Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Unholy Matrimony?

(from the Anglican General Synod in Canberra)

The General Synod yesterday voted to explore the possibility that people other than baptized Christians could be married according to Anglican rites, in Anglican Churches.

In some ways this is a startling development. Anglicans have always hitherto considered marriage in Church as a matter between Christians, and regarded it as one of those “commonly called sacraments”. Marriage is not of the same universal scope of baptism and eucharist, but has distinctive meaning for members of the Church in relation to the relationship - a "mystery" as Ephesians puts it - between Christ and the Church (cf. Eph 5:32) .

Mover of the Bill, Bishop Glenn Davies of Sydney, argued that marriage is a “creation ordinance” common to all human beings, rather than a “redemption ordinance” specific to Church members. He pointed out that the Church only began insisting that couples marry in Church about a thousand years ago.

Some support for the proposal came from those who like Bp Davies do not see marriage as a sacrament. Others were motivated by missional concerns, seeing enquiring couples (among whom gradually fewer were baptized as infants) as prospective Christians who should be welcomed, rather than deterred because they are not Church members already.

I myself raised in debate the basis of more sacramental understanding, which actually goes back at least to Augustine of Hippo around the year 400. Augustine saw the “creation” and “redemption” aspects as concurrent and cumulative for Christians, and hence spoke of marriage as sacramental, using "sacramentum" to translate the "mystery" of Eph. 5:32. In subsequent theology this was developed to suggest that all those married participated in a sacramentum vinculum – a sacramental bond – while Christians also participated in a sacramentum signum – a sacramental sign, echoing and making real for them the union of Christ and the Church. So this kind of theological reflection is more ancient than the actual liturgical celebration of marriage – sacraments were not always liturgical, it seems, and a wedding and a marriage are not the same thing.

The mechanism for change proposed to Synod was abolition of any mention in Church law of baptism as a requirement for those (or at least one of those) coming for marriage. The problems with this blunt legislative instrument are numerous. Existing Anglican rites, which would then be open to all, assume specifically Christian theology. There would be a great risk of encouraging cynicism and dishonesty, were those unable to affirm these beliefs encouraged to affirm them ritually.

It was pointed out that many baptized as infants and who come seeking marriage may not be more knowledgeable about or sympathetic to that faith than others without that sacramental connection. Christians however recognize baptism not as a meaningless act, even if one who underwent it does not remember or even respect it. Baptism is the means of incorporating members into Christ’s Church – and the importance of our recognizing it, even in such marginal circumstances as the marriage of nominal Christians, is fundamental. Abolishing the requirement of baptism would therefore have implications for understanding baptism and Church, as well as the sacramentum signum that Christians have traditionally seen in marriage.

In fact the decision made by the General Synod was merely one to talk further around the national Church. An attempt to have the motion actually passed at the Synod was clearly lost. The “Provisional Canon” process adopted instead sends this proposal to all Dioceses for their discussion and review, but requires ¾ of the Dioceses to agree, including all the metropolitan Dioceses. This seems unlikely.

It is not impossible that these future discussions give rise somehow to a workable model including distinct rites that can be offered to couples other than Church members, respecting their status as seekers. Yet such measures will also have to satisfy Anglicans that the sacramental character of marriage – its capacity to be a sign to and for Christians themselves – can also be preserved.

Monday, October 22, 2007

Praying for Rain

(From the Anglican General Synod in Canberra)

In a General Synod so far dominated by procedural and legislative concerns, one large and pressing issue has made its presence felt – water.

At the time of writing, Synod was waiting to deal with scheduled motions addressing the environment, and an unscheduled proposal to give a large slab of the national Church’s financial reserves to Dioceses affected by the drought.

Local delegates from the Canberra-Goulburn Diocese have made clear their own concern and struggles arising from the drought. A bus trip from Canberra to Goulburn was also a visible reminder of the challenge facing rural Australia. One leader at the opening prayers was visibly moved, choking on the words “God, send the rain”.

The need to place an issue so wrenching in words of deep, even desperate, prayer is real. The Psalms reflect the same deep honesty of those who suffer deeply from natural or human causes, and who call out to God seeking relief and even challenging God, asking why they have none.

The yearning for God’s intervention is profound when it is “doxological” – in the immediate context of prayer, as the transparent statement of our deepest longings and hopes. Yet praying for rain does not have quite the same significance when made “systematic” – as a general statement of Christian belief about the world and its relation to God.

The Church cannot afford to make it seem that praying for rain is the major, let alone the sole, form of Christian response to this crisis. The risks are various. First there is the danger of a crudely mechanistic view of God’s activity, as though divine presence consisted in otherwise unexplained alterations in natural patterns and processes. Second, there is danger of a transactional view of God as a sort of cosmic concierge who fixes things when asked properly, or often enough.

Faith is deciding to make sense of life from the perspective of the ultimate. Droughts as well as storms, and everything in between, are capable of being signs, and not just when they are either surprising or yearned for.

Christian faith in particular places the cross at the centre of history. It is a sign of God’s triumph, but a paradoxical one. To see God in Christ is to acknowledge that God’s solution to human suffering and crisis is not as easy – for God or for us – as pulling meteorological or political strings. God’s response is first that of solidarity with us, of sharing in our sufferings and our hopes.

This does not have to mean that fatalism is the preferred alternative to the cry of hope for rain. Much of what we suffer – including, it seems, climate change – is the result of our exercise of freedom, and the consequence of our failure to use it properly. To expect that relief should come from the clouds without significant change in our patterns of life is as much impious as naïve. The Church must change its own practice, partner with those most deeply affected, and challenge the whole community to treat the gift of creation with reverence.

And then, still, pray: “God, send the rain”.