Three new worrying conscience cases – Christians must be prepared to pay the price for obeying God in the face of legal threats

There were three interesting stories this week involving people getting into trouble for exercising freedom of conscience.

The striking thing was that each of these occurred in supposedly democratic countries which pride themselves in upholding human rights – Canada, France and the United States.

In the first the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) voted to reject a motion to protect the conscience rights of physicians who refuse to refer patients to die by euthanasia. This requirement is not yet law but the lack of support for conscience rights from the doctors’ own representative body does not bode well.

The second case involved a French Muslim registrar who was sent to court for refusing to perform a same-sex marriage. The Marseille penal tribunal will render its judgment on 29 September. The maximum penalty for a registrar who illegally refuses to give access to a legal right is a 75,000-euro fine and 5 years' imprisonment.

In the third case a Kentucky county clerk has already been jailed for refusing to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

I tweeted about all three of these cases yesterday. The two tweets involving same sex marriage generated the most response and three people came back to me suggesting that custodial sentences were justified for conscientious objectors.

I’ve pasted their tweets below. Interestingly all three were doctors. I found their open hostility quite revealing – a sign of things to come perhaps. I also wondered how they themselves might react if forced to do something they considered morally wrong.

The Bibles teaches that God institutes human authorities and expects us to obey them:

‘Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.  Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.’ (Romans 13:1,2)

But Scripture is equally clear that if laws which discriminate against Christians are passed, and obeying such laws involves disobeying God, then there is a place for civil disobedience. In fact when we are forced to do something wrong it is a Christian duty.

When the King of Egypt ordered the Hebrew midwives to kill all male Hebrew children they refused to do so and God commended and rewarded them. (Exodus 1:15-22)

Rahab the harlot similarly refused to co-operate with the king of Jericho in handing over the innocent Israelite spies and was later praised for her faith.( Joshua 2:1-14)

Even death threats did not stop Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refusing to bow down to the image of the king or Daniel persisting with public prayer.( Daniel 4:6-8, 6:1-10)

When Peter and John were commanded by the Jewish authorities not to preach the Gospel they replied, 'We must obey God rather than men' and continued to do it.(Acts 5:29)

So whilst recognising that we have an obligation to obey the governing authorities God has instituted, nonetheless our obedience to God himself takes precedence if the law of the land requires us to disobey him.

Of course we should do our best to oppose the passing of laws which seek to criminalise normal Christian behaviour. And if their passing looks inevitable we should seek for reasonable accommodation to be made. The Abortion Act and Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, for example, both contain conscience clauses protecting those with a moral objection to the activities they legalise from being forced to be involved.

But we may not be successful, so in such circumstances we also need to be willing to count the cost and to pay the price for being faithful to God in the face of threats.

The long list of heroes of faith in Hebrews 11 contains those who were delivered from the legal consequences of civil disobedience but also those who paid the price.

And paying the price through facing discipline, dismissal, a fine, imprisonment or even execution may be what God requires us to do in similar circumstances.

In all this we have the confidence that we follow in the footsteps of a Saviour, who in facing everything the greatest Empire on earth could throw at him, willingly carried the cross and emerged ultimately victorious.

'Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.'(Matthew 5:10-12)

Vicky Beeching’s challenge to evangelicals about same-sex marriage

Christianity magazine has just published an interview by editor Justin Brierley with British Christian singer-songwriter Vicky Beeching (left), who self-identified as ‘gay’ in a high profile ‘coming out’ on 14 August.

Beeching, who is a media personality in her own right and has over 52,000 followers on twitter, has listed over 70 almost exclusively positive media reports covering the event on her website.

Earlier this year she joined the group Accepting Evangelicals, who back same-sex marriage, as a patron.

At one level it is not at all unusual today for Christians to admit to feelings of same-sex attraction or to identify as ‘gay’.

Furthermore, those who do, perhaps unlike in earlier generations, are in my experience, generally now treated in evangelical churches with warmth, grace and understanding. Having said this I fully accept that this is not always the case and Vicky's own early experience bears this out.  

I personally know many Christians who would describe themselves as either same sex attracted or having a homosexual or bisexual orientation.

In fact a number of prominent evangelical leaders, in order to help others, launched the Living Out website last November to share their testimonies about their own personal experience of same sex attraction and to explain how they had handled it.

But whilst the ‘Living Out’ leaders express their intention to remain committed to biblical teaching on sexual morality in practice (see my earlier post ‘Should ‘gay’ Christians be true to their feelings?’), Vicky Beeching says she intends to marry a same sex partner.

‘My goal is to find a soulmate and get married; that is what most of us are made to do. God said it is not good that people are alone.’

Furthermore she believes she can do this without relinquishing her claim to be an evangelical. This is what has attracted so much media attention.

‘People have told me that I don’t have the right to that name (‘evangelical’) any more as I’ve spoken in support of same-sex marriage, but for me evangelicalism is rooted in many things: loving the Bible; having a high view of scripture; a passion for social justice; wanting to share the good news about Jesus.  These are all things I hold true to. So I don’t see why there should be a black and white issue that casts me out.’ 

I do not doubt Vicky’s sincerity and indeed share her professed love for the Bible, passion for social justice and her desire to share the good news about Jesus. But I believe she has crossed a significant rubicon with respect to her expressed views and proposed actions on sexual behaviour. At the same time she has laid down a significant challenge to evangelical Christians and must not be simply ignored.

I’ve previously reviewed the Bible’s teaching on sexuality on this blog and Robert Gagnon and Ian Paul (see here and  here) have more recently published some helpful reflections responding to Beeching’s biblical arguments in support of her stand.

I’ve also previously listed on my blog six excellent resources giving an evangelical perspective on homosexuality.

In short, the Bible teaches that the only moral context for sex is within a life-long monogamous heterosexual marriage relationship. All sex outside this context constitutes sexual immorality (Greek porneia). This includes all sex between two people of the same sex whether legally 'married' or not. 

‘But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.’ (Ephesians 5:3)

‘It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality;  that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honourable….For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. Therefore, anyone who rejects this instruction does not reject a human being but God, the very God who gives you his Holy Spirit.’ (1 Thessalonians 4:3-8)

I am not intending to revisit this teaching in detail here. Rather, especially for those who accept the biblical teaching on this issue at face value, I want to look at what the Bible teaches about Christians endorsing or practising what it classes as sexual immorality.  I have deliberately included Bible quotes rather than just giving references as I am convinced that many evangelicals are genuinely not aware of what the Bible actually says. 

First, the Bible is clear that sexual morality is not a ‘secondary issue’ on which Christians may legitimately disagree and on which there are a variety of acceptable views. Rather continuing in sexually immoral behaviour can put one’s own salvation at risk:

‘Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men… will inherit the kingdom of God.’ (1 Corinthians 6:9,10)

This is not to suggest that we are saved by good works. Rather it upholds the biblical teaching that genuine faith is evidenced in moral behaviour (more on this here). Furthermore, the Apostle Paul makes it clear that God views sex between two women in the same way that he views sex between two men.

‘Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.’ (Romans 1:26, 27)

The writer to the Hebrews makes it clear that God views those with a Christian testimony who willfully return to habitual sin very seriously indeed:

^‘ It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit,  who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.’  (Hebrews 6:4-6)

‘If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,  but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God... How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?’ (Hebrews 10:26-29)

‘If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.’ (2 Peter 2:20,21)

Whilst the Bible is very clear that Christians should not judge those outside the church, dealing with those inside the church is a different matter altogether:

‘I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.’ (1 Corinthians 5:10-11)

It might be objected that Vicky Beeching, and others who share her views, have not yet moved from publicly endorsing same sex marriage (and all that it involves) to participating in it herself.

But the Bible is equally clear that teaching a specific sin is admissible is at least as serious as practising it:

‘Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.’ (James 3:1)

Jesus was very clear about the seriousness of leading young ones astray through false teaching:

‘If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.’ (Matthew 18:6)

The epistle of Jude warns about ‘ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality’ (1:4) and warns that ‘Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality’  and ‘serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire’ (1:7).

In a similar vein the Apostle Peter warns that ‘if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell…’ and ‘condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly’ then ‘the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment. This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh and despise authority’. (2 Peter 2:4-10)

It is striking that in both these instances (both in Jude and 2 Peter) there is a specific reference to Sodom and Gomorrah where the sexual immorality involved was homosexual (see also Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13).

The Apostle John in Revelation records Jesus’ words to the seven churches. Two of them (Pergamum and Thyatira) he warns specifically about not tolerating teaching which endorses sexual immorality:

‘Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality.’  (Revelation 2:14)

‘Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.’ (Revelation 2:20)

I was told recently by a Church of England Bishop that Scripture nowhere commands us to stop people teaching heresy (false teaching which puts personal salvation at risk) in the church. But it seems to me that this is exactly what Paul instructed Titus to do:

 ^‘For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach….’ (Titus 1:10-11) 

From the above Scriptures it is clear that:

1. All sex outside (heterosexual) marriage constitutes sexual immorality

2. Continuing in sexual immorality puts one’s salvation at risk (see also Revelation 21:8 and 22:15)

3. Teaching that sexual immorality is acceptable is very serious and deeply damaging

4. Tolerating such teaching is also contrary to the explicit teaching of Jesus Christ

5. Those who teach or practise such things whilst claiming still to be Christians should be subject to church discipline.

The implications are clear.

I do not know Vicky Beeching personally and as I have said earlier I do not doubt her sincerity. But my fear is that as a result of the warm affirmation she has already received for her endorsement of same sex marriage, including from many Christians, she is heading on a very dangerous and damaging course indeed – both for herself and for others.

I understand that she has so far ignored the sincere but serious warnings she has received from well-meaning Christian brothers and sisters.

We need to pray that she changes her course and that her teaching does not lead others astray. But more than this, those responsible for her pastoral oversight must ensure that her teaching is not tolerated in the church and that she is appropriately disciplined.

We owe it to our young people, many of whom will have been confused by what she is saying, and not least to Vicky herself. 

Northern Ireland rejects same sex marriage for the third time in 18 months

Yesterday the Northern Ireland Assembly rejected a motion calling for the introduction of legislation to introduce same-sex marriage by 51 votes to 43.  

This is the third time in the last 18 months that the Northern Ireland Assembly has rejected a motion seeking to introduce same-sex marriage. Last year, MLAs rejected gay marriage by 53 votes to 42, and in 2012 the plans were voted down 50 to 45.

I support Care NI and others in its welcome to the Assembly’s rejection of calls to redefine marriage in the province and like them will continue to work to uphold the traditional definition of marriage in the months and years to come.

My heartfelt thanks goes to all in Northern Ireland who wrote to their MLAs on this issue and all of those who prayed for the current definition of marriage to be maintained.

You can read more about the vote here and here. Amnesty International has apparently warned that a legal challenge is likely. Same Sex marriage was legalised in England and Wales last year.

I have previously catalogued on this blog the reasons I opposed the legalisation of same sex marriage and have published 24 blog-posts on all aspects of the debate. My personal oppositions remains unchanged.

C of E Bishops say church members should ‘welcome’ ‘married’ same-sex couples into the church community

‘Those same sex couples who choose to marry should be welcomed into the life of the worshipping community and not be subjected to questioning about their lifestyle.’ Neither should they 'be denied access to the sacraments'.

This extraordinary statement is embedded deep within paragraph 18 in the ‘statement of Pastoral Guidance on Same Sex Marriage’ issued by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York on behalf of the House of Bishops of the Church of England this week.

The document, however, also concludes (in bold) that the House of Bishops is not ‘willing for those who are in a same sex marriage to be ordained to any of the three orders of ministry’ (paragraph 27).

In addition it considers that ‘it would not be appropriate conduct for someone in holy orders to enter into a same sex marriage, given the need for clergy to model the Church's teaching in their lives’ (27).

However in the same breath it also says that ‘The Church of England has a long tradition of tolerating conscientious dissent and of seeking to avoid drawing lines too firmly’ (28).

So, in other words, laity who enter into same sex marriages (which must be outside the church as the church will not currently conduct marriage services for such couples) are to be ‘welcomed’ but clergy are to 'accept and minister the discipline of this Church and respect authority duly exercised within it' (28) by not conducting same sex marriages or entering into them themselves.

But it is not at all clear what will happen to those clergy who refuse to toe the line. Just how far will their 'conscientious dissent' be tolerated? Time will tell.

John Bingham, Social and Religious Affairs editor of the Daily Telegraph, who reviewed the document last week has called it a ‘masterclass in doublespeak, obfuscation and internal contradiction’.

The Christian blogger Cranmer has said that the document ‘is theologically bungling and spiritually vacuous’ and makes the obvious point that ‘it is not what Canon Law prohibits in theory but how the bishops handle disobedience in practice which will determine and define the Church's theology on same-sex marriage’.

It will surely only be a matter of time before some clergy begin to test this inconsistency by ‘marrying’ in a registry office and then turning up to minister at church or taking their challenge to the courts.

The future seems clear. Some members of the church will progressively push the boundaries and argue, in the interests of equality and consistency, that first clergy and ultimately Bishops should be granted the same degree of ‘conscentious dissent’ given to the laity. And it will be very difficult for the Bishops, having already made the concessions they have, to hold the line.

St Paul took a different view. He warns in his first letter to the Corinthians (6:9,10) that ‘participants in same-sex intercourse’ will not ‘inherit God’s Kingdom’.

He places these people in the same category as those who are ‘sexually immoral, worship false gods, adulterers, thieves, greedy, drunks, abusive people, and swindlers’.

He urges the church in Corinth to deal with these cases itself and not to involve the courts and makes it very clear in the previous chapter (1 Corinthians 5) that those who claim to be believers (call themselves ‘brother’ or ‘sister’) and behave this way are to be expelled from the church.

If we think that this is implying that the church should not welcome sinners we have misunderstood Paul completely. He actually exhorts the church to ‘associate’ with those ‘in the outside world’ who are ‘sinners’ (5:9-12) and not to judge them.

After all this is what Jesus himself did and many of the Corinthian church members once participated in these practices themselves (6:11).

But this is not what the Church of England Bishops are saying. They are saying that those who call themselves believers and continue in these above activities should be ‘welcomed into the life of the worshipping community’ and 'should not be denied access to the sacraments' (baptism and communion).

This distinction between the way unbelievers and people who claim to be believers are to be treated is the crucial distinction.

Furthermore it highlights precisely how the Church of England no longer follows the Apostles’ teaching. 

Same-Sex Marriage – Brief Guide to the rights of churches and Christians under the new law

Now that the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act 2013 has been passed by parliament it is vital that Christians are well informed about their rights and the limits of the law, and also that we speak the truth with grace and love.

The Evangelical Alliance (EA) has produced a set of FAQs for churches and individual Christians about the implications of the new law.

The Alliance stresses that the FAQs ‘represent advisory guidance and should not be regarded as legal advice’ and that ‘many aspects of the law relating to the redefinition of marriage are complex, fluid and open to interpretation’.

It adds that ‘government assumptions about the robustness of protections for third parties are likely to be challenged by case law’ meaning that the meaning of the law may evolve in practice as court cases are brought by aggrieved parties.

It also says that as the new legislation makes it illegal for the Church of England to conduct same-sex marriages, the guidance applies primarily to churches other than the Church of England.

The full guidance is available in pdf format on the EA website but I have listed the FAQs below and very briefly summarised the answers given. I would recommend that all pastors and Christians who think they may be affected should read the document in full.  

Church Questions

1. Which churches have agreed to perform same-sex weddings and which haven’t? Only the Quakers, the Unitarians, the Metropolitan Community Church and Liberal Judaism have formally opted in.

2. What if a same-sex couple approach my church and ask to use our building for their wedding? You can refuse.

3. What if it’s a shared building? You can still refuse.

4. What if a same-sex couple specifically ask my church or me as the minister to conduct a same-sex wedding? You can refuse even if your church has opted in.

5. What should we be putting in place as a church to protect ourselves against problems? Know the law and make your position clear in your governing document.

6. If the media ask us about our policy, how should we reply? Say that you abide by EA’s position and are not authorised to conduct same-sex marriages.

7. Could I be sued for preaching that marriage is only between one man and one woman? No.

8. I am an Anglican vicar. Do I have to marry everyone in my parish who requests a wedding? You have no duty to perform same-sex marriages.

9. I am an independent nonconformist minister. Do I have to perform same-sex marriages? No.

10. What happens if a church member wants to have their same-sex marriage in what has been their church since childhood? You can’t do it unless your church opts in.

11. Do we need to re-write our wedding service? No but you might like to make a clear declaration during the service of your position on marriage as being exclusively between a man and woman.

12. Local authorities use church facilities. Other churches make use of local authority facilities. How will such authorities respond when they hear of the churches’ position on same-sex marriage? They should be completely impartial.

13. Could our church be refused registration of our place of worship to conduct weddings because of our opposition to same-sex marriage? No.

14. Can we decide not to continue our registrar function? Yes but you need to think through the reasons carefully.

15. If we continue to exercise a registrar function is there anything we can do to dissociate our church from the new state view of marriage? See 11 above.

16. If we continue our registrar function could we be sued if we refuse to marry someone?Possibly but you are not breaking the law.

17. What if I am authorised to act as a registrar of marriages and I do not wish to conduct same-sex ceremonies, but my church has opted in to conduct them. Can I refuse? Yes.

18. Has adultery been removed as a ground for divorce? Only for same-sex couples.

19. Has non-consummation been removed as a ground for annulment? Only for same-sex couples.

20. Our church offers marriage guidance and counselling. Will we have to offer this service to same-sex couples? Churches won’t but commercial organisations will.

21. Do the existing kinship rules regarding the marriage of close relatives apply to same-sex marriages?Yes.

22. Will membership of the Evangelical Alliance provide our church with any protections? EA offers guidance and solidarity but not legal protection.

Questions for Christians

1. In public or at work, can I express the view that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman? Yes.

2. As a teacher can I refuse to teach about same-sex marriage? You must not misrepresent the law but are still entitled to express your own views. But be sensitive and professional.

3. As a civil registrar will I have to perform same-sex weddings? Yes.

4. Can I exempt my children from lessons that teach same-sex marriage as a norm? Yes.

5. Are faith schools exempted from teaching same-sex marriage as a norm? Yes but they must not misrepresent the law.

6. Will chaplains be protected? Yes but this might be challenged in court.

7. I am an organist who usually plays at wedding services at a church but do not wish to play at a same-sex wedding. Can I refuse? Yes.

8. I am a flower arranger who usually volunteers to decorate a church for wedding services but I do not wish to do so for a same-sex wedding. Can I refuse? Yes.

9. I am a commercial flower arranger but do not approve of same-sex marriage. Can I refuse to decorate the wedding venue? No.

10. I am a commercial photographer but do not approve of same-sex marriage. Can I refuse to photograph a wedding of a same-sex couple? No.

11. Will we be able to adopt or foster children if we believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman? Yes.

Update on Gay marriage Bill in House of Lords - what happens next?

Colin Hart, Campaign Director of the Coalition for Marriage (C4M), has this week issued a very useful summary on the current status of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, which is now moving to Report Stage in the House of Lords.  

It outlines the main concerns with the bill and the way it undermines civil liberties and changes the meaningsof words like ‘husband’ and ‘wife’.

I have reproduced it below:

The Bill has now completed its Committee Stage. As is usual, there have been no votes during Committee Stage. The Bill now moves to Report Stage, scheduled to take place on 8 and 10 July, when we expect there will be votes on key amendments.

During Committee Stage, many Peers have been pressing for a long list of protections for people who believe in traditional marriage, including:

• Protecting people at work from being disciplined just because they voice support for traditional marriage.

• Stopping local authorities using the Public Sector Equality Duty to ban a church from hiring public facilities just because the church disagrees with same-sex marriage.

• Protecting foster carers from being blacklisted by social workers just because they believe marriage is the union of a man and woman.

• Giving couples the option of marrying according to the real definition of marriage, rather than being forced to marry according to the new genderless definition.

• Protecting the right of teachers to express support for traditional marriage without risking their careers.

• Making clear that freedom of speech about marriage should not be restricted by equality laws.

There have been some passionate and excellent speeches from Peers who support these protections, including from a number of the country’s top legal experts. A former Lord Chancellor and two former senior judges lent their voices to the call for civil liberty safeguards.

The Government has promised to change the criminal law so that criticism of same-sex marriage won’t be, of itself, a hate-crime. We welcome that reassurance, but our primary concern lies with civil, not criminal, law. For example, employment law and discrimination law – where the problems are most likely to arise – are part of civil law. Here, the Government has stubbornly refused to give an inch on safeguarding the freedom of people who believe in traditional marriage.

They even went as far as saying people who work in the private sector – let alone public sector – should be fired if they refuse to provide services for a same-sex wedding. As far as the Government is concerned, there should be no liberty of conscience in those circumstances.

That shows what we’re up against, but we have no intention of backing down. We will be working hard to call for safeguards for people – like you – who support traditional marriage.

This is important work, but we haven’t stopped defending the principle of real marriage. We always said the Government would tie itself in knots trying to redefine marriage, and here is just one example: in the official Explanatory Notes which accompany the Bill, the Government says:

The terms “husband” and “wife” here refer to a person who is married for the purposes of paragraph 1(2)(c) of Schedule 3. This means that “husband” here will include a man or a woman in a same sex marriage, as well as a man married to a woman. In a similar way, “wife” will include a woman married to another woman or a man married to a man. The result is that this section is to be construed as including both male and female same sex marriage. 

In other words, under this Bill, a woman can be a “husband” and a man can be “wife”. It just shows that words lose all meaning when politicians meddle with marriage.

Would giving royal assent to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill place the queen in breach of her coronation oath?

At her coronation in 1953 Queen Elizabeth II was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury:

‘Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?’ 

She replied, ‘All this I promise to do’.

The Queen is a committed Christian believer who takes very seriously her duty to maintain ‘the true profession of the Gospel’. But what about her similar duty to 'maintain the Laws of God'?

The Laws of God about marriage are very clear.  Marriage is a lifelong monogamous bond between one man and one woman as established by creation ordinance (Genesis 2:24) and upheld by Jesus Christ (Matthew 19:5 ) and his Apostles (Ephesians 5:31).

Furthermore it points to the complementarity, permanence and fruitfulness of Christ’s own relationship with his bride, the church (Ephesians 5:31-2).

The redefinition of marriage which is the basis of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill runs directly contrary to this.

It is therefore very difficult to see how the Queen can give it her Royal Assent without at the same time violating her Coronation Oath. 

Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester, made this very point earlier this month. 

Lord Mackay, former Lord Advocate and Lord Chancellor, at a recent event hosted by the Theos think tank, was also asked just this question - whether, in light of the Church of England’s opposition, signing the Bill might put the Queen in breach of her Coronation Oath. 

Lord Mackay, who opposes same-sex marriage, said that ministers should ensure any legislation was consistent with the Queen’s promise. He said:

‘The Queen under our constitutional arrangements is expected to act in accordance with the advice of her ministers, given ultimately through the Prime Minister. The idea of the Coronation Oath was that it would never be in conflict with that advice and therefore it is the responsibility of the ministers of the Crown to see that whatever advice they give is consistent with the proper construction of the Coronation Oath.’

He added: ‘My hope is that a contradiction between what is advised and what was sworn should never arise.’

But if the Lords pass this bill this exact situation will actually arise. The Prime Minister will be advising the Queen to do something which almost certainly violates her Coronation Oath in the very year she celebrates the 60^th anniversary of that coronation.

Even if passed by both Houses of Parliament the Marriage Bill cannot become law without receiving royal assent. So the Queen does have the power to block the bill, even if it is a power she has never yet used with any piece of legislation.

The last time a British Monarch withheld royal assent was over 300 years ago in 1708 – when the last Stuart monarch, Anne, withheld her Assent from a bill ‘for the settling of Militia in Scotland’.

However there have been more recent examples of royal assent being withheld in other European monarchies.

On 2 December 2008 Grand Duke Henri, Luxembourg's monarch and a Roman Catholic, refused to sign a euthanasia bill into law.

As a result the Luxembourg parliament stripped him of his constitutional powers by amending the constitution so that bills would no longer require his approval before passing into law. 

A precedent for Luxembourg's move was set in 1990, when Belgium's King Badouin found himself unable to approve an abortion law.

With the king's approval, the government made him a commoner for several days and passed the law, putting him back on the throne after the legislature had enacted the bill unilaterally.

Were the Queen to refuse to sign the Marriage Bill, it would provoke a similar constitutional crisis and would place the British Parliament in the situation of deciding whether to strip her of her constitutional powers in order to force it through.

Over 2,500 years ago, Queen Esther of Persia, a Jewess, was encouraged by her uncle Mordecai to risk her life by taking a stand of conscience in order to protect her own people.

Their conversation, carried out via messengers, is one of the most famous in the Old Testament:

‘Then (Esther) instructed him to say to Mordecai, ‘All the king’s officials and the people of the royal provinces know that for any man or woman who approaches the king in the inner court without being summoned the king has but one law: that they be put to death unless the king extends the gold sceptre to them and spares their lives…

When Esther’s words were reported to Mordecai,  he sent back this answer: ‘Do not think that because you are in the king’s house you alone of all the Jews will escape. For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father’s family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to your royal position for such a time as this?’

Then Esther sent this reply to Mordecai: ‘Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my attendants will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish.’ (Esther 4:11-16)

Is this Queen Elizabeth II’s Queen 'Esther moment' I wonder? Was she brought to royal position ‘for such a time as this’?

We must pray earnestly that she is given great courage and great wisdom. 

The Archbishop’s speech on gay marriage – needless concessions and a lost opportunity

Nine Church of England Bishops, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, this week voted for Lord Dear’s amendment attempting to derail the government’s Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. Five abstained. Ten chose not to attend. The amendment was passed by a 390-148 majority.

There has been speculation in the press that the Church of England had made a deal with government over trading abstentions for later amendments and that pressure had been put on bishops by church officials to suggest they abstain so as not to evoke a government backlash against the church.

However this has been firmly denied by the church’s parliamentary and political advisors.

Now that the bill has passed its second reading in the House of Lords the leader of the ‘Lords Spiritual’, Bishop of Leicester Tim Stevens, has issued a statement on behalf of the church about its strategy for the days and weeks ahead.

In this he says that ‘it is now the duty and responsibility of the Bishops who sit in the House of Lords to recognise the implications of this decision and to join with other Members in the task of considering how this legislation can be put into better shape’. 

He adds that ‘the issue now is not primarily one of protections and exemptions for people of faith’ but rather ‘improvement (of the bill) in a number of other key respects, including in its approach to the question of fidelity in marriage and the rights of children’. 

As a result it has been reported widely in the press, perhaps not surprisingly, that ‘the Church of England has effectively accepted defeat over gay marriage signalling that it will no longer fight against a change in the law’.

The words and actions of bishops in the coming weeks and days will no doubt undergo careful scrutiny, but my purpose in this blogpost is rather to comment on the speech that the Archbishop of Canterbury gave before supporting the Dear amendment last Monday, because I suspect I am not alone in finding it rather disappointing.  

I have reproduced his speech below (in italics) from his own website and placed my own comments after each section in non-italicised script (marked >>). The speech is 864 words and runs to ten paragraphs. It has been quoted widely but selectively and I think it is therefore important to consider it as a whole.

Archbishop Justin's speech to the Lords on the government's gay marriage Bill

Monday 3rd June 2013

My Lords, this Bill has arrived in your Lordship's House at great speed. The initial Proposals, when published at the end of the autumn, have needed much work to get them into today's form. Much of that work has been done through detailed legal effort and discussion, and I am deeply grateful to the DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) teams – and especially to the Secretary of State for the thoughtful way in which she has listened and the degree to which she has been willing to make changes in order to arrive at the stage we’ve reached today.

>> It is part of House of Lords tradition to be polite even to those with whom you strongly disagree. But the Archbishop has gone much further than this in complimenting the government for their handling of this bill. And yet the bill was launched with no democratic mandate, seeks to redefine the biblical concept of marriage as a lifelong union between a man and a woman enshrined in British law and poses a serious threat to civil liberties. To commend the Secretary of State for the ‘thoughtful way she has listened’ and ‘the degree to which she has been willing to make changes’, given that the government ignored half a million public submissions to its consultation and then sought to block every amendment put forward to make the bill more safe during its passage through the House of Commons, is curious to say the very least.  Not only are the Archbishop’s commendations inappropriate and unnecessary; they are actually a slap in the face to those many Christians, MPs and others who in good conscience have stood against the bill in the face of great opposition. 

We all know, and it’s been said, that this is a divisive issue. In general the majority of faith groups remain very strongly against the Bill, and have expressed that view in a large number of public statements. The House of Bishops of the Church of England has also expressed a very clear majority view –  although not unanimous, as has been seen by the strong and welcome contribution by the Bishop of Salisbury. 

>> Why does Welby consider it necessary to single out Nicholas Holtam, Bishop of Salibury, for commendation and call his contribution ‘strong and welcome’ when in fact Holtam takes a position diametrically opposed to what the Scriptures teach and has also likened opponents of gay marriage to those who used the Bible to justify slavery and apartheid? Should he not rather be saying that Holtam does not represent the church’s view or, at very least, not dignifying his words and actions with a comment? How does Welby’s approach to Holtam square with the Apostle Paul urging his co-workers to ‘command certain men not to teach false doctrines’ (1 Timothy 1:3), to ‘gently instruct in the hope that God will grant repentance’ (2 Timothy 2:25) and to insist that false teachers ‘must be silenced’ (Titus 1:11)? 

The so-called Quadruple Lock may have some chance of withstanding legal scrutiny in Europe, and we are grateful for it, although other faith groups and Christian denominations who’ve written to me remain very hesitant. There have been useful discussions about the position of schools with a religious character and issues of freedom of conscience. And I’ve noted the undertaking of the Noble Baroness the Minister on those subjects, and I’m grateful for what she has said. The Noble Baroness the Minister has also put forward all her views today with great courtesy and persuasive effect, and I join in the remarks of the Noble Baroness, Baroness Royall, in appreciation of that. 

>> Why is it necessary to thank the government for the ‘quadruple lock’ when there is considerable doubt about how legally robust it is and when it is a government’s primary duty to protect its citizens anyway? Why has he identified with the Labour leader Baroness Royall in commending the Minister for ‘useful discussions’ about religious schools and freedom of conscience when all attempts to obtain legal protection for teachers and conscience have been so far been blocked by the government working in tandem with the Labour Party?

And I have to say that personally I regret the necessity of having to deal with the possibility of a division at this stage, on a bill passed by a free vote in the other place.

>> Why does Welby ‘personally regret’ having to vote against a bill which undermines the Christian definition of marriage? Is it not his Christian duty (and joy) to stand up for Christian truth? And why does he need to say so?

I was particularly grateful to hear the speech of the Noble Baroness, Baroness Royall, and agreed with the proud record that was established by the last government during the years in which it held office in this area. I also, if I may, will pass on her comments with gratitude to my colleague the Most Revd Prelate the Archbishop of York. 

>> Why is it necessary for Welby to commend the previous Labour government and what does he mean by its ‘proud record’? How is this even relevant?

It is clearly essential that stable and faithful same sex relationships should, where those involved want it, be recognised and supported with as much dignity and the same legal effect as marriage. Although the majority of Bishops who voted during the whole passage of the Civil Partnerships Act through your Lordships' House were in favour of civil partnerships a few years ago, it is also absolutely true that the church has often not served the LGBT communities in the way it should. I must express my sadness and sorrow for that considerable failure. There have been notable exceptions, such as my predecessor Archbishop Ramsey who vigorously supported decriminalisation in the 1960s. 

>> On what basis is Welby saying that ‘faithful same sex relationships’ should ‘be recognised and supported with as much dignity and the same legal effect as marriage’? What biblical or church teaching supports this view? And is he suggesting that the church should have served the LGBT community by endorsing and blessing same sex civil partnerships? This is certainly the most natural reading of his speech and yet it is not even the position of the church which he leads.

It is also necessary to express, as has been done already, total rejection of homophobic language, which is wrong – and more than that, sickening. 

>> What does the archbishop actually mean by ‘homophobic language’?  And why, if so many people have already mentioned this, does he feel it necessary to mention it again? Welby has now used 516 of his 864 words and seven of his ten paragraphs. Thus far he has commended the government, the Labour opposition and a bishop that many regard as a heretic, given his blessing to same sex partnerships and apologised both for the church’s past record and also for having to vote against the bill. Not a good start and the clock is steadily ticking.

However, I and many of my colleagues remain with considerable hesitations about this Bill. My predecessor Lord Williams of Oystermouth showed clearly last summer, in evidence during the consultation period, that it has within it a series of category errors. It confuses marriage and weddings. It assumes that the rightful desire for equality – to which I’ve referred supportively – must mean uniformity, failing to understand that two things may be equal but different. And as a result it does not do what it sets out to do, my Lords. Schedule 4 distinguishes clearly between same gender and opposite gender marriage, thus not achieving true equality. 

>> Now at last we see some arguments against the bill and it is this paragraph that has been most quoted in the media. Welby is absolutely right that the bill contains ‘category errors’, ‘confuses marriages and weddings’ and misunderstands the difference between ‘equality’ and ‘uniformity’. But why didn’t he leave himself more time to unpack these arguments and why does his opposition amount to nothing more than ‘considerable hesitations’. If he rejects the underlying principle of the bill, why does he not say so?

The result is confusion. Marriage is abolished, redefined and recreated, being different and unequal for different categories. The new marriage of the Bill is an awkward shape with same gender and different gender categories scrunched into it, neither fitting well. The concept of marriage as a normative place for procreation is lost. The idea of marriage as covenant is diminished. The family in its normal sense, predating the state and as our base community of society – as we’ve already heard – is weakened. These points will be expanded on by others in the debate, I’m sure, including those from these benches.

>> Again some good strong words, but could he not have expanded on some of these points rather than confining them to two paragraphs totalling 204 words – the length of a short letter to the Times? Why has he spent  more than twice as many words already on unnecessary commendations and apologies that have actually served to undermine his position? And should he not, as Archbishop of Canterbury and Head of the Church of England, be saying something about what a distinctively Christian understanding of marriage actually is?

For these and many other reasons, those of us in the churches and faith groups who are extremely hesitant about the Bill in many cases hold that view because we think that traditional marriage is a corner stone of society, and rather than adding a new and valued institution alongside it for same gender relationships, which I would personally strongly support to strengthen us all, this Bill weakens what exists and replaces it with a less good option that is neither equal nor effective. This is not a faith issue, although we are grateful for the attention that government and the other place have paid to issues of religious freedom – deeply grateful. But it is not, at heart, a faith issue; it is about the general social good. And so with much regret but entire conviction, I cannot support the Bill as it stands.

>> If there are ‘many other reasons’ why has he not outlined what some of them are in his first seven paragraphs? Why, as head of the Church of England, does Welby see legal same sex homoerotic partnerships as a ‘valued institution alongside (marriage)’ which he ‘would personally strongly support to strengthen us all’? How does he believe that legalising same sex partnerships ‘strengthens us all’? And why is this ‘not at heart a faith issue’ when the teaching of both the Bible and the church on the matter is so clear and when our current law on marriage was historically based on this biblical definition? Why does he say that he cannot support the bill ‘as it stands’? Does he not oppose its underlying principle? Or is he saying that he would actually support it with various amendments?

It is notable that the Archbishop of Canterbury’s speech does not mention God, Jesus Christ, the Bible or even the historic position on the Church of England. Nor does it explain how the Christian concept of complimentary heterosexual marriage is a creation ordinance for all mankind supposed to mirror Christ’s own relationship with his bride the church.

You might argue that parliament would not have been convinced by such arguments. Quite probably not.  But the Archbishop of Canterbury has a responsibility to bear witness to Christian truth in the public square.  He should also not be granting needless and unbiblical concessions. He is after all the Archbishop of Canterbury.  

Welby’s speech was a wonderful opportunity to speak for Christ and Christians and to explain why Christians believe that marriage is so precious and should not be redefined.

Sadly, for both church and society, it was an opportunity he largely missed and some of the concessions he has made are very worrying indeed.  

Man in active homosexual relationship who wants to become priest takes bishop to human rights tribunal for ‘discrimination’

New Zealand became the 13^th country to legalise same sex marriage two weeks ago.

This week the Anglican Bishop of Auckland is being taken to the Human Rights Tribunal over allegations he is discriminating against a gay man who wants to become a priest.

Right Reverend Ross Bay (pictured) has been accused of preventing a gay man entering the Anglican Church's training or discernment programme for priests because he is unmarried and in a sexual relationship with his male partner.

Bay denies the allegation.

The complainant, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said he had been signalling his desire to train for the priesthood since 2006, but had never been accepted into the programme (but see follow up here).

Bay, who approves entrants to the Anglican Church's clergy training programme, has been the Bishop of Auckland since 2010.

The Human Rights Act 1993 allows exceptions to some discrimination laws, including where organised religions are following their doctrine.

The Bishop said, ultimately, church rules determine who can be ordained, and he refused the man entry ‘by reason of the defendant not being chaste in terms of canons of the Anglican Church’.

He added that anyone in a sexual relationship outside of marriage would not be accepted to train as a priest.

The case is illustrative of the sort of litigation that will become commonplace once same sex marriage is legalised.

At the end of the day this is not about ‘legal equality’ – already granted by civil partnerships – or ‘love’ – nothing currently stands in the way of such relationships.

It is largely about the desire for affirmation and recognition.

What infuriates and drives some sections of the gay rights lobby is the fact that some other members of society - in this case leaders in the Anglican church - refuse to accept, affirm and celebrate their sexual relationships.

And so in complete disregard of the directive of Jesus and Paul not to take fellow Christians to court (Matthew 18:15-17; 1 Corinthians 6:5-7) they end up doing just that – thus underlining the key issue at stake in this debate – a disregard for biblical authority.

The Bible is very clear that the only context for sexual intercourse is within a lifelong heterosexual marriage relationship.

If this aspiring priest wishes to be ordained he needs to acknowledge and respect that by giving up his claim to ordination or by becoming celibate. He can't have it both ways. 

Even if he is successful in challenging the rules in a human court he will not be successful when he attempts to justify himself before God who set the rules in the first place. 

See also 'New Zealand anti-gay marriage group to lose charity status')

NB: The Human Rights Tribunal later dismissed this case in October 2013

How to ask your MP to support a referendum on same sex marriage

Anne Main (also see here) (pictured) is my local MP. She has an excellent voting record on social issues (you can find out your own MP’s voting record here).

She voted against the redefinition of marriage in February and I have just asked her to co-sign an amendment (New Clause 9) to David Cameron’s same-sex marriage bill calling for a referendum on the issue.

My local Tory candidate for the local elections, Salih Gaygusuz, did not bother replying when I asked him his view on the issue, so I gave my vote to the UKIP candidate Philip Singleton who opposed the measure instead.

I have told my MP this and also that I will (reluctantly) vote for UKIP again in 2015 if the Tory Party continues to drift in its current direction.  

If you wish to write to your own local MP urging them to co-sign new clause 9 (which will increase its chance of being debated) you can do so very easily via the write to them website.

The more MPs who co-sign an amendment the more chance it has of being debated.

My letter to Anne is below.

My letter to Anne Main MP

Dear Anne,

As you will know MPs vote soon on amendments to the government's Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill.   

I am writing to urge you to co-sign the proposed amendment 'New Clause 9' to the bill which calls for a referendum on the issue.

It is not the government's job to redefine marriage and there is no mandate for this bill.

It didn't feature in any major party's manifesto and there is no public consensus for redefining marriage - many people are opposed to it.

Furthermore the government's consultation ignored half a million responses opposing the redefinition of marriage.

I'm deeply concerned about the bill and what it more widely represents - that the Tory Party leadership is no longer listening to social conservatives.

As a result for the first time I voted for UKIP in this week's local elections. 

Despite my longstanding personal support for you I will do so again, with considerable regret, in the next general election in 2015 if the Conservative party continues to drift in this direction.

Yours sincerely,

Peter