User:Paul Aidan Smith/sandbox

= <!-- Intimate Diversity: An Anglican Practical Theology of Interreligious Marriage. The book 'Intimate Diversity' is a piece of action research work in the growing discipline of practical theology. It is based in a series of interviews with couples who have married from different world religions. In all couples, one spouse was Christian whilst the other was Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Baha’i. The book arose out of a doctoral thesis on the same subject and is aimed at the Church of England although the Christian theology developed in the book will apply to a wider Christian and interfaith audience. What follows is a description of the findings and arguments put forward in the book. Definition A brief definition of what is meant by ‘intimate diversity’ is proposed: Intimate diversity is the marriage of two individuals from different religious traditions and is a distillation of the dialogue of life. It represents loving commitment to radical, mutual and unconditional religious hospitality which is receptive to and honouring of difference. Introduction In a world which has developed into a “global village” people from different backgrounds, cultures, races and religions live in closer physical proximity than they ever did in history. In addition, the internet has provided an unimaginably greater opportunity for people who are diverse in many ways, to encounter one another. But fear, suspicion, alienation and violence marks much intercommunal relationships. Faced with conflict between communities many can have negative reactions and often retreat into that which is familiar to them in an effort of self-preservation. Despite such divisions, there are growing instances of couples who marry across social boundaries, and whilst inter-racial marriage is more common, interreligious marriage is less common. Despite their rare appearance, such couples may carry a significance that reaches well beyond their number. There are even fewer instances of critical study of interreligious marriage and the experience of couples who enter this kind of marriage. “Intimate Diversity” is a theological exploration of the meaning of interreligious marriage and tackles the question: what grace is there in the gift of interreligious marriage?’ Experience of interreligious couples Eleven couples were interviewed in the course of doctoral research, investigating how they met, decided to marry and what the reactions of their families and religious communities were. They discussed the challenges they encountered, including those surrounding bringing up children. Four main topics emerged: -	personal compatibility;  -	creativity in mediating between religious traditions;  -	negotiating different religious identities;  -	responses of others to interreligious couples. Contemporary sociological research and theory about marriage falls into three broad strands according to Val Gillies (Family and Intimate Relationships: A Review of the Sociological Research, London: Families and Social Capital Research Group, South Bank University, 2003). These are the reactionary, the alternative and the liberal. Reactionary theory depicts marriage and family life as breaking down and the remedy is a return to “traditional” forms of family structure, including clear roles and responsibilities. Alternative or feminist theory rejects conventional family structures and provides a critique of patriarchy. These two opposite responses can be thought of a prescriptive in that they seek to analyse a perceived dysfunction in the contemporary family and propose remedies. The liberal approach seeks to be descriptive as it analyses what the features of modern marriage are, and how they have developed and differ from earlier forms of marriage and family life. Principle in liberal theorists is the sociologist Anthony Giddens who proposed the concept of intimate democracy to encapsulate the equality of relationship that marks many marriages and domestic relationships. Intimate Democracy Anthony Giddens’ general approach to contemporary marriage and cohabitation is based on the concepts of the self as a reflexive project and marriage as intimate democracy. These provide plausible interpretations of contemporary marriage on which Paul Smith draws to enhance his proposed theology of interreligious marriage. Where sociology interprets human experience in social terms, practical theology works from human experience, including non-theological means of interpretation, using the fruit of that exercise in a dialectical conversation with Christian norms. The fruit of that conversation is a renewed agenda, a fresh practical approach to the Church’s mission in the context of human experience. The key concept of the book: intimate diversity arises from this liberal sociological understanding of marriage. Four Hypotheses The key four findings of interviews with interreligious couples are developed into four propositions or hypotheses. ‘Hypothesis’ is not meant in a scientific manner but is meant as abductions, plausible explanations which have two functions: to encapsulate couples’ experiences succinctly and to provide assertions verifiable by further investigation as they are tested against theological norms. This process leads to practical conclusions about the Church’s response to interreligious marriage. The hypotheses cover: -	individual choice and group loyalty; -	mediating religious difference through faithful imagining;  -	enhancing religious identity through honouring difference;  -	critical commitment to interreligious marriage by the Church to foster blessing and hospitable dialogue. THE FOUR HYPOTHESES ‘TESTED’ BY THEOLOGICAL NORMS OF MARRIAGE Christian beliefs, as with other traditions and systems of belief, settle around that which is considered normal. The Christian understanding of marriage includes viewing it as a calling of vocation of God; as a covenantal relationship and as a union commonly referred to as ‘one flesh’. The four hypotheses are ‘tested’ by examining them for evidence of these three theological norms. The conclusion is that if interreligious marriage displays elements of these norms, then the Church can not only accept it but is actually called to celebrate it. The outcome of this action research or practical theology is in three tasks that the Church is called to fulfil, and these will emerge from the exploration that follows and form the conclusion. Intimate diversity as vocation The first hypothesis states that interreligious couples marry because personal compatibility is more significant to them than group loyalty. However, couples can experience opposition or even ostracism from their family or religious community. This is because their choice of marriage partner is thought to be crossing a boundary that is unacceptable. There are many reasons for such a response, but basically each community sees its member “marrying out” as transgressive. A more critical and appreciative understanding of the experience of such couples and how they negotiate their relationship between two traditions, however, can lead to an apparently “transgressive” relationship being, in fact, a divine calling. In Christianity marriage is seen as a vocation, a divine calling to this way of life. The idea of vocation in human life as found in scripture applies both to Christian life generally and more specifically to marriage. Interreligious marriage can be interpreted as a form of calling to social cohesion. Couples develop the skills necessary for a diverse society to live with difference. Interreligious couples can therefore be seen as pioneers, showing the way in living with difference in plural society. Intimate diversity and religious belonging This has implications for religious belonging and whether interreligious marriage corrodes or enhances continued connection to a religious community or tradition. Vocation to interreligious marriage also entails the negotiation of religious difference. The second hypothesis considers not so much the consent to be married to the religious other but its most significant implication: the negotiation of religious difference. It states that difference in interreligious marriage is mediated through faithful imagining. A second Christian norm of marriage is the idea of covenant. This encapsulates the relationship between God and God’s people, in which God is committed to God’s people (eg Israel, or the Church), and the people are commanded to be faithful to God. Covenant has three aspects: unconditional love; permanence; and the involvement (or witness) of God. These elements are reflected in the experience of interreligious couples and can be traced in meaningful ways in all three Abrahamic traditions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). Interreligious couples display the three elements of covenant in their commitment to each other and in striving to maintain their connection to their own religious traditions, seek the involvement (or witness) of God to their permanent, loving bond. Far from being transgressive and corrosive of religious belonging, interreligious marriage can enhance, encourage and provide a way in which religious belonging is deepened. Intimate diversity and faithful imagining Imagination plays a significant role in sustaining faithfulness to religious tradition. The imagination enables couples to work creatively with their inherited traditions in working out solutions to the challenges of negotiating difference in their real lives. Ben Quash provides insights into the structure of imagination, described by him as forwardness and betweenness. According to this structure, couples’ creativity in working out how to, for instance, celebrate their wedding or conduct their childrens’ initiation ceremonies, is both forward looking and is a negotiation between traditions. Kwok Pui Lan’s postcolonial and feminist theories also enhance an understanding of the role that imagination plays. She identifies three movements of the imagination at work in the post-colonial mind which are the historical, dialogical and diasporic. This analysis of the function of the imagination for interreligious couples demonstrates that an aspect of the Holy Spirit’s work in human consciousness is the way in which the imagination is engaged. The role of the imagination in facing challenges in mediating religious difference and finding ways of tackling recalcitrant aspects of interreligious marriage is described by the second hypothesis as faithful imagining. Embodied intimate diversity The third hypothesis states that interreligious marriage enhances religious identity through honouring difference. This is ‘tested’ by the biblical norm of marriage being ‘one flesh’. This norm raises the question of what is the nature of a person incorporated into the body of Christ being one flesh with a spouse who is not. In what sense can they be ‘one flesh’? The answer is not in any attempt to unpick paradox but in contemplating such tension and examining it for signs of divine grace. Interreligious marriage is an embodiment of unconditional commitment to both intimacy and diversity. Such union is generative in that it enables more authentic and distinct religious commitment. In this sense it is therefore an intimate form of the dialogue of life and holds potential to nurture the ability to live with difference. In this sense, it can be viewed as sacramental: the grace of peaceful and mutually enhancing living with difference is embodied in an interreligious marriage. If this is the case, then the Church is called to recognise and affirm such union. Not only this but honouring difference in the union of one flesh can also be seen as divine creativity. The conclusion is that intimate diversity is not justified by means of diverging one flesh from two bodies incorporated into different religions. That forces a false dichotomy in the experience of interreligious couples and a misunderstanding of biblical anthropology. An accurate depiction of intimate diversity can be cast in terms of openness, commitment and generative embodiment. In answer to the question the book explores, interreligious marriage can convey the grace of fruitful relations between religions and be celebrated as a divine gift. Missional responses to intimate diversity The fourth hypothesis states that critical commitment to interreligious marriage fosters marital blessing and hospitable dialogue. The challenge for the Church in its response to this mystery of union with the religious other lies in a religious community acknowledging the blessing that the consent of its children to marry the religious other can bring. As part of their respective religious traditions, interreligious couples and their families rely on their communities for affirmation and support. Critical commitment means constructive criticism which supports couples but is truthful about the problems of living with difference. Evidence from interreligious couples demonstrated that the threat of ostracism or pressure to have a spouse or children convert to one side’s religion was counterproductive. It simply pushes couples away from their background faith communities or family relationships. Ostracism or pressure to convert are ways of trying to coerce religious choice or identity on couples. Thus, the faith tradition loses individuals who might otherwise retain a connection. Coercive responses are also a contravention of the human rights to freedom of conscience and choice of marriage partner. The proper Christian foundation for all relationships is the command to ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ (a widely accepted Golden Rule in many religions and world beliefs). A full working out of the implications of neighbour love brings with it the demand for radical hospitality: making room for the neighbour who is different even to the extent of risk to one’s own identity or self. The Church (and by implication) other religious communities would best respond to interreligious couples and their families by exercising radical hospitality towards them. CONCLUSION	 Three Tasks for the Church Three aspects of the Church’s response to interreligious marriage follow a movement from internal to external implications in the Church’s relationships: first, the Church can understand intimate diversity as a special calling rather than a transgressive union. Second, the Church’s relationship with those for whom she is pastorally responsible, including interreligious couples is to be informed by this basic theological understanding. In this pastoral response the Church recognises responsibility for accompanying the vocation which is not only peculiar (special) but also covenantal. This includes articulating their experience as carrying the potential for transformation, not just of their own faith development but that of their religious community, providing the social capital that is generated by living in harmonious diversity. Third, the pursuit of responsible, peaceable and public mission in plural society means that the Church’s public task is to celebrate intimate diversity. The public task facing the Church of England is to learn from and inform interreligious marriage for the enhancement of society. There are two ways in which this may be pursued in the public arena. First, the Church may provide a role model in rereading normative traditions of marriage, encouraging other religious communities to respond in like manner. A second avenue will be that dialogue is broadened to include the wider public. The Church, together with her religious partners, in learning from interreligious marriage, has an opportunity to present a wider, more positive and life-enhancing image of marriage through contrasting a religious approach with a secular one. The Christian view of marriage as vocation and seeing interreligious marriage as vocation to intimate religious diversity means that the Church has a duty to declare to couples, the wider community as well as herself, the significance of vocation to this kind of intimacy. At the same time, she is to articulate the truth that the religious other is not solely the spouse but includes the wider circle of each spouse’s belonging. The commonwealth model of marriage developed over time in the Church of England highlights the potential of marriage to benefit not just the couple or their nuclear family, but all those connected with them in a network of social, religious and political relationships. The implications of this through interreligious marriage include the potential for deeper cohesion in a plural society. Not only are the couple in a position to draw diverse traditions together but their dialogical intimacy is symbolic of the possibility of living peacefully with diversity. The Church’s pastoral and public support for such marriage enhances her mission to English society as a whole and is an expression of her commitment to the commonwealth of religious traditions that are now at home in England. --> =