2.2 "In this true humanity he [Jesus] endures all that sin and evil
can inflict, and breaks their power by the undefeated love and holiness
which pass through the Cross to the Resurrection and Ascension. For those
who acknowledge this victorious love of God revealed in Jesus Christ there
is a forgiveness of sins and access to new and eternal life, in which the
transforming presence of God's own Spirit can make every human being Christlike
in the way appropriate to each, and ultimately restore the whole creation.
This divine work of liberation is seen as foretold or prepared for in various
ways by those before Christ who were open to God's mind and message ..."
Note: this reflects poor doctrines of atonement, eschatology and
inspiration.
2.4 "[L]et us begin from some of the ordinary-life situations in
which human sexual feelings and functions are involved, and note what the
Scripture has to say about them".
By not starting from Scripture, however, we are in danger
of failing to hear all Scripture has to say.
2.5 "The woman's relationship to the man is still seen as one which
may be called 'subordination-within-equality'" .
The same could, of course, be said about the Scriptural view of
the Trinity, cf. 1 Cor 15:27-28.
"The institution of marriage in the Scriptures is closely bound up
with the urgent need for sons to preserve the father's name in Israel,
to keep secure the family's share in the land, held in trust from God,
and to uphold the family honour (cf. Ps. 127.3-5)."
This is highly conjectural, especially when the foundational view
of marriage is read off (following the example of Jesus in Matt 19 etc.)
from Gen 2 (esp. 24), where there is no mention of progeny, land or family
honour.
2.9 "On the question of sexual activity outside marriage the Old
Testament reflects a slowly evolving morality. As is common in many cultures,
a double standard is applied, men having greater freedom than
This is contentious, both in its assertion that the OT view is 'slowly
evolving' and in the suggestion that a double standard is accepted by
the biblical authors. On the contrary, the injunctions of the Law concerning
sexual activity outside marriage are in place early on and apply equally
rigorous standards to both men and women.
2.9 "The fact that sexual promiscuity was a feature of Canaanite
religion, and certainly part of its attraction for those brought up in
the austere desert tradition of Israel's faith, led prophets such as Hosea,
Jeremiah and Ezekiel to characterise this apostasy as adultery against
God, Israel's true husband. To bring out the true horror of the offence,
however, they also intensified their language about unfaithfulness, painting
the physical act itself as filthy and shameful; and this certainly introduced
a new and negative note into biblical references to sexual intercourse."
Examples of OT prophets characterizing physical sex as 'filthy and
shameful' per se would be hard to find. In fact, in Ezek 16 the
relationship between God and Israel is positively characterized as physically
sexual. Moreover, there are several hundred years between the 'austere
desert tradition' of Israel and the prophets referred to. The attractions
of Canaanite religion for Israelites in their own day would therefore hardly
depend on the direct influence of that tradition. This paragraph displays
an ddd understanding of the idolatry/adultery link and subsequent OT attitudes
to sexuality.
2.10 In the OT "It [sexuality] is enjoyed but it is also suspect
as in some way incompatible with holiness in particular." Sexuality
is regulated in relation to procreation and land rights. "Out of all
this emerges in time a generous human ideal, that of the monogamous, faithful
couple, where husband and wife remain together into old age and even though
they are childless (cf., e.g., Mal.2 13-16; Luke 1.5-7.)"
It is hard to find evidence of the alleged 'suspicion' of the OT
towards sexuality, especially in view of the whole Song of Songs being
in the Canon. What we have here is rather a suspicion of the Statement's
authors towards the OT. There are some four hundred years between Malachi
and Luke, and Malachi does not rest on thin air, thus the 'emergence' of
the concept of faithful monogamy, if this is the right term, is a good
deal older than this paragraph implies.
2.11 Leviticus 18 is to be evaluated against this background as concerning
violations of holiness and ritual purity typical of the Canaanites.
But this identification with the Canaanites is not the given basis
of the objections. The word for abominations can, and frequently does,
have a non-cultic use. The focus in Lev 18-20 is not simply cultic,
but is also evidently moral.
2.12 In Ezekiel the iniquity of Sodom is "selfish pride which, despite
great affluence, refused to help the poor in their need".
However, it was also that "They were haughty, and did abominable
things before me; therefore I removed them, when I saw it." (16:50,
same word as in Lev 18).
2.13 In the NT "the idea ... that sexual activity is incompatible
with total dedication to the cause of God is definitely present" -
John the Baptist, Jesus' views on 'Eunuchs for the kingdom' and Paul in
1 Cor 7 are quoted in support. Paul is acknowledged as positive about sexuality
but "he sees celibacy as a better state in which to serve the Lord".
However, it is not celibacy (with the emphasis on avoiding
sexual activity) that Paul commends but singleness (with the emphasis on
being freed from family responsibilities), as can be seen by a close reading
of 1 Cor 7. The chapter starts with a commendation of sexual activity
for married couples (not marriage for the single, as is often alleged and
implied
by many translations. Cf. Gordon Fee's commentary, in loc.)
2.18 To evaluate the scriptural material, we can first recognize a shared experience.
2.19 We also acknowledge salvation-historical context of God's good gifts and sin.
2.20 We also recognize good in the "spiritual life of Israel" and in "God's key act of revelation and liberation in Christ".
2.21 "Scripture provides its own criterion for judging its various
contents. This criterion is what St Paul calls 'the mind of Christ'. For
Christians today this will include partly the teaching and example of Jesus
as recorded in the Gospels, and partly the guidance in the rest of the
New Testament which came from reflection on the person and work of Christ
by the leaders of the earliest Church. But that is not all. This latter
reflection was itself carried on in the light given by God's own Spirit;
and this process continues in each generation as the Church seeks to discover
the mind of Christ for its own moral and spiritual needs. The Spirit guides
the Church in learning from the dialogue between Scripture and contemporary
circumstance. To this dialogue any part of Scripture may contribute; but
where there is a genuine difference in ethical understanding between the
New Testament and the Old, it is from the New Testament that the Church
must derive its controlling interpretation."
But note, this is an extremely weak and unsatisfactory view of revelation
and inspiration which itself represents a considerable departure from Anglican
tradition - for example in setting Old and New Testaments against one another
(cf. Article VII).
2.22 We also feed into the equation "our own world view and our awareness
of new circumstances" so that "where new factors or new understanding
make our situation significantly different from that of the biblical writers,
Scripture may guide us more by stimulating new perceptions in us than by
giving direction that can be applied as it stands". Gives the example
of modern economic thinking.
However, it has earlier said that in the biblical material "we
can recognise human experience that we share" (2.18). The hermeneutical
gap implied here is bigger than scripture itself allows - e.g. Rom 15:4;
1 Cor 10:11.
2.23 The situation in Sodom and Gibeah is "too far apart in human
terms for any ethical transfer to be made" to the case of a loving
homosexual couple.
Indeed, however, there may be other contemporary situations to which
it applies.
2.24 makes a useful recognition that "The fact is that the Old Testament
does not make distinctions between moral goodness and ritual purity in
the way Christians came to do after the destruction of the Temple and the
end of the ancient cult." BUT it then goes on, "we have to make
our own decisions in the light of Christ as to what parts of the
old Law still have guidance for us and in what way".
The latter comment is unhelpful, unless we take 'the light of Christ'
to mean a proper biblical theology which enables us to disentangle the
particular prescriptions applying to ritual purity from the general principles
applying to all situations (as Jesus did in his own teaching, e.g. in the
Sermon on the Mount and in regard to ritual washing).
2.25 "When we do this, we exercise a large liberty in the Spirit."
OT sacrificial laws no longer apply. But we are to be holy - our bodies
are Temples of the Holy Spirit.
There is a danger here of setting the Spirit against the word (which,
biblically, is inspired by the Spirit).
2.26 "The crux of the matter, therefore, so far as sexuality is concerned,
is whether the sexual behaviour in the life-style of an individual or group
is holy in itself and conducive to growth in holiness. For Christians the
primary definition of holiness will be whatever is in accord with the spirit
of Christ and promotes Christlikeness." There is no direct example
in sexual terms - however, "Fundamentally holiness in the New Testament
is concerned with the fruits of the Spirit and obedience to the will of
God."
However, we must not forget that Christ himself said he had not
come to abolish the Law and the Prophets (but to fulfil them) and
that anyone who taught agains the Law and the Prophets would be "least"
in the Kingdom of Heaven. We therefore must not set the NT against
the Old, as Anglicanism has traditionally recognized.
2.27 On sin, actual sin only occurs when something which is contrary
to God's will is done where "there is at least some awareness of its
wrong character and some free consent of the individual's own will to what
is done". Individuals are "free moral agents".
There is a massive 'beg the question' here about the notion of moral
freedom, contra Article X. Moreover, Scripture contains at least
one example of acknowledged sin in ignorance in Num 22:34.
2.28 Paul is acknowledged in Romans 1 as regarding homosexual practice
as sinful in itself, but Paul's aetiology is questioned in regard to "a
real-life case" of a Christian homosexual. Is this homosexuality explicable
as originating in a departure from the true God?
But Paul's point is collective - not that God gave up each individual,
but that he gave up the human race. The fate of an individual is set in
this context - as with Jesus' example of the man born blind. Not his particular
sin, but 'sin in general' was to blame for his circumstances. And yet in
those circumstances, God was glorified.
2.29 "There is, therefore, in Scripture an evolving convergence on
the ideal of lifelong, monogamous, heterosexual union as the setting intended
by God for the proper development of men and women as sexual beings. Sexual
activity of any kind outside marriage comes to be seen as sinful, and homosexual
practice as especially dishonourable."
In spite of the questionable developmentalism, for which there is
not as much Scriptural evidence as is implied, the conclusion is nevertheless
both inescapable and true.
3.3 In marriage, this comes at a cost of self-denial.
3.4 Some reject this as bondage, but it is healthy, especially for children.
3.5 However, marriage is not selfish - just for the two people concerned. It is also "a public fact". "It is a re-shaping of human life within the community, and as such has a responsibility to the community to be a force for good in its life."
3.6 It also provides "the best home for our children".
3.7 Thus "It is as supporting and encouraging men and women to make
their own all the good that lifelong marriage can provide that we are best
to
understand the strength of the teaching against divorce and remarriage
which, in the New Testament Mark, Luke and Paul attribute to Jesus."
But doesn't this make the thing all rather 'man centred'? There
is no reflection here on the Bible's use of marriage to illustrate the
relationship between God and his redeemed people - an image which is paramount
and becomes concrete beyond the end of the world in Revelation.
3.8 Chastity before marriage and lifelong fidelity afterwards is "God's perfect will for married people".
3.9 What, then, about the single?
3.10 Jesus was single - so you don't have to be sexually active to be fully human.
3.11 There are many reasons for being single. Sometimes the single are neglected.
3.12 Single people make a great contribution to the community. Not all intimate single friendships are sexual.
3.13 True friendship calls for loyalty, but cannot be exclusive.
3.14 Therefore physical sexual relations are inappropriate in friendships, since they are properly fulfilled in a "unique lifelong commitment to one partner". Where this is not possible "the effect of the physical relationship is not in the end to enhance life for those concerned but to impair it". Young people should learn this.
3.15 But singleness is not celibacy - a state "chosen 'in order to
devote oneself completely to God and his concerns'". Thus "It is,
however, increasingly recognised in the Churches today that celibacy is
a special gift and calling of the Holy Spirit". "To prescribe 'celibacy,',
therefore, for all those for whom marriage, for whatever reason, is impossible
is a misuse of the term. Celibacy cannot be prescribed for anyone. What
is needed is that the single should live in the form of chastity appropriate
to their situation."
This unfortunately appears to denigrate singleness as a state of
'waiting to be married'. The Bible does not recognize this special category
of 'celibacy'. Biblically, the single and the married are called to self-control
and holiness which, in the case of the single, requires what we would commonly
mean by celibacy.
3.16 "Marriage being part of God's good gift in creation, both the
married state and others which are defined in relation to it can have this
power for good in all human life, wherever they are inspired by the same
values and ideals, and can be a means of advancing the Kingdom of God."
It is debatable whether the Kingdom of God is a state to be 'advanced'
by such means.
3.17 Sexuality is powerful because it must ensure the survival of the
species. (But human sexuality is not apparently too concerned about procreation!)
Sexuality is distorted because theologically we are fallen creatures -
"there
is nothing in us which is not in some degree marred, disordered, out of
true".
This represents a truly Calvinist (i.e. Anglican, Articles IX-XIII)
doctrine of 'total depravity' - not that everything we do is wrong, but
that everything we are is affected by wrong.
3.18 Hence there are many obvious distortions of the sexual impulse.
3.19 For some "The personality is given a twist which puts normal sex out of reach."
3.20 In spirituality "the Church has tended to see sexual attraction
and activity as particularly hostile to God's due place as the supreme
object of human love and the proper controller of all human thought, feeling
and conduct".
Doesn't this illustrate the problem with the concept of seeking
'the mind of the Church'? Anglican tradition recognizes that councils of
the Church have erred "even in things pertaining unto God" (Article XXI)
when they have not been guided by the "Spirit and Word of God".
It is not enough to be guided by the Spirit alone!
3.21 "Awareness of these factors has repeatedly led the Church to
adopt a repressive attitude to sexual desire in its teaching".
(Does 3.21 commend celibacy within marriage?) The failure highlighted
by this paragraph means the church cannot be trusted as the final
arbiter (see comments on 3.290
3.22 Modern society is sex-obsessed, denigrating those of lowered sexuality.
3.23 "[M]arriage is no more than ordinary human beings trying to
live in the state they believe marriage to be, and both they and their
perceptions need redemption".
But marriage is more than that which it is perceived to be
- which makes redemption both necessary and possible.
3.24 We are to be integrated persons, but some aspects of our personalities must be subordinated to others.
3.25 "The hallowing and right direction of human sexuality also helps
forward the redemption and sanctification of society."
Hence chastity is positive.
3.26 "Lastly, the Christian vision for human sexuality looks beyond
life in this world to its fulfilment in the world to come." Sexuality
"is
required now because of our mortality in order that human life may continue".
In the world to come we will be "no longer restricted by the particularity
of the flesh".
All this looks terribly 'Greek' as a view of the body in relation
to redemption. It would not read well in the light of 1 Cor 6:12-20.
4.2 The debate on causality is not gone into. "In fact neither a genetic nor a psychological explanation for a person's condition can itself say whether a condition is good or bad, nor does a genetic origin mark a particular condition as in accordance with the undistorted will of God."
4.3 There are a range of homophile feelings and it may be common to all and residual in all.
4.4 Can orientation be changed? Some have changed, but orientation is
resistant to change.
Thomas Schmidt - Straight and Narrow? - quotes instances
which suggest a rate of change similar to alcohol or drug dependency rates.
4.6 Both homophiles and heterophiles experience 'falling in love'. There are also the promiscuous amongst both.
4.7 Both need a supportive community - rejection by society leads to homophile communities forming. But congregations need "to be places of open acceptance and friendship for homophiles as for people of every kind".
4.8 Homophobia drives homophiles underground "and increases the temptations
to infidelity and promiscuity". Others "are driven to protest by
taking up a defiant stance ... an making exaggerated claims and demands".
Christians must combat homophobia.
However, we must recognize that in some sectors of the gay community,
the demand is not for a greater fidelity but greater acceptance that homosexuality
is acceptable.
4.9 "There are, as one might expect, misconceptions among may heterosexual
people as to the ways in which homophiles, male of female, give their love
physical expression ... Brief clinical descriptions say nothing about the
human reality of either homosexual or heterosexual love-making. What perhaps
should be said is that the greater part of the repertory of both kinds
of physical love is the same; and that where in either case this involves
clinical abuse of the human body that is to be deplored."
This paragraph is coy and misleading. Putting objects of any kind,
including a penis, in your anus is surely "abuse of the body".
4.10 The use of the genitals is key - "deliberate genital contact does nevertheless represent the crossing of a significant boundary" in a relationship.
4.12 But are all homophile actions "unnatural or contrary to nature" following Paul?
4.13 "Natural" has various connotations. Eg it may mean 'not man-made', or 'not cultural', or contrasted with 'revealed'. It may be 'natural' to lie, but is not right.
4.14 Given the association of sexual activity with procreation, "the
biological evidence is at least compatible with a theological view that
heterosexual physical union is divinely intended to be the norm".
This is a minimalist concession. Given the nature of the genitals
- not just the association of their use with procreation - it would seem
eminently reasonable to claim that heterosexual activity is 'natural'.
This point is conceded by homosexual apologists who argue that we nevertheless
go beyond nature in many other areas - for example by flying.
4.15 However, sex has other related consequences, strengthening the
bond between people, whether there are children or not. Gen 2:24 makes
no mention of children. Eve is the helper fit for him "in lonely isolation".
Caution is needed here. Nothing in Genesis 2 says Adam is lonely.
Therefore resolving his loneliness may not be the reason for Eve's creation.
4.16 The blessings of this bond are properly seen as 'natural'. They
rely on mutual self-giving. "In this way, physical sex can positively
promote personal values which Christians will certainly see as very much
God's will for human life".
But this is tending to ignore the context of sexual activity - it
is not the sex per se but the 'sex-in-marital-relationship' that
is fulfilling God's will for human life through the promotion of the right
'personal values'.
4.17 In heterosexual relationships there is a complementarity based on difference.
4.18 The physical order is sacramental. For God's purposes in relationship to be fulfilled, there has to be "a harmony between the physical and the spiritual [...] When we think of our bodies in this light, we see that they need to be used in a way that is both proper to themselves and in harmony with the spiritual realities we are trying to express and foster."
4.19 Both homophile and heterophile falls short of the ideal, but homophiles face "specific difficulties distinct from those of the majority [...] The task that surely faces both the individual Christian homophile and the Church is to work out together how his or her sexuality can best find expression within the discipleship to which every human being is called."
5.2 "The first is that homophile orientation and its expression in
sexual activity do not constitute a parallel and alternative form of human
sexuality as complete within the terms of the created order as the heterosexual."
Scripture, tradition and reasoned reflection on experience "make it
impossible for the Church to come with integrity to any other conclusion".
THIS IS FUNDAMENTAL.
5.3 This is not tantamount to rejection of the person: "Our sexuality may vary from the norm in many ways, of which a homophile orientation is but one, without affecting our equal worth and dignity as human beings".
5.4 The second principle is that "homosexual people are in every way as valuable to and as valued by God as heterosexual people". God loves all alike and has an interest in each becoming Christlike and making a contribution.
5.5 Some Christian homophiles understand this to involve abstinence.
5.6 "At the same time there are others who are conscientiously convinced
that this way of abstinence is not the best for them, and that they have
more hope of growing in love for God and neighbour with the help of a loving
and faithful homophile partnership, in intention lifelong, where mutual
self-giving includes the physical expression of their attachment."
Christian ethical thinking allows a tension between "the God-given moral
order and the freedom of the moral agent". "While unable, therefore,
to commend the way of life just described as in itself as faithful a reflection
of God's purposes in creation as the heterophile, we do not reject those
who sincerely believe it is God's call to them. [...] All those who seek
to live their lives in Christ owe one another friendship and understanding.
It is therefore important that in every congregation such homophiles should
find fellow-Christians who will sensitively and naturally provide this
for them." Indeed this must be provided, or the rest is just empty
words.
Notice, in effect this is a requirement for congregations
to accept non-celibate homosexuals as they are on the grounds that
their own individual conscience is supreme.
5.7 But homophiles must not be promiscuous.
5.8 Therefore "bisexual activity must always be wrong for this reason,
if for no other, that it inevitably involves being unfaithful". Bisexuals
must adopt celibacy or abstinence or heterosexual marriage. "In the
situation of the bisexual it can also be that counselling will help the
person concerned to discover the truth of their personality and to achieve
a degree of inner healing."
In other words, the key issue is faithfulness to one partner. If
this is not 'natural' to the individual concerned then self-control with
counselling are the key! And yet this report is doubtful about the need
for or effectiveness of such an approach in relation to homosexuals.
5.9 The rejection by some homophiles of 'coupledom' "is simply a
pretentious disguise for the evil of promiscuity".
So the report is capable of recognizing some things (i.e. promiscuity)
as morally wrong!
5.10 On paedophilia, "It is mistaken and unjust to assume, for example,
that children in school or in a church choir are particularly at risk from
gay or lesbian members of staff." Paedophilia "is a sin not only
against chastity but also against charity and justice". It is evil.
Once again, it is encouraging that the report can recognize evil,
though it is hardly an act of courage in the modern climate to condemn
paedophilia. Is there not also a tendency to forget that paedophiles are
redeemable sinners? Note also Thomas Schmidt quotes evidence that whilst
the prevalence of paedophilia is the same amongst homosexuals as heterosexuals,
homosexuals offend more frequently, and therefore the individual
is proportionately at greater risk of homosexual paedophile abuse.
5.11 What about homophile clergy? "We believe that the great majority
of such clergy are not in sexually active partnerships."
No evidence is given for this belief. Indeed, how could evidence
be given when bishops claim that the difficulty in substantiating an accusation
of homosexual activity amongst clergy is the lack of evidence and the desire
to avoid a 'witch hunt'. The statement may be no more than a pious
hope!
5.12 What about those "who believe that the right way of life for them is that of an exclusive and permanent but also sexually active partnership"? This is a matter of the way in which clergy have a representative and pastoral role.
5.13 Clergy are to represent the ideal, homophile relationships are not ideal.
5.14 Therefore "at this time" a clergyman in a homophile relationship
would present a difficulty for a significant number of people.
Note the significance of the phrase "at this time". A shift in public
opinion might allow a change in clerical practise since there would no
longer be "a difficulty for a significant number of people".
5.15 Some would argue this must and will change. The response is that
"though
the Church is not infallible, there is at any given time such a thing as
the mind of the Church on matters of faith and life. Those who disagree
with that mind are free to argue for change. What they are not free to
do is to go against that mind in their own practice."
This, however, is nonsense, not least because of the foregoing excusing
of homophile relationships for laity which was exactly a case of
going against the mind of the church in their own practice on the grounds
of individual conscience. Moreover, Reformation would not have happened
if Luther hadn't gone against 'the mind of the Church'. Anglican tradition
does not recognize the mind of the Church as having the final authority.
5.16 Nor can such clergy provide a good model for lay homophiles "given
the present understanding of such partnerships in the Church as a whole".
Notice again this is provisional, based on "the present
understanding". There is room for change!
5.17 Clergy in homophile relationships "would be seen as placing
that way of life in all respects on a par with heterosexual marriage as
a reflection of God's purposes in creation. The Church cannot accept such
a parity and remain faithful to the insights which God has given it through
Scripture, tradition and reasoned reflection on experience."
Having made the basis of authority fourfold - Scripture, tradition,
reason and experience - there is the possibility that three of these will
'outvote' the fourth, i.e. that Scripture will become subject to other
forms of authority. In fact, no individual can hold all four forms of authority
as equivalent, and it is the varying emphasis on each which produces (in
turn) Evangelical, Catholic, Liberal and Charismatic spiritualities.
5.18 But bishops should not have to seek out actively homophilic clergy.
Clergy who give no cause for scandal will continue to be treated with trust
and respect.
See the note on 5.11 above. There is no way of knowing whether homosexual
clergy are sexually active or not, any more than it can be known whether
single heterosexual clergy are in such relationships.
5.19 Clergy who 'come out' and who accept abstinence are to be welcomed and employed.
5.20 Where others come out in the belief they are doing what is right, see 5.15.
5.21 "We therefore call upon all clergy to live lives that respect
the Church's teaching".
But note, the bishops commit themselves to doing nothing in situations
where this call is ignored!
5.22 Candidates for ordination should respect this, but will not be
quizzed unless there are strong reasons for doing so.
But surely a willingness to live according to even the Church's
understanding of Scripture on such a crucial issue is a strong reason for
making the enquiry. The approach is 'don't know, don't want to know'.
5.23 Summary.
5.24 Return to original questions:
"How are we to use the Scriptures to guide us today?
What is the relation between law and grace for a Christian who seeks to follow Christi in the freedom of the Spirit?
Granted that we all have to start our Christian pilgrimage from where we are, how diverse can the journeys be by which we come home to God?
Given the complex tangle of human sexuality, and the fact that sexuality as such may have no place in eternal life, is specific sexual conduct as important for our destiny as the values and attitudes expressed through it?
On what understanding of the ordained ministry do we base our requirements of different standards for the clergy and the laity and are we coherent or consistent in these demands?"
To return to the CHEATS home page, click here.
This page is maintained by Rev John Richardson, Anglican Chaplain to the University of East London
Updated 6 November 1997