Briefly Entering And Exiting An Aspect Of The Same Sex Partnership Issue

Following my last foray into controversial and touchy issues I thought I might as well venture further and touch on the topic of how same sex relationships are recognised.

First there were Civil Partnerships and unsurprisingly and understandably there are calls for same sex partnerships to receive all the rights and benefits that heterosexual couples receive.  In essence they want the concept of marriage to apply to same sex commitments just as much as the status quo demands.  This has been the case recently with the Scottish government having a public consultation on the issue of whether marriage should be redefined to include same-sex relationships and whether religious organisations should allow such public commitments to take place.

There are two separate issues to consider – one about definitions and the other about recognition.  On the second point, I personally don’t have a problem with any religious institution which recognises same sex relationships as of the same value merit as heterosexual ones conducting ceremonies to that end.  I don’t have a problem, because that’s not my religious institution.  Not only that but as long as the ethos of government surrounds liberal concepts of tolerance and is not wholly centred on a particular reading of God’s view of marriage then it’s not a government issue to endorse something it patently does not agree with.  Once you allow civil partnerships it is inevitable that same-sex ‘marriages’ will follow.  Why it is inevitable comes back again to how social values are pursued at the level of legislation.

If it became law that religious locations had to allow same-sex relationships to be ‘blessed’ on their grounds, that would be something completely different – that is legislation that forces religious institutions to go against their own charter and surely that just doesn’t make any sense in the world however liberal and tolerant you want to be.   As I read it at the moment, this is not the suggestion – yet.  So that won’t have to be my concern – at this time.

When we consider the definition of marriage, however, this brings us into a very interesting realm indeed.  Who defines social institutions?  In time past reference would be made to God and the church as the source to define such concepts.  This is what is meant by those who argue that the legislative framework has been inspired by a Judaeo-Christian perspective.  By some people’s reading of it, the Bible defines marriage as the commitment of one man to one woman.

However it should be clear, if it hasn’t already, those values on which the framework has been established have been amended and revised to fit into the prevailing cultural and philosophical trends of the day.  Much as believers would like law to be derived from godly roots, reality suggests time and again that other concerns take priority.

For the record at this stage of my journey in knowing God I believe that marriage is a commitment on an exclusively heterosexual basis.  Also my reading is that marriage is meant to be a lifetime commitment as well – which is a point I’ll come back to in another blog entry.  However I think the whole definition of marriage question opens up the wider issues of what God really requires in a marriage and the means by which these can be achieved.  I’m not certain if a mere social contract to live up to definitions is sufficient – and by ‘not certain’ I mean the state of the country at the moment with the number of divorces and broken relationships and empty marriages suggests there’s quite a lot of work that needs to go into expressing and sharing what marriage really means.

Beyond this argument, though, we still need to address the issue of authority.  Where once in the age of Christendom it would be easy to allocate that authority, now in the post-Enlightenment era it is almost as though everything is up for grabs.  Christians will have (or do have) a hard time persuading a country that is at best agnostic that their values should be derived from a source they barely recognise as credible for social cohesion.  I welcome the challenge because it should encourage a Christian to get back to what they believe and why they believe and then to work out how they believe those factors should be shared and impact their world.  No longer can we afford to live off tradition and assumptions.

Wrestling with those issues may require some hard decisions – like being unpopular with the status quo, like having a stance that people find offensive, like being merciful and compassionate but also uncompromising in what it means to live for righteousness.  The challenges are ever pressing in a liberal democracy that is moving further towards a secular state than ever before and as I’ve mentioned before the agenda is looking to neutralise faith – especially the Christian version that relates to what’s promoted in the New Testament – so that it is privatised and marginalised as much as possible.

This is not a bad thing for believers, neither is it something that should send believers into hibernation and enclosed in Christian ghettos that won’t engage with the wider world.  It is also a call for Christians not to conform to the world on the matter and not be so accommodating that its actual core beliefs are diluted beyond recognition.  It is an opportunity once more to open up the dialogue inviting people to consider God’s perspectives on relationships not just as it holds to how it’s socially recognised or the issue of sexuality, but the other issues of how it links with other elements of life – child-bearing and child-rearing, responsibility to elders, etc.

I don’t fear the changes that governments wish to make on how they define social concepts.  I don’t fear the changes they may bring to what culture deems as right or wrong in their own eyes.  My concern is to be gracious but committed to grow in the knowledge of Jesus Christ that informs me of the wise path in these dealings and also be a part of a compassionate community of believers that also seeks to know God’s view on the matter and share it with others to consider.

For His Name’s Sake

Shalom

dmcd