The following statement is the first contribution from the Faith and Order Committee. We anticipate that the committee will have a variety of views as can be found in the church generally, so the next contribution will take a different line. So for now, here is an opening discussion starter.
What's the issue?
What is this new form of legalised relationship called the Civil Union and how will it fit with existing forms of relationship such as marriage and de facto couples? Are the issues identical for heterosexual Unions and gay/lesbian ones? How should the Church respond?
Let us start with the more familiar territory - marriage and find some guiding principles from there.
Principles of Marriage
"God's act of creation is an act of love, and every act of love is a call for a return of love. Love is, therefore, our first and fundamental vocation...Marriage can do no more than offer the opportunity, but it does this better than any other relationship on earth." (Geoffrey Robinson Marriage, Divorce and Nullity, Chapman Books, London 1985)
Human beings are created as an act of love and have a universal, existential need both to give love and to receive it. Being physical and social beings, this manifests itself in the majority of people seeking that love in an intimate physical, social, emotional and spiritual relationship with another person. Single people have the same need but may find that other networks of loving, though less intimate, relationships satisfy this universal human craving.
The fundamental principles of marriage that are so familiar to us are:
-
The relationship is based on mutual attraction and seeks to express, maintain and deepen a bond of love.
-
The relationship is faithful.
-
Commitment is unreserved in scope and time.
-
The relationship aspires to permanence.
Lust without love, violence, coercion and subservience have no part in the ideal of marriage or of any loving relationship, even if our sinful world often falls short of this ideal.
In Christian tradition such principles make marriage the most appropriate environment for the nurturing of children and the Church may continue to say that marriage is the most appropriate form of relationship between a man and a woman to reflect the essence of true love. Certainly, many Christians may want to continue to insist that the Church's public representatives should be married if they are in a sexual, loving relationship.
Civil Unions and de facto couples
So how should the Church respond to de facto couples living together and this new category of those in a Civil Union?
Clearly, such relationships display some if not many of the principles outlined already in relation to marriage. However, they are not marriage; they deliberately set out to be something other than marriage. Christians may want to say that whilst these relationships may bear resemblance to marriage in many ways, both de facto and Civil Union relationships "don't go as far" as marriage.
This could well mean that the Church welcomes such relationships in so far as any relationship based on love is to be treasured and supported, but the Church continues to urge couples to consider the even fuller commitment of marriage.
Obviously, adulterous relationships and serial monogamy (a repeated pattern of faithful but short-lived relationships) are an inappropriate expression of what the Church understands of the nature of true love.
Gay/Lesbian Civil Unions
Is there a good reason why the same principles should not apply? Stating it as neutrally as possible -gay and lesbian people can only find such sexual, physical and emotional satisfaction with members of the same sex. But are the basic needs in all other respects not the same as those operating in heterosexual hearts? If "Love is our first and fundamental vocation" as human beings and love finds its expression in physical, social and spiritual union with another person, then logically the Church might want to encourage faithful, committed, loving, permanent relationships in the gay/lesbian communities also. If this argument is accepted, the Church may well enthusiastically endorse the provision of Civil Unions as providing a legal and social framework for such loving relationships.
(Some Christians might wish to go further and make the case for allowing gay/lesbian marriage. Other Christians would wish to keep marriage as a uniquely heterosexual expression of love that has its own obviously unique standing in its natural ability to bear new life. However, gay/lesbian marriage is another debate. This debate concerns Civil Unions).
Conducting Civil Unions in Church
Germane to the Civil Union debate in parliament last year was the argument that the Civil Union Bill does not establish gay/lesbian marriage. Marriage continues to be a legal provision open only to heterosexual couples.
A secondary aspect that is easily overlooked, is that the legislation is for Civil Union. Parliament has not assumed to legislate for the Church. The various Christian groups retain their freedom to establish their own theological positions.
However, should it be possible for representatives of the Church on church premises to conduct such ceremonies? The idea that representative people such as presbyters can lay aside such a mantle at will and conduct ceremonies as private individuals is hardly consonant with our theology and practice of ordination. The dilemma becomes even more acute if such ceremonies are conducted on church premises.
Could it be argued that to conduct such civil ceremonies on church premises, presided over by a representative person of the Church, changes the ceremony from being "civil" into a "religious" act? Does it not also run the risk of making the "union" appear to be "marriage"?
A useful parallel may be seen in the forthcoming marriage of Prince Charles. The marriage is to be a civil one. This means it must be held on civil (not Church) premises and presided over by a representative of the State (local registrar) and not of the Church. If Church involvement at this point would inevitably make the marriage lose any claim to be a "civil" ceremony, should we not apply the same logic in New Zealand with Civil Unions?
However, just as the archbishop of Canterbury will subsequently bless Prince Charles' marriage at the chapel in Windsor castle to demonstrate the Church's acceptance of the validity of state-conducted marriage and to show pastoral care and support for those who have been so married, could it not therefore be argued:
-
That the Church should not conduct Civil Unions, either by allowing its premises to be so used or allowing its authorised representatives (presbyters/deacons/lay preachers/minita a iwi) to conduct such ceremonies.
-
That the Church allow appropriate blessing services on church premises to be conducted by any authorised worship leader.
24 March 2005 on behalf the Faith and Order Committee.
Memorandum of Understanding from the Methodist Church of New Zealand website www.methodist.org.nz
Back to top | 
