The Elephant in the room (Part 2)

The Elephant in the room… (Part 2)

Every man and woman has at some time been pressured on all sides by our desire to seek fulfilment through sex. In the world today, we pursue our relationships through casual sexual encounters, straight, gay or bi-sexual... will he or she be the one? I just need a one-night-stand tonight, no commitment wanted... or the partner who in a committed relationship looks outside for something more.

Sex is beguiling… it filters into our subconscious through images and suggestion, feeding our insatiable appetite for sexual fulfilment and in so doing, is the cause of many of the world’s indiscretions. We think about the pleasure we might have with that person; we dream of circumstances that could encourage this, and we lose a portion of our reasoning in pursuit of it... There are no boundaries that cannot be broken - '50 Shades of Grey' being a best seller in 2012.

What the church would call promiscuity, the world would call fun. When people who are committed to a partner are exposed through infidelity, we can hide behind the openness of the relationship and that they are not married, to justify their actions, yet want to stay close to the one who offers friendship, companionship and belonging. However, it often ruins their relationships which are hurt beyond repair… ‘There’s no harm in it one might say…’ ‘It’s only natural to desire people in this way, no harm in looking’.’ 

Society seems to have no need for religious ethics in this part of our life because we do not believe in God and what we are doing isn’t wrong’. 'I need to feel fulfilled.' And yet, I am sat reading a story of a young girl who went into an alley with someone she didn’t know… for some fresh air after a cigarette… she was raped. The man’s attitude was, ‘well, you know, when things get to a certain point.’ This is a tragic piece of news; the girl is distraught – her innocence and trust shattered by the feeling of being violated by a person taking advantage of a lifestyle that seems to have 'blurred' the boundaries between what is an acceptable interaction and that which isn’t...

As soon as the church does raise a voice about the dangers of short term physical encounters, the churches concern is discarded for the many reasons that I have mentioned in part 1 of this blog. At this time in 2013, the number of public ‘outings’ of priests who have abused others sexually, for example, is one of the biggest issues that Pope Francis is faced with. It would certainly be a barrier to my faith as it has a hint of duplicity about it. So how can we be a voice on this issue and in particular of gay marriage when the church judges the sexual conduct of other's and cannot be trusted with its own?

One of the arguments put forward is linked to my description of sexual conquest outlined above. For Christians, we believe marriage to be both physical and spiritual. Casual sex reveals our nakedness and intimacy to the one we have shared the experience with, and exposes our spirit through the emotion of the encounter. For Christians, this is like opening a window to our souls, and is why we advocated abstinence before marriage. It is an attempt to save our emotions from the pain of separation, and in being hurt by those we have loved but since grown apart from. Today there are many who have ignored this message and lived for the ‘moment’… but then carry the emotional scars from such encounters into more permanent relationships.

Marriage is part of the story of creation as mentioned in Part 1. In reciting the vow before God, we dedicate out lives to each other in the knowledge that we have created a spiritual bond that cannot be broken. In the ‘oneness’ of marriage, the two halves come together as one.

Married people complete and complement each other. It is such a high calling on men and women to be selfless, that many cannot sustain the vow they make. The current rate of divorce in the UK stands at 42%.

In Jesus’ life, a similar question was raised. In Mark 10: 2-12 we read the story of the Pharisees who were testing the law around marriage and divorce. Jesus stated that in his understanding of God, a man and woman become a new creation; they are joined as one flesh and by one spirit. Jesus then points to Moses who as keeper of the law provided a code or set of standards that allow for divorce, within certain conditions, that the people of Israel followed (Deuteronomy 24: 1).

The church has gradually over time become better at dealing with divorce, but the stigma for divorcees that stems from religious control over marriage has sought to alienate people from Jesus. This is what the Pharisee’s were questioning Jesus about. Would Jesus abide by the law? Jesus’ answer neither rejected the law, nor condemns those who were to divorce. Rather it was to show that the compassion of God was more than a set of rules and regulations, but an application of law through the lives of people. Yes, God wants married people to stay together and be bound by the covenant they made to each other, but he recognises man’s need to absolve the covenant in order that we might live ‘balanced’ lives.

Now my question today is: Would we rather that homosexual couples continue a lifestyle where the pressure of society doesn’t necessarily encourage commitment, or do we encourage those people to make an agreement that they would honour one another before God? Wouldn’t we rather they seek the best for each other at all times, and through many circumstances as the marriage vows describe? In sickness and in health, through riches and poor, till death we do part… Are those seeking equality with gay marriage willing to sign-up to this code? Justin Welby, the new archbishop of Canterbury was quoted to state:

"You see gay relationships that are just stunning in the quality of the relationship," he told the BBC on the morning of his enthronement last month, adding that he had "particular friends where I recognise that and am deeply challenged by it."

If we could separate the ‘sex’ from the relationship, perhaps we could see how it is important to develop holistic relationships that grow beyond the sex act. To enter into a marriage, you have to take on the whole aspect of committing to each other until death us do part. The current system of divorce allows for a variety of claims for ‘unreasonable conduct’ as grounds to terminate the covenant that God has ordained at the beginning of time. There does seem to be an element of conflict between the aspiration for equality in marriage and the secular need to separate the Devine from the marriage ceremony. This allows for the termination of this deeply meaningful covenant between two people and God. We want the ideals of marriage, but not if we outgrow it… We want the option to have both. This is where the argument lies for me.

My view is that civil partnerships in the UK, where a non-religious commitment is made before a registrar, seemed suited to homosexual relationships perfectly… encouraging commitment, honouring one another, and in bringing integrity to the relationship in the eyes of the law. It is a good fit for a secular wedding… even using a similar form of pledge. The relationship becomes fulfilling due to the commitment made in the eyes of the community and the law, and is mutually beneficial to each other and their families. The need to extend this by using the marriage vows seems like a theft of something that doesn’t really fit. It seems as though the reasoning behind gay marriage has ignored the meaning of marriage in the eyes of God. We like the ideas, but we are not too keen on the God bit. This is what I can’t get my head around… What purpose has the proposal for equality in gay marriage got except for the secularisation of a religious institution?

Where some Christians still see this as an unresolved ethical choice that erodes the fabric of society, there are other cases of sexual sin in the world we live, which have overtaken this particular issue. In the UK, the scandal over the celebrity DJ Jimmy Saville has unearthed uneasy tensions of adult relations with children. Paedophilia is seen as the new cancer in social society. The idea that sexual predators groom innocent children for their own pleasure is very uncomfortable reading. This by far seems to be a more serious issue than those who want to commit to a loving relationship bound by covenant.

I do however want to reflect at this point on the humanist ideal that we have it within ourselves to choose to do the right thing. Consider how this ‘desire’ amongst some adults in society to view child pornography or indulge in much more unfavourable activity, fits into the idea that we actively promote our own sense of acceptable behaviour based on what we want from the life we live? I am more secure and comforted by the idea that God knows my heart and willingly sacrificed his son to save me from myself, rather than the idea that somehow, my humanity has become corrupted by my own nature with little course of redress due to it being coded within the meme/gene of my ancestor. Where is the hope for my descendants who I embellish with my faults through my meme/gene? (Seems somewhat familiar to the concept of original sin)

I think to the story of the women who was caught in the act of adultery in John 8: 1-11. The Pharisee’s must have known what was going on, to have found her and dragged her from her home to the feet of Jesus; what happened to the man in all of this commotion, was he not also part of this? How the Pharisees went about breaking into her (or his) home to commit this offence stands testimony to their motive. Her embarrassment and nakedness was visible to all. Jesus bends down and writes in the sand, of what we do not know. When challenged to act in dispensing the law, Jesus looks at the mob raises himself to his feet and states clearly: ‘He who has no sin can cast the first stone.’ After a period of time, the mob had dispersed, leaving just the woman – probably wracked with fear of what was to come. Jesus utters for me one of the most heart rending responses of the God who became man and understood man’s motivation…

When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, "Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, Lord." Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."

Are we really going to draw a line in the sand over the issue of gay marriage? Is this the battle God wants us to be involved in? He certainly doesn’t need us to fight the battle for him. God call’s us to be like salt on the earth, but do we today have a right, or a voice to point out to a secular society that if we pursue same sex marriage, we live contrary to the way God asks? Our obligation as Christians is to reach out and save those who are lost. Pointing out people’s sin is God’s job. We need to reveal the father heart of God to all of his children, atheists, agnostics, secularist, humanists, the weak in society who have no voice; in feeding the poor and healing the sick… We do need to warn against the danger of sin, but our approach needs to be inclusive, not divisive. No matter what we may think, we have all sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

The secularisation of our society is a constant cycle that has spanned time. Sometimes Christians have stood up to the injustice in the world and made a real difference through their acts of service. We need to see the gay marriage issue as a battle against powers and principalities, rather than against people… We are engaged in a battle for hearts and minds. Alienation and division is not part of the Gospel, so let us be careful about how we choose to do battle.

So, do I think that gay marriage is an inevitable conclusion to an increasingly secular society – Yes! Can the church take a lead in this –Definitely Yes! Is the church in a position to enter the debate in a state of integrity – err no, perhaps. As Christians we need to become diplomatic in our dealings with those who are alienated by ‘our’ lifestyle choices and engage in healthy debate within their community, to point them to Jesus – to be in the world but not ‘of’ the world. We need to tell those who do not know him of our rebellion against God. As humans we can be naturally selfish and can be self-centred to the point that we cannot see the things that harm us. We need to avoid pointing fingers at those around us or as Jesus says, ‘don’t try to pull the speck out of your brother’s eye when there is a plank in your own!’

The institute of marriage as defined by God has been corrupted since the time of Moses… should we still be in the business of encouraging the highest Godly standards in life, yes. But if we do this by stating law, we are no better than the Pharisees who could not see God because of the very law they sought to uphold. We sound like the clashing gong or the banging symbol… discordant. Remember that we are not living for this life as the humanists would have us believe, but for the next.

There are many more battles to come… Assisted death / Euthanasia; the constitution in the UK of head of state as head of the Church of England; reforms in the House of Lords through election rather than representation (to clear the house of those pesky Bishops); the continued secularisation of the UK government institutions; genetic research for the furtherance of this ‘one’ life (no afterlife)…

Our role is to be salt and light so that our brightness reveals the glory of God… Philippians 2: 13–14

For God is working in you, giving you the desire and the power to do what pleases him. Do everything without complaining and arguing, so that no one can criticize you. Live clean, innocent lives as children of God, shining like bright lights in a world full of crooked and perverse people.

God longs through the bible to reach out to the world he created, and the world he is desperate to save from itself, through a relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit… in the trinity we can find the peace of God… let’s share that with the world.