They/Them Who Art in Heaven

An atheist looks with horror at the recent moves in the Church of England to define God as 'non-binary'. Of course, the C of E left Christianity behind long ago. It is now no more than a left-wing NGO.

From The European Conservative

By Frank Haviland

If you stand for everything, you stand for nothing. An 'inclusive' Church is a building without roof or doors—it serves no purpose. If the Anglican Church wishes to survive, it would do well to nip this non-binary nonsense in the bud.

As a devout atheist, I have an enduring fondness for our Anglican heritage. I am a great lover of churches, of hymns, and church services. Well I remember those public school morning assemblies where the Lord’s Prayer would be uttered sotto voce, and I would join in: “Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name…” The only reason I do not attend church as an adult, is the brazen fraud I would feel as a non-believer—an ethical stance I abandon only occasionally for the pleasure of Midnight Mass.  

Still, outside the fold, armed only with rationalism to explain the trials and tribulations of life, I can readily appreciate the appeal of binary certainty that the Church historically provided: Heaven and Hell, sin and virtue, Adam and Eve, etc. I say “provided,” because it increasingly appears scriptural adherence is off the menu at the Church of England. One has to ask, when redemptive certainty is the Church’s chief commodity, why is it so desirous of shooting itself in the sandaled foot, and questioning its very foundation?

The latest doctrinal incursion was raised earlier this week at the General Synod by the Reverend Joanna Stobart, vicar of Ilminster and Whitelackington in Somerset, who is desirous to see progress on the use of ‘more inclusive language’ in church services. The allusion to pronouns is obvious, and naturally the Church attempted to scotch the outrage likely to ensue from claims that ‘Our Father’ be replaced by ‘They / Them.’ The Right Reverend Dr. Michael Ipgrave, Bishop of Lichfield, was quick to point out that the Church has been “exploring the use of gendered language in relation to God for several years.” 

An unnamed spokesman for the Church of England concurred: 

This is nothing new. Christians have recognised since ancient times that God is neither male nor female, yet the variety of ways of addressing and describing God found in scripture has not always been reflected in our worship. There has been greater interest in exploring new language since the introduction of our current forms of service in contemporary language more than 20 years ago. As part of its regular programme of work for the next five years, the Liturgical Commission has asked the Faith and Order Commission to work with it on looking at these questions. There are absolutely no plans to abolish or substantially revise currently authorised liturgies, and no such changes could be made without extensive legislation.

Such placation is unlikely to reassure conservatives, however, many of whom have expressed their serious concern regarding gender-neutral terms for God. One of them is the writer and theologian Reverend Dr. Ian Paul, who argues:

The fact that God is called “Father” can’t be substituted by “Mother” without changing meaning, nor can it be gender-neutralised to “Parent” without loss of meaning. Fathers and mothers are not interchangeable but relate to their offspring in different ways. If the liturgical commission seeks to change this, then in an important way they will be moving the doctrine of the Church away from being grounded in the scriptures.

Even as an atheist, I know which argument I find more persuasive. While my scriptural knowledge is no doubt hazy, I distinctly remember the clarity of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I recall that God made man in his own image —and (in short), that Jesus was a man while the Virgin Mary was a woman. Even if one wishes to assert that such Biblical references are metaphorical at most, like the inherent binary of the Bible, they are still there. Perhaps Noah knew what he was doing after all?

This latest assault on traditional values may be a step too far, particularly when the Church of England is already a long way down the slippery slope of progressivism. Aided and abetted in recent years by highly-political leaders (just 6% of clergy voted Conservative in 2019, compared to 40% who voted Labour) and raucous activists, the Church has repeatedly failed to stand up for its principles. This year alone has witnessed the blessing of same-sex unions, the Church of England’s first ‘non-binary priest,’ and the rewriting of “God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen” in a bid to appease women and ‘LGBT people.’ 

The results are predictably damning. Church attendance has almost halved in just 30 years, although curiously this demise seems to afflict the Church of England much more than other denominations. Furthermore, even identifying as Christian is now a minority position in England and Wales. At the time of the 2001 census, 72% of the population viewed themselves as Christian—fast forward 20 years, and that figure is down to just 46%. If the Church of England wanted to shut up shop for good, it couldn’t be going about it more effectively.

With 2,000 churches closing in a decade, there is clearly a hole in the heart where Christianity used to beat, exacerbated by a Church which no longer knows what it stands for. The only question seems to be what is about to replace it? Islam certainly has its supporters, even within. Former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, was renowned for being pro-Islam (as his contemptible advocacy of Sharia Law illustrated). The alternative, ‘woke’ progressivism, certainly appears to be the Church’s current Achilles heel. Although different, both share two unifying principles: absolute certainty in their beliefs, coupled with the desire for absolute destruction of the Church which naively embraces them. 

If you stand for everything, you stand for nothing. An ‘inclusive’ Church is a building without roof or doors—it serves no purpose, and ultimately no congregation. If the Anglican Church wishes to survive, it would do well to nip this non-binary nonsense in the bud. Failing that, there will always be something willing to replace it—whether that’s Mohammad or the spectacle of Sam Smith? Your guess is as bad as mine.