Sabbatical Blog 8: One plus one *

Ray Anglesea shares the next installment of his sabbatical experiences

On 6 July 2014, the General Assembly of the United Reformed Church, moved forward with its discussions on the marriage of same-sex couples.

This significant issue was considered at the Assembly, including a facilitation group report which was written after Assembly (and chaired by our own Synod Moderator, Revd Lis Mullen) had heard from a wide range of speakers with varying views. On the final day, a resolution was passed which reflects the range of views expressed on the floor of General Assembly. It honours the sense of urgency expressed by those who had hoped that this Assembly would allow same-sex marriages in their churches; it honours the wish of a majority that the celebration of same-sex marriages should be a matter for local church decision; and it honours the deeply-held convictions of those members who remain deeply opposed to the marriage of same-sex couples in church. The resolution gives local churches a nine-month period of consultation to reflect, gather and report on the views of their members. It also allows the November 2014 meeting of Mission Council to call a special “one issue, one day” meeting of the General Assembly without the need to wait for the next scheduled meeting of Assembly in July 2016.

Equal marriage has now become law in England. The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 came into force on the 29^thMarch 2014 (see previous blog, http://urc-northernsynod.blogspot.co.uk/2014_04_06_archive.html.

I don’t know what I can add further to the debate particularly after the deeply prayerful way in which the issue was debated at Assembly. But here are some thoughts from a Christian perspective as we look forward to further prayerful considerations at church meetings in the coming months.

Firstly, I think we need to be more intelligent about thinking biblically in relation to equal marriage. It’s not enough to quote biblical texts by themselves, or quote relevant or irrelevant historic clauses from the Reformed Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) as if they prove or disprove a particular view: what is necessary is to understand the direction in which scripture is leading us in the way we reflect on human relationships today. In Jesus’ world there is one thing above all else that marriage was for - it was for perpetuating the male line through the controlled production and rearing of male heirs. It is true that marriage had other social purposes as well; in a patriarchal world marriage protected a woman from isolation, vulnerability and exploitation in a society in which she couldn’t be an independent earner and property owner. And while this may appear to be to an outdated OT biblical model of marriage it is far removed from what the theology of a Christian marriage today might mean and what St Paul had in mind. Put simply - human marriages are meant to be like God’s covenant with us, his people, his church and his world. The metaphor of the marriage covenant tells us that God’s covenant love is a love "that will not let us go." A covenanted relationship is precisely how God marries himself to humanity. This I think helps us understand the purpose of God’s relationship with us, and the purpose and permanence of marital relationships. Shouldn’t the church positively welcome equal marriage as affirming this rich biblical insight into God’s nature and ours?

Secondly: Throughout the history of the church, marriage has always been a social reality that church authorities have to different degrees sought to bless, commend, encourage or control. In recent generations a number of factors have clustered together to change the context of marriage considerably. There was a time when people lived much shorter lives, and a long marriage was 20 or 25 years. There was a time when one pregnancy in five could end in the mother’s death. There was a time when sexual relations led sooner or later to the conception of children, and so sex before or outside marriage was dangerous and socially subversive. There was a time when no woman could contemplate owning property or having an independent life or career. There was a time when the household was the primary centre of economic activity and the welfare of the vulnerable. These things cemented marriages, for good or ill. Those times are largely gone in the West, and few would genuinely lament their passing. But that means the social and cultural scaffolding that used to support marriage has been more or less dismantled. Christians in every state of life – single, married, separated, divorced, married again, lay, ordained – are all struggling to come to terms with today’s reality that marriage isn’t the necessity it once was. Equal marriage is yet another stage in the long evolution of this institution that has been reshaped at different times down the centuries. But its essence is what it always was: the covenanted union of two people for life.

That has not changed.

Thirdly, Assembly heard from individuals and from representatives of groups the pain and anger of gay people who continue to feel excluded by the church’s stance on equal marriage. The recent measure passed by assembly may offer them some light and hope. In time as equal marriage becomes accepted by society and, as the indications are showing, by the majority of lay people in assembly, we shall see a shift in the official stance. In time, the church will accommodate itself to this development, and recognise that by blessing same-sex marriages and even solemnising them, it is affirming the principle that covenanted unions are fundamental to the way we see (and more important, the way God sees) human love. It takes time for change to be received and its theological significance understood. It’s not much comfort to those asking the church for recognition now, but in time I believe we
shall get there.

Fourthly, I recognise from the Assembly debate how hard this discussion has been for many fellow-Christians, some in this country, but especially those from overseas. It is unfair to dub all who dissent as homophobic: there are many people of integrity for whom equal marriage is hard to accept. But I think we should hear the words of the former General Secretary, Revd Roberta Rominger that we need to allow time to listen to each other, to be gracious and kind with one another in our debates and conversations, not to pursue hostile agendas but listen to what the Spirit of God is saying to the church today.   In the meantime we must do all we can to more positively welcome and embrace gay couples in Christ’s name as they find their

home in the church.

And finally. Perhaps when the debate is over and the mind of the church on this issue is known we might not talk about  equalmarriage, or same-sex marriage or gay marriage, just marriage. For marriage today means saying to one person of whatever sex, “We are going to be present to one another – emotionally, physically, mentally, in sorrow and joy, in sunshine and in rain. And we are going to try to live in the present tense – not nostalgic or bitter or wistful about the past, nor naive or overinvested or controlling about the future

Ray Anglesea

Sabbatical Blog 8:  One plus one. General Assembly, Cardiff

July 2014

*The booklet “One plus One: thinking together about marriage”  – produced by the human sexuality task group for the General Assembly, Cardiff  will be made available to churches to help in their further deliberations.