I was recently tentatively asked if I would be willing to take a funeral. The discrete enquiry came from the husband of a man who lives hundred of miles from me. He had accompanied and lovingly cared for his husband through the months leading finally to his death.

I was aware that the deceased man’s family had church connections so was anxious to be sure that for me to take the funeral was appropriate. I learned that, in fact, the local church had been approached. The member of the clergy responsible there had said they would be willing to take the funeral but would not be able to refer to the bereaved husband, or to the fact that the deceased person was married to a man. It was said this was because the Church does not approve of gay marriage and if he were to refer to the marriage in the funeral it would be seen as going against church teaching. This would be considered as a political act.

The bereaved husband, the chief mourner, of course had no wish to be ‘airbrushed’ out of his partner’s life at the funeral and so sought another venue and another person to conduct the funeral. Without hesitation I responded positively to the request. The funeral went ahead, it was a moving occasion with the bereaved husband helping organise and, of course, being chief mourner and several others taking part.

I was unpleasantly surprised and angered that this kind of ‘airbrushing’ could be suggested in today’s ‘all are welcome’ church. When I mentioned it to a priest friend he wasn’t so surprised. ‘Well the Church of England makes it very clear it is uncomfortable and suspicious about gay marriage,’ he said ‘so this sort of thing is bound to happen.’

I was reminded of words of the Bishop of Manchester, David Walker, who, commenting to his diocese on the commendation of prayers of blessing for gay couples by his fellow Church of England bishops said he, himself, would not use them. He went on to say “for me to do so would, in my view, abuse a pastoral provision by turning it into a political act.”

I wonder about a hypothetical situation. If a man died who had lived with a woman for many years without marriage, and they had had several children would the woman be ‘airbrushed’ out at the man’s funeral? After all their relationship would not be ‘approved’ by the church. Similarly Bishop Walker’s statement that he will not use the forms of prayer the bishops have agreed for blessing gay people is surely itself a ‘political’ position. To me this clearly shows an intrinsic bias against LGBT people within the Church of England.

When clergy, and bishops, decline ‘for political reasons’ to offer basic pastoral care to gay people at the most significant moments of their lives, and synods endlessly debate gay relationships, is it not surprising that so many LGBT people and their friends feel airbrushed out by the church, or rejected by it?

5 responses to “Are LGBT people really welcome in the C of E?”

  1. Rachel Roo Avatar
    Rachel Roo

    Thank you for sharing this experience. As a Curate in the C of E and in a civil partnership myself, its evident the culture needs to change.

    Like

  2. Kathy Avatar

    Writing from across Offa’s Dyke in Wales, I feel sad that the C of E is still trapped in this attitude. Although the Church in Wales has yet to approve equal marriage in church, we are allowed to offer a service of blessing after a civil ceremony. We also openly welcome clergy in civil partnerships. Indeed our new Archbishop is one high profile example, as is the Assistant Bishop in my home diocese of Bangor.

    Like

  3. Elaine E Avatar

    And they wonder why people are not looking to the Church to mark significant events in life.
    I am so sorry that they happened to these people and so glad that someone had the sense to contact you and that you could offer a genuine and wholehearted response.

    Like

  4. The Rev'd Canon Sarah Jones Avatar
    The Rev’d Canon Sarah Jones

    I am appalled. Thank you for sharing. It’s important that people know that there are clergy and churches which are genuinely LGBTQIA+ inclusive.

    Like

  5. Canonist Avatar
    Canonist

    I’m disgusted but unsurprised at this, Ian. I’ve had similar things over the years. This cleric’s response is, in my view, utterly wrong – in both pastoral and ecclesiastical law dimensions of church life.

    I would be willing to eat my Canterbury Cap (as an evangelical I can’t offer to eat my Biretta…) if a CDM should be brought against a priest for ‘going against church teaching’ by acknowledging the relationship in a situation like this.

    CDMs aren’t brought for good pastoral practice (and as any experienced cleric knows, funerals are not all about us and our views – they’re about the deceased, their family and friends) and the next of kin (legally the husband) is the one with rights enshrined in law, which Anglican clergy are bound to recognise.

    There is the ‘get out clause’ legally that some go for about nothing contrary to the sacred context (if in a Church building), or contrary to the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith, being allowed to happen in the service. But even here, things happen every day like John Lennon’s ‘Imagine’ gets played, with its lyrics imagining no religion, and never a cleric is hung, drawn or quartered in the Consistory Court for such a thing.

    With no respect at all to this particular colleague, they are far more likely to find themselves the respondent in a CDM complaint, they could well be upheld, if they fail to give due regard the legal rights of a next of kin in the arranging of a funeral, or are pastorally inept when dealing with a grieving family…

    Like

Leave a reply to Kathy Cancel reply

I’m Ian Gomersall

Welcome to a retired rector’s reflections. Here, I share my thoughts on a variety of things which interest me, some delight me, some anger me, and many are passing thoughts.

Thank you for being here, and please feel free to comment.

Let’s connect