A gay day for marriage and churches

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 13^th 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.