 |
This past weekend saw the first gay marriages take place
in England, although not in any of the historic, mainstream Christian
denominations. Quite a lot of blogs have
been written on the topic. But the whole question of gay marriage has reminded
me that, as a nonconformist Christian, the big issue here has also to include the separation of church and state. What do I mean? Well here’s a bit of background…
Some Christians probably think that the words of the
marriage service (“ Dearly beloved, we are gathered here in the sight of God and
in the face of this congregation…”) were first spoken when Adam married Eve back in the day.
But the truth is that biblical teaching on marriage has been interpreted down
the ages according to prevailing wisdom and cultural norms.
A major influence on our understanding of Christian
marriage continues to be Augustine (born 354AD) who freely admitted that he found
sexual continence difficult. His parents’ attempts to find him a wife did not work and he entered into a faithful, exclusive and
sexual relationship with a woman who he was keen to emphasise was not his wife
(probably because formal marriages legitimised any heirs). Taking such a
concubine was seen as normal in his society.
Augustine wrote later and somewhat disparagingly of this relationship,
calling it the “compact of lustful love”, to be compared unfavourably with the
“restraint of the marriage bond, contracted with a view to having children.”
The course of Roman Catholic understanding of marriage almost certainly find its roots in
this approach, as later developed by Aquinas: sexual love is equated with lust
and the purpose of marriage being largely for procreation, although accepting
of the importance of continent companionship (in Southend-speak, that means not
playing away.)
Differences emerged in the treatment of marriage between
the Orthodox church and the Roman Catholic church quite early on in the
Christian era. In the former there was a
very longstanding role for the church in blessing, witnessing and, to a degree,
validating marriage, with roles for the involvement of both priests and consecrated
buildings. However this was not mirrored in the western church until the 13th
century, marriage simply requiring the consent of the two partners and their
families. There was an additional aspect – the ceremony
of the ‘troth-plight’ - an oral
agreement to marry, witnessed by others and undertaken in front of the priest
at the church door (not at the altar – this is significant!).
The marriage might then be consummated and only if a
pregnancy ensued would the couple then later come to church for a nuptial mass
and blessing. To be clear, this was a valid and acceptable approach for the
people of the time. Otherwise, this trial marriage was dissolved and the partners were then free.
It was following this time that specific church liturgies evolved to
encourage church weddings and to assert a role for the church in supervising
the rite. The theology of this process defined Christian marriage as a
state entered freely, by consent of both parties, not prevented by issues such
as being too closely related, but witnessed and consummated. It is estimated
that, by the time of the Reformation, only half the marriages in Christian
Europe involved the church; the rest were private matters contracted between
families.
The move in England towards a state monopoly control of marriages
came with the Clandestine Marriages Act of 1753, a move largely designed to
safeguard property rights from being lost through marriages which did not have
the approval of the families. Before this time, couples could marry in any
parish under licence. But too many
couples wed for love (pause while the congregation all say: "Ahhhh") and this means that ‘unsuitable’ people were
inheriting money and estates. So the government decided to make the church its
agent for controlling marriage. Under
this law, priests who did not use the approved liturgy for weddings could be
transported to the colonies and any irregularity with marriage registers was a
hanging offence. The established church therefore came to control marriages on
behalf of the state which is why today Anglican priests can marry people without
an approved registrar present. In later years, after nonconformist churches were
accepted by the state, Baptist and other churches also then became part of the
state regulation of marriage.
The idea that a Christian marriage should be undertaken
in a consecrated building with a ‘priest’ officiating and in a standardised form approved by
the state is both very modern and largely beyond the experience of perhaps the majority
of Christians who have entered into marriage through the centuries. There are
some strong arguments in favour of not necessarily allowing such approaches to
bind those entering Christian marriage today.
As a nonconformist, I want to see the separation of
church and state wherever possible. I
know that some churches feel that marrying couples is part of their wider community
service, believing that marriage is a good state to be in (I agree) and that
they should honour any couple that wants their special day to include God (also
good).
But I wonder if the time has now come for Baptist and
other churches to withdraw completely from colluding with the state in the
solemnization of marriage? This would
mean that all marriages are regulated by the state alone, without the fig-leaf
of churches’ involvement. If, after marrying according to the state's laws, couples then wish to come to a church to celebrate
and bless their marriage that would be wonderful. But the church would cease
to be an arm of the state in this regard.
We would also then avoid the impending battle in the courts when the
state tells us who we are allowed – and perhaps then expected – to marry.
