The Gordian Knot

The legend of the Gordian knot concerns the former kingdom of Gordium in present-day Asian Turkey. There was an ox-cart attached by a complex knot. The oracle said that whoever was able to untie the knot was destined to rule the whole of Asia. In 333 BC Alexander the Great (from Macedonia) arrived in his military campaigns and according to the most popular version simply solved the puzzle by slicing through the knot with one stroke of his sword. Well - he did in due course proceed to conquer all Asia as far East as India and Afghanistan. 

Of course today untying the Gordian knot is a metaphor for solving a seemingly insoluble problem. As my previous post indicated, the Church of England has succeeded after many years in creating such a problem. It concerns irreconcilable differences concerning same-sex relationships, in particular those of lifelong commitment. For once this is a moreorless binary split, between those who quote individual categorical verses from the Bible condemning homosexual relations and those who believe that same Bible needs to be read within its cultural contexts and in the light of message of Jesus. Last week's General Synod's vote apparently satisfied nobody, 'progressives' considering it a fudge and 'traditionalists' considering a sell-out. As a result the CofE looks as though it's heading towards schism. 

Is there any way to avoid it? I think there is, but, as I hinted before, it's as radical as slicing a knot with a sword. It means the established church relinquishing its privileged position of solemnizing the institution of marriage and leaving all marriages to the state, preserving for itself the honourable service of those who come asking for blessing for themselves. I imagine that this would be a matter of conscience for clergy,  with some saying, "I'm sorry, I can't bless you, because...", for example, you are of the same sex, or you've been living in the same house, sharing the same bed, you've been married before etc. (To be clear, there were times when as vicar I refused marriage to divorced individuals, and offered them a service of blessing instead. Not an easy decision or conversation but in accordance with the then existing rules of the church.) Other clergy no doubt would welcome couples asking to be blessed. And this could be allowed for, as it does in other realms of the Law.

Undoubtedly such a change would require acts of Parliament and legal contortions by ecclesiastical lawyers and therefore would take a long time. Yet the prospect of both this endless diversion from the central role of the Church, to present the great good news of God's love in Christ, ceasing and the modelling of the fulfilment of Christ's great prayer for his followers, that they should demonstrate his love for world by their love for one another, beginning should surely be enough to sustain us. 

Might we one day see wedding parties going joyfully from the registry office to be welcomed by their priest and dedicating their new life together to the God whom they worship? I hope so. And might we see a humbler Church of England answering Christ's prayer for us: "I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one." I pray so. That is surely an imperative which all of us must heed.

Unholy irony

Yesterday, eclipsed by events on the domestic political stage, the whole Church of England General Synod, after a passionate address by the Archbishop of Canterbury and a shorter message from the Archbishop in Jerusalem, stood for two minutes in reverent silence praying for peace and reconciliation in Israel/Gaza. It was ironic therefore it was followed by a series of questions, some clearly barbed, on the subject of sexuality, which simply exposed how deeply and indeed bitterly divided the Church's Synod is over the issue. I suppose the people who stand for Synod, as for Parliament, will be activists by inclination, as it might be front-line warriors. Perhaps this is good for sharpening policies (to use political terminology). However I'm not sure the Church is meant to be a political body. I don't mean that it should not comment on or be involved in civil politics. But that's not its essence. That is to be a community of love, a community which models what loving and living together looks like. As its founder said, " I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another.  By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

 

Well, this afternoon will no doubt see the major engagement when the debate concerning the blessing of same-sex couples is scheduled. It's not something I should look forward to. I don't suppose many, if any, will change their views. I have my own hopes for the outcome - which is that the proposal for a stand-alone service of blessing as well as prayers for use in other services should be approved. 

 

Personally I'd like our present pattern for weddings completely shaken up and reformed. It wouldn't of course solve objections to blessing same-sex relationships, but it would create room for more flexibility for differing traditions without doing away with the joys of church celebrations. Let me explain...

 

Time was when one of our pleasures was travelling to Europe, in the halcyon days before Brexit of course. One particularly bright memory was sitting of an evening witnessing a wedding party emerging from the mairie on their way to the church for the priest to bless the happy couple. “What a good arrangement!” I thought. The legal bit done by the mayor, the religious bit left to the priest. 

 

Much as I enjoyed doing a “good wedding” when I was a vicar, I was always aware of a tension between my role as a registrar - which came with the job - and my role as a pastor. Of course the civil bit brings in a useful revenue stream for the diocese and the parish, and all the extras like the organist, bellringers, verger etc, who are all worthy of their hire. The clergy earn nothing in addition to their stipend except maybe an invitation to the knees-up afterwards. At some point in our history the Church bagged a monopoly of celebrating weddings which lasted until the last century, I imagine. I suppose it was part of its campaign to take over all the levers of power - benevolently naturally, such as the right to 26 "Lords Spiritual" sitting in the House of Lords, which was once more significant than now when absurdly there are as many as 800 peers (plus one as of yesterday). No doubt this would involve difficulties concerning Canon Law - the minutiae of which resemble, it seems to me, the laws of the scribes and pharisees about which Jesus had something trenchant to say.

 

However, now it is really time to escape the magnetic attraction of our own importance and to make real our calling to serve the society in which we are placed. And like it or not our country now solemnises marriage between couples of all sorts. We can either refuse to acknowledge the fact, or bless all those that reflect the covenant relationship of enduring love that God has demonstrated for broken humankind. After all, who would deny communion or burial or the baptism of their child to someone who had been married in a registry office?