Peter Espeut FOR SERIOUS Christians, the recent elevation of an Anglican priest, who is a practising homosexual, to the high office of bishop (in the state of New Hampshire (United States), must be very confusing. Bishops are the official teachers and guardians of correct doctrine, and when two weekends ago, 50 Anglican bishops from across the U.S. laid their hands in consecration over an openly practising homosexual (with his boyfriend in a front row) to welcome him among their number, they are making a loud theological statement that according to their consciences and their understanding of theology, the practice of homosexual intercourse (and sexual intercourse outside of marriage) is compatible with Christianity.
As a student of theology myself, I have taken an interest in this remarkable turn of events to try to understand what is happening. Is the Holy Spirit trying to speak new things to the Anglican Church in the U.S. (something I would want to know about), or is some travesty of truth taking place?
At the 1998 Lambeth Conference (of worldwide Anglican bishops), a resolution (1.10) was passed defining the Anglican position on homosexuality. That stated position is similar to mine, and would not condone the actions of the Anglican Church of New Hampshire supported by 50 bishops in the wider U.S., now looking very much like a grievous travesty of truth.
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
Put simply, the position is the following. First of all, we distinguish between homosexual 'orientation' and homosexual 'practice'. Everyone in the world, whether single, married or celibate, has a sexual orientation. Most have a heterosexual orientation, feeling drawn to be involved in intimate human and sexual relationships with persons of the other gender (in Greek, 'heteros' means 'other, another'). Some have a homosexual orientation, feeling to enter intimate human and sexual relationships with persons of the same gender (in Greek, 'homoios' means 'same as, like'). Individuals are not morally responsible for their orientation, since it does not flow from 'free choice' and therefore, having any particular orientation cannot in itself be sinful or virtuous. It is how we act on our orientation which can be either sinful or virtuous.
Whatever our sexual orientation, our sexual lives have to be ordered, channelled in acceptable directions. Traditional Christian teaching is that the only appropriate context for sexual intercourse is in lifelong marriage between a man and a woman. Heterosexuals who sexually exploit others, abuse children or who force others to have sex with them (rape) are out of control, and are in need of counselling and pastoral care. Traditional Christian teaching is that there is no appropriate context for homosexual sex, no morally appropriate way to act on a homosexual orientation. Although all homosexuals are loved by God, homosexual acts are not. Persons who have a homosexual orientation should be welcomed as full members of Christian churches, and they should seek to keep their sexual lives in order; should they fail, they will be in need of counselling and pastoral care.
This view would permit a person with homosexual orientation whose sexual life is in order, to enter pastoral ministry even at the highest level. It would forbid anyone homosexual or heterosexual whose sexual life is not in order, from entering the pastoral ministry, but it would still offer pastoral care and moral direction, to draw on God's transforming power to change lives and order relationships.
Lambeth Resolution 1.10 was not supported unanimously: 526 bishops voted for, 70 voted against, and 45 abstained a sizable majority to be sure, but revealed a significant body of dissent. I have it from an insider that the majority of the bishops worldwide who dissented were from the U.S., the same bishops who no doubt turned up in New Hampshire to lay their hands on Bishop Robinson. Anglican bishops worldwide are under a moral obligation to respect the decisions of Lambeth. The actions of the fifty U.S. Anglican bishops would seem to be in contempt of Lambeth, a rejection of Lambeth; and would seem to suggest that elements within the U.S. Anglican Church are in schism.
HOMOSEXUALITY AND TELEVISION
Would it be unkind to suggest that the actions of these American churchmen with respect to Lambeth is parallel to that of the U.S. to the United Nations? Would it be true to say that there is national sentiment in the U.S. that they are powerful enough to go it alone in the world in flagrant conflict with others in the world community, with respect to church and state? That may be an important part of the explanation, but what might be the intellectual, the theological, basis for the acceptance within the U.S. Anglican Church, of homosexuality as an 'alternative lifestyle'?
There is no doubt that more and more, homosexuality is being portrayed on U.S. television and in the movies as 'normal' and 'natural' and an acceptable lifestyle alternative to heterosexuality and the traditional family. What would lead 50 high-level, highly educated Anglican churchmen to share this view? The argument they gave was that Jesus in his ministry was inclusive rather than exclusive, reaching out to the profoundly marginalised in his society lepers, prostitutes, adulterers, tax collectors, publicans, sinners, the ritually unclean. By welcoming a practising homosexual into the highest rank of Holy Orders, they say, is to do what Jesus would have done were he among us today. Really?
THE DEBATE CONTINUES
There is an ongoing debate whether one's sexual orientation is due to 'nature' (i.e. is genetic in origin: inherited) or 'nurture' (the result of upbringing: socialisation). Some argue that if it is due to nature, then it is God-given and 'natural', and therefore must be accepted as 'normal'. They argue that if there is a gene for homosexuality, then those with that gene are just as normal as those with the gene for heterosexuality, and should be allowed by society (including the church) to act according to their genetic makeup. If sexual orientation is genetically based, then same-sex marriages are just as normal as man-woman unions, they argue, and same-sex unions and homosexuality should be an acceptable 'alternative lifestyle'. No one should be discriminated against in any way because of their sexual orientation, including to adopt and raise children or to become bishops.
On the other hand, if one is not born homosexual, but is 'made so by men' (e.g. improper parenting leading to maladjustment) then homosexuality should be seen as deviant behaviour which can in no way be 'normal' or an acceptable 'alternative lifestyle'.
Which is it? Well, no gene for homosexuality has yet been identified, but many psychologists argue that the absence of a father in the home, or being surrounded by extra-dominant women (grannies or mothers or teachers) can lead to abnormalities in the way some men relate to women, which might lead to same-sex orientation in men and women.
My logic tells me that a homosexual gene (if it exists) should slowly disappear from the gene pool, since it cannot be passed on by homosexual sex (since homosexual activity cannot lead to offspring).
Here, I believe, is the source of the false theology now being preached by elements in the American church. It starts with a false scientific premise, which leads to a false conclusion of normality. The conclusion that homosexuals should not be condemned but counselled is correct, as is the call for an end to discrimination; but tolerance and pastoral concern for the sinner has been confused with acceptance of the sin itself. Jesus' attitude to the woman caught in adultery was less than condemnatory, suggesting that mercy and compassion are relevant; but his parting admonition was "Sin no more". A homosexual would have been told no less. Jesus' response to a homosexual would be no less merciful and compassionate, and no more condoning of the act.
For some reason, the Anglican Church in the U.S. along with other elements in U.S. society seems to be losing its way. I have always thought that the U.S. church could be a strong enough moral force to lead that once great country to be the champion of peace and justice in the world. Now I am not so sure.
The Rev. Peter Espeut is a sociologist and an ordained deacon of the Roman Catholic Church.
