BISHOPS’ PROPOSALS ON CIVIL PARTNERSHIP ACT ‘FLAWED AND UNWORKABLE’ SAYS REFORM
The Pastoral Statement issued by the House of Bishops on the implications for the church of the Civil Partnership Act (25th July) is ‘flawed and unworkable’, according to Reform, the network of Anglican evangelicals in the Church of England.
Commenting on the Bishops’ Statement, Reform said that its members – and many others who seek to be faithful to the Bible’s teaching within the Church of England – are glad to read the Bishops’ firm endorsement of traditional Christian teaching on marriage and sexual relations. There is also be some sympathy for them in seeking to resolve the difficulties caused by this new piece of legislation. However, compromising in the face of this legislation is not the way forward. The Bishops should have said that registration under the Act is incompatible with Holy Orders.
The Church of England’s Prayer Book tells clergy that actions which cause “grave and immediate scandal to the congregation” should lead to the withdrawal of communion. The Bible says close friendships are a cause of joy and there is therefore nothing necessarily ‘scandalous’ about two people of the same sex sharing the same accommodation. However, when two people of the same sex engage in a civil partnership as defined by the Act, then there is a presumption – at least in the public mind - of sexual intimacy. This will apply whether or not Bishops ask for reassurances from affected clergy about their celibacy. For the vast majority applying for a Civil Partnership it will only confirm the desire for recognition and affirmation of a lifestyle that is incompatible with Scripture, and therefore the Bishops should have stated that engaging in a Civil Partnership for that vast majority will be incompatible with Scripture. Further, they should have made clear that for those for whom it may not be incompatible it will be unnecessary.
The fact that Bishops are prepared to accept that licensed ministry is compatible with registration under the Act is a mistake because it opens the church to the accusation of permitting something the Bible sees as scandalous; it may encourage couples to be deceitful about their relationships; and it will be widely seen as collusion with a fiction that couples registered under the Act are not engaging in sexual relations. Many in the church will be ashamed at this pastoral statement; it will certainly make collaborative ministry less possible and it will cause suspicion about the Bishop’s own attachment to traditional teaching.’