Redefining Marriage and the C4M

A few days ago I read a great piece on the Coalition for Marriage over at Andy's Study. I'm in broad agreement with his conclusions which, unsurprisingly, are largely the same as my reasons for not signing the petition. Interestingly, Matthew Parris has also joined the debate and made similar arguments in his Times column (which have since been picked up by the Christian Institute). There are a few comments I think worth adding.

It is true that the crux of the argument seems to revolve around who defines the word 'marriage'. Frankly, I find it odd that this has caused any argument at all. The reality is anybody can call anything whatever they will. Simply because one person chooses to define something in a particular way doesn't necessarily make it so. That Christians want to define marriage in a particular way does not necessarily make marriage that which they define. Similarly, that the government want to define marriage in a different way does nothing to alter the reality of what a marriage actually is. The suggestions of Andy's Study and Matthew Parris seem to recognise this and therefore suggest, legally, we do not define marriage at all and allow each his own definition (right or wrong though that definition may be). 

Legally, it seems right to me that all people should have access to the same rights and freedoms (for more fully formed thoughts on this see Should Christians try to bring biblical law into civil society). Contracts to formalise living arrangements - and let's be under no illusions, legally speaking, marriage is not much more than this - should be available to anyone who wants them be they brother and sister, uncle and nephew, or whatever. Civil Partnerships, although currently not available to a whole host of people (a result of the ill-conceived ideas surrounding the legal definition of marriage), would seem to be the natural answer to this. One can have a Civil Partnership, a purely legal contract, without being married. Likewise, those who view marriage as important can have a Civil Partnership as well as being married according to whatever definition they choose to take.

Unfortunately, Christians who are now agitating about the legal definition of marriage somewhat shot themselves in the foot during the debate surrounding the introduction of Civil Partnerships. Had Christians accepted from the outset that Civil Partnership were not marriage, nor equivalent to marriage, the simple solution would be to implement them, available to all, as protection in law alongside marriage for those who deemed it important. Sadly, the fuss kicked up by Christians (see comments by the Christian Institute) make it profoundly unlikely that many will view this as an acceptable solution.

It is a sad reality that many Christians are keen to gain freedoms for themselves and less keen to win them for others. There is irony in that many of those in the dissenting tradition, once a disenfranchised group active in seeking freedoms for many, are now the very people arguing against the freedoms they have been granted. Admittedly, this is far from a phenomenon limited to Christians - it seems to be a very human reaction - however, as Christians we are surely called to be different (again, for more fully formed thoughts on this, see Right-wing Evangelicalism has forgotten its heritage).

I am convinced the answer lies in removing legal definitions of marriage altogether and replacing it with a contract in the form of Civil Partnerships. The only issue that would remain is whether churches would be required to carry out same-sex Civil Partnerships. The sensible answer would seem to be that churches would never carry out any Civil Partnerships, only marriages (in accordance with their own definition - hopefully biblical - of the term). Therefore, civil partnerships - the legal contract - would only be conducted by the State and marriages would be carried out by whomever wished to do so in accordance with their own definitions of what that entails.

A note on twitter

I've had access to a twitter account for a while but, up until now, had little cause to use it. I was thoroughly unconvinced of twitter's merits and had little desire to share irrelevant thoughts of little to no value with increasing regularity. For those of you wondering how that would be any different to now, I suppose quantity is the key.


This blog is specifically geared towards theological, ecclesiastical and religio-political comment. Sometimes, there are stories on which I would like to comment but feel this blog is not the appropriate place to do so. Equally, there are occassions when either time does not permit or I simply do not have the will to commit to a full post. Twitter appears to be a handy solution.


Therefore, I have linked to a twitter feed so my thoughts of little to no value can be shared with increasing regularity on stories of little relevance to this blog... this is surely a good idea?!

Whither freedom of expression in public life?

In a story published by the Guardian, Lady Warsi has attacked what she describes as 'militant secularisation' which 'demonstrates similar traits to totalitarian regimes – denying people the right to a religious identity because they were frightened of the concept of multiple identities'. She has also called for Christianity to be given a central role in public life arguing that 'intolerant secularisation has to be held back by reaffirming the religious foundations on which our societies are built'.


This is indeed a thoroughly bizarre situation. A Muslim calling for greater Christian influence in public life, a right-winger championing freedom of religion and religious expression - historically a major driver on the left (see 'Right-Wing Evangelicalism has forgotten it's heritage), and this writer in broad agreement with a Tory! Of course, all this has been prompted by a delegation taking a jolly to the Vatican. In light of Pope Benedict XVI's comments regarding the onward march of secularism and more recent press stories concerning the perceived purge of religious expression from public life, Lady Warsi's statement is perhaps not so surprising. Nevertheless, for those on either side of the non/believing debate, her comments are no doubt pertinent.


I am only in broad agreement with Lady Warsi. I concur that a militant secularisation undoubtedly exists which hopes to expunge any form of religious expression from the public sphere. Organisations such as the National Secular Society and the British Humanist Association make no bones about such desires. It is patently absurd, as these groups claim, that secularisation is unbiased - it is the non-believers theocracy. It allows Atheists to bring their religious convictions to boot on matters of public life - the positive affirmation that there is no God is a religious conviction - whilst refusing convinced believers the same courtesy. Indeed, whilst believers hold many views about society and law which are informed by their religious convictions, so too the affirmation that there is no God will have an outworking in one's view of public policy. To pretend otherwise is quite frankly disingenuous. So, I fully accept Lady Warsi's premise and agree that free expression of religion, from whatever background or culture they emerge, should be allowed to continue in public life.


Nevertheless, I am not fully on board with Lady Warsi's comments. She argues that we must counteract this secularism by reaffirming the religious values inherent in Britain's history and culture. However, I simply do not agree for exactly the same reason as my disinclination toward complete secularisation. I find the installation of a Christian theocracy little more palatable  (though, as a Christian, I would no doubt find it a little more palatable) than the alternative non-believers charter. Whilst we may once have been a "Christian Country", a claim which I believe caused much damage (1), we almost certainly cannot be considered such today. No doubt many would argue that we must use some basis for enacting laws and Christian values are as good as any. This is an assessment with which I disagree (for my thoughts on this see 'Should Christians try to bring biblical law into civil society').


I would contend, like Lady Warsi, that individuals should be free to express their religion in the public sphere. I would also agree that complete secularisation is not a means by which all people are considered equal. This view circumvents the reality that religious conviction - whether belief or non-belief - impacts one's view of public policy. Secularisation allows non-believers to bring such convictions to boot in the public sphere whilst, at the same time, insisting believers cannot. Therefore, this is no more preferable than any other religious theocracy. Unlike Lady Warsi, I do not particularly believe Christian values must be imposed on civil society. Indeed, I would contend that our law should be enacted on the basis of that which leads to equality and that which upholds the rights common to man, whatever they may be.


Notes

1. The cultural Christianity of the past led many to the false belief that they were Christians as a direct result of their cultural upbringing. Whilst they may have been culturally Christian, this in no way transpired into any sort of saving faith as described in the Bible. Nevertheless, this is the sort of faith many believed they possessed simply because of their cultural background and potentially because of church attendance.

A text taken out of context becomes a pretext for a proof-text

I recently read two posts on the 'Who's that preacher' blog regarding questionable scriptural arguments. They can both be found here and here.


I too have had many discussions along similar lines to those in the posts. I thought the following two comments particularly insightful:

"[An argument] doesn’t become Scriptural just by quoting a few Scriptures.  And it doesn’t become a strong argument by piling one piece of nonsense on top of another."

"If we continue to do that [make logically questionable arguments with spurious links to scripture], when others (professing Christians or out and out worldlings) see through our arguments, we do immense damage to our claim that we base everything on Scripture."

All too often we find Christians seeking out verses as a proof-texts for predisposed positions. The real problem does not lie with one Christian telling another not to drink (from an accompanying proof-text). The real problem comes when individuals, Christians or otherwise, see through shabby argument and spurious logic which leads them to question any claim we make thereon in.


If we truly want people to hear and respond to the gospel - or indeed to remain faithful once they have responded to it - we must be very careful to check that we are not simply pushing our own predispositions onto the biblical text.