It’s time for a change of name

Cultural relevance is a cruel mistress, and nowhere has this proved more true than in the field of sexual ethics. Decades of attempting to meet the sexual revolution halfway have only led to one humiliating climbdown after another in those churches that lack all conviction on the relevant issues. The latest example is the Church of England’s action at its General Synod in July when it voted to remove the 1991 document, “Issues in Human Sexuality” from the ordination process. Previously, the church required ordinands to agree with the document’s teaching on the sinfulness of homosexual activity and to affirm the need for gay clergy to be celibate. Now that is gone amid claims that its assumptions now appear prejudiced and wrong.

There is no surprise here. The Church of England has numerous openly gay clergy. It has practically ignored its own document for years. It has previously moved to authorize blessings for gay couples. This recent move looks like nothing more than bringing the church’s stated beliefs into line with its current practice. When a church lacks the fortitude to adhere to its stated principles, it should change those principles. At least it can then remove one example of duplicity from its litany of sins.

The 1991 document certainly does look quaint now, in its attempt to maintain the wrongness of homosexuality while finding some way of softening its stance. The general problem is that attempts to meet the wider culture halfway on some matter of great import, such as human sexuality, will always be too little too late for the watching world. By 1991, British culture was already moving rapidly towards complete legitimation of homosexuality. As usual, the church (from society’s perspective) offered too little too late. That’s what happens when one addresses modern challenges without a strong commitment to the ancient faith as providing the place to stand.

The synod declared that the change did not alter the church’s doctrine. I agree with that as a practical matter but not, I suspect, in the same way as the synod intended. In general, the transformation of sex into a recreational activity primarily for emotional and/or physical satisfaction certainly involves a transformation of what it means to be human.

When the procreative and unitive act that is a seal upon a unique, lifelong monogamous relationship is trivialized, then the relationship itself, along with the parties involved, is trivialized too. When sexual union is detached from the specific differences of male and female bodies, the significance of sexual complementarity is eliminated. The stage is then set for confusion over such basic questions as “What is a woman?” That means that any move such as this is incompatible with Christianity. But the church conceded those things many years ago and so its claim that this does not change its doctrine is true. It has not maintained orthodoxy on these points for many years. This move makes almost no difference—to its lasting shame.

There is one last action the Church of England needs to take in order to bring its paper orthodoxy into line with its practices: Drop the word “Church” from its name. It is very clear that it has found orthodox Christianity to be an embarrassment for some time now. That is inevitable when a culture that excludes the biblical anthropology of dependence upon and accountability to God collides with a religion that includes all without exception who seek to be truly human—sinners in need of God’s grace. A decision must be made, and the Church of England decided to pursue unbiblical exclusivity long ago. It is now time to carry through to its conclusion the process of which this latest move is but a minor part: the complete detachment of the organization from historic Christianity.

So please drop the “Church” word. Institutional honesty demands no less.