Sunday, 5 October 2014

Book Review: More Perfect Union

The Revd Dr Charlotte Methuen has written a review of Bishop Alan Wilson’s book More Perfect Union. Dr Methuen is Senior Lecturer in Church History and Head of Theology and Religious Studies at the University of Glasgow.

Alan Wilson, More Perfect Union (London: DLT 2014). Pp. xx + 172. £9.99 (paperback).

In this short book, Alan Wilson, Bishop of Buckingham, presents the case for extending marriage to include same-sex couples. Written in the heat of the debate about the Church of England’s response to the legal introduction of marriage for same-sex couples in England in 2014, Wilson’s book brings together a host of arguments and data which should prove thought-provoking even to those who disagree with his conclusions.

Wilson opens with an autobiographical note: selected to be Bishop of Buckingham in 2003, his consecration service was originally to be shared with Jeffrey John, who had been appointed Bishop of Reading. Wilson recounts his sense of bemusement as John, a gay man living in a celibate partnership, was pressured to withdraw from the appointment. Over the years that followed, Wilson became more uncomfortable with the inconsistent position being taken by the Church of England. He began to recognise that what God wants for gay people “is no more than he wanted for all people – flourishing faith, hope and love, lived out individually and in community” (p. xvi). For Wilson “allowing gay people to marry became … an issue of justice and equality.” Consequently, he affirms, “rejoicing with gay people who marry … no longer seemed to me a concession to secular modernity, but sharing the good news of the kingdom” (p. xvii). That around 80% of the messages he received as he began to explore these issues were supportive, suggests, Wilson remarks that, “the vast majority of people seemed to be travelling along a road like mine, including a sizeable number of Evangelical Christians” (p. xvii). This book is in many ways the account of that journey.

In Chapter 1, “Gay and straight in Church and State”, Wilson traces the legal status of gay people in the last 50 years, and the way that the Church of England has and (mostly) has not responded to the increasingly widespread recognition of same-sex relationships. These developments have taken place in wider context of rapid changes to patterns of relationships: in the early twenty-first century, people are marrying later than was the custom in previous generations, and they do so “to seal and not to form permanent relationships” (p. 15). That is (although Wilson does not make this point explicitly), the vast majority of couples who marry are already living together, and many have children. Marriage has come to be seen as the affirmation of a relationship, rather than marking a beginning.

Wilson next turns to the question “Unnatural?” Considering the accusation that same-sex relationships are unnatural, Wilson observes that concepts of the natural have changed radically over the centuries. Paul, for instance, “disapproved of ‘unnatural’ practices like men growing their hair, or women cutting it (1 Corinthians 11:14–15)”; in the twentieth century, women were long prevented from running the marathon on the grounds that “their bodies were not made for such exertions” (pp. 20-21). Moreover, modern biology has revealed unexpected complexities in the definition of gender and sexual difference; the definition of sexual orientation is even more complicated. For Wilson, the important recognition is that all people have (as the 1928 wedding liturgy puts it), “natural instincts and affections implanted by God [which] need to be hallowed and directed aright.” Relationships, he suggests, “are judged better by their fruit than by their configuration” (p. 34).

“Equality or bust,” chapter 3, considers the question of the definition of marriage. Is it really the case that extending marriage to include same-sex couples would represent a profound – and indeed impossible – redefinition of the fundamental meaning of marriage? Wilson argues that in reality, marriage “has been radically and continuously redefined down the ages by the lived experience of married people” (p. 40). Moreover, this category, he suggests, has in the past included same-sex couples. Consequently, “portentous assertions that monogamy between a man and a woman has been the anthropological gold standard from the dawn of time are simply false” (p. 40). Wilson argues also that equality of treatment is fundamental to the biblical message: “St Paul tells the Romans… that ‘God shows no partiality’” (p. 51).

Wilson turns next to the biblical witness. In “Scripture 101” he considers how to read the biblical text, pointing out that the Bible was long used to defend practices which are now seen as wrong, such as slavery or the use of corporal punishment for children. Addressing “Things gays are liable to read in the Bible,” he considers the six biblical passages which might be held to speak to homosexuality (these, as he remarks, comprise 0.002% of the verses of the Bible, compared to around 10% of Bible verses which refer to matters of economic justice – p. 62). These verses, Wilson concludes, do not address homosexuality in the modern understanding of the word, but are concerned with men who take on the role of women in that they allow themselves to be penetrated during a sexual encounter. The single text which may refer to same-sex relations between women, Romans 1:26-27, could (although Wilson does not say so) equally be interpreted to imply that women were sleeping with men in ways deemed unnatural. Wilson does remark on the “complete absence in the New Testament of any of the extensive standard assortment of Greek words that would have been used naturally to describe the enormous amount of same-sex activity that went on in ancient cities” (p. 80). He concludes: “The discipline that enable Christians to hear the word of God according to the love of God is .. obedience to the New Testament injunction to discern the spirits and make love our aim” (p. 81).

Considering “Biblical marriage”, Wilson points out that the Hebrew Scriptures contain “at least seven different definitions of marriage” (p. 84), most of which see marriage as a property transaction between two men, with a woman as the property. In the New Testament, “Jesus teaches that marriage is a provisional institution with roots in creation. … It is a way of arranging other matters of this age, like property, inheritance and dynastic legitimacy, all of them less important than the kingdom” (p. 89). It is emphatically not for all, and celibacy is clearly a favoured option. In the Pauline epistles, subordination of the wife is accepted as the norm, although men are urged to love their wives, and Paul certainly sees marriage as a mutual relationship. Marriage in the New Testament comes also to function as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and the church, just as in the Old Testament the relationship between God and Israel had been described in terms either of marriage or of harlotry. Here, none of the realities often cited as fundamental to marriage – gender difference, the ability to conceive children, or a particular understanding of sexual intercourse – can be held to apply.

In chapter 7, Wilson addresses “The irresistible rise of Christian marriage”, which he sees as involving four phases: marriage as a “pre-endtime encumbrance” (33-100 CE), as a “secular institution” (100-1200), as an “indissoluble sacrament” (since 1300 and still an ideal, although now “largely an empty shell”), and as a “partnership of equals” (since 1650 and increasingly seen as the ideal). Chapter 8, “Geopolitics and mission”, counters the argument that the persecution of Christians elsewhere should mitigate against arguments for equality in the North and West: “We know … that the Nigerian terrorist movement Boko Haram disapproves intensely of young women being educated… Would closing down [educational opportunities for women in the West] really moderate Boko Haram’s behaviour?” (p. 133). Wilson here also considers the meaning of unity for the Church, concluding that “Honest disagreement that takes everyone as seriously as everyone else can transcend any particular culture and offer hope to a world in sore and increasing need of reconciliation and healing” (p. 146).

In a final chapter, “The law of the land, and that’s great”, Wilson discusses possible ways forward for the Church of England in the face of the introduction of same sex marriage. Wilson sees this move as an opportunity for the Church: “Marriages that are good news reflect equality in diversity and a genuine reciprocity, their own personal and distinctive complementarity, that is bigger than the imposition of crude gender stereotypes, Such marriages offer a special opportunity for those within them to reflect the vales of the kingdom of God in which all are equal” (pp. 163-4).

This is an important book. Wilson admits from the outset that it “is not, in any sense, an academic tome” (p. xvi). There is a wealth of evidence here, some of which would have benefitted from brief references or indication of further reading. Wilson is keen to emphasise the shifting meaning of words, but takes 1 Tim 5’s “widows” in a modern sense, as women whose husbands have died, neglecting the meaning of women who choose to live without men; this flattens the meaning of that text and in my view warps his interpretation. I would have like more reflection on developments between the Pauline letters and the (almost certainly pseudepigraphical) Pastoral epistles, which seem to represent a rather different understanding of the role of women than that offered by Paul. The style suggests that this is a book written in haste, and it certainly speaks to the moment. But that is necessary, and right: and it is much to be applauded that a bishop of the Church of England has chosen to speak out on the question of equal marriage.

Charlotte Methuen

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Sunday, 5 October 2014 at 4:00pm BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Book review | Church of England
Comments

This book by Bishop Wilson has sprung from a personal encounter with prejudice - that of a fellow churchman being denied advancement in his calling due to his sexuality. That was God speaking to Wilson just as surely as Scripture counts as God's Word. As people read this book, and other books which follow, change will occur. Hearts will be moved.

Posted by: Pam on Monday, 6 October 2014 at 12:00am BST

I'm not convinced. He only manages to make a case by ignoring all contrary views.

Posted by: Ian Paul on Wednesday, 8 October 2014 at 1:43pm BST

The contrary views espoused by Ian Paul have been discredited as harmful, unscientific and absurd.

Posted by: FrDavidH on Wednesday, 8 October 2014 at 4:22pm BST

But Ian, isn't that how most of us construct an argument to contribute to a controversial debate? Most of the "contrary views" that you mention have ignored the view that Bishop Alan is arguing. I don't see why he should have to construct his argument in relation to differing viewpoints.

It's a bit like challenging someone who is arguing for higher welfare benefits, or for more money to be spent on hospitals, with the argument: "Yes, but where will the government get the money to build submarines?" It's an unfair expectation to lay on someone who is arguing a minority viewpoint, as Wilson is in the context of Christian debate on equal marriage.

Posted by: Dr Edward Prebble on Wednesday, 8 October 2014 at 10:44pm BST

While Psephizo of course, attends respectfully to all views ?

and is not 'a parallell universe' !

Why is the thread 'above' this present one not taking comments after the one already there ?

ED: sorry, glitch on comments now fixed. Thanks for pointing it out.

Posted by: Laurie Roberts on Wednesday, 8 October 2014 at 11:38pm BST

Edward My response is yes and no. In his most recent, characteristically wise and pastoral, statement the Bishop of Oxford asks 'what does a good disagreement look like'. Part of the answer to that must be the sense that my opponent has heard and engaged with the best for my arguments - even if they turn out to be fatally flawed. I substantially agree with what +Alan is articulating but I find the tone too often feels impatient and dismissive in this respect. I can understand my conservative colleagues and friends feeling their convictions have just been ignored or pushed aside.

Posted by: David Runcorn on Friday, 10 October 2014 at 9:04am BST

He doesn't ignore the contrary views, but simply points out that their very basis is unsound.

That is what his detractors ignore, because it means that they have to deal with the fact that there is no good reason to take their arguments seriously.

Posted by: MarkBrunson on Friday, 10 October 2014 at 9:11am BST

Mark - as I say I support what +Alan is arguing for. I am a critical friend here. But 'simply points out' I think understates the tone at times. Likewise your 'his detractors ignore' is very sweeping - in fact illustrates the same tendency that concerns me in the book at times. I try not to assume that someone who disagrees with me is necessarily ignoring the arguments or refusing to take them seriously.

Posted by: David Runcorn on Friday, 10 October 2014 at 10:43am BST

David, my experience in the course of discussions on this issue is that there is a good deal of "ignoring" -- in that rather than a systematic conversational response, one finds a shifting pattern, marked by changing the subject or addressing issues of form rather than content. I have experienced this with well-educated and otherwise careful "conservative" critics, so I would not call them "ignorant." But it is a pattern that makes conversation difficult. One of the major tasks for any "facilitator" in upcoming conversations will be that of trying to hold interlocutors to the thread of the discussion.

Posted by: Tobias Haller on Monday, 13 October 2014 at 2:45pm BST

Ian Paul's review is far more detailed than this one. Yet people seem immediately to want to denigrate it. Vested interests?

Posted by: Rich on Tuesday, 21 October 2014 at 12:42pm BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.