"Thou cannot commit adultery" - the (theo)logical impossibility of 'equal marriage'

Here are the actual words spoken by our 'Equalities Minister' Maria Miller on the Radio 4 PM programme last night in response to a question from Eddie Mair about the legal definition of consummation in a same-sex marriage:

 “I can be absolutely clear to you, when it comes to issues of adultery and consummation those are issues that relate to heterosexual marriages. What they won’t be doing is relating to same-sex marriages, but there will be clear protections in terms of grounds for divorce for individuals who are in a same sex marriage, that will be unreasonable behaviour, that’s exactly as it is under civil partnerships at the moment, so clear protections in there, but clearly there will be some differences.”

There are, of course, some differences between chalk and cheese. But then no one is trying to say these are two 'equal' substances, whereas someone somewhere realized it was rather clever to coin the term 'equal marriage', given that equality is the bedrock (indeed some might suggest, the entirety) of contemporary morality.

The problem is, as the Equalities Minister acknowledges, this is one respect in which same-sex and opposite-sex relationships simply cannot be equal. And unfortunately for her proposals, this renders same-sex marriage a contradiction in terms.

The law has hitherto been quite clear: consummation is a necessary element of marriage and adultery is a violation of the marital relationship. The Bible is equally clear: adultery is forbidden in the Ten Commandments and it is the one exceptional fault that Jesus allowed would permit divorce.


But if you literally cannot commit adultery, then in what sense can you be described as 'married'? The answer is 'By changing the definition of marriage itself'. But then if you have changed the definition, you have ruled out the very thing you were trying to achieve which is to open up marriage to all. The label may be the same, but the content is not.

Unfortunately, we now seem to be in territory where logic and reason have simply gone out of the window. Government ministers and spokespeople seem to be mouthing words without any grasp of what lies behind them. Perhaps the classic moment in yesterday's interview was thus not Miller's admission that same-sex marriage couldn't be made or broken in the same way as marriage hitherto, or her insistence on talking about 'equal civil marriage' in a religious context (the word 'civil' was supposed to distinguish this from 'religious' marriage), nor her three times ducking the challenge that the government said nothing about this in its consultation, but came just after the words quoted above, when Eddie Mair suggested this was important to the Roman Catholic understanding of marriage, to which Miller replied,

“this may well be why the Catholic church does not want to opt into the system of being able to offer same sex marriage”.

This statement is so breathtaking in its potential for ignorance or arrogance, it is hard to believe it was made on air. Either the minister was joking -- hardly appropriate in the circumstances -- or she has persuaded herself that this might actually be true, and that the Church of Rome's only objection lies here. Any other explanation for what she said is hard to fathom.

And this is why I feel we shouldn't trust anything the government is now saying on such matters -- not because they are necessarily consciously lying (though that is by no means impossible), but because they are in a situation not merely beyond their control but beyond their ability to understand.

We can only watch to see how things will develop.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Vice is nice ...

... used to be the first line of a ‘joke’ saying around in the ‘60s, which finished “but ’cest (as in incest) is best”. It wasn’t very funny then, but it may well have been prescient.

In this week’s edition of the Church of England Newspaper, there is an article about an ‘offending poster’ displayed outside the West Yorkshire Playhouse in Leeds advertising the opening of John Ford’s 17th century play ‘Tis Pity She’s a Whore next month.

The poster (shown above courtesy of Cranmer’s blog where he has already posted on this subject) shows, oddly enough, not an incestuous brother and sister as in the play, but a ‘pieta’ of the Virgin Mary and Jesus.

The link may seem obscure, but according to Ian Brown, the artistic director of the Playhouse, “The religious faith of the characters is integral and we felt it was important this was reflected in the image to promote the production.”

‘Tis pity, some might be thinking at this point, the main characters were not Muslims. What fun might have been had devising a suitable poster along the same lines. Since no offence was intended (according to the Playhouse) no offence presumably should have been taken.

Rather smartly, however, the image has now been replaced by a banner stating, “Judge the Play, Not the poster,” thereby managing a declaration of innocence and a reverse accusation of guilt in one fell swoop. Nevertheless, little flyers and smaller ‘inoffensive’ posters are still available around the city, where doubtless they will raise nothing more than a wry smile on the faces of the public.

All this is, of course, just the usual ‘flim flammery’ from an art world which constantly uses shock to attract an audience, whilst simultaneously huffing and puffing when people finally act offended. (The contradiction, of course, being that if it did not offend it would not shock and the whole edifice would crumble.)

Indeed, one could argue that the poster has achieved its purpose — the shock has registered, the objections have been raised and so has the profile of the play. Job done!

Nevertheless, it is in the final paragraph of the CEN article that the real problem lies:

The 1633 play by John Ford is seen as being many years ahead of its time, featuring at its heart an incestuous relationship between a brother and sister.

In what sense, might we ask, was the play ‘ahead of its time’?

Clearly Ford felt he could write it when he did, and others felt they could perform it.

So what is the ‘time’ of which it was ‘ahead’?

My worry is that the ‘time’ in question is actually one where the whole notion of incest is becoming at least discussable, if not yet acceptable.

But once a secular society has accepted the notion that there is neither one ‘definitive’ sexuality, nor one definitive form of relationship within which it should be expressed, the brakes must truly be off.

“Not so long ago,” writes one of the world’s leading ethicists, “any form of sexuality not leading to the conception of children was seen as, at best, wanton lust, or worse, a perversion.”

But as the writer goes on to argue, once our taboos begin to be revealed for nothing more than that — the hangover of religious superstition and an inflated view of our own biological significance — the queue of relationships looking for social legitimacy begins to wind around the block.

John Richardson
29 April 2011

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Accepting homosexuality - a retrograde motion?

This is my response, published today in the Letters column of the Church of England Newspaper, to Benny Hazelhurst's own letter picking up my critique of his original article in the CEN:

Sir, Benny Hazlehurst’s argument that the Christian acceptance of gay marriage would be like the overthrow of slavery or the realization that the earth goes round the sun (Letters, April 8) might be more persuasive if the ‘arrow of history’ were going the same way in each case.

Christianity was, of course, born into a world where slavery was normal (and very unlike the ‘plantation slavery’ of 18th and 19th century religious disputes). And the arguments for the earth going round the sun were once thought to be scientifically very weak, not least from the evidence of our senses.

The Graeco-Roman world, however, regarded what we now call ‘homosexuality’ with a mixture of general acceptance and mild disdain — an attitude very much like that which has prevailed in the West in recent decades. Commenting on the Warren Cup, an artefact from somewhere near Jerusalem in AD 5-15 depicting homosexual acts and previously kept in a private collection, the British Museum website significantly observes that, “Only with changing attitudes in the 1980s was the cup exhibited to the public.”

The spread of Christianity, however, brought with it a change in the prevailing morality — not just regarding homosexuality, of course, but certainly including that. It was thus ‘traditional’ Christian morality which was the equivalent of the abolition of slavery or the recognition of heliocentrism, not the other way round.

We must therefore ask why, given the willingness to adopt a more ‘liberal’ attitude on other matters affecting the Gentiles, the New Testament lacks any hint of adaptation at this point and why the spread of the gospel brought about the social changes it did.

As to my own arguments, I think Benny confuses matters by suggesting that in order to work, the paradigm of Ephesians 5 must ‘supersede’ that of Genesis 2, when of course the former rests on the latter (compare Eph 5:31 with Gen 2:24). Certainly the biblical narrative of marriage begins in Genesis 2, but the underlying ‘mystery’, hinted at in the rest of the Old Testament, is fully revealed in Ephesians 5.

The point to grasp is that human marriage is an ‘incarnation’ of a spiritual reality — something which our Anglican tradition insists is taught in Scripture. As the BCP says, marriage is “an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his
Church.”

Far from being ‘genderless’, however, this mystical union undergirds the very notion of gender — including the basis on which we call God ‘he’. As CS Lewis once put it, “What is above and beyond all things is so masculine that we are all feminine in relation to it.” (That Hideous Strength). Male and female are shadows of that. The reality, however, is not less but more.

The Rev John Richardson,
Bishop’s Stortford

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Cross Post to Benny Hazelhurst's Blog: Church, Tradition and the Bride of Christ

Benny Hazelhurst, of Accepting Evangelicals, has posted a reply to my comments on his article in the Church of England Newspaper. My own response has gone to the CEN for publication and may appear there (and here) at the end of the week. Meanwhile, you can read his reply and follow the reaction here.

He concludes,

The fact that the Church comprises both men and women and that this (according to John Richardson) is the ultimate paradigm for marriage, suggests that marriage is indeed 'genderless' - it has just taken the church a long time to realise it (like the abolition of slavery and the movement of the sun).

No-one, of course would suggest that there is a literal 'sexual' component to the marriage of Christ and his Church, but that further calls into question relying on this paradigm for our full understanding of marriage.  Indeed Paul says in Ephesians 5 that "this is a profound mystery".  It is a mystery which we are still unravelling, and perhaps we haven't quite got there yet.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Guardian 'Comment is Free: Belief': Christian sexuality is a Jacob's Ladder

My contribution to the CIF section (see yesterday's post for other links).

[...] Human sexuality needs to be seen, therefore, in both its sacramental aspects if it is to be understood Christianly.

"Outwardly and physically", it is part of the marvellous, but commonplace, process by which living things make variant versions of themselves. Thinking of it this way should keep us grounded in all our thinking about the topic, including both its personal expression and its social dimension.

But considered "inwardly and spiritually", human sexuality has an iconic significance, being a point where the divine finds earthly expression – where something that is true about the creator-redeemer God in his relationship with his created-redeemed people is imaged and embodied in human relationship and experience.

This is why the subject of our sexuality is so inescapable, despite various efforts over time to neutralise, demonise or trivialise the subject. It is a veritable Jacob's ladder – a place where heaven and earth combine. But until the two become one, it will continue to trouble us, as well as to enthral us. Read more 

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

How should Christians think about sex? Guardian 'Comment is Free: Belief'

The Guardian 'Comment is Free: Belief' site is running a series on the question, "How should Christians think about sex?"

Andrew Brown's introduction is here.

The first response, from Stephen Tomkins, contributing editor of Ship of Fools and deputy editor of Third Way magazine, is here.

The second, by Roz Kaveney, a writer and activist, is here.

A response by myself will be published in due course, and linked from here.

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Shurely shome mishtake?

There is a blog out there by a minister in the Scottish Episcopal Church which has picked up on my article about the latter's introduction of 'inclusive language' in relation to God.

One poster says they are, "glad to see you have a different toake [sic] to that of the Ugley Vicar" and asks, "What d’you make of his perspective?", to which the author of the blog in question, Revruth, replies, "it wasn’t Ugleyvicar’s views but an article he pinched from John Richardson."

Much as I've tried, I can't post in the comments section, but for the record we are still one and the same person.

The other comments are worth reading, though, as they back up my hunch that this is all about revising our outward language about God in ways that conform to people's inward feelings - as I said before, basically idolatry in the sense that 'I' become the arbiter of God's nature, and wind up with a God fashioned by myself (see Isaiah 44:12-20 for the same process using the hands and wood, not the mind and mental images).

The battle to come here is related to that over sexuality but is, if anything, bigger.

BTW she disagrees, but doesn't say why.

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Premier Radio Debate: Homosexuality and the Church

Here.

In response to listener requests Justin Brierley hosts two shows dealing with Homosexuality and Christian faith.
 
This second show addresses whether the church is homophobic in its attitude towards gay people.  Would a gay person feel welcome at an evangelical church?  Should practising gays be allowed to become church members or receive communion?  Has the church focussed on the gay issue to the exclusion of all other sins?

Mike Dark of the organisation "Accepting Evangelicals" is a gay Christian in a same sex relationship.  He says he experienced rejection and homophobia in his church when he "came out" as gay, but has since found a church where same sex relationships are welcomed.

John Richardson (who blogs as the Ugley Vicar) is part of the conservative-evangelical Anglican group Reform.  He believes there is a line to be drawn when it comes to the church condoning same sex activity among its members.

Martin Hallett is the former director of The True Freedom Trust.  As a Christian of homosexual orientation he chooses to remain celibate, believing the Bible does not condone same sex activity.  But he says the church is often guilty of homophobia too. 

The first show is here.
 
Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Women bishops and other episcopal divisions - embracing comprehensiveness and allowing flexibility

In my last post, I argued that in enabling the ordination of women, the Church of England actually did not just one but two new things.

On the one hand, it allowed women to enter the priesthood. On the other hand, and entirely as an innovation in itself, it allowed individuals and congregations to opt out of receiving their ministry or recognizing their pastoral authority.

The mechanism by which this apparent ‘fudge’ was received (arguably a fudge itself — but that is another matter) was the novel concept of a ‘period of reception’. It is fundamentally important, however, to understand what this meant. Here is a summary from an official guide to the report of the House of Bishops’ Working Party on Women in the Episcopate (the ‘Rochester’ Report):

The term ‘reception’ is one that is often used in relation to the debate about the ordination of women. The report explains that in Anglican usage this term has come to mean something very specific. It does not mean the process by which the ministry of women is accepted in the Church. Instead it is used to refer to the process in which the Church of England reflects with the universal Church on the authenticity of its decision to ordain women. (Emphasis added)

Nothing could be clearer, except that the phrase ‘reflects ... on the authenticity of its decision’ is Anglican-speak for ‘tries to see ... whether we got it right or wrong’.

Moreover, this guide adds two further important points. It continues:

Part of the current discussion about the proposal to ordain women bishops centres on two questions:

            •          Would it be right for this further step to be taken while the decision to ordain women priests is still in a period of reception?

            •          Would a decision to ordain women as bishops necessarily bring this period of reception to an end?

Now there are clearly those who not agree with but advocate the second point. That is to say, they do think the decision to ordain (or consecrate) women as bishops would bring the period of reception to an end, and they wish that it would do so decisively and speedily.

For the purposes of my earlier argument, however, the first point is the more important, namely that since 1992 the Church of England has been, and still is, in the period of reception described above.

This means that not only opponents of women’s ordination, but supporters who have been or become members of the Church of England since that date knew (or at least, ought to have known) that this was an ‘open’ question.

And this calls for a certain humility in the present. Opponents of women priests must accept that they have been willing to be part of a church which nevertheless ordains women to the priesthood. Supporters of women priests must accept they have been willing to be part of a church which allows the ministry of women priests to be questioned and refused. If there has been any notion of ‘like it or lump it’ so far, it has been that up to the present people have had to ‘like or lump’ this arrangement.

We must also take full note of the possibility, noted in the second bullet point, that this situation need not change, even with the introduction of women bishops. But for how long ought this to be allowed to continue?

Interestingly, when the legislation was drawn up to allow women to be ordained as priests, there were proposals to limit the provisions for dissent. These, however, were refused by the General Synod. Thus, whilst the legislation does not explicitly refer to an indefinite period of reception, it excluded wording which would have had precisely the effect of imposing a limit. By implication, then, the legislation at the time was constructed so as to envisage a process that would take ‘as long as it took’, as the Manchester Report noted when it pointed out the problems of going back on this principle.

Those who wish to bring down the curtain on the ‘period of reception’ therefore need to recognize that they are doing so unilaterally (there is substantial disagreement that his should be done) and opportunistically (because they can), despite the fact that the Church of England has officially operated until now an ‘open door’ policy for both supporters and opponents of women’s ordination, overtly welcoming them all to stay and telling them that they are a valid part of the Anglican Communion.

Now in such circumstances, it is, I believe, neither immoral nor unreasonable to contemplate radical action to ensure that the place one has occupied in the church is allowed to continue.

Sadly there are those who are quite happy to argue that the General Synod is not bound by earlier decisions or commitments, and that it is quite entitled to do whatever its members choose to do in this regard, up to and including taking decisions that would effectively unchurch present members of the Church of England. (One is reminded of the way in which colonial powers treated native populations in the past, when earlier treaties — before the colonists became a secure majority — were replaced by less generous terms and conditions.)

Some would regard the termination of the period of reception by the fiat of Synod as a job well done. Others, however, would regard it as a betrayal, not least of the talk, for the last eighteen years, of ‘two integrities’. Indeed, in this respect a decision by the General Synod could not be regarded as a decision by the ‘Church of England’ since it will, of necessity, rely on a majority overruling a minority at a point of faith and conscience hitherto encouraged and embraced.

Moreover, this issue confronts us at a time when the English episcopate are ‘wobbling’ on their commitment to the position hitherto maintained by Issues in Human Sexuality.

Yet I would want to suggest, tentatively, that the latter may well provide an indicator of the way ahead.

In his recent address to his diocesan synod, the Bishop of Gloucester argues (as has the Bishop of Liverpool) that sexuality is, precisely like the ordination and consecration of women, a ‘second order’ issue over which, on the basis of Anglican ‘comprehensiveness’, we ought to be able to live together in ‘a’ communion if not full communion.

At least in regard to the ordination of women, the Bishop is right. That is exactly what the legislation enacted in 1993 set out to achieve, and it succeeded. We do indeed live together and, insofar as we can regard Rodney King as a theologian, we do all, just about, ‘get along’ according to his dictum. One of the reasons we are able to do this, however, is that no-one is compelled to accept the ministry of ordained women.

Logically, then, the way for us to continue to ‘get along’ over women bishops is to allow the same with regard to them and, moreover, to allow it with the maximum exercise of principle and conscience, rather than (as Synod seem currently bent on proposing) the minimum. Doubtless this could be achieved, and though doubtless it would be messy, we would continue to ‘get along’.

Now as observed, the Bishop of Gloucester draws a direct parallel between this issue and the issue of sexuality. And to some extent, we already see this applied in practice. He himself, along with James Jones, the Archbishop of Canterbury and probably others, hold one view but operate by another, thus expressing a kind of ‘internal’ comprehensiveness according to their own understandings.

The problem arises when such an understanding on such an issue is ‘externalized’ so as to impinge on others who would come under their ministry. In that case, there would be serious difficulties in conscience for clergy and laity who, as the Bishop of Gloucester recognizes, regard this as a ‘first order’ issue — a point of view which, he says, he does not share but does appreciate.

What should then happen? The simple answer is to allow people — clergy and congregations — to pick their own bishops. This is already allowed to some extent under the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod. It would, I suggest, become a necessity in the case of consecrating women as bishops, but it might actually be an advantage to the Church overall in the face of other disagreements currently threatening division. And if that is not to be ‘allowed’, then it may simply have to happen by choice.

That is what I hope to explore in a future post.

John Richardson
24 May 2010

(While you're here why not become a Fan of the Thirty-Nine Articles?)

As a PS Someone e-mailed me a link to Hansard for 1st November 1993, prior to the final parliamentary debate which approved the 1992 Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure, which records the answer from Mr Michael Alison to a question put by Harry Greenway MP. This makes it quite clear that without the Act of Synod, Parliament would "insist" that the Synod put in place a further Measure, "to create a statutory provision". The linkage between the Measure and the Act is, I believe, firmly established as is the "moral authority" of the Act. The cynic might say you can also see why there is so much opposition to continuing "statutory provision" for opponents of women bishops.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners) : The Act of Synod will provide for the appointment of up to three new suffragan bishops to act as provincial episcopal visitors. Their remuneration will be the same as that of other suffragan bishops. Housing and a car will be provided and working expenses will be reimbursed.

Mr. Greenway : Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that the Church Commissioners will bear in mind the great concern expressed by the House in last Friday's debate that priests and congregations committed to a male priesthood be properly looked after when females--ladies--are ordained as priests in a few months' time? Will he give an assurance that the Act of Synod measure which deals with the matter will give proper moral and real authority to those bishops committed to protecting those congregations and to serving them?

Mr. Alison : I am delighted that my hon. Friend has underscored the need for the co-called Act of Synod to have real teeth and real moral authority. I shall convey the anxiety that my hon. Friend has expressed to the General Synod when it meets at Church house next week to discuss the very point that my hon. Friend has raised. The Synod will underscore the need for an Act which is adequate. If it is not adequate, the House will insist that a Measure be brought before the House to create a statutory provision.

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Marriage: the model of a mystery

“Holy matrimony,” declares the Book of Common Prayer, “is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church.”

The Church of England thus upholds three important truths about marriage. First, it is a good thing — indeed, it is more than a good thing, it is an “honourable” thing. Coming at a time when the Church had for centuries advocated the virtues of celibacy and virginity, this was a profound affirmation of the truth of 1 Timothy 4:4, that “everything God created is good”. As the same passage observes, it is the demons who are behind doctrines that forbid marriage (4:3), for that is to negate something which is part of God’s original ‘good’ in creation.

The latter point is also affirmed by the Prayer Book, for it says secondly that marriage belongs to “the time of man’s innocency”. The first human couple were not merely made by God but, in Jesus’ own words, “joined” by him. In the Garden, God created not just humankind but human marriage. Moreover, as Jesus’ teaching on the subject shows, that original creation was meant to be determinative for the future and to be exemplified in the Church.

This is also, of course, why the gospel standard for marriage is much higher than that set by the law; for marriage originally belongs in the time of ‘innocency’, and is therefore somewhat unsuited for this sinful age. The law allowed for divorce because, as Christ put it, “your hearts were hard” — meaning not that people were uncaring, but that they were unbelieving (cf Mk 16:14). To undertake marriage Christianly, therefore, is to enter into a world were the law is not enough: the world of turning the other cheek or going the extra mile.

And this brings us to our third point, which is that although marriage is made for our blessing, it is not made for our convenience, for marriage finds its origin not in sociology but theology, and not in the doctrine of man (and our needs), nor even in the doctrine of God (and his nature), but in the twin doctrines of creation and salvation.

Marriage, as the Prayer Book says, is a sign: “signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church.” Another way of thinking about it is as an image: imaging to us the relationship between the Creator God and his creation, and the Redeemer God and his redeemed.

These two ideas converge in Isaiah 54:5:

For your Maker is your husband — the Lord Almighty is his name— the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer; he is called the God of all the earth.

And what the Old Testament foretells, the New Testament reveals in the person of Christ:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. (Eph 5:25-27)

In Christ, we experience the ‘new creation’ (2 Cor 5:17), and at the end of time (as at the end of our Scriptures) the new heavens and the new earth are ushered in with the marriage of Christ and the Church. Hence we read,

I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. (Rev 21:2)

Indeed, we have an echo here of the presentation of Eve to Adam in the Garden, for just as the man greeted his bride then with an acclamation, so a heavenly voice hails the arrival of the Church:

Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. (Rev 21:3, cf Gen 2:23)

In Scripture, however, the salvation of humankind is termed a ‘mystery’, and it is so on two levels. There is, on the one hand, the ‘mystery’ of how it will be accomplished — the mystery which, like the grace of God itself,

... has now been revealed through the appearing of our Saviour, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. (2 Tim 1:10, cf 1 Tim 3:16; Col 4:3, etc)

But there is still the mystery of why. Why did God choose to save us, and to save us this way? More profoundly, why did God create the world in the knowledge that it would have to be redeemed? And why does God love us enough to do this for us?

Indeed, we may say there is a third mystery, which is the mystery of love itself. What is the nature of God’s love for us? But to this third mystery, the Bible, insofar as it gives an answer at all, points us to the “way of a man with a maiden” (Prov 13:19), for our Maker is our husband, says the Lord of Hosts. And although the history of the interpretation of the Song of Songs is littered with imaginative allegorizing, we are surely right to see in it some indication of the nature of the relationship we have with God, insofar as it is paralleled by the relationship between human lovers.

The Bible, however, does not separate such love from commitment and identity. On the one hand, those who are married enter a one-flesh union (Gen 2:24, contra 1 Cor 6:16). On the other hand, the required context for sexual expression is finally, and firmly, marital. When God ‘spreads his garment’ over the sexually mature Israel in Ezekiel 16:8, he enters into a covenant (Heb: berith) with her. And this covenanting is an integral part of marriage (cf Prov 2:17; Mal 2:13). Israel’s unfaithfulness towards God is adulterous, not only because of the change in the object of her affections, but because of her departure from the covenant God has made with her.

Human marriage, therefore, must be ‘covenantal’ — and indeed, unbreakably covenantal — if it is to model the divine mystery of love.

Yet the followers of Christ have a long track record of finding this hard to accept. The response of the first disciples to Christ’s own teaching on divorce was almost one of despondency: “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry” (Matt 19:10). And the Apostle Paul was so conscious of this difficulty that in writing to the Corinthians he was careful to point out that this teaching was directly from the Lord himself (cf 1 Cor 7:10-11).

But today there is another difficulty for us in addition to the requirement of covenant faithfulness, and that is in the imposition of rôles, for in marriage the husband is to his wife as Christ is to the Church, and not vice-versa, and the wife is to her husband as the Church is to Christ, and not vice-versa.

All the arguing (and there is plenty) that Ephesians 5:21a is a call for mutal submission (“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ”) does not alter this one whit. There is a sense in which we are called to mutual submission, insofar as we are to “honour one another” above ourselves (Rom 12:10). But the husband ‘honours’ his wife in one way, and the wife ‘honours’ her husband in another.

He honours her by exercising a love which is consciously modelled on Christ’s sacrificial love for the Church, giving himself for her so as to give to her.

She honours him with a love that is equally modelled consciously on the Church’s love for Christ, by her submission to her husband in “all things” (Eph 5:24, or as we might say “in all respects”, cf 2 Cor 6:4; 11:6).

To say, however, that Ephesians calls for ‘mutual submission’ between husbands and wives is to subvert the text, which states specifically that the husband is the ‘head’ (as Christ is to the Church), and the wife is the ‘body’ (as the Church is to Christ). These are not simply ‘opposite versions of the same thing’. Nor are they interchangeable. To be a husband is to be the head. To be a wife is to be the body. These rôles are given, not chosen.

A good husband is thus one who loves his wife as Christ loves the Church. But one who does not do this is still the husband of his wife and the ‘head’ in their symbiotic life as ‘one flesh’. And a wife who does not submit to her husband is, nevertheless, still the ‘body’ in that union.

The principle at stake is moreover, nothing less than, as stated in the Prayer Book, that marriage signifies “the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church.” By introducing divorce, we have already vitiated that symbolism. Marriage becomes something we control (what man puts asunder). By denying the Scriptural distinction of rôles — the identification of the husband as the Christ-like ‘head’ who is the object of his wife’s submission, and the wife as the Church-like ‘body’, who is the object of her husband’s self-sacrifice — we assert our control even further, both over marriage and over Scripture itself, and further obscure both the sign and the thing signified.

This issue confronts us today as the Christian view of marriage has always confronted Christians. Like the first disciples (though for different reasons), we are tempted to respond, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

Perhaps, however, our problem is not with marriage, much less with understanding the biblical text, but with trusting God.

John Richardson
15 May 2010

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

The Bishop of Chelmsford and Human Sexuality — here we go again?

Long-term readers of this blog, and that under the heading Chelmsford Anglican Mainstream, can hardly have been ignorant of the significant difficulties experienced by conservatives and traditionalists in the Diocese of Chelmsford caused by former Bishop John Gladwin’s stance on human sexuality.

Bishop John was, amongst other things, a patron of the campaign group ‘Changing Attitude’. The fact that he took up this position in 2006, whilst already in difficult face-to-face discussions with representatives of those conservative and traditionalists in his own diocese did much to heighten the tension.

The stance of Changing Attitude, incidentally, may be gathered from the following comments in its Tenth Anniversary Report on the ideas put forward in a book titled Same Sex Intimacies: Families of choice and other life experiments:

Social changes are affecting both non-heterosexual and heterosexual lives alike, underpinned by a widely accepted friendship ethic in which men and women who have rejected the ‘heterosexual assumption’ are creating ways of being that point to a more diverse culture of relationships than law, tradition and the church have sanctioned. [...] Many individuals in contemporary society have a strong sense that opportunities now exist on a greater scale than ever before for the construction of more open and democratic relationships than are allowed by the traditional family.

The disquiet with Bishop John’s approach began before his appointment to Chelmsford. Interviewed on Channel 4 news at the time of Gene Robinson’s election, Bishop John was asked rather directly, ‘Either a practising homosexual is to be appointed as a bishop or he is not. Which way should it go?’

His reply was thus:

Well, that’s just exactly the sort of way not to approach this problem and this issue. If this move is something which is good to the Holy Spirit ... um ... and to the people of God, it will flourish. If it isn’t then time will wither it upon the vine. So I think we need to exercise a little bit of patience and to allow some space to see whether a development like this is going to be wholesome to the Church or otherwise.

The response of many us would be, well we’ve waited and now we know.

As a Diocese, therefore, Chelmsford does therefore have ‘form’ with regard to the position of incoming bishops on the issue of human sexuality and their comments to the press. It was thus with some concern that I read the following in the Church of England Newspaper for April 1^st, regarding newly-elected Bishop Stephen Cottrell’s views on Bishop James Jones’s recent highly controversial remarks to the Liverpool Diocesan Synod:

Bishop Cottrell said: “I think it was a very helpful and interesting contribution to the ongoing discussion. I think one of the things which probably distresses me the most is that we’re not very good at actually having an open discussion about these issues. It can often be a kind of megaphone diplomacy, or megablog diplomacy!”

‘Helpful and interesting’ was certainly not how Bishop Jones’s remarks were regarded in conservative and traditionalist circles — ‘alarming and divisive’ would be more like it, especially when one takes into account Bishop Jones’s apparent attempt to position his diocese halfway between Africa and TEC (and therefore not with the rest of the Church of England!)

The really difficult point to accept, however, is Bishop Stephen’s assertion that there has been a lack of ‘open discussion’. On the contrary, one sometimes feels there has been discussion about almost nothing else for more than a decade. I myself was on a working party, put together by the Bishop of Chelmsford before John Gladwin, which drew up a study document on this subject for use around the parishes.

In any case, one must ask whether more discussion is what is required. It has long struck me that the first ‘dialogue’ in Scripture, recorded in Genesis 3, did not end well for the human race — and that one also began with the famous word, “Has God indeed said ...?”

Bishop Cottrell is well-known as a member of the Liberal Catholic body ‘Affirming Catholicism’, which also includes Dean Jeffrey John amongst its members. It is perfectly reasonable to ask about the Bishop, therefore, what it is in the ‘AffCath’ approach to life and faith that he finds particularly appealing. It is also reasonable to ask, since he has called for “open discussion” what exactly he thinks on the subject of human sexuality and how and why he has reached these opinions.

The truth is, though, that I wish it were unnecessary.

John P Richardson
17 April 2010

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.