I read this morning in the Times that following the Lords passing an amendment to the Equality Bill permitting the use of 'religious venues and language' for civil partnerships that clergy could be at risk from civil action against them if they refused to permit such in their church.
+Michael Scott-Joynt, Winchester, said regarding the decision in the Lords, "I believe it will open, not the Church of England but individual clergy, to charges of discrimination if they solemnise marriages . . . but refuse to host civil partnership signings in their churches."
This measure further blurs the lines between marriage and civil partnership and for many will enable them to see them as synonymous, although of course they already did anyway! What is sad, for me, is that I would of course fight for the right to act according to conscience and so would support anyone who wishes not to take such a service or permit it in their church. If people can be forced, by legal means, to undertake a service of this sort against their conscience then I assume that this means that I will be able to, by legal means, have a vegetarian friend forced to eat meat because I wish it to be so! What has happened to equal rights and the freedom of the individual?
I personally would be happy to do a service! Mind you I would pick my own words and would have to say it as I understands the Bible sees it so I probably wouldn't get much repeat business. Still, the first one might be an interesting exercise for all involved ;-) . But I'd be happy - just not sure it would ever get through to the event for as the old adage says, You can lead a Priest to the altar but you can't stop him think (or speak either). Caveat emptor would definitely apply.
BUT
The bottom line is that time and time again we see people with conscience acted against inside and outside the church. I have sat through lectures where senior figures have spoken out against people who stand against the ordination of women describing them as mysogynists, sexists, bigots and people who, "Need to be hounded out of the church," and no, I'm not exaggerating. I have seen people acted against and even voted against in the general Synod (or is a vote that portrays those who oppose women's ordination as 'not faithful anglicans' some form of new style support? No wonder some will swim the Tiber!).
We all need to support conscience where it is acted upon. To change the law such that conscience can be overthrown so that the desires and acts of a minority can control the whole then we've lost the plot. I'm not a vegetarian and I wouldn't force someone to eat meat, I enjoy a pint but wouldn't force a teetotaller to drink. What I might choose to do is my right but this does not allow me to enforce my practices, or acceptance of these, on others. Choice and the right to engage it, even when the result is sin, is a God-given and inalienable right and any society which seeks to enforce acts which are contrary to the beliefs and views held by a person or body is on a slippery slope to totalitarianism and the same excesses that graced the communist states of old. After all, God doesn't force us to love Him now does He? Choice is what God is all about, especially making the right choices - and I have the right not to bless what I see as wrong choices by the same measure.
One unsettling thought for those who aren't Anglicans and assume this is just 'A CofE thing'. If I were one of those who wish to push this potential opportunity for mischief I wouldn't settle on just going out to press the CofE clergy to undertake, or even permit, blessings of civil partnerships but would also target the other denominations. So before others who read this assume this is a slippery slope for just Anglican, be aware this is an act against orthodoxy and not just one denomination and the dust won't settle before people have approached Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostalists, Evangelicals and the like.
As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
ps. A word to our Bishops and other church leaders. Check your headphones and speakers. The song is 'How GREAT is our God' not how GREY. Black and white is what is required, leadership and support for those clergy and people who have orthodox views and who are seeing this eroded by state and church - wake up and be the watchmen you are called to be to Church and state.
Got a view on this and want to dialogue? Post a comment here or come discuss it at: Cavedwellers
5 comments:
I haven't read the amendment so don't know exactly what it permits, but permission to use religious buildings and religious wording does not automatically oblige the incumbent of said venue to be present, does it?
At the moment churches CANNOT host civil partnerships or use religious language.
The amendment ALLOWS the use of a religious building or religious language. It doesn't say churches MUST accept it.
Several groups like the Quakers have wished to be allowed to have religious ceremonies, but the law has denied them that. This redresses the balance and allows the to act as their conscience demands.
If the CofE wants the religious freedom to ban civil partnerships in church, other groups must be allowed the freedom of worship to allow them.
There undoubtedly are those in the CofE and other churches who would want to ban this move, but i don't think that is the thrust of this blog. The concern here is whether or not the Bishop of Winchester (not Worcester, Vic) is right in his appraisal that priests would be forced to bless civil partnerships against their conscience. If what you say is true and there is no obligation to do so, then this will just be another crack in the unity of the church, but not the death knell it has been portrayed as.
The Evangelical Alliance is calling on the Government to guarantee that churches will genuinely be free to choose whether or not to hold civil partnerships without risk of future anti-discrimination lawsuits following last night's (March 2) unexpected amendment to the Civil Partnerships Act.
The Evangelical Alliance, which represents thousands of evangelical churches and denominations across the UK, acknowledged that the change to the Civil Partnerships Act - enabling churches to conduct civil partnerships on their premises if they so wish - is in keeping with the important principle of religious freedom.
While the Act does include a clause to allow churches to refuse to conduct civil partnerships, the Alliance is concerned anti-discrimination actions under the Equality Act will undermine this protection and leave churches confused about what they are allowed to do.
Dr Don Horrocks, Head of Public Affairs for the Evangelical Alliance, said: "We understand the Lords' desire to allow a few liberal religious groups to have freedom to follow their consciences. But neither must other religious groups be forced to betray their consciences by facing lawsuits if they fail to allow a civil ceremony.
"This amendment hugely confuses the distinction between civil secular ceremonies and religious ceremonies, as well as the nature of marriage and has major implications for the UK's matrimonial laws which haven't begun to be thought through.
"On the same night, the Government refused to allow Catholic adoption agencies liberty to follow their consciences, but the two decisions are contradictory and inconsistent.
"We don't want to see in a few years' time churches ending up in the same boat, where they are forced to comply with anti-discrimination law or close down."
He added that the balance of freedoms was not fair for the adoption agencies.
"The Government therefore needs to make clear that no church will ever in the future be able to be successfully sued on grounds of discrimination for failing to allow a civil ceremony while it continues to permit religious marriages."
Post a Comment