In the spring of 2003, the Diocese of New Westminster, in British
Columbia, voted to approve a liturgy for the blessing of `same-sex unions',
quasi-marriages in which both partners are of the same sex. Shortly thereafter,
the Church of England was rocked by the appointment of Jeffrey Johns, an
openly gay man, as Assistant Bishop of Reading (he subsequently withdrew,
in view of the quarrels raised by his appointment). And ECUSA's General
Convention voted to approve the election of Gene Robinson, another openly
gay clergyman, to the Episcopate of New Hampshire, and he was duly consecrated
bishop in November. These recent events, along with others, have caused
great agitation in the Anglican Communion.
What follows is an expanded version of an article published last October
in Friendship, the English-language newsletter of the Diocese of
Taiwan. It is my wish hereby to present it to the Diocese, but also further
to the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, for consideration as
these issues are discussed.
I shall shortly have some thoughts to share on some specifically
pastoral issues regarding the Church's approach to homosexuals, but there
is one pastoral issue that I feel is of overwhelming importance. It is
this: Do we propose to set limits on the Grace of God?
It is a very, very, very serious matter to constrain, to restrict the Grace of God. In one sense, the whole ministry of Jesus Christ was to tear down the barriers that humans have placed between themselves and the Grace of God. Our whole religion is founded on the proposition that the Grace of God is not restricted. Therefore, to constrain the Grace of God, in any way, to any extent, for any but the most seriously and carefully considered reasons, on any but the most undoubtable grounds, is a very, very, very grievous sin; for it constitutes a denial of everything we stand for as Christians.
It does not matter that dozens of generations of humans -- of Christians -- have condemned homo-sexuality. The same claim may be made in opposition to the ordination of women. The same may be said in support of slavery and racism. Once the challenge has been raised -- once any group of Christians has raised the question whether we are justified or not in any limitation we impose upon the Grace of God, whatever it is, however well-founded that limitation may be in our eyes, honesty and honour behoove us to stop and ask ourselves, seriously, searchingly, sceptically, just how well-founded is it? For loyal followers of Jesus Christ, the burden of proof must always lie squarely on those who seek to limit the Grace of God, never on those who would extend it. For God's Grace always extends farther than we can imagine.
So the burden of proof lies upon those who seek to exclude homosexuals
from the fullness of the Grace of God as expressed in the Church. How have
they fared in bearing it? From where I stand, they have not done an impressive
job.
Some appeal to Scripture. Reference is made to Lev. xviii 22, xx
13, Rom. i 26-27, I Cor. vi 9-10 On the surface, this should be a serious
issue. But it is precisely here that the question has been called by those
who claim -- those whom the Church has trained -- to know Scripture best.
The general consensus of Catholic theologians seems to be that Scripture
has nothing to say about homosexuality per se -- because
what we call `homosexuality' was not recognized as a phenomenon at the
time the Bible was written. If this consensus is true, then it makes as
much sense for conservatives to quote Lev. xviii 22 or Rom. i 26-27 as
a condemnation of homosexuality as it does for Jehovah's Witnesses to quote
Acts xv 20 as a prohibition against blood transfusions.[1]
As thoughtful, intelligent Christians, it behooves us to bear in
mind the extent to which a superficial understanding of the words of the
Bible can be misleading. Allow me to remind my readers of a few notorious
examples.
Most of the mainline denominations have come to the conclusion that
Jesus' statement (Mark x 2-12) on the subject of divorce is actually a
major blow for women's rights. Jesus was working with-in a cultural context
in which an man could write on a sheet of paper (or the cultural equivalent
thereof) `I, YY, divorce XX', and a woman would essentially be out on the
street, almost all status taken from her, and with precious little in the
way of either financial support or opportunities of legal redress. It was
a consequence of severe discrepancies in legal status between the sexes:
To a man, his wife might be an inconvenience; to a woman, her husband was,
to a great extent, her sole source of either livelihood or social status.
And Jesus was fundamentally objecting very strongly to this legal &
cultural situation. But there are things even God Almighty cannot change
-- in the short term. Jesus did His best to lay the foundations for the
revolution in thought that has, among other things, ultimately led to the
situation we have now, where men and women are much more equal as far as
legal rights etc. are concerned. And in the meantime, He expressed
profound ani-mosity towards the whole notion of `divorce' as it was understood
in His time.
Let us also mention here the concept of `Messiah'. The word `Messiah' (meshiach) occurs in the Bible; the people of Jesus' time had a (popular) understanding of what it meant. But Jesus (deriving in part from the same tradition) had a very different understanding, and only in that different understanding could the title apply to Himself. He therefore had to force a redefinition of the term.
The Old Testament has a term (tsara'ath) that is traditionally translated `leprosy'. Under this term, the Law of Moses classes a large variety of skin diseases, some of which were apparently quite contagious, or at least feared as though they were. Modern medical science uses the word `leprosy' to refer to a disease that is not in fact very contagious, and which furthermore is actually a disease of the nervous system, not a skin disease at all. It is therefore quite incorrect and irresponsible to apply Biblical passages that mention `leprosy' to what modern medical science calls by that name.
The Bible has terms (krithuth in OT Hebrew, apostásion in NT Greek) that are usually translated `divorce'. But the meaning of those words is couched in a cultural context that is in many relevant ways radically different from ours, especially as regards the relative status, rights, and responsibilities of men and women, husbands and wives. The Modern English word `divorce', or its equivalent in other modern Western languages, therefore does not mean the same thing as the words used in the Bible, and should not be treated as though it did.
The Bible doesn't speak of `homosexuality' at all. The concept didn't exist in Biblical times. The Bible doesn't even have a word for what we nowadays call `homosexuality' -- because, like the nervous disease which modern medical science calls `leprosy', its existence was not recognized at the time.
The people we encounter in the Bible had terms in their various languages which we translate as `divorce', but what those terms meant to them is very different from what `divorce' means to us -- because of long-term cultural changes brought about in large part by the work of Jesus both directly and through the Church. And so it is ontologically quite incorrect for us in modern Western society to make direct reference to Jesus' recorded explicit views on `divorce' as grounds for denying or crimininalizing what in our own cultural context we call `divorce'.
And the same is true of `homosexuality'. A lot of people think the Bible speaks of `homosexuality' -- because for the most part we fail to recognize (being quite unaware of) what the Bible is really talking about. The oft-quoted passages in Leviticus are, in the considered opinion of the scholars we, the Church, have entrusted with the responsibility of discovering the true meaning of Scripture, referring to abnormal sexual practices used within a specifically religious context -- something fairly common in the cultural environment of the Middle East 3000 years ago, but that for the most part is quite alien to our experience in modern Western society (partly because of the ongoing influence of Christianity); what St. Paul is talking about in Romans and I Corinthians is what we would nowadays call `pederasty' or `child abuse' -- adult men taking advantage of boys, something that, again, was quite common in Greek society at the time. What we nowadays call `homosexuality' undoubtedly existed in Biblical times, but was not recognized by any of the Biblical writers as a distinct category -- rather the way a huge variety of skin diseases are all lumped together in the Bible under the label `leprosy', a term that nowadays refers to a not-very-contagious disease of the nervous system.
Words cannot be divorced from their cultural context. A word is part of a language, and a language is the property of a community and is an expression of that community's culture. To take a word away from its cultural context is to deprive oneself of any possibility of understanding that word at all.
Another example: The prophet Amos describes himself as a `shepherd' -- at least, that's how Amos i 1 is traditionally translated, and so he has traditionally been pictured as a simple shepherd. But 50 years ago it was convincingly argued that the passage in Amos vii 14 made more sense if it was understood to mean that Amos was not a simple shepherd but a government official with responsibility for oviculture and sycamore trees. Again, the `obvious' meaning that a word or expression has for us today, thousands of years after it was written down, is not the meaning it actually bears in context.[2]
Likewise, if the scholars are right in denying that the Biblical writers had any notion of what we nowadays call `homosexuality' and could therefore have addressed it specifically, then the Bible can offer us only general principles, not specific edicts, on the basis of which to judge homosexuality. And the general principles are manifest and are, one would hope, imbibed by Christians in every Eucharist: Love one another; Love your neighbour as yourself; All those who love their neighbours have fulfilled the Law.
Ah, but are the scholars right? Well, that's a fair question. Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge the conservatives are unable to answer it in the way that they would like; I have seen nothing in the way of reputable scholarship -- research that meets the general, conventional, standard tests of scholarship -- that refutes the arguments that have been made in recent decades redefining all those passages in the Bible that have traditionally been taken as condemnations of homosexuality as condemnations instead of cultic prostitution, pederasty, etc. To continue to condemn homosexuality on such a flimsy doctrinal basis is equivalent to continuing to condemn Jews for having murdered Christ or oppress women for the sin of Eve.
It is vital that we remember how easy it has been in the past for self- proclaimed Christians to quote Scripture, to cite Scriptural authority in support of this or that hateful, Satanic policy. 150-200 years ago, Gen. ix 18-27 was frequently cited as support for the eternal enslavement of Africans. Now, to us nowadays, at the dawn of the 21^st century, it is patently obvious that this passage has no relevance to the enslavement of Africans at all, but that's neither here nor there; in the early 19^th century, many well-meaning Christians' eyes were blinded by their cultural prejudices to this truth which seems so obvious to us. Likewise, Exod. xxi 21 was cited in support of abuse of slaves. More recently, Deut. vii 3 has been cited to oppose `miscegenation' -- interracial marriage. And 30 years ago plenty of Anglicans were citing I Cor. xi 3-16, I Tim. ii 12, iii 2-4, and Titus i 6 in opposition to the ordination of women. Yet the worldwide Anglican Communion has judged that such passages ought not to be understood in this way, even though on the surface it seems so obvious that that is what at least some of them mean. Given this history of not only wanton but unconscious distortion of Scripture, leading in many cases to great scandals and injustice, how confident can those who condemn homosexuality as inherently evil be that they are reading Scripture correctly? Especially when the general verdict of Biblical scholars is against them? How confident can they honestly be that their own eyes are not blinded by cultural prejudices, just as were those of the 19^th- century apologists for slavery? They must needs, in spite of all rational evidence to the contrary, be very, very confident indeed, because if there is the slightest possibility of their being wrong then they are guilty of the monstrous sin of withholding the salvific Grace of God from a certain percentage of the people for whom Christ died.
Some will plead that homosexuality is `innatural', that it is inherently
disgusting, repulsive. I know; i've seen it on the faces of many people
when the topic is discussed -- they clearly would rather not be
discussing it, it interferes with their digestion. I sympathize; I share
this feeling. The mental image I have of homosexual activity -- sexual
activity involving (in my case) two men and no women -- is revolting to
my tastes, my sensibilities. What of it? A certain amount of `normal',
heterosexual activity is also repulsive -- if one has to watch, as opposed
to actually taking part in it. Is this a fair basis for a moral judgment?
I have said this before, in other fora. I find homosexual activity disgusting. But I also find avocados disgusting. This is not a moral judgment -- but it is essentially the same judgment in both cases. My attitude toward avocados justifies only my avoidance of them in my own salads; it does not justify my forbidding them to anyone else (e.g. my parents or my wife, who enjoy them) or forbidding them from being sold in the local market.[3]
Likewise, merely because I find homosexual activity disgusting doesn't give me the right to forbid other people from engaging in it. I have homosexual friends, some of whom are actively involved in homosexual relationships; and I assume that, in their bedrooms, behind closed doors, they engage in activities that would revolt me if I saw them. But that's the point -- I am under no obligation to watch. I don't need to even think about what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. There's a word for people who insist on thinking about topics that they find revolting, even in the absence of any external obligation; that word is `pervert'. Homosexuals are not perverts. People who, not themselves homosexuals, insist on dwelling on the fact that homosexuals exist, and are occasionally engaging in sexual practices that they themselves find disgusting, those are perverts.
Besides all that, you wanna talk disgusting? Christianity is disgusting.
St. Paul (I Cor. i 23-25) makes no bones about it. Down through the ages,
ever since the 1st century, cultured people have complained about the barbarous,
revolting aspects of Christianity. My professor in graduate school told
me once about an Indian girl whose parents had enrolled her in a convent
school, and who came home one day in tears to report on the appalling things
these Christians did: `They eat their God and drink His Blood!!!!'
Christianity has always been disgusting; the whole of John vi, especially
vv. 60-66, consists of Jesus rubbing His hearers' faces in the appalling
offensiveness of the Gospel; and St. Paul recommends that we take pride
in the fact. Why should we cavil at homosexuality merely because it is
`disgusting' when we ourselves engage in monumentally `disgusting' activities
every Sunday -- and glory in it?
Some complain that in tolerating homosexuals we are allowing `the
World' to set our agenda. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is
not the World that teaches us to love and accept our neighbours. Just as
it was not the World that taught us that slavery was wrong and should be
eradicated; or that Apartheid was wrong; or that all human beings, whatever
their colour or race, deserved equal rights and dignity; or that women
should be allowed to vote, or take well-paying, responsible jobs, or serve
at our altars. The World taught us none of these things; rather, it was
the Spirit of Christ -- whether speaking through popular movements or in
the quiet of a single believer's soul -- that instructed us in these matters.
No, it is not the World that teaches us to tolerate homosexuals. Rather, the World teaches us to hate and fear and despise them and to abuse and torture and murder and destroy them whenever we get the opportunity. Ask yourselves, where have we learned such Satanic lessons? From the Bible? From the Spirit of Christ? Or was it from the Spirit of Rebellion, the Spirit of Hatred, the Spirit of Denial that infects the whole human race, the spirit from which Christ claims to have set us free?
It is true that in learning to tolerate and welcome homosexuals we are adopting an agenda that has already been enunciated by groups outside the formal, organized Church. This is no reason to reject that agenda; it is, rather, an occasion for us to confess our shame that we Christians failed to be at the forefront of such a movement, that by our intransigent deafness we forced the Spirit once again, as at the time of the Reformation, to challenge us from the `outside'. Or do we believe that the Spirit can only speak through the established channels of the formal Church? To anybody who thinks so, I would point out Isaiah xliii 18-19, xliv 25.
Those who disapprove of homosexuality and of homosexual activity in general must admit that their attitude is tainted at least by the fact that on many occasions it is expressed through fear, dehumanizing/demonizing hatred, vicious contempt, and violent malice often leading to the murder of homosexuals. While it is true that not all who object to homosexuality express themselves in such Satanic terms, they must admit that most of them do, and that their sentiments can never be far removed from such nastiness. By such fruits let such opposition be judged! On the other hand, the tolerant, inclusive approach espoused by ECUSA, etc. cannot be said to be tainted by such a Satanic agenda -- unless one starts with the a priori assumption that homosexuality itself is evil, which is precisely the proposition we have come to doubt, partly for this very reason.
Do we seriously believe that, when our Lord comes to judge the world, He will order the wholesale extermination of all homosexuals as Elijah did of the priests of Baal (I Kings xviii 40)? Or do we rather believe that He will look with wrath upon all those who, whether in His Name or not, have abused and tortured and murdered homosexuals and say, `Insofar as you did it to the least of these you did it to Me' (Matt. xxv 45)? Let us avoid Peter's mistake (Acts x 15); let us not condemn what God has blessed. The fear, hatred, and contempt that are so intimately associated with opposition to homosexuality are Satanic weapons; the Church of Jesus Christ should oppose all such, not give them countenance.
Many Anglican church bodies, especially in the Third World, express concern that our tolerance toward homosexuality will damage us in the eyes of non-Christians, especially Muslims, who hold harsher views. In this sense, our tolerance is a Scandal. Throughout her history, the Church has repeatedly struggled to avoid the scandalous aspects of her message; and whenever she has done so, she has always come to grief. Christianity is inherently scandalous (I Cor. i 23-25). We should be glorying in it (Gal. vi 14) and encouraging our Muslim, etc. brethren to open their hearts rather than trying to disguise the Scandal. Again, let us try to avoid Peter's mistake (Luke xxii 55-62): Let us not betray our Lord while trying to make ourselves look good.
Having yourself been accepted by Christ, are you prepared, are you willing,
are you able to defend the all-welcoming power of the Love of God to your
sceptical neighbours? Or are you going to allow the Grace of Christ to
be limited by their fears, hatreds, and prejudices? As heralds of the Gospel,
who sets our agenda? The fearful, hateful World, or the Loving Christ?
Then there is the old chestnut about `choice', the claim that sexual
orientation -- or at least homosexuality -- is a choice and therefore has
clear moral content, that homosexuals choose to be homosexual and therefore
can be judged on the basis of that choice in the same way as a murderer
who chooses to murder or a thief who chooses to rob. But nobody can provide
so much as a scin-tilla of evidence that anybody has ever actually chosen
to be homosexual. Why in God's Name would any rational human being choose
to be homosexual, when homosexuality is so universally condemned, denounced,
vilified? Why would anybody choose to put up with that kind of prejudice?
If homosexuality is a choice -- if sexual orientation is a choice --
then surely heterosexuality must also be a choice. But I challenge any
heterosexual to provide evidence of having chosen to be heterosexual.
I myself have no memory of any such choice; only of recognizing
the fact of my heterosexuality; from the moment I became aware that
sexual activity was something I might someday participate in, I knew
it was something I wanted to do with girls, and only with girls.
What I hear from my homosexual friends -- those who are comfortable discussing
the matter with me -- is that they went through adolescence trying hard
to convince themselves that, like me, they wanted to do it with members
of the opposite sex, and wondering why they couldn't seem to get up the
kind of motivation to do so that their friends could. If sexual orientation
were a choice most of my homosexual friends would be heterosexuals;
they certainly invested a lot more energy in `choosing' to be heterosexual
than I ever did! For me, it was just a given; they chose -- they
chose hard, they worked hard, trying to be heterosexuals,
and failed. What does that tell us?
It has been claimed that the election and ordination of Gene Robinson
to the episcopate, or the approval of same-sex unions, violates `Christian
teaching' about marriage, family, and morality. I confess that I am totally
unable to see how tolerance of life-style different from one's own invalidates
one's own life-style. So I need to ask, What do we believe to be `Christian
teaching' about marriage, family, and morality?
What I learned by observing my parents' marriage is that marriage
is a long-term bond of mutual support, involving a high
degree of intimacy. Overt sex is of course an important part of it
-- obviously, since not only do I exist but my younger brother as well
-- but my parents never conveyed to me the notion that sex was the be-all
and end-all of marriage.
My own personal experience necessarily reinforces the notion that sexual
activity, while very important, is not of central importance in maintaining
a healthy, wholesome marriage. I am living here in Taiwan as a bachelor;
my wife and children live in America, thousands of miles away, and I see
them only twice a year, for a total of 5-6 weeks out of 52. There is minimal
sexual activity between me and my wife. What there is a lot of is
talk -- mostly via e-mail;[4] I normally spend
3-4 hours a day, 5-6 days a week, composing messages which I then e-mail
my wife. And i get very upset if I have to go longer than 2 or 3
days without hearing from her in return. And really, this is true not only
of our relationship since I moved to Taiwan in 1997; it was always a part
of our relationship; although I admit that I was initially attracted to
her because she was a young sexually- attractive Episcopalian woman, what
really formed the foundation of our special relationship was that we enjoyed
talking to each other and listening to each other, often for hours on end.
The BCP says that marriage has the following purposes: j mutual
joy k mutual help and comfort in prosperity and adversity l God willing,
the procreation and nurture of children. I would note here that, while
for most of us sexual activity is a very important part of the `mutual
joy' aspect, the only one of these purposes for which it is essential is
the procreation of children -- not their nurture, only their procreation.
I would argue that, by BCP standards, a wholesome homosexual relationship
can fulfill all of the functions of a wholesome Christian marriage except
the procreation of children, and that therefore such a relationship should
be not only accepted but, within reasonable limits, blessed and defended
by the Church.
I would note the ranking of the purposes of marriage as listed
in the BCP. The procreation and nurture of children is put last,
which suggests that -- to the extent such evaluations are appropriate[5]
-- if one has to choose, it is the least important; mutual joy, help, and
comfort are of more value than `many sons', as the Bible would say. I would
note also that the command to `fill the Earth' in Gen. i 28 has been quite
adequately carried out; while children continue to be necessary not only
to our delight but to our well-being as a species, we don't need any more
than we're getting; indeed, we could stand to reduce the amount of procreation
that is going on. We need to take better care of the children we already
have, rather than being concerned about getting more.
The Church has always accepted that the procreation of children
is one of the proper goals of marriage, and has tolerated
the notion, popular in many societies, that it is the chief goal
-- but the Bible repeatedly hints that there is something not quite right,
not quite wholesome about this narrow view: Recognizing that human society
in general tends to condemn the sterile wife or the sterile marriage, we
repeatedly find in the Bible that God has special blessings in store for
just such situations (e.g., I Sam. i 8; Wisdom iii 13; Luke i 25).
In fact, in the end the belief that the primary purpose of marriage, or of sexual activity, is procreation is nothing more than a survival of an essentially pagan religious orientation that tends to exalt natural sex -- and procreation as the natural consequence thereof -- to divine status.[6] And Biblical religion has staunchly opposed this view since the days of Exodus. The Judfo-Christian tradition regards sex as a wonderful thing, as (at least potentially) an excellent means for the expression of God's Love, but in the end it is merely a thing, a part of Creation, not God, and we put our souls in serious danger when we forget this, as we are very prone to do.
The question, therefore, should not, should never be: Can these two people, bound together in a matrimonial relationship, produce children? but Can these two people, bound together in a matrimonial relationship, provide each other with the ongoing loving support & challenge that will cultivate in them the Fruits of the Spirit? And I submit that the answer to this question does not depend at all on whether the people involved are of the same sex or of opposite sex; in either case, it is just as likely to be Yes (or No).
It is quite true that there is deep, great symbolic significance to sexual activity between a man and a woman, significance that is absent from any other human relationship, whether homosexual sex, or friendship, or relationship between parent and child, etc. I would be the last to deny this. And I would agree that, for this reason alone, the heterosexual relationship we call `marriage' should continue to have a special status among relationships defined and sanctified by the Church.
It is not my intention to advocate all homosexual relationships; I certainly
wouldn't advocate all heterosexual relationships. I have been taught that
a sexual relationship between a man and a woman depends for a lot of its
sacred value on its duration -- it is a long-term bond, a long-term
commitment. It is my belief that any long-term relationship, sexual
or otherwise -- any relationship that provides all of its participants
with pleasure, satisfaction, support, and comfort over a long period of
time -- is inherently holy and partakes of the quality that St. John extols
so repeatedly in his first Epistle.
What is it about the fact of a long-term homosexual relationship
that calls into question the value of a wholesome heterosexual marriage?
Why does tolerance of Gene Robinson's relationship with his partner somehow
render invalid `Christian teaching about marriage, family, and morality'?
Are we saying `Any long-term intimate relationship that is different from
the one I'm involved in casts doubt on the validity of my
marriage, and therefore must be condemned'? Such sentiments have been voiced
in the past in opposition to interracial marriages -- people (claiming
to be good Christians) have felt their own marriages threatened because
someone else, someone of their acquaintance (or perhaps not even that,
merely someone they'd heard of) was marrying a person of a different racial
background. Such people have even been able to extract passages from the
Bible (e.g., Deut. vii 3 or Ezra ix-x) which, torn from their original
cultural context, seemed to support their fears. The Church has rightly
condemned such bigotry. Having done so, on what grounds can the Church
condone anti-homosexual bigotry?
Several years ago, the Episcopal Church took a major step towards increased tolerance of divorce and divorced persons. A clergyman wrote to Episcopal Life complaining about this `abandonment' of long-held `tradition', and at least implied that the Church's decision to tolerate divorce somehow robbed his own marriage of all meaning and value. Reading that letter, i wondered, What sort of marriage does this man have, that seems to derive all its value from his belief that to terminate it would be a sin?
Likewise, I wonder, What sort of marriages are we condoning, if they
must be justified by the denial of their benefits to 10% of the population?
How does forbidding 10% of my fellow humans to marry make my own marriage
any better, any more secure, any more wholesome or holy? Do we really want
to say to our homosexual brothers and sisters, `I, as a married heterosexual,
have something you cannot have, and you must not be allowed to have it
because if you did my own marriage would suffer thereby'? Is that the kind
of loving, welcoming, Christian message we want to send?
What does the Church's rejection of all homosexual relationships,
whether long-term or fly-by-night, teach about morality?
It puts us on the side of those who persecute and murder homosexuals in the Name of Jesus, and this is intolerable.
It must be noted that the issue here is not simply the elevation to the episcopate of Gene Robinson, a man openly involved in a long-term, wholesome homosexual relationship. It is also the (proposed but cancelled) elevation to the episcopate of Jeffrey Johns, a celibate homosexual. Some oppose the episcopate of Gene Robinson on the grounds that he is flagrantly involved in a sexual relationship that they find immoral. But that doesn't apply to Jeffrey Johns; he was pressured into withdrawing his candidacy for a bishophric merely because he was of a homosexual orientation, not because of any actual sexual relationship.
As my wife has noted, the message this sends the world is that the Church
expects its homosexual members to lie. To lie to the Church, to
lie to themselves, and (in doing the latter) to lie to third parties: In
order to cultivate the erroneous belief that they are normal, heterosexual
people, homosexuals often enter into `normal', heterosexual marriages which
they are nevertheless unable to maintain because their natural sexual orientation
drives them in another direction. The result, frequently, is that their
spouses, unaware of the real nature of the problem, tend to blame themselves,
to exacerbate doubts (which we have all entertained at one time or other)
of their own sexual desirability. The result is that the Church -- the
Body of Christ on Earth -- has `caused one of these little ones to stumble'
-- and not just one; thousands, perhaps millions of people down through
the centuries have suffered in this way. And we, the Church of God, are
liable for every one of those. I know i, for one, am horrified at the thought
of carrying that kind of guilt. Are those who object to both Gene Robinson
and Jeffrey Johns willing to bear it on my behalf? Or are they going to
self-righteously declare that it is not their problem?
There are some who try to distinguish between a homosexual orientation,
which is presumably innate and unchoosable, and homosexual activity,
which must at least to some extent be willed and is therefore subject to
moral choice, and who argue that a homosexual orientation may be morally
neutral, like the colour of one's eyes, but homosexual activity is cleary
& explicitly condemned by Scripture and therefore must be wrong. They
would suggest that the only moral option for a homosexual is a life of
celibacy. There are at least two serious problems with this approach.
One is that, worked out in reality, it is clearly a distinction without a difference. As already noted, Jeffrey Johns is a homosexual who has committed himself to a celibate lifestyle. By the arguments just mentioned, he has made the only moral choice. There should be nothing wrong with him; indeed, in having resisted whatever temptations he has faced and resolutely stuck to this decision -- the only moral option, according to this argument -- he should be honoured. And yet his appointment to the episcopate aroused just as much ire as did Gene Robinson's election. The conclusion we must necessarily draw from this is that, whatever pious evasions our conservative brethren may hide behind, when push comes to shove all that matters is a person's innate sexual orientation; if he is a homosexual, he is to be condemned no matter how he manages to live with that fact. Celibate, promiscuous, or participating in a long-term committed monogamous relationship, makes no difference, all are tarred with the same brush. Clearly, a homosexual Anglican might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb.
The other is the notion that any fact about a person, or a person's vocation, that is not directly and explicity related to marriage-type issues should ipso facto constitute a vocation to celibacy. The Roman Church has long maintained that the vocation to the priesthood ipso facto constitutes a vocation to celibacy. We Anglicans have, since the Reformation, consistently rejected this notion, maintaining, in the words of Article XXXII of the Articles of Religion, that `it is lawful for [clergymen] as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.'
If we accept the claim that a Christian, having discovered hannself to be homosexual by orientation, must upon that discovery renounce any possibility of any long-term sexual/conjugal relationship, we will definitely need, in light of the long-standing, time-honoured practice of both the Roman and the Eastern Communions, to seriously reconsider our own long-standing belief that it is fine for priests and bishops to be married.
Now, it is evident from his public pronouncements on the subject that Gene Robinson regards the long-term relationship he is involved in as `serving better to godliness'. Some may disagree with him; but then, the same may be true of a great many heterosexual marriages -- it may be debatable to what extent they `serve better to godliness'. Be that as it may, the question of whether it is possible for a long-term homosexual relationship to be wholesome and godly is a very controversial one and one that merits much discussion and honest soul-searching. For myself, I admit that I would like very much in this area to avoid the error of Peter in Acts x 14-15. But, as already noted, to some extent that is beside the point, because as it happens Gene Robinson, who is involved in a long-term homosexual relationship, is a bishop, while Jeffrey Johns, who is not involved in any such relationship but has rather maintained a celibate lifestyle, has had to withdraw his name from consideration for a miter. The conclusion that any reasonable person can draw from this circumstance -- plus the controversy over Robinson's consecration -- is that `lifestyle', whether celibate or monogamous, is totally irrelevant; all that matters is innate orientation. Which makes about as much sense, at a certain level, as saying that it's OK for dark-eyed people to be bishops but not blue-eyed people. Or, perhaps more relevantly, it's OK for men to be bishops but not women. Or White people but not Black people. Take your pick.
St. Paul clearly (I Cor. vii 1, 8) felt that celibacy was in general
preferable to marriage, but the Church has never -- at least officially
-- taken his manifest preference as licence to condemn marriage wholesale.
St. Paul's own advice (I Cor. vii 9) is very relevant here: Celibacy is
a special grace, vouchsafed to a few but not to all; I have seen no evidence
that it is vouchsafed especially to homosexuals. And if, in fact, our homosexual
brethren are subject to the same class of sexual temptations that we are,
then for them too surely `it is better to marry than to burn'.
As a scholar, I am particularly upset about the Church -- supposedly
in service to the God of Truth -- stooping to sheer, base lies, obscurations,
and distortions in attempting to `resolve' her current dilemma. The Primate
of Nigeria declares that he is unable to so much as share the same room
with a homosexual; one wonders, how does he know whether a person with
whom he is otherwise totally unacquainted is homosexual or not? Do homosexuals
smell different, or something?
The AAC has recently raised monstrous specters of what we can supposedly expect if homosexuals are given their way on these issues -- visions of our children being `sodomized' in schoolyards, malls, public restrooms, etc., vigorous attempts made by the ravening gay community to `convert' our helpless offspring to their evil `culture'. There is not a shred of evidence that homosexuals in fact behave this way; only the rhetoric of those who fear them because they are different supports these outrageous claims. Has the Church of Christ sunk so low that she must trot out such lies to support her cause?
Such scare tactics are not new. Similar threats were made in previous generations about the consequences of e.g. granting freedom or voting rights to Blacks or welcoming Jews into our hospitals, universities, legislatures, etc. If they are to be heard with respect, the AAC must explain why their fear-laden rhetoric should be considered Godly when those previous incarnations -- pled just as passionately and with just as much conviction of their fundamental righteousness -- are no longer considered acceptable by Christians.
The Statement of the Moscow Patriarchate in denouncing Gene Robinson's consecration is of great interest in this regard. The Patriarchate speaks not of `homosexuality' but of `homosexualism', as though what is under discussion is not a matter of taste or orientation but rather a philosophy or religion -- something to which converts might be won by persuasion or compulsion. That this is precisely what the Patriarchate imagines they are addressing is confirmed by the mention, among the `terrible consequences' of the tolerance of `homosexualism', the claim that `even people with normal sexual orientation are joining in homosexualism' -- the old canard about homosexuality (or whatever it's called) being contagious, or communicable, or that in some fashion it is possible to induce `people with normal sexual orientation' (i.e., heterosexuals) to adopt a `homosexual lifestyle', or to turn a `normal', heterosexual person into a homosexual by means of e.g. homosexual rape. This claim has been made -- often with great passion -- for decades, but so far as I know no one has yet been able to supply a single shred of evidence supporting it, a single instance of it's actually happening.[7]
The Moscow Patriarchate further claims that `Homosexualism is a sin, which separates man [sic] from God'. One wonders on what basis this claim is made. Can actual examples be presented of people who have been `separated from God' by their `homosexualism'? And if so, can it be rather that these people have been separated not from God (from Whose Love nothing in Heaven and Earth can part us -- Rom. viii 35) but from a human organization that, calling itself the Church of Christ, presumes in the Name of Christ to condemn them without understanding the truth about them? Or is it simply that `homosexualism' is defined as separating one from God? If there is a philosophy or religion that might be called `homosexualism', I daresay it might; for such a religion is precisely what is being condemned in such passages as Lev. xviii 22 and xx 13. The Law of Moses is here talking precisely and specifically about `homosexualism' -- the use of homosexual activity as part of a religious cult -- not about what is nowadays called `homosexuality', the existence of which was not recognized in Biblical times. There is no question that the Bible condemns what the Moscow Patriarchate calls `homosexualism'; the problem -- the very fundamental problem here is the confusion between `homosexualism' and `homosexuality'. They are no more the same than `heterosexuality' and the practice of engaging in wild sexual orgies.
But in fact, `homosexualism' is not Gene Robinson's or Jeffrey Johns' religion; Christianity is. As far as I know, both are fine examplars of that creed. And I am personally acquainted with several fine, valiant, upstanding, wholesome Christians who are filled with the Love and Truth of our Lord & Saviour Jesus Christ who just happen to also be homosexuals by orientation. And all the Biblical condemnations of `homosexualism' are inherently irrelevant to such people, for `homosexualism' is no more part of their lives than it is of mine.
Addressing another aspect of popular misunderstanding of what homosexuality involves, Tom Ambrose in a posting on the `Thinking Anglicans' Website comments on the historical background specifically of Ugandan Christians, especially Anglicans, toward the subject of homosexuality, noting that the founder of the Anglican Church in Uganda, James Hannington, was martyred by King Mwanga for the crime of denouncing the King's sexual depravities: `Rulers with absolute power have always felt free to indulge their sexual appetites, usually taking many wives and "concubines" irrespective of the wishes of the women concerned. But Mwanga was interested in young men, and his committing of homosexual rape was considered shocking. ... With such a history, it is easy to see how Christians in Uganda would find all homosexuality utterly repugnant. ... Had the King abducted and raped young women, far less would have been said. Indeed, those who introduced the Christian faith had to come to an accommodation with polygamy of various kinds in Africa. To some extent it still continues, and in many parts of the world women are still "married" against their will. Sexual union should be based on mutual love, care and respect. Christianity has always recognised this as being best exemplified within freely chosen monogamous marriage. However, many people have come to recognise that for those whose desire is for someone of their own sex, the same qualities of mutual love, care and respect can be exhibited. The love the couple have for each other can make them more able to share love, expressed other than in sexual ways, with many others. This kind of relationship has nothing to do with homosexual rape, just as Christian marriage is not expressed in forcible abduction of young women for sexual purposes.'
To this can be added the example of Canaan Banana, the first Black president of Zimbabwe, who was convicted in 1998 of `sexually assaulting male aides'. There is no doubt that homosexual rape -- just as much as heterosexual rape -- exists. The African churches, and the Church in general, needs to go to a fair amount of trouble to clarify the difference between rape, whether heterosexual or homosexual, and a committed, long-term, loving relationship, whether heterosexual or homosexual. It needs to be made clear that the kind of activity that King Mwanga was guilty of is precisely what St. Paul is denouncing in Rom. i 26-27. The Church has always condemned such behaviour, and rightly. But it must be clearly understood that a homosexual is no more likely than a heterosexual to be a rapist or an abuser of others. To condemn homosexuality in general on the basis of King Mwanga is equivalent to condemning heterosexuality in general on the basis of Jack the Ripper or the Marquis de Sade. Or condemning Christianity in general on the basis of the behaviour of the Crusaders.
The Archbishop of Canterbury expresses great distress at the vicious hatred evident in a lot of the letters he has received from self- described `Christians' opposing the elevation of Jeffrey Johns or Gene Robinson to the episcopate. If in a controversy between two opinions, one opinion is often expressed through vicious hatred and anger -- to the point of death threats -- and the other is consistently expressed in terms of loving openness and peaceful understanding, which opinion is more likely to be consistent with the Mind of Christ?
If you really are a Christian, and if you really believe that homosexuality is wrong, it should be possible for you to express that opinion without recourse to the language of hatred and bigotry. Can you?
If we Christians don't want to be forever tarred with the label of the Crusaders who rejoiced in the burning of Jerusalem and the devastation of Eastern Mediterranean civilization, we should resist mixing into one stereotyped category on the one hand tyrants and molesters like King Mwanga and Canaan Banana and on the other wholesome, devout Christians like Matthew Shepherd and many others I could name but who would rather I didn't for precisely this reason. There are self-described `Christians' who (rather like Osama bin Laden) honour Matthew Shepherd's murderers as heroes and celebrate his supposed condemnation to Hell; there are high-ranking Anglicans who would, if they could, refuse to be in the same room with wholesome Christians like him. Will you join them? I, for one, am grateful that my God, and my Church, welcomes such people as Matthew Shepherd, never mind that their tastes or their biological reactions are different from mine. God has accepted you; will you accept those whom Hann has accepted?
[1]The technology required to perform blood transfusions didn't exist in Biblical times; it was impossible for the Biblical writers to address the moral issues specifically relating to it. Therefore, the Bible cannot give us specific direction concerning the moral rightness or wrongness of blood transfusion; all it can give us is general principles on which to judge such questions; and the most relevant such principle is stated, not in Acts xv 20, but in John xv 13.
[2]Indeed, according to Jesus ben Sirach (Eccles. xxxix 3-7), it is precisely the responsibility of scholars to ponder, examine, and bring to light the `obscurities' and `hidden, non-obvious meanings' of Scripture. Are we then to turn away from their work when they `shower forth words of wisdom'?
[3]It might justify my refusal to buy them -- but, out of love for my wife, I might even occasionally be willing to do that. Though on the whole I would rather she selected and bought her own avocados.
[4]In some ways, our marriage reflects a joke I once heard: What's a four-letter word that ends in `k' and means `intercourse'? -- `Talk'.
[5]Ideally, they aren't, but there are admittedly cases where they must be; cf. I Sam. i 8.
[6]Indeed, the vitriol that has been poured out on the issue of the rights of homosexuals to marriage and ordination, like that of the ordination of women 30 years ago, is harsh evidence that many of us still cherish a bloated notion of the theological/spiritual importance of sex, sexual identity, and/or sexual orientation.
[7]This fantastic claim, of course, is one of the major grounds for anti-homosexual violence -- the fear that the mere existence, or proximity, or whatever of homosexuals will somehow `corrupt' us or our children, leading us or them into a Sinful -- or, perhaps more importantly, Degenerate, Disgusting, and Disallowed -- Lifestyle. In the name of protecting ourselves and our children from imagined corruption by homosexuals, violence has been perpetrated not only against actual homosexuals but against a wide variety of (mostly) men who happen to be heterosexual in their sexual orientation but whose overall character doesn't fit the macho, he-man image of the `true' heterosexual male. The Church must address the question of how her traditional condemnation of homosexuality has contributed also to this violation of the Image of God.
Please sign my guestbook and
view it.
Statistics courtesy of
WebCounter.
