This is the case with Bishop Richard Harries who has been defending his appointment of "a gay priest" to the suffragan bishopric of Reading. Here is part of what he wrote for The Sunday Times of London, 29th June, in his piece "Gay love's fine, it's all in the Bible" (sect/4.p.7).
"The crucial decision made by the first Christians was that the Gentiles could become Christians without being circumcised or obeying other aspects of Jewish law. Some, like Peter, found this very difficult. Then he had a dream in which he saw the Gentiles could be accepted fully. Perhaps like Peter, those opposed to this appointment will dream about people of the same sex loving one another through life and Jesus saying: 'This rejoices my heart; may it rejoice yours too'. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. He did say something very fierce against divorce. The church, however, has made provision for divorced people to be married.
Gay and lesbian people find themselves with God-give affections for people of the same sex. If celibacy is not the chosen path, then, John [the 'gay' man appointed to be bishop] has urged the right course is a relationship of life-time love. Divorced people who remarry and gay and lesbian people who enter into such relationships are in a similar position. God takes them and their love, as it is, and blesses it."
Those who have listened to the arguments of the lesbigay lobby in the Episcopal Church and have also read the few writings on the doctrine of reception [with respect to women's ordination but easily transferred to lesbigay concerns] will be familiar with this argumentation, which is bold even if not sound.
1. The inclusion of "gay" and "lesbian" people in the church today is of similar importance to the inclusion of Gentiles, alongside the Jews, in the apostolic era.
2. Jesus rejoices to see two persons of the same sex living together in a partnership, which will include sexual acts.
3. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality [therefore he is not against it].
4. Jesus spoke against divorce [and thus remarriage] but the Church of England has in 2003 begun to allow the marriage of divorced persons [after centuries of forbidding it].
5. Persons who define themselves as "gay" or "lesbian" are made that way by God and thus they are to be accepted as such - with a permanent and God-given orientation.
6. "Gay" and "lesbian" persons should be given the same kind of rights in the Church as are given to divorced persons.
Now he makes these arguments even though he insists earlier in the article that Dr John is no longer in an active sexual relationship with his male partner of many years. He even suggests that Dr John has brought all this to his Confessor and Spiritual Director and thus all is fine. However, he does accept and approve the fact that Dr John intends to work for the acceptance and blessing of same-sex couples who intend to live in stable relationships.
If the Bishop of Oxford is right in his arguments then the moral teaching of the Church through the centuries has been profoundly misguided and the position adopted by the Vatican recently is also deeply wrong. A few considerations..
1. The admission of believing Gentiles into the [then] wholly Jewish Church was truly a momentous moment. It opened a door which is still wide open. To equate the inclusion of "gay" and "lesbian" people, who claim that they have an inbuilt orientation towards the same sex and who intend to fulfil this in practice, with the Gentiles is daring but preposterous. Such a claim can only stand if one previously has accepted a whole set of propositions about humanity, God, the church and so on.
2. To make the audacious claim that the heart of Jesus is made glad when he sees two persons of the same-sex in an intended life-long partnership is totally off mark. A bishop should not make such claims for he has no way whatsoever of showing it to be true or even possibly true from either Scripture of Tradition. He has to call in "experience" (a favourite source of revelation for such as Dr Harries) and this is a very shaky foundation indeed.
3. Certainly Jesus is not recorded as speaking about homosexuality. But he is recorded as saying much about the nature of man, of the relation of man and woman and so on. Jesus accepted the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures which he fulfilled in his Person and in his Teaching and in his Saving Work. The inference to draw from his not being recorded as addressing the topic of homosexuality is that he accepted the moral law as received by the Jews on this, and that his mind is further reflected in what his apostles said about it.
4. The Bishop has a point in what he says about divorce and remarriage. Once the Church gives up her received morality and makes adjustments to suit the pressures of the times then she is vulnerable on other fronts. Open one door and there is banging on the other door to be opened (as the history of the ECUSA in recent times abundantly shows).
5. In modern society, where the right to divorce and remarriage by the State is long established, and where now the rights of "gay" and "lesbian" couples to various rights (especially health and death benefits) are being quickly accepted, the church needs to keep all doors closed if she is to keep any closed! The fact that the Church of England has open one big door means that she will very soon open another and afterwards even more.
As a minimum the C of E will soon accept, as a minority position but one described as one based on "conscience", the right of priests to live in same-sex relationships/partnerships and to be accorded full acceptance as such. Even leading evangelical Bishops appear to conceded this.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
No comments:
Post a Comment