If anyone had any doubt as to the significance of the Civil Union legislation for the Anglican Church in New Zealand, they need only to have listened to Linda Clark’s Nine to Noon talk show on National Radio, Monday, 21 June. Her guests that morning were Bishop John Bluck, Diocesan Bishop of Waiapu and the Rev’d Hugh Kempster, Vicar of Grey Lynn in Auckland. In the course of the conversation, Mr Kempster announced his determination to be among the first to register as a civil union celebrant when the new law is passed, so that he could solemnise same-sex civil unions within his parish church and follow it by a service of blessing. “I want to ‘test’ the Church on this,” Mr Kempster declared.

Space prevents me from addressing the supposed authority on which Mr Kempster wishes to base his unilateral action. Instead, I wish to focus on what response the Church should make to this new category of ‘civil union’ in the event that the two bills before Parliament become law. Should the Church, following the ‘prophetic’ voice of Mr Kempster, register its clergy as civil union celebrants as well as marriage celebrants? In the future, will couples approaching the Church wanting to enter into a public and exclusive relationship, be offered a choice of civil union or marriage? Should the Church recognise and ‘bless’ same-sex civil unions? The answer to all three questions should, in my view, be no!

For it is my contention, that although the church would want to respond with compassion to all who sincerely wish to commit their lives to one another, nevertheless there can only be one service of marriage that the Church publicly offers and that any priest in licensed ministry who becomes a civil union celebrant should be subject to discipline. In addition, that if the civil union bill becomes law, the Church should continue to distinguish between heterosexual and homosexual unions. For while the Church can do nothing less than recognise heterosexual civil unions as sharing the same status as marriage, the same argument cannot be applied to homosexual unions. The reasons for holding this view do not depend on some adverse psychological state, or on a literalistic interpretation of the Bible. But rather, I believe, they turn on a deeper understanding of the essence of the marriage relationship as the Christian Church understands it.

For marriage must be considered a ‘social’ act, before it becomes a ‘religious’ or ‘political’ act. By this distinction I simply mean to point out that the essential character of marriage is established independently of the offices of either the Church or State. The State may ‘register’ a relationship (and name it whatever they choose – whether marriage or civil union), the Church may “witness…celebrate…pray” (NZPB, pg 780), but in the end, the ‘social-family’ context is primary. The essence of marriage consists of a man and a woman, publicly declaring their intention to live together as husband and wife (whatever their particular cultural understanding of what this might entail). The Church may wish to teach a particular view of ‘Christian’ marriage and invite couples to acknowledge the spiritual significance of their action. The State may wish to ‘register’ that relationship for the good ordering of society. But in the end, while the Church celebrates and the State legislates, neither is essential for the marriage bond itself.

This distinction is clearly implied in the thematic text of Genesis 2:24 as well as from the church’s practise down through the centuries. In Africa today, if a couple are married according to tribal lore, they are not ‘remarried’ by the Church but simply ‘blessed’. So, it matters not whether the State wishes to use two registers, a civil union register and a marriage register, the Church is bound by its understanding of creation to recognise both as referring to the same social contract, which the Church traditionally calls ‘marriage’. Therefore the Church cannot offer two services of blessing, as if a civil union was of a different order to that of marriage, without doing violence to the meaning of one or the other.

As a consequence, it is inappropriate for Anglican priests to conduct civil unions, for by doing so they are failing in their duty to uphold the Church’s understanding of Christian marriage. This is also why the Church cannot allow the blessing of same-sex civil unions. Because the equation ‘civil union’ plus ‘blessing’ is marriage! The State, in its wisdom, can choose to ‘register’ any manner of relationships and homosexual relationships may be one of them. But that does not then force the Church to alter her understanding of marriage.

The Church’s understanding of marriage remains founded on the complementary union of a man and a woman, and as a consequence the Church can only recognise heterosexual unions as marriage. And I believe that this conclusion can be arrived at quite independently of the (albeit related) question of how one regards the morality of homosexual sex. The pastoral instinct that wishes to affirm homosexual civil unions quite independently of careful theological reflection is, I suggest, ultimately misguided and unhelpful. Therefore, heterosexual civil unions, if New Zealand law allows it, can be recognised within the Church without the need for re-marriage, though a service of prayer for God’s blessing may well be appropriate. Whereas, homosexual civil unions must continue to be unrecognised by the church if we are to remain true to our Christian heritage.

Rev’d Malcolm Falloon

Warden