It is not just about Marriage

While I was away, there was a Diocesan Hui (meeting or conference) to discuss marriage, in particular same-sex marriage.  It was held in our parish hall.  Possibly it was just as well that I could not be there as it is a very emotional topic for me.

Bishop Kelvin has covered it well in his blog.

He concludes:

"At the end of the day no-ones opinions were much changed. But the great triumph was that we stayed together, we talked and we began to feel our way towards that sense of God's presence which enables us to be the body of Christ. We have a long way to go, but I am very optimistic."

In another post he has published his submission to the Ma Whea Commission on Same - Gender Relationship, Ordination and Blessing. 
This commission was set up by the National Synod and is to report to the General Synod by 2014.

Some parts of Kelvin's submission.

"The Diocese of Dunedin has been, for some time regarded as a “liberal” diocese with regard to the ministry of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) people. We have a number of persons that identify as GLBT serving in our clergy, on vestries, and as Synod Representatives. In the last decade several ordained people in same gender relationships have been ordained in our diocese and/or have held licenses for ministry. This has not been without dissent."

"We recognize that for a large number of our people marriage is defined in our Canons and our Prayer Book and means a lifelong union is between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others. Further, as our disciplinary canons require ordained people to be either married or celibate, there is currently no possibility of people living in same gender relationships being ordained. "
  
"For others of us there is the recognition that the current situation in the Anglican Church denies a significant group of faithful Christians the experience of living authentically and openly, of celebrating their partnerships and of fulfilling a call to ordained ministry, a situation that many find is difficult to reconcile with a gospel of love and inclusiveness."

"As a diocese we are committed to further discussion of these matters, recognizing that the more we meet with and fellowship with people with diverse opinions and the more we are able to place these potentially divisive matters into the context of the real people whose lives are so impacted by the decisions we make, the more likely we are to find a way in which we can work together for the good of the Gospel which has so captivated all of us."

My own vicar who is now Vicar-General of the Diocese commented on the hui.

"That is the only foundation for 'progress' - the acknowledgement of the foundational significance of our Baptisms, that those who think differently to us are still doing their darnedest to follow Jesus."

In a sermon   the week after the hui the vicar stated

"Jesus sees marriage as relatively unimportant – and I choose my words carefully. Relatively Unimportant. Relative to what you might well ask? Relative to the Kingdom of God, and thus Relative to the life of a Disciple of Jesus."

"At the end of the Hui, Bishop Kelvin speaking of his episcopal ministry used the metaphor of a lumberjack, trying to keep a great raft of logs together on a river. The image that came to mind was that the raft of logs has got stuck up a creek. Perhaps our lack of progress on this issue is precisely its insignificance in terms of the Kingdom of God. "

"I wonder if that was going on last weekend, certainly it yielded little if anything. Our thinking about marriage is so skewed – we see it of such distorted importance, that when we hear Jesus say ‘whoever has left his . . . wife . . . for my sake and the kingdom . . .’ we assume he must have got it wrong . . . but that is quite plainly what he says. To be a disciple is to be devoted to Jesus, to recognise his authority, like the soldiers and the slaves of the Centurion, to Act immediately in accordance with his command. Put another way, to have faith"

 I would reply that to me it is not about marriage it is about equality. 

That was reinforced by Elizabeth Kaeton in her moving post We are Equal.

I was excited when the same-sex marriage bill passed the NZ parliament not because there is any likelihood that I will ever take advantage of its provisons but because it removes the last remnant of  discrimination in the laws of the land.  I have full equality in New Zealand but not yet in my birth country, Australia.

Looking at newspapers of the 1950's when I was a teenager in Sydney, it would seem the politicians, police and certainly churchmen regarded homosexuals as on a par with murderers.  Thankfully I was not very aware of my sexuality at the time.  However even in the 60's,  I was told by psychiatrists that I  should not become a teacher as it would be too dangerous. I seethe with anger at the implications of those remarks.  I taught adolescents for 45 years and never once did anything improper with a student.

I think it is wonderful that today there are openly gay and partnered  politicians, police, judges in both Australia and New Zealand.  Young gay men and women should not feel they are 2nd class citizens anymore.  Except in the church.

While there were many reasons for my migrating to New Zealand and  Dunedin in particular, the existence of one openly partnered gay priest in the diocese was an important factor.

As a young man in Sydney I was keen to train for the priesthood.    I was a youth leader, a lay reader and even preached at Sunday evening services.  But it became obvious that this would not be possible as a gay man.  In fact, when I first told my rector that I was gay,  I was removed from reading the lesson and it was made plain that I was not really welcome to even attend anymore. 

However, until I began worshipping at St James, I never saw a woman read the lesson during a service.

Looking back on my years as a youth leader, we took it for granted that males would be leaders. Girls were assistants but never in charge and although we had youth services, only the boys took any role. 

Now I live and worship in a diocese which has a woman archdeacon, who was in charge of our parish for a year.  Our parish has  a recently ordained woman priest who is assistant and will be in charge during the vicar's absence over the next few weeks and of course there is the  historical fact that we had the first woman diocesan in the Anglican world.

Girls in our churches in Dunedin can see that they can aspire to any role in the church.

Similarly as a gay man it is inspiring to see a gay man preside at the Eucharist and it was one of the highlights of my life to meet and receive a hug from Bishop Gene Robinson. 

However at the moment there is a hold on recognition of gay people in the Anglican church of Aotearoa/ New Zealand.  I wait to see what happens at Synod in 2014.  But I am becoming impatient, there is a strong likelihood that I will not want to remain in a church where I am not seen as equal.

My vicar asks me to see that those opposed to me are also attempting to follow Christ. 

I have received more love and acceptance from atheists than the "Christian" leaders of the Anglican diocese of Sydney.  A straight man who advocated for gay acceptance in Sydney synod told me he had never seen such hatred on  faces as was displayed to him in synod that night. 

There is a local evangelical Anglican church in Dunedin. I have yet to meet any of them and will not be going out of my way to do so. My experience in Sydney makes me very wary of such people. I am told, although a neighbouring parish, they did not send any representatives to the the ordinations of the women of our parish. I see nothing Christlike in them.

One of many great speeches last night

Whoo Hoo New Zealand

New Zealand has just passed the third and final reading of the bill to allow same-sex marriages. New Zealand has become the 13th nation in the world to do so.
I am so proud of my adopted country. The final reading was passed 77 to 44.

An excellent speech

Note this is a member of the National (conservative) party in NZ. He is also a committed churchman.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) : In the first reading of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill I voted that it be sent to the Government Administration Committee to ensure a call for submissions and a platform for discussion, and I am very glad that I did that. Serving on the select committee as deputy chairman was instructive, illuminating, and educative, and it was a pleasure working with the Hon Ruth Dyson as chair.
I wish now to speak to the considerations of the select committee. The one aspect that was universal—common to all submitters—was that marriage is special, precious, and desirable. Everyone said so, no matter which part of the argument they were interested in. The issue is over who can or cannot participate in it. Submitters were very definite in expressing their particular views.
I found there were three main groupings, and I would like to talk about them now. One grouping has an eschatological view of the bill—in other words, to pass the bill will be the beginning of the end of society as we know it. This was a very firmly held view. It is perceived as a slippery slope, leading to our ultimate demise as a nation and as a civilisation.
I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of submitters who hold to this view. It was sincerity, though, that seemed to be entirely based on apprehension and fear and circular reasoning, rather than on a persuasive argument.
Although I cannot imagine, if the bill passes, that a particularly large percentage of the population will suddenly take the opportunity to engage in same-gender marriages, I also cannot imagine that any number would make one iota of difference to the 41 years of marriage that my wife and I have enjoyed, or to anybody else’s heterosexual marriage.
I cannot see it. I have thought deeply about this and cannot believe that the social impact of the bill would herald the demise and collapse of the wider societal values in New Zealand. I respect the right of those who wish to hold to that view, but I cannot give it currency in coming to a defined position on this bill.
Another grouping held a perception that this is counter to religious views and practices and represents State interference in religious practice, beliefs, and dogma. The select committee listened very carefully and sincerely to the concerns expressed. As someone who had 5 years as a lay minister for the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa / New Zealand and was a member of the council of assembly for the Presbyterian Church, I had a particular interest in this aspect of the discussion.
It became clear through listening that the overriding concern is that the clergy and those authorised by religious bodies to conduct marriages would be obliged—indeed, forced—to conduct ceremonies for same-gender couples should the bill be passed. We have already heard from the Hon Ruth Dyson about section 29 of the Marriage Act, which has always stipulated that it authorises but does not oblige any marriage celebrant to solemnise a marriage to which the licence relates.
The select committee has recommended a new clause that makes it abundantly clear that ministers of religion or celebrants from approved organisations are not obliged to solemnise a marriage if to do so would contravene the religious beliefs of the religious body or approved organisation.
I thoroughly enjoy theological discussion and have a huge appetite for it. I have been most grateful for the opportunity to sit with clergy from many different denominations and engage with them on this issue.
By providing and ensuring that this bill deals only with secular issues—I will say it again: it deals only with secular issues—it nevertheless leaves a dilemma for established religious groups that wish to differentiate their churches or holy matrimony from the new definition if the bill passes. It is not for the State to have a view on this. It is for the churches to resolve in their own way and time, and I look forward to engaging in that discussion in a personal capacity in my own time.
The third consideration—we have heard it spoken by my colleague and friend Tim Macindoe this evening—is that marriage is an institution: time honoured, never changing, and having the essential components of one man and one woman common to all countries and civilisations throughout the millennia until death do them part. It ain’t necessarily so.
I am privileged to have my wife in the gallery tonight. My wife and I married on 11 March, 41 years ago last Monday, and lived happily ever after. But the question that exercised the upper echelons of ecclesiastic minds in those days was whether or not the bride should take a vow of obedience to her husband. If you are marrying a red-headed West Coast girl from a West Coast aristocratic family, some hope!
During that same time, to have children born out of wedlock was a hamper to church marriage, as was a divorce, or, indeed, wanting to marry someone of a different religion. Bans of marriage were called from pulpits, advising that people were intending marriage, and others were invited to give reasons why that marriage should not proceed or to forever hold their peace. Marriage is not an unchanging institution, and although most of its institutional aspects have been laudable for men, they have often been less than favourable for women.
Some statistics to show this change to the institution are quite illuminating. Twenty-three percent of marriages are conducted in a registry office, 32 percent of marriages are conducted in a church, and 45 percent are conducted by independent marriage celebrants. The figures shout out change that we cannot close our ears to.
I found it personally significant that from the—wait for the figures—9,347 independent marriage celebrants, which is nearly 10,000 independent marriage celebrants, and 530 civil union celebrants, so that is 10,500 all together, the select committee received two—two—submissions.
The last two aspects I wish to touch on are the matters of conscience and the question of family coming first. In terms of conscience, I have given much, much thought to this. I am acquainted with guilt. Being a Presbyterian, one goes through life thinking that one has not worked hard enough, has not done enough, and has not reached the requirement that life’s opportunities offer, and you will always get other members who will tell you that, as one did this evening.
To assuage my conscience on this issue, I delved back in my life to the age of understanding, which I think those of Catholic persuasion tell me the Jesuits determine is at 7 years old, when I was a boy.
I looked at catechismic values when learning the catechism by rote in Glasgow: “Who made you?” “God made me.” “Why did God make you?” “God made me to know him and love him.” The third question: “What image did God make you in?”
The answer: “God made me in his own image.” Every 7-year-old boy and girl said the same and believed it was true. They did not have to add: “… as long as I conform to being heterosexual, and not to loving anyone of the same gender as myself.” My conscience is very clear on this issue.
Every person has the same spiritual claim as one another to being made in the image of God, and it will take a braver person than I am to deny that. I have addressed the question of eschatology in my mind, the question of ensuring religious freedom, and the assumption of benign institutionalisation. My conscience is not clouded or indeed involved in this issue.
As an older person, we do have baggage to carry of remembering when homosexuality was illegal—in fact, it was criminal—and it was, we were told, immoral. There were two definite groups of people who came and made submissions before us, and it was what I would call a generational divide.
So, in dealing with the legacy of discriminatory prejudice—and I would not want that to be a deciding feature—I prayerfully ask to be able to internalise and resolve this complicated situation in my head, in my heart, and in my soul.
What I learnt from listening to the submissions, colleagues, was that in fact each homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender person appearing before us was not to be seen just as an individual, not to be identified just by gender preference, but in fact to be seen as a mother’s son or a daughter, and a father’s daughter or son, as siblings to their brothers and sisters, grandchildren to their grandparents, nephews and nieces to their uncles and aunts, and uncles and aunts to their nephews and nieces, and cousins to their cousins.
They are all family, along with their heterosexual friends and relations, and all are an integral part of the New Zealand family, and all are part—in my mind, in my heart, and in my conscience—of God’s family. I now realise that this bill seeks to put first something that critics have accused it of undermining, and that is the family.
We as parliamentarians should not simply look past the interests of the applicants for this bill. We should not simply look at their interests. We should, and we must, look after their interests. We should pass this bill.

Marriage Matters Update

The controversial marriage equality bill has passed its second reading in Parliament tonight.
MP Louisa Wall's Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, which would allow same-sex couples to marry, was passed with 77 in favour and 44 against.
MPs also voted on whether a referendum would be held on the issue, with 33 voting in favour and 83 against.
Wall told Parliament that denying marriage to someone is to essentially not recognise them as a person.

"This Bill is about marriage equality. It's not about gay marriage, same sex marriage or straight marriage. It's about marriage between two people. There's no distinction to be made. That is equality," she said.
"Whether the form of that marriage is religious, secular or cultural is a matter for the couple to determine. Denying marriage to a person is to devalue that person's right to participate fully in all that life offers ... No state has the right to do that."

The bill passed its first reading in August last year with 80 in favour and 40 against.
It will have to go through further amendments and a third reading before it can be passed into law.

I have heard this will be in April. While 3 votes moved, this is not unexpected as some members will often vote for a first reading to allow discussion, then oppose the 2nd. It would be very unusual for the 3rd reading to be unsuccessful after such a good majority in the 2nd.

Thank you, Mr President

"Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law - for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well,"

I only wish that when I first began to realise I was gay, back in the late 50's and  early 60's, there had been similar statements from at least one of the world leaders of that time.  Instead in those days I read that my basic feelings were criminal and unsocial and would lead to a life of misery and depravity, difficult to accept for a boy who was otherwise law abiding and lived a rather sheltered life mixing in Church circles.  I was told by a psychiatrist that I should not become a school teacher as it would be too dangerous.  I was 40 years old when my love affairs became legal in NSW.  I remember how wonderful it felt to be legal when I visited the UK in 1974. 

As we campaigned for legalisation it was beyond our wildest dreams that one day we would be campaigning for same - sex marriage.

Here in New Zealand the law to allow gay marriage is progressing slowly through government committees in which the  usual people are taking their chance to spread hate. One guy tonight was on TV saying only a man and a woman were natural.  He should visit some of the albatrosses nesting here in Dunedin.  Another man who stated gay marriage would lead to incresed crime. That at least has led to an avalanche of  ridicule.  

While I have little to agree with Prime Minister Key on economics, he at least is onside here.

Unlike the Prime Minister of Australia.  Back in the 50's & 60's her living arrangements would have been described as "living in sin".  It was unthinkable that a woman would be prime minister. The few women in politics could not aspire to much more than Minister of women's affairs.  If anyone did entertain the idea of a woman becoming prime minister it would not have been a woman living with a man out of wedlock. 

Prime Minister Gillard will go down in history as a woman who was only interested in her own position, unwilling to risk her career for the rights of gays.  And note that President Obama came out for gay marriage rights BEFORE his recent re-election as President. 

Elections

I will be glad when the USA elections are over and we can return to normal for a few years at least.   It is a bit bizarre the way the whole world becomes interested in who is President of the USA although we have no say in the process.   Elections in other powerful countries - for example Russia, UK and France are just of mild interest in comparison.
I am glad I do not have a vote as I would consider President Obama as right wing and believe First Past the Post voting (as also used in the UK) to be quite undemocratic. It usually means that there is little point in having 3rd parties and independents as they just split the vote.  Of course the current situation in the UK disproves my point.

Some of the statements made by US politicians also have me shaking my head.  They would only come from the looney right in Australia or NZ, ridiculed by the majority, with little chance of election.  Occasionally such people are elected by some strange twist (eg Pauline Hansen) but they are usually ignored by the major parties unless it suits their purpose for a brief time. They are unlikely to gain a second term.

I also see that US citizens retain the right to vote even after they have migrated elsewhere. I no longer have the right to vote in Australia as I have declared my intention to remain away for more than 6 years.  I could have hidden the fact, I still maintain my address at my sister's home for financial matters but, as voting in Australia is compulsory, I would have had to request absentees ballots to be posted to me or send an explanation for not voting.  While I would be interested in Commonwealth elections, and did vote last time in 2010 as I was in Sydney the week before the elcction, I have little interest in the State election and none in the local council.

I do, however, have the right to vote in New Zealand.  I would not have had that right if I had gone the other way.  In fact, as a permanent resident, it was compulsory to register in NZ but not to vote.

The main point of my post is to share the wonderful news that a married gay man has just been elected to the parliament of the state of NSW.  I was a little confused to read he was married then discovered he and his partner were married in Argentina. Not sure I agree ith that if neither he nor his partner are citizens or residents of Argentina.  However that is beside the point.

The election was only held because the Liberal Government brought in a law to prevent people from holding office in both the state government and local council.  The previous member Clover Moore has been the independent member for Sydney since 1988.  In 2004 she became Lord Mayor of Sydney and was recently elected for the 3rd time.  The new law meant she had to resign as State member.  She has always given one of her salaries to charity.  Clover has always championed gay rights and endorsed independent Alex Greenwich.  He gained 48.5% of the first preference votes. The Liberal candidate gained 29.8%, the Greens 17.7%, another independent 2.1% and the Christian Democrats (anti gay rights) a whopping 1.9%.
So, with Green  preferences, Alex Greenwich has won with a two party preferred vote of just under 65%. A slap in the face for the Liberal Government.
Wonderful result

Marriage Matters

I think the whole world now knows about the latest idiocy from Jensen and the Sydney Diocese.  They want to replace the word 'obey' with 'submit' in the marriage service. As Philip Bradford, Rector of the parish of Hunters Hill wrote, the service he uses from An Australian Prayer Book even omits 'obey'.  I have checked and there are 2 forms, he apparently uses the 2nd.  I have also checked the New Zealand Prayer Book and cannot see the word 'obey' in any of the 3 forms allowed, the man and woman seem to make the same vows in all of them.

We all know the Sydney Diocese lives in medieval times but it is distressing to see them make it so obvious to the whole world. The storm of criticism which has resulted so often equates Jensen ravings with that of Christianity or Anglicanism, not recognising the Sydney Diocese has become a cult that has little relationship to Anglican belief and practice. I particularly see red when, as in a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald today, Jensen is seen as Primate.  Archbishop Aspinall of Brisbane, the Primate of the Australian Anglican Church, is unfortunately not so visble to the media but that is because he is circumspect in his pronouncements although I am glad to see he has made the following statement.

"The changes may be questionable under canon law, and may have to be discussed within a national church tribunal.
“Submit” has never been used in any version of the marriage vow since the Anglican Book of Common Prayer came into existence in 1662."

I am more concerned to read that the Sydney Diocese is actually revising the Prayer Book.
An Australian Prayer Book,  published in 1978, is a rather timid affair as the Sydney Diocese did all it could to obstruct any revision.  A New Zealand Prayer Book of 1989 is much more exciting although, being rather liturgically conservative, I wish it did not allow for so many variations. However it is praised by experts around the world. 

The thought that Sydney would devise its own version is horrifying although it would demonstrate to the world just how far the diocese is removed from Anglican structures. 
While recently looking at the webpage of St Augustine's, Neutral Bay, I read the following:

Holy Communion is a token (my bold) meal that reminds Christians to look in 3 directions:
1.To look back to Jesus’ death and resurrection for us, giving thanks to God that Jesus died so that we might be forgiven and live
2.To look forward to Jesus’ return to earth
3.To look around at our church family and celebrate the unity we share through our trust in Jesus
Holy Communion is modeled on the last meal Jesus shared with his disciples (the Last Supper), which you can read about in the Bible at Luke 22:7-22.
After a reminder is given of these things in the service, whilst you remain seated, trays of individual cups of grape juice and plates of pieces of bread are handed around the congregation. We encourage you to take this opportunity to do business with God in the quietness of your own heart.

I do not know what they use for the 'Prayer of Consecration', probably it is better I never find out.  

On a much happier note, but still related to marriage, The NZ parliament has passed the first reading of a bill to allow same sex marriage by 80 votes to 40 (1 abstention). This is only the first stage and the bill now goes to committee with public submissions. The usual attacks and scaremongering have come from the Catholic Bishops and Family First.

While I oppose the economic policies of the Prime Minister, John Key, it is pleasing to see he is in favour of this bill.
Please note this fact, Julia Gillard, PM of Australia, who is personally not in favour while her Labour Party allows a conscience vote.  Note this also the Liberal Party of Australia, more aligned to the governing National Party of NZ,  which opposes and will not allow a conscience vote.

Various - mainly gay marriage and Jensen/GAFCON

Now that I am home, there seems little to blog about.  Or rather, the things I want to blog about are already filling other blogs. 

I am so happy about the gay marriages in California and the stand made by Rev Martin Dudley in London by marrying the two male priests. Like another Martin who made a stand and defied authorities in Wittenberg where I was less than 2 weeks ago.  I feel a little wistful reading at the happiness of these people.  I have only had just one relationship which lasted 18 months just over 25 years ago. 

I am also happy to see there are problems in GAFCON or gaffecon.  I could hug the Jordanians for keeping Akinola out.  There was an item in our paper about Jensen setting off for the meeting on the same day I received yet another request for funds from Anglicare  so I finally sent off an email and told them they were wasting their money sending me letters as I would not support any organisation of which he is President. I suggested he give them the money he spends jetting about the world aiming to destroy the Anglican church.  I bet he doesn't fly economy. 

They replied "Whilst ANGLICARE regret your decision to discontinue donation we nevertheless remain steadfast in support of our President and Chairman, Dr Peter Jensen, Archbishop of Sydney" 

which only confirms my decision.  I guess this was pointed at my referring to him as just Peter Jensen. The only titles I feel like giving him these days are unprintable. 

However, in case any of you have not visited Father Jake recently please read the article in Newsweek  Let Me Worship as I am

As far as I am concerned, it says it all.