‘Gay Marriage’ consultation – respond online here

Found this useful Government Survey link courtesy of 'Anglican Mainstream'!  http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/equal-civil-marriage/

On the Solemnization of Gay Matrimony

I listened to Canon Angela Tilby deliver ‘Thought for the Day’ during this morning’s ‘Today’ programme.  Her comments are always of interest and well thought-through but this time I found myself wondering at her reasoning during her reflection on the subject of gay marriage.  Whilst she presented the arguments for and against I was struck by the lack of any real depth to some of her reasoning.

She focussed into the principle that marriage between a man and a woman is a ‘gift of God in creation’ which, consequently, cannot be altered.  In doing so, reflected that God created Adam and Eve (not, as has been said, ‘Adam and Steve’) and went on to declare that, as marriage is a sacrament of the church, it is not for us to change the matter of the sacrament i.e. a man and a woman.  Just as the Eucharist uses bread and wine not “tea and biscuits” as the ‘matter’ of the sacrament, so the ‘matter’ of marriage is the union of opposite sexes, and cannot, logically, be two people of the same sex.

Firstly (and once again) I found myself uneasy with the claim that marriage is a ‘gift of God in creation’.  I know it is a phrase used in the Book of Common Prayer and derives from Genesis 2: 24: ‘Therefore a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh’ (NRSV).  The problem with this sentence is that there seems to me no real evidence in the Old Testament of marriage as we now understand the event (one man and one woman joined in a civil/religious ceremony).  There is, however, plenty of evidence that men took more than one wife.  Indeed, the Patriarchs seem to have no problem with having more than one, nor of owning concubines.  Abraham had a wife and an extra-marital relationship with his slave (concubine?) as did his son, Isaac.  King Solomon (the Wise) had “seven hundred wives and four hundred concubines.” (1 Kgs.11:1-3) and the great King David had at least seven wives and numerous concubines (1 Chr.3).  Clearly, having a wife was important – and the more the better…

I am indebted to the late Gareth Moore OP who pointed out in his book A Question of Truth (Continuum Books ISBN 0-8264-5949-8) that in the second Creation narrative God did not, in fact, determine that Adam should chose a woman to answer his solitude – in fact, when God realised that it was not good for man to be alone (Gen. 2: 18f) he first brought every living thing to Adam, arguably indicating that Adam had the choice of a “helper”.  Adam could, in theory, have chosen Pooh, Eeyore or Tigger.  It was his choice.  Or have I missed something?

On the next point, that marriage is a sacrament and it is not for us to change the matter of a sacrament, I was very surprised to hear this from a woman who, presumably, has faced opposition to her ordination to the sacrament of priesthood from those who use a similar argument: that if Jesus did not call women to be disciples, how can we ordain woman as priests?  Leaving aside the point that in our present culture he may very well have chosen women (and Adam may have chosen Steve) the Church of England has recognised it is not the gender that is the matter of the sacrament but the fact of our common humanity.  And, of course, Angela (as an Anglican) was wrong in saying that marriage is a sacrament according to the official formularies of the Church of England.  Many of us may believe it is, but Article XXV in the Book of Common Prayer states that ordination (and four others) "are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God."  Curiously, of course, the BCP goes on to describe marriage as “an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency” (The Form of Solemnization of Matrimony)…

As to her point that we use bread and wine to celebrate the Eucharist because that is what Jesus did (and thereby "remember him"), whilst the principle is right it completely misses the point that this Sacrament is not rooted in the Last Supper but on the Jewish Paschal meal that Jesus celebrated.  Maybe if the Jews ever decide not to celebrate Passover with unleavened bread and wine we might think again.  And where does her argument leave all those churches that don’t use fermented wine but grape juice or unleavened bread but Hovis?  Allowing that marriage is a sacrament, the matter (or visible sign) concerns human beings, not their gender. That is why Adam (or Eve) could not ‘marry’ Pooh but, arguably, could marry Steve (or Sue).

Come on, Angela, you can do better than that!

THE SACRAMENT OF MARRIAGE IN RELATION TO SAME-SEX COUPLES (2)

In 'Marriage: A Teaching Document' the bishops state:

‘The words ‘till death us do part’ are not a special religious ideal; they describe the form of relationship that God has given to human beings as a natural endowment. Knowing that they must both one day die, the partners offer each other a security and continuity in life that will help them to approach death with humility and a good conscience. Yet it is important that those who marry know the full extent of what they are doing. And Christians believe that that requires an understanding of the love that God has shown mankind in Christ, a love which marriage is called to reflect. Those who understand God’s love to them will understand their own love as a part of God’s work in the world, and will be better equipped for what they undertake. Precisely because it is a lifelong partnership, marriage is chosen by God to express the permanence of his love for us, which accompanies us through all the changing scenes of life not only until the day we die, but beyond death to resurrection.

The description of Christian marriage as a ‘sacrament’ is valued because it has its source in the New Testament (Eph 5.32) ().  It means that the pledged relation of husband and wife is a sign of the pledge of love that Christ has for his Church, the promises he has made to it, the faithfulness, forgiveness, and patience that he has shown it, the delight he takes in it.

The grace of God in the Holy Spirit is given to all who enter marriage in the conscious desire to hear his call, seeking his strength to live together as they have promised. This is why marriage in the context of worship, properly prepared for by a process of reflection and discussion about the life of faith, is an important ministry of the Church.’

Apart from the mention of ‘husband and wife’ in para. 2. this statement could clearly apply to the marriage of same-sex couples.

At one time I was clear that the concept of marriage should be restricted to the commitment between a man and a woman. Since my own Civil Partnership my views have changed and I now believe that if a life-long, pledged, faithful partnership is the sign of marriage, then same-sex couples can fulfil this definition. The religious dimension, as outlined by the bishops, clearly applies to both.

It seems to me that marriage is, firstly, a fundamental commitment that enables human beings to overcome what Genesis identifies as our existential alone-ness – it is not good to be alone. Our humanity finds it’s fulfilment within relationships and the uniting of two human beings (regardless of gender) is the means not only of overcoming that existential aloneness but also to becoming fully human. In religious (Christian) terms that is reflected in the way God can only be God in relationship as revealed in the doctrine of the Trinity: ‘God is not only loving, he is love (1 John 4:8, 16). Love must have an object, argued Richard of St Victor in the twelfth century. If God is love and has always been love then he must always have had ‘another’ upon whom to direct his love. Furthermore, argued Richard, love must have a third party otherwise it’s self-indulgent. True love desires the beloved to be loved by another. So the Father and Son desire to share their love with another: the Holy Spirit’ (Tim Chester – ‘God is a Divine Community’)

If we accept that we are made in God’s image and likeness then we, too, find our completion in a loving union with another. But what of those called to a life of celibacy? What of those called to Religious Life or to the Solitary Life? The principle remains the same except the object of love is not discovered within a one-to-one relationship but through love for others. And, even with Religious, this love is constantly tested through the particular relationships that they experience (1 John 2: 9-11). Even the solitary hermit must realise this love for the Other for love only directed at the Self leads to disintegration.

Socially, of course, marriage has been understood as the union of a man and a woman, the two ‘opposites’ which can create new life. Yet there is nothing to preclude this principle of the union of opposites bringing about a new creation holding true for members of the same sex. It is not the union of sexual opposites that defines marriage but the fulfilling of the need for us not to be alone. I can only be I if I am in relation to Thou, and the more committed I am prepared to be in that relationship, the more I discover my-self. As the opening paragraph of Marriage – A Teaching Document states: ‘Marriage is a pattern that God has given in creation, deeply rooted in our social instincts, through which a man and a woman may learn love together over the course of their lives. We marry not only because we love, but to be helped to love. Without the practice and disciplines of marriage, our love will be exhausted and fail us, perhaps very harmfully to ourselves and others. When publicly and lawfully we enter into marriage, we commit ourselves to live and grow together in this love.’

Again, whilst the Document uses gender-specific terms the principle is not about gender but about human need.

Marriage is also a social convention, a contract between two people, and this is of equal importance to the theology of humanity. Since the law came into force allowing Civil Partnerships to take place people have become far more accepting of same-sex partnerships and the use of the word ‘marriage’; to define these has become common-place. Indeed, when such couples seek to define the relationship they are in then ‘married’ is the easiest term to use and one which is, gradually, being accepted by British society.

It is obvious that the academic and theological question of whether same-sex couples can be married is going to be heatedly debated. But it seems that there is a general movement going on in our society which simply accepts what it sees – that two people of the same sex can enter into loving, monogamous, creative relationships which benefit not only them but society at large. I believe it is this movement cannot be stemmed and will, eventually, lead to the acceptance of same-sex marriage even if there remain those whose convictions mean they will become increasingly marginalised. My hope is that the Church does not argue itself into that position.
John-Francis Friendship

THE SACRAMENT OF MARRIAGE IN RELATION TO SAME-SEX COUPLES (1)

Recently the Government has announced its intention to enter a process of consultation with a view to allowing same-sex marriage. It has also indicated that it would be prepared to lift the ban on such an event taking place in a religious building.

Many religious groups have been quick to condemn the proposal. Traditionally, marriage has been understood as: ‘a gift of God in creation through which husband and wife may know the grace of God. It is given that as man and woman grow together in love and trust, they shall be united with one another in heart, body and mind, as Christ is united with his bride, the Church.’ (Marriage Service – Common Worship - Preface) The argument against allowing same-sex couples to marry (or, for that matter, to allow Civil Partnerships to be celebrated in church) hinges on this phrase ‘a gift of God in creation’.
In the Book of Genesis we read that: ‘a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh’ (2:24).  This verse is taken from the Second Creation Narrative and may come from older Middle-Eastern sources. It follows the account of woman being made from Adam’s rib as his helper and partner because God realised ‘It is not good that the man should be alone’ (2:18). This passage, of course, needs to be understood in the context of the way woman, historically, have been subservient to man – after all, God created woman from man, not the other way round! Our views on this have, of course, changed dramatically over the past century. The issue of whether God intended same-sex couples to ‘cling to each other’ have been debated, and the late Gareth Moore OP in his masterly work concludes that ‘There is no divine blueprint; there is only what makes glad the heart of each of us. Or, rather, it shows that the divine blueprint is that each of us should have the companion that delights our heart.’ (A Question of Truth, p.147)

Another argument cited for the distinctiveness of Christian marriage is based on St. Paul’s bridal paralleling of human marriage with Christ’s relationship with the church (Eph. 5: 21-end) as noted in the Preface to the Marriage Service . The male-female, divine-human encounter and commitment has been a rich source for the theology of marriage between men and women as has the inevitable comparison of the inability of same-sex couples to act in a sexually re-productive manner. But neither this argument nor that based on marriage being ‘a gift of God in Creation’ precludes other approaches to the issues.

For example, there is a long tradition of religious Vows being seen as a form of marriage, and consecrated women were long called the ‘brides of Christ’. Catholic Christianity has accepted that some are called by God to celibacy yet this has never been understood as diminishing the ability of those so called to find union in God (indeed, for centuries it was promoted as the superior way), although some evangelicals maintained that God could not invite people to celibacy because it did not allow them to be pro-creative.

There is also the question of those married couples who cannot, or choose not, to have children. As the Preface to the Marriage Service states: ‘(Marriage) is given as the foundation of family life in which children are [born and] nurtured’. There is a theological argument which sees the pro-creation of children as the sign of our god-likeness – the fruit of becoming ‘one flesh’ and there are some who take the argument to its logical conclusion - that not having children diminishes us as human beings.  The House of Bishops statement Marriage - A Teaching Document (1999) states us that: ‘The three blessings that belong to marriage are traditionally described as the procreation and nurture of children, the hallowing and right direction of natural instincts and affections, and the mutual society, help and comfort which each affords the other in prosperity and adversity.’
 
So how does this inform thinking on same-sex marriage?

To be continued…