EAI Civil Partnership Response: A “Brief” Apologia
9 Comments Published December 16th, 2009 in Uncategorized.Needless to say, when I write about the EAI Civil Partnership Response, I am writing as ever as Kevin Hargaden. I am not representing EAI, or the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, or the Presbyterian church in Maynooth or other Man City supporters. But on the issue of that document I thought I would just briefly outline three points for anyone interested.
The first is is about “Biblical morality”. Nowhere in the EAI document is there any fudging, compromise or confusion on the fact that the Christian Scriptures clearly present a theology of sex that is grounded in and located in marriage. Marriage is understood within the Bible as a covenant made between a man and a woman, committing for life to the other in a representation of the fidelity and dedication God shows us. The EAI document doesn’t undermine that or in any way discard that. It should not be read as a betrayal of such orthodox readings.
When the EAI document affirms civil union legislation for both heterosexual and homosexual couples it is not endorsing the lifestyles of such people, as if they were waiting around for us to give them a thumbs-up. It is simply acknowledging that they have a right to live their lives in a pluralistic democracy and that the church is no longer an arbiter of moral correctness. The Irish churches, both Protestant and Catholic, were dismal failures when they were consulted as moral authorities. It is insufficient to think that we can just equate our personal views with the law and even if it was possible, it would almost certainly end in tragedy. Again.
So do not mistake that the EAI’s support of civil legislation and the associated extension of rights to these couples as some kind of wooly-headed rejection of Christian orthodoxy. It is not a complex idea to hold that we can wholeheartedly believe what we believe and not expect others to agree and simultaneously want to fight for the rights of people who do not agree with us.
Second point: The proposed legislation is not a devious plot to diminish the rights of religious expression in Ireland. There is no conscience clause for civil registrars to opt out of performing civil unions and this is disappointing. The bill would be strengthened by it. But it is not worth railroading the genuine benefits that this law brings for the sake of this clause. On a very basic level, there are no evangelical Christians working as registrars! Religious leaders will not be performing civil unions. Any Christians who are applying for these jobs now know what they are getting in to. It is not the obligation of the state to cater employment to people’s religious beliefs. Otherwise, we might have wings of hospitals staffed by Jehovah Witnesses doctors who refuse to use blood transfusion in any procedure!
The law does not equate marriage with civil union. Personally, I am unconvinced that such a law would be a bad thing but the reality is that Ireland’s constitution hinges social policy around the traditional (not necessarily Christian!) understanding of marriage. So much of the opposition to this legislation has been grounded in the idea that it lets “gays marry”. That might be a concern for some people and in some legislations but without a referendum it can’t happen in Ireland. We must create alternative legislative models to extend protection to new family groupings. This is a noble first step.
In supporting this legislation we are not caving in to some secular agenda and making our faith a “private affair”. Instead, we are proposing a genuinely pluralist stance, supporting “the notion of a public square in which all voices are free to present their case and argue for it in public life, including religious voices”.
In other countries, such legislation has been passed and a kind of rare minor persecution has broken out whereby people lose their jobs or are arrested for “simply being Christian”. But in other countries Christians to varying degrees engaged in culture war. They sought aggressively to defend their way of life and often conflated a political position with a faith assertion. If nothing else, this document creates space in which Irish evangelicals can more fully explore a concept they generally appreciate: that Christian faith does not predict (or coerce) political involvement of any specific kind. There is no need for evangelicalism in Ireland, one of the most diverse groupings you find in our society, to follow down the culture war path or to equate conservative Christianity with conservative politics.
Ireland is a small place. On the night of a budget once, I walked down the street and standing on the footpath, pint in hand, was the Minister of Finance. I could have just engaged him in conversation there and then. The corridors of power are not opposed to Christianity and the prevailing cultural winds may be aggressive towards the church, but only insofar as the church is desperately failing to live up to Jesus’ calling of them to love God and love others.
My final point flows out of this. Instead of writing angry letters to politicians, Christians should love God and love others. The EAI document is driven by deep theological reflection on what it means to be faithful Christians in a land where we are not the majority. Christianity in Ireland can be understood as what I like to call, the prominent fringe. We are no longer the majority viewpoint and yet we are over-represented in public life. This might be a natural (and ongoing) thing because Christians are more likely to be over-represented in civic life because they tend to be engaged in all sorts of activities from local sports groups to politics to culture. But regardless, 21st Century Ireland needs a humble Christianity that has divested itself of any desire for unhealthy political or cultural influence. The EAI document assumes that the influence we exert on Irish life will not be found in lunchtime meetings with cabinet members or lofty public pronouncements by senior clerics but by living faithfully the call that Jesus has made to us.
In other words, this document is not a caving in to contemporary pressure. It is a deep theological reflection on how to live as a group of Christians in a land where plenty of people disagree with us. As the document says, “the challenge to incarnate and commend an alternative way of living as followers of Jesus is no cop out”. We do not expect people who do not follow Jesus to live according to his way. In the light of Grace, we cannot hope that passing laws will redeem people. We should by now know that the toxins of political power have a very adverse effect on the Body of Christ in Ireland. And for these reasons and many more, the absolute best response to living in a post-Christendom Ireland is to live as faithful exiles, acting justly, loving mercy and walking humbly with our God.
I believe this document is a starting point for us to live out that faith in the public square and exert influence not through power but through gracious obedience to the God who longs to embrace everyone in love.
Your Correspondent, Hopes the backlash is kind
9 Responses to “EAI Civil Partnership Response: A “Brief” Apologia”
- 1 Pingback on Feb 19th, 2010 at 22:12
The only disappointing aspect of your response is that it wasn’t written 4 years ago and compulsory reading (in a gracious and humble way) for Evangelicals in the North!
I completely agree with your train of thought on the one hand, but on the other i think theres one thing you perhaps havent concidered.
Firstly i totally agree with your reasoning that a Christian Civil Law wont have any redeeming power in an individual’s life. And i agree that when the Catholic and Protestant Church have been the moral authorities it has very sadly led to ugly, coeresive, legalistic outcomes which i think largely lost the message of a gracious and loving God quick to forgive and slow to anger. One of the most convincing arguments i heard Trevour Morrow present in support of civil partnership in Ireland was the argument that even in a homosexual relationship committment is more honourable than promiscuity. So a christian should support civil partnership to honour the values of faithfulness and committment.
WHile this is very true, there are a few consequences woth thinking through. A homosexual couple in Ireland currently have legislative rights to foster children but not to adopt. This is because they are not recognised as a family unit. Under a civil partnership bill this would open up the definition of what a family unit constitutes of and i dont think it would be long before the boundries of adoption would be open to same sex couples too.
Its worth considering.
Hetrosexual couples arent by default better parents. A homosexual couple may have better parenting skills than a hetrosexual couple,but is there a valid reason why God designed a family with a mother and a father and what impact will same sex parents have on a child?
Anyways, a shift in legislation will undoubtedly have knock on effects that will go beyond its immediate purpose.
I’m not suggesting that therefore we shold all oppose it by any means, i’m just saying i think its complicated.
I’ve sat through many a lecture detailing the shamreul christian attack on homosexuals and i’ve listened ashamed of what people of the same faith as i have done. I think Christians have been very hypocriticla about the whole issue – taking hte speck out of their brother’s eyes but being so blind to the glaring log in thier own.
But what i do wrestle with is to explain God’s design of sexuality to a gay friend who sees it as restrictive and oppressive. Particularly because my gay friends havent chosen an alternative lifestyle but find themselves attracted to members of the same sex.
I took a social science class called “sexuality and society” and the lecturer had a chip in her shoulder about christianity. As the only christian in the room it was fairly uncomfortable sometimes. From her perspective even if Christians vote yes to a civil partnership bill but hold to the belief that God created sexual expression exclusively between a man and a woman exclusively in the covenant of marriage, this is still repressive, restrictive, oppressive, prejudice etc etc etc
She alligned it with racism.
I find it hard to argue against such reasoning, particularly with the sad history of the relationship between Christianity and Homosexuality.
Response please!
Thanks for the comment, Dr. Twomey
How would you like your response? In one long trawl here or bit by bit in posts?
oh either, i genuinely am interested in the area and really would value your insight
opps wrote that last reply under a different name by accident! subconsciously keeping my air of mystery!
And just found this one, Kev- but still leaves some issues unresolved.
Where is the role for the prophetic? Telling the state humbly and graciously where we believe it to be wrong- in this case making a moral equivalence between single sex and opposite sex unions.
It is surely not good enough to say, “we are in the minority- get over it” We don’t “expect people who don’t follow Jesus to live according to his way”, but this is about social legislation, not about private morality. We do expect people to obey several of 10 commandments- even if they don’t claim religious belief.
With respect to my f=good friend TM quoted by Seuss above. While committment is more honourable than promiscuity- the CPB will not make a button of difference to the issue of committment. Homosexual couples can continue to be committed without legal recognition of their relationship, and those who do have a CP recognised are just as likely to be tempted to be promiscuous as any other couple homo or hetero
Seuss’s comment about the lecturer is worth noting. Te EAI response wins over nobody in terms of the insatiable demands of the LGBT community and it alienates a lot of Christians
to be continued……. I’m sure
I simply haven’t found my gay friends or the LGBT community at large to be insatiable. We live in a post-Christendom society and I for one am delighted at the prospect of mission in such a context. I do not believe that social order is threatened by the CPB in such a way that we can oppose it. In fact, I think it will make Irish society more just and healthy. I am fascinated and heartened by how evangelical Christians have been in the large part very content to see civil union come in.
Put plainly David, I simply do not think a position of opposition to the civil union legislation is prophetic. I think it tends towards conservatism that is too easily unconsidered. I think that the civil union legislation extends rights that civic society at large is committed to after deep consideration. The voices that have been arguing we ought to prophetically engage in protest to CPB are SILENT on NAMA…
David for whatever reason, a disproportionate number of the people I love are gay. To refer to them as insatiably demanding is just quite simply an error. All they long for is the very same things that you and I long for – intimacy, stability, recognition, identity…
Whether or not they (or indeed I) look for those things in the right places is not for you or the state to judge. Offering homosexual couples the right to legal recognition of their unity is not damaging to the church, no more than a secular couple getting married at the registry office.