Here are the questions; what is the answer?

A little while back I went to a lecture by Professor Linda Woodhead at Lancaster Priory about the future of the Church of England. She was at an early stage in looking at the results of a survey of views and attitudes of people and the relation of that to their belief background.

Linda has now put a Powerpoint presentation online which she shared with the Faith in Research 2013 conference. You can download it here. There is no accompanying text at this location, but here's a quick first reflection.

1) The gap between the declared positions of churches on issues and the prevailing attitudes of their members is striking. Attitudes of Anglicans and Catholics to same-sex marriage was very interesting in the present climate.

2) When asked what was negative about the C of E in society, younger people said it was bigoted; older (over 60s) said it was stuffy and out of touch. My generation tended towards saying it was hypocritical.

3) It was striking how little church (or faith group) was an influence on people's attitudes at all.

It would be interesting to see a text of her presentation, and I'm still taking in what it all means. Interesting stuff.

Antidisestablishmentarianism

I always wanted to find a good reason to use that word, and this morning's headlines produced the goods. Antidisestablishmentarianism, that remarkably long word was originally used to describe the movement opposed to the disestablishment of the Anglican Church in England, Wales and Ireland. That is the removal of the links between state and church. Currently, only the Church of England remains established within the UK; the Anglican Churches in the rest of Britain (and Ireland) are not. As such, the rest of this post addresses an English problem, although there will be related issues elsewhere.

Today gave an excuse to use the word, due to the Church of England's response to the Government consultation on same-sex couple marriage being the lead story It raised the question of the role of the Church of England in marriage. The fear is that there could be legal action which could force the CofE to marry same-sex couples. Currently the CofE registers marriages, and can call banns for couples, saving them the need to apply for a licence to marry. As such I am a registrar for couples eligible to get married in my Church. Not everyone has a legal right to get married in my church - they must satisfy requirements relating to where they live, their connection with my parish or their membership of my church through the Church Electoral Roll. In a limited number of cases, special licences can also be used. It is feared in today's response, that there is a real chance that a human rights ruling could insist that if you do weddings at all, you must do them for all. Not being a lawyer, I can only observe that we currently have a discretionary mechanism for considering marriage after divorce where the former partner is still living, so a similar set-up for same-sex partnerships might be a viable, legal way forward.

More concerning is the way the whole issue is unfolding in the media. The overwhelming message from the CofE, officially, seems to be one based on fear. The first is a fear that marriage will be undermined, with arguments that procreation and consummation are central. Given we marry people beyond child-bearing age, or with fertility problems, and due to illness or disability sexual relations can be impaired or impossible, do we say they are somehow second-class marriages? We have to be very careful about the logic employed. Surely the most important and lasting factor in the kind of marriage the church wants to hold as ideal is the quality of the relationship of the partners. It seems to me that one could put a very strong case that such quality of relationship is not confined to heterosexual couples. The official position of the CofE is some way from accepting that.

The second fear is loss of establishment (at least in the area of marriage). I blogged a few weeks ago in a post that one way forward might be for the CofE to opt out of the legal marriage stuff altogether. Then everyone gets married in a Registry Office and religious ceremonies are out of the legal sphere.

What's been interesting is the level of fear expressed in official reactions that this might actually be imposed on us, given the position of the church on gay marriage. I have never been a great fan of establishment. The Church's confidence and security in its mission and identity has to be that Jesus Christ is its foundation, not a set of legal links to the state. Establishment is an accident of history that gives the CofE a unique set of opportunities, which if removed do nothing to diminish its identity as part of God's church. Obviously it would have consequences - contact with couples and their friends and families and, of course, some financial ones too. However, I can't help thinking that if churches all around the world somehow manage, then it doesn't need a lot of faith to believe that the good old CofE could continue to proclaim the gospel, whatever the state decides about marriage.

The greater threat to our ongoing life and growth might be that we are perceived to be living in fear, rather than seeking ways to bring positive and challenging good news to our society.

Related articles

• Anglicans warn government over gay marriage

  ---

• Gay marriage is one of worst threats in 500 years, says Church of England

  ---

• Church warning over gay marriage

  ---

Is gay marriage a cardinal sin?

Sorry- couldn't resist the play on words, but I felt the need for one more post on marriage/partnership before I change subject.

Speaking of words, I think Steve has a lot of wisdom in his observation that we live in a culture of changing words and definitions. Whatever your opinion on how certain words are used, they do alter in a changing culture, and we may well be living in a time where the meaning of the word 'marriage' is changing. We no longer live in a society or culture where the only kind of relationship which can be registered and certified is heterosexual. In a parallel universe, the language might have evolved to give us a generic term for all kinds of registered partnerships, another term for gay ones and 'marriage' for heterosexual ones. If that is how things were moving linguistically, it would be quite logical to argue that the term 'marriage' be reserved for heterosexual commitments, without any moralistic overtones.

However, that's not where we are, and refusing to acknowledge that is like, well, insisting that 'gay' doesn't mean homosexual... Although the legal rights and responsibilities of civil partnerships are now the same as those for a married couple, the term 'marriage' clearly has a siginificance for those currently denied the opportunity to use it formally. I would genuinely be interested to hear more about that from gay people. I've heard the counter-argument from both ends of the opinion spectrum - from social conservatives who wish to deny gay people any equivalence, and also from gay people who reject the historical baggage that the term 'marriage' can carry. But there does seem to be a growing consensus that marriage is becoming the generic term.

What we have seen recently in the media seems to me to be one argument dressed up as another. The case presented by the Coalition for Marriage and others uses a lot of terminological and linguistic argument, and is careful to acknowledge the right of people to register a civil partnership, However, it is clearly backed by quite a lot of people who essentially disapprove of all gay relationships, whatever they are called and however they are registered. It also alienates those whose marriages have ended in divorce, asking for the following legal definition: "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others." There's a minefield there...

Maybe what we need now is simply to accept that the language is changing. How much difference will it really make in practise to the stability of traditional marriages to change the terminology?  If the Christians represented by Coalition for Marriage are so passionate about supporting marriage, wouldn't the energy be better put into helping people prepare for the commitment of marriage? Or helping them cope with the external pressures upon their marriage, or maybe resolve some of the baggage that can impair a relationship? Problems with communication, finance and latterly affairs arising from relationships formed on social networks are some of the biggest factors damaging marriages. Many people don't even choose to get married, so what positive things have we got to say to commend such a commitment to them?

Therefore, it doesn't make any sense to me to suggest that gay relationships being called marriages will have any damaging effect. What possible damage would it do to my marriage or anyone else's for civil partners to call themselves married? We can still have ethical debates about what may be acceptable to particular faith communities, but do we really think this is the big issue driving social and societal disintegration? I suspect there are other battles much more worth fighting.
I do share the belief that marriage can contribute to the stability and order of society - it provides some of the structure and framework by which we know who is connected to whom, and all that goes with that. It means that relationships aren't just arbitrary and subjective but have external verification and accountability. I just don't see how excluding gay people from that framework makes for greater order and stability, or enhances heterosexual marriage. Sorry, I won't be signing up.

A little bit of dissent

The Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, has been making headlines over the issue of gay marriage. In opposition to proposals supported by David Cameron, he opposes the possibility of gay marriage, stating that marriage is a bedrock of society and that it would be wrong for the definition to be changed to include same-sex couples.

I've been thinking about this issue for some time - I blogged about it back in 2009, when I suggested that the 'undermine marriage' argument against civil partnerships was unsustainable. Indeed, I suggested that having a means to register legally long-term faithful same-sex relationships should have an ordering and stabilising effect on society, rather than the opposite.

But what of the symbolism of the terminology involved? The legal status and consequences might be the same, but civil partnership doesn't sound the same as marriage. For some gay people, this is seen as a positive. I once heard a lesbian student explain why she would not want a marriage, even if it became legally available, as the term 'marriage' was tainted by patriarchal oppression of women. Likewise, there was an attempt by a heterosexual couple to change the law to allow a civil partnership. However, for others the inability to call their commitment 'marriage' is a shortcoming.

And on top of all of this, the Church of England still has a prominent role in registering marriages, but a very hot and ongoing internal debate on the issue of homosexual relationships. Churches and other religious groups are also concerned that they could be legally forced to celebrate same-sex unions.

Here's a suggestion: why don't we take all the legal stuff out of the hands of churches? What if everyone had to register their relationship in a civil ceremony first, in order to satisfy all the legal issues. Then religious communities could be free to celebrate (or not) the relationships their beliefs could accommodate with complete freedom. For the C of E, that could have some interesting consequences - a step towards disestablishment some might say, not to mention the fear of losing fee income. But maybe that would be a new challenge - what do we want to celebrate with members of our community and why? And where would we draw the line, and who would we leave out?

On this occasion, I don't think the Archbishop has been very wise (if he has been correctly reported). It's perfectly possible to have a dispassionate debate about the definition of the word marriage, and whether it can be applied to anything other than a heterosexual union. Linguistically and culturally one could argue that case, even if you have no objection to same-sex relationships. But that's not what people will hear from the Archbishop, and it appears he was saying more than that. I fear it will only lead to the church as a whole being portrayed (again) as bigoted and prejudiced.

Related articles

• Don't legalise gay marriage, Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu warns David Cameron (telegraph.co.uk)
• Archbishop of York: don't legalise gay marriage (guardian.co.uk)
• Archbishop warns against gay marriage (independent.co.uk)
• Sentamu attacks same-sex marriage (bbc.co.uk)

Non sequitur

To my shame I had to check the spelling of the title :(

Recently, I've come across a few comments relating to civil partnerships / marriages for homosexual couples. There's obviously a lot of hot air generated on both sides of the ethical debate in the context of the Church, and lots of prejudice, poor argumentation and random Bible verses get thrown around.

However, a regular argument that surfaces in Christian comment on the issue is that such partnerships undermine marriage and family. How does that work? 'Straight' people aren't suddenly going to abandon their marriages for gay relationships (or if they do, it probably means they have embarked on an unhappy marriage in an attempt to deny their sexual orientation). Likewise the sexual orientation of gay people isn't dependent on whether civil partnerships are available or not. It a non sequitur

It got me thinking (dangerous, I know). Presumably forms of marriage evolved in societies as ways of providing some external and objective account of who is attached to whom, property rights, custody of children, etc. (also acknowledging it was used as a form of patriarchal control over women in many communities). Having said that, it is also possible to see that there are benefits to the wider community in the definition of partnership relationships being other than simply the arbitrary decision of the couple. It enables them to be identified and understood and even provides some accountability between couple and community.

That might all sound quite conservative, but isn't it advantageous to all of society for gay relationships to have the same opportunity to be orderly and accountable? My understanding is that for a lot of gay people, that is exactly what they want.

Whatever the Christian community might conclude in its views on gay relationships (and that may take eternity - literally) it really doesn't make any sense to suggest that loving and lifelong commitments expressed in gay civil partnerships represent any threat to marriage. In fact, it is worth reflecting on the fact that ther are civil partnerships which are more loving, faithful and authentic commitments than many 'conventional' marriages.