One of the major reasons why Evangelicals in the USA, Australia and Britain have been critical of the appointment of Rowan Douglas Williams as the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury is that he has admitted to ordaining a man who was (maybe still is) a practising homosexual. And, further, he has made remarks here and there which seem supportive of same-sex couples who are in a so-called "faithful partnership."
Let us be clear. According to the Bible and traditional moral theology fornication is a sin and thus a so-called heterosexual person or a so-called homosexual person commits sin when he or she engages in genital sex with another person outside of marriage (which includes a common law arrangement).
Some would argue - I do not say that Dr Williams would do so -- that a "faithful partnership" between two homosexual persons is like a common law marriage and thus sexual relations here do not qualify as a sin.
But the Bible-based Evangelical and the catholic moral theologian will come back and claim that according to the Bible and Christian moral principles all forms of same-sex genital relations are forbidden whether between permanent friends or casual participants.
Thus for most conservative Evangelicals and for most traditional [Anglo] Catholics there are no circumstances wherein homosexual practice is permissible. It is a sin as other sins and when sincerely confessed can be forgiven by the Divine mercy. (The sin is easier to confess, I think, if one is in a Catholic ethos because of the availability of private confession and absolution.)
But let us move on now to heterosexual relations.
We recall that the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, is an Evangelical when it comes to opposition to homosexual practice, though he has learned to express himself carefully. Yet when it comes to divorce and remarriage he is, as they say, "soft" in that he does not follow the older, strict Evangelical position here.
We recall also that in the developing tolerance of western society the rights of women, the liberalizing of divorce law and the acceptance of serial monogamy have preceded the granting of rights to homosexual persons. In fact, there would not have been the present tolerance and even acceptance of homosexuality in the West had there not first been the creation of what sociologists call the divorce culture. If you give sexual freedom to some you must give it to all.
It is a simple fact that the Church in the West has followed the culture and that it moved first to the remarriage of divorcees and is now moving to the blessing of same-sex partnerships. Also it first accepted divorced men and women as clergy before it began the process (now going on) of accepting active homosexual men and women as clergy.
So it is somewhat surprising that in the West (yet not in Africa and Asia) we have the strange phenomenon that while Evangelicals are extremely clear that all forms of homosexual genital activity are wrong, they seem to hold the doctrine that all forms of heterosexual genital activity are acceptable if the two persons, male and female, involved have been married. And it seems to matter not whether the male and female partners have been married once, or twice or thrice and whether or not their former partners are alive. As long as they hold a certificate of marriage - whether it be their only one or one of three - then their sexual relations are acceptable if they are voluntary and in "a faithful relationship."
So the question arises.
Why is it that modern Evangelicals are so much against both homosexual activity and any church leader who even partially supports it, and at the same time they (or most of them) seem to turn a blind eye to the presence of serial monogamy in the culture and very specifically in their churches?
I think there are at least two basic reasons and many subsidiary ones.
The first is biological. Evangelicals think that physically the female and the male body fit together whereas the male does not fit rightly with the male or the female with the female. And they feel a sense of disgust (as many conservative people still do) when they think about homosexual practice between persons of the same sex.
The second is sociological. A growing number of the pastors and members of evangelical churches and parishes, especially in the USA, are divorced and remarried persons and there is virtually no discipline in the churches in terms of who may be married in church. So second and third marriages are common. (Even in Great Britain over 50 per cent of marriages in the Methodist Church are second or third marriages. However, the Church of England has not yet reached anywhere near this percentage, but I expect will soon accelerate due to recent changes in doctrine by the General Synod.)
Thus pastors and leaders have to think twice before they even contemplate the possibility of saying or even hinting that serial monogamy is an expression of human rebellion against God and is therefore a sinful reality. They live in a divorce culture which has entered the church doors and they do not want to lose tithing members; and, let us be honest, they genuinely care for these persons (and, of course, we all must recognize that there is a massive pastoral task in facing those who are harmed and affected by the divorce culture - but that is not the focus of my attention here).
In the light of all this, I do think that Evangelicals ought to be more sparing in their condemnation of Dr Williams and others for they do not speak from God's throne or even from the moral high ground of the 21st century! They speak as those who condemn themselves by their words of judgement for they share in the general malaise and toleration.
They judge Rowan Williams to be not orthodox; but, they call orthodox certain American bishops who have licensed and ordained many clergy involved in serial monogamy, despite the Early Church prohibition of second marriages for clergy (a rule still followed in the Orthodox Churches).
Until modern Evangelicals are ready and willing - until WE all are ready and willing -- to oppose the divorce culture and set in motion pastoral arrangements that aim for the recovery of the Christian doctrine of marriage (one man with one woman until death parts them) then we should cease criticizing the likes of Dr Williams and instead pray for him and ourselves that we shall not only see the light but follow it!
To be committed to the full Christian doctrine of sexuality these days is apparently impossible. But with God, said Jesus, all things are possible.
Let us press on.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon July 30, 2002
No comments:
Post a Comment