TRAWLING THE NET Till death us do part


Ed Tomlinson reckons the decision to allow divorced clergy to become bishops undermines Church teaching and seems to overlook the serious consequences of marital breakdown


B


logs have been alive with talk of marital union since the House of Bishops decided love and


marriage really do go together like the proverbial horse and carriage, which is to say they can be separated at will. In a move contradicting biblical teaching our bishops have decided to offer mitres to those whose own marital history is complicated. Whilst liberals herald the move as


a pragmatic triumph for ‘forgiveness’, those with a more orthodox outlook fear the consequences of publically undermining holy matrimony.


Lack of understanding Part of the problem (as ever) is that


modern Christians do not understand what ‘forgiveness’ really means. Tis is the only plausible explanation as to why ‘the need for forgiveness’ is so oſten used as justification for the erosion of scriptural teaching. It is as if we have embraced a fairytale version of mercy whereby magic at the moment of penitence undoes the damage of sin – now ‘we can all live happily ever aſter’. Tis is undeniably an atracive notion but uterly divorced from reality where acions still have consequences


even aſter forgiveness and learning to live with them becomes our solemn duty. We might consider the work of


‘Broken Rites’, a charity helping clergy spouses enduring marital breakdown. Tey deal with a vast number of bruised individuals whose pain is largely ignored by supporters of this change. How oſten so-called ‘forgiveness’ turns a blind eye to those whose lives are wrecked in the wake of parish scandal. How oſten abandoned spouses are not even consulted when a remarried priest is appointed to a post.


Impact on families I had direct experience of this when a friend discovered her ordained


husband had been cheating on her for half of their marriage. Her story demonstrates the horrendous impact of divorce on clergy families in particular. As if losing a husband wasn’t


enough, vicarage life meant that, despite being the injured party, she also lost her home. And having dedicated her life to supporting his ministry and raising the children she had no significant income to support her and on a stipend neither did he. Within weeks she was living on benefits with two distraught children to console. Rather predictably the bishop’s officer charged with assistance in such cases never made contact. It meant she received litle support from the diocese, save a couple of grand from a measly discretionary fund.


Damaged faith In contrast the diocese was helpful


in supporting his needs. A gentleman’s agreement was drawn up, keeping him in parsonage and post until alternative employment was found. Tis avoided public scandal and saved a fortune on costly disciplinary procedure, but local faith was damaged, for tongues wag when an adulteress remains in her pew. Furthermore the betrayed wife and children could no longer worship as before. Te loss of church and friends now accompanied husband, father and home. We should note the priest himself


was more fool than villain, another victim of this terrible mess. But if (or when) he returns to ministry the pain can now be forgoten and our bishops could invite him to join their ranks as if nothing happened at all. Meanwhile an abandoned wife will continue to struggle as a footnote in history. However much there might be


another side to this and every story of marital breakdown, none can deny the dysfunction, evil and horror of


divorce. Yet the decision of the House of Bishops does precisely that, for it acts as though dealing with lapse of judgment and not the darkness of sin.


A matter of justice? Naturally supporters of the


innovation will prefer we focus on different cases such as the vicar of St Martin in the Fields whose situation was cited by the press. We are informed he is a hero of faith who would make a fine bishop one day…but for the wife who married as a teen and places him in an irregular relationship. Te point is supposedly one of justice. Why should he be held back because of an historic mistake that was not even his own? We are again being asked to embrace


that fairytale notion of forgiveness in which implications of the first marriage are ignored in the present. But can we really pretend history doesn’t mater? Can we actually suggest vows made before God have no bearing at all? And surely her mistakes are his if we follow the logical conclusion of ‘one flesh’ in marriage?


True forgiveness True forgiveness, as opposed to the


fairytale variety, means a different course of acion. Yes, we embrace this couple, ensuring they are loved and forgiven, but do so whilst requiring them to accept the consequence of the past. In my parish (and all others until recently) this would have meant no second marriage in church. Might it not also include forgoing preferment for the sake of teaching the faith? For how can the church uphold lifelong marriage if its own bishops are not living by that standard? If the House of Bishops really


wants to open the episcopacy to divorcees then it should do so with greater integrity: a public statement in support of serial monogamy accompanied by an end to traditional marriage ceremonies and the adoption of civil partnerships. Actions have consequences and in this case they run deep. Are sexual unions about the emotional well- being of adults or for the good of society and to the benefit of children? You cannot have it both ways.


July 2010 ■ newdirections ■ 15 ND


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40