Scotland: a personal view from within the Church of England

Five days to go until the Vote. We have set up a candle stand in Durham Cathedral at the altar of Queen Margaret of Scotland and are inviting people to come and offer this momentous decision to God. 

I've tried to get hold of some 'official' statement from the Church of England about how we view the independence debate south of the border. As far as I know, the English church has confined itself to promising prayers in advance of the vote, and for the healing of divisions once we know the result, and to pledging the CofE's continued goodwill and partner and friend to the Scottish churches and people for the good of all in these islands.

I can understand this carefully measured, even-handed, typically Anglican approach.  I can see why the Scottish churches, which have to live cheek by jowl with the consequences of the decision whichever way it goes, have been scrupulous about not publicly taking sides. But when the Supreme Governor of the CofE says that the decision 'is a matter for the people of Scotland alone', I want to say 'up to a point Lord Copper'. For there is far more to it than people north of Berwick simply deciding whether or not to pursue self-determination. This is where England comes in. 

So what has it got to do with us in England?

The answer is: everything! The future of the United Kingdom is of concern to all its citizens, not just those who have a vote. And it seems to me that the Church of England could have contributed to the debate about the Union by offering some commentary, its own theological and spiritual perceptions, and not least its hopes and fears for next week and its aftermath. It would have been a way of demonstrating what we already acknowledge, that the future of Scotland is also about the future of England. Up here in the borderlands of Northern England, we are deeply aware of how a Yes vote could have a dramatic impact on life south of the Tweed. I believe this is true for the whole of England - and for Wales and Northern Ireland too.

If you regularly read this blog or my tweets, you will know that I am a firm believer in the Union. So I am praying with some feeling that Scotland does not decide to walk away from it (though I should add for the avoidance of doubt that our Cathedral prayers do not steer people towards one specific outcome or the other). I take this view not simply for historical, political or economic reasons, though I believe they all point in the same direction. I believe that it's fundamentally a matter of good theology too. And here is where the Church of England or its House of Bishops might have been more forthcoming in offering an official perspective. 

Running through the Bible and Christian thought is the conviction that the idea of covenant lies at the heart of God's relationship with human beings. It is therefore at the heart of how we as peoples relate to one another. 'Better together' is almost an echo of 'It is not good for a human being to be alone' in the book of Genesis. Therefore, any covenanted relationship based on mutual trust, fidelity, common purpose, interdependence and a care for one another's welfare is always better than being independent and alone. The breakup of the united kingdom of Israel and Judah was regarded as a disaster by the prophets because it flew in the face of a covenant between peoples. 

This is why I think that for Scotland to say no to the Union of which we have all been a part for 300 years would not only be a tragedy, but also a denial of a hard-won principle of human society that the United Kingdom expresses. The point is not whether Scotland could be a successful, prosperous nation on its own.  I am sure it could. But the Christian ideals of mutuality, partnership and service surely point in the opposite direction from narrow nationalisms and self-interest. The question for all the member nations of the UK isn't merely, what are we getting out of the Union? but, what can we put into it? What gifts and experience do we bring to it? What can we contribute to the flourishing of all our peoples? This suggests that we should be investing more in the relationships between us, not dismantling them. 

The United Kingdom is not a perfect union: far from it. The English have a long history of treating the Scots with disdain, even contempt. Durham Cathedral, 'half church of God, half castle 'gainst the Scot' in Sir Walter Scott's famous words, epitomises an often violent, destructive relationship. We English need to repent of this, and start treating Scotland as an equal partner in the Union. We should always have been celebrating the intellectual, social, economic, cultural and spiritual benefits Scotland has brought to the UK, not belatedly talking them up in the weeks before a referendum. 

A new covenant between Scotland and England would entail real devolution of power, something that many of us in the North East of England, also far away from London, hope for too. Here, the progress already made in Scotland could show us English a more excellent way. But if Scotland turns its back on the UK, it will, I fear, be a step back from a noble vision of what can bind nations and peoples together. Federation, commonwealth, and partnership are ideals that should inspire us to work for a good future for all our peoples in a proper, respectful mutuality and recognition of each other's dignity and worth. 

Something along these lines is I believe what the great 16th century Anglican theologian Richard Hooker, in his generous vision of an inclusive polity, would have urged us to pray for and work towards. I believe he would have argued that the welfare of both England and Scotland needs both to be part of a healthy, flourishing Union. In particular, the CofE has a duty of care towards the English. We in the CofE should be saying loud and clear that a future in a truncated UK, whatever it may mean for Scotland, would vastly diminish England. Unity is a value of the kingdom of God, and when a human society embodies it, however imperfectly, something of God's vision for humanity is expressed. 

So I hope the people of Scotland, especially its churches, are in no doubt that we in the Church of England care very much about what happens next week, not as observers but as those committed to the bonds that have tied us together for centuries. Our unity-in-nationhood and our common destiny matter to us. How could they not? This is why my impassioned plea to friends north of the border is: please do not leave us. You are fellow-travellers with us. Stay with us, and help us all to journey on together in peace and hope. 

The Bishops and Same-Sex Marriage

I got into trouble on Face Book yesterday over the Bishop of Leicester's statement as convenor of the bishops in the House of Lords about equal (same-sex) marriage.

To recap, Lord Dear's so-called 'wrecking amendment' was decisively defeated in the House of Lords. It had been supported by most bishops, though a number abstained. None voted against. Bishop Stevens' statement said that in the light of the clear majorities in both Houses, the bishops needed 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'. In that context he mentioned fidelity in marriage and the rights of children. 'It is crucial that marriage as newly defined is equipped to carry within it as many as possible of the virtues of the understanding of marriage it will replace.  Our focus during the Committee and Report stages...will be to address these points in a spirit of constructive engagement.'

On FB, I suggested that given the bishops' well-known and publicly aired hostility to equal marriage, to speak in this rather different tone will have taken courage. For some of them, to recognise that the fight is over and equal marriage is the wish of the majority must have been a bitter pill to swallow. So I want to honour the spirit of Realpolitik that the bishops have shown, even if some of us, with Lord Harries and the Bishop of Salisbury, wish that the Church of England's leadership could have shown a more open and generous attitude to gay people during the debates.

I was in trouble with those who responded by saying that this was too little, too late and too grudging. But I'm reminded of Jesus' parable about the two sons whom their father asked to go and work in his vineyard.  One said yes, but didn't go.  The other said he wouldn't but in time came round and went. It was this son Jesus commended as having ultimately done the right thing. I read the statement as a sign that the bishops intend to be collaborative over equal marriage and help make the measure a better one. For me, this is honourable because it is doing the right thing in the end. Better to be late in doing it than not doing it at all.

As to what the bishops say about marriage, I agree that the proposals are not nearly strong enough on marriage as a covenanted relationship of fidelity.  In this respect, the Archbishop is right: same-sex and other-sex marriages would not be entirely equal. But for this reason, I don't think it is correct to speak about the measure as 'redefining' of marriage. The public covenant between two people who love and wish to belong to each other can and should be precisely the same in both.  It's no more a redefining of marriage than the remarriage of divorced people. In some ways, that is the more radical step to take because it entails considering in what way a covenant that has been broken for whatever reason could be entered into a subsequent time with another partner. So if the church is (largely) content to bless and even solemnise such marriages, this next step of making the institution more inclusive should not necessarily pose new difficulties. To enlarge the scope of an institution is not the same as changing its essential meaning.

There is something worryingly familiar about the bishops' statement however.  It is too often the case that the church is on the back foot, at first resisting social change that is wanted by the majority, then coming round to it slowly and grudgingly. This was precisely the case when artificial contraception was being debated in the early 20th century. Lambeth Conferences were root and branch opposed to the idea that sex could be for recreation as well as procreation. It would have been better to adopt the Gamaliel position of saying 'let us wait and see whether this might be of God'. Much the same can be said about women as priests and bishops in the church.

If you scroll down my blogs on this Woolgathering site, you'll find my piece on Gamaliel and equal marriage.  It's clearer now than then which way history is moving. It's not too late for the Church of England to be on the right side of it this time. Without grudge.

Equal Marriage: Gamaliel's View

After the vote in parliament on equal marriage, how should the churches respond?

 

Some of the rhetoric of church leaders has been little short of hysterical. To call gay marriage a ‘catastrophe’ or hammering the final nail in the coffin of marriage is not the measured language of responsible debate. In a recent tweet, I urged that Christian leaders should turn the volume down.

 

I have been a bit baffled by some of the arguments on both sides.  For instance, it worries me that in the draft legislation for same-sex marriage, there does not seem to be any clear understanding of marriage as a covenanted relationship that requires loyalty and fidelity.  I am told that this is because the lawyers can’t agree about what constitutes same-sex consummation or unfaithfulness.  So straight away this makes equal marriage unequal because it is not defined in precisely the same covenanted way as heterosexual marriage. It is not surprising that some Christians are concerned about weakening the classical understanding of marriage by not placing the vow of faithfulness right at its heart.

 

On the other hand, I am worried by assumptions on the ‘conservative’ side that to allow couples of the same sex to marry somehow undermines the institution of marriage. If this were true of gay marriage, it would be even more true of unions including a divorced party. Indeed, if the vow of fidelity is of the essence of marriage, then divorce and remarriage are in theory a far bigger threat to it than enlarging covenanted unions to include same-sex couples. In fact, this has not turned out to be the case. So I can understand the claim that to advocate gay marriage is in fact to honour marriage as a wholesome institution, good for individuals and good for society because it fosters stability.  This is the very opposite of subverting it.  So I recognise that it's seen as a matter of justice (I don't say human rights) that same-sex couples should be able to enter it too.  

 

There’s a story in the Acts of the Apostles that may help.  A Jewish leader called Gamaliel had to intervene in a furious row about whether or not the infant Christian movement should be tolerated. When things threatened to turn violent he said this: ‘Fellow Israelites, consider carefully what you intend to do…because if this plan or undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God you will not be able to overthrow them; in that case you might even be found fighting against God!’ (Acts 5.33-39)  In today’s febrile atmosphere of heated debate, what would Gamiliel say to us now?  Here are some thoughts.

 

1  We should remember our history. In his speech in Acts, he warns the traditionalists not to be too hasty to condemn.  The Church of England has been in this position several times in the past century.  The furious debates about artificial contraception in the early 20^th century are barely remembered now, but at the time contraception was rejected by bishops and church leaders as a terrible threat to the nature of marriage as meant for procreation.  The legalisation of homosexual acts between consenting adults was another example, the remarriage of divorced people in church yet another.  The Church of England has found ways of accommodating itself to all these developments.  We have seen this as recently as the past decade.  Bishops’ initial hostility towards civil partnerships has become at least a working recognition of their importance to the extent that they are now invoked as desirable as arguments the new-fangled gay marriage. The church will, I’m pretty sure, do this once again and come to recognise equal marriage; if it can’t welcome it, it will at least become pragmatic about it in time. 

 

2  Wait and see how the argument develops in the months ahead. Don’t rush into condemnation. It doesn’t do any good, it will probably make you look foolish, and in the future you may find you wish you could take back things you had said in anger or haste.  Gamaliel does not invoke the principle of Christian charity, but I think he would have urged us to debate with restraint, moderation and courtesy.  The megaphone never clarifies arguments; only thoughtful reflection can do that. There is no point in shouting at Parliament for supporting equal marriage, or at those in the church who are at least prepared to consider that there might an important principle here.

 

3  There is no likelihood of turning back the tide of events.  So the church must learn to live in the light of them. We are beginning to do this in the welcome we give to gay people in the church (though there is still a long way to go: if the bishops really believe that civil partnerships are good or not-bad, the church should be able to bless them as it has come to bless the marriages of the divorced).  What we especially need to do now is to make sure that the legislation is informed by the wisest and best insights that Christianity has brought down the centuries to its understanding of marriage, such as the dimension of fidelity and covenanted love that I mentioned earlier.

 

And if charity directs the way we respond to equal marriage as everything else, I believe we shall continue to hold the goodwill and respect which, despite everything, many people still have for the established church.