CofE division grows while the Danes march on

I was fascinated by the Anglican church press last week.  The Church Times and the Church of England Newspaper (CEN) are renowned for taking different approaches to stories – different approaches which, no doubt, are shaped by the majority of their readers.  This difference is most often seen in treatment of issues like sexuality, with the Church Times trying to steer a middle path through the turmoil, and the CEN being more outspoken in a conservative evangelical direction.

But last week that difference could not have been more stark.

In the CEN the floodgates finally burst open from the pressure of accumulated indignation and fear in an editorial which rounded squarely on David Cameron and his “severe left wing cultural policy” which is leading us to Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’ in “this crazy equality governmental blitzing of our societal deep grammar”.  The author goes on to denigrate same-sex partnerships which are merely “a purely subjective sense of friendship” and lesbian couples who are simply “women who refuse to use their normal female capacities to have children”.

The irony is that all the rhetoric above undermines the other claim of the article which says that there is no need for same-sex marriage because “there is no injustice to correct since ‘gay’ couples can cement their friendship by the civil partnership arrangements and gain nothing from having that called ‘marriage’”.  Having read all this I beg to differ.

The Church Times, on the other hand, printed two letters from readers which took a very different view.

Lady Oppenheimer from Jersey writes, “To suppose that backing same-gender unions redefines marriage is like supposing that backing adoption redefines parenthood” and goes on to say “Just as parenthood is more than giving birth, so marriage is more that fertility.”

Alongside that, Gwylim Stone from Southampton questions why those who are “so loudly defending the ‘biblical’ standard of marriage” are less vocal about divorce.  He goes on, “I wonder how many signatures the Coalition for Marriage would muster if it added a complete ban on marriage after divorce to its goals?”  One suspects that he is right.

Yet while the debate continues here in the UK, Denmark made up its mind in voting by a large majority to introduce same-sex marriage for both state and church.  Soon same-sex couples will be able to marry in the national Evangelical-Lutheran church although individual priests will not be forced to conduct same-sex marriage against their conscience.  In doing this Denmark has joined other Scandinavian countries like Sweden in introducing full church same-sex marriage with safe-guards for those Christian ministers who cannot in good faith conduct the ceremony.

While the UK is clearly not ready for compulsory same-sex marriage in church, it is deeply disappointing that our Government is proposing legislation which legally excludes the possibility of same-sex religious marriage.  As the readers of the Church Times remind us (and Church Times circulation is over 3 times that of the CEN) there are many Anglicans who would welcome such an opportunity when the time is right.

Women's Ministry & Homosexuality - a response to Stephen Kuhrt.

Last month the Church of England Newspaper published an article by Stpehen Kuhrt, Chair of Fulcrum, on the difference between accepting women's leadership in the church, and accepting homosexual relationships.

Today they have published my response...
___________________________________________________________________

The connection between the debate over women's ministry and that of homosexuals has been a bone of contention among evangelicals for many years.  On the one hand, the Biblical texts on the role of women in the church have been re-examined and re-interpreted by 'open' conservatives, whilst on the other hand, a similar process has been resisted with much more energy when it comes to homosexuality.  In addition, there are those who have prophesied that the acceptance of women into ministry and headship would lead inexorably to the same pressures to reconsider the place of homosexuals in the church on a slippery slope away from Biblical truth.

At the heart of each issue is how we as evangelicals treat verses in Scripture which, at first sight appear to speak out clearly against change on either of these two issues.

In Stephen Kuhrt's recent article "Women's ministry and Homosexuality" he meets this issue head-on.  He tries to provide a rationale for conservatives like himself who want to follow the re-examination of Scripture in regard to women's ministry while continuing to resist any movement on homosexual relationships.  In doing so, he is attempting to defend that position from attacks from conservatives and liberals alike, while also trying to ensure that the 'slippery slope' argument does not hold back the full inclusion of women in the ministry of the church at every level.

And he is right in when he identifies significant differences between the two issues.   No-one has ever suggested that women in general are sinful if they seek a loving, faithful, self-giving relationship (except if that relationship is with another woman).  No conservative has suggested that women should seek to seek healing for their sexual identity or embrace abstinence in order to be acceptable to God and the church.  Women can be clearly identified in the Bible, and are present in almost all New Testament contexts, and Paul is clear in his radical theology that "In Christ there is no male of female".  Indeed it would be profoundly sad and inappropriate if there were people who would oppose the full inclusion of women in the church's ministry simply because they were opposed the inclusion of homosexuals.

But having said that, there are striking parallels in the process of discernment for both issues.

Both require us to re-examine Biblical texts which, when taken at face value exclude any change in traditional teaching.  In the case of women's ministry, the verses include clear statements excluding women from having authority over a man, and describing the idea of a women speaking in church as 'shameful'.  In the case of homosexuals the verses which exclude are well known to evangelicals, even if their meaning and context is less clear.

The process of re-examination which is needed in both cases is also similar.  Proponents of a new understanding on either issue call for the texts to be considered within their cultural context and purpose before being weighed against other passages of scripture which might point to the possibility of a more inclusive approach.

Both issues require an openness from us to be challenged on our own received cultural presuppositions and norms - what we think is 'normal' and 'obvious' because of the Christian culture we have been brought up in.

The difference, as Stephen Kuhrt points out is the lack of identifiably 'gay' people in the early church.  While a careful reading of Roman 16 reveals the possibility (or probability - depending on your point of view) of women in leadership, there are no such examples of openly 'gay' people.  But this absence in Scripture is not surprising, as it is similarly difficult to demonstrate a model of exclusive, partnered, faithful same-sex relationships in secular society at that time either. 

The same cannot be said of our society today. 

Homosexuality is identified by the vast majority of people as an orientation rather than a recreational choice.  There are plenty of examples of same-sex relationships today which exhibit the same characteristics of love, commitment and fidelity as marriage.  Indeed, there are partnered homosexual Christians in ministry and leadership in a wide variety of churches.

The joy and blessing which Stephen Kuhrt has found in welcoming women into ministry at his own church is wonderful to read about, and there are many who have experienced that same joy and blessing as they have begun to welcome LGB&T Christians into their churches in a more inclusive way.  Those of us who have experienced the blessing which LGB&T Christians can bring, know that full inclusion in the church - of women and of homosexuals - will further demonstrate the joy and blessing of faith in Jesus Christ.

The debates of women's ministry and homosexuality are different - but the issues which they call us to address have striking parallels, as are the potential blessings which full inclusion in the church will bring.

Rev Benny Hazlehurst

Secretary of Accepting Evangelicals
www.acceptingevangelicals.org

Published in the Church of England Newspaper - 9th September 2011

Life in a Sex Mad Church

“The trouble with Evangelicals” someone said to me recently, “is that you can’t stop them talking about sex!”.  Surely not, I thought.

I've had 2 articles published in the Church of EnglandNewspaper recently.  The first was at the beginning of March about moving towards the acceptance of gay-marriage.  The correspondence ever since has been both intense and constant.  Every week there have been letters and articles in favour or (mostly) against the argument I put forward.  We are now 2 months on and still not a week goes by without something appearing in each edition.

The second was potentially no less controversial.  It was an article advocating a radical change in the culture of the CofE – from that of custodian for the historic buildings and treasures which it holds, to a policy of selling off whatever is not fit for purpose today, and using the proceeds to fund ministry, mission and evangelism!  If we did this, it would release us from having to raise millions of pounds each year for maintenance, repairs and insurance, as well as providing millions for new ministry.

But what response has this article elicited?  Nothing, zero, zilch.

Both were full page feature articles; both had the potential to arouse deep passions;  both would cause controversy if they were implemented in parish churches.  And yet the one the one which had the potential to completely transform the culture and ministry of the CofE appears to have one vital ingredient missing – SEX!

Perhaps my friend was right…  If you want to provoke controversy, you have to include sex.

I remember when I was at Theological College 20 years ago, there was a book on the bookstall by Joyce Huggett entitled “Life in a sex mad society” (pictured).  It was one in a very successful pastoral series where the author challenged much of the pervading obsession with sex in society.

Also at college with me was Joyce Huggett’s son, Kevin – and I remember the day when someone with considerable artistic talent did a wonderful spoof book cover  which he placed around the book on the bookstall.  At first sight it was difficult to see any difference.  It was identical in every way except one – the title.  Instead of being titled “Life in a Sex Mad Society” by Joyce Huggett” he had transformed it into “Life with a Sex Mad Mother” by Kevin Huggett!  We all laughed – including Kevin.

Perhaps we need a new book today, “Life in a Sex Mad Church”.  I am sure that it would sell millions, because it had the magic ingredient – SEX!

When are we going to get over our preoccupation with sex, I wonder?  When are we going to start thinking about love rather than sex?  When are we going to devote our time and energy to things that might really make a difference - rather than focussing on what people do in bed.

Last weekend I heard a pro-gay friend tell the story of an encounter with a sceptical evangelical who said that one of the problems he has with gay relationships is that he could not imagine what it would be like for 2 men to have sex together.  My friend replied without hesitation, “So please stop trying!”

Say no more..?

Church, Tradition and the Bride of Christ

As the debate continues in the Church of England Newspaper about same-sex marriage, I am grateful to Rev John Richardson for responding to my article - 'Towards a Theology of Gay- Marriage?'  

In his article 'Changing views of marriage' in last week's CEN, he has clearly sought to engage with some of the issues and questions I raised, and he makes a number of points which merit a response.

He begins by noting that same-sex marriage would mean breaking with church tradition and the theology of marriage as outlined in the BCP (Book of Common Prayer). He then makes the argument that rather than looking at Genesis 2 as our paradigm for marriage, we should look to the marriage between Christ and the Church in Ephesians 5 as the ultimate paradigm.  This, he argues, places a clear limit on our theology of marriage within the context of men and women with the ideal of procreation.  (You can read the full article by following this link)

First of all, it is interesting to see a fellow evangelical beginning with an appeal to tradition.  He rightly points out that the theology I am suggesting departs from the BCP emphasis on procreation and a 'traditional understanding of marriage'.  This is indeed the case, and I readily accept it, but in the course of human history there have been many issues where we have changed our minds in spite of clear arguments made from both Scripture and tradition for maintaining the status quo - the abolition of slavery, and the church's insistence that the sun revolves around the earth are just two such issues that immediately spring to mind.

More importantly however, is the alternative (and indeed superior) paradigm he offers for marriage in the Bible - that of Christ and His Church.

While I am not convinced that Ephesians 5 supersedes Jesus use of Genesis 2 as the ultimate paradigm for marriage, the framework he puts forward does more to suggest a 'genderless notion of marriage' than to deny it.  Why?  Because the Church as the 'Bride of Christ' contains both women and men.

As the inspirational evangelical preacher FB Meyer puts it, in his devotional commentary on Ephesians - 'Redeemed men compose that bride'.  Here is the context to that quote:

Here is a mystery indeed. That scene in Eden is also a parable. It was not good for Christ to be alone. He needed one to love and to give love. But there was none among unfallen angels that could answer to Him.  And therefore God the Father sought a bride for his Son from among the children of men; yea, He took the Second Eve from the wounded side of the Second Man, as He lay asleep in the garden-grave.

Redeemed men compose that bride...  Then the Church shall cleave to Him forever, and He shall cleave to her. And they twain shall be one spirit.

The fact that the Church comprises both men and women and that this (according to John Richardson) is the ultimate paradigm for marriage, suggests that marriage is indeed 'genderless' - it has just taken the church a long time to realise it (like the abolition of slavery and the movement of the sun).

No-one, of course would suggest that there is a literal 'sexual' component to the marriage of Christ and his Church, but that further calls into question relying on this paradigm for our full understanding of marriage.  Indeed Paul says in Ephesians 5 that "this is a profound mystery".  It is a mystery which we are still unravelling, and perhaps we haven't quite got there yet.

Play the ball - not the man

It has been good to see the debate which my article "Towards a theology of Gay Marriage?" has prompted in recent weeks - both in favour and against the approach I put forward.  The Church of England Newspaper has had a flood of responses, and over the last few weeks has been printing many of them.

On the first week, they were all negative. 

On the second week, almost all were positive. 

But then on week three, I noticed a change.  There were two letters published which were less than gracious in their treatment of the issue.  In fact they were not so much reacting to the ideas being discussed, as resorting to personal attack.  And the attacks were not against me,  but against some of those who had written in to support a more accepting approach toward gay relationships.

The letters they were reacting to, were both 'in favour' of examining a new approach to same-sex relationships, one from a gay Christian in a long term partnership, the other from an ordinand in training. Whilst these positive letters were measured and did not seek to attack anyone, the same cannot be said for the response.

The openness and honesty of the gay Christian was met by a one sentence dismissal of her faith, sexuality and partnership. Her courage to declare publically  her sexuality and faith were simply put-down as being too ridiculous to listen to.

The ordinand was also dismissed in a rather disparaging way as someone who "no longer believes what the Bible says" - something which he did not say - while his evangelical theological college was blamed for "the sorry state of our church and nation."

Sadly, the reasons for this reaction are all too clear.  This is an issue where feelings run so high that those who do not agree can so easily dehumanize those who think differently.

 As another letter writer put it, "Unnatural relationships are constantly being discussed in your paper and horrible pictures of two men on a wedding cake give many people real revulsion." She had stopped seeing people - just visceral anger.

In such a climate, it is all too easy to (in the words of the footballing metaphor) play the man, not the ball.

For those not from the UK, this is saying which comes from soccer.  It the temptation which a player faces when someone with the ball is about to get past him.  Should he continue (probably in vain) to go for the ball?  Or should he abandon the rules and hack down the player?

It is sad that all too often the debate over sexuality descends into this kind of dismissive and damaging exchange.  It is not Christ-like.  It does not reflect the Gospel of grace.  It does not help us to fulfil Jesus command to love one another as he has loved us.

If Jesus had been talking to footballers, I am sure where he would have come down -  "Play the ball, not the man!"

(With apologies to all female footballers for this terribly non-inclusive language)

Towards a Theology of Gay Marriage

As the UK Government begins to explore the possibility of new policies on marriage for same-sex couples, do we need to revisit our theology of marriage and ask "Is it really as Biblical as we think?"

I often find myself feeling sorry for the Pharisees in the Gospels.  It is easy to dismiss them as legalistic 'stick in the muds' but at least they tried their best to be faithful to the Word of God, and to hold the line against the secular influences of Roman politics and culture.

Their problem however, was that in their zeal to be faithful, they often got the wrong end of the stick.  As a result, over and over again, they missed the point of what God was doing, and ended up fighting against His purposes in the process.

It was in this context that they ran up against Jesus over and over again.

Food laws are one example - their focus on clean and unclean foods led to a theology which implied that it is what goes into your body which makes you unclean, rather than the declaration of Christ that it is what comes out of your heart that matters.

The Sabbath is another example.  They spent so much time and energy upholding the Sabbath that they transformed something which God intended as a blessing and made it a burden.  What God intended as a means to an end - that we should have time for rest and recreation - became the end in itself.   Again Jesus countered this by turning it on its head, pointing to the purpose of the Sabbath, rather than the institution.  "The Sabbath was created for man, not man for the Sabbath."  The Pharisees saw the 'end product' and allowed that to become pre-eminent, rather than seeing the intention of God.  As a result, the need which God was addressing in the creation of the Sabbath became overwhelmed by their observation of the institution of the Sabbath.

But we too can fall into the same trap when it comes to understanding marriage.

In the account of Adam and Eve we find our paradigm for marriage.  Although not the only consideration in forming our theology of marriage, it is the foundation which is taken up by both Jesus when questioned about divorce, and Paul in his advice to husbands and wives in Ephesians 5. 

In the account we observe that male and female come together in joy to 'complete' one another, and become 'one flesh' in a way which is unique in creation.  If we follow this form, then marriage must be between one man and one woman. 

Such an observation precludes, of course, any contemplation of same-sex marriage.  'God made Adam and Eve - not Adam and Steve,' is one way of expressing this, and silences all argument to the contrary.

Yet if we merely look at the 'end product' in Genesis 2, without seeking to understand God's intentions, we run the same risk as the Pharisees whose limited view of the Sabbath went so far out of kilter with what God had intended.

Genesis 2 is not primarily about understanding creation - it is about understanding relationship - our relationship with God, the world, and each other.  Neither is it about procreation - the command to be fruitful and multiply is found in the first account of creation, not in the story of Adam and Eve.  In Genesis 2, we find Adam created first and placed in the garden of God's blessing.  He has everything he needs to feed his body and a pure untainted relationship with God to feed his spirit.  Yet there is still something missing. God says, "It is not good for the man to be alone".  There is still a need for another relationship to complete the paradigm of life in all its fullness.

God created the animals, but still no suitable partner was found.  So finally God created Eve as the one who is "bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh" and  Adam rejoices in the one who completed his need for that unique relationship.  In their coming together that 'one flesh' is re-united in what we call marriage and we can all relate to that yearning desire for the one who completes us - the one with whom we fall in love, and express that love in life-long commitment.  Whilst we must recognise that not everyone finds their life-partner, there is always that hope, that possibility, of meeting the person who 'completes' us.

But what of those whose attraction is not toward the opposite sex?  What if the person who we fall in love with  - who completes that God-given need within us - is of the same sex?  Does that negate the fundamental human need which God addresses?

Those who are attracted to people of the same sex still have the same yearning for that relationship which will bring a sense of fulfilment, a sense of completeness, a re-uniting of 'one flesh' from what God has created.

By focusing on the 'end product' (male and female) rather than the need which God is addressing in the Garden of Eden (relationship), we risk making the same mistake as the Pharisees did with the Sabbath at the beginning of the same chapter.

They elevated the Sabbath to monumental proportions because they thought it was something greater that our human needs, and Jesus had to correct them by reminding them that the Sabbath was created by God to meet human needs, not to be an end in itself.

When we elevate marriage to the same monumental proportions and restrict it to our observation of Adam and Eve, we need to be reminded that marriage was ordained by God to meet a human need, not to be an end in itself.  This is radical thinking sure enough, but it is just as Biblical as the challenges which Jesus brought to the Pharisees.

Is it not possible that the yearning to find the one who 'completes' us is the same for everyone - gay straight, bi, or transgendered?  Is it not possible that God's response to that yearning is also the same for everyone, irrespective of their sexuality - the opportunity of marriage for all, with the person who 'completes' them, no matter what sex they are?

Until we are prepared to look deeper, and frame our theology of marriage around God's purposes, rather than just the 'end product' we continue to run the risk of following the Pharisees, and completely miss the point.

(Also published in The Church of England Newspaper - 4th March 2011)