Musing on orthodoxy

A long time ago in another universe (actually Dec 2006), I blogged about a letter signed by some church leaders of an evangelical persuasion relating to homosexuality and the standpoint Christians should adopt. I'd rephrase it now, but it made the point.

If you didn't click the link, I questioned the use of the term "orthodox" to describe a conservative ethical standpoint with regard to homosexual relationships. My point was that orthodoxy has historically been used to describe agreement with the historic Christian creeds - especially their definition of the Trinity and of how Jesus was human and divine - the Incarnation. In contrast, ethical issues have been matters of debate throughout the history of the church, and a key current debate centres around how we should understand same-sex relationships. Ironically, at the New Wine conference in the summer of 2006, I had noted that the speaker had talked about Jesus in terms that (at best) were perilously close to adoptionism without any comparable furore about a lack of orthodoxy.

Now there's an important note to make here. Ethics is related to theology, and theology has ethical consequences. The distinction is not as sharp as my opening gambit might suggest. However, it is indisputable that Christians have differed on a variety of pretty important ethical issues without necessarily resorting to labelling each other heretics / unorthodox.

Take, for example, the question of the use of force. Pacifists would argue from Biblical texts such as the prohibitions to kill in the ten commandments (Ex 20:13, Deut 5:17) and Jesus' injunctions to turn the other cheek and love our enemies (Matthew 5:39,44). Others would draw on other texts to assert that military service is accepted (e.g. no criticism is offered in Mt 8:9, and soldier is used as an image in 2 Tim 2:3-4) It is deduced from other principles that defending the innocent and order of the state is a common good. There is a long track record of Christians concluding that where necessary, the use of force and taking of life can be justified. This was developed into what is often called just war theory. 

My question is this: would we refer to someone on one side of the argument or the other as a heretic? Each is considering Scripture very carefully and thoughtfully, but they have drawn different conclusions.

Some would say to me that this issue is different from questions of sexuality. They would assert that the clear view of Scripture is that same-sex relationships are a no-go area, and those who say they could be are just swayed by the times. It's worth noting that early Christians were essentially pacifists until Constantine took power, but as emperors, kings (and later presidents!) claimed Christian faith, the use of force became not only accepted, but even actively encouraged. There is a case for saying that politics and power had a role in changing that ethical standpoint too.

Whether you're a pacifist or not, or whether you are socially conservative or liberal, I have a simple plea. There are people on both sides of these debates who are sincere, thoughtful, conscientious people trying to discern the will of God. All kinds of factors bear down on all of us to read our Bibles with some degree of selectivity. We set aside some texts, because we see principles from other texts as overriding them. Why else do some Christians allow divorcees to remarry, why don't we sell all our possessions, and why do we allow women to lead - let alone preach in church? The answer is that we bring other factors to bear to set those commands and prohibitions aside - the context of the passage in the wider text, the people it was written for, the issue it was addressing and so on. It's all about the delicate and complex art of interpretation or hermeneutics.

So by all means disagree over same-sex relationships, just as Christians have disagreed over other matters - including life and death for centuries. My plea is simply that we should avoid describing those with whom we disagree as unorthodox or heretical. To do so is to make a claim of authority that I, for one, am not prepared to own.

Antidisestablishmentarianism

I always wanted to find a good reason to use that word, and this morning's headlines produced the goods. Antidisestablishmentarianism, that remarkably long word was originally used to describe the movement opposed to the disestablishment of the Anglican Church in England, Wales and Ireland. That is the removal of the links between state and church. Currently, only the Church of England remains established within the UK; the Anglican Churches in the rest of Britain (and Ireland) are not. As such, the rest of this post addresses an English problem, although there will be related issues elsewhere.

Today gave an excuse to use the word, due to the Church of England's response to the Government consultation on same-sex couple marriage being the lead story It raised the question of the role of the Church of England in marriage. The fear is that there could be legal action which could force the CofE to marry same-sex couples. Currently the CofE registers marriages, and can call banns for couples, saving them the need to apply for a licence to marry. As such I am a registrar for couples eligible to get married in my Church. Not everyone has a legal right to get married in my church - they must satisfy requirements relating to where they live, their connection with my parish or their membership of my church through the Church Electoral Roll. In a limited number of cases, special licences can also be used. It is feared in today's response, that there is a real chance that a human rights ruling could insist that if you do weddings at all, you must do them for all. Not being a lawyer, I can only observe that we currently have a discretionary mechanism for considering marriage after divorce where the former partner is still living, so a similar set-up for same-sex partnerships might be a viable, legal way forward.

More concerning is the way the whole issue is unfolding in the media. The overwhelming message from the CofE, officially, seems to be one based on fear. The first is a fear that marriage will be undermined, with arguments that procreation and consummation are central. Given we marry people beyond child-bearing age, or with fertility problems, and due to illness or disability sexual relations can be impaired or impossible, do we say they are somehow second-class marriages? We have to be very careful about the logic employed. Surely the most important and lasting factor in the kind of marriage the church wants to hold as ideal is the quality of the relationship of the partners. It seems to me that one could put a very strong case that such quality of relationship is not confined to heterosexual couples. The official position of the CofE is some way from accepting that.

The second fear is loss of establishment (at least in the area of marriage). I blogged a few weeks ago in a post that one way forward might be for the CofE to opt out of the legal marriage stuff altogether. Then everyone gets married in a Registry Office and religious ceremonies are out of the legal sphere.

What's been interesting is the level of fear expressed in official reactions that this might actually be imposed on us, given the position of the church on gay marriage. I have never been a great fan of establishment. The Church's confidence and security in its mission and identity has to be that Jesus Christ is its foundation, not a set of legal links to the state. Establishment is an accident of history that gives the CofE a unique set of opportunities, which if removed do nothing to diminish its identity as part of God's church. Obviously it would have consequences - contact with couples and their friends and families and, of course, some financial ones too. However, I can't help thinking that if churches all around the world somehow manage, then it doesn't need a lot of faith to believe that the good old CofE could continue to proclaim the gospel, whatever the state decides about marriage.

The greater threat to our ongoing life and growth might be that we are perceived to be living in fear, rather than seeking ways to bring positive and challenging good news to our society.

Related articles

• Anglicans warn government over gay marriage

  ---

• Gay marriage is one of worst threats in 500 years, says Church of England

  ---

• Church warning over gay marriage

  ---

Is gay marriage a cardinal sin?

Sorry- couldn't resist the play on words, but I felt the need for one more post on marriage/partnership before I change subject.

Speaking of words, I think Steve has a lot of wisdom in his observation that we live in a culture of changing words and definitions. Whatever your opinion on how certain words are used, they do alter in a changing culture, and we may well be living in a time where the meaning of the word 'marriage' is changing. We no longer live in a society or culture where the only kind of relationship which can be registered and certified is heterosexual. In a parallel universe, the language might have evolved to give us a generic term for all kinds of registered partnerships, another term for gay ones and 'marriage' for heterosexual ones. If that is how things were moving linguistically, it would be quite logical to argue that the term 'marriage' be reserved for heterosexual commitments, without any moralistic overtones.

However, that's not where we are, and refusing to acknowledge that is like, well, insisting that 'gay' doesn't mean homosexual... Although the legal rights and responsibilities of civil partnerships are now the same as those for a married couple, the term 'marriage' clearly has a siginificance for those currently denied the opportunity to use it formally. I would genuinely be interested to hear more about that from gay people. I've heard the counter-argument from both ends of the opinion spectrum - from social conservatives who wish to deny gay people any equivalence, and also from gay people who reject the historical baggage that the term 'marriage' can carry. But there does seem to be a growing consensus that marriage is becoming the generic term.

What we have seen recently in the media seems to me to be one argument dressed up as another. The case presented by the Coalition for Marriage and others uses a lot of terminological and linguistic argument, and is careful to acknowledge the right of people to register a civil partnership, However, it is clearly backed by quite a lot of people who essentially disapprove of all gay relationships, whatever they are called and however they are registered. It also alienates those whose marriages have ended in divorce, asking for the following legal definition: "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others." There's a minefield there...

Maybe what we need now is simply to accept that the language is changing. How much difference will it really make in practise to the stability of traditional marriages to change the terminology?  If the Christians represented by Coalition for Marriage are so passionate about supporting marriage, wouldn't the energy be better put into helping people prepare for the commitment of marriage? Or helping them cope with the external pressures upon their marriage, or maybe resolve some of the baggage that can impair a relationship? Problems with communication, finance and latterly affairs arising from relationships formed on social networks are some of the biggest factors damaging marriages. Many people don't even choose to get married, so what positive things have we got to say to commend such a commitment to them?

Therefore, it doesn't make any sense to me to suggest that gay relationships being called marriages will have any damaging effect. What possible damage would it do to my marriage or anyone else's for civil partners to call themselves married? We can still have ethical debates about what may be acceptable to particular faith communities, but do we really think this is the big issue driving social and societal disintegration? I suspect there are other battles much more worth fighting.
I do share the belief that marriage can contribute to the stability and order of society - it provides some of the structure and framework by which we know who is connected to whom, and all that goes with that. It means that relationships aren't just arbitrary and subjective but have external verification and accountability. I just don't see how excluding gay people from that framework makes for greater order and stability, or enhances heterosexual marriage. Sorry, I won't be signing up.

A little bit of dissent

The Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, has been making headlines over the issue of gay marriage. In opposition to proposals supported by David Cameron, he opposes the possibility of gay marriage, stating that marriage is a bedrock of society and that it would be wrong for the definition to be changed to include same-sex couples.

I've been thinking about this issue for some time - I blogged about it back in 2009, when I suggested that the 'undermine marriage' argument against civil partnerships was unsustainable. Indeed, I suggested that having a means to register legally long-term faithful same-sex relationships should have an ordering and stabilising effect on society, rather than the opposite.

But what of the symbolism of the terminology involved? The legal status and consequences might be the same, but civil partnership doesn't sound the same as marriage. For some gay people, this is seen as a positive. I once heard a lesbian student explain why she would not want a marriage, even if it became legally available, as the term 'marriage' was tainted by patriarchal oppression of women. Likewise, there was an attempt by a heterosexual couple to change the law to allow a civil partnership. However, for others the inability to call their commitment 'marriage' is a shortcoming.

And on top of all of this, the Church of England still has a prominent role in registering marriages, but a very hot and ongoing internal debate on the issue of homosexual relationships. Churches and other religious groups are also concerned that they could be legally forced to celebrate same-sex unions.

Here's a suggestion: why don't we take all the legal stuff out of the hands of churches? What if everyone had to register their relationship in a civil ceremony first, in order to satisfy all the legal issues. Then religious communities could be free to celebrate (or not) the relationships their beliefs could accommodate with complete freedom. For the C of E, that could have some interesting consequences - a step towards disestablishment some might say, not to mention the fear of losing fee income. But maybe that would be a new challenge - what do we want to celebrate with members of our community and why? And where would we draw the line, and who would we leave out?

On this occasion, I don't think the Archbishop has been very wise (if he has been correctly reported). It's perfectly possible to have a dispassionate debate about the definition of the word marriage, and whether it can be applied to anything other than a heterosexual union. Linguistically and culturally one could argue that case, even if you have no objection to same-sex relationships. But that's not what people will hear from the Archbishop, and it appears he was saying more than that. I fear it will only lead to the church as a whole being portrayed (again) as bigoted and prejudiced.

Related articles

• Don't legalise gay marriage, Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu warns David Cameron (telegraph.co.uk)
• Archbishop of York: don't legalise gay marriage (guardian.co.uk)
• Archbishop warns against gay marriage (independent.co.uk)
• Sentamu attacks same-sex marriage (bbc.co.uk)

Is theism getting a bad press?

I'm not very sure how to phrase this post correctly. I have been musing for a while about a change I've observed over the time I have been ordained. It seems that there are now significantly more atheist voices who are more vocal and critical of belief in God, especially in the media and in public life. The question is: why?

Looking at the kinds of digs atheists make online, they're not always very sophisticated or original. Some atheists even seem to mirror religious fundamentalists in their absolutism. Even when the critique is more considered, it's usually the case that Christians have been struggling with the same issues for centuries. Suffering, theodicy, Old Testament wrath vs New testament compassion, etc are all there in theology textbooks (but not any neat answers). Maybe that's the problem: people who want neat answers find a messy God difficult.

If there is a trend, my first hunch is that the percentage of people who don't believe in God may not have changed as much as we think; it's just that their presence is felt more now. It's not as if atheism was invented when Richard Dawkins started selling books about it - people who didn't believe have been around for a long time.

I also suspect that quite a lot of the British never really believed in God in any very specific way, if at all. However, at most they described themselves as agnostic. Not a few of them probably went along to church, because it was a 'good thing' and saw it as supporting community and family. The 'supernatural' bit passed them by, and there are still churchgoers for whom that is true. The stronger  tag  of atheist probably seemed a bit definite for those 20th century sensibilities.

What's become clear in recent years is that attitudes to organised faith/religion have changed. The Church of England was once seen as basically benign, if rather odd, eccentric, ineffectual and from a different era. Church of England schools and colleges would be seen as 'nice' places to study, even by those who didn't practise the faith in any committed way. There is now a debate as to whether these institutions should receive any public support at all, or even whether churches and faith groups qualify as charities.

So why isn't theism seen as benign for wider society any more? Religious conflicts must be part of the picture. These aren't new, either, and nor is sectarian terrorism. There was plenty of that during the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland. However, more recent developments such as suicide bombing and the description of such as martyrdoms has pointed to a difficult question. If it is believed that human existence doesn't depend on this material world, but upon a relationship with the divine, then someone can acquire an attitude that says this life doesn't really matter. And in case Christians start getting superior at this point, that tradition is there in our faith too. It hasn't worked itself out in suicide bombing, but in medieval times, being killed on the Crusades was regarded as tantamount to martyrdom. How do we hold that 'this isn't everything', yet still value the material world as real and precious?

Ethics and values have changed the goalposts too. Churches are often seen as maintaining sexist and homophobic values in an era when society's norms and the laws of the land have moved on from traditional standpoints. If the perception out there is growing that theism = prejudice and discrimination, then it's hardly surprising to hear a more vocal critique from theosceptics. (Have I just invented that word? Must look it up later)

If my hunches bear any relation to reality, I'm not particularly worried about these shifts in attitude. One the one hand, Christians should expect opposition if they are being true to the teaching of Jesus - it certainly came his way. I sometimes wonder if we shouldn't be a lot more unpopular about poverty, economic exploitation and injustice.

On the other hand, we also need to listen. The Bible and the Christian tradition are complex, and it's easy to confirm our own pet prejudices with careful selection of our sources. Sometimes a radical challenge from outside our comfortable circle of like-minded can jolt us into re-examining what we think and why we think it.

Perhaps most of all we need to be more willing to live more radical lives. Maybe the reason more people openly say they don't believe any more is that they can see precious little reason for belief in the lives of those who say they do.

Do things come in threes?

Image via Wikipedia

Don't subscribe to it myself - I think people retrospectively group events together. However, there has been a triplet of headaches for the good old C of E over the last few weeks.

First of all we had a problem with hats. The old tradition was that women wore hats in church and men didn't. However once you're a Bishop the reverse appears to apply. Katharine Jefferts Schori, presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the USA wasn't allowed to wear a mitre at Southwark Cathedral.

No doubt this was an attempt to placate conservative opponents of women becoming bishops, but it ended up looking hugely discourteous and failed to placate anybody. Just her being there at all was probably more than the most vocal opponents could stomach. Meanwhile, others saw it as an insult and a failure of hospitality to a senior member of the clergy. The irony is that mitres are entirely optional in the Church of England - they're not required by church rules and only became commonplace in the 19th century. Perhaps the more courteous thing would have been for everyone not to wear one!

The second problem (sorry I forgot; challenges) is the legislation currently being processed in response to the General Synod's vote to go forward with ordaining women bishops in the Church of England. It would be too long and dull to say why this takes so long, but the whole process was thrown by a new amendment being proposed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York for the latest meeting of Synod. Called "co-ordinate jurisdiction" essentially this is a further concession to conservative concerns and is seen as giving a greater voice for traditionalists who find themselves in Dioceses with a female Diocesan Bishop. A full analysis of all the amendments is here, which ably demonstrates why I couldn't face standing for General Synod at the next election. I still maintain that the simpler the better is the best way forward - anything else is papering over some very big cracks.

Just when you thought it was safe, the news came through that the favoured candidate for Bishop of Southwark was Dr Jeffrey John. Dr John was, of course, the candidate for Bishop of Reading [suffragan to Bp of Oxford] in 2003. He was forced to withdraw from consideration after protests about his sexual orientation. Although he has declared his current circumstances to be in line with the Church of England's teaching, he hasn't repented of his previous relationship to the satisfaction of his critics. [Other Bishops don't seem to be subject to the same scrutiny as to whether their repentance matches their sins, but this is sex we're talking about...] Given Dr John entered a civil partnership in 2006, I suspect nothing would quell the more vocal critics. You can hear a Today programme debate here between Giles Fraser and Chris Sugden.

What intrigues me about is why Dr John's current appointment as Dean of St Alban's doesn't generate such a reaction. If the concern regarding him becoming a Bishop is about a gay man in leadership, or in a teaching role where he might 'mislead' people, or in senior office where the Church of England is publicly affirming a person who some find unacceptable, why isn't being a Cathedral Dean out of the question? The evangelical end of the C of E has often had a semi-detached relationship with its Bishops, so it's remarkable that episcopacy is suddenly so important to them. I can see that traditionalist Anglo-Catholics might have a particular problem with gay bishops, but on the whole they tend to make less noise about it.

The evidence suggests that Dr John has nurtured his Cathedral well, with a growing congregation that even pays its way and doesn't need to charge admission to visitors. Given he has been such a good steward of the responsibilities given him so far by the Church, I think it would be our loss if he weren't also given the opportunity to lead a Diocese.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Traditionalist Church of England groups warn of defections if gay bishop is ordained (telegraph.co.uk)
• Gay bishop for Southwark 'will split Church of England' (guardian.co.uk)
• Southwark Cathedral allows woman bishop to carry mitre but NOT to wear it (blogs.telegraph.co.uk)
• Rowan Williams and the mitre maid | Andrew Brown (guardian.co.uk)

Greenbelt 2009

For about 30 years, my friends have been going to Greenbelt and telling me all about it. Tales of U2 in 1981 (?) and lots of other great acts and names have littered the conversations. Somehow I never got round to going. This year, as I was between jobs, and we hadn't had a summer holiday as we were moving house, we decided to go.

Camping is never my favourite activity, and it is a little more challenging at Greenbelt than at other festivals I have attended. The facilities near the tents are more basic, the toilets less plentiful and everything is a very long walk from the action. We abandoned hope of cleanliness or food preparation and just smelled and ate from vans. Actually the vans were the best I have ever come across at an event - lots of variety, lots of Fairtrade and lots of organic. Slightly pricey but very tasty. After the coldest night in August as our first, things gradually got better.

The thing I like about Greenbelt is that there is some elbow room to think, be challenged, and if you disagree it's Ok. Loads of stuff about peace, justice, environment as well as faith, belief and ethics. GB has also often welcomed contributions that the mainstream might be rather uncomfortable with. Sometimes these come from outside the Christian community; this year it came from within in the person of Bishop Gene Robinson, the Bishop of New Hampshire. If you've been on another planet for the last few years, you may not be aware that he is the first openly gay bishop in the worldwide Anglican church (though we all know there must have been quite a few over the last 2,000 years who kept it quiet!)

Greenbelt got some flak for giving him an opportunity to speak, but I think they were right and I managed to attend two of his three sessions. Two concerns surface regularly: one that it endorsed him in some way, and second that it might lead listeners astray. I have to say I think this is nonsense. Greenbelt isn't a conference of a group of people with a tightly drawn up agenda or basis of faith; it's a chance for celebration, sharing, creativity and grappling with questions. Allowing someone to speak at GB isn't the same as saying that everything they say is supported by the organisers.

Secondly, I'm becoming increasingly concerned that there is so much fear in Christian circles about speakers. It assumes that everyone's beliefs are so insecure that they can't cope with a variant opinion. Yet, when people leave church or their 'secure' Christian meeting, they are bombarded with other world views all the time. Wouldn't it be better preparation to help them to deal with debate and diversity in a 'safe space' than simply to cast them loose after another dose of standardised input?

Rant over. Back to Bp Gene. What was striking in his first session was how little it was about his homosexuality. He gave a very Biblical talk (he grew up in a very evangelical church) on how to keep your faith and sanity in times of turmoil and difficulty. If the cause of his hardships had been anything other than his sexuality, he could have given the talk at any evangelical gathering in perfect safety! what was impressive was his lack of bitterness, his confidence in the resurrection in the face of regular death threats (if you get a threat in the US that someone is going to shoot you, they almost certainly own a gun) He said something like 'death is not the worst thing that can happen; failing to live your life is'.

He also believed that his coming out as a gay person was ultimately an issue of integrity. As he put it, it was important that the outside matched the inside. That, for him, was living more like God would have us live. He came across as a very gracious person, who has a very real faith in a very real God and for whom this has not been a trivial whim, but a life-long struggle, wrestling with both faith and sexuality. Compared with the heated, angry and sometimes downright abusive behaviour he has experienced from other Christians, it does leave you wondering who can really claim to be closest to Christ.

If you want to hear the real thing (and not the spin), the talks are available for download, along with all other speakers and Greenbelt sessions here.

Will blog again soon about the great music.

Non sequitur

To my shame I had to check the spelling of the title :(

Recently, I've come across a few comments relating to civil partnerships / marriages for homosexual couples. There's obviously a lot of hot air generated on both sides of the ethical debate in the context of the Church, and lots of prejudice, poor argumentation and random Bible verses get thrown around.

However, a regular argument that surfaces in Christian comment on the issue is that such partnerships undermine marriage and family. How does that work? 'Straight' people aren't suddenly going to abandon their marriages for gay relationships (or if they do, it probably means they have embarked on an unhappy marriage in an attempt to deny their sexual orientation). Likewise the sexual orientation of gay people isn't dependent on whether civil partnerships are available or not. It a non sequitur

It got me thinking (dangerous, I know). Presumably forms of marriage evolved in societies as ways of providing some external and objective account of who is attached to whom, property rights, custody of children, etc. (also acknowledging it was used as a form of patriarchal control over women in many communities). Having said that, it is also possible to see that there are benefits to the wider community in the definition of partnership relationships being other than simply the arbitrary decision of the couple. It enables them to be identified and understood and even provides some accountability between couple and community.

That might all sound quite conservative, but isn't it advantageous to all of society for gay relationships to have the same opportunity to be orderly and accountable? My understanding is that for a lot of gay people, that is exactly what they want.

Whatever the Christian community might conclude in its views on gay relationships (and that may take eternity - literally) it really doesn't make any sense to suggest that loving and lifelong commitments expressed in gay civil partnerships represent any threat to marriage. In fact, it is worth reflecting on the fact that ther are civil partnerships which are more loving, faithful and authentic commitments than many 'conventional' marriages.

Don'cha wish your Bishop was cool like me

As I've mentioned sex and sexuality already today, I thought I'd pinch one of the photos from Bishop Gene Robinson's blog. There's another of him with Bono. He is, of course, the first openly gay Bishop in the worldwide Anglican Church, and his ordination has caused much of the turmoil that Anglicanism is currently facing.


Cool photo, though.

Sex and Sexuality

...was the title of last night's InSpire, which is our Sunday evening contemporary worship / teaching / learning together / eating nice cake and biscuits. We're doing one or two "hot potato" subjects this term (featuring hot potatoes for eating) and Steve did a great job last night helping us to engage with a highly personal subject.

One light-hearted moment was a reading illustrating how it's very easy to use / misuse the Bible in such discussions. It's a response to Dr Laura Schlessinger when she was outspoken about homosexuality in 2002. Thanks to Andrew for the URL. Read it here.

Pity it had to be a humanist website to publish this!

Lambeth, Gafcon and all that jazz

Look forward to plenty of headlines about bishops and homosexuality for the next few weeks. We've got Gafcon, the C of E's General Synod and the Lambeth Conference ahead of us. Having worked for a few years in a Higher Education post, it all sounds rather odd and grating to hear Church people being so critical of gay Christians. It has certainly made me understand more of what must sound like to the world at large.

That's not to say that Christian theology should change, just because it sounds weird to non-Christians, but this issue makes the Church sound judgemental and even cruel. What has always puzzled me is why homosexuality has become the dividing issue. There is a huge diversity of opinion in the Anglican communion on all sorts of fundamental theological questions.

For example, you could find Anglican Bishops with views about the theology of communion that match both sides of the conflict in the time of the Reformation. Back then in the 1540s people were burning each other for heresy and blasphemy; now they are brother bishops in the same church. So why is sexuality more divisive?

I can't help thinking that it is precisely because it's about sex. Somehow the debate touches a human nerve in many people, which sends it up their theological priority scale. My guess is that all of our theological views are rather more determined by our emotions, personal experiences and prejudices than any of us are happy to admit.

Sunday Worship

I usually turn the radio over to BBC 5 live when the Radio 4 Sunday worship comes on. I don't find listening to other people at church serves as very good preparation for being at church myself. However, the introduction to Sunday's service meant that I kept listening.

It came from a Catholic Church, Most Holy Redeemer, San Francisco, which is set in the heart of that city's gay community. The service explored how gay people can find a place in the Christian community. Given the official teaching of the Vatican on this issue, I was intrigued. You can listen to the whole service here until 5/5/2007, which will also enable you to hear the music (more Broadway musical than choral evensong!)

The transcript of the service can be found here, and the homily itself is well worth a read, as it provides a searching challenge to conservative views on this issue.

Video withdrawn

Sadly the youtube link for the Aussie Jensen video no longer works. However, you can go to http://www.cnnnn.com/ and under some links referring to their newsbar, click DVD under highlights. When RealPlayer launches, click happy homosexuals.

Adoption and Gay Couples

Phillip Blond at St Martin's asked me to see if people were interested in a debate on this issue. Phillip and Adrian Pabst have written the following article for the Church Times, and I have his permission to reproduce it here. Two things to say in advance:

• From what I know from Phillip in other conversations, I understand that he has no absolute moral objections to gay relationships, nor to their inclusion in the life of the Church. The issue here is treating homo- and heterosexual couples in an identical and generic way.
• When reading this, it's important to think about the bigger issue of faith in the public, social and political arena, as well as the secular liberal dilemmas when dealing with the specific truth claims and ethical views of faith groups.
  

With that said, I'm not sure what my response to this is yet, so I'd be interested to read other people's ideas.

No room for gay rights at the adoption agency

The dispute over adoption exposes a wider debate about the morality of liberalism, Phillip Blond and Adrian Pabst argue

‘The sterile appeal to equality masks an agenda to elevate one minority over another’

The GOVERNMENT’S refusal to exempt Roman Catholic adoption agencies from anti-discrimination laws represents the latest liberal assault on religion. The Roman Catholic rejection of gay adoption is neither regressive nor reactionary.

First, it is by no means clear that the current attempt to impose equality legislation on the adoption process serves the best interests of the child. Second, it is equally uncertain that equality of rights ensures respect for difference. Third, it is far from self-evident that the secular liberal logic that is driving this issue is the only or indeed the best way of creating a diverse society.

Roman Catholicism seems to have a point. One suspects that, for most ordinary people, a heterosexual couple in a family environment represents the best way to bring up a child. The common preconception that children are better off when raised by two parents has a sound empirical and sociological basis. We now know from various longitudinal studies that one-parent families are strongly correlated with poverty, crime, and social exclusion.

Moreover — dysfunctional partners aside — few human beings would argue that one parent is as good as two. Few would disagree with someone who spoke of the absence of a mother or father as damaging to their mental and emotional well-being. Nobody doubts the heroism of the parent in one-parent families, but nobody would envy them or their children.

At first sight, same-sex couples offer two surrogate parents, but crucially they cannot offer both a mother and a father. The denial of this foundational experience is surely emotionally and socially damaging. Children need to encounter male and female parental love — both are vital for development. The lack of fathers as role-models and loving mentors is a self-evident factor in many delinquent youths and failed lives.

Why, then, so uncritically accept the assertion that same-sex couples are just as good as heterosexual couples at raising children? There is no solid evidence on which to make this claim. Yes, gay people have raised children for years, but usually in the context of a failed heterosexual relationship — a situation in which both mothers and fathers are still present.

The argument that, were it not for homosexual adoption, children would be abandoned in care homes is as peculiar as it is pernicious: it is not as if there are children that only gay people would adopt.

The raising of children by same-sex couples is so recent and so historically unprecedented that it is not unreasonable to adopt the precautionary principle, and wait before enforcement by law.

The ideology that is imposing the equality legislation, however, does not seem to be concerned with the well-being of the child. If it were, serious questions would be asked. We would object to raising children by computers because, in part, they would be denied a mother and a father. Surely the right of a child to receive the love of a mother and a father is irrefutable. Same-sex couples, however good or well-meaning, cannot deliver this.

So why aggressively assert equality where none should pertain? It is hard to see what principle of justice or well-being is served by denying a child the love and recognition of a mother and a father.

To deprive children of this experience reveals a fundamental contradiction. On the one hand, homosexuals insist on their particularity. Like other minorities, they rightly demand tolerance and respect for their specificity.

On the other hand, homosexuals now want to be the same as heterosexuals. This goes beyond equality of rights, and extends to practices such as marriage and having children — constructions that arguably are particular to heterosexual couples. Curiously, in the name of equality, a group that is defined by difference seems to desire nothing so much as sameness.

Moreover, by enforcing equality legislation on all adoption agencies, a minority imposes its will and worldview on a majority. The contrast with religious groups could hardly be more marked: whereas the Roman Catholic Church seeks an exemption only for itself, those who support gay adoption insist on the application of the Equality Act across the board. Thus they deny precisely the sort of freedom of conscience that currently allows Roman Catholic doctors to refuse to perform an abortion.

In reality, the sterile appeal to equality masks an agenda to elevate the interests of one minority over those of another. A simple secular equality of rights ensures a permanent conflict between minorities and the destruction of the differences that a truly plural society would uphold.

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York were correct to support the Roman Catholic Church in its request for an exemption from this repressive legislation. But they should have gone much further.

Since contemporary secular liberalism values little more than human will and unconstrained choice, it conflicts with virtually every other human value system. The self-professed moral superiority of liberalism is a sham. It claims to defend diversity, but it enforces conformity with a secular code that it alone defines.

Liberal progressives cannot deliver a just and plural society co-operating around common values of tolerance and respect. Christians need to resist the current politics of uniformity and compliance. They should intercede with a critique of contemporary social mores and the alleged panaceas of our governing class.

Phillip Blond is a senior lecturer in theology at St Martin’s College, Lancaster. Adrian Pabst is lecturer in theology at the University of Nottingham.

More on covenants

I have now seen a bit more about the New Wine participation in the Covenant issue. The use of that term itself is interesting, as it clearly is intended to imply Divine authority.

John Coles (who runs the New Wine conferences and network) made a statement in response to some disquiet being expressed by NW associated church leaders. The interesting feature in his text is the regular use of the word orthodox. It left me wondering who gave him (or the leaders of Reform, Church Society or any other group) the authority to determine orthodoxy. Furthermore, since when has one's opinion on a specific issue (in this case homosexuality) been a test of orthodoxy?

Evangelicalism and 'orthodoxy' has thus far accommodated people with differing views on: creation, women, war & peace to name but three. It's also interesting to note that at least some of John Coles's allies on the signature list probably think that the 1 Corinthians 12 gifts of the spirit expired in the apostolic age. The logical conclusion is, therefore, that a good chunk of the New Wine summer festivals is emotional hysteria masquerading as the work of God!

The flip side of this is that last summer's New Wine north included a talk which effectively stated that Jesus was more equipped for his ministry after his baptism, which was essentially being used as a paradigm for 'baptism in the spirit'. Of course orthodox theology states that at conception Jesus was fully human and fully divine (the feast of the Annunciation was originally known as the feast of the Incarnation). His divinity was in no way enhanced at baptism - that is a heresy known as adoptionism. No-one in the leadership appeared to be at all perturbed at this, despite New Wine's stated desire to be orthodox. I noticed, and had a lively conversation with my fellow campers (who were largely mystified as to why it was important to me!)

What it all reveals is that the sexuality issue can't be treated by many people as an issue of Christianity meeting a new culture, but has become an article of faith. I can't help thinking that something has gone very wrong when an ethical question overtakes fundamental doctrines about God on the orthodoxy list.