Why the bishops have an option
by Martin Davie:
In the past few days, the attention of those interested in the Church of England’s position on human sexuality has been focused on the arguments in favour of the Church’s acceptance of same-sex marriage put forward by the Bishop of Oxford in his paper Together in Love and Faith[1] and the subsequent support for his position offered by six other bishops.
Because excellent responses to the Bishop of Oxford’s paper have been made by Vaughan Roberts[2]and Ian Paul,[3] I am not going to discuss it in this article. What I am going to discuss instead is the article in the Church Times which preceded the publication of the Bishop of Oxford’s paper, and which has not received the examination it deserves.
The article was concerned with the discussion about the way forward for the Church of England on the issue of human sexuality that took place at the College of Bishops meeting from 31 October to 2 November. The headline for the article, which was published on 2 November, was ‘ Church of England bishops edge closer to a decision on sexuality’[4] and the key point made in the article is the one made in the second paragraph:
‘Although no decision has been made about what formal proposals will be presented to the General Synod in February 2023 — these will be finalised at the next College of Bishops meeting, 12-14 December — it is understood that the bishops acknowledge that simply to restate the existing ban on same-sex blessings or marriage in church is not an option.’[5]
The words ‘it is understood’ in this paragraph, like the words ‘it is said’ in the following paragraph, indicate that although the proceedings of the College of Bishops meeting were meant to be confidential, bishops have nevertheless been briefing the Church Times with their view of what took place. Furthermore, it would be naive to think that this briefing of the Church Times was not connected with the release of the Bishop of Oxford’s paper. Those who want the Church of England to change its position are seeking to create a public narrative in which change is seen as inevitable, and both the briefings and the Bishop of Oxford’s paper are part of this attempt.
In the paragraph quoted above, the idea of the inevitability of change is conveyed by the final clause ‘it is understood that the bishops acknowledge that simply to restate the existing ban on same-sex blessings or marriage in church is not an option.’ Change, this clause tells us, is inevitable because the bishops have realised that simply restating the existing position ‘is not an option.’
A moment’s thought shows that the claim made in the final clause is untrue. According to the dictionary an option is something ‘that is, or may be chosen.’ For it to be true that restating the Church’s current position ‘is not an option’ this would be something that the bishops were literally unable to choose, and this cannot be the case.
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
