Homosexuality and the Church

2004-10-21 at 11:19 p.m.

So the Church of England is fretting about homosexuality again. I know I'm a little late with this story, but back on Monday Lord Eames, the Archbishop of Northern Ireland published his report.

Is there anyone who hasn't heard of the controversy raging in the Church of England (or, Anglican Communion, I should say) over homosexuality at the moment? For those who haven't heard, last year the US Episcopalians decided to ordain as bishop an openly gay man, and in England, Canon Jeffery Johns (a celibate gay man) was elected as Bishop of Reading. He later stood down but Gene Robinson was duly installed. All hell broke loose.

The CofE is a divided organisation in many ways, from its divisions over worship styles (having smells and bells, or not) to its theological stance (extreme liberal, liberal, conservative, extreme conservative, not to mention the pentecostals and other groups) as well as geographically (third and first worlds). It has been reeling from crisis to crisis, argument to argument for years now, and once more it seems that it must split in the face of such deep divisions. It has argued over women priests, over marriage, over politics, race, sexuality, and even down to the fundamentals of what makes a person a Christian. Now the big focus is on homosexuality.

As an aside, it is interesting to see how far the church follows the secular world. The sixties and the seventies seem to have been the big era for the issue of women in general, which was followed in the church in the eighties and nineties. Then in the secular world gay rights became an issue in the seventies (I think) and eighties, and now are impacting the church from the nineties and now into the new century. The church is around ten to twenty years behind secular movements, and it seems to take that long for whatever is happening in the outside world to make an impact on the church and make it change or at least reflect on its thinking. But that is a digression.

Part of the trouble for the Church is that the third world (the global south, I believe they call it) is far more conservative than we in the west generally are. We have our share of conservatives, yes, but they seem to be more peaceable, and tend merely to flock to churches within the communion which support them (eg. no women ministers) rather than rocking the church. The south is unwilling or unable to do that, and tends to speak out.

The Eames report is demanding an apology from the American church for installing a gay bishop, and a reconsideration from everyone as to whether active homosexuals are welcome. In other words it tends to the conservative side of the fence. However, it essentially pleases no one - because the conservatives wanted full repentance, sackcloth and ashes style from America (which they are unlikely to get) whereas it goes too far for moderates. But at the moment the communion stands (somewhat shakily) unsplit. Where it will go from here, it is hard to say.

Now for my personal opinion. In no way am I a conservative. My stance is "don't ask, don't tell". I do not care whether my priest or bishop or the guy sitting next to me is gay - I do not want to know, either. I do not want to know what people get up to in their private lives, and I believe private lives should be just that - private. I fail to see why it is any of my business what a bishop gets up to in his bedroom. Nor do I personally believe homosexuality to be a sin.

That said, even if we accept that homosexuality is sinful - it still should not, in my opinion, be an issue for the church. If we accept that the Bible condemns homosexuality then why are we assuming that priests and bishops (and laity) have not read the Bible? Why do we assume that we must tell them what the Bible says rather than accepting that they may have read it for themselves and are either ignoring it or have a different interpretation? Their sins, if sins they are, are between them and God, not us. We are not the judges of these people and we are not given some divine mandate to poke our noses into the bedrooms of others in a voyeuristic manner. Why should we care? Unless a bishop or churchman of any stripe breaks the law, then why do we seek to moralise to them?

Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Master is able to make him stand.
(Romans 14:4)

As I see it, we should leave people's private lives alone unless they are breaking the law or hurting another. To refer you to my favourite quote:

"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self- protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."
John Stuart Mill

Homosexuality between consensual partners is not harmful, providing they are consensual. Perhaps there are spiritual consequences - but in the case of church members, they are well able to discover those consequences for themselves and to act accordingly. They do not require us to nursemaid them and it is rather insulting of us to try.

The Church of England needs to make its mind up in this issue, one way or another. The Catholic Church has done so, and though there are many (myself included) who disagree with her decision, at least she has made one. The Church of England infuriates both sides by prevaricating in this way - because nothing can be done while leaders continue to wring their hands and say "I don't know, maybe..." on the issues. Perhaps the Church should split - after all, if the third world continues as fundamentalist as this, then there is little common ground between the churches. Why, exactly, are the African churches part of the Church of England anyway? That always seems rather colonial, and perhaps they would rather and would be better served by a Church of Africa? Perhaps something on the lines of the Commonwealth could be made instead - a church which acknowledges its inheritance from the mother church in England, but does not feel the need to conform to everything that church in England now does. Perhaps that would help, because this situation cannot go on, the Church cannot stay punch-drunk forever.

before † after
g-book † notes † †