Mike's musings

"So poorly based" - reflections on Christianity and homosexuality

Adam commented on my post the other day on Dar Es Salaam, saying:

I'm not Anglican, but it troubles me deeply that the Episcopal Church in the U.S. is taking this stand against the entire Communion on a matter so poorly based in Scripture and tradition.

I take a different view, as I think is probably clear from other posts. I think there are a few points here. All of this post is, of course, my opinion. I could be wrong on points of fact, and you may disagree with my theology.

First of all, I believe that one of the interesting things about the Episcopal Church in the U.S. is that it is run along much more democratic lines than most of the other provinces of the Anglican Communion. For instance, it is committees who choose bishops, rather than other bishops, and so it's difficult to "impose" solutions on a set of people who are not all ordained, and not "under the discipline" of the church. There are arguments here that lay people may be more prone to being over-influenced by secular society. But the other side of the coin is that if the Holy Spirit _is_ moving through society, then people who are more free of the strictures of a fairly rigid hierarchy (the church), and will be better able to reflect God's revelation as expressed through the wider world.

The second point is that I disagree that they are taking a stand against the entire Communion. There are other provinces - the Church of England, for instance - where the issue of homosexual priests, bishops and lay people is becoming an vexed one.

Third, I don't agree with the suggestion that this is an issue "poorly based in Scripture and tradition". I would say that the view _against_ homosexuality is much less strongly based in Scripture than has generally been presented. And the tradition is fairly modern - there was a much greater acceptance of a variety of homosexual expressions certainly up to the Reformation than there has been until very recently.

Fourth, we should bear in mind that the church is splitting largely down what we could call "interpretational" lines. Those who are of a fundamentalist - or at least literalist - bent tend to interpret the Bible in one way, and those of a more liberal theological background (broadly of the "historical-critical" school) tend to be less literal. Of course, there are issues around tradition, as well: some of those who take a view which foregrounds tradition will tend to take an "anti-homosexual" view. That's the standard Roman Catholic view. But we should be aware that a number of the fundamentalist parties - often evangelical - are seeking to use the homosexual (which tends to be very emotive) debate as a point of contention. It's sometimes less about this particular issue, but more about how the Bible is read. We should remember that there is a broader political agenda (sometimes) at work here.

Last of all, one thing that ECUSA are doing is treating homosexuals with respect and love. Not just clergy, but laity as well. The rest of the Anglican Communion (with a few exceptions) have agreed that they should listen to homosexuals and treat them with love and respect. I don't see that happening. With rare (but heroic) exceptions, the message to gay people - lay and clergy - is that they are _not_ listened to, not respected, and not loved.

And I _know_ what Jesus Christ would have said about the last point, if nothing else.

A declaration

I'm fairly safe. Maybe I should keep my mouth shut until I'm ordained - I've certainly been counselled to do that - but I'm from a "safe" church background, I've got an solid, safe academic theological background, I'm (very happily) married with a child (and one on the way), and I don't even have a family axe to grind. But I care about this, and I hate the fact that Christ's love is not being shown. And I need to stand up.

And there are more important issues. Violence against women, povery, global warming, persecution of Christians, persecution of non-Christians, despair, mental illness - where do you start? Not, for Christ's sake, with what people do in bed.

Labels: church, sexuality, theology