I've not blogged on the UK Marriage Debate for a little while now - not because its not important - but because its not the only thing going on. As a conversation and issue, its of great interest to me. It is at the interface of culture, politics, religion, ethics and law, and the discussions that build up to it are fascinating. I've particularly enjoyed the theological nature of the Christian side of the argument - its worth noting, for those that are unaware, that there are differences between Christians in the way that marriage is understood.
That said, I'd like to bring a few things to your attention. Firstly, the current status of public opinion. It's clear from local elections that some grassroots social Conservatives are unhappy with the Coalitions focus on 'equal' marriage - with many examples of people writing in to that effect, often voting alternatively or abstaining altogether. Secondly, as a bit of a follow up to a previous post on numbers, it's worth noting that the (roughly) 10:1 split IN FAVOUR of the traditional definition of marriage remains on the C4M and C4EM petitions. C4M, a petition aiming to keep the current definition has slightly under 500,000 signatories, whereas C4EM has a fraction over 50,000. The latter went live two days after the former, yet it still lags behind badly. I am grateful that C4EM has decided to change its website to something other than a pink mirror of C4M, but the video, with its tagline "all men can be heroes, all men can be husbands" is slightly frustrating, and example of emotion before solid argument in this bloggers opinion.
Thirdly, is a somewhat worrying case coming out of the Diocese of Southwark in the Church of England. I link to Cranmer's post, one from the Christian Institute, an article in the Church Times, and finally a Telegraph article. It's an interesting story - and Cranmer's follow-up post is an excellent look at the implications and reality of it.
Southwark is known to be a relatively diocese - yet it seems that a Lay Reader has been suspended (see Cranmer's second article to look at it fully) from ministry for suggesting that parishioners might like to sign the C4M petition. He did this in a sermon on being bold as a Christian - suggesting that one way to be bold is to stick ones head above the parapet and sign a petition. He is being challenged with attaching unity and sowing discord. This, bluntly, is nonsense. What this man said was in line with official church teaching, in line with what the Bible says, and for all its faults the C4M petition does basically represent the Christian view of marriage. What has happened here is a huge over-reaction to a relatively minor incident.
This blogger hopes that the lay reader in question will be apologised to, reinstated, and a sensible dialogue had about the issue of 'equal marriage' - ideally in a bible study to which all interested parties are invited. The embarrassment that this will cause to Southwark and also to the C of E in general is pretty staggeringly unnecessary.
It is very easy to be classed as a bigot - I often get called one simply for differing from a certain creed of liberal secularism - but its sounds like this lay reader is not one. He has excercised a long ministry in his parish, and in a sermon on Christian boldness decided to, in line with orthodoxy, promote a means to exercise that boldness. This is not bigotry - he did not demand that parishioners sign it, he didn't make it a salvation issue. To suspend someone from ministry for upholding the official teaching of the church is nonsensical - a sad story for the many faithful Christians in the Church of England.
I give the lay reader, Michael Gowlland, the space for comments he made to The Telegraph:
“People get suspended for the usual vicar and choirboy sort of thing but I’ve never heard of anyone being suspended because people don’t like what you said or the way that you said it.
“That’s the point of being a preacher, you preach what you think God wants you to say, the congregation don’t have to agree with you.
“This has been one of the strengths of the Church of England, that it will accept and tolerate people with different opinions.
“It is disappointing that some people are so narrow minded.”
The Church of England has its strengths, its weaknesses and its idiosyncrasies. This, to me, seems to be an unfortunate case of the latter - I am intrigued to see how it plays out.
Interesting. I have a few reservations.
ReplyDeleteFirst is your analysis of the facts and figures. Signatories on a petition do not make it public opinion. It's obvious that when it's a situation where a minority group (LGBT people) is coming up against a majority group (social conservatives). Most people did not want rid of slavery, it was still right to be rid of it. So I think that, while it clearly wasn't your intention, facts and figures distract from the main discussion to be had, and that discussion is about the ethics of the matter. Opposing discrimination (and I believe this could be seen as a discriminatory issue) is one of the few occasions, in my opinion, where democracy falls down. A majority group should not be given the power to oppress a minority group. Clearly Jesus believed in His minority morality. So concerning your second point, I disagree with the idea that it's worth noting that C4M are currently 10:1 in favour.
The point on the tag-line I don't fully understand, but I think it's obvious that both sides are using fancy marketing.
On the point of the lay-reader, if he didn't put both political views across then it's bias politics and it does not belong in the church.
(Cont.) He had no right to ask anyone to sign any particular petition. I also disagree that signing the petition would be particularly orthodox or necessarily true to the Bible. Yes, the Bible does not condone homosexual sex. And yes, the Bible could be read to define marriage very specifically (one flesh, sacrament, man and a woman, man head of the household etc.) but so much of the Bible's morality is not, and should not be found in secular state law. For example, I presume you would not outlaw homosexual sex or, say, lying.
ReplyDeleteI don't know the lay-reader enough to say he is or isn't a bigot, but it's not implausible from what I've read here. He shouldn't have represent his political opinions in a religious setting. I won't be preaching social democracy if I ever become a vicar, for example. To say, "We can be bold in faith by doing things such as signing petitions...say the C4M petition." can easily be also to say, "We can be bold in faith by...signing...the C4M petition." This implies that it is God's will that we sign the petition. I for one disagree.
All the same, I really enjoy reading your blogs. I like the fact that you're willing to say what you think, regardless of the consequences. Kudos.
God bless you.
Paul
Hi Paul, thanks for the comment. I'm not at all convinced that Jesus had a 'minority morality' - he is God, brought a better way, and affirmed the OT Law whilst showing what it really meant. I think its absolutely worth noting that its not clear cut - the Government is trying to force through a massive change with no public mandate - comparing it to slavery is a tired tactic that does no-one any favoures.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment on the Lay reader issue - its interesting to see differing Christian opinions on this issue, which is partly why I wrote this post. I think, though, that it IS an historically orthodox view to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, which precludes same-sex marriage. I agree the language is key - but at the same time the marriage debate, whilst political, goes beyond the political. I'd refer you to my other posts on the topic to flesh out my view.
Thanks for reading, I hope my comment doesn't put you off!
in him.
Tom
Thanks for the reply. I don't really want to start a debate. I'm sure you've heard my opinion before from various people. I can see that your view on marriage is the orthodox Christian view. It's a view that I hold myself. Marriage is for a man and a woman. This is one of the values I must reluctantly take from the Bible. That's not where my reservations lie. So I guess it would be more productive to look at what we agree on: that semantics are the issue.
DeleteIf two men see their relationship as a marriage, we Christians might disagree with them, but that could still be recognised in law as a state marriage. I don't see what the problem would be - I presume you do have a problem with that. Out of interest, what would that be? In my opinion, it's simply allowing for a new meaning for marriage - which I would say it has taken already. Very few marriages nowadays, relatively speaking, are Christian at all. People often marry in churches for the tradition, because they like the building etc. (as I'm sure you know). If we have no trouble with that, what is so different about this issue?
God bless,
Paul