The U.S. based Episcopal Church’s recognition of same sex unions
last month mostly excited a big yawn. More interesting is the
resistance of its mother body, the Church of England, to Prime
Minister David Cameron’s attempt to install same sex marriage in
Britain. The latter’s opposition is more significant because it
remains its nation’s established church and still wields political
and constitutional powers.
Episcopalians have often behaved as the established church in
America. It once was the church of America’s elites. But now below
2 million members and spiraling, the Episcopal Church no longer
excites more than knowing smiles. Its affirmation of transgender
clergy last month, at its General Convention, fulfilled stereotypes
about modern, liberal Episcopalians.
The Church of England similarly often has a penchant for
striving to be trendier than thou. But even as it presides over an
increasingly secular Britain, it cherishes its role as senior
church in the global, 80 million member Anglican Communion. And its
few pockets of spiritual vitality in Britain often tend to be
evangelical, often immigrant. Its second senior most prelate, the
Archbishop of York, is himself a Ugandan and potentially the next
Archbishop of Canterbury.
It’s also true than in a secularizing country, the Church of
England (unlike U.S. Episcopalians, who mostly just resent more
numerous evangelicals) appreciates the threat to religious liberty
under a regime of imposed same sex marriage. How would the
established church disallow what the civil law requires? The church
may have to disestablish, especially if it desires any continued
leadership over global Anglicans.
British media quoted church officials dismissing government
plans as “‘half-baked,’ ‘very shallow,’ ‘superficial’ and
‘completely irrational.’” Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams
and Archbishop of York John Sentamu only slightly more
diplomatically lamented that government proposals “have not been
thought through and are not legally sound.” The church’s official
response rejected the government’s push with vigorous,
point-by-point rebuttals.
One organizer of that response was Bishop of Leicester Tim
Steve, who declared on his own: “Marriage is not the property of
the Church any more than it is the property of the Government. It
is about a mutually faithful physical relationship between a man
and a woman.” He warned, despite government claims of protection
for churches, “If you do what the Government say they are going to
do, you can no longer define marriage in that way. It becomes
hollowed out, and about a relationship between two people, to be
defined on a case-by-case basis.” Imposed same sex marriage would
precipitate the “gradual unravelling of the Church of England which
is a very high cost for the stability of society.”
In its official response, the church criticized the government’s
idea, which would “alter the intrinsic nature of marriage as the
union of a man and a woman, as enshrined in human institutions
throughout history.” Marriage benefits society by “promoting
mutuality and fidelity, but also by acknowledging an underlying
biological complementarity which, for many, includes the
possibility of procreation.” The church noted its past support for
benefits for same-sex couples, and warned that redefining marriage
for “ideological reasons” would be “divisive and deliver no obvious
legal gains given the rights already conferred by civil
partnerships.”
Compared to Episcopalians, the Church of England sounded like
Southern Baptists, declaring marriage was instituted by Christ
Himself for all people as a lifelong union of man and woman. It
even quoted the Book of Common Prayer of 1662, hardly an arbiter of
modern fashion. And it cited ancient words so recognizable to all
English speakers: “The Church of Christ understands marriage to be,
in the will of God, the union of a man and a woman, for better, for
worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love
and to cherish, till parted by death.”
“Many, within the churches and beyond, dispute the right of any
government to redefine an ages-old social institution in the way
proposed,” the church noted, soundly more truly conservative than
the Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party. “It is
important to be clear that insistence on the traditional
understanding of marriage is not a case of knee-jerk resistance to
change but is based on a conviction that the consequences of change
will not be beneficial for society as a whole.”
The church, which is legally bound to conduct marriages to all
British citizens and currently conducts one quarter of all
Britain’s marriages, wondered how its beliefs long could survive,
even with ostensible protections for religious freedom. It also
asked why the government would continue to allow civil partnerships
for same sex couples after legalizing same sex marriage. And it
asked how the new law would define adultery and consummation.
Rowan Williams steps down at the end of this year as Archbishop
of Canterbury, no doubt partly due to his frustrations over schisms
and divisions among Anglicans precipitated by the Episcopal Church
over sex issues. He came to office with liberal views, but his
liberal critics now chide him for supposedly “hardening” the
church’s resistance to liberalizing on sex. The church’s defense of
traditional marriage may have lasting constitutional implications
for Britain. It may also turn out to be its finest hour.
