The same-sex marriage blessing liturgy presented to the Wangaratta synod for their approval (and due to be presented to the upcoming Newcastle synod) is not a new piece of work but, rather, heavily dependent upon other similar liturgies first developed more than 20 years ago in the 1990s and earlier.
Students of this topic will be aware of a number of significant books in the field, not least Elizabeth Stuart’s Daring to Speak Love’s Name (1992) and Hannah Ward and Jennifer Wild’s Human Rites (1995). Both books contain a great number of different suggested prayers and liturgies for same-sex blessings and other occasions.
Stuart’s work is particular helpful for outlining just how much the “ask” of homosexual couples has changed over the decades,
Very few lesbian and gay people would want to describe these ceremonies and the relationships they celebrate as ‘marriages’. Some would want to disassociate themselves from an institution which historically has been based upon structural and legalized inequality, specific gender roles, and which seems to impose at least a degree of conformity and uniformity and unrealistic expectations on those who enter it. And, of course, as a modern institution marriage seems to be in a state of grave crisis — even though very many marriages are happy and successful. From a theological perspective as well, gay and lesbian relationships cannot be described as ‘marriages’.
…
Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman, generative in character, which traditionally represents the relationship of Christ to the Church. Whereas it is perfectly possible for lesbian and gay relationships to fulfil the other purposes of marriage given in the ASB [Alternative Service Book – the 1980 Church of England prayer book] — mutual comfort, bodily union and the building up of community — they cannot fulfil all these criteria for they are not between members of opposite genders, the relationships are not generative in character and they have never been symbolic representations of Christ’s relationship to his Church.
STUART, DARING TO SPEAK LOVE’S NAME. PP18-19
Viewed today, this is a remarkable statement. We have come full circle with the Wangaratta/Newcastle liturgy seeking to recognise and affirm a homosexual relationship as “marriage” even while attempting to distinguish a “blessing”.
So where does the liturgy that Wangaratta have approved come from?
There are two very clear related sources. The first is a well-known liturgy used and promoted by the Parish Church of St Mary & St Nicolas, Spalding in the Church of England (the “Spalding Liturgy”). The Australian liturgy draws very heavily from this.
The Spalding Liturgy is a greatly reduced version of a longer “Pastoral Liturgy for the Blessing of Same-Gender Partnership” by Jeffrey Heskins from his book Unheard Voices, (London: Darton, Longman and Todd Ltd, 2001), pp. 227-231 (the “Heskins Liturgy”). Heskin’s work can also be seen incorporated into the suggested liturgical resources provided by Inclusive Church. All these resources present frameworks and varied suggested prayers for “blessing” services, the outline of which look very similar to marriage services. So, for example, this suggested structure from Stuart (which the Heskins liturgy follows):
Opening hymn/scriptural sentences
Introduction
Prayers
Declarations of hope
Charge to witnesses
Readings and Psalms
Promises
Exchange of rings or gifts/candle-ceremony/signing of will
Blessing
Address/sharing of thoughts
Hymn
Prayers
Eucharist or Symbol of communion
Final Blessing
Hymn and signing of certificate/card
STUART, PP24-25
The relationships between the Heskins liturgy, the smaller derived Spalding Liturgy and the final form in the Australia Liturgy is best demonstrated in a detailed table. I have laid out the entirety of each liturgy to show where one draws from the other:
There is obviously a lot going on here but some initial observations may be helpful:
- As already noted, the Australian usage of these liturgies is to affirm a “marriage”. This is a long way from the original intention of those liturgies which often sought to distinguish such relationships from heterosexual marriage.
- Nevertheless, while the service claims not to be a “wedding” it still follows the typical structure of a wedding. Notably, the precursor liturgy by Heskins has both “Questions of Intent” and “Promises” which to some extent mirror the consents and promises of the marriage service. There is an exchange of rings or tokens and further prayers.
- At the same time the liturgy shows a clear struggle to reconcile it’s description as a blessing of marriage with the Bible texts that it uses. Marriage services draw directly and unsurprisingly from key texts such as Genesis 1&2, Matt. 19 = Mark 10 and Eph. 5. We have already seen this dilemma expressed by Stuart (“…they have never been symbolic representations of Christ’s relationship to his Church”) and the awkwardness of this contradiction cannot be resolved and is only avoided by the liturgy.
- Given this tension the liturgy focusses instead on broader language of a more generic “love” of God and of “covenant”. Rhys Bezzant’s excellent article “To what end? The blessing of same-sex marriage” in the recently published Marriage, Same-Sex Marriage And The Anglican Church Of Australia: Essays From The Doctrine Commission more than adequately addresses this inevitable shift of description of marriage from recognition of a creation ordinance with very specific definitions and models of love to a less marriage-focussed “blessing”.
- The Australia liturgy replaces “We thank you for your unique and personal gifts to every one of us in our minds, our bodies and our spirits;” in Heskins’ opening prayers with “We thank you for the physical and emotional expression of that love;” which can only be read as a clear affirmation of same-sex sexual activity.
- To introduce the Promises, the minister is required to say “As you have entered into a civil marriage…”. The notion of a “civil marriage” is a new concept for the church which simply recognises “marriage”. Again, as with 3. above there is a confusion here – on the one hand proponents want to argue that homosexual marriage is simply “marriage” just as a heterosexual partnership is and yet the liturgy makes artificial distinctions within the concept of marriage.
- The “promise”, “Will you, N, continue to give yourself to N, sharing your love and your life, your wholeness and your brokenness, your failure and your success?” is resonant of the couplets in the full marriage vows (e.g. for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health etc). While not identical, they present themselves as having the same purpose; to state a commitment to the other in no matter what the circumstances of life.
No doubt there is further work and analysis that can be carried out on this liturgy. Yet even at first glance it is increasingly obvious that the liturgy presented to us by Wangaratta is, one might say, of a schizophrenic nature. It wants to affirm the relationship it purports to bless as “marriage” and yet it cannot with integrity use the Bible’s language about marriage. With the next breath it wants to distance itself from marriage as a “blessing” (i.e. not an actual marriage) but it has the structure and many of the forms of a marriage service. It derives its basic structure and provenance from a theology that saw gay and lesbian relationships as “very different” (Stuart, p.19) from marriage and yet it wants to anchor itself in and be identified with marriage.
Ultimately what Wangaratta have given us is confusion. It is a confused liturgy with a confused theology; setting itself up as principled and yet immediately undermining itself in its political pragmatism. Rather than advance the cause of the affirmation of same-sex relationships in the Anglican Church of Australia is has only ended up showing us just how inconsistent the argument is.
It wants to have it’s wedding cake and not be seen to be eating it and ends up achieving neither.
Many people will find thanking God for the ‘physical expression’ of homosexual ‘love’ difficult to stomach. Does God want to be thanked for the dubious joys of sodomy? The absurdity of this proposed liturgy is not confined to the lack of bible verses that can be used. It runs against the entire biblical message. It is useless to seek bible texts retrospectively to justify a personal lifestyle that has already been adopted in the absence of – often in open defiance of – a biblical perspective on life and love. Crucify the sinful nature, is the Bible’s message. It is rather the exact opposite of the self-justifying, self-indulgent, attitude that must have its lusts sanctified by a ‘liturgy’.
How can anyone ask God’s blessing upon something God tells us is wrong as an act? Is the Church in Wangaratta, Australia really saying it doesn’t believe in God anymore?
It is really shocking to read Stuart’s words, which today would be considered hateful homophobic rhetoric.
Not really. Just like among straight people, the LGBTQI community has various views represented. Not everyone believes the word “marriage” is the right one for them because of its patriarchal and exclusionary history. It is more that marriage should be an option for people to discern and choose for themselves, but there are many who would describe their covenant as being more equal than the history of the word ‘marriage’ implies.
Soon someone will be referencing the works of the Roman Catholic authoress Anne Rice. Enough already. Bishop Gene Robinson is still framing the argument. Change the discussion at your church gatherings. When the womenfolk start the talking points about compassion for gays (nasty sex they too can participate in) counter with formal church recognition of mistresses and concubines. Should younger women be condemned because they have blood instead of ice water flowing through their veins? They are God’s creatures too. Abraham had smokin’ hot Hagar along with his beautiful semi-frigid trophy wife Sarah. Just saying. It is really embarrassing looking over at the husband who would do cartwheels for an occasional affectionate pat on the arm while his wife expounds on all things sexual at church discussion groups. Reminds me of my friend whose grandmother had to be locked in a room at grandpa’s funeral (TEC) when his second wife and children showed up to pay respects. Grandpa would come home from work Friday evening from ConEd, shower, put on a fresh suit and disappear until Sunday dinner. The church should show compassion and recognize these common relationships. How about that honey?
Respectfully, I scanned most of the article because the question kept coming to mind….why do we care at all about what man thinks on something He has been very clear about – marriage is a man and a woman.
The best example I can find after Christ’s teaching on marriage when asked about divorce is:
1 Corinthians 7 – Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.” But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.”
What I see happening, if I read this correctly is:
Colossians 2:8English Standard Version (ESV)
8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
1 Timothy 6:20 – New International Version Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge,”
and:
Proverbs 14:12 English Standard Version (ESV)
12 There is a way that seems right to a man,
but its end is the way to death.[a]
Many congregations in the Church of England have developed prayers or some kind of service to celebrate a same-sex couple following a marriage or civil partnership. The former Chancellor of the London Diocese, Nigel Sneed, wrote a legal memo describing how a service in church is still allowed as long as it is not a ‘blessing’ or ‘marriage’ service. I wonder if some Australian dioceses will make a similar case that a service of thanksgiving and celebration is allowed.
My question, J Collins is, how can God bless something that He condemns. How can a Christian give thanksgiving and celebrate something that Christ clearly condemned?
Christians are obviously disagreeing about that very subject right now.
Christians aren’t. Christ has been very clear about the matter from the beginning. There are those who wish He had said differently – some so very desperate that they would call Christ a liar – but, Christ still taught homosexuality to be a sin, and marriage to be a man and a woman. There is no changing that.
Jesus never mentioned it. I am not on here to debate because I am simply here to read the news in the Anglican world. But, I’ll just say that. Jesus never taught that and it’s not mentioned.
Respectfully, Christ is God (John 1:1-5) He referred to Himself as “I AM” (John 5:58), indicating that He is God; the Jews hated Him because He made Himself equal with God (John 5:18)
In Leviticus 18:1-5, He tells Moses to relate these certain things to Israel of which the following is included:
Leviticus 18:22 – 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 – If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
That did not change in the New Testament, when through Paul and Peter, Jude and John, Christ again condemned homosexuality.
You probably know that Peter et al, was one of the disciples and to be teaching against homosexuality either indicates that Christ said nothing, and Peter, et al, was teaching from the OT, or Christ upheld the condemnation of homosexuality and his teaching derives from that. Other followers of Christ condemned the act also – Jude, John in the Book of Revelation:
Revelation 21:8 ESV
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” John was quoting Christ.
Paul was taught by Christ via revelation in Arabia (Galatians 1:11-18). With his Pharisaical training in the condemnation of the act, Christ would have corrected Paul on this issue had he wanted it changed, yet, Paul taught against it, indicating there was no change.
Christ condemned homosexuality all over the Bible.
2 Peter 1:19 English Standard Version (ESV)
19 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.