Sex or Gender?

I have become increasing uncomfortable with the concept of Same-Sex Marriage recently.

Now before you reach out to delete me from your contacts list, I should explain!  I am perfectly happy with two men or two women marrying each other – I would even go so far as to say that I believe that recognition of Same-Sex Marriage is the latest stage of our deepening understanding as Christians of the very nature of marriage itself.

The problem I have is with the name.

Sex has always been a stumbling block for Christians.  For most people in churches, it’s super-embarrassing to talk about – if they can bring themselves to talk about it at all.  Most churches are still very Victorian in their approach to sex and the sum total of teaching on sex in most Evangelical churches consists of:

• Don’t do it before you get married
• Don’t talk about it when you have got married.
• Don’t let your children do it before they get married.

Yet when the church talks about relationships between two men or two women – the thoughts and concerns of most church-goers and church leaders immediately go to ‘Sex’.  Terms like “practising homosexual” and “same-sex acts” seek to define what more conservative Christians regard as sinful but they only serve to exacerbate the problem.  It’s all about sex!

I have a gay friend who noticed an elderly gentleman at church looking at him strangely, week after week, at church.  Finally the elderly gentleman plucked up the courage to say to my friend, “I can’t do it – no matter how hard I try I can’t imagine what it must be like for you having sex with a man!” My friend was horrified and replied, “Then please don’t!  Let me release you from feeling that you have to!”

When David Ison (Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral) was a Canon in Exeter Diocese, he found himself leading a number of seminars on sexuality.  At the beginning of each seminar, he began by asking the participants to get into small groups and talk about their sex-life.  As the look of horror spread across usually composed, calm faces, he let them off the hook saying, “It’s private isn’t it, so why do we think it is OK to discuss a gay person’s sex life?”

As an evangelical gay priest once wrote, “When we talk about married people, we do not suddenly imagine them having sex and then rush to affirm it as a good thing. Instead, we naturally think in terms of relationships, families and communities. There is no reason why we should think differently about gay relationships. It is tragic that so many evangelicals collude with the world in sexualizing gay people. If we could talk about love instead of about sex, we might well find that we have distinctively Christian things to say to gay people.”

It is truly bizarre that when it comes to heterosexual courting, we emphasise developing the relationship as of primary importance – not sex.  But when it comes to homosexual relationships, the first concern of the average evangelical church is sex – not relationship.  Perhaps that is why gay or lesbian couples are made to feel so unwelcome – because they ‘make us’ think about sex in church!

So here’s the thing…

Why are we perpetuating this by talking about Same-SEX Marriage?  For nervous Christians it has the dreaded word right at the centre of the phrase, thereby reminding them of everything they feel uncomfortable about – not just for gay couples but also for themselves – and it perpetuates a subliminal impression that gay marriage is all about sex.   Newsflash:  History has proved beyond any doubt that gay couples don’t need to get married to have sex!

As a result, I am going to break the habit of colluding with this.  It will take some time, but from now on, I will be talking about Same-GENDER Marriage (which is actually what we have been talking about all along).

Gender is a much more neutral word and crucially, it is the true heart of the issue whether you are in favour of marriage between two men or two women, or against it.  Same-Gender Marriage is less emotive, less confrontational, and points to the real pinch point in the theological debate.

I also hope this will catch on so that we can de-sexualise the whole debate about marriage – and start to de-sexualise our attitudes toward same-gender couples and LGBT people.

Why don’t you do the same?

Same-sex Marriage vote - clarifying the issues...

Today is the day when the House of Commons will vote on same-sex Marriage.

The Equal Marriage Bill comes to parliament for its second reading with a free vote for MP's on whether it proceeds to the next stage.  All the calculations show that the vote will be 'Yes' but that hasn't stopped those who are vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage fighting to stop it.

In this blog, I have written on this numerous times, so rather than we-write something which is not new, I thought it would be better if I simply created a list of the most appropriate posts.

Here we go...

• Can you change marriage? - takes a brief look at the history of marriage
• Same-sex marriage - who will it really hurt? - considers the wild claims of some of the opposition
• Where the Patriarchs really married?  - looks at the assertion that a Biblical marriage can only be one man/one woman.
• Towards a theology of gay marriage - is a gentle look at a Biblical approach for extending marriage to same-sex couples.
• God, marriage and the State - looks at the ways in which Governments have changed marriage over successive generations including legislation on prohibited relationships and inter-racial marriage.

It is almost certain that today's vote be won convincingly - but that doesn't mean the arguments will end there.  What is needed is a calm look at the heart of marriage - I hope this helps.

Locked and Bolted ...

Today’s announcement in the House of Commons should have been a cause for celebration.

Indeed, in many ways it is.  The Government has reaffirmed its commitment to introduce legislation to enable same-sex couples to marry.  More than that, it has pulled back from earlier plans to prohibit religious groups from celebrating same-sex marriages.  Both these are to be warmly welcomed.

But as I listened to the statement by Maria Miller today there were two areas which left me profoundly sad.

Firstly, the vast majority of the statement was devoted not to joyful news for LGB&T couples, but instead to the level of protection for churches and other religious groups when the proposed legislation comes into force.

This is not, of course the Government’s fault.  It is the Church which has forced its way to the top of this agenda.  The Church of England’s response to the Government consultation earlier this year displayed alarming levels of defensive self-interest while ignoring or patronising the hopes and aspirations of same-sex couples.  Statements by Roman Catholic leaders have been even more offensive.

As a result, today’s statement, welcome as it was, said more about the Church than it did about the longing among many same-sex couples to express their love and commitment in the ultimate expression of Marriage.

My second sadness however, is more serious, as it comes from an announcement which will have far reaching consequences.

While the opportunity will be created for churches in general to ‘opt in’ to celebrating same-sex Marriages, Anglican churches will not have this provision.  The statement today made it clear that one of the ‘quadruple locks’ to protect religious belief and practice, will be specific legislation making it illegal for the Church of England (and Church in Wales) to conduct same-sex marriages.

For me and many others this will be a safeguard too far.

It will mean that even when (in years to come) the CofE changes its mind, it will require a change in primary legislation before same-sex marriages can take place in parish churches.  Unlike other religious institutions, the CofE will not be able to vote to ‘opt in’ – it will have to ask the Government to change to law.

This has been presented as a further reassurance to the Church of England (& Wales) but it only reassures those who want to stop same-sex marriage in the first place.  There are many others who have been appalled by the Church response to these issues.  We do not want the CofE excluded from the ability to ‘opt in’ when that view achieves a majority.  We do not want to be treated differently from other churches and religious groups.  We do not want to see such discrimination cast into law.

If the Church of England welcomes these new ‘safe-guards’ the  real effect of the ‘quadruple lock’ announced today will be to ensure that LGB&T couples are left in no doubt that the Church of England is locking and bolting the door to them for as long as it possibly can.  It will send out a clear message – “You are not welcome here.”

If the CofE welcomes these safe-guards, once again it will be seeking to protect itself at the expense of others.  Once again, it will be putting its own interests first. 

How far we have departed from the famous words of William Temple when he said, “The Church is the only society that exists for the benefit of those who are not its members”.  If the CofE welcomes these safeguards today, it will be demonstrating that the Church of England only now exists to protect itself against social change – in relation to women, in relation to LGB&T people, and in relation to the State.

The trouble with locked doors is that they tend of keeping everyone out who doesn’t have the right key.  Is that really the kind of church we want to be?

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…

Were the Patriarchs really married ?

“Marriage as created by God is an exclusive relationship between one man and one woman that is entered into for life …”

So says the St Matthias Day Statement from the Church of England Evangelical Council and the Church of England’s official response to Government proposals for same-sex marriage.  The Archbishop of York agrees.  “Marriage is marriage is marriage” he states, and “neither the State nor the Church, or any religious group can change the essential nature of marriage”.

But that evokes a curious question in my mind – in that case, were some of the most prominent marriages in the Old Testament really marriages at all?

The question arises, of course, because most of the famous marriages in the Old Testament were not ‘an exclusive relationship between one man and one woman’.  Therefore, according to the CofE and the Archbishop, they were not marriages at all.

Let’s take Jacob for example.  He worked for Laban for 7 years to ‘earn’ the hand of Rachel in marriage.  But when Laban deceived him and married him off to her sister Leah, he worked for another 7 years to get the bride he really wanted as well.  He married two sisters, and it didn’t stop there - he also had children with Rachel and Leah’s servants.  Were these marriages in the sight of God?  These ‘marriages’ were not exclusive relationships between one man and one woman as created by God.   And what about the children which resulted?  Even if we accept Jacob’s first marriage to Leah as the one that really counts, that means that 5 of the tribes of Israel were born outside of wedlock, as a result of nothing less than institutionalised adultery.

Perhaps Jacob can be forgiven because at least he came before the Law was revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai.  Surely this pivotal point in God’s relationship with humanity would put all that straight.  Indeed it did include some regulations on divorce, but no definitive statement or definition which would put the matter rest once and for all.

Then there were David and Solomon, both heroic Kings of the Old Testament, and both of whom were married many times over.  David appears to have had at least 8 wives (and many more concubines) and yet he wrote some of the Bible’s most moving Psalms extolling the Word of God.  Could these really be marriages?  Apparently not, according to the Evangelical Council!  Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines according to 1 Kings 11 and the only rebuke which Scripture offers is that many of them were foreigners.

Indeed the relationship between David and Solomon is problematic in the extreme as Solomon was David and Bathsheba’s child - and we all know how that relationship began.  David committed adultery with Bathsheba (Uriah’s wife) and then had him killed in battle when Bathsheba found she was pregnant.  Surely David and Bathsheba’s marriage could not be valid in the sight of God – nor could Israel or the Levites make it a ‘marriage’ because “marriage is marriage is marriage” and “neither the State nor Church can change it” from that which was “created by God” as “an exclusive relationship between one man and one woman that is entered into for life”.

So what is the point of all this?   Am I really advocating polygamy as a Biblically valid form of marriage?  Or arguing that we should re-define marriage to be more ‘biblical’ in this sense?

No – I am not!

What this does show however, is the limitation of trying to give eternal status to our current definition of marriage and claim that it is, and has always been the created will of God.

In fact, there is no normative example of marriage in Scripture that ends the story once and for all.  Even Adam and Eve cannot be claimed as such, as their story is meant to be figurative rather than literal.  (Otherwise we open up yet another can of worms as we have to concede that their children must have married each other, thereby opening up the possibility of incestual marriage as well!)

If ‘marriage is marriage is marriage’, and cannot be any different to our current definition, then most of the people in the Bible were not married, their children were born out of wedlock, and all sexual activity in those ‘non-marriages’ could not have been blessed by God because they were sinful, pure and simple.

The alternative is to recognise that our understanding of marriage has changed over the centuries and continues to change.  Whether it is the slow transition to monogamy, or the marriage of slaves, or interracial marriage, or the continual tension between marriage and divorce, we have continually amended our understanding of what does and does not constitute marriage in the sight of God.

In these areas the church universal has never been unanimous in its attitudes or practise, and if we want to look biblically at marriage (which I hope we do) we have to recognise that God appears to have been far more willing to embrace different forms of marriage than the church of today. 

We also need to delve much deeper into Paul’s ultimate paradigm for marriage.  The marriage of Christ and his bride, the Church is a marriage which is not dependant on gender or sex, and which is expressed in the substance of the relationship, rather than the correctness of the formula (one man + one woman = Marriage).

In the end, all definitions and understandings of marriage through history have been temporary and will remain temporary this side of eternity.  It was Jesus himself that said, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage.  But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage… for they are like the angels.” (Luke 20:34&35).

It is time we acknowledged the temporal nature of our limited understanding and looked for marriages which are life-giving relationships based on the vows and promises which the marriage partners make to each other, rather than the gender of the partners. 

When the woman at the well challenged Jesus on the correct place to worship God, he told her that the time was coming when God’s true worshippers would not be tied to one place, but would worship God ‘in Spirit and in Truth’.

Once again, perhaps, we need to look beyond our limited views and disagreements to marriages which are grounded ‘in Spirit and in Truth’.  For there we will find God.

Conference without a venue

That would have been a good alternative title to the recent ‘colloquium’ organised by Christian Concern.

The “One Man, One Woman - Making the case for marriage, for the good of society” conference was first planned to take place at The Law Society in London until they decided that the ‘content of the conference sat uncomfortably’ with their diversity policy.

Then it was relocated to the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre opposite Westminster Abbey and the Houses of Parliament, but this booking was also cancelled – on the afternoon before the event! 

At the very last minute Christian Concern managed to find a hotel – more concerned with business than political correctness – which hosted the event for an undisclosed number of participants.

So is this political correctness gone mad?

After all, as Christian Concern have said, “Concerns have been raised by many that supporting marriage between one man and one woman, which is still the current legal definition of marriage, is now considered ‘homophobic’ by those pursing the ‘equality and diversity’ agenda.”

Is having a traditional view of marriage now beyond the pale?  Unacceptable in today’s equality led society?  Is this, indeed, an attack on freedom of speech even when the organisers claimed that the meeting would be a debate between contributors with differing views on marriage.

But the problem with the conference was indeed with the content – not the title - because the difficulty with many groups who are fighting tooth and nail to uphold 'traditional marriage' against ‘redefinition’ is that they find themselves having to rubbish those they want to exclude.

Despite Andrea Williams claim that it was a discussion among people with different views on marriage, all the summaries of speakers included in the ‘Full Colloquium Report’ were definitely against allowing gay people to get married.

What is more, the picture they painted of same-sex couples is highly derogatory:

• According to the speakers, same-sex relationships have no concern for family – they “simply want to affirm a particular adult lifestyle”. 

• Same-sex marriages “are likely to eliminate the role of fathers in the lives of children”.

• Same-sex relationships are fickle and transient – “It is very rare for same-sex couples to stay together in a life-long committed relationship”.

• In short, “The terms ‘same-sex relationships’ and ‘marriage’ are mutually exclusive”.  Perhaps this is because “Each and every faithful marriage is like an amplifier of all that we know as humans to be instinctively noble, enriching and true for human flourishing.”  So obviously, that rules same-sex couples out!

• After all one speaker said that the current move towards same-sex marriage is the concluding step of a cunning plan.  According to Cristina Odone, journalist and media commentator, the strategy is outlined in a report from 1987 called, ‘How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s’. The final stage in the conspiracy is that “same-sex relationships... should be “celebrated” and presented as a happy and healthy lifestyle”.  Heaven forbid!

At the end of the day, if you can’t uphold your own view of marriage except by tearing into the people you want to exclude, perhaps you should have your booking cancelled.

I Believe in Marriage

Marriage has never been so topical in the UK media as it is now.

Government proposals on same-sex marriage has driven marriage to the top of the religious agenda with campaigns and counter-campaigns springing up left, right, and centre in the battle over the ‘definition’ of marriage.  From the accusations which have been levied against the proposals - that redefining marriage will destroy it - you would think that our current definition must be some sort of magic wand for family happiness, and that any tampering would rob it of it s power.

The truth, of course, is nothing of the kind.  It is arguable that the greatest threat to marriage comes not from any proposed re-definition, but from the way in which it is treated by the ‘heterosexual community’.  Indeed it is not difficult to find same-sex couples who say they wouldn’t want to marry even if it were possible, because their observations of marriage have led them to conclude that it is a bankrupt institution.

But I believe in marriage.

I believe in it from personal experience – my wife and I have been married for over 20 years, and that relationship has been the bedrock of our family life through some very difficult times.  It has brought us joy and fulfilment, and I can honestly say that I am more in love with my wife today than the day we married.

I believe in it for theological reasons – because when I read the Bible, I see God recognising our need for the ‘other’ who enables us to be more complete.  ‘It is not good for the man to be alone’ says God about Adam in the Garden of Eden.

I believe in marriage from the experience of marrying people who have come to churches where I have ministered – because of the hope, joy and excitement which I see in their eyes, and the way we have talked as I have helped to prepare them for married life.

But that does not make Marriage a magic wand which, once waved over a love-struck couple, will cement them together in wedded bliss for the rest of their lives.  As a friend of mine said recently, ‘marriage is a process not a destination’.

Which is why I am very interested in a new marriage campaign which has been launched by a High Court Judge in family law with over 30 years’ experience of dealing with marriages which have gone wrong and ended up in the courts.

The aim of The Marriage Foundation is ‘to be a national champion (advocate) for marriage, strengthening the institution for the benefit of children, adults and society as a whole.’

Certainly marriage is in desperate need of being strengthened.

When I have talked with 13 year olds in schools about their attitudes to marriage, a bewildering array of opinions and experiences have emerged - some positive, but many sadly cynical at such a young age.

When I have talked to couples wanting to get married in church and explained that I would want to meet them a number of times before their wedding to talk with them about the vows they are planning to take and about how to make their marriage life-giving and life-long, most have been initially surprised  but then very appreciative.  ‘Everyone else is just focused on the wedding day’ they tell me, and they value the chance to talk about the much more important issue – the rest of their lives together.

When we talk about the difference between ‘I do’ (on film and TV) and ‘I will’ (in the marriage service) or about areas which make or break a marriage (like money, sex, and power) I see light-bulbs starting to light up in their minds.  When I take them though the vows they are going to make to each other ‘for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health’ and ask them “Are you sure you are ready to make these promises?” many say to me that they had never even read the vows before, let alone think about whether they were ready to make such life-defining promises to the other.

It is ironic that most people would study the details of a mortgage contract with far more care than their marriage vows – yet which is more important and far reaching?

Good preparation for marriage is not a magic wand either, and I know of some couples I have married where the marriage has still ended in divorce – but at least it ensures that they set off heading in the right direction.

Which brings me to my last statement of faith today – I believe in church marriage.

I say this because I believe that getting married in church provides the opportunity for the best possible start to married life.  That is not because of the richness of the ceremony, or the religious setting or even the prayers – but because the vows that are made in parish churches spell out the commitment which is involved in marriage far beyond those of civil ceremonies and I know that many of my colleagues in parish ministry take the trouble to help prepare couples for their married life in a way which is simply not available anywhere else.

Marriage is not an outdated bankrupt institution – neither is it simply a piece of paper – it is a living bond between two people which has the capacity to be life-giving and life-long.  When it achieves this potential, it enriches both family life and society as a whole.

I believe in marriage.

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?

Same Sex Marriage - who will it really hurt?

According to promoters of the new Coalition for Marriage - C4M - allowing same sex marriage would undermine the whole fabric of society.

It would fatally weaken one of our country’s greatest strengths, lead to an increase in serious crime, harm people’s careers, and dash the hopes of parents hoping to adopt. Government plans are “the greatest power grab in history”, an “act of cultural and theological vandalism” and will unpick the legal rights of 24 million married couples at a single stroke.

If such claims were true, there would be genuine cause for concern at the consultation on same-sex marriage which will be launched by the Government later this month.

But who is really going to be hurt by the introduction of marriage for same-sex couples?

The coalition would have us believe that marriage would be changed irrevocably, not just for LGB&T people, but for the rest of us as well. But is this really true?

Allowing same-sex couples to get married would not invalidate the marriage of heterosexual couples. Their marriage would continue as before – not be picked apart by new law. And no-one would be forced into a same-sex marriage any more that anyone would be forced into a heterosexual marriage. Where is the harm?

Neither would the church be harmed - contrary to C4M’s claims. For many years now the state has married people who have been divorced, and eventually the Church has begun to do the same, but even now clergy are not compelled to marry couples where one or more partners are divorced. There has been no legal action – no court cases – no compulsion.

Neither would the raising of children be affected. While the vast majority of children are raised in heterosexual households (and would continue to be) some same-sex couples already raise children, either by adoption or by natural means, and the introduction of marriage for same-sex couples can only strengthen the bonds of commitment between their parental partners.

As for claims that changing marriage would lead to an increase in serious crime – Lord Carey must really be clutching at straws there! States in the USA which have seen the introduction of same-sex marriage have seen no such correlation or pattern emerging. It is quite simply scaremongering.

Nor are the Government’s plans undemocratic or the act of a dictator. While C4M claims a survey which shows a small majority (51%) believe that” no one has the right to redefine mar¬riage for the rest of us” (whatever that means), a Daily Telegraph poll showed that 80% of the 14,500 people who voted, said yes to same-sex marriage. And at the end of the day, it will be our MP’s who vote – for or against – which is, of course, the very basis of parliamentary democracy in the UK.

So who would be hurt by the introduction of same-sex marriage?

The striking thing about including same-sex couples in marriage is that it does exactly that – it includes people who have been excluded before. Nothing more – nothing less.

So the only hurt which might be involved is the hurt feelings of those who want to exclude others.

There is one thing which Lord Carey and I agree on, however. In his words, “Marriage is the glue that binds our country together. When a couple marries, they are not just joining with one individual, but connecting two families – and in doing so creating a support network far better than anything the state can supply.”

I have to say that I couldn’t agree more – which is why I firmly believe that marriage should be available to same-sex couples who want to make that life-long and life-giving commitment to each other – just like heterosexuals.

So perhaps there should be another coalition – C4M2 – for people who want to see same-sex couples given the same access to marriage to express their love and commitment to each other and for the good of society at large.

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,"

Bisexual - or just greedy?

I have read a number of blogs recently which have mentioned bisexuals, and the following comment appeared on my recent post on same-sex marriage:

 

Could you clarify something for me, since I am not totally clear on everything you have said here. You rightly point out that part of the marriage vows are "... forsaking all others, be faithful for so long as you both shall live."

How do bi-sexual people do this? Do they deny one part of their desires, and only have one partner for life? Or do they have two partners, and "faithfulness" then means "faithful toward two different people at the same time", and so is redefining "faithful" to mean "not monogamous"?

The fact that such questions need asking show the misunderstanding there is about what it means to be bisexual.  This often leads to confusion among Christians (and even among some of the gay/lesbian community).

Those who are honest and open enough to say they are bisexual, often run the risk of all sorts of unspoken assumptions being made.  Indeed I used to do the same.

I remember making the crass statement once to someone who I now know to be bisexual, that I couldn’t see what the problem was – “if you’re bisexual you should simply find someone of the opposite sex to fall in love with – and then all would be well.”

Others seem to think that all bisexuals want to ‘have their cake and eat it’ needing sexual partners of both sexes to feel a sense of fulfilment.

So what is the real story on bisexuals?  Are they indecisive, fickle or greedy – or is there something deeper going on?

The following is the story of one married couple who have worked through this issue.  It is used with their full permission:

‘My wife & I are dedicated evangelical Christians. I am not bisexual – but my wife is.

The strange thing is – I always knew that.  Even though we couldn’t talk about it because I didn’t have the language or understanding to do so, I knew.   Soon after we met and fell in love I somehow knew that if our relationship didn’t work out, her next partner would probably be a woman.  I don’t know how I knew, but I did.

We never talked about it – how could we?  I was still a conservative evangelical believing that all same sex relationships were wrong.  On one level, we didn’t need to talk about it.  We were in love with each other, and in time, we made our marriage vows to each other, promising to love and care for one another, forsaking all others, until death do us part.

And yet, we did need to talk about it, because until we did, there was a part of who my wife’s identity that was closed off from our relationship – and that meant that there was a part of her that she could not share with me, and which I could not receive and seek to understand.

It was many years later - after I had realised how wrong I had been about gay and lesbian relationships – that we were able to talk together about this part of her which we both knew was there, but neither of us had been able to verbally acknowledge.

Now before any minds start racing with questions and wrong conclusions, let me state categorically that:

> My wife and I have both been faithful to our wedding vows.

> We have each ‘forsaken all others, to be faithful to each other, and we are just as committed to our marriage vows now as we were 20 years ago on our wedding day. 

> Since we have been able to talk with each other openly, there has never been any sense in which my wife has sought a same-sex partner any more that I would seek another opposite-sex partner. 

> We consider that either of these would be adultery, and we are dedicated to one another.

But since we have been able to recognise her bisexuality, and talk to each other freely, our relationship has grown.  My wife no longer needs to hide or ignore a part of who she is, and I have come to value her even more.  She has come to know that I love her for who she is (with nothing hidden) and I know that she chose me out of all the people she knew – not just the men!’

So the assumption that bisexuals will always ‘need’ or ‘choose’ to have partners of both sexes is clearly not the case.  In fact, I would argue that among Christians, almost all bisexuals I have encountered would say exactly the same thing.  They seek to live faithful dedicated lives with their partner – whatever sex that partner is.

There are of course some who choose a different path – just as there are heterosexuals who decide (for whatever reason) to have ‘open’ relationships or join ‘swingers’ clubs. I personally do not understand such an ‘open’ lifestyle, and would say that is not what marriage is meant to be.

There also those whose marriages have not proved to be the life-long, life-giving commitment they had hoped, and after a marriage breaks down a bisexual person may then fall in love with someone of the same sex.   But that does not make bisexuals greedy, indecisive, or fickle – just human.

All too often, Christians start at the wrong end of the issue.  We get pre-occupied with sex, rather than starting with love.  What most people long for is to meet the person who they fall in love with, and who falls in love with them.  If that love is deep enough, then a partnership will follow, and for many, the desire to make promises to each other in marriage.  This is the same whether you are gay, straight or bi.

The hard bit is to live out those promises (and not just the sexual ones) in a life-giving, life-long partnership – and that is exactly the same whether you are lesbian, gay, straight or bi.  It requires commitment, dedication and the strength to say ‘no’ sometimes out of love for your partner.

The only difference between bisexuals and gay/straight people is that their orientation means the person they fall in love with could be of either sex.

Which brings us to the heart of the issue:  being bisexual is about orientation, not about lifestyle.  Statistically, most people are attracted to people of the opposite sex, but some are attracted to people of the same sex, and some are attracted to both.  It is what we do with those attractions that matters.

It is high time that allowed bisexuals to be recognised for who they really are, not as some distorted stereotype.  It is time for us to listen rather than assume. 

As another Christian bisexual said to me recently, “I am bisexual and my lovely husband is straight. I do find I face a lot of problems if I am open about this, because of some awful assumptions and prejudices people have!  Even in LGBT circles I (very occasionally) face problems because people think I am being dishonest or do not belong in a gay Christian group.”

It is time for bisexuals to be able to speak freely about their sexuality without having to battle with the prejudice which would keep them silent.

The T-shirts pictured on this blog are from The Bisexual Index, and are for sale! 

There is also an excellent FAQ page which is an good place to find out more.