Evangelical Christians and the Civil Partnership Bill 2009

Following the statement by the Evangelical Alliance Ireland about the Civil Partnership Bill, VOX magazine has offered our Conversation blog as a forum where Christians can share their views on this issue. Below is a copy of the statement. Please join in The Conversation and post your views below.

Statement by Sean Mullan, General Director of the Evangelical Alliance Ireland

The Irish Government has published a Bill that will establish Civil Partnerships for same sex couples to give them rights, obligations and protections once they are registered with the state. Many of the rights are similar to those currently offered to married couples under Irish Law.

What is the Civil Partnership Bill 2009?

The Bill
The Bill is the Government’s response to the fact that same-sex couples are now a part of life in Ireland and to political pressure to legislate for gay marriage. The Bill’s aim is to provide rights, obligations and protections for same sex couples that are, in many ways equivalent to those which are provided under law for married couples. In addition the Bill provides some protection for other cohabiting relationships but this protection is limited compared to what the Bill provides for same-sex couples who register as civil partners. (Full details of the Bill are available at http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2009/4409/b4409d-memo.pdf )

The Context of the Bill
The context in which the Bill arises is that of a radically changed Irish society. While by international standards Irish marriages are reasonably robust there are huge changes taking place. Co-habiting couples are now the fastest growing type of household in Ireland and less than one in five households in Dublin are “traditional” families i.e. a married couple with children. One third of all births are outside marriage and marital breakdown is approaching 10% (all based on Census 2006 figures). Same-sex couples have become a part of Ireland’s social fabric and there has been a growing pressure both from within Ireland and outside to provide legislative protection for same-sex couples.

Responses to the Bill
The Bill is opposed by people on numerous sides of the social cultural debate.

1) It is opposed by those who want homosexual couples to be allowed marry because the Bill doesn’t include the word “marriage” and does not confer rights to adopt children. They see this as being unfair and treating homosexuals as second class citizens.

2) It is opposed on the other side by those who believe that the Government is actually legislating for homosexual “marriage” and believe that this will undermine the commonly held view of marriage which, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in 1995, means “the voluntary and permanent union of a one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others for life”.

3) The Bill is also opposed by those who believe it will infringe on the freedom of conscience of those who disagree with same-sex civil partnerships. They believe that the Bill will be used to punish those who refuse to facilitate civil partnership ceremonies. Some people in this group are willing to support the Bill if an opt-out clause is added for those who do not wish to facilitate such ceremonies for conscientious reasons.

Despite the variety of opposition it appears that the Bill would have the support of a majority of people in the State who now see providing legal protection for same-sex couples as a human rights issue.

What the Bill does and does not do
The Bill is 118 pages long and is a complex piece of legislation. One expert says it is “the most far-reaching reform of family law in a generation.” But the Bill does not redefine marriage. This would require a Constitutional Referendum. What it does is legislate for relationships outside of marriage.

The Bill offers to same-sex couples the opportunity to have their relationship legally recognised and registered by the State. The registration of the partnership would take place before a State-appointed Registrar. The Bill provides for a ceremony to take place should the couple choose it but this would only be a civil ceremony. There is no legal provision for a religious ceremony.

The Bill provides for rights and protections for same-sex couples in areas such as
1) Protection of the couple’s home
2) Tax
3) Inheritance rights
4) Hospital visitation rights
5) Pensions
6) Maintenance payments
7) Separation and dissolution of the partnership

There is no provision in the Bill for same sex couples to adopt children. Nor is there any provision in the Bill for the protection of children in the event of a civil partnership being dissolved.

The Bill does not directly challenge the traditional understanding of marriage in Ireland. It is a piece of civil legislation that establishes a new form of civil relationship under law. The Bill does not deal with religious matters.

How should evangelical Christians respond?
We suggest that evangelical Christians should support the basic thrust of the Bill. The Government is seeking to legislate for greater justice and fairness for co-habiting couples, both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. As Christians we should support that stance. Co-habiting couples are a reality – this legislation seeks to deal with that reality from a legal perspective. We may disagree on the detail of the legislation but as followers of a just and compassionate God we can recognise the justice and fairness of providing some legal protection for the reality of both same-sex and opposite-sex cohabitating relationships.

Why do we say this?
There are a number of important Biblical and practical principles that have led us to this conclusion. As evangelical Christians our response to any situation should be shaped firstly by our understanding of who God is and how he acts in the world. The Scriptures are our foundation for this understanding. Jesus has come to the world, has died for love of all people in the world, has risen and will return to judge and rule the world. These realities must shape all we think and say and do.

The Christian Scriptures make it clear that God’s purpose for his gift of sex is that it would be the ultimate physical expression of love between a man and a woman in the context of the covenant of marriage. However, the Gospel requires of us that we show grace to those who fundamentally disagree with our convictions and who do not shape their lives according to what we believe is good for them. Jesus requires of his followers that they love and do good to those who oppose them or who hold to different ethical standards than they do.

The question we face is how followers of Jesus Christ are to live in a society that does not believe as they do and may even oppose principles we hold to, seeing them as out-dated, illiberal and even oppressive.

How do we move forward?
Some will criticize such a stance as a “cop out.” But the challenge to incarnate and commend an alternative way of living as followers of Jesus is no cop out. We face this challenge of showing the power and beauty of marriage as God’s intended context for sex, for the raising of children and for the thriving of society. We face the challenge of showing the strength of friendships, both same gender and opposite gender, that are based on loving as Jesus has loved us. Facing these challenges is no cop out. It is the essence of Christian discipleship.

The freedom of conscience issue
Churches or individual Christians may be fearful that the new Bill will be used to force them to co-operate with ceremonies to which they have a conscientious objection. It does seem from the text of the Bill that this is a possibility, however unlikely it may be in reality.

On a legal level, such enforcement would seem to clearly contradict the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights 2000 which guarantees “freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” However as followers of Jesus we can remember that he envisages such difficulties for his followers and prepares us for how we should respond to them.
Fighting for our rights on this one emotive and controversial issue is likely to be misunderstood and unproductive. However, given the importance of the freedom of conscience issue it may be wise to begin engagement on the issue with government and other interested bodies without narrowing it down to this one Bill.

Evangelical Christians should be the foremost advocates of freedom of conscience and religious liberty. It is the essence of the Christian faith that it is freely chosen, never imposed. It is a tragedy of church history that the church ever thought it could use the power of the state to impose Christianity on people. With that power now almost completely gone we live in different times.

As Canadian theologian John Stackhouse cautions us:

“Indeed we should use what influence we have left to help construct the sort of society in which we ourselves would like to live once our power to affect it has disappeared. ... How unseemly it is for Christians to fight in the courts and legislatures for what remains of the dubious honors and advantages of Christendom. There is no more prudent time to do unto others as we would have them do unto us.”

Making the Best of It: Following Christ in the Real World p 346.

Conclusion
Evangelical Christians have no automatic right to have their views preferred to those of others. Nor do we have a duty to try and impose Biblical morality on public life by force of law. We are in a new social situation in which the religious identity markers are losing their meaning in non-religious society. But why should we be afraid? If we are called to live as a minority in a society that no longer pays Christianity any particular respect then so be it. The early church lived in such a society and flourished. Christian churches live in such societies today and thrive.

It is possible to both articulate and live Christian values in a way that contributes to the debate on the lost point of moral reference in public life. In doing this we can and should support the notion of a public square in which all voices are free to present their case and argue for it in public life, including religious voices. In that arena it is up to us to argue and show that the way of following Jesus is the most attractive, the most intellectually coherent and the most life-giving way of all.

I wish to thank all those in the advisory group who helped me with the drafting of this statement. Sean Mullan

Spoilt for Choice by Warren Nelson

Choice and variety are strong selling points - ask any shopper. The attraction of the bigger shop, and the colourful catalogue, is in the amount of choice they offer us. We walk past the shop that only carries one type or brand of item.

Yet in the area of our faith and beliefs we quickly settle for one way of expressing what it is to be a believer. Maybe we feel safe with descriptions like ‘saved’ or ‘born again’ or even the more neutral ‘being a follower’ ‘a believer’ or ‘having a fulfilling relationship’. No wonder people soon walk past us; no wonder they soon stop listening to what we want to say.

This should not be because we have in the Bible a wealth of ways to express the privilege and blessings of being a Christian. The authors of Scripture used an abundance of rich and varied ideas to convey the greatness and wonder of their new life.

They spoke of being: In Christ; raised with Christ, citizens of heaven, or God’s own. They knew they had passed from death to life; they had been washed and renewed. They described themselves as living stones, heirs and children of God and a new creation. They had realized that God had said “Yes” to them in Christ. And so on...

There are dozens of pictures describing our new standing. You could do worse that note them down for yourself as you read the Scriptures, perhaps starting with all the descriptions given in Ephesians chapter 1.

“Misunderstandings often occur merely because two believers are using different… biblical pictures to describe the same reality”

If we make an effort to discover what we have, and are, more fully, then it will enrich our own faith as we explore our privileges and responsibilities. It will also help cooperation with other believers, because avoidable misunderstandings often occur merely because two believers are using different, and equally valid, biblical pictures to describe the same reality and experience.

Also, getting back to the shopping analogy, our witness will be more attractive. We will be using all the rich and varied resources given to us share our message with others. We should realise that people, being diverse in temperament and interests, will respond differently to ideas or explanations. If one way of telling our story doesn’t work, try another. We are provided with plenty to use. Like Paul we should be all things to people in order to win some.

A carpenter watched as his apprentice, making short shaky erratic strokes, tried to saw a piece of wood. Taking the saw the carpenter soon cut through the wood with long smooth confident strokes.

Turning to the apprentice he said “You bought all of the saw, so use all of it”. We have a storehouse, laden with truth in all its shapes, sizes and colours. We should use all of them in the task before us.

Warren Nelson, originally from Drogheda Co Louth, worked in the linen industry until he took up the challenge to communicate the good news, this lead to teaching at Irish Bible School in Co Tipperary. He now enjoys active retirement and DIY near Tullamore.

Join the Conversation: Do you think Christians have become limited or lazy in the way they describe and express their faith? How does Christian jargon hinder our message? Do you believe that the words and images we use can cause misunderstandings between believers? How do we deal with this challenge? Share your views, comments and questions below.

"Suffer the children to come unto me" by John McKeever

In the light of the Ryan Report John McKeever examines the concept of structural sin.

These words of Jesus have forever gained an additional, bitter poignancy in the Irish psyche. The children who did ‘come unto’ some of Christ’s earthly representatives for care and protection did suffer, and appallingly. While the country reels in shock, and grieves over the horrific detail of our hidden history, a critical analysis of the whole concept of structural sin may help us come to terms with the past and prevent further abuses.

It is difficult to imagine a more flagrant and systematic contravention of the central tenets of the Christian value system than the revelations of the Ryan Report. Both Old and New Testaments emphatically command us to protect the powerless – the raggy boys, the maggies, the migrants, the addicts, the prisoners and those people excluded by virtue of a physical or mental disability. This litany of some of the categories of exclusion may be collapsed into one meaningful term – the other. How are we collectively faring in regards to our treatment of these other others?

The theological study of sin is called hamartiology. This word derives from Greek and denotes missing the mark, as in archery. It is personal, individual and subjective.

Structural sin by contrast is corporate, communal and diffuse. It may be characterised more as a sin of omission than as a sin of commission. Our collective actions – through the proxy of our elected or appointed representatives – may be in the realm of commission; but our collective failure to monitor and challenge these representatives is often a sin of omission.

When our failure comes to light we experience a sudden collective guilt which painfully interrogates our individual and communal conscience. It is natural to seek someone else to blame. While the primary culprits are a relatively small and identifiable group of ‘serial abusers’, who may or may not face criminal justice, there remains the sweeping societal culpability for privileging the powerful and silencing the powerless.

The scriptures have much to say about structural/ corporate sin. God addresses and reproves the corporate nation of Israel again and again through the prophets. Injustices and abuse of priestly privilege are common themes. Jesus lambastes the Pharisees collectively with a blistering critique. He weeps over Jerusalem.

What would Jesus say to us as a nation in the light of the Ryan Report?

When the painful machinery of justice has ground to an eventual halt, this rhetorical question will still require a long and searching engagement. This is a ‘Damascus moment’ for the Irish people and like Saint Paul we would do well to not hasten to interpret what has just happened.

My 87 year old mother, a devout Catholic and daily communicant all her life, shocked me with her own considered response to the uncovering of this structural sin. “There is only one solution to this awful situation. That’s a new reformation. I am sorry to say it has come to that.”

Those unselfconscious words are for me a telling measure of the depth of the shock and disbelief we are all going through. I agree with her, but I think reform of the church alone stops short of what is needed.

John McKeever is 49 and from Belfast but living in Dublin. He overcame chronic alcoholism and has developed an award-winning personal devlopment programme, Staying Real, based on his own experiences and his reading in theology and philosophy.

Join The Conversation:
What do you think Jesus would say to the nation in the light of the Ryan Report? If reform of the church stops short of what is needed, what other changes must happen? Are we in danger of pointing the finger and blaming others rather than facing our corporate responsibility in preventing abuse? Post your comments and questions below.

Creating an attractive community of faith by Daniel Caldwell and Paul Cawley

There has been much talk about how church should look in the 21st Century. This has prompted a debate about how the emerging church should be shaped and what values should underlay that process.

Much has been written that polarises these two positions as “attractional” versus “missional/incarnational”.

“Attractional” church at its core is concerned primarily with changing the internal perspectives to “make church attractive” so that others will join. This is best demonstrated by the move within churches to create a comfortable environment which provides the invitation “come and see” and has driven the need for professionalism in all that we do.

“Missional” communities of faith are based around a ‘go live’ mentality, with people engaging in ‘mission’ where life is lived.

An “attractional” concept of church bases the interactions of corporate faith around events in church, while “missional” thinking emphasises the relationship between people. It’s not so much about putting on a good show to attract people, as being a caring community of people living out a relevant humanity-focused lifestyle.

I believe people coming to church should have a great experience. They should meet people, diverse in age, backgrounds, race and beliefs. They should encounter a community of faith that is more interested in the process and journey of relationship than the concept of hosting an event.

I can see why people like events based models. Some individuals love events and conferences, believing they offer an opportunity to engage with God instantaneously.

This can under value the process of faith. Process is about the long haul. We need a greater understanding that faith may be produced in a moment but is worked out in the daily engagement of life.

“Attractional” church ultimately boils down to providing people with a quality event with the view to attracting and keeping them. I believe this model has failed and will fail the church in the future because it reduces our ability to be relevant and ultimately to be human.

People crave authenticity. This current generation craves reality. They want a community of faith that doesn’t put on a show but is real.

When we strip away our lights, our stages and even our sermons, after the event only relationship will engage people in the things of faith. Humanity is drawn to humanity; to each other’s successes, struggles, doubts and fears.

We no longer want church that sticks to the script. We want it to be real; to show the good and the bad. Not so much to put on a show as to create an environment and community that welcomes questions, encourages doubters and ultimately reflects Jesus. The church is us. We’re not perfect, yet we’re all the world has.

The church is full of broken, flawed humanity strewn together by the bonds of faith, hope and love, all on a journey towards Christ and to reveal God to the world. To paraphrase Ed Stetzer and David Putman in ‘Breaking the Missional Code’ (2006):

Instead of creating services, may the church serve; instead of programmes may we start processes. May we move from “attractional” to incarnational. May we move from professionals to passionate participants; from formula to freedom and from ordered to organic.

Bishop Graham Cray said: "The church must always be willing to die to its own cultural comfort in order to live where God intends it to be." If we’re honest, we like our structure, our services and how we do church. However, for some of us it’s not working. We need to realise, that the church is not here for us.

Erwin McManus explains: “We are the church. The church is not here for us. We are the church and we are here for the world.”

We have the exciting mission of living the incarnation. Being the hands, feet and mouthpiece of Jesus; bringing the kingdom to earth, to humanity, to our school, colleges and workplaces. Ending the performance. Praying. Listening. Starting a conversation with our community, engaging them with destiny, justice, faith, hope and love. Living missionally. Living attractive lives of faith. Bringing the Kingdom on earth.

A collaboration between Daniel Caldwell, Principal of Carraig Eden Theological College and Paul Cawley, a member of the Leadership team at Greystones Community Church.

Join The Conversation:
What do you think church should look like in the 21st Century? Has the ‘attractional’ model failed? What will authentic faith communities look like? Post your comments and questions below.

Are we illiterate? by Trevor Morrow

Archbishop Dairmuid Martin, speaking to Bishops in Rome, described the scriptures in Ireland as “unexplored, almost alien territory”. 62% of Irish young people do not know how many gospels there are, 52% do not know the first book of the Bible and 95% don’t know the first of the 10 commandments. These were some of the findings of the Lansdowne Market Research survey conducted for the Iona Institute and the Evangelical Alliance Ireland in 2007.

In America 10% of adults polled in a similar survey believed that Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife and a staggering 82% thought “God helps those who help themselves” was a text from the Bible.

These statistics underline what most of us know intuitively, that Biblical illiteracy is at crisis level. The consequences for our culture are serious. In literature, Milton’s “Paradise Lost” or Dickens’ “A tale of two cities” cannot be understood without an appreciation of the Bible. In the Arts, Michelangelo’s “David” and Handel’s “Messiah” become meaningless.

However it is within the church that Biblical ignorance is frightening. At public worship, we give the page number before mentioning the book or the chapter and verses. Sadly this is necessary for members as well as new believers and seekers.

If the purpose of the scriptures is to bear witness to Jesus Christ, then the moral and spiritual implications of such illiteracy are dire.

Don Carson, the Canadian New Testament scholar notes that ‘earlier generations met the needs of illiterate believers with liturgy steeped in scripture, lectionary cycles, festivals designed to repeat the great narratives that stand at the turning points in redemptive history… Today even our few remaining festivals, our church-sponsored Christmas and Easter pageants, often have more to do with space raiders or being nice at school that they do with Biblical history.”

There is no quick fix solution.

JOIN THE CONVERSATION…
What is the consequence for Ireland if people inside the church do not know the Bible? How does a lack of biblical understanding affect society? Why are people not reading the Bible? What would be contemporary equivalents of traditional liturgy and festivals that were designed to help illiterate members of the congregation?

Add your comments below.

Decentralisation by Glenda Chop

Work the day, a long commute
Take-away instead of fruit
Tesco rush, put on the pot
Lidl needs a drive-through slot.
Visit Auntie, cat to vet
Dentist calling, baby’s wet
Pay the lecky, homework due
Neighbour lonely, tea to do
Mammy needs the garden done
Saturday a wedding’s on
Why I am a rotten Christian,
Never time for Jesus’ mission?

This poem describes life for just about everyone I know. We go through life at a blistering pace between work, home and family responsibilities. We collapse exhausted at the end of a day or week and take solace from our Christian guilt in whatever little pleasures our consciences allow. All the while, we wonder if we’ll ever have the time or motivation to do real ministry.

So here’s some good news…..God has made our lives to revolve around work, home and family! It is more important and is potentially more fruitful than anything else we do.

Our faith is meant to be real in the context of normal life. That is where it comes alive - in serving and loving those God has placed around us.

Instead, the church tends to create an alternative to reality disconnected from normal life. Sincere believers suffer from the angst of trying to live between two worlds: the world of church ministry and the world of living life.

Of course, we are ‘not of this world’. But that simply means that our centre, our focus and hope is on Jesus (not man) and that our values are His.

The real ministry of the church must be DECENTRALISED otherwise it marginalizes and devalues the importance of the majority of the hours and days of our lives. (Centralised ministry activities actually seem to take people away from the places and people God has put in our lives).

If you believe that your ordinary life is the most important place of ministry, you will be able to hear Father tell you how to do it with great effect. Think about this: the early church thrived and grew as they connected with people over meals and in homes and over back fences. At the end of a day of cooking and working and fetching and living they were tired too. But here’s the difference-there was no other plan.

JOIN THE CONVERSATION…
How can our faith be real in the context of normal life? Do you believe the ministry of the church needs to be ‘decentralised’? Do ‘centralised’ church events take people away from those they should be reaching out to?

Add your comments below...