warning: immenely long post alert
aka my script basuis for a uni presentation on the matter LOL
Script for presentation: Homosexuality, Anglicanism and Christian Ethics.
The past sixty years has been a period of immense social progress. All aspects of society have had the chance to benefit from developments such as the NHS and benefits system, and perhaps partly as result of this greater social security, marginalized groups have moved into the mainstream. We have had a female Prime Minister, black and other ethnic minorities have legal protection of their rights, and gay people are widely accepted in many parts of the community and increasingly represented in the media.
However, whilst both ethnic and female groups are well represented (Church statistics showed that 244 of the 478 clergy ordained in 2006 were women ),
and accepted at least to a degree by an Anglican Church that has a reputation for being patriarchal and slow to modernise, the gay community still finds itself at the heart of moral debate and, some would argue, discrimination. Christians actively preach the value of ministering to the marginalized and those removed from society because of their behaviour- murderers, paedophiles, rapists- yet the newspapers scream of potential damage to the Church in headlines such as ?Worldwide Anglican church facing split over gay bishop? when one gay Bishop is ordained in America.
The debate over homosexuality within the Christian Anglican faith is not one that is easy to pare down to the basics. Many sources quote the Bible, yet how definite is the Bible on the issue? Most of the very few references are at best incidental, and also tend to be located in the Old Testament, and it can certainly stand note that it is noticeable that whilst many of the laws in Leviticus are not only ignored but considered abhorrent in modern times, those useful in the quest to denounce homosexuality are held up as essential guidance for all Christians. No matter what Leviticus Chapter 12 says, I have not yet met a woman who plans or has made a sacrificial offering of a lamb following childbirth- or an Anglican who chooses not to eat pork or shellfish. So why the attention on Leviticus 18 which states ? Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.??
There are of course other Biblical passages that are held up to demonstrate God?s dislike or prohibition on homosexuality. Starting with the earliest of the Biblical texts, examples include the tale in Genesis of Sodom. The men of Sodom are struck blind because they demanded of Lot, ?"Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them." And they choose to refuse his offer instead of his daughters.
Where is the explicit referral to sexual intention, if we are to base or influence our judgements of a large section of humanity on the passage? Sodom- or Sodomy- may well be an accepted term for a male gay sex act now, but that comes from the paragraph, rather than informs it. It is also disturbing surely that the moral focus paid to this passage has been on what the men of Sodom might do, as opposed to what lot was prepared to offer his daughters for? Even if we did decide personally to accept this passage as guidance for our judgements, can we really be as blinkered as to accept moral guidance from a man who offers his daughters up to the mob? There is also a clear distinction to be made here between a loving gay relationship where sexual activity is part of the expression of a mutual bond, and what would appear at best to be gang rape in a society run on strictly patriarchal terms.
Leviticus 20 states ?13If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death? . Is this really an attitude that should be carried into modernity? Recently, the Archbishop of Canterbury broached the topic of Shari?a law and one of the biggest objections given in response was the example in Shari?a of punishment of adultery by death. Yet that is exactly what is being proposed here if the ruling was followed through! The same argument that was used as a reason to oppose Shari?a is being used to justify the anti-gay beliefs of some Anglican Christians.
In contrast, what do the Gospels have to say about homosexuality: the answer is immediate, explicitly, nothing. Whether Jesus? silence on the matter is taken to be a natural acceptance of the non-tolerance practised in his society at that time, or simply as a lack of recognition of the subject as one of importance, there is no definitive answer, only speculation.
How, then, should we try to interpret the New Testament on homosexuality, especially modern day gay relationships, where the key factor is not the rape and perversions identified in the Old Testaments, but loving partnerships formed on the basis of mutual attraction to provide the same intrinsic experiences as a heterosexual relationship, excepting procreation although increasingly even that is changing. Companionship, support, mutually exclusive sexual partnerships, security- these are not limited to straight relationships, but are part of monogamous love across a broad spectrum.
Jesus may have been silent on sexuality, but he certainly was not on the subject of love! Jesus may be accurately referred to as the prophet of Love, for it was core to his preaching and philosophy. What is it that differes the teachings of Jesus from those of the ancient Jewws who went before him? It is this: the Jesus Commandment-
?"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."
Nowhere in this does Jesus specify ?but only if you are straight?- or any other criteria. The love of Jesus is supposed to be all welcoming and non judgemental. If Jesus accepts the company of Mary Magdelen, a woman who would fall foul of Jewish Orthodoxy in so very many ways, there is no reason but to assume that his doctrine of love extended to all Humanity.
This Commandment is not an isolated text; equally significant is the quote from Matthew, ?You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' "This is the great and foremost commandment. "And a second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."
So not only does Jesus instruct that his followers should love their neighbours, it also states that on this shall hang the law: perhaps this could be seen as over riding Leviticus?
It?s also worthy of note that Jesus instructed his followers ?let he who is without sin cast the first stone?, meaning that only those who are sin free can judge another persons actions. Nobody is without sin, therefore the correct path under Jesus should surely be to love one another regardless of their sexuality, allowing for any judgements to be made on the day of judgement?
Post Jesus, we do of course have the writing of Paul in Romans, which some Theologians take as a very clear condemnation of homosexuality. This may be the case indeed, as the Theologian David Malik would certainly insist; however Paul was a product of the Jewish society of his day, and at best only interpreted the teachings of Christ: he also existed in an era when Rome, with it?s tradition of homosexual relationships, was still riding high and therefore perhaps had wider, conversion led motives in his opinions? We shall never know. There is also suggestion by some sources that the text does not refer to same sex relationships at all, but to shrine prostitution, or idolatry.
Of course, no debate about ethics should hang upon quotes from a book, however sacred that text may be held. Debate must also focus on the realities of life within that religion, and the religion that gave birth to the rise of anti homosexual feeling in Christianity was its predecessor, Judaism, for Judaism takes the teachings of the Old testament as doctrine, and does not accept those within the New Testament that may be used to qualify them. Judaism developed at a time of great social development, when a strong imperative was the desire to increase the religion in number and therefore strength and presence.
Pre- donated gametes and adoption, a homosexual partnership could not fulfil this aim and it is easy to see why it may be held in less regard than a traditional marriage of opposite gendered partners resulting in children. As well as the growth of the faith, welfare of the older generations was a huge concern in the nomadic tribes of the era, and this was traditionally provided for by sons and daughters. It is only natural perhaps that one would not encourage any behaviour that would likely greatly increase ones own suffering in old age and infirmity. Today, however, we have a different society- pensions, social benefits, healthcare- and the same concerns simply are not as relevant. Indeed, today grandchildren are not guaranteed within a heterosexual relationship; neither are they impossible within a gay one.
The general questions that need to be asked, then are these two: why, when society has moved on to a new, more inclusive level that allows the ordination of women for example, is it still unacceptable for a Minister to make his own decisions about the exclusive and loving relationship he or she may choose? And why, when Christianity has managed to adopt such a separate identity from Judaism in so many ways, has such stigma clung to what is perhaps the most innate of ones personal characteristics- who one is attracted to?.
Most of all, why is the Anglican Church allowing such divides to develop over this issue? No doubt when Jeffrey Johns, who withdrew from the position of Bishop of Reading in the face of much criticism, withdrew the Anglican community hoped that the issue would go away for some time at least. Not so; the appointment of Gene Robinson to the position of Bishop of New Hampshire in the Episcopal Church of the USA has re-opened the debate in a way that rages onwards. African Churches cannot accept him and refuse to withdraw from alliances; the Archbishop of Canterbury invites him to attend the Lambeth Conference only in the capacity of marketplace delegate, unable to attend worship or debates and still the Ugandan Bishop refuses to attend- which is somewhat ironic, as so does Gene Robinson! Should not a Church founded on the notion of love be looking to find mutual, common ground rather than bickering over lifestyle decisions? As Bishop Robinson himself says- ??It makes me wonder: if we can't sit around a table and study the Bible together, what kind of communion do we have and what are we trying to save?" .
The Church aims to be a universal faith, reflecting the needs of all within its care. Yet humanity survives because of its variations, not in spite of them. In conclusion then, I would submit two passages: the words of the Thinking Anglicans website:
?We know that the health of our planet depends on the maintenance of our biodiversity. The same may well be true of Anglicanism. Our tradition is one of expressing faith through the cultures of our people. Consequently, our theology and ethics have often been shaped by pastoral care and concern. In a worldwide Communion, this is bound to lead to diversity and to suppress this diversity is to inflict a high cost on the freedom of the human spirit??
And of course, those words which Jesus found so meaningful- ??"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, ? If we base our ethical decisions upon this notion, how wrong can we possibly go?