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?

A self-defeating Covenant

One thing is for sure - among Anglicans, views on The Anglican Covenant are very divided.

For example, I live in an area of Salisbury diocese where our local Bishop, Graham Kings, is vociferously in favour of the Covenant.  He has devoted much time and effort in writing, speaking and arguing for it - yet in this same diocese our new Diocesan Bishop voted against the Covenant in Diocesan Synod, as did Graham Kings predecessor, Bishop Tim Thornton in his diocese of Truro.

Around the world, some in the Anglican Communion are saying they won't adopt it because it is too restrictive - others are rejecting it because it's too loose!  So far, 8 provinces of the Communion are in the process of ratifying the Covenant, whereas 9 appear to be moving towards rejection (not counting the CofE).

Even global neighbours see the Covenant in very different ways.  The Province of South East Asia has 'acceded' to the covenant but wants to make it stronger while the The Episcopal Church in the Philippines has rejected it 'saying the proposal to centralise authority in London was an “un-Anglican” attempt to “lord it over” the Communion’s national provinces'.

So how can the Covenant possibly succeed?  If a framework that was designed to foster unity in the Anglican Communion is itself the cause of such division, what hope can there be that its aspirations will be realised?

In the Church of England, our dioceses are divided with 10 dioceses having voted in favour and 17 voting against (updated 11th March).  All this fatally undermines the ideals which were the motivation behind this Covenant - the desire to promote unity, not division.

Some, like Bishop Graham Kings have tried to portray it as a marriage, while others have said it sounds more like a pre-nuptial agreement between partners whose relationship is already in trouble, even before the wedding.  Still others have likened it to a shot-gun wedding motivated more by the fear than loving commitment.

Canon Richard Franklin, in the General Synod debate of 2010 said,

"A troubling expression that has been used to describe the purpose of the Covenant is that it is ‘to make explicit and forceful’ the loyalty and bonds of affection which govern the relationships between the Churches of the Anglican Communion; but communion is not something that can be forced by human means."

At the end of the day, the Anglican Covenant has shot itself in the foot.  Even if somehow the Church of England and others adopted it, it would simply leave the Communion limping along nursing its wounds and looking for someone to blame.   The divisions which it has engendered make it precisely the wrong solution to the problems facing the Anglican Communion.

As the Bishop of Lincoln said in General Synod,

"I therefore leave you, Madam Chair, with the wise words of the American philosopher H.L. Mencken, with which you may be familiar.

‘For every difficult and complex problem there is a solution which is simple, straightforward and wrong.’

As an answer to a difficult and complex problem, this Covenant is simple, straightforward and, I still believe, probably wrong.

There is too much religion in the world and not enough faith, and I think this Covenant seems to be more about factory-farm religion than free-range faith."

With 17 more dioceses still to vote, it is time to gently and humanely put the Covenant down, thanking those whose intentions have been to strengthen our Communion, but recognising that it is already more dead than alive.

It is a self-defeating Covenant.

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.

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.