Monday, July 5, 2010

Communion's Cultural Cleavage Rends Asunder What Man Joined Together

It is difficult to see the Anglican Communion holding together as events unfold around us: the touting of Jeffrey John as bishop (celibate gay man, alleged to be unrepentant for the non-celibate years, proven to teach in favour of non-requirement of celibacy), the resignations of bishops from the AC's Standing Committee and the non-resignations of bishops from the AC's Standing Committee (laid out here in its chaotic detail by the ACI).

Sitting here Down Under, immersed in the Western mode of being Anglican and being human, it is reasonably easy to understand the consistency of ++Rowan Williams one month inhibiting TEC members of certain Communion committees consequential on the consecration of non-celibate Mary Glasspool to be bishop and the next month, apparently, not inhibiting the C of E appointments' process commending celibate Jeffrey John for nomination as bishop. But I am guessing that in some parts of the Communion, both in the Global South, and in churches sympathetic to the Global South (including parishes in Southwark and California), perceptions are different. Insufficient action against TEC, and no action against John amounts to a completely different way of responding to the presence of homosexuality in society and church. An unacceptable way which, in the end, is being driven as much as anything (IMHO) by cultural differences: in both the USA and the UK (and in NZ) our societies have moved very very fast relative to history to embrace homosexuals as normal, ordinary, equitable, indiscriminate citizens. It is not so much that the church is being pressed to conform to an alien culture around it (though this is a factor) but that the culture is challenging the church to welcome 'aliens' in its midst as full, included, insiders. The church has been caught so flat footed in a number of cases that our protestations of our "rights" to determine what is right and wrong appear to bring the gospel into disrepute: how come the community of love is so filled with fear of those who are "different"? In any case, our culture is pressing us to consider that homosexuals are not different, but like us, being our friends and family.

Of these questions and issues, of the nuances being explored, willingly or unwillingly, by the Western church, there seems little evidence of understanding in the minds of African prelates and Asian princes of the church, to say nothing of some of us known as 'conservative' sitting in the very citadels of changing societal attitude. Now time may prove that the understanding of African, Asian, and conservative Western church leaders is full of wisdom from above. (That part at least which refuses to let go of the moral question of same sex sexual relationships. Homophobically driven "kill gays" legislation will not be proven to be wisdom from above). But right now, the difference in understanding, the appreciation of the question of human dignity as represented in the Western world compared to parts of the non-Western world toying with more rather than less repressive anti-homosexuality laws, is so great as to likely constitute a cleavage in the Communion, rending asunder what man - colonial rulers, missionaries, Victorian bishops - joined together, the Church of England and its fledgling children as one incipient global church. Archbishop Rowan may yet preside over his worst case scenario, the clear, un-spinnable break up of the Communion, but not because his own gifts of wisdom and leadership have been less than any other leader could have provided, but because the cultural forces at work have been more like two continents colliding than a train wreck which might have been averted if only the driver had better sight.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

“"kill gays" legislation will not be proven to be wisdom from above”

So the Bible is wrong (Lev 20:13) http://hermdownunder.blogspot.com/2010/07/further-note-re-leviticus-and-1.html

I am not sure why you think you can speak for “conservatives” as accepting celibate homosexuals for ordination. The Catholic Church, with a far greater number of conservatives (and numbers matter to you), does not allow celibate homosexuals to be ordained.

Alison

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Alison,
All Christians proposing legislation for the execution of people for sexual offences (however defined) should engage with numerous New Testament (and Old Testament) texts speaking of mercy, and in particular with John 8:1-11, in respect of whether Jesus endorsed each and every aspect of the prescribed punishments of the Mosaic law. My suggestion, which you may disagree with, is that "kill gays" legislation will not be proven to be wisdom from above in the light of the New Testament.

It is not so much that the Bible is "wrong" but that some changes take place in the course of biblical history. The challenge for contemporary interpreters is to prayerfully discern which things in the Bible remain pertinent to life and which either no longer do so, or do not apply to particular circumstances.

I am guilty of insufficient precision. Probably of other offences too. "conservatives" in the context of ADU is generally speaking "conservative Anglicans". But I take your implied point, there will be many conservative Anglicans around the globe who share with their Roman counterparts an unwillingness to permit any homosexuals to be ordained. My comments refer to those conservatives who have argued for the distinction between orientation and practice, and in doing so have argued that the former combined with celibacy is not a problem.

Perhaps the Jeffrey John situation will prove that even celibacy is not "good enough".

Anonymous said...

Thanks Peter

Following your points, hence, do you think it was right and God's will to execute homosexuals (Lev 20:13) from the time of Moses until the New Testament period? Did God change his mind after that? Or do you think that Lev 20:13 was wrong? If not, how could it have been right at one stage and wrong later?

A similar question in relation to Jeffrey John: you know that previously for the Archbishop of Canterbury that even Jeffrey John's claim of celibacy was not "good enough". Why has there been a shift in the ABC's position?

Alison

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Alison,
It was not God's will to execute homosexuals for being homosexuals, but it was God's will to set out rules for living, in particular for Israel living its life as God's holy people in distinction from the ways of the surrounding nations. A number of offences against those rules had severe consequences, including the reviling of mothers and fathers, along with offenders against rule for sexual behaviour.

It could be that God changed his mind. It could be that the circumstances of Israel changed in relation to God's plan for all humanity such that the severe punishments of the Levitical laws could be lightened. Such punishments as written down serve to imprint the seriousness of the need to live a holy life. A seriousness that certain children these days do not understand!

I am not sure what is going on in the ABC's mind but I imagine that one thing which is different in 2010 from the ill-fated venture re St Albans is that some aspects of the Anglican ether are of a different emotional temperature ...

Peter Carrell said...

From Howard Pilgrim: [for some reason I cannot publish this in the usual way]


Hi Peter,
After finding the hui both intense and exhausting, I took a long weekend off these issues to recharge my batteries, having noted that your reporting on the hui's process was admirable, especially in your "Very Fruitful Thursday" post. I would now like to add a few points to the subsequent discussion.

1. The impact of two respected academics testifying to their experiences as gay Christians was felt by all present and, as you reported, has shifted the grounds of discussion, at least for those of us who were present. Nevertheless, it is significant that many other gay and lesbian participants did not yet feel it was safe to add their voices to that public testimony. A bottom aspirational line for me is a church in which "don't ask, don't tell" is no longer the ruling principle for clergy or laity. A church in which it is unsafe to speak honestly is seriously compromised in its claim to embody Christ.

2. For me, the issue in contention has much more to do with truth than pastoral care. This is all about the faith once delivered to the saints, as distinguished from the faith once understood by the saints. What is the truth we share in Christ? What is the true nature of holiness? What is right and wrong in regard to sexuality? These questions define the heart of our discussion, and the reason it is such hard work. Deeply held convictions characterise both sides in this dialogue. Let's not belittle ourselves by saying otherwise.

3. I like your diverging ships analogy, and prefer it to plate tectonics which suggests that the forces driving us apart are beyond human control. My reason is that we are not talking about vast, unrelated social systems heading in different directions. People with conservative beliefs about sexuality are found in every society, as are people of different sexual orientation. Those African and Asian "prelates and princes", for example, have people in the engine rooms of the ships they command who may be far from happy at the direction their ships are heading, but know better than to express their opinions right now. A few are speaking up them, bravely, but not getting much attention worldwide. Is there any prospect of mutiny, or even a peaceable take over from among the lower ranks on those ships? Maybe. If the conservatives in the USA can have a go, so might liberals in Africa.

4. As for the Catholic Church, which you say "does not allow celibate homosexuals to be ordained" ... where was your head when you wrote that gem? Perhaps you might care to restate your point, with due regard for the principle of honesty (see 1. above).

Lest I convey a wrong impression with these four reservations, let me say again that I think you have giving voice to some truths we are all just beginning to grasp together, and that your clarity of purpose in reporting back as you have is admirable. Well done, Peter - as an organiser of the hui, you have much to be proud of.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Howard,
It was Alison not me who wrote, "The Catholic Church ... does not allow celibate homosexuals to be ordained". However I believe this statement to be true, though I do not know what link to send you to for confirmation. The idea (as I understand it) is that the Catholic church has enough troubles re its priests and their sexuality that it is cutting down one line of potential trouble by (as far as it is able) not ordaining any homosexuals. But if Alison and I are wrong in this understanding ... please point us to the chapter and verse which applies!

Anonymous said...

Is there a reason why I cannot see any of the comments to this post?

Alison

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Alison (and Howard)
I do not know why the comments here have gotten lost.
I may have a moment later to attempt to repost them.
Cheers
Peter

Peter Carrell said...

[REPOSTED]
Hi Peter,
After finding the hui both intense and exhausting, I took a long weekend off these issues to recharge my batteries, having noted that your reporting on the hui's process was admirable, especially in your "Very Fruitful Thursday" post. I would now like to add a few points to the subsequent discussion.

1. The impact of two respected academics testifying to their experiences as gay Christians was felt by all present and, as you reported, has shifted the grounds of discussion, at least for those of us who were present. Nevertheless, it is significant that many other gay and lesbian participants did not yet feel it was safe to add their voices to that public testimony. A bottom aspirational line for me is a church in which "don't ask, don't tell" is no longer the ruling principle for clergy or laity. A church in which it is unsafe to speak honestly is seriously compromised in its claim to embody Christ.

2. For me, the issue in contention has much more to do with truth than pastoral care. This is all about the faith once delivered to the saints, as distinguished from the faith once understood by the saints. What is the truth we share in Christ? What is the true nature of holiness? What is right and wrong in regard to sexuality? These questions define the heart of our discussion, and the reason it is such hard work. Deeply held convictions characterise both sides in this dialogue. Let's not belittle ourselves by saying otherwise. [to be cont'd]

Peter Carrell said...

[REPOSTED]
cont'd - from Howard Pilgrim

3. I like your diverging ships analogy, and prefer it to plate tectonics which suggests that the forces driving us apart are beyond human control. My reason is that we are not talking about vast, unrelated social systems heading in different directions. People with conservative beliefs about sexuality are found in every society, as are people of different sexual orientation. Those African and Asian "prelates and princes", for example, have people in the engine rooms of the ships they command who may be far from happy at the direction their ships are heading, but know better than to express their opinions right now. A few are speaking up them, bravely, but not getting much attention worldwide. Is there any prospect of mutiny, or even a peaceable take over from among the lower ranks on those ships? Maybe. If the conservatives in the USA can have a go, so might liberals in Africa.

4. As for the Catholic Church, which you say "does not allow celibate homosexuals to be ordained" ... where was your head when you wrote that gem? Perhaps you might care to restate your point, with due regard for the principle of honesty (see 1. above).

Lest I convey a wrong impression with these four reservations, let me say again that I think you have giving voice to some truths we are all just beginning to grasp together, and that your clarity of purpose in reporting back as you have is admirable. Well done, Peter - as an organiser of the hui, you have much to be proud of.

Peter Carrell said...

[REPOSTED]
“"kill gays" legislation will not be proven to be wisdom from above”

So the Bible is wrong (Lev 20:13) http://hermdownunder.blogspot.com/2010/07/further-note-re-leviticus-and-1.html

I am not sure why you think you can speak for “conservatives” as accepting celibate homosexuals for ordination. The Catholic Church, with a far greater number of conservatives (and numbers matter to you), does not allow celibate homosexuals to be ordained.

Alison

Peter Carrell said...

[REPOSTED]
Thanks Peter

Following your points, hence, do you think it was right and God's will to execute homosexuals (Lev 20:13) from the time of Moses until the New Testament period? Did God change his mind after that? Or do you think that Lev 20:13 was wrong? If not, how could it have been right at one stage and wrong later?

A similar question in relation to Jeffrey John: you know that previously for the Archbishop of Canterbury that even Jeffrey John's claim of celibacy was not "good enough". Why has there been a shift in the ABC's position?

Peter Carrell said...

Sorry Alison and Howard
No time to try to recompose my own lost comments!