« A benevolent autocracy? | Main | Modern use of old designs »
March 06, 2005
A divided communion?
Many will no doubt find something to be pleased about the news this week that the Anglican Communion is busy tearing itself in two over the issue of the church's response to the US and Canadian Church allowing openly "Gay" clergy and the blessing of "Gay marriages".
To be truthful, I find the response a little disturbing because it is re-inforcing some of the stereotypes and essentially excluding a large group on grounds of their sexual orientation.
Now I will acknowledge that St Paul, in his letter to the Ephesians Chapter 5 rails against sexual activity and several other "abuses" such as coveting wealth. I will also acknowledge that Leviticus and Deuteronomy contain a number of strictures against "men lying with men", but these scriptures also contain a large number of other admonitions which we find almost impossible to adhere to in our lives today! The problem really lies in confusing the act with the person. It is the act which separates someone from God, not the person themselves. Despite what several psychiatrists and doctors have tried to put forward in the past, the more we learn of genetics and the way our minds and bodies function, the more it becomes apparent that being "Gay" is not something one can catch from someone else, nor is it a matter of "life choice". You either are, or you are not. It is becoming ever more apparent that it is nature and not nurture or any other "imprinting" which drives this particular aspect of the human psyche.
Pause for a moment and ask yourself why these issues are even in Leviticus. Could it be because there was a "problem" of homosexual activity among the Tribes? If so, what could have caused it? We know from the ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, and Greek records that homosexual unions, activities, and intercourse were acceptable and even commonplace, so there must have been a reason for it to be frowned upon in the Exodus literature and for it to flow over into later writings. If you consider this carefully the answer becomes immdeiately apparent - the sexual act is both a procreative activity and a source of mutual pleasure.
Ergo, if it is pursued purely for pleasure it excludes the procreation, and, by its pursuit, it excludes God. Thus the spirit is deprived of contact with God. Exactly the same problem occurs when we embark on the exclusive pursuit of wealth, career, or any other all-consuming activity - we exclude God from our lives by replacing Him with our obsessive pursuit of whatever gives us satisfaction.
The Gospel, by its very definition, impels all who follow it to forgo the obsessive pursuit of pleasure, wealth, or any other thing which can exclude God and to follow a path which enables us to keep in contact with God. If we become self-obsessed and self-focused, we break that connection. But, the more important aspect of the Gospel is that it is an "inclusive" message - it is there for all God's children, and the Church has to find ways to include even those who are different from what many in the pews see as "the norm".
Sadly, the US and Canadian Church have chosen to act in this matter unilaterally and in so doing have created a real problem for all those working in the developing nations or among peoples whose moral codes and understanding of humanity or theology is different to our own. In Africa there is a problem with promoscuity, particularly among males. The Church can not condone this, particularly as it often results in the rape of women and young boys. AIDS is another major problem in that continent where more than half the population is now carrying it or infected by it. For the Church there to respond to Western pressure to acknowledge Gay Marriages would send the signal that promiscuity is OK. Patently they cannot do that! And herein lies yet another problem for the Church, since in the minds of many adherents to Christianity (and to Islam as well!), homosexual is equated to peadophilia, to predation of all males, particularly young males and to uncontrolled and frankly frightening behaviour. Anyone who knows a "gay" man will know that this is most often very far from the truth, but the few high profile cases - such as the present debacle in the US Roman Catholic communities - have helped to create this impression.
We must not forget either that in Saudi Arabia, in Iran, and several other fundamentalist Muslim nations, to be homosexual is to incur the death penalty. How does the Christian Church in Ethiopia, in Sudan, or in Northern Nigeria address this ready-made point of attack from their Islamic fundamentalist detractors? How wwould a "gay" priest be received in such an area? I can tell you that he would soon find himself being accused by the many enemies of Christ of every calumny they could invent - and any ministry the Church exercised would be tainted from there on.
In the course of a long association with and a ministry role in the Anglican Church, both in the UK and abroad, I have worked alongside a number of "Gay" priests - and even the odd Bishop! Among them I have never encountered anything but a deep faith and a desire to serve God, something I have found lacking among some of the supposedly heterosexual priests I have known. What made these particular men different and special was that they had managed to forgo their sexual desires and lived celibate lives, providing a wonderful and caring ministry to their flocks. And that is the difference between the majority of the gay priests of the past and those now pushing for recognition in the Church, particularly in the US and Canada. It is one thing to be acknowledged as being "different" to the supposed "norm", it is another entirely to be participating in the action.
It is the act which excludes God, not the person, so if a person is truly bent on serving God, he (or she!) should look carefully at the words of Augustine of Hippo. Asked by a new, and very wealthy convert "What should I do to ensure my reception into the Kingdom of Heaven", the good Bishop (himself a reformed adulterer!) replied "Love God with all your heart and all your mind, and do as you please!"
The simple fact is that if you do truly do the first part of that, you can do nothing wrong in following the second part!
It is sad that this situation of potential schism has arisen; we need to consider carefully why it has arisen. The impatience of the developed nations' churches with the problems of the undeveloped parts, the desire to "include" publically those already included tacitly has created a division which will not now be healed by simply excluding or even discharging those appointed in the US who are openly gay, or by stopping the blessing of "marriages", a misnomer if ever there was one. Since a "marriage" is now, in most countries, a matter of civil legal contract, it has lost its original meaning of a union between a man and a woman for the purposes of mutual sharing and procreation. It still has that meaning, and that meaning alone, in many of the countries who have led the protest against the US and Canadian Church.
I can only hope that, over the next two years, cool heads, the Holy Spirit, and the Gospel message prevail in the discussions which must resolve this issue. If they do not, the only winner will be the many forces of materialism, atheism, and despair that are ranged against the church on all sides. This is something we must all pray can be prevented - it is the Gospel we are defending, and that means we must find a way to include all the concerns, all the hurts, and all the hopes of our Creator God.
We must all pray for the healing of hearts and minds and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in this difficult and dangerous time.
Posted by The Gray Monk at March 6, 2005 09:58 AM