Categories: uncategorized
Date: 08 June 2012 12:44:56
The official Methodist response to the government consultation on "equal civil marriage", (which closes next week) has been published and is available via the Methodist website. The contents and nature of their response are well considered and contain very wise words, (in my humble opinion). The five people who produced the response have produced a measured and well thought out response which reflects the diversity of opinion within the Methodist Church and more importantly absolutely manages to be in line with the will of the denomination (as expressed through Connexional policy and publications passed at Conference). That last point is the key; this group of 5 people had to work within the resolutions and agreements which have previously been made at conference. In practice that meant they were having to put together a document relating to proposed changes in legislation on the basis of previous discussions and settlements. To do this looking forward and responding to proposed change on the basis of what has gone before is never an easy or totally satisfactory situation to be in.....yet they have managed it not only admirably but extremely well. There are four key points made within their response: "The Methodist Church, in line with scripture and traditional teaching, believes that "marriage is a gift of God and that it is God’s intention that a marriage should be a life-long union in body, mind and spirit of one man and one woman". Our Church governance means that we would not be able to revise this position, even if we wished to, without an extended period of reflection and consultation. Within the Methodist Church there is a spectrum of beliefs about human sexuality; however the Church has explicitly recognised, affirmed and celebrated the participation and ministry of lesbians and gay men. We do not believe that a distinction between "civil" and "religious" marriage is a helpful or correct one. Marriage does not have a different definition for religious groups, as against the state. Marriage is a single legal and social entity. Nor do we believe that the Government should determine what is religious." Reading through the focus of their response has been the latter bullet point - that the Government has no right to start deciding what is "civil" and what is "religious" and to start differentiating on this basis. The key comments they make at the end of the consultation explaining this latter point are worth highlighting here because they give voice to something which has been missing from much of the other discussion around this issue and shows how this response was based upon compassion and justice rather than fear of forced change - as many other religious responses have appeared to be at times. The document says: " The proposals are intended to combat discrimination, but the option of a religious ceremony will still not be allowed for same-sex couples. Whilst the Methodist Church may or may not choose to affirm same-sex marriage, it is unwarranted interference for the State to make that decision for it by prohibiting what is permitted for heterosexual couples, namely a church marriage. For the purpose of religious freedom, if the Government allows marriage of same-sex couples in civil venues, then it must allow religious bodies to make the same choice. Moreover the legislation will create different groups in society, e.g. same-sex married couples in distinction from those in civil partnerships; married couples whom the State has allowed to get married in church and those whom it has banned from doing so; people who have a civil marriage and people who have what the Law calls a "religious marriage" even though religious groups would not recognise such a distinction. We object to the attempt made to define religion in terms of buildings and activities such as hymns and religious readings; for us and for almost all religions the whole of life is religious, including a civil marriage, especially if between religious believers." The overall response is good in that it acknowledges that the response is given by a denomination but within that denomination is a diversity of thought and experience. It also makes clear that this body are aware there are different views and responses from amongst the LGBT people within the denomination. This understanding that the LGBT community is a diverse community with a variety of opinion within it rather than a homogeneous body of opinion is a really positive thing to be recognised. The church - where it does not have a mandate - as previously discussed is also, within the response, not afraid to say "don't know". Again I think this is really good because so often our institutions deal in certainty at the expense of having integrity - to have a group such as this say "don't know" is refreshing. The accompanying appendix outlining the background to the submission by the Methodist Church makes the most interesting reading in this document. The reasons for the responses to specific questions in the consultation are outlined and the policy decisions relating to those answers are explained firstly. Then it moves on to explain to those in the church (rather than those in government) the pastoral and practical implications of what is happening and what could happen should we all decide it is easier to continue as we are without revisiting the issues in light of changes in legislation. This second part is challenging and honest and faces very real practicalities (some of which really need facing now - and one suspects are being faced on the ground in some situations - in light of the reality of civil partnerships not just marriage). The document then moves on to make the point that transsexuals are specifically mentioned within the consultation but not within Methodist policy and documentation. Within this little bit there is a slight error in the example given because it says "The new proposals would enable a married couple to remain married if one changed gender, or a couple in a civil partnership to convert their relationship into a marriage if one changed gender." The latter part of this already exists - what the new legislation would allow would be for a couple in a civil partnership to remain in it when one changed gender rather than forcing them into marriage. (This being able to remain in a civil partnership is what TOH and I long to be able to do). This section ends with a summing up of the reasons the denominations lack of acknowledgement of transgender people needs to be addressed. Firstly they note a practical problem the church already faces but which it seems has not previously been acknowledged "We offer no guidance to ministers where a church marriage is requested by an opposite-sex couple where one has been through gender reassignment." This is not some academic question, it is real and relates to something - (should the law not have changed by the time TOH gets to gender recognition certificate time) - that we will face as a couple - if we have to get married rather than being able to stay in a civil partnership do we go and speak to our minister and say we would like this marking in church and if we do how do they respond? It would be really helpful to have some official guidance on the matter. They then lay down an important challenge to the church about its marginalisation of transgender people so far by saying "Can a church which is Arminian (that is, insistent that God’s grace is offered to all people and that it should proclaim this), continue to overlook this group?" (note my highlighting in red). I know that I have a specific interest when it comes to the trans stuff because of the other half's transition but I think this call to recognise marginalisation and to proclaim Gods grace is incredibly moving simply because of the way it reflects what Christian inclusion is about. The document ends by making reference to the Methodist quadrilateral and raising the question of how we use this in relation to societal as well as personal experience. It says: "Methodist doctrine is shaped with reference to reason and experience as well as scripture and tradition. So when society takes steps that are at odds with existing declarations it is proper for the Methodist Church to look again at its understanding, and determine with some urgency whether that position should change or whether the Church should affirm its stance. We would not wish to find ourselves counter-cultural merely by default." This was, as I say, in the circumstances a wonderful and well thought out response which has caused me to admire further a couple of people I already had high regard for, (as well as those on the committee I don't have the privilege to know either in person or virtually through their blog writings). Today (as yesterday when I first read the response) I am thanking God for wise compassionate people who are seeking to walk tightropes and are doing so with wisdom.