susie Leafe, of the Church’s conservative Reform movement, which opposes gay rights, questioned whether the bishops were upholding the doctrine that sex must remain inside marriage and that marriage must be between a man and a woman.
Another conservative, Andrea Minichiello Williams, of the Christian Concern group, added: ‘From what we have heard this afternoon the two positions are irreconcilable.’
She said sexual behaviour was ‘a salvation issue’ and clergy must set an example, adding: ‘That is why sexual morality is so important.’
Developed by the bishops after five years of inquiries and talks within the Church, the package of reforms was designed to find a compromise after 30 years of division over gay rights.
The plan was designed to offer a form of prayer to mark civil partnerships or same-sex weddings. A blessing for same-sex couples in all but name, it would be available in Anglican churches across the country.
There was also to be an end to hostile interrogation of trainee priests to check whether they are actively gay.
Instead the same questions would have been asked of all future priests, gay or straight, to check that they intend to stick by the rules of marriage and fidelity.
Bishops apologised in advance of the Synod debate for the failure of their plans to please all in the Church.
The Bishop of Norwich, Graham James, said the Church ‘owes much’ to its gay members and clergy.
‘Like others which have gone before it, the report has not received a rapturous reception in all quarters, and I regret any pain or anger it may have caused,’ he said.
Bishop James also signalled that the Church was wrong when 30 years ago it declared that gay sex was sinful.
The Synod voted in its three houses – bishops, clergy and laity. Under the rules, a vote against in any one house means a motion must fall.
After two hours of acrimonious and anguished debate, bishops voted 43 in favour of the plan. But one, unnamed prelate voted against the plan to which he or she had put his or her name.
Clergy voted 93 in favour and 100 against with two abstentions, while the laity - lay Synod members - voted 242 in favour and 184 against with six abstentions.
Following the vote the Bishop of Willesden, the Right Reverend Pete Broadbent, said: ‘When we legislated for women to be bishops, even those opposed came to the view that the Church of England had to make it possible for women to be bishops in the Church of God according to our canons and formularies.
‘In this debate, we haven’t even begun to find a place where we can coalesce. The bishops’ report acknowledges a place of starting. More conversation is needed. We don’t yet know the next stage - nor yet when and whether we can bring any further report to Synod.’
