Lords Gay Marriage Vote - democracy or politics?

The same-sex marriage bill is being discussed by the House of Lords.

This evening, the Lords will vote, not just on the Bill, but also on a ‘wrecking amendment’ from Lord Dear who has called the proposals ‘ill-considered’ and ‘too serious a matter to be hurried through on a whim and in a cavalier fashion’.

Yet this is arguably the most democratic Bill to go through the House of Commons in years.

Not only were MP’s given a free vote at both its readings, but it has been passed by a large majority at both stages, despite the chief opposition to the Bill coming from the government’s own backbenchers.

Compare this to the usual day to day operation of Parliament on controversial legislation.  MP’s are corralled by their Party Whips into voting according to party instructions, irrespective of their own views or opinions.  Political posturing takes place on all sides of the House, and the debates seem to have more to do with party political points-scoring than with the issues under consideration.

In contrast, the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill has gone to the House of Lords with support from all sides of the House of Commons, having had a largely principled debate on each occasion, and a 2/3rds majority in favour.

This is democracy at work as opposed to politics, and the Lords would do well to remember that as they prepare to vote.  To send it back to the drawing board or reject the Bill would be to reject the clear non-partisan vote of MP’s.

Sadly, there is a precedent for such a democratic debacle in recent months – the General Synod’s vote on women Bishops.  After vote after vote in favour of women bishops – after 42 out of 44 Church of England Dioceses voted for women Bishops – after 74% of General Synod Members voted for women bishops – the legislation was still lost by just 2 votes in the House of Laity as it failed to get a 2/3rds majority in that House. (see ‘Reflections on a Broken Democracy’).

The House of Lords would do well to remember the ridicule, incredulity, and outrage which greeted that Church of England vote.  Although the vocal minority got their way and prevented equality reaching the House of Bishops, the reputation of the Church of England suffered yet another crippling body blow.

If the Equal Marriage Bill is rejected by the Lords after such a clear democratic majority in the House of Commons, it will not help its precarious position as the unelected House in our Parliament.  Like the Church of England, it would risk being seen as anachronistic, reactionary and out of touch.

Alternatively, the Lords could embrace the democratic vote of MP’s and reject the vocal minority who still believe they have the right to dictate to the majority.

Democracy comes from hearing the voice of the majority, whereas politics is the exertion of power by those with the loudest voice.  Let’s not confuse the two.

 

Update - after the vote...

I am delighted to say that the Lords have chosen not to play politics, and voted by 390 to 148 to reject the 'wrecking motion' and forward the Bill to the next stage. The majority of 242 is even more emphatic than the 2/3rds majority in the House of Commons.

Congratulations to the House of Lords for such a decisive vote.

The Cardinal Sin...

So now we know…

We know what drove Cardinal Keith O’Brien to be so dogmatic and so offensive to people in same-sex relationships.

Last year the Cardinal was voted ‘Bigot of the Year’ by Stonewall after his outspoken campaign against same-sex marriage. 

At various times he described same-sex marriage as a "grotesque subversion”, an "aberration" and he likened it to slavery.

In May 2005 he told members of the Scottish Parliament that homosexuals were "captives of sexual aberrations" and writing in the Scottish Catholic Observer, he said

“The empirical evidence is clear, same-sex relationships are demonstrably harmful to the medical, emotional and spiritual wellbeing of those involved, no compassionate society should ever enact legislation to facilitate or promote such relationships…”   http://www.sconews.co.uk/latest-edition/14858/scotland-fails-homosexual-people/ 

So when allegations emerged from Catholic Priests of ‘inappropriate behaviour’ it must have been utterly devastating.  The Cardinal resigned almost immediately, and now he has all but admitted that the allegations are true.

Such is tragedy of Cardinal Keith O’Brien.

The Roman Catholic Church appears to be responding to this by saying that the church has always had both saints and sinners in its ranks, but this is a gross over-simplification.   Speaking so strongly against same-sex relationships while all the time knowing the history of his own desires and sexual actions, reveals a man filled with self-loathing who learned to live with himself by transferring that anger and self-hatred onto others.

It is the classic vicious circle that almost always ends up in the kind of abusive words and actions which we have witnessed.

At its root is a concept of ‘sin’ which is defined not by what damages people and society, but by the application of an arbitrary set of rules claiming some divine authority.  For some, the authority for such arbitrary spiritual laws is the Church, for others it is the Bible, but the effect is the same - condemning people to live in this twilight world of secret shame and misdirected anger.

The approach is not just limited to Roman Catholics of course.  Evangelical Alliance recently updated its guidance on responding to homosexuality.   At its heart are ‘Ten Affirmations’ which should guide and direct evangelicals in their pastoral and theological attitudes to gay and lesbian people.  The first one begins with the words, “We recognise that all of us are sinners, and that the only true hope for sinful people – whatever our sexuality – is in Jesus Christ.”

While the intention behind this opening is benign, encouraging all evangelicals to recognise their own sinfulness rather than just focusing on the ‘sinfulness’ of homosexuals, it reveals something much deeper in the mindset of the writers – that when we are talking about homosexuality, we can only be talking about sin.

For them, this is the non-negotiable bottom line, and everything which follows is based on that assumption.   Their authority is a reading of the Bible which is just as selectively legalistic, arbitrary, and inconsistent as the Roman Catholic theology that led Cardinal O’Brien to the torture of his alleged double life.

 But the God I serve is not arbitrary, legalistic or inconsistent. 

 When Jesus was asked about ‘The Law’, he consistently directed people to look at the Spirit behind the Law, rather than being limited to the legalism of the words themselves.   And when the New Testament declares that love, not law, is at the heart of the Gospel it never says “unless you are gay”.  God has been unfolding his plan for the redemption of human kind from the Garden of Eden onwards, and every generation has learned that this redemption continues to unfold as we seek to order our lives and society in a way which enables everyone to love God and their neighbour more fully.

The harm which Cardinal O’Brien spoke out against when he said, 

“The empirical evidence is clear, same-sex relationships are demonstrably harmful to the medical, emotional and spiritual wellbeing of those involved, no compassionate society should ever enact legislation to facilitate or promote such relationships…”  

… is as misdirected as his own self-loathing. 

What he should have said is, 

“The empirical evidence is clear, religious or cultural repression of same-sex relationships is demonstrably harmful to the medical, emotional and spiritual wellbeing of those involved, no compassionate society should ever enact legislation to facilitate or promote such repression…”  

The cardinal sin in this affair is not that of ‘homosexuality’.  It is the sin of a religious institution which created the toxic mixture of moral repression, secrecy, abuse of power, tortuous inner conflict and misdirected self-loathing – and then used it to oppose the aspirations of those in genuine, loving same-sex relationships.

This is this sin which both the Church and Keith O’Brien need to reflect on and repent of – not the ‘sin’ of homosexuality.

Questions & Answers (& more Questions)

Every session of General Synod contains an Agenda item called “Questions” in which ordinary members of Synod can table questions.  These Questions are a little like Parliamentary Questions which MP’s can table in the House of Commons.  In parliament, the relevant Government Minister must stand up and answer the question.  In General Synod, it is the relevant Bishop, Archbishop or Chair of the relevant committee.

And last night the Archbishops of Canterbury and York had their work cut out as question after question was tabled about the recent Church of England response on same-sex Marriage.

'Who was the author?’  Synod members wanted to know.  Who saw it?  What was the membership of the group who finalised it?  Who voted on it and by what authority was it submitted as “the view of the Church of England”?  Who can truly claim to speak for the ‘Church of England’ on an area where there is such diversity of opinion?  Why was Synod not consulted?  Why are the votes of the House of Bishops not recorded and published?

To be fair, the Archbishop of Canterbury took it on the chin.  He tried to be helpful, and took the final responsibility with the Archbishop of York for signing off the response before it went to the Government.

As a result of the Archbishop's answers, we now know that the response was drafted by ‘staff’ at Church House in Westminster and presented to the Archbishops Council and House of Bishops in May.  The basis for the response was Canon B30 which says:

 The Church of England affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better or worse, till death do us part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and affections, and for the mutual society, help and comfort which one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.  

Suggestions were made and the House of Bishops “agreed the general shape of the response, considered a number of detailed suggestions … and invited the Archbishops to finalise the draft.”

But the answers only raised more questions…

A key question is who were the mysterious and anonymous ‘staff’ who drafted the response?  This is significant because we know of staff at Church of House who are sympathetic to the aspirations of same-sex couples, and we know of staff who are definitely not!  Without knowing which members of staff were tasked to write the response, we cannot know if it the group or individual was balanced, neutral or partisan.

Other questions followed from members of Synod…

If Canon B30 was the basis for opposing same-sex marriage, how is it that the Church of England can embrace the many church members (and indeed members of Synod) who have not lived up to its rigorous ideals of life-long union to the exclusion of all others?  Many marriages are not permanent and lifelong, but the Church does not exclude or oppose 2^nd, 3^rd or further marriages after divorce. 

If marriage is for the procreation of children, what about couples who cannot or do not want to have children?  The Archbishops answer appeared to stretch Conon B30 to breaking point when he responded that “The Church of England has never regarded the validity or value of marriage as dependent on the possibility or intention of having children.”

What consideration was given to the pastoral impact of issuing such an unequivocal rejection of the possibility of same-sex marriage, as many same-sex couples (including many Church members) woke up on the 11^th June to find their hopes and aspirations crushed?  The response was non-committal.

Were there any plans to revisit and review Canon B30?  “No” was the clear and definite answer.

Is the House of Bishops aware of the level of dismay and discontent the response had produced among faithful Anglicans?  “One cannot be anything but aware of this” the Archbishop said in response.

Last night was very revealing as Synod members probed the response which had been made in their name, but as often happens, the answers raised more questions than they answered.  At the end of the day, 4 key questions remain:

1.      Who were the ‘staff’ authors of the draft response and what personal perspectives did they bring to the task before them?

2.      If the Church is able and willing to recognise divorce and participate in remarriage without contravening Canon B30 insistence that the  “nature” of marriage is “permanent and lifelong”, why is the church not also able to consider recognising and (perhaps one day) participating in marriage of same-sex couples?

3.      If “the Church of England has never regarded the value or validity of marriage to be dependent on the possibility or intention of having children”, how is it that opponents of same-sex marriage can hold up the issue of procreation as a reason why gay people can’t get married?

4.      Given the coach and horses which these answers drive through the Church’s definition of marriage, why are there no plans to revisit and review Canon B30?

This is an issue which won’t just go away…

Acceptance

We were thinking about how we welcome people at church last night, and were asked the question “What makes you feel welcome when you come to church?”

As I reflected on this, I realised that the key word for me was ‘acceptance’.  I feel welcome when I feel accepted.

Sadly this is not always the case in churches.  All too often we become places where only people like us are accepted and welcomed.  If you fit the profile, you get welcomed – if you don’t, you don’t.

I have lots of experience of this.  

Some years ago I worked as an outreach worker with churches who have run-down social housing estates in their parishes.  I would go and spend a few months at a time in those churches and their estates.  Often the church congregation were quite respectable and middle class which created a social divide between them and their neighbours.

So on my first Sunday in the church, I would turn up unannounced without a dog collar, on my motorbike, in jeans, leather jacket and biker boots, and just sit in the congregation to see what kind of welcome I would receive. 

Sometimes I was welcomed, but more often I could sense the unease, fear or disapproval which my arrival provoked.  In one church, the vicar then preached on the project we were about to start and said that the Bishop had appointed “an especially rough priest to help us – he’s the one in the leather jacket who looks more likely to pull a knife or sell you some crack”.  All eyes turned to look at me.

In contrast, when I reflect on Christian ministries where I have experienced exciting, dynamic expressions of the Gospel, they have all had a common characteristic.  They have been communities of radical, loving, acceptance.

I think back to the Youth Fellowship which I was part of as a teenager.  It grew from just a handful of teenagers to a group of over 50 – meeting each week for worship, prayer and Bible Study.  It was a group of radical acceptance drawing together teenagers from different schools, different backgrounds, and different life experiences – from the ‘posh’ kids at the fee paying day school to the local comprehensive to those who had dropped out of school completely, working on market stalls.  Alongside one member who is now a University Professor in Philosophy was another who, when she first came, had a ‘Saturday job’ as a prostitute.  It didn’t matter who turned up – they were accepted and welcomed.

Then I think of the outreach meetings in ‘Walled City’, Hong Kong, where heroin addicts came because they had heard of a god called Jesus who helped drug addicts.  They often arrived strung out or high, in tatty clothes having done whatever it took that day to get their next fix, and within minutes they were each embraced in the love of God by 3 or 4 helpers and ex-addicts who would be praying with them in a powerful and personal way.  Such radical acceptance often brought hardened violent men to tears as they experienced the love of Christians and of God.

But then I contrast that with a conversation on Facebook last night with someone who has just left the church.  For her, the final nail in the coffin was the Church of England’s response to the Government proposals for same-sex marriage.

She wrote:

“For me this was the final straw, I've now left the church…  It's not that they don't approve of me that I mind so much but that they have to lie about me and the danger I represent, that they ignore all my answers to their theology and then claim the theology hasn't been done, that they make assertions even the church lawyers know are wrong... and then pretend it's the official position of The Church. I feel as if I’m looking at an old Politbureau photo where politicians who had fallen out of favour were just erased from the picture by those who had the power to do so. I cannot cope with a church that believes this to be an acceptable way of engaging with its own members.”

And when I replied with a lame “Well said” she responded, “Benny, we always say it well, it's what we've all done for years. It makes no difference though. Those who have the power keep brazening it out and keep getting away with it. It's spiritually deadening in the extreme. I'm lucky, I have not lost my faith. But I have had conversations with at least 3 people recently who have lost theirs over this. We're not supposed to be stumbling blocks to people's faith - in reality, these people are a whole mountain range.”

I was deeply saddened by this conversation because it exposed just how unaccepting the Church of England is, and our real failing is that we don’t realise how wrong this is.  When I went to churches to help them relate to housing estates, most of them recognised that their reluctance to welcome was a problem – their problem!  When it comes to the Church of England and sexuality – we think that this ‘unacceptance’ is a virtue!  We call it standing up for the truth when it is nothing of the sort.  We claim to ‘welcome’ LGB&T people but then push them away with our patronising, demeaning, unacceptance.

Jesus said, “Come to me all you who are heavy laiden, and I will give you rest” while we, the church, place burdens on the backs of gay people which are too heavy for any of us to bear.

Radical acceptance is what marked Jesus out – more than the healings and the miracles, it both encouraged and challenged those around him.  It brought the crowds to hear him and drove the religious institutions away.

I feel welcome when I feel truly and genuinely accepted for who and what I am.  When we come to God, we find ourselves accepted for who and what we are.  If that is good enough for God, who is the Chruch to say (or act) otherwise?

PS.  If - like 1,000's of others - you don't feel that the Church of England's response on same-sex marriage speaks for you, why not sign the petition "Not in my name"

Can you change marriage ?

When the Government published its much awaited consultation on same-sex marriage last Thursday, the battle lines had already been clearly drawn.

On one side are the Prime Minister, gay pressure groups, and the majority of MP’s in parliament  who, according to all calculations, would back such a measure in a free vote.

On the other, ranks of church leaders from a range of denominations who have denounced the proposed ‘re-definition’ of marriage as, in varying degrees, grotesque, dictatorial, and shameful.

A common assertion among the latter is that you simply can’t change marriage.  Marriage is what marriage is, and no-one has the power to alter it – not government, nor church nor equality activists.   According  to the Archbishop of York, it is not "the role of the state to define what marriage is.  It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are."

The Archbishop is undeniably right of course, when he points to our current understanding of marriage as "a relationship between a man and a woman" but what he fails to acknowledge is that definitions, understandings and laws relating to marriage have been constantly changing through human history, biblical history, and church history.

If we go back to the Bible, we find that for the bulk of biblical history, marriage was polygamous with many wives equating to male power & success.  Neither the Gospels nor the Epistles ever put a formal end to this model of marriage and yet it is one which few would advocate today - our understanding has changed dramatically from the examples of scripture.

In pre-Enlightenment times marriage was more about property than about love, with political order and social standing high on the agenda for budding brides, grooms and their families.

In the Prayer Book the reasons for marriage are clear - first for procreation of children, then as a remedy against sin, and then finally for the mutual 'help and comfort' of the couple – little about love here.   Brides were ‘given away’ from one man to another. Marriage between family members which were forbidden, included a prohibition on marrying your wife’s sister after her death.  This came from a mistaken understanding of consanguinity – that because you became one flesh with your wife, so you shared the same family blood with her sister.  So strong was this belief that when an act of Parliament finally legalised such marriages in 1907, clergy were permitted to refuse to conduct them - an interesting parallel in today's debates about same-sex marriage.

Today’s theology of marriage can be found more in the modern marriage service of Common Worship than in the Prayer Book.  Here we find the Prayer Book introduction substantially re-ordered and changed.  Marriage is first and foremost about enabling two people to be 'united with one another in heart, body and mind' as they 'grow together in love and trust'.  Then it is for the 'delight and tenderness of sexual union' within 'joyful commitment to the end of their lives' and after all that, it is the 'foundation of family life in which children are [born] and nurtured'. Even here, the square brackets reveal a changing recognition of more complex realities in the raising of children.

So when those opposed to same-sex marriage claim that you can’t just change marriage, it is a selective view of history at best because clearly it has been changed time and time again.  The real issue must be about the substance of marriage and whether same-sex relationships can be embraced within that essence.

Many people in the church and wider society have recognized the marks of marriage in committed  same-sex relationships around them.  Bishop Nicholas Holtam referred to these recently when he said, “I think same-sex couples that I know who have formed a partnership have in many respects a relationship which is similar to a marriage and which I now think of as marriage.”

Indeed, when David Cameron asserts that he supports same-sex marriage because "society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other", he is echoing the modern marriage service when it affirms that marriage "enriches society and strengthens community."

And there are several pointers within Scripture which might direct us towards an understanding of marriage which is not dependent on gender difference.

When God sought to provide a suitable companion for Adam in the Garden of Eden, he said “It is not good for the man to be alone”.  Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people exhibit the same yearning as Adam.  Just because they find that the person who completes them is of the same sex, that does not abrogate the need which God meets in the creation of another human being to complete Adam’s yearning for a suitable companion in life.

In imagery of the Church as the Bride of Christ (often quoted as a justification for opposing same-sex marriage) we easily forget that the Church comprises both women and men who will, in some sense be a bride to Christ as part of His Church.

In Galatians, Paul calls us to a radical new reality in Christ as gender becomes irrelevant in Christ who enables us all to be born again into a new creation.

As the Government consultation begins, we need to grapple with these issues.  We need to engage in theological debate and prayerful reflection, rather than knee-jerk reactions claiming eternal authority for an institution which is incapable of change.

The role of the Established Church is not simply to act as a line of last defense, but to guide our nation in examining our understanding of God and society.  Marriage is not an immovable object - the question is what direction should it take today?

Grotesque Rantings of an Illogical Cardinal

I must begin by saying that I am not anti-Roman Catholic.  I have always valued fellowship, prayer and discussion with Roman Catholic colleagues and friends.   In fact I was baptised as a Roman Catholic when a baby, and when at University, I even played guitar at the Roman Catholic Chaplaincy Folk Mass each week in rebellion to the anti-catholic rhetoric of the Christian Union - even though I was and am a evangelical.

But it is hard to know where to start in responding to the illogical rantings of Cardinal O'Brien in the Sunday Telegraph  this weekend, and on Radio 4  this morning.

Describing the prospect of same-sex marriage as grotesque, shameful and a violation of human rights,  he compared redefining marriage to legalising slavery, abortion and polygamy.

"Their proposal represents a grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right."

Yet who is being grotesque here?

In comparing same-sex marriage to slavery he said, "Imagine for a moment that the Government had decided to legalise slavery but assured us that 'no one will be forced to keep a slave' ".  Ironic really, when there was a time when Christian leaders and Churches defended slavery on the basis that it was permitted in Scripture, and nowhere did Jesus tell us to put an end to it.  In fact many went further and defended it as part of God's natural created order.  Perhaps he would like to tell us that the Church was right and the State was wrong then as well?

On Radio 4, he compared the development from Civil Partnerships towards marriage to the creeping extension of laws on abortion, when one is about celebrating life-giving love and commitment and the other (however necessary it might sometimes be) is about destruction of life.

He says that there is no need for same-sex marriage as Civil Partnerships provide all the legal protection which same-sex couples need.  Ironic while he also lets slip that he opposes Civil Partnerships because "such relationships are harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing of those involved."

Finally, appealing to the United Nations declaration of human rights, he quotes the section which states that “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”, and claims that extending marriage to same-sex couples would "demolish a universally recognised human right".  But how can extending this right to a minority demolish the rights of the majority?  David Cameron has stated that he is on favour of same-sex marriage precisely because he believes in marriage and commitment as the glue which holds families and society together.

What will be most grotesque to many however, is that a church which has been shown to have systematically covered up and even colluded with child abuse, should now be preaching to the rest of us about what will harm children.

I came across a quote sometime ago on an anti-religious website, which hurts me every time I read it.  It says,

"Considering all the evil that exists in the world,
the fact that all of religion's condemnation is focused
on expressing disapproval of two people loving each other
proves just how evil religion is."

As a religious person, I grieve every time one of our Christian leaders adds fuel to this perception - and Cardinal O'Brien - you just have.

God, Marriage and the State

With the Archbishop of York firing a first shot across the bows of the Prime Minister over same-sex marriage last weekend, there is a theme emerging from opponents of the idea -  the premise that you can't change marriage.

According  to the Archbishop, it is not "the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are."

The Archbishop is undeniably right of course, when he points to our current understanding of marriage being "a relationship between a man and a woman" but what he fails to acknowledge is that definitions, understandings and laws relating to marriage have been constantly changing through human history, biblical history, and church history.

If we go back to the bible, we find that for the bulk of biblical history, marriage was polygamous and many wives were a sign of male success.  Jesus never openly put an end to this model of marriage and yet it is a model which few would advocate today - our understanding of marriage has changed dramatically from the examples of scripture.

Then there are those family relationships where marriage is forbidden in the Book of Common Prayer.  Few people are aware that they have changed over the years.

My grandfather married his wife's sister after being widowed despite this being forbidden in older copies of the Prayer Book.  From a theological understanding of marriage, the practise of a man marrying his wife's sister was considered wrong under Canon Law, and was formally prohibited by parliament in the 1835 Marriage Act.  It soon became a matter of some controversy.  An attempt to revoke this law in 1842 was defeated by strong opposition, and it was not until 1907 that the Government finally permitted such marriages in the 'Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act'.   The issue was still so controversial that individual clergy were permitted to refuse to conduct such marriages - an interesting parallel in today's debates about same-sex partnerships. 

So when the Archbishop asserts that it is not for the state to define the scope of marriage, it is a selective view of history at best.

Divorce and remarriage is another example.  Civil marriage after divorce has been widely available in England since the 1857 Matrimonial Causes Act and further widened in 1937 and 1969.  Yet it was not until 2002 that the Church of England embraced a clear policy which formally allowed marriage in church after divorce.  Once again the understanding and practice of marriage in law has changed with the church lagging behind the decisions of the state.

But perhaps the most shocking examples of changes in beliefs about marriage come from elsewhere in the world.  In the United States laws against interracial marriage, underpinned by traditional Christian teaching, were still in force until 1967 when a landmark case at the Supreme Court finally declared them unconstitutional.  The case was brought to challenge the conviction of Mr and Mrs Loving, who were dragged from their bed in the middle of the night after crossing the state border to get married in more liberal Washington DC.

The judge who sentenced them to a year in jail famously declared that God created the races and placed them on separate continents which "shows that he did not intend for the races to mix".

Such ideas about race and marriage are hard for us to understand today but they were deeply held and underpinned by theological argument.  This theology of race and marriage has its roots in the preaching of church leaders who opposed the abolition of slavery.  Theologians like Robert Lewis Dabney truly believed that the abolition of slavery was the first step to 'amalgamation' which he described as a 'abhorrent' word. As far as he was concerned the mixing of races was something which the Bible forbade and such marriages should be prevented at all costs.

Nor are such beliefs dead and buried in US churches today.  As recently as December last year, Gulnare Free Will Baptist Church, in Kentucky, voted to prevent interracial couples from becoming members or taking part in any services.  The Pastor of the church said, “I am not prejudiced against any race of people, have never in my lifetime spoken evil about a race... I do not believe in interracial marriages."

So whose role is it to define marriage?  Is it really the Church in all its conflicted diversity?  Is marriage really 'set in tradition and history' as the Archbishop of York believes, even when history shows a continually changing landscape in both spiritual and temporal spheres?  Is marriage really an area where the state has no jurisdiction, despite evidence to the contrary?

What we need in the Church of England is theological debate and prayerful reflection on the nature of marriage, rather than knee-jerk reactions to government initiatives.  At the present time, the debate is almost entirely sociological and political, which is why the church is getting left behind.  Our theology of marriage has changed over the centuries and this is the next change we need to consider.

Perhaps that debate should start with the words of Mildred Loving whose legal challenge finally legalized interracial marriage in the USA.  "I think marrying who you want is a right no man should have anything to do with. It's a God-given right,"

Employing the politics of fear ...

It could lead to polygamy and incest!

Such was the cry from Peter Jensen, Archbishop of Sydney when he spoke against gay marriage last week.

Such is the politics of fear which conservatives are now deploying in a desperate attempt to oppose same-sex marriage.

Others have used different prophecies of doom.  One writer to the Church of England Newspaper recently claimed that research has shown that only 1% of LGBT people choose faithful relationships, and that accepting same-sex marriage would introduce a kind of institutionalised adultery into marriage which would destroy it from within.  (As if there are no heterosexuals who engage in adultery, swinging, or shagging around!)

Of course conservatives have a vested interest...

For many years the most straightforward argument against same-sex sex was that marriage is the only appropriate place for sex to take place.  As long as marriage is only be open to heterosexuals, this is a cast iron reason why sex between 2 men or 2 women could never be right in God's eyes.  Put simply, the churches conservative voice has said to homosexuals,

"If you can't get married, you can't have sex - and, oh dear - you can't get married!" 

You get the circular argument...

So the spectre of same-sex marriage is quite a threat, because it would remove this prohibition at a single stroke.  This is why the big guns of fear are being rolled out onto the church lawn.

But what would really change if people of the same sex were allowed to get married?

Would the church's marriage vows change?   Would the promise to 'love, comfort, honour and protect' each other disappear? 

Would we have to leave out the promise, 'forsaking all others, be faithful as long as you both shall live'?

Would 'for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health'  have to be watered down with something less demanding?

The answer is clearly 'No' because these are the promises which are at the heart of Christian marriage vows, and those coming to be married are not given the option to pick & choose which bits they want & which bits they don't.

It may be that the number of 'open relationships' among homosexuals is higher than for heterosexuals (although nowhere near as high as the scaremongers claim) but that is no reason to stop those who want to promise faithfulness through good times and bad.  Indeed it is arguable that providing the opportunity to make such vows would go some way to reversing the moral and ethical vacuum that our blanket condemnation has created.

As for polygamy and incest, Christian conservatives and fundamentalists would do well to remember that a literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve leaves little alternative to incest as the way the earth was populated - and there is a strong and consistent message in the Old Testament of male success being measured by the number of wives (not to mention concubines) that they had.

The truth is that our concept of marriage has moved on since Biblical times.  Brothers are no longer required to marry the widow of their deceased sibling to provide for her.  Abraham today would not have the choice of which wife to sleep with tonight.  Jacob would not have to work for another 7 years to add the wife he really wanted to the wife he was given by deceit!   King David would not have the option of coving up his adultery by marrying Bathsheba.

In the same way, the provision of same-sex marriage would be a step forward - not a step back - and would no more undermine marriage that the recognition of interracial marriage (which  was only fully legalised in the USA in 1967).

 So take your tanks off the church lawn, Dr Jensen, because they really do look out of place.

Church, Tradition and the Bride of Christ

As the debate continues in the Church of England Newspaper about same-sex marriage, I am grateful to Rev John Richardson for responding to my article - 'Towards a Theology of Gay- Marriage?'  

In his article 'Changing views of marriage' in last week's CEN, he has clearly sought to engage with some of the issues and questions I raised, and he makes a number of points which merit a response.

He begins by noting that same-sex marriage would mean breaking with church tradition and the theology of marriage as outlined in the BCP (Book of Common Prayer). He then makes the argument that rather than looking at Genesis 2 as our paradigm for marriage, we should look to the marriage between Christ and the Church in Ephesians 5 as the ultimate paradigm.  This, he argues, places a clear limit on our theology of marriage within the context of men and women with the ideal of procreation.  (You can read the full article by following this link)

First of all, it is interesting to see a fellow evangelical beginning with an appeal to tradition.  He rightly points out that the theology I am suggesting departs from the BCP emphasis on procreation and a 'traditional understanding of marriage'.  This is indeed the case, and I readily accept it, but in the course of human history there have been many issues where we have changed our minds in spite of clear arguments made from both Scripture and tradition for maintaining the status quo - the abolition of slavery, and the church's insistence that the sun revolves around the earth are just two such issues that immediately spring to mind.

More importantly however, is the alternative (and indeed superior) paradigm he offers for marriage in the Bible - that of Christ and His Church.

While I am not convinced that Ephesians 5 supersedes Jesus use of Genesis 2 as the ultimate paradigm for marriage, the framework he puts forward does more to suggest a 'genderless notion of marriage' than to deny it.  Why?  Because the Church as the 'Bride of Christ' contains both women and men.

As the inspirational evangelical preacher FB Meyer puts it, in his devotional commentary on Ephesians - 'Redeemed men compose that bride'.  Here is the context to that quote:

Here is a mystery indeed. That scene in Eden is also a parable. It was not good for Christ to be alone. He needed one to love and to give love. But there was none among unfallen angels that could answer to Him.  And therefore God the Father sought a bride for his Son from among the children of men; yea, He took the Second Eve from the wounded side of the Second Man, as He lay asleep in the garden-grave.

Redeemed men compose that bride...  Then the Church shall cleave to Him forever, and He shall cleave to her. And they twain shall be one spirit.

The fact that the Church comprises both men and women and that this (according to John Richardson) is the ultimate paradigm for marriage, suggests that marriage is indeed 'genderless' - it has just taken the church a long time to realise it (like the abolition of slavery and the movement of the sun).

No-one, of course would suggest that there is a literal 'sexual' component to the marriage of Christ and his Church, but that further calls into question relying on this paradigm for our full understanding of marriage.  Indeed Paul says in Ephesians 5 that "this is a profound mystery".  It is a mystery which we are still unravelling, and perhaps we haven't quite got there yet.

Play the ball - not the man

It has been good to see the debate which my article "Towards a theology of Gay Marriage?" has prompted in recent weeks - both in favour and against the approach I put forward.  The Church of England Newspaper has had a flood of responses, and over the last few weeks has been printing many of them.

On the first week, they were all negative. 

On the second week, almost all were positive. 

But then on week three, I noticed a change.  There were two letters published which were less than gracious in their treatment of the issue.  In fact they were not so much reacting to the ideas being discussed, as resorting to personal attack.  And the attacks were not against me,  but against some of those who had written in to support a more accepting approach toward gay relationships.

The letters they were reacting to, were both 'in favour' of examining a new approach to same-sex relationships, one from a gay Christian in a long term partnership, the other from an ordinand in training. Whilst these positive letters were measured and did not seek to attack anyone, the same cannot be said for the response.

The openness and honesty of the gay Christian was met by a one sentence dismissal of her faith, sexuality and partnership. Her courage to declare publically  her sexuality and faith were simply put-down as being too ridiculous to listen to.

The ordinand was also dismissed in a rather disparaging way as someone who "no longer believes what the Bible says" - something which he did not say - while his evangelical theological college was blamed for "the sorry state of our church and nation."

Sadly, the reasons for this reaction are all too clear.  This is an issue where feelings run so high that those who do not agree can so easily dehumanize those who think differently.

 As another letter writer put it, "Unnatural relationships are constantly being discussed in your paper and horrible pictures of two men on a wedding cake give many people real revulsion." She had stopped seeing people - just visceral anger.

In such a climate, it is all too easy to (in the words of the footballing metaphor) play the man, not the ball.

For those not from the UK, this is saying which comes from soccer.  It the temptation which a player faces when someone with the ball is about to get past him.  Should he continue (probably in vain) to go for the ball?  Or should he abandon the rules and hack down the player?

It is sad that all too often the debate over sexuality descends into this kind of dismissive and damaging exchange.  It is not Christ-like.  It does not reflect the Gospel of grace.  It does not help us to fulfil Jesus command to love one another as he has loved us.

If Jesus had been talking to footballers, I am sure where he would have come down -  "Play the ball, not the man!"

(With apologies to all female footballers for this terribly non-inclusive language)