Thinking Anglicans

Lord Alli speaks about the marriage bill and the bishops

Oliver Wright in the Independent has an interview with Labour peer Lord Alli: Lord Alli: ‘I was called sinful and dirty. And that was in a Lords debate’. It includes the following comments on the bishops:

…He divides the opponents of gay marriage into two distinct categories. “There are those who have deeply held religious views and then there is a second group who oppose now but will probably repent later.

“They were the type of people who voted against the equalisation of consent and regretted it. They are the people who voted against civil partnerships and regretted it. And I’ll believe they’ll vote against gay marriage and they’ll regret it in five years’ time.

“I telephone them, I write to them I text them I try and make them turn up. I try and discuss the issues that worry them. It’s all the things you would expect me to do.”

But he is also attempting to persuade the Bishops – 26 of whom have seats in the Lords – not to present a unified front against gay marriage and to recognise that they do not speak for the whole Church when they oppose it.

To this end he recently had a meeting with the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, that led to a rather remarkable public letter from the Bishop of Salisbury that challenged Church of England orthodoxy.

“I said that I knew there were people in the Church – such as the Bishop of Salisbury – who were supportive of gay marriage and I asked him [that] if I went to see him and asked him to do a piece would he have your blessing? He said ‘Absolutely. And that goes for any bishop.’”

So that’s what Alli did; leading to a 1,200-word letter from the Bishop, now being sent to every peer, in which he explains why he does not agree with the current orthodoxy.

Alli thinks there are more who share the view of the Bishop of Salisbury but for political reasons find it harder to speak out. “You go to a meeting and they give their position and their eyes almost roll as they are leaving the room,” he says.

“Some of them don’t fundamentally believe their own position on this.”

He also points out the inherent contradiction in the Church of England’s position – that while they are protected from having to conduct gay marriages they don’t want to give other groups the freedom to do so.

“They argue religious freedom except where they don’t like it. They don’t want gay marriage – so that means the Quakers can’t have it or the liberal Jews can’t have it. They’re in a pretty hypocritical place.”

5
Leave a Reply

avatar
3000
5 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
Laurence CunningtonStephen MorganRuth AllanLaurenceJCF Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
JCF
Guest
JCF

“They argue religious freedom except where they don’t like it. They don’t want gay marriage – so that means the Quakers can’t have it or the liberal Jews can’t have it. They’re in a pretty hypocritical place.”

Nailed it!

Laurence
Guest
Laurence

God bless Alli.

Truth-speaker

Ruth Allan
Guest
Ruth Allan

Romans 1:24-27. Either we take the Word of God seriously, or we don’t. God regards homosexuality as an abhomination. And if the Bishops don’t take the Word seriously, what is the point of them? I would defend to the death the right of my gay friend to enter into a civil partnership if that is what he wants, but why should any church be obliged to marry gay people? It beats me why anyone who is gay would want to marry in an institution whose holy book says that his relationship is sinful and abhorrent. But then this is an… Read more »

Stephen Morgan
Guest
Stephen Morgan

‘While they are protected from having to conduct gay marriages they don’t want to give other groups the freedom to do so.’ So having obtained a ‘quadruple lock’ on the government as regards the conducting of gay marriages in the C of E, the bishops (honourable exception: Bishop of Salisbury – and maybe one or two others) now want to impose a half-nelson on any other religious group who might feel differently. Leaving aside that they are NOT speaking for all of the CofE, or even half of it, from where do they derive their authority? Do they not see… Read more »

Laurence Cunnington
Guest
Laurence Cunnington

And “religious freedom” should also include freedom *from* religion.