Same-sex Marriage and the Book of Common Prayer

by Evan McWilliams; brought up in conservative evangelical non-conformity, he is now Associate Vicar at St Mary Abbots in Kensington

The Form of Solemnisation of Matrimony, typically called the marriage service, is one of the chief delights of the Book of Common Prayer. Whether conducted in the original English or in one of its many period translations – I had occasion last year to declaim the preface in the French translation of 1665 – the elegant prose elevates even the simplest wedding to a stately, almost courtly, plane.

Among the many conversations currently underway in the Church of England’s continuing LLF deliberation is the nature of any liturgical resources that would allow the blessing of same-sex relationships. What might such blessings sound like? What theological underpinning might be necessary to acknowledge the validity of those relationships and how, if at all, might this differ from marriage as the Church of England has understood it?

With the Book of Common Prayer in hand, I cannot help but think that the theological question in particular already has an answer. Stable and legal same-sex relationships can and do already fulfil the causes for which marriage was ordained as outlined in our church’s official liturgy.

First, marriage ‘was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.’ Some have argued that same-sex marriages, because they lack procreative potential, are invalidated. It is easy enough to point to the many couples who, by virtue of age or physical condition, cannot by their union produce children. Yet the Church does not refuse marriage to the infertile or the very old, nor does it denigrate their capacity to bring up children in the fear of the Lord. Nurture of children within a life-long, loving relationship is something many same-sex couples long for, and which many already perform.

Second, marriage ‘was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication.’ What we acknowledge of opposite-sex couples, we ought to acknowledge of same-sex couples: that the temptation to abuse the gift of sex is tempered by the avowed stability of a marriage. Frankly, given how same-sex relationships are portrayed by some in the Church, one would think providing marriage as an answer to promiscuity might be rather higher on their priority list. Preventing same-sex couples from conceiving of their relationships as life-long and exclusive marriages actively promotes a flippant attitude towards sexual relations and fails to promote proper Christian continence.

Third, marriage ‘was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.’ Though perhaps the most common reason given by opposite-sex couples desiring to marry, this final cause for which marriage was ordained is sometimes best observed among same-sex couples who persist in Christian belief and practice despite not being accepted by some in the Church of England. One may be forgiven for wondering why LGBT+ individuals continue to claim the name of Christ when many of their fellows refuse to acknowledge their belief. Continuing to believe, and to believe together as faithful Christians, sets same-sex couples apart from their opposite-sex counterparts whose relationships, regardless of their belief, are both named and supported by all wings of the Church.

If the causes for which marriage was ordained can be fulfilled by same-sex couples, there is nothing to prevent the extension of marriage to them. In fact, such an extension would be to practice the theology the Church of England already functionally espouses; marriage is a life-long covenant between two persons intended for the growth in faith of a family, the tempering and channelling of sexual appetites, and for mutual support through good times and bad.

The necessary theological groundwork for extending the umbrella of Christian marriage has already been undertaken in the context of the ordination of women to the priesthood. That the Creation narrative is no longer understood to set out the immutable subservience of women to men, and that St Paul’s teaching about male headship, both in the Church and the home, has been found to contain within it the germ of true equality should give sufficient building blocks for seeing same-sex marriage as not only a possibility but a necessity.

The liturgical resources hitherto proffered for consideration, primarily concerned as they are with blessing individuals in relationship without explicit reference to the nature of those relationships, same-sex or otherwise, are not only inadequate but unnecessary. As an intermediate step they actively delay the inclusion of same-sex relationships in the liturgical life of the Church. Far better to recognise that marriage as the Church of England conceives it has room already for both same- and opposite-sex relationships.

The best way to deal with same-sex relationships is to see them as part of the existing system of teaching set out by the historic formularies. Equal marriage is the only viable solution to the current problem the Church of England faces and if it can be performed in consonance with the noble language of our church’s finest liturgy, so much the better.