Why no-one wants the Prayers of Love and Faith
by Ann Onymous, Psephizo:
A major problem with the Prayers of Love and Faith package (PLF) that scraped through Synod is that no one actually wants this approach. The only caveat to that ‘no one’ is that—for now—some who want to see much greater change will swallow PLF (and just about stomach it) as a step in the direction they hope for. But that is not happiness with PLF in itself: it is a sensible political approach for those seeking something more, and different. But no one really wants PLF.
One can argue that widespread unhappiness was always going to happen here, in the movement from the theory stage of LLF to action. However, this particular approach is disliked profoundly by both those who are, by theological conviction and in good conscience, seeking significant change and those who, by theological conviction and in good conscience, believe that such change would be wrong. The old maxim runs that you can make some of the people happy all of the time or all of the people happy some of the time; PLF seems to be a dramatically bad deal, making none of the people happy at all.
There is a kind of political logic to how we got to PLF, based on what appear to be some decisions made by the House of Bishops (HoB). The HoB seemed to think that while it was good for the whole church to discuss sex, sexuality and gender in theory, when it came to what we might actually do, no one would else should discuss these options with any transparency except the bishops. So, they created a package alone and have then sought Synod’s approval for it. Three principles (among others, no doubt) seem to have been undergirding this:
- That there has to be some change in the direction of inclusivity for same-sex couples, both as a matter of theological conviction for a majority of bishops, and because of their concern about parliament’s response—and the implications of that—if there is no change.
- That there cannot appear to be any real change doctrinally: the doctrine of marriage in Canon B30 must remain, mainly because an overt challenge to that will not be accepted in Synod. Any proposals therefore have to be to be—at least arguably—concordant with it.
- That must be no kind of differentiation within the Church of England on this matter, in contrast to the fact that there was—and is—such differentiation for those opposed to the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate.
If these three principles are held to, one arrives inexorably at a PLF-like approach. No substantial change is possible (Canon B30 remains), but it has to be presentable as change. A space has to be created where some forms of prayer are offered for same-sex couples, but this cannot be recognised theologically as a blessing of their marriage or civil partnership as such, and cannot practically look like a wedding or wedding blessing. The bishops had to try to create a path that would offer an appearance of welcome and support to same-sex couples, but yet be presentable to traditionalists as concordant with B30. So, what PLF gives is an opportunity for recognising ‘the goods’ in a same-sex relationship. But let us be clear: this is ‘the goods’ in a committed same-sex relationship as defined by the bishops; it is not a recognition of the nature or status of a relationship in the way it is understood and described by a same-sex married couple themselves.
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
