Gay marriage and the Church’s response

As the Archbishop of Canterbury has reminded us more than once, we are experiencing a cultural revolution in the area of public attitudes to sexual morality. The pace of change has been rapid. I am not yet 50 years old. When I was born, homosexual sex was illegal; in two weeks time, people of the same sex will marry, accompanied by celebrations all over the country. The change has not evolved gradually, but has happened as part of a deliberate campaign. The current revelations about life in the seedy 1970’s illustrates how the ‘gay rights’ movement transformed itself from part of a coalition of leftist and anarchist anti-establishment groups (including paedophiles), to a respectable, single-issue cause, embedded in the establishment and in all political parties. The change has been carefully controlled, by using media, the law and even science to promote the new ideas.

 

The revolution has been rapidly accepted: importantly by people with power and influence, and then filtering down to the general population. The message has been imposed through a combination of relentless teaching and threats of punishment for resisting. And there is a real belief that the changes are wholly positive, part of the progress of civilisation.

 

In the face of this remarkably successful campaign, how has the church responded? By and large, we have seen targeting, analysis, paralysis, and division. After looking at each of these in turn, we’ll see if we can discern any signs of hope.

 

It is a paradox that though one of the tenets of the media narrative about the church is its irrelevance, it is deemed relevant enough to be relentlessly targeted in the campaign for full ‘gay rights’. Why should it matter to the majority of gay people and those who support the successful campaign for full ‘equality’ including marriage, who rarely or never go to church, what the church believes or does? And yet it clearly does matter, as these articles in today’s Daily Telegraph and Guardian show, together with the stream of comments.

 

Why have the newspapers found space for these opinions? Because a church which conforms to secular humanism’s diktats remains usefully irrelevant, a poodle rather than a lion. Would they print an article with the opposing view? A church which says “there is a higher authority than Caesar” is a counterrevolutionary threat, so if this view is given space, it is in order to ridicule and criticize it.