Marriage terminology

About the previous post a respondent writes:

Pedant said...

To whom is it important to use the word "marriage" with respect to a particular commitment between two "gay" people - and why is it so?

I think this is a good question we are not just confused about the application of the term "marriage" to same sex couples, but also about the non-application of the term 'marriage' to thousands of relationships which seem to be remarkably marriage-like. We call these euphemistically "defacto" relationships and increasingly the law affords to these relationships the same rights as people who have gone through a ceremony and got a piece of paper.

I actually think this is much more sinister and even deceitful. We systematically regularise situations which seem set to avoid certain responsibilities afforded with marriage, whilst wanting the benefits.

It would seem to me that this has come about because the regulation of marriage is a mess, and that what ever else we understand about "marriage" it is not the same widely shared understanding as it was 50 and 100 years ago.

With regard to our own marriage, Sue and I have a fairly conservative understanding about what it is..(this is something of what I was trying to convey to the couple I referred to in my previous post). We see each other as the person God has given us to enable us to become the person God wants us to be. (What the poor woman did to deserve me I don't know). This has been at times wonderful and fulfilling, at other times it has been tortuous. It has always been right.

With regard to same-sex couples, it is quite clear that not all of them want to be married...just as that is quite clear about opposite-sex couples, a lot of them don't want to get married.

Some same-sex couples do want to marry! Not a lot I think but that might change.

One of my points is that we should be trying to encourage people to live in committed intimate relationships rather than uncommitted ones ("intimate" here does not only include sex but also "relationship"). This is for me, as a Christian, an important dimension of learning what it means to live a life of love. As a human being. irrespective of my particular beliefs, I think that commitment rather than uncommitment in relationships is best for society.

On one level it doesn't matter whether the word "marriage" is used for committed same sex relationships or not. Though for the life of me I can't see why two people of the same sex can't commit themselves to have and to hold, to love and to cherish etc. etc and to be faithful for the whole of their lives.

Some will have difficulty with the notion that such couples provide a safe, good and growing place for the nurture and care of children. At the very least the committed relationship is better than the uncommitted.

At this point I have to blandly use the "quack like a duck" argument, though I don't really care (other than from the point of view of social justice and equal rights...a pretty big "iff") if same sex relationships are called by some other name. But why should they be?

I don't think this contravenes Christian doctrine. I don't think this is against the Bible, which is remarkably silent on definitions. It is I think in accordance with the idea that we are invited as our understandings change and our world develops to be challenged to hear how God speaks to us afresh.

,

Same, same...once again!

Once again the question of committed same-sex relationships is bubbling up all over the place.
Here in South Australia the Attorney General, Michael Atkinson, claims that legislation to remove inequalities for same sex couples will begin its progression through the Parliament this week. I will believe it when it happens. Though falling far short of "marriage" it will attempt to remove some discriminations. One I heard yesterday was the transfer of ownership of vehicles from one partner to another. Presently if you are married and, say, husband transfers ownership to his wife then you pay a fee (about $45) to cover the administrative costs. I have actually done this on one occasion.
However if you are not married then you have to treat this transaction as though it was the sale of the vehicle and thus you are liable to pay stamp duty....depending on the value of the vehicle this could be $750 or more. Thus a same-sex couple, even though their relationship continues on exactly the same footing, are arbitrarily prejudiced against. This is only one of these sort of anomalies, when you consider the issue to do with the tranmsfer of real estate it is even more horrendous.
I do not begin to unravel some of the graver complexities involved with the custody of children.
Meanwhile in Massachusets some clergy are saying that the churech should get out of the marriage business completely (see here) this isn't quite as straight forward as some imagine, but it is an interesting idea. Throughout many countries in continental Europe for example, it is necessary for those who wish to be married to be married before a civil registrar in order to be legally married.
They may subsequently go to church ( and many do) and have a religious marriage; this however is not a legal requirement.
But the strategy outlined above (getting out of the wedding business) begs the question of what clergy might say and/or do at non-legally official celebrations. Would they for example receive the vows of life commitment which in the Western tradition are the core of the marriage bond? Though this might not be legally required (a couple having already been married) Christians regard these most seriously. And indeed binding. In my experience many people, maybe even many non-church people, regard taking vows before God as something much more important than signing a legal form. (Which is why they often want a church wedding).
I came across, too, the other day the beginnings of a discussion (here) of what "same-sex divorce" might imply. This is of course a serious issue, even though most of us can't get out heads around same-sex marriage yet.
While it is all indeed same, same (here)and then again (here) there is an awful lot of different happening too these days!

Fornication, Celibacy, and chastity

Well the title may grab your attention!
A respondent to a former entry about celibacy (see here) asks why I assert that Christians are called to be chaste!
Let me try to begin some discussion on this.
Language
It needs to be said that language is in a state of constant change, and the formerly infrequently used words "chastity" and "celibacy" (particularly the latter) have in latter times taken on a life in popular culture which a decade ago they didn't have.
Celibacy, a word, until recently, almost exclusively reserved for the world of religion is now used to address the lives of young people who choose, to refrain from having sex.
It is now in popular usage, and probably popular culture is more engaged with this group of people than with the issue of whether or not certain religious officials are required to remain unmarried.
In previous usage I would have thought this decision to abstain was actually what we call "chastity".
This word, too, in my mind, has had a change of meaning.
It used to refer to single people choosing to abstain from sex, but now has a wider meaning (see here for example) as per this definition: " not having had sex, or only having a sexual relationship with the person whom you are married to".
In this latter sense I responded that married people are called to be chaste, but obviously they are not celibate, and they may and do have sex!
My point is not so much to narrowly define the words but to recognise that the language of relationship is fluid and changing. We can talk about relationships with gay abandon! But even that innocent expression means something different now than it meant to my father who died over 20 years ago
Chastity
"Can you explain," my respondent asked,"why we are called to be chaste?"
This is, of course, a good question and it deserves proper attention.My short answer is:
......

there is a complex of influences that need to be brought to bear on such issues, these include:
the scriptural witness
the tradition and teaching of the church
personal experience
and individual conscience.

To rely on just one of these is to ask for problems and distortion...

I sense a treatise coming on......
There would seem to me little doubt that the Judaeo-Christian tradition, drawn from the Bible and as put into practice by Christians for 2000 years understands that the proper place for sex is in committed one-to-one relationships. [I don't wish to get into same-sex relationships here, but it seems to me that this possibility is not discussed by the scriptures...but same sex immorality is condemned, as indeed different sex immorality is too!]
There is no doubt that this is a high standard and we struggle with it. At times we fail spectacularly...those Borgia Popes you know!....
What I also note is that my personal experience is congruent with this. And I suggest that most Christians would agree with that. In the end, sex is an important thing, it is not neutral or meaningless it is, in fact, charged with meaning and powerfully influential.
You do not have sex with someone as though it is "recreation" and then walk away as though we have not been affected.
Much of our media portray sex in this sort of way, but I think it is just not true. I actually think a case could be made to suggest that "casual sex" is a myth put about by men...who do not understand that women are not from Mars...nor do they think that sex is "casual".
My experience tells me that sex is important, and never without consequence.
This is, I think, quite consistent with the traditional scriptural teaching about chastity and the understanding and teaching of the church.
Conscience
Finally, in the end our consciences must inform what we do. The great theologian, Thomas Aquinas, tells us that "The one who acts against their conscience always sins".
Let us not think we are given a rule book and told to go out and obey the rules. In one sense that is the very opposite of Christianity.
We are adults destined to exercise free-will.
St Paul tells us

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by the a yoke of slavery (Galatians 5:1)

This is, for me, the core of the work of Christ. But so often we like to be treated as though we are less than this, and/or to treat others without the respect that this grants them.
Like all, complex issues, conscience and freedom require that we grapple with the difficulty of these issues for ourselves.....and not merely conform to the rule book.
What, I guess, I have offered you is some of my grappling with this issue.

Same, same....but different

Yesterday the Commonwealth Parliament began its process of reporting back on same sex marriage. This is the result of a motion by maverick Lower House MP Adam Bandt's motion to actually go and find out what the electors actually are thinking.


Is he a maverick...I don't think so...
Just seems to me he is promoting the legitimate liberal (small 'l') social agenda. 
By and large I concur
and I make the following points in a little note to the good Mr Bandt

"I am in the middle of blogging about your activities in the Parliament and thought I would contact you to say thanks.

Today is the day the discussion about MPs findings about same-sex marriage in their electorates has begun.

Not surprisingly many seem to be finding what they wanted to find.

I happen to be a Christian and a priest of the Anglican Church; there are many of us who are supportive of same-sex marriage and deeply distraught by our rather conservative institution's inability to be able to discuss this properly (or at all).

What the Church might choose to do is one thing, but I see no reason why our country should feel it has to concur with the Churches (and clearly the community already recognises this); it is also not true that all Christians are opposed to gay marriage. There is no doubt that conservative evangelicals are opposed, but the majority of Christians are not conservative evangelicals.

The Anglican Church is very diverse but has a strong tradition (despite the irony of some who think otherwise) of tolerating difference. I think the Uniting Church, Catholic Church and Lutheran Churches are not too dissimilar.

In the end all I want to say is that same-sex marriage promotes stability and commitment, which is a strong social virtue. The Churches will have to fight their own internal battles...and we will lag behind popular opinion I suggest.

Thank you for encouraging this community debate"

I do not think we need to be frightened of this debate. Why, indeed, should we fear legitimate discussion about anything

It's a bit of a worry

We got a report on Lambeth yesterday, from our two Bishops.

It was, I must say a bit of a worry, about what might now happen.

Archbishop Rowan Williams has asked for three moratoriums

• There be no consecrations of partnered gay people to the episcopate
• That blessing of same-sex relationships cease
• That cross border interventions by Bishops outside their own dioceses cease
  

Our Bishop was obviously pained to explain what the implications of this might be for him and our Diocese, and in a very laboured and careful way sought to explain how he anticipated this might be implemented.

I make two observations on this:

One, that he actually only addressed the first two moratoria. When I questioned what the implications of the third moratoria might be for this Diocese; and asked whether it was really a sop to those who did not like the first two he was rather defensive.

Given that we have already had cross-border incursions in this country, and it does not seem entirely unlikely that they could happen in this Diocese, it is naive to think that it does not or will not apply . There have also been internal cross-border moves which have not been without controversy and indeed pain. My impression is that the Bishop was suggesting that this sort of thing might be OK.

My point? That moratorium number 3 is of a different order from 1&2.

My second observation is that there was a disproportionate focus on the the same-sex moratoria. The bishop, it seemed to me, actually went further than Lambeth which talked about not consecrating bishops who were in same sex relationships. Jeffery seemed to extend this to ordinations to priests.

I am not aware that any bishop in this Diocese has actually knowingly ordained a homosexual person, let alone one living in a committed same-sex relationship. That such have been ordained is evident. By and large the strategy seems to have been to not ask the question on the one hand, or to not answer it on the other.

I was left feeling sad (yet again) about what this meant for any men and women of homosexual orientation in our midst. About how they must feel. When good old Fr Andy got animated and questioned whether we had really taken the responsibility to listen to gay people, the Bishop offered to lend us a couple of books!

Andy said..."Why would the gay community want to talk to us when we want to persecute them?"...was there a tear in his eye? The Bishop looked unknowingly at what this exchange might mean.

I think it means we have certainly not taken seriously the need to listen. We have not even really gone through the motions. And once again we allow a vulnerable minority to bear the suffering of us all!

As I say, it's a bit of a worry isn't it?

After word and clarification

Since I first wrote this the Archbishop has clarified with me the fact that I am mistaken about his having gone further than Lambeth he says to me:

"You suggested that the Lambeth resolution related (only) to ordinations to the
episcopate. This may be what people have focussed on as a result of events
in the US, however the text is “nor ordaining those involved in same gender
unions”. The reference is not simply to the episcopate and I am not (if I
might quote you) going further than Lambeth. "

Happily married

In the way of these things I am inclined to think that the road towards same-sex marriages is one of inevitability. That is, I think we will all look round in a hundred years time and wonder what the fuss was about.
For the life of me I cannot understand why some people seem to think that gay-marriage will bring about the end of civilisation as we know it. I do have some sympathy with the argument that what ever else a committed same-sex relationship might be it is not marriage.
I have sympathy with that argument but in the end I am les and less persuaded by it.
Even if I were to accept the view that sectional interest groups, like churches, are at liberty to define marriage theologically as they see fit...I do not think that idea should go uncritiqued by rational thought and by sociological change.
The key dynamic that has changed in society in the last fifty years is our understanding of the nature and origin of homosexuality. Most would accept that homosexuality is not a choice but an orientation. We do not choose to be homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual rather we are as we are.
Most of those who speak out against homosexuality seem to do so out of a sense that some how a person has to apologise for being as they are.
There is logically no difference between that state of affairs and requiring people to apologise for their racial origins or their gender.
There are two things that are offensive about such an idea. First is the offensiveness that we recognise of assuming that race, gender, or sexual orientation renders us superior or inferior. Second is the offensiveness that people should be impugned for something that lies outside their control. There can be no moral responsibility for that which we cannot freely change.
I want, and I have said before, people to live in responsible relationships with each other. I think it is preferable that we not treat sexual relationships as though they were of no value, and just some sort of recreation. To my mind, sex is so powerful a human motivator that it cannot have no meaning.
Even 'consenting adults' who conspire together to say this is 'just sex' are I think kidding themselves. We don't like it when our partners sleep around!
So I think taking this important stuff, sex, seriously means it should happen in the context of the committed relationship.
I want to do what ever I can to encourage commitment. It seems better to me that sexually active people should be committed to each other. If for same sex couples that commitment can be marriage-like (monogamous, exclusive, life-long) then why can that commitment not be honoured.
Is it not better to have commitment than promiscuity? I would have thought so.
I am not against chastity, I am against people being forced to be celibate who don't believe that is their particular vocation.
We need, I suggest, to encourage mature relationships. Not discourage them.

A way forward-same sex unions

It does seem to me that there is quite a lot to be said for taking the religion out of marriage.

While I understand and appreciate the argument that is put forward by some about the nature of marriage in Australia having its roots in religious tradition, there is no need for this to be so. Particularly since we are told that we live in a secular society, and that there should be separation between Church and State. A lot of people get married by civil celebrants, who are (as I understand it) expressly forbidden to offer religious services.

Given that the State has moved to remove any arbitrary discrimination against people in same sex relations vis a vis things like superannuation and inheritance issues, I don't see any particular need for the State per se to continue to define marriage in religious terms.

They could do this by simply allowing the rules and regulations to apply to two persons rather than people of opposite=gender.

The religious difficulty could be removed by removing the right of religious ministers to also be marriage celebrants. All marriages could be performed by a registrar of the state, and should a couple wish it, a religious wedding could take place later...but not have any legal force.

This would allow same-sex weddings in a secular sense, but not require religious groups to compromise their principles.

While I think a case can be made for Christian same-sex marriage I am also realistic in that I can't see a conservative church like my own (Anglican) church agreeing to it in my life time.

But that is no reason to prevent the wider non-religious community from availing itself of such a provision

Stepping out

Get Up notes that over 100 laws were passed by the Senate last night to remove discrimination against same-sex couples. It is worth thinking what these 'discriminations' might be. Some are horrendous, like people being denied equity with regard to superannuation because they happen to have lived with a same, rather than different, sex partner. So, when your partner dies if you are married or have been in a defacto relationship superannuation consideration involve workign out what your entitlement to that might be. It would seem inequitable that people who have supported each other, perhaps bought property together, shared common goals and so on should be denied equity without costly litigation.
More emotional has been an understanding who 'next of kin' might be. Numerous stories abound of same-sex partners being denied any say in funeral arrangements, often cut out completely by families who have been antipathetic to the deceased person's lifetstyle.
What ever we may personally feel about people's lifestyle choices, we have no right to discriminate against what are essentially personal and/or private decisions.
The Attorney, Robert McLelland, has reasserted that same-sex marriage is not on the books (here) . This is to be expected, if not a bit lamentable. In time it will come I suspect.
In the meantime any steps forward are to be welcomed.

Faintly amusing...if it wasn't for the fact that Ministers of the Crown think of themselves as princes!

I wrote to 'Senator' Abetz about the forthcoming push to get the Liberal party room to have a conscience vote about same sex marriage

He (allegedly) replied:

*Dictated by Senator Abetz and sent in his absence

 Dear Dr (sic) Clark,

 Thank you for your email regarding same-sex marriage.

For my part, I firmly believe that the institution of marriage is one that has been uniquely, over the centuries, the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of others for life.  I also believe it is the best environment in which to raise children. This is a bedrock institution of our society that I fully support and I do not support any efforts to make changes to this definition.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact me on this matter.

Yours sincerely


Eric Abetz
Leader of the Government in the SenateMinister for EmploymentMinister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public ServiceLiberal Senator for Tasmania

---------------

I replied ( this at least allowed me to vent that I am not convinced this is a genuine reply

(Please note that in my original email I informed you that my title was Fr (Father) not Dr….but that your automatic answering system doesn’t allow for my proper title!)

Thanks anyway for your reply. I thank you indeed  for bothering to reply( many of your your colleagues don’t bother)…but would respectfully disagree with your assertions  that “the institution of marriage is one that has been uniquely, over the centuries, the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of others for life.”

It is clear for example, even from the Hebrew-Christian Biblical narratives ( to which I adhere) that marriage is not so concisely or conveniently defined. As religious people we struggle with this.

The Hebrew Scriptures in particular point to a plurality of practice. The Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) for example, appear to have practised polygamy and concubinage. There are numerous stories throughout the Hebrew Scriptures ( the prophet Hosea, the great King David…and so on ) where their marriage ‘practice’ has been anything approaching monogamy.

From sociological perspectives, (my area of academic discipline) it is also quite clear that some cultures have practised polygamy, polyandry, and there are also a number of cultures where people who today we might call ‘transgender’ have been accepted and celebrated.It is simply naïve, arrogant (two curiously Western characteristics don’t you think?) and nonsensical to suggest that the Western pattern of, say, the last 50 years is the one and only definitive pattern by which we can and should live our lives.

I serve (and choose to serve) a community which is pluralistic and loving, who want children to grow up in stable families. There are families with children, where both parents are of the same gender.  And some where they are of a different gender.There are men who have committed themselves to each other. And women likewise! There are of course men and women  in loving relationships.   Almost everyone I know has at least one person in their family who is same-sex-attracted
As a Christian and a priest I want to do everything I possibly can to provide for children to grow up with parents who love them.I want people to live lives  in which they don’t feel guilty for just being who they are.

It seems to me that if the State can encourage the parents of children to live in committed relationships…then they should.  It is not the gender that is important. It is the commitment, to the relationship. To the family. To the children.I think everyone has this right. To be a committed parent; and to have parents who will commit themselves to their well being. What, on earth, does this have to do with gender?

Stephen

Didn't really think Abetz's response would be otherwise

Orthodox political thought

In the last week I have had a bundle of political information but only two direct requests to make 'information' available to the people of our church community.

Now, the Anglican Church (despite often being otherwise characterised ) is not politically homogenous. It has often been characterised as "the Tory Party at Prayer"...or sometimes more whimsically (referring to the Anglo Catholic section with which I identify) as "The Communist Party at Mass"!

The reality is that we are theologically, socially and, most certainly, politically a heterodox community. It's often observed that our one defining characteristic is that we are all totally different...and we respect each other's right to be so.

This doesn't always make for easy living, but it does make life interesting.

So at times of election I try to be careful to not promote the line of one particular party, though many people would know and/or guess that I lean to the left.

The two requests to make the policies of particular parties known have actually come from other religious groups. One from an agency which promotes Christian Pastoral support Workers (formerly called chaplains) in state schools. Their advice is about the one issue of funding. Though they also urge people to write to their local member (of any persuasion) about the issue. This latter action seems to me perfectly reasonable. What is not reasonable is to be seen to be promoting one or other party in particular.

Given, also, what I note above...that Anglicans cherish difference...it would be a mistake to make the assumption that we are all particularly sympathetic and think the same way.

The second solicitation comes from a party which clearly identifies itself as a Christian Party-even though when it suits them electorally they back away from that association, though it is clear that Family First seeks to draw support from mainly conservative evangelical churches.

Such churches probably do not tolerate theological diversity in the way that the Anglican Church does!

It would seem that they also have a fairly narrow conservative political agenda. I don't have any particular problem with people being conservative. What I do object to is the use of descriptors that seem to claim there is only one Christian viewpoint.

Thus when they put out a Christian Values Checklist (see here for similar information) it is for me some what problematic.

Of the 15 points on this particular document, which seems remarkably like the document put out for the recent State election...even though it claims to relate specifically to the Federal parliament..I don't have problems with some (possibly 6 of the 15....) but I would take exception to the bland statement that some points clearly represent "Christian values"

Item 3 for example : Support parental choice of schooling with education vouchers is clearly not a specifically Christian value at all

Of more concern are those matters where I actually think the value is not Christian at all

Item 4 'Protect marriage' (quite happy with that...but it goes on) 'oppose Relationship Registers for same-sex couples'

To my mind this flies in the face of the freedom that God gives to us in the Gospel. I don't dispute that many Christian, perhaps even most won't agree with me. But while I want to protect marriage I don't think that opposing same-sex marriage is the key strategy. What about providing adequate childcare, support for new parents etc. etc?

In fact I want society to stop acting prejudicially against people simply because they are gay. Where is that Christian value.

Item11 also want to prevent same-sex couples from having access to IVF and adoption

There is an agenda here. But to my mind it is not a Christian agenda. It is an anti-gay agenda, and I find no Christian value on this 'checklist' about protecting gay people from discrimination.

Quite the reverse. Items 12 & 13 promote narrow religious privilege with regard to vilification laws and anti-discrimination legislation....that is they want religious groups to have the right to be intolerant and discriminatory in a way that no other sector of society can be allowed to be so. I just think this sort of narrow seeking of privilege is so against the spirit of Paul's teaching about being responsible citizens that it is shocking.

So, I won't be issuing their narrow political advice in the name of "Christian Values"

A

Online polls

I was more than bemused to see that stupid little survey "Voteline" (usually on the second letters page of the Advertiser) a few days ago.
It was about marriage equality and it said 700+ were opposed to same-sex marriage and only 20 or 30 were in favour.
How can this be? Particularly since almost every other poll for the last three years has told us that at least 66%...and up to 75% and more are IN FAVOUR of same-sex marriage.
Well, of course, it is the mad methodology. I have blogged about this before (see here for one (but not the only) example)
Yesterday's poll (for example) about the very serious question "Should the Reserve Bank drop interest rates?"   49% of people said yes...and 51% said no. Wow!

Now 49% (on this occasion) was actually 24 phone calls! And 51% was 25 calls!
How can this be? There were over 700 phone calls about same-sex marriage!
Ahh yes, I get it now. Vested interest. Swamping.

It rather exposes how this "Voteline" methodology is fundamentally flawed. It tells us that there in no control (a fundamental concept in statistical analysis), because there is nothing to stop vested interests 'swamping' the protest.
My dear former student D de L was no doubt pretty active, along with his FOL colleagues
It is ALWAYS the case that when the questions have a strong political dimension, either Leftist or Rightist, then the number of phone calls increases dramtically. Not usually up to 700+....but it's the same phenomenon I suggest

Of course there are now all sorts of important polls online. One is the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy & Legal Affairs survey on the two Marriage Equality Acts (2 Amendments: Bandt and Jones at the 2nd reading stage)
If you would like to fill this in then go here  https://www.surveymk.com/s/spla-marriage
I mention this because there was some concern from one group I belong to that there was 'swamping' going on.  This (as I said above) is the great flaw in the methodology.
They were encouraging marriage equality supporters to fill in the survey...this is allegedly attempting to redress a balance, but is of course also skewing the results.

A few of my more Churchy readers may also be interested to know that I have also filled out the Crown Nominations Commission Advisory  quiz about the next Archbishop of Canterbury! (see here)...it says

" In the past only Primates and Provincial Secretaries of the Anglican Communion have had this opportunity"
and indeed it also says
"Cette opportunité était auparavant réservée aux Primats de la Communion anglicane." & "En tiempos pasados solamente han tenido esta oportunidad los primados de la Comunión Anglicana:" & "No passado, apenas primazes e secretários provinciais da Comunhão Anglicana tiveram essa oportunidade"


(interesting that the French and the Spanish only refer to the Primates/Primats/ and do not make reference to the provincial secretaries!!  as do the English and the Portuguese)


Does at least tell us something about the cosmopolitan nature of the Anglican Communion/Communion Anglicane/Comunión Anglicana/Comunhão Anglicano....one would also want to add various other languages...Swahili/Korean/Japanese/Mandarin/Cantonese/Arabic/Melanesian/Australian(!)/ u.s.w.....


I suggested that it was a pity that such a catholic Communion was not looking beyond the British Isles for the leader of this polyglot Church!

Same sex Marriage

We seem to have been totally underwhelmed by the discussion at the ALP national conference about whether or not to permit people to enter into marriage relationships with a person of the same sex.
This is not a straight forward discussion. There are all sorts of questions that have yet to be answered.
What is it really about? Is it about ensuring the not unimportant right for people to be allowed to enter into committed realtionship, and to not arbitrarily deny to some what we would advocate for others.
Or is it about who might, or might not be allowed to adopt children.
There are for the Churches, theological issues; but these are of little or no concern to the Parliament. The great religious traditions (by and large) have not seriously addressed the question of how they might honour faithful same-sex relationships. All of them more intent on demonising homosexual people.
A couple of things appear clear to me: and they are that in a world where people are fickle and exploitative it surely behoves us all to encourage commitment rather than promiscuity; and that in a compassionate world we should not arbitrarily prevent people in ordering their lives in the way that they see fit.
I may not agree with or approve of anyone's particular choices; but that doesn't give me the right to impose my world view on anyone else. Particularly when my world view doesn't seem to have genmeral acceptance any way, and I have not been able to implement it terribly well myself!

Just imagine

Today (Sat 11 August ) there have been a number of rallies country-wide in favour of legalising same-sex marriage.
During the week I have thought how useful it might be for us to engage in some imagining.
Imagine, for example, that the reason procreative marriage is so important has its roots (sic) historically not in some existential verity but  in the fact that communities are flimsy. And dependent on the succession of generations

This is very obvious in the Old Testament, the patriarch Abraham longs for descendants as numerous as the stars and as uncountable as the sand grains on the beach. This in fact is the promise of God to him.
It is an idea that has entranced me about my own family.
(Though we appear to be stalled in the next generation ....I am sure this won't last for ever...and any way there are already great nieces and nephews and I am an unashamed and proud patriarch!)

You don't have to wholeheartedly accept this idea, but it is not beyond the bounds of credibility that tenuous communities worried about their survival would feel that it is important that numbers increase .
It was important to have sons and daughters. Sex was about and for procreation. [This would seem to be, by and large, the Roman Catholic Church's position about the purpose of marriage]

This is of course has a certain truth about it,  but also not so urgent. Communities are (by and large) not on the edge of extinction.  It is no longer  necessary to breed ourselves into existence. Rather the reverse.
We are in danger in various parts of the world, not the least in our fragile continent, of threatening our delicate world with too many people.
So let's imagine, what seems to be scientifically obvious. There is no longer a breeding imperative!

Let us also imagine that we are now mature enough to recognise that the human being is a sexual being.
If modern psychology has taught us nothing else it is that sex is not shameful, rude, or embarrassing ...but rather that it is key to our human identity. The human being is a sexual being.
Psychology would tell us that to be a whole person we need sexual fulfilment (along with a whole lot of other things...emotional, creative, spiritual, physical, intellectual...) but certainly the healthy person will have a mature and healthy sexuality.
Now we don't have to imagine very hard what we now know.
Our world is almost full and sex doesn't particularly (or at all) require us to generate children.
BUT, the human being is a sexual being. And some human beings are not sexually attracted to members of the other sex.
No one should be being denied a healthy sexual relationship.
They can choose such....but where do we get the idea that God requires celibacy for the homosexual.
Indeed to do so is to actually say you are not to be a full person.
So we play games
The Catholic Church has promoted this long untenable proposition that sex can only be about making babies.
Life, touch, sex education, the Pill, psychology etc. etc. tells us that sex is good and no one need to not be sexual.
BUT some people will not be having sex with the opposite gender!  They are just not made that way.


Let us honour the fact that men and women, women and women, men and men,  women and men will also say "I commit!" to another person . Just imagine

Gay "Marriage"

Our Prime Minister announces in the wake of the new British laws to recognise gay civil unions that he is opposed to "gay marriage". It is a fairly meaningless sort of statement. The British laws do not regulate marraige to allow same sex couples to marry. They allow the recognition of same sex relationships and indeed the ABC notes that "Mr Howard says while he is strongly in favour of removing any discrimination that exists for same-sex couples, he does not agree with the British laws".
This seems to me to be a contradictory sort of statement...but that never stopped Johnny before. Surely not recognising gay civil unions is discriminatory.
Why, I ask, are we so coy about homosexual relationships? Howard suggests "That's (The union of a man and woman) the common understanding of marriage in the Judeo-Christian tradition and I would be opposed to the recognition of civil unions".
I would agree with him concerning the common understanding of the Christian tradition, but likewise non-marital sexual relationships such as we call "defacto" are also outside that definition. There is no suggestion that we should not recognise these unions....the political imperative is all too obvious....so if we allow recognition of one group...defacto heterosexuals, and not another....civilly recognised homosexuals....what else is that but discriminatory.
You cannot have it both ways...but despite what the gay vote counters want us to think there are no votes in gay issues.

We just don't get it

I imagine it will be the first of many poor jokes/comments about Portia de Rossi and Ellen de Generes who yesterday honoured their relationship by marrying each other.
The fact that they are both women is (of course) of interest but 9's morning program made the obvious comment. Ellen wore pants, Portia wore a dress. "Oh," said the idiot anchor, "does that mean Ellen wears the trousers?" "I think it does" said Karl the straight-man.
Then, I suspect, they both realised they had strayed where they probably shouldn't go.
We were told Portia wears the pants sometimes (how do they know?), then we were told Ellen was coming to Channel 9 soon...and wouldn't that be a hoot as she was absolutely fabulous...and so talented ( should they have added 'for a lesbian'?)

What gets me is why same sex relationships have to be interpreted in the parameters of male-female relationships. It is generally accepted, for example, that one of the reasons why numbers of women go into same-sex relationships after having been in different sex relationships is that they want a relationship that is on a better footing. It is often because they long for companionship, rather than the war of the sexes that they find themselves wanting to be partnered to a woman rather than an adversary.

Of course we men have some difficulty understanding this, and we make so many of the rules.

My feelings?

In a world where there is too little love and commitment, I wish all those
who seek it well. And I wonder why so many of us are hateful about those who
look in different places for what we ourselves long.

Fire in the belly

Curious things are happening with regard to issues of sexuality. The Federal Government says it will not allow the Australian Capital Territory proclaim the law which will allow same sex unions. (The Feds can do this because the ACT is a "territory" rather than a state...they will instruct the Governor General to not proclaim the law. They couldn't do this if it was a State.)
A colleague today invites us to pray for the US Episcopal Convention with the implication that they may see the error of their ways and return to the scriptures. And I wonder how he knows that it is his view of scripture that should prevail.
And a document floats around our church which clearly has gay people in its sights. I don't wish to be paranoid about it but with a statement that "sexuality is a gift from God" followed lines later by "you are not to engage in sex outside of marriage" what else are we to construe other than the fact the if your sexuality is "same-sex oriented" you are not allowed to exercise it?
Presumably it means that this gift from God is not allowed to be exercised. Or alternatively that it is a different sort of gift from God. Or alternatively that we are confused in our thinking.

Let me say I find it strange that we will not do everything we can both civilly and in the community of faith to encourage people, gay or straight, to lead committed lives. I am sad that our governments will not move to ensure that prejudice of what ever sort is stamped out.
I am really, really sad that when it comes to prejudice against homosexual people, the Church so often seems to be standing at the front of the queue waiting to throw stones. Ohh there is a teaching about that isn't there?

Does it matter?

I have had  a number of conversations with people about same-sex marriage in the last week.
It often devolves to the LCD (lowest common denominator) aren't there more important things to get agitated about? The answer is Yes!
I actually think that the plight of homeless kids, suicide amongst rural men, and the awful deaths at sea of those trying to get to Australia are all "more important".
BUT, is it either/or?
The truth is that the human being is wonderful  and  is capable of doing more than one thing at once!
In the crude Americanism...we can chew gum and walk at the same time!
Doing the right thing by refugees, putting more resources into caring for the homeless, and supporting rural guys should all be done.
And I want to say, that doing the right thing by gay families is also important.
The truth of this seems self-evident....some people are gay!  Shock! horror!
As a Christian I want also to say God is love not hate!
God does not hate anyone...despite what Westboro Baptist Church wants to tell us...it is clear to me that the Lord Jesus Christ would have been proud to say that he didn't care (I would use another cruder expression) about people's sexuality. ( I am well aware that many of my sisters and brothers think otherwise )
I want to say....by their very nature, families are really mixed up...the 'normal' family is really hard to define.
Mum, Dad & 2.3 kids seems to be the exception rather than the rule. I want to encourage families to be as stable as they can.
Because families are all mixed up...some even have two same-sex parents, some have only one,  some are blended (and that's really difficult)  let's not make it more difficult than it is.
I want to encourage as much stability as I can.
Seems to me if two women or two men are prepared to commit to each other...then I want to do what I can to support commitment.
Better, in relationships, to encourage stability and commitment
For the kids we can only say "Hear! Hear!"

Counter cultural

In a report on the recent Synod of Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, the ABC this morning presented a report on celibacy, one commentator said:

The gift of priestly celibacy, and that’s one of the terms I like to use, ‘gift’. It’s a reminder to the church of our essential purpose to bear witness to the kingdom of heaven, that even though we’re part of this world and we love this world and we’re here for the sake of the world in a certain sense, it’s ultimately our true homeland in heaven that we’re aiming for, and that’s why celibacy is a counter cultural sign of witness to the eternal things. Some think that by ordaining married men and allowing them to remain married as priests, that the shortage will be alleviated, now in the short term that may be the case, I don’t know. But I think in the long term there would be real positive things which are present in the church now, which could be lost through the loss of the compulsory celibacy of the clergy in the West.

In a rather old-fashioned view of celibacy, I think....that of it being a sort of superior state to matrimony...the notion of counter culture is simply inadequate. One would have to say for example, that the notion of faithful marriage is deeply counter-cultural too...and in many way more so than the ease of celibacy. Is it pushing the envelope too far to also suggest that same sex unions or marriages are also counter cultural?
We live, after all, in a world in which sexual fidelity is demeaned and anything, it seems to me, that promotes commitment and faithfulness should be seriously examined as potentially "bearing witness to the kingdom". It is too limiting to think that only celibacy can do this.
It is normative, it would seem to me, to see that this is what marriage is about. It would be delightful if the minefield of same-sex relationship could also be given the same opportunity to bear witness to the kingdom.....some will not agree with me.

In reality, we witness to the values of the kingdom where we find ourselves to be and in the state to which God has called us. We should be cautious about promoting one state over another with a sort of superiority that smacks more of us than it does of God.
We should be cautious about taking a gift of God, such as priesthood, and using that to validate our limited views. Who, after all, are and have been the key promoters of clerical celibacy? The celibate clergy themselves!....more

The trouble with nuance

The Bishop I think was right. It is important to not reduce important discussions to the facile simplicity of pro v con. There needs to be much more nuance than this

The trouble with this is that in the mean time we have actually done much more.

Already one of our excellent priest has said "enough is enough"!

Ali Wurm  an honestly confessing person who has never denied she is a lesbian has resigned (see my previous blog)

Did we want to lose such a fine a priest?

Ali had a reputation of being pastoral, innovative, compassionate and creative.

She is caught technically buy the overkill of Faithfulness in Service.

Clearly no threat to young people, or the wider community, the church has created a casualty of a person who on most objective criteria is exactly the sort of leader we should be striving to cultivate and retain.

While the puritanesque document Faithfulness in Service has snuck into practice in the Australian Church let us not pretend it is without casualties.

I, for one, don't want to belong to an organisation that says that we don't accept you

And let us not play games with people who are same-sex attracted by saying that we love the sinner but not the sin

When we fail to recognise and accept that many, many people are just same-sex attracted...that this is not a choice they have perversely or twistedly made but a way they are...and in many cases have been since they were born

It is easy for some to say that this is just wilfulness. The testimony of thousands of gay people would suggest otherwise.

Do we, can we love and accept these people ?

Oxymoronic

Yesterday, in that Facebook sort of way, I was invited to join a facebook group Christians for Same Sex Civil Unions-SA another FB friend made the comment isn't that an oxymoron (contradiction in terms). My reply is "That I am nothing if not moronic, but no!"

I have blogged extensively about same-sex unions in the past (see a range of them here). My point basically is that we Christians are in the business of encouraging faithfulness and stability in relationships.

In a curiously disarming conversation with the youngest SC as we drove home last night from luxury ice cream, she informed me that she was going to vent her anger this weekend by demonstrating...and more than that it was a sort of birthday outing...perhaps trip is a better word... for her young gay-tending friend. They were going to State Parliament to demonstrate in favour of (you guessed) gay marriage.

I was a little taken aback. But we talked about all sorts of interesting things like the failure of society to deal honestly with the history of homosexuality. It is a particular sadness to me as an agent of the Church that we are as bad at this as the wider community, and in many ways worse.

But the youngest SC, well aware of the fact that she is a member of a church community which has a much more puritanical and, perhaps, punitive attitude towards homosexual people and their supporters..is brave in the face of this.

Perhaps there is hope for us yet!