For all the obvious reasons, I am generally keen to avoid posting on homosexuality and the church. There have been many posts over the years on ADU and the result has been maximum number of reads, maximum number of comments, minimum signs of anyone's views changing.
But, occasionally, we should post, if only to make a potential new point for consideration or a familiar point for new reconsideration.
So, I draw your attention to this essay, by Cardinal Jean-Paul Vesco, Archbishop of Algiers, published online as "Cardinal Jean-Paul Vesco on Gays and Catholics" by Outreach: An LGBTQ Catholic Ministry, and published in print in
(ET = Gays and Catholics: The Church Put to the Test of Reality, published by Desclée De Brouwer).
I suggest these are the money paragraphs:
"Yes, how difficult it is to put homosexuality into words. It is not an illness; there are no chemical treatments, and attempts at psychological treatments are sickening. It is not a sin, for sin is committed freely, and no one chooses to be homosexual. Nor is it the result of educational or social conditioning, for within the same family where siblings have received the same upbringing, one child may be homosexual while the others are not.
Social acceptance does not make one homosexual, but it makes it easier to acknowledge it, to share it with others, and to live one’s emotional life as serenely as possible. Homosexuality has no obvious reason, and we must accept this element of ignorance regarding God’s creative work.
Nor is homosexuality part of the norm, and in that sense it is not normal—provided, of course, that the opposite of normal is not abnormal. I like the definition given by James Alison in his contribution: homosexual orientation is a regularly occurring non-pathological minority variant in the human condition. This definition places homosexuality within the order of creation and not within that of disorder or pathology. It also places it within the realm of singularity."
Why do I make this suggestion for your possible reading?
Because, in my summary of debates through past decades, at the heart of our differences is not only how we approach the Bible, it is also how we approach homosexuality as a human phenomenon. We seem to do this in two ways:
1. It is "abnormal" or a "disorder" or a "pathology" or a "sin" or "sinful disposition". Essentially we see homosexuality as something which can be fixed or something which should not be and so the holy and heroic thing to do is to overcome it via abstinence and celibacy. (With the consequence that those who propose differently are disregarding the Bible and/or disobeying the teaching of the church, and, thus and so, we cannot have communion across this divide.)
2. It is a variant within the human condition. As the Cardinal writes,
"I like the definition given by James Alison in his contribution: homosexual orientation is a regularly occurring non-pathological minority variant in the human condition. This definition places homosexuality within the order of creation and not within that of disorder or pathology."
If we agree on 2, then we must revise the way we approach the Bible and the church's teaching on the matter. (There should be no problem doing so: if we are willing to change our understanding of Genesis 1 and 2 (creation did not literally happen per these chapters, but has involved evolution through a long period of time) on the basis of modern scientific knowledge, we could change our understanding of homosexuality from "disorder" (a moral assessment) to "variant within the human condition" (a scientific assessment).)
And if we so revise, we might have civil debates about the ethics of homosexuality (as we do about the ethics of contraception and the ethics of marriage and divorce)?
And if we could have civil debates about the ethics of homosexuality, we might not break communion with each other (as we do not break communion over contraception or marriage or divorce).
I will not necessarily publish every comment submitted here. My attention will be on whether the comment is focused on discussing what I have written (two approaches, how to have civil debates) or ranging more widely and into much discussed matters in past blogs.
Try harder :).
53 comments:
I was also intrigued by that definition from James Allison when I read him, on recommendation of my vicar, many moons ago.
(Allison is a creative theologian with a most intriguing story - see the Wikipedia entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Alison ).
In some ways, it is such clinical language, so consistent with Catholic, philosophical thought (Allison has been a Dominican); in other ways it offers a calm, level headed way to proceed with some of these issues, i. e. to accept
"homosexual orientation is a regularly occurring non-pathological minority variant in the human condition."
Peter here suggests we refocus on "the ethics of homosexuality" rather than its ontological status (as pathology or not). I suggest that questions on the ethics of homosexuality have a great deal of overlap with questions on the ethics of sexuality in general, in which the better questions focus on....
getting away from broad brush categories (and judgments), what is the *quality* of such and such a relationship? Is it exploitative - in any way? Is there mutuality, commitment, respect, love, and consent? And is there a sense of a basic openness to "God" and to the relationship as being (pro-)creative in and beyond itself?
I remember Marilynne Robinson in her ‘Reading Genesis’ conveying so gently the way God the Creator responds to all human activities with mercy and grace. Jesus said, in Luke, ‘Be merciful as your Father is merciful’. That teaches me to work towards understanding and acceptance of positions that I may not always agree with, which hopefully will mean civil discussion.
I am thinking about that definition…
A propos of our recent discussion of empires, I forgot to wish everyone a Happy Empire Day on Saturday (originally Victoria's birthday). Whatever New Zealanders think of India today, it is remarkable to think that Britain - with very, very few soldiers - took control of the crumbling Mughal Empire which was falling into warring petty states and established order, railways, English education, Westminster government and justice, and of course cricket. (Well done, NZ women, BTW.) It is salutary to recall that Sleeman suppressed and reformed the Thuggee and Sir Charles "Peccavi" Napier (after whom the Nice of the Pacific is named) put an end to suttee - at least legally. There is no doubt about the Christian inspiration of these reforms. "You have your custom of burning widows and confiscating their goods, and I have my custom of hanging murderers. Build your funeral pyre and my carpenters will build a gibbet next to it."
Many years ago I heard a lecture by Lesslie Newbigin, an Englishman who was a bishop in the Church of South India. He pointed out how Christian missions both preserved cultures (e.g.languages, crafts) and reformed them (defending the rights of women and children) and we have seen this pattern across the world. Contrast the status of women in empires where Islam has prevailed.
On the subject of this particular thread, I may have something to say later, referencing Rosaria Butterfield, but for the moment let me simply say, beware of smuggling in loaded expressions like "non-pathological" - a bizarre thing for a theologian to do.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Occasionally I think it needs to be recognized that gay people have had an absolute gutsful of 'Christians' poring over the intimacies of our lives when it is none of their God damned business. The amount of queer people is at a push 5 per cent of the population. The percentage of that 5 per cent who have anything to do with a church who hates us is infintesimal.ie very small. Stop wasting time on an issue that is a matter of private morality and look at something more serious like paedophile clergy and the damage they do.
"minimum signs of anyone's views changing" - that's a bit rough on us, +Peter! There was a lot of ADU discussion about this in the earlier period of my (returning) faith journey when I joined with the rest of you in discussion. And those discussions helped me revise my "default" perspective, learned from when I grew up, to something more understanding of harm to individuals and families, and less hard-hearted. Exchanges here at ADU helped me make a shift in attitude because of: i) listening to what was being said here on the blog and ii) going off to find information and stories for myself - motivated by what had been shared here at ADU and wanting to find validation (or not) for whatever views had been aired. It was a difficult time but also immensely helpful - so thanks +Peter for allowing us the space that enabled the discussions.
In response to Moya (above), the Allison principle is that homosexuality/queer sexuality is an ordinary *part of creation*, rather than something humans do with/to creation (that needs to be treated mercifully because it is judged as falling short eyc).
Male and female, gay and straight, numerous etc., God created them...
Thanks for comments.
A few responses:
- Rosaria Butterfield v a Cardinal of the church ... fine!
- To anonymous: yes, perhaps that would be ideal, but the church as a whole is not in such a settled position, so discussion does continue [and this would be so whether I never posted here again].
- Moya: I am reflecting on blogging since 2008 ... 18 years worth of to and fro debate. I am, of course, delighted that you are among the few :)
As a mathematician, Peter of course knows that the square root of 2 is irrational. According to legend, Hippasus of Metapontum proved this by the method of contradiction and for his troubles he was drowned at sea by his enraged co-religionists, the Pythagoreans. People who point out inherent contradictions and irrationality still provoke that enraged reaction today.
Natural law, that profoundly biblical approach to understanding the world and ourselves, also makes use of the principle of contradiction, asking what is the true end of things. Thus we know that no human being will ever fly just by shaking his arms like a bird.This principle was once known to everyone (especially Anglicans: natural law thinking runs all the way through Hooker's Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity).
But sometime in the 19th century the concepts of purpose and design were consciously excluded from biology by atheist scientists, who replaced God with "nature"- and yet they still couldn't entirely give up the habit of personifying nature as a purposeful being (Mother Nature, even) with certain (this-worldly) ends in mind. It was left to Richard Dawkins and his confreres to deliver the coup de grace to the sick old Mother, and to declare that biological existence was nothing other than the blind replication of the selfish gene.
The ancient Greeks of course knew that male homosexual acts can never lead to reproduction. This didn't matter to them because they weren't Jews with all their hangups about "male and female He created them" and the divine image. The Greeks had wives for that purpose, and sexual continence was for free women, not for the superior sex or for female and male prostitute slaves. It was no wonder that many elite Greeks considered male homosexual relationships as the highest form of eros because, in their circles at least, the free, rich and handsome young man was considered the acme of the human race as the eromenos of the older man. Instead of the love of the other which leads to the birth of children, it is the love of the handsome young male self one would like to be. This was a widespread feature of classical Greece. Was it nature or nurture?
All kinds of things occur "in nature": tall Dutchmen, short pygmies, intelligent Japanese, people with ADHD and autism, genius and psycopathy. None of these things are consciously "chosen". But what we do with our lives is.
Yes, you can use a shoe as a hammer - for some things. But pretty soon it won't be much as a shoe or a hammer. The trans moment in our western culture has shown precisely where the whole pro-homosexual movement was headed - and it cannot stop there. Trans-humanism is the next destination of this train, which is constructed from the denial of nature and the deification of eros,
Dominicans (and ex-Dominicans) who have studied their teacher St Thomas know this.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
William clearly disagrees with Jean-Paul Vesco, and favours the old paradigm, in which homosexuality is "natural" in the sense that disorders and diseases are natural ("psychopathy", "autism" etc). Of course, this doesn't take us any further. Rainbow Christians are treated are basically ill or naturally disordered with the "saving" human choice to live in denial and/or essential loneliness for the rest of their lives.
It is possible to maintain this view, it seems to me, if one treats this whole issue theoretically and doesn't actually know any gay people, or, if one is gay oneself, hates oneself deeply and uses religion to spiritualize and distract. Plus if one doesn't look at modern knowledge about being gay.
Although clinical and rather impersonal, Allison's definition is designed to appeal to Catholic thinking which does, since Vatican II, at least in theory, commit to updating itself in terms of the best knowledge available.
So yes, "homosexuality" (ugly, imprecise, medical term) is "non-pathological" as there is nothing intrinsically harmful or disabling, physically, emotionally, etc etc, in being gay, as numerous lives of happy, healthy self-accepting gay people attest to. It does not cause relationships to be corrupt or any more difficult than heterosexual relationships, as numerous normal, authentic, healthy gay relationships attest to. It doesn't *in itself* cause rupture with God, or cause distance from the divine - as, you guessed it, numerous healthy....attest to.
The illness is our pathologizing of "homosexuality" - the illness is us - which when internalized by gay people produces self-hatred, alienation, and anxiety. I don't just believe this to be theoretically true - I've seen it countless times in my therapeutic practice.
If your sexual orientation is primarily towards others of the same sex as you, you will "cure yourself" by accepting this fact and have a much better life, be more creative and happy in your relationships with others, and be closer to God by accepting this fact. Then your own self issues can quieten and settle and you're in a better position to fulfil the essential commandments - love God with all your being, love others as you love yourself - if you have any shred of trust, goodwill, and forgiveness left for Christianity by this stage.
Dear Peter
Concerning the argument about hammers and shoes, it assumes we all have a hammer and a shoe at hand. If so, using a shoe to hammer a nail is inefficient and illogical – but is it morally wrong? The answer is “Yes”, only if you operate in a framework where “A hammer is a hammer, and a nail is a nail. One exists to hammer and the other to be nailed. Anything else is wrong.” I for one have, faced with the contingent complexities of life, used spanners, rocks and any variety of tools to knock in nails – because that is what I had at hand and I was doing the best I could. Inefficient, yes. But wrong?
We've been round this block a thousand times and I have nothing more to say other than to take to heart what a Rosaria Butterfield has to say - astringent and heartless, some one say, like telling people to take up their cross. Right now I have in mind a Christian couple I have known for many years - she was a youth leader for years, then a spiritual teacher in the Salvation Army. After about 20 years of marriage, her husband has now come out as 'gay' and taken up with a young man. Well, this will give him self-acceptance and make him happy, and that's what matters, isn't it?
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
The analogy I used was shoes and hammers. If you want to keep your shoe in good shape and wearable, yes, it is definitely wrong. A spanner or a rock will not be harmed if you use it as a hammer; a shoe will.
If you don't have a hammer, get one. Or accept that not everyone is called to be a builder.
God has a holy purpose in marriage: the binding of a man and woman in an exclusive covenant of love for mutual support and raising children in the love of Christ. Remember what Jesus had to say about his teaching on marriage: 'Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those whom God helps' (Matthew 19.11, NLT). The modern world (along with the western Anglican Church) is determined to prove Jesus wrong on this.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
I understand your concern, Mark, that gay people shouldn’t be considered sinful. But from my upbringing and experiences, my sense of sinfulness is strong. ‘Father of mercy’ is one of my favourite descriptions of God. And it seems to me that creation itself is not as God intended and mercy is needed by me and every other human being, of whatever ilk. To be merciful, helps me process what I am not sure about, rather than making judgements.
Jesus taught that marriage between a man and a woman is holy and should be permanent. He said nothing about how same-sex attracted persons are to live their lives; nor did he say anything about whether heterosexuals deserve to be happy and self-accepting but homosexuals do not. Somehow, in our commentary on other peoples’ lives, might we see them with the compassionate eyes of Jesus - the Jesus who managed to make no comment on the multiple relationships of the Samaritan woman [John 4] while recruiting her to be the first apostle to the Samaritans?
I think ‘ethical’ discussions around homosexuality as referred to in your original post are the best approach + Peter. And Mark your additional comment re the over-lap with that in terms of ethical discussions around sexuality in general.
In terms of your suggestions re the re-framing of the issue as it relates to the Christian faith +Peter I find the scientific approach a bit of a stumbling block. Primarily because I view science as the exploration of what is created and God as the Creator. As such Creator God in my perspective is therefore the higher source of wisdom as per Isaiah “I have understanding no one can fathom.”
All this leads to me to not so easily accepting the scientific evolutionary reasoning approach, and a recognition that I can not escape that when the Genesis account refers to Male and Female he created them the original language used is biological and not gender as in He/She which are referred to using different terms.
From my limited knowledge base, the people I know or have know who are homosexual or bi-sexual do not all have the same back-story. Some woman I have known have been in abusive relationships with men and therefore chosen to pursue any further relationships with women, some people I have known have been open that they just thought it would fun to explore (e.g. it was a choice they made), a man I have known had a health issue which meant he couldn’t do what the other boys did and it caused him to be bullied when he was young and he was teased for ‘feminine’ .. I suspect he adopted the persona, and as the generic ‘we’ are aware of there are some people who seem to always have had a desire for the opposite sex. So my experience leads me to think there are multiple factors that lead to a homosexual orientation and lifestyle. This in my mind means there are difficulties in defining homosexuality in a singular way.
Hello Jean
There are different backstories, and perhaps there are difficulties in defining homosexuality in a singular way. Nevertheless, I have observed, other readers here will have observed that despite differing backstories, and varying definitions (whether by learned theologians or scientists or sociologiists), there are, so to speak, singular testimonies, “my only experience of sexual attraction is same-sex attraction.” My question - for the consideration of God’s whole church - is whether it is possible that we live with two approaches to homosexuality, one being “conservative”, only marriage between a man and a woman is a holy context for sexual intercourse, and one being “liberal”, for those unable to marry the opposite sex, a permanent same sex partnership might be blessed? Why might the church of God be so open-minded and open-hearted to two approaches? It is striking that within the church of God there are two approaches to remarriage after divorce (it’s not ok; it is ok); and to artificial methods of contraception (it is ok; it’s not ok). Is it just that we live with two views on some matters of human love and not another matter?
This is the question, isn't it: why is it so hard for the church to live with a diversity of views on this issue? The (especially Anglican) church often lives with a diversity of doctrinal views on war, contraception, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist etc.
It seems to me the answer is: because sexual orientation is a question of one's intimate being, self-identity, way of living. It is so deeply intimate, personal, emotional, relational. One lives with the consequences of this everyday - in our desires, in our pleasures, and our choice of partners.
It's not an issue that comes up once in a while (like war or contraception), nor is it an issue that, these days at least, feels more doctrinal, theological, and less humanly involved (like the presence of Christ in the liturgy).
Practically, I think it is very painful for someone who is gay to sit in a parish and "under" a traditional church leadership (vicar, Bishop) which says - we can tolerate both views, there is enough space; when one of the views being tolerated says your relationship is not legitimate.
For a heterosexual person, just imagine if half (or more than half) of the church kept saying, implying, believing that your choice of partner was illegitimate? You'd be feeling that very keenly! You'd feel judged, angry, deeply let down.
Just take a lead, Anglican Church, like you did (eventually) on slavery! We don't tolerate both views, i.e. some say slavery is justified by the Bible - and we need to respect those views; others say the Bible is against slavery - and we respect that view as well.
In response to Jean (above): by all means, sexual choices are affected by a variety of factors, including trauma and experimentation. But, over time, the core of this issue is closer I think to how Allison defines it: "homosexual orientation is a regularly occurring non-pathological minority variant in the human condition."
I looked up Rosaria Butterfield as I had never heard of her. She didn’t come out of her lesbian lifestyle by discussion or argument it seems but by an encounter with the Lord that she describes as a ‘train wreck’! It was clearly like Paul’s experience which upends everything you thought you knew. When that happens, the experience is a bedrock of life and faith. No wonder she talks and writes about repentance! She has lived Psalm 51:17, (NRSV). Such people are rare even in the church but they have a genuine message to share.
As one of my friends has also said: questions of just war vs pacifism, the number of sacraments, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist etc are not comparable to the full inclusion (marriage, ordination) of rainbow Christians in the life of the church (or the ordination of women) because they are not questions of discrimination
Hi Mark. The Anglican church can only take a lead on such matters when it is more rather than less united on that lead. It is not at all clear to me that it is so united.
Mark's point (28-May, 9.25am) "because they are not questions of discrimination". I agree, massive difference, it's important to acknowledge this.
Also, discrimination issues are particularly weighty due to cultural and political influences - particularly the latter. Frankly, I think a lot of the heat has actually come from politically motivated actors who hail from American aggressive political religion. The church seems poorly equipped to confront religious-political extremism.
Hi Moya, I encountered her testimony many years ago when debates were rife regarding the position of the church regarding matters of gender etc. She does offer a unique perspective having not only becoming a lesbian from a young age but also a professor of a university fiercely advocating for gender fluidity. Her writings reflect a deep connection and compassion for the rainbow community even as her conversion experience convicted her in regards to her own attitudes/behaviour when it comes to sexuality.
Matt Brown of ‘She is not your rehab’ offers another type of insight in his biographical writings regarding his personal experiences. Albeit much of his struggle relates to childhood abuse and how ‘sexuality’ is included in that is but a part a bigger whole both of the harm he experienced and his working to overcome this harm and find some healing from his past.
Peter, I'm not sure what to make of your comment above. What does "united" mean? What sort of "unity" is needed before a church or group acts on questions of truth and justice? Is that how Jesus conducted himself? Not at all - right. He didn't wait for the Sanhedrin to come around to the idea of the kingdom (of heaven). When the mob wanted to stone the woman, he didn't say: let's take a vote. Let's see where the unity of the body is up to. Let's set up another listening group. No he acted because an issue of ethical and spiritual truth and righteousness was at stake, and he acted to defend those who are "least", who have been most excluded from the love and acceptance of God.
That is a valid point that many other ethical issues in constant discussion within the church e.g. war are less to do with discrimination. Although some others definitely include that like slavery and women in ministry.
Perhaps it is also a topic that has if I you like proved a conundrum as both the new and old testaments while having only a few references to homosexuality specifically, have numerous references to sexual immorality. And the plural ‘we’ as in all of us wrestle with deciding upon what falls into that bracket. As +Peter pointed out in an earlier comment such things did not stop Jesus reaching out to people such as the woman at the well; or the accounting of the woman who was being stoned - however, both these stories speak to me in a way of Jesus’s love for all while leaving an impression of Him desiring more for them.
Mark, it hasn’t been my personal experience in respect to encountering people in the rainbow community that having been born with feelings toward the opposite sex (e.g. orientation) is in the majority experience but that doesn’t mean it isn’t, it might just be the people I have known.
Running out of time will ponder and reply later on the two approaches approach +Peter
Hi Mark
By "unity" here I mean "carrying the people with you in making a decision" whether that decision-maker is a bishop, a vicar, a vestry or a Synod.
Jesus made certain determinations, as do individual Christians (some of whom may be bishops/vicars); but his followers also made determinations, and did so in collective ways of making determinations (notably in the Jerusalem council, Acts 15), as church councils and synods have done ever since. A bishop for a diocese, a vicar for a parish is whistling in the wind if they make a determination that needs support from the whole people of God and that support is not given (at least not in a significant majority).
Peter, the 'whistling in the wind' you describe is often the song of prophets:
"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you..."
We make this so complicated.
Jesus’ teachings time and time again are about the spirit of the heart, not the letter of the law.
Is love and compassion and justice present in a relationship? God is there.
Is there control or judgment of others? God is still there! But we are not called to this way.
Also… watch some videos of all the other animals who have same sex relationships, giraffes, penguins, swans, dolphins etc. They did not wake up one day and make a choice on their sexuality. Variation exists within nature. Diversity is beautiful.
I love this post! Thank you, Anonymous.
I bind unto myself today the strong Name of the Trinity.
A blessed Trinity Sunday to all. I hope you have all recited together the Athanasian Creed and sung St Patrick's Breatplate.
OK, it's not by Athanasius and it's not a creed but it's a wonderfully succinct summary of what makes the Christian faith Christian: the Holy and Undivided Trinity. There is a very helpful account of how the AC arose on Ryan Reeves' YouTube channel: as a teaching manual composed on the island monastery of Lerins (of St Vincent of Lerins fame) on the French Riviera for the Catholic missionary bishops who would be sent into Arian Gaul to win back the people to the Catholic faith "which, unless anyone holds, he cannot be saved". Arianism, so beloved of Germanic warrior tribes ruling Gaul, is the default version of natural religion meets Christianity, which is why it is perennially popular among people who have never hears of Arius. The same uncritical spirit today wants to sacralise old native paganisms as "culture' and "cultural values' - as if human culture itself wasn't ever changing and marked by ignorance and sin.
If we ever imagine we have comprehended Christianity, we are deceived. It is God incomprehensible who must take hold of us.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
I find myself still quite troubled by Peter's comments on the Anglican Church only making forward movement, taking leadership, when there is a "significant majority" on an issue - and regardless if that is an urgent issue of justice and discrimination, or otherwise.
In some ways, Peter is simply expressing a reality of collective decision-making (both secular and religious):
"A bishop for a diocese, a vicar for a parish is whistling in the wind if they make a determination that needs support from the whole people of God and that support is not given (at least not in a significant majority)."
In a sense, and if we shuffle the language of leadership around a little, that would be true for a Presbyterian or Methodist or Quaker polity too. Or a Westminster Parliament.
So what if there is not a more widespread collective will - "a significant majority" and "support from the whole people of God" (Peter), a simple numerical majority in all the 'houses' of the church, bishops, clergy, and laity (Anglican synodal decision making), a unified "sense of the Meeting" (Quaker speak) - and there is a significant issue of justice and exclusion within the church?
What is the task of Christian discipleship - and leadership - in these circumstances?
What would Jesus do? What *did* Jesus do?
Parliamentary democracies at least have bills of rights to ensure that the majority cannot do anything.
"In both his teaching and his very presence, Jesus of Nazareth presented the ultimate criticism of *royal consciousness*. He has, in fact, dismantled the dominant culture and nullified its claims. The way of his ultimate criticism is his decisive solidarity with marginal people and the accompanying vulnerability required by that solidarity. The only solidarity worth affirming is solidarity characterized by the same helplessness they know and experience." (Walter Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination).
Being a disciple of such a Jesus, Christian disciples and leaders cannot content themselves with the status quo, with agreeing with and allowing "a significant majority" of opinion to stand, when that opinion/status quo is plainly unjust and oppressive, restricting the full inclusion of marginalized people within the church. That is against the arc of the prophets and of God's love.
I am concerned that there is an inbuilt tendency within Anglican Christianity - being 'the middle way' - to create and perpetuate a deadening complacency to injustice, to the 'status quo', to 'kill the prophets and stone those who are sent to it' (to use Jesus's words for the established religion of his time).
Whither the prophetic imagination - the prophetic Jesus tradition - and Anglican Christianity?
Whither the prophetic tradition within Anglican worship, formation, and church leadership - in these islands and on This Topic?
Happy King's birthday everyone! Please read Brueggemann on royal consciousness and the prophets today!
Wasn’t it nice to have a holiday weekend?
+Peter two integrities within the Anglican Church I suppose it’s possible although at the moment I suspect we have multiple perspectives on ‘the issue’ within one congregation, and it would be a pity to feel the need to choose to only associate with the people of one perspective.. How would two integrities work when it comes to preaching or teaching? Remarriage after divorce is permitted in a church setting, I understand it is still handled differently in a pastoral sense, and the preaching on divorce that I have encountered stays pretty close to the NT scriptures? E.g. permissible in some situations?
There are some interesting threads re the book you referenced Mark - not that I read it, I just had enough of a look to tap into the over-view. It definitely does seem to be the case that affluence etc can shield the generic us from the reality of other people’s struggles.
In linking it to the topic though, this is where my wires get crossed. The prophetic or the OT prophets through whom God spoke definitely emphasised social injustice but a parallel emphasis was put on the decline in the moral standards and sexual behaviours seen from within Israel.
In my 20’s I can remember my thinking towards sexual mores and it was along the lines of sex before marriage is fine so long as the two people love each other. And while I still believed in God I can recall myself telling a flatmate whose parents were Christian “but I just don’t do church and all that stuff.” lol.
It wasn’t until I was confronted with the life and death thing after my first employer was killed in a car accident that I was sent really searching, really needing to know for sure that God was actually real. After some time (including the lady from one church I visited chasing me up the street : ) to give me an invitation to a group).. I re-discovered my faith or as I refer to it owned my own faith as an adult.
My perspective on what was best in regards to sexual relations changed after this time but not due to any brow beating preaching or to be honest really any direct teaching on the topic. It came upon me as I guess I grew in the realisation, in a number of areas, that God desires my good where previously I could have seen moral principles as God spoiling my fun. Drinking for example, I know several flatmates were perplexed about me not indulging to excess e.g. a good night on the town, but I can truly say by that point it just didn’t appeal. The change in my perspectives or ways of operating in the world weren’t due to any real definitive decisions but more like a conviction or an inner knowing or even inner desire to live differently and this came parallel to my spiritual journey.
I wouldn’t expect a person without faith in Jesus to have worldview aligned with scripture. And I support people seeking faith to be met, to be accepted for where they are at. I also have this insatiable belief in how God in Jesus transforms us.
In regards to unity and decision making - can I say that is above my pay grade lol… It’s a bit of a catch 22 I suspect. Having checks and balances e.g. with synods having lay, clergy and bishop representation helps I suspect to provide a variety of viewpoints and curtails too much decision making power to be put on one position the old ‘absolute power corrupts’…. At the same time there is the ‘invisible’ pressure to go with the flow or to not ruffle feathers so to speak. It does seem though when God truly calls an individual clergy or laity, in spirit and truth, and that calling differs from what may be the at the time status quo within christian churches at the time then - thinking of Martin Luther King Jr. ; the Wesley brothers, Margaret Yoshiko Shibukawa, Eglantyne Jebb, Jackie Pullinger, Pete Grieg.. the Booths etc… - He makes a way.
Oh also I have encountered plenty of social justice voices in the NZ Anglican sphere at present.. from CMS Maori Evangelists, to Anglican Advocacy, to Churches who are eco churches, to intentional communities etc etc.
Well, whatever one thinks of Vesco's judgment here, I think he is a brave man living and witnessing in Algeria, a land where many priests have been murdered by Islamic extremists. These include his predecessor Bishop Pierre Claverie, a great scholar of Islam and Classical Arabic, who was assassinated in a bombing in 1996 in the Algerian Civil War.
I don't know what Vesco would say about the 'trans issue' which flows directly out of the 'gay issue', but what about you, Peter? Are you going to make a submission to Parliament about the Man and Woman Definition Amendment Bill? I know this has upset Grant Robertson, the Vice-Chancellor of Otago University.
Does the NZ Anglican Church have a view on this piece of legislation affecting all New Zealanders?
(I can imagine how 'Father Ted' would handle this: "I hear you're a transphobe now, Father. What's the position of the Church on this? Should we all be transphobes? It's just that what the farm and all, I don't have much time for it and I just like to sit with a cup of tea in the evening.")
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Briefly,
Mark: your analysis-and-critique overlooks that the Anglican church is a voluntary association with a history of people leaving it when they don't like the leaders or the leadership, which means that being "prophetic" may be a good thing which also evacuates the church of its people, which is not a good thing; further, "prophetic" can work in more that one way, since (to take another issue) there are those who would like me to prophetically support Israel in all situations, and those who would like me to prophetically support Palestine unconditionally: what to do? Following a "middle road" may have the advantage of working to carry the whole church forward through challenging times and challenging issues.
William: no, you shouldn't be a transphobe and I see nothing in what the Pope is saying about social theology in his recent encyclical which would support you (or Father Ted!) being a transphobe. Questions about how the church(es) should respond to matters of gender dysphoria, gender identity, etc are challenging and may be best worked out without putting too much in writing, instead by responding to individuals in their individual circumstances.
Peter:
So "male and female He created them" isn't in the Anglican Bible? The doctrine of creation is one of those things Anglicans have "good disagreement" about, is it? "Let your yes be "no comment" and your no be "there is a range of views on this question
Hi William
You know full well that the Bible is the Bible and thus the Bibles Anglican use have those words in them.
But what do those words mean for pastors as they work with people whose life experience and personal identity does not fit neatly into those binary categories?
Are you saying that pastors simply say to people "man up" or "woman up", otherwise "leave the church now, because you don't fit?"
I suspect that is not your point, but what is your point about how pastors, whether Anglicans or Catholics or otherwise should respond?
We are all interested in your constructive suggestions!
Anglican Bibles also contain Matthew 19:12!
You suspect rightly - so why do you ask that, other than to deflect? Months ago, I asked you about the rightness of Drag Queen story time for kids in public libraries and you punted that one too. Where is your courage before the world?
What is my point? I thought it was obvious. New Zealand's Parliament is considering legislation that will clarify that a woman means a biological adult human female and a girl is a younger human female. (And mutatis mutandis, man and boy - although all the societal debate has been about women and boys, for the obvious but frequently ignored fact that the much rarer phenomenon of women-identifying-as-men are no threat to men but are in great danger themselves.) This will impact education, sports, public toliets and women's spaces, prisons and hospitals: in Britain a nurse was disciplined for objecing to a trasgender doctor changing in front of her. Men claiming to be women have been held in women's prisons. Debate continues about puberty blockers for children. Stephen Cottrell, now Archbishop of York, promoted the work of Mernaids' when he was Bishop of Chelmsford.
Obviously this issue affects churches, hospital chaplains, prison chaplains, church schools, youth groups, scouts etc. I wasn't talking about counselling sexually confused individuals, I was talking about the rights and safety of women and the protection of girls. Have you no views at all on this legislation? It will impact you significantly.
Pusillanimity and the desire to be approved by the atheist bien pensants of RNZ are not Gospel values. Romans 12.1.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Hi William
We are going to disagree on whether such legislation impacts significantly or not. It may do but it may not. And the politicians may or may not agree on the appropriate definitions etc. Legislation is not everything here in Kiwiland (though I get it that in other countries it may be helpful).
We are also going to disagree on whether the church should have a view on what is read in public, secular libraries.
What the church should have a view on is that people are treated justly and with dignity (see Magnifica Humanitas) and you ahve no argument from me that women should be protected from unwanted attentions from men (no matter what identity or clothing men take up); and also no argument from me that women competing in sports should not have men competing in their sports. In both cases it does not necessarily require legislation to work out what is the right thing to do. The Olympics, for instance, have recently made the right decision about these things ... independently of the NZ parliament.
William, I respect +Peter's courage to treat sensitive controversial topics with careful reflection and discernment. How could we trust a bishop who does not? Many of us find that it's (unfortunately) fairly easy to be swayed by loud and insistent, supposedly qualified, voices - a bishop does well to demonstrate patience and openness IMHO, and there's also a benefit because then it's an example I can learn from!
I read an excellent piece this morning that reinforces the need to be very, very careful - a warning for all of us - but especially for those who bear the burden of church/pastoral leadership.
A Strange Examination.
Karl Barth and the Problem of Two Voices
https://keithljohnson.substack.com/p/a-strange-examination
The awkward fact that Peter is dancing around is that the T in LGBTQ++ is the canary in the mineshaft and it is the unwelcome reminder of the actual toxicity of sexual sin when all the "progressive pride" flags are trying to browbeat you into saying otherwise. Hence my reference to Romans 12,1. "Progressive" Anglicans (and Catholics and others) are like the Israelites on Mount Carmel who want to have both Yahweh *and Baal and wish Elijah would just shut up and go away with his insensitive narrow mindedness.
Peter also continues to deflect and obfuscate. The issue has never been *what is read in public libraries to small children but *who is reading it. Do Anglican Sunday wchools have drag queens reading Bible stories to tiny tots? If not, why not? Lack of tiny tots? I'm sure the drag queens are willing.
Likewise the Olympics. Nobody ever said the NZ Parliament persuaded the IOC to follow biological truth. It wasn't NZ. It was the Trump Administration. But the legislation will protect female sports in NZ where public money is concerned. And prevent men being sent to women's prisons. Or using women's toilets. Peter does not grasp that society is run by laws - including the opinions of "progressive" judges.
If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who will respond on the day of danger? No, just play some happy, inclusive jazz, Satchmo..
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Dear William
You live in a world of your own interpretations of what I write!
Peter,
One way of (not) engaging with unwelcome questions that put one on the spot is to say (like Sir Humphrey), 'There are a range of views on this and one must be careful/sensitive/pastoral etc etc'. And so on for thirty paragraphs.
The second is to protest like an indignant Victorian aunt: 'You haven't understood me!' - and then not respond.
But I understand you perfectly well.
The honourable - but always costly - way is to follow the one who said, 'Let your yes be yes and your no be no. Anything else is from the devil.'
Cardinal Vesco will no doubt find that trying to neutralise the 'gay question' by abstracting it from modern culture and excising the T from LGBTQ++ doesn't work. The Zeitgeist will not let that happen. That isn't the way sin-afflicted human beings and human culture operate. I would dearly like to believe that the Kingdom of God will arrive naturally and peacefully on earth as sweet reason and low fat food are spread abroad. But then I awake from my Kantian dream into the real world.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Hi William
I have already said above:
"What the church should have a view on is that people are treated justly and with dignity (see Magnifica Humanitas) and you have no argument from me that women should be protected from unwanted attentions from men (no matter what identity or clothing men take up); and also no argument from me that women competing in sports should not have men competing in their sports."
You can say all you like about me not engaging, Humphrey Appleby, Kant and co, etc, etc but I think I have been clear in those words, and they are not words that are that welcome in a number of spheres of our society.
And the point is that your sentiments - which were once shared instinctively by nearly everyone in NZ society - now need the force of law to protect them. Fine words butter no parsnips, as the saying goes. Those words need to be in legislation. You are still cool with drag queen story time in public libraries, I guess.
When did the rot begin? Was it when Rob Moodie aka Miss Alice started wearing kaftans? Ah, the frisson of the transgressive. Miss Alice shows it is possible to bea clever cookie as well as cooked.
Still, easy for me to say - I'm not a public figure and not likely to face the violent fury of the irrational. We know what the pro-trans mob did to Posie Parker in Albert Park and something of what was going on in the mind of Charlie Kirk's killer. And a few of the US school shootings as well. Sexual confusion and male aggression are an explosive combination, and discretion is sometimes the better part of valour.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Gosh, William, so much ink and energy! You know so much. But do you actually know anyone who is T?
Hi William
A further reflection from me: you are very keen on legislation to solve problems associated with the "T" part of LGBTQ+.
Why is that?
Legislation is not everything when it comes to sexual expression and sexual behaviour. Adultery is injurious to marriage and resulting marriage breakdowns are injurious to society ... but we do not legislate against adultery. We do legislate against, or in constraint of matters such as abortion, how property is sorted when relationships breakdown, and sexual harrassment, so there is no question that legislation has its place in regulating human (sexual) behaviour, but we do not legislate for everything.
Is it really a black mark against a church leader that a church leader doesn't endorse every legislative proposal which lines up with Christian moral teaching?
Peter, you may not legislate against adultery but God does. Try Exodus 20 (I believe that is still in Anglican Bibles). Adultery is still an offence in most military codes of justice. It is certainly a serious offence in canon law and leads to dismissal from office (I suspect you knew that). And if you knew the history of English common law, you would know that adultery was indeed once a criminal offence. And it still carries a legal presumption of wrongdoing: courts take a dim view of adulterers in divorce, property and child custody proceedings. So your understanding of the legal implications of adultery is too narrow.Read St Thomas on the meaning and purpose of law in Summae Theologiae II Part 2 - I am reading Budzsizweski's brilliant exposition of these very seminal sections.
As for "not endorsing every legislative proposal which lines up with Christian moral teaching', about 10 years ago I co-led a student tour of Sachsenhausen concentration camp near Berlin and made a point of going to the cell of Pastor Martin Niemoeller, and today I could imagine him saying, 'They came for the terfs and the women, and I did not speak out because I was not a woman,'
Mark asks, do I know any Ts? I know a retired Anglican priest (a married man) who is or was into makeup and cross dressing. And teaching in a girls' high school about 4 years ago, when the social contagion was at its peak, I met three girls who thought they were 'non-binary' or maybe boys.
But I don't know Miss Alice in Wonderland and don't want to go down that rabbit hole.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Dear William,
Stop shifting the goalposts. We are not talking about God's legislation but parliament's legislation, and, in particular the NZ parliament's legislation.
I may be mistaken but I do not recall our parliament as ever having legislated against adultery.
Great, then from your lived experience of people who identify as T, William, it will be palpably obvious that they are not Baal-worshipping trans-humanists, but more akin to real people with difficult struggles, hopes, and desires. And with issues so particular and complex, that to suggest broad brush solutions to this issue would be clumsy indeed. Where Angels fear to tread...
What might we say at a political level? Personally, I like Rory Stewart's pragmatic approach...
https://youtube.com/shorts/iwfuLapguqo?si=lSLF2IS9o-CRHXPb
I appreciate Peter is not a lawyer (neither am I) but 2 minutes googling would have shown him that adultery was indeed a criminal matter under English common law dealt with by the ecclesiastical courts until the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 as well as under tort laws (harm caused to the innocent party in a marriage). IiRC, English law and courts prevailed in New Zealand until the Statutes of Westminster 1948. Successive divorce laws, all in the direction of no fault divorce, changed the criminal status of adultery but not its status in tort law. The fact that Protestant clergy can be dismissed for adultery under employment law, armed services members can be court martialed for it, and family courts consider adultery as harmful behaviour in domestic proceedings is evidence enough that NZ's Parliament has indeed legislated against adultery. Remember also that the courts themselves, in addition to Parliament, legislate through their interpretation of the law and judgments. Adultery is not a matter of indifference to the civil law, like a recreational interest in model railways: it carries legal consequences that the courts may enforce.
I don't know why Mark uses the expression 'lived experience '. Isn't all experience 'lived'? I know the expression is common in leftwing sociology but it's pretty otiose. Anyway, I'm sure Mark has heard of autogynephiliac men who have been sent to women's prisons: I wouldn't want to "live the experience " of their cell mates. Or the experience of the British nurse who was sacked when she complained that a transgender doctor was undressing before her in the women's changing room. Thank God she won her appeal - but she should never have been put through that nightmare.
As a healthy tallish man, I have never feared sexual violence in my life, so it was something of a shock to learn from a female Indian teacher that India has female-only railway carriages in some cities. As men, it rarely occurs to us that the female half of the human race has in the back of their minds the (sadly rational) fear that the other half of the human race could cause them harm simply because they are women.There was real evil in the mob that attacked Posie Parker and the grandmother who was assaulted in Albert Park.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Hi William
OK I may be out by a few years about legislation against adultery.
If anyone here has argued that it is ok for a biological man to get undressed in front of a women in a women's changing room, or justified the imprisoning of men with women or the attack on Posie Parker etc, then I have missed the comment.
How the law might both permit men to identify as women (or, at least, to not prohibit such indentification) and to protect women from men is a conundrum and one that (as far as I can tell) is being worked on in various ways around the world. It might be simpler - legally speaking - if cross-dressing and so forth was just banned a la Leviticus, but would that be compatible with a social democracy? It is not easy to both support freedom of choice and to have people choose things we wish they did not.
Post a Comment