Jeffrey John breaks silence on civil partnership

The Dean of St Albans, Dr Jeffrey John, has broken his silence on civil partnerships, arguing that it is a “tragedy” that the Church cannot regard gay relationships as part of God’s work. Dr John says in the foreword to a new book published by Affirming Catholicism that civil partnerships rightly confer exactly the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual marriage.
His view flies in the face of Church of England bishops who have been at pains to emphasise that civil partnerships are not the same as marriage. The book is written by Jonathan Sedgwick.

In the book, Civil Partnership: A Guide for Christians, Dr John, who was forced to decline the post of Bishop of Reading after evangelical protests, says: “God made all of us, gay or straight, in his own image to reflect his kind of love.”
Whenever two people love each other enough to commit their lives together “till death us do part” they are expressing the deepest and most godlike instinct in human nature.
He continues: “That the Church as a whole cannot yet see and acknowledge that this is God’s work is a tragedy.”
He says the Civil Partnership Act is a “very big step” towards full and equal acceptance of gay relationships.
He says: “Perhaps the greatest gain will be the increased visibility of lifelong, faithful same-sex relationships in society and in the Church.
“This is crucial, because knowing an ordinary gay couple is far more likely to change hostile hearts and minds than any amount of argument. Certainly there is still a long way to travel and a lot of prejudice to overcome, but even in the Church there is no doubt about the outcome. Love will win in the end.”

Dr John’s booklet ‘Permanent, Faithful, Stable: Christian Same-Sex partnerships’ was published by Affirming Catholicism in 1993 and updated in 2001. AC says of the book: "It placed biblical teaching on homosexuality in its historical context and called for contemporary Church practice to develop and accord loving, committed and sexually faithful same-sex relationships the same value and significance as Christian marriage."

Meanwhile, the Thinking Anglicans website has been running the astonishing exchange between the Bishop of Bangor, Anthony Crockett  on his own website and Dr Andrew Goddard in a Fulcrum article.

Goddard condemned the Welsh bishops' statement on civil partnerships and that on homosexuality as "wholly incredible", accuses them of a "flawed understanding" of the Civil Partnership Act" and of acquiescing to the mores of secular society.

In a startlingly robust rebuttal, Crockett, (incidentally my own father's bishop) accuses him of zealotry and clouded judgement, of "total disregard" of the way ethical teaching in Christianity has developed such as the Anglican Church's own volte face on contraception and of being among those whom make homophobia the "shibboleth" of orthodox. (It is not often I have to look a word uttered by an Anglican bishop up in a dictionary to remind myself of its precise meaning. Cassell's informs me that shibboleth, from a Hebrew word meaning discredited doctrine, was a word used as a test in Judges XII to distinguish the Ephraimites from the Gileadites.)

The bishop thunders on, accusing Goddard of fulminating wrongly, of clutching at straws and making mischief.

I'll give you his conclusion in full, as to summarise it doesn't do it justice:

"There are so many glaring prejudices in Dr Goddard's piece, but time and space do not permit any further rebuttal. He should, however, be reminded that Archbishop Akinola hath no jurisdiction in the Province of Wales, and to produce that name out of his hat shows how desperate Dr Goddard is to call anyone in aid. One is left with the awful feeling that for Dr Goddard this issue of same sex relationships has become the contemporary test of Christian orthodoxy. But why not usury and the damage done to billions who – contrary to the consistent teaching of the Bible – are consigned to a life of grinding, absolute poverty because of the usurious workings of the capitalist system – which will, no doubt, one day pay for Dr Goddard's pension? Why not the use of artificial contraception? We could then be co-belligerent with the Roman Church, and thus reinstate Onan as one of the villains of the Biblical record. On Dr Goddard's static and unhistorical view of Christian ethics, these would seem to be examples of ‘clear teaching' which he would want to uphold too. Why not, Dr Goddard?"

Goodness me. Well I'll be advising my dad not to wear his biretta on the beach at Bangor for a while, just in case he bumps into the good bishop.

Meanwhile, new synod member Paul Eddy has tabled a question for the General Synod next month:

"In the light of the recent Civil Partnerships Act, would the Chairman of the Pensions Board advise Synod whether diocesan bishops will need to confirm they have received the necessary assurances under the House of Bishops’ Pastoral Statement on Civil Partnerships before any new beneficiary who has registered a civil partnership receives a benefit from the Clergy Pension Scheme?"

I think we can safely assume this won't be the only synod question on the subject. Maybe that's why questions this time have, most unusually, been left to last thing on Thursday, the last  of all. At least the bishops will be able to make a quick getaway when they fail (given the depths of divisions, failure here is inevitable I fear) to answer them to the satisfaction of all concerned.

There is also a debate on civil partnerships on the Fulcrum website here.

(Photos from website of St Albans Review & Observer)

Comments

[Jeremy Hummerstone]

Bishop Crockett's remarriage & divorce may not be strictly relevant for your argument, but it is a matter of observed fact that people who have been divorced and remarried nearly always become much more "liberal" in their theology afterwards, especially their theology of marriage. And in general, people whose religious circumstances have been partly determined by a breach with Christian tradition are BOUND to have less respect for the tradition accordingly - how could they not? Bishop Crockett's "robust" rebuke of Dr Goddard tells us more about himself than about the matter purportedly at issue.

[Malcolm Bowden]

As a lawyer who is also interested in theology may I point out that Civil Partnership under the new Act is not "gay marriage". Firstly, it is not marriage if you understand marriage as a sexual relationship. This is shown by the fact that there are no provisions for annulment based on n0n-consummation and that the grounds for dissolution, generally similar to those for divorce, exclude adultery. Secondly, it is not specifically gay; any two persons of the same sex can enter into a civil partnership provided they are not within the prohibited degrees (and some of us in the law feel that that is an anomaly that needs looking at). Unfortunately terms like "gay marriage" are bandied about far too freely and I think among Christians in a pejorative way. Why are the Church and so many Christians so obsessed with sex?

[Adrian Collier]

I have doubts on Dr John's initial point that God made all of us, gay or straight,in his own image when I read it in context and note that it precedes the fall.
That said I cannot ignore that gay and lesbian christians sincerely love God and are responding naturally to an incredibly powerful urge in the human body.
I wish I could reconcile the opposing viewpoints but I can't and so I keep both balls in the air until the Spirit shows me otherwise.

[Tom Allen]

The legal position about Civil partnerships is more complex and equivalent to marriage than most people imagine. As I parish priest I am now required by secular law to ensure that anyone coming forward for marriage is not in an existing civil partnership or at least that they have been legally seperated.

I have asked for my Bishop for guidance as to whether I should similarly apply the regulations for re-marriage if a partner has previously been in a civil partnership - I have not received a reply. With the existence of bi-sexual people it is not beyond the realm of possibility in the future. No dounbt the first civil partnership divource will receive great publicity!

[Mike Homfray]

Martin ; I think you need to look carefully at the aspects of law which have been amended to take note of civil partnerships. They are identical to civil marriage.

Anyone can enter into a civil partnership if they are of the same sex and not related to each other - just like anyone can enter into marriage if they are of the opposite sex and not related to each other.

I think you are clutching at straws because church conservatives cannot bear the reality of gay civil marriage which is what we now have - gat real and get used to it.

[Anna]

Thanks, Ruth! Do love the blog.

[Göran Koch-Swahne]

The point of shibolet was not "discredited" teaching, but the dialect.

How they pronounced the word was the test.

[Anna]

What does Bishop Crockett's divorce and remarriage have to do with his recent statement? You don't mention how many times Dr. Goddard may have been married. Irrelevant asides on people's personal lives generally lower the tone of a writer's remarks. This was a sour note in a string of posts I've really enjoyed.

rg: good point, i will delete the comment

[Keith Downer]

For Dr Jeffrey John to suggest that an homosexual relationship - even one where two people have shown deep and real commitment - is God's work, defies belief. I find homosexuality perplexing but realistically accept that such relationships can be meaningful and fulfilling for the people concerned. Homosexuals should not suffer prejudice or persecution; they should be treated with respect and consideration, deserving of God's love.
God created a man and a woman in such a way that a union between them produced children and a continuation of his creation. This is not possible in a same-sex relationship.
Why two individuals of any sex are attracted to one another is a mystery, as bewildering now as it was in the beginning but it is impossible to deny that the attraction between men and women is normal and the way God intended.
Homosexuality may one day become more scientifically understandable and with that enlightenment should come even greater tolerance and acceptance but those of us who are heterosexual should never feel pressured or obliged to consider ourselves as anything but God's unique and intended creation.

[Martin Joss]

I believe that Jeffrey John is wrong. Civil Partnerships ARE limited by the relationships as the tables of affinity [those relatives we can't marry]. But as I understand it, it IS possible for two people of the same gender to enter into a civil partnership without being gay or in a sexual relationship. Would we regard a platonic civil partnership as equalling "marriage"? Surely it would be bizarre to do so and this suggests there is a significant and fundamental difference between civil partnership and marriage.

[My sister sees a good tax dodge here for old ladies wanting to leave their houses to unmarried female housekeeepers!]

[Mike Homfray]

What a refreshing change to read a statement by a bishop that isn't full of the usual fence-sitting, vague language - when the split comes , as it surely will, it is good to know that there is still a place in the church for justice and radical thinking. Let the conservatives get on with building their pre-modern laager - it has precisely no worth or relevance to anyone or anything. Atheism would be entirely preferable!

[Steve Ward]

The very troubles evident in marriage were brought about because the institution was allowed to become a flag of convenience to those who wanted to "commit their lives together “till death us do part”".

Marrriage in its purest intention isn't about gestures, or convenience or for that matter Love as the Dr Jeffrey Johns of this World sample it; but it is certainly about "expressing the deepest and most godlike instinct in human nature"... i.e. Creating Life, which those who bring children into the World surely do.