'Conservative questions for a fruitful dialogue' Ron Elsdon
THE CHURCH of Ireland is engaged in a sustained process in which people with various differing and sometimes divergent convictions are seeking to establish what an official church position might look like on issues to do with sexuality...
THE CHURCH of Ireland is engaged in a sustained process in which people with various differing and sometimes divergent convictions are seeking to establish what an official church position might look like on issues to do with sexuality. In particular, the process is to do with the nature and validity of homosexual relationships and the issue of gay marriage or civil partnership. Some of the exchanges have been thoughtful and courteous; others have been vitriolic and dismissive. What makes this particularly regrettable is that, given the current public mood on such issues, animosity tends to become public news. Is there a better way forward? Yes, there is, so long as people are willing to engage and listen. This was what was in mind in the setting up of the conference for General Synod members at the Slieve Russell Hotel, Ballyconnell, Co. Cavan, held in March 2012. Over a period of some 48 hours, several hundred delegates, both clergy and lay, explored issues of human sexuality through plenary presentations, scriptural explorations, seminars on particular issues and round-table discussions in small groups. The general feeling was that the process had been valuable. Everyone heard things they agreed with and things they disagreed with. But all had been committed to careful listening and consideration. The Archbishop of Armagh, chairing the conference, was at pains to point out that nothing was to be decided upon. Any future decisions that might need to be made would be made by the General Synod itself - (this was a conference to which General Synod members had been summoned; it was not a meeting of the General Synod itself). The proceedings of the 2012 General Synod became a source of controversy, centred upon the motions on human sexuality proposed by the Archbishop of Dublin and the Bishop of Down and Dromore. The three motions were formulated to underline the church’s traditional and scriptural teaching on the nature of marriage; a commitment to welcome all into the church irrespective of sexuality; and the commitment to continuing respectful conversation. Details of the debates that ensued need not be detailed here. On this occasion, given an urgent pastoral situation in the parish, I was not present. What was obvious, from many comments being posted on Facebook while the debates proceeded, was that the Synod procedure was deepening divisions and doing so in a very public way. Had anything been achieved? One can make a case for answering: nothing. One way forward now is to ask questions. Let us assume that, for the sake of argument and not to attach labels, we may identify two “camps”, one we may call “conservative” in terms of a traditional understanding of sexuality and sexual conduct, the other we may call “liberal” because their convictions persuade them to seek for a new understanding of sexuality and sexual relationships. We can then proceed by asking voices from each camp to interrogate the other camp, to formulate some key questions which, it is felt, demand satisfactory answers. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to that process, asking at least some of the questions that conservatives want to ask of liberals. There is a sense in which this author has been asked to act as a representative (unofficial, of course!) in contributing this paper. But writing it has been an altogether personal exercise. The process of writing has followed return from an 11-day consultation on the theme “How do we speak of God today?” at St. George’s House, Windsor. It is a house rule there that participants must be willing to think deeply about the issues covered, and be willing to change their minds. The consultation did not deal with issues of sexuality but, inevitably, the subject came up in informal discussions. The whole atmosphere has therefore challenged this author to ask himself: have I got it right? It is possible that others are willing also to allow searching questions to search them too. In formulating the questions which follow, a challenge is being issued in two separate directions. To “liberals” the question is: can you answer these questions in a way which begins, at least, to address the concerns of “conservatives” and shows that you have made an attempt to understand those concerns and respect those who have them? But this author is also, in a sense, interrogating himself: is there an openness in this process to being shown that a complete rethink is necessary? So in asking these questions, I am not necessarily expressing any doubts. But I am attempting to do what I believe needs to be done by all, namely, to identify areas in which a certain blindness may possibly have entered in. What are the questions to be asked? They seem to fall into categories: one is to do with our understanding of the nature and use of scripture, and the other to do with the nature of the conversation itself. Questions to do with the authority and use of scripture Clearly much of the attention in terms of biblical texts is on the prohibitions in Leviticus and Paul’s statements about human nature in Romans 1. (We will leave aside 1 Corinthians 6 for the moment). Can one read these as “the word of the Lord” and not treat them as permanently valid in some way?- In the case of Leviticus it will not do, in my view, to compare such prohibitions with, for example, prohibitions to do with wearing fabrics of mixed materials, or planting two types of seed in the same field. Leviticus certainly needs to be read against the background of a number of different holiness codes, so that genres have to be carefully considered. On the other hand, it is also Leviticus which commands God’s people to love their neighbours as themselves. There is, of course, no argument over the permanent validity of this command!
- Another issue arises here. It is to do with “different” sexual practices other than homosexual relations. It has been suggested, on the basis of all the prohibitions that are encountered in Leviticus and elsewhere, that one can find more scriptural warrant for polyamory[1] than for homosexual practice. There is, interestingly, at least one article in a Christian publication reporting in sympathetic terms on the practice of polyamory.[2]
- Turning then to Romans 1, the traditional understanding of Paul’s negative description of human conduct is that he is referring to human nature in general. One of the arguments used in support of a Christian understanding of homosexual relationships is that we should understand Paul as describing behaviour on an individual basis. That is, behaviour is sinful when an individual behaves contrary to their own individual nature; so if someone is by nature heterosexual, to indulge in homosexual relationships is contrary to their nature and therefore sinful; but if another is homosexual by nature, it is equally sinful for them to engage in heterosexual behaviour. On a previous occasion this author has been taken to task for suggesting that this argument is governed by the destination one wishes to reach (although I did so for the purposes of further discussion!).
- This question addresses other issues than that of sexual behaviour. Turning to another thoroughly live issue that seems to affect Northern Ireland especially, there are some parallels with how we read Genesis 1. There are deep divisions as to how far one can read this as an overarching description of how the earth and its people came into being, although there is far more scope for debate about the genre of Genesis 1 than about Leviticus or Romans. Clearly, in this issue, science and scripture address each other, and ought to do so in a way that does violence to neither.
- This leads to another issue that is to be raised here. So far I have referred to the literary genre of individual parts of scripture. But one might also consider the genre of the Bible itself. In its baldest form one can formulate the issue in this way: while scripture can be seen as a quarry from which texts and doctrine can be obtained (it is, of course, easy to caricature this), is scripture no more than that? A plain reading also shows that, while it contains all sorts of different material, there is an over-arching unity. It is the story of creation, fall and redemption or, in other words, the story of the relationship between the living God and his people. The purpose of God is that people should come to Christ to be ‘ransomed, healed, restored, forgiven’, so that reading any part of scripture directs us to consider how this purpose is to be at the centre of all our considerations.
- There is, finally, the issue as to how the church has read scripture down the centuries. Traditionally, sexual relationships as set out in scripture have been understood as belonging within the context of faithful, monogamous heterosexual marriage. Yet on this level also there is a conversation to be had. Oliver O’Donovan, in his book A Conversation Waiting to Begin, warns conservatives that we run the danger of knowing instinctively what scripture says, to the effect that the practice of the Church faithfully attending to scripture as the Word of God is actually undermined: “The immediacy of the insight tends to make the interpretation of scripture seem superfluous”. [3]
- There is within conservative thinking on this issue a feeling that the desired outcome of processes and conversations has already been decided. While it is a good idea to discuss the issues, in the meantime things are actively being shifted on the ground. If there is even a grain of truth in what might, of course, be a misrepresentation of how people are thinking, then one has to ask if it is a real conversation that is taking place. In a real conversation, both sides have to be open to changed thinking and even to the possibility that they have understood the issues incorrectly.
- One possible outcome of a process of careful conversation is that we reach a situation where two different integrities manage to live together. But changes in thinking in society and in the church may mirror each other, and the day may come where those of a conservative conviction become a minority. In this case questions arise about their position within the church, and what is seen in other parts of the Anglican church worldwide is not reassuring. In a parallel situation, the ordained ministry of women is now widely accepted throughout the Church of Ireland. But do those who still oppose it feel that they have been left out in the cold in different ways?
- I have left consideration of 1 Corinthians 6 until this late stage deliberately, because it raises another issue. This is one of a number of Pauline passages in which a previous way of life is contrasted with what it means to be “ransomed, healed, restored, forgiven”. Linked to this is the issue of the sort of discipline that should exist within a Christian community, a voluntary discipline that grows out of the commitments made by candidates and sponsors at baptism. This does not, of course, mean that church leaders may boss their members around (even supposing that their members were open to being bossed around!) Nor should it mean, however, that any kind of behaviour is acceptable within a Christian community, even though the cultural milieu in which we live insists that each person’s lifestyle is a matter for their own private judgement.
* Full article available in printed copies.
Ron Elsdon
Rector of St Bartholomew’s in Belfast.