Tuesday 9 January 2007

First and Second-order things: why we cannot 'agree to disagree'

There have always been second-order issues in the church, some of which began as first-order issues. The age and mode of Baptism is a classic example. In the Reformation there were bitter disputes over ‘Anabaptism’, with the death penalty even being invoked against Anabaptists by Reformed Christians. It is partly our repentance at such horrors which makes us inclined today to be generous towards those with whom we disagree.

The present lack of bitterness over this specific issue, however, is also possible because both sides have been able to change their own position, with neither saying, ‘You cannot be saved if ..’ or ‘unless ...’.

This shift was helped considerably by the relative silence of the Bible! Nowhere does the Bible say infants must be baptized (as often happens with Anglicans), and nowhere does it say you must be baptized by total immersion as an adult of several years good-standing in the church (as often happens with Baptists). Honest people have therefore been forced to admit the other side may have a point.

It is still possible, however, to turn Baptism into a ‘first-order’ issue, as happens with the so-called ‘Jesus Only’ movement. This insists that you cannot be baptized (and therefore saved) ‘In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’

We should notice, however, that whilst some elements of disagreement here may be the same as between, say, Baptists and Anglicans generally, there is an important difference. Simply because of the implications about salvation, this cannot be treated as a ‘second-order’ issue, where Christians can agree to differ and remain in fellowship. We ourselves may not write off the ‘Jesus Only’ people, but they have certainly written off us, and therefore we could not form one denomination. Again, if ‘Jesus Only’ teachers arose within Anglican churches, other pastors would have to oppose them as not simply different but wrong, and if unresolved then division would have to occur.

Until relatively recently, same-sex relationships were regarded in the same way throughout the church in general and within Anglican evangelicalism in particular. The Bible, it was accepted, taught that sexual activity between people of the same gender was wrong and to be repented of. It was sometimes forgotten that salvation still extended to those who engaged in this activity, but it was never for a moment assumed it was anything other than sinful.

Today, however, there is a massive shift taking place, not over whether same-sex activity is right or wrong, but over whether it is a first or second-order issue.

The problem is, many Christians don’t recognize the difference and don’t realize its significance.

The important point is this: it may be very hard to persuade someone your position is right and theirs is wrong. Try arguing with someone who takes a different view from you on baptism, for example, It is very easy, however, to persuade not only them but yourself that you should both agree to differ. The second fight is much easier to win (or lose) than the first.

There are a number of reasons for this. You may (indeed you should) be aware of the weaknesses in your own position. It is also easier, emotionally and intellectually, to agree to let a matter of dispute remain unresolved. Perhaps most importantly, in our present climate ‘agreeing to disagree’ is held up as the right way to proceed.

There is, however, a simple reason why this temptation must be resisted, namely that this matter has always been understood to be a ‘salvation’ issue. By ‘agreeing to disagree’, therefore, the essential argument is settled: it is not a salvation issue, previous generations were wrong. Everything subsequent to this concession is, as they say, just commentary.

Of course, Christians may disagree — indeed they do — over both first and second-order issues. And they must seek to resolve those disagreements. But they cannot remain one united, institutional church where there is disagreement over issues of salvation. Thus I personally may concede that Jesus-Only Baptists can be saved by the grace of God (they are certainly not saved by their doctrine of baptism, any more than are we). But I could not pretend to work in the same church structures, or even in cooperative mission, with them. That would make a nonsense of church, of doctrine, of mission and, indeed, of honesty and truth.

This does not mean that change is impossible, or that the church’s present position must always be right. The Reformation took place because there were those who were convinced that the church had got it wrong, both in its official formularies and its popular practice. However, it was precisely because these disagreements concerned salvation that the Reformation divided the institutional church, and until those disagreements are fully resolved there cannot be true reunion.

By the same token, then, Anglican Evangelicals today cannot resolve to ‘agree to disagree’ either amongst themselves or with others over the issue of same-sex relationships without first resolving whether or not this is a salvation issue — and that brings us back to precisely the point that many people are now trying to avoid, namely deciding whether this is right or wrong.

To agree to disagree may look like a compromise in the argument. In fact, it is a conclusion to the debate. Painfully we must accept that the church either divides here or is defined here.

John Richardson

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hello,
unless I haven't read attentively enough you don't quite say what you yourself think about this - be interested to know.
It seems to me (am drawing on James Alison's work) that the gay issue is an anthropological one. It's about who (some) humans are, and discerning if it's true or not that there is such a thing as being gay - or if in fact those of us who say 'I'm gay' are heterosexual people who are deceived in some way. If that is what this is about then this must be a second- (or third-) order issue, since it's about who humans are rather than who God is or what God does. I wonder whether looking at the matter in this light might help take some of the heat out of the current church 'debates'...?

Anonymous said...

A very good comment. Two things in response. 1. I take the view that the sexuality issue is first-order. 2. I don't think we should conceive of people as 'gay', 'heterosexual', etc. The reason for this is simply that sexual feelings come (some time in our early teens) and they go (gradually, in our later years). If I were defined by my sexual inclinations, what was I when I was, say, three, or seven, or ten? And what will I be when, like an adult said to me in my teens, "You think it's everything now, but when you're older you'd rather have a steak and kidney pie?" Perhaps what needs to be put in perspective is not 'sexuality' but sex!

Anonymous said...

Hello again John,
I would be interested to know your reasons for viewing the sexuality issue as a first-order one if you're happy to share them.

Would like to respond to your second comment. I agree with you that sexual feelings come, and diminish later in life, but I don't think that this means people can't/shouldn't identify themselves by them. A few things here... when I say 'I'm gay' I'm not identifying or 'summing up' my whole being or history, but it is a fact about me. However intense sexual desire may be at points in my life, it remains a fact that mostly that desire is towards my own sex (sorry if I sound clinical!). But it's not only about having sex but also building a life with someone - just as 'being straight' can be about mutual self-giving in marriage and building a life together (and in this sense and others I agree that sex needs putting in perspective and not being talked about in isolation). I don't say this to patronise or state the obvious but because I don't think it's quite 'on the mark' to say that being gay is only about building an identity on transient sexual feelings. The meaning of a person's nationality may change, and so of course could their nationality itself, but I don't think we'd say this means we shouldn't conceive of people as (say) English.

The other thing to add is that 'coming out' isn't only about identifying oneself as gay - it can be about standing with, or standing up for, the weak or those who may victimised. I'm sure you can think of contexts where this would be a risk. Perhaps I should say too that I'm not trying to suggest that gay people are only victims and never victimisers - and I'm not trying to 'play the victim card' as some kind of self-justification. I'm hoping it's possible to say that violence is and has been done to gay people, without clinging on to being a victim, if that makes sense.

in friendship, anon

Anonymous said...

Hi Anonymous. I take it that sexuality (in a number of varieties) is given the status of a ‘first-order’ issue in passages like Romans 1:24-32, and also 1 Cor 6:9-10 where it says specifically that, “the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God” and lists a number of ‘disqualifiers’. It does not matter that the meaning there of malakoi and arsenokoitai are disputed. The point is that the dispute is a first-order dispute about matters crucial to salvation.

As ‘second-order’ issues, we might consider tithing or Sabbath-observance. I personally don’t think either of these are ‘biblical’ in the full sense. Others do, and discussion about them can get quite heated. But I don’t think our salvation is related to these issues, nor is anyone flying in the face of Christ’s death by what they do in this regard.

Same-sex practice, however, is different, as indeed would be tithing or Sabbath-observance to anyone who thought they were salvation issues. This still doesn’t mean we have to break out into sub-Christian behaviour towards one another. But it does mean we couldn’t work in the same institutional structures and that, in the end, we must warn others away from such teaching and teachers.

As to ‘identity’, the problem I see here is that sexuality is not a clear-cut matter in the way that gender is. I ‘am’ a man. I ‘have’ heterosexual feelings. But is someone who is depressed ‘a depressive’? I notice (though I don’t want to make more of it than you yourself do) that you say “mostly” your desire is towards your own sex. This suggests a nuance that the statement, “I am gay” doesn’t quite cover for me.

The problem, I feel, is that “I am gay” is shorthand, just as is “I am English.” That is to say, I am not English ‘ontologically’ but as the result of my past history and present practice. Thus if somebody asks me what this means, I can extrapolate on being English in a way that I can’t extrapolate on being white or tall. Given your "mostly" I would genuinely like to ask you what being 'gay' means in your own case.

Incidentally, I presume that in the world those shaping and supporting the legislation on SORs desire for the future, we would all think of our sexuality on a kind of social ‘level playing field’. In that case, however, either the heterosexual sense of ‘self-identity’ would have to be substantially increased, or the gay sense substantially decreased. ‘Coming out’ will (presumably) disappear and saying “I am gay” will be as insignificant a statement about oneself in the future as saying “I am heterosexual” is at present.

The question of intimacy and attachment is a profound one, since this is something we all crave. However, it does not seem to me it has to be accompanied by sexual expression (even though we may desire that). The example of David and Jonathan is surely helpful in this regard, since we have here the highest level of emotional attachment and intimacy. It may even be (there is perhaps some evidence in the passage to suggest) that Jonathan’s feelings for David went beyond ‘comradeship’. Yet I don’t think the narrative can bear the weight people sometimes want to put on it, in arguing for a legitimization of same-sex practice. Rather, we must let the passage address us as what it is - as a description of what is possible, but not as endorsing all we might desire.

Anonymous said...

Good evening John (or maybe good morning by the time you read this!),
lots to say and I will try and be succinct - but daren't promise to! On the two Bible references: I think with the Romans passage, one question is how to read it in relation to gay Christians today. I don't recognise other gay Christians I'm acquainted with (or myself) in what Paul writes. He writes of people who knowingly reject truths about God and themselves, and turn to others with violent and rapacious desires. I don't think that such desires are intrinsic to being gay; and it seems to me that such rapacious, destructive behaviour isn't what you'd observe among gay Christians. Because of this I don't think that Romans 1 is a 'clincher' on the gay issue. Also, more tentatively, I'm not sure that it's a warrant for saying that sexuality is a first-order issue, though certainly it makes idolatry one such - which may be to state the glaringly obvious!

Looking at the 1 Corinthians passage, I mostly agree with you that the dispute over the meanings of those two words doesn't matter. I find George Hopper's point in his little book 'Reluctant Journey' illuminating - that 'arsenokoitai' is drawn almost directly from the Septuagint version of Leviticus 20:13. In the list of 'disqualifiers' in Corinthians, all the behaviours result from violent or rapacious desires - so again, for reasons similar to those above, I would want to suggest that such patterns of life are not evident in the lives of gay Christians. I wonder whether this passage would be better applied to acts such as male rape or the kind of sexual humiliation that was done for instance in Abu Ghraib - these things seem to fit the pattern of the violent, destructive acts in the passage. This passage is clearly about behaviours that are wrong and not part of God's realm - but I'm not sure that it follows that the gay issue is a first-order one.

On identity and gender: I'm not sure that gender is so clear-cut either, not when a small number of people are born intersexed and it is not clear whether they're male or female. Also there seems to me to be some fluidity to masculine and feminine characteristics - they're not 'hard and fast' and there's great variety to be seen (thinking of masculine women and effeminate men, to put it a bit crudely). I think there is a line - if not a clear or solid one - between the genders, but if we take the equality of men and women as a given, it seems to me that crossing that line does not have moral significance. Am saying this to give a sense of where I'm coming from.

I think you're right that saying 'I'm gay' is shorthand in a sense and that it lacks nuance - though as I think I said last night, I'm not saying that it's my deepest identity nor that it sums up my whole being, but it is a piece of truth, a fact about me. I did say 'mostly' which was a kind of 'never say never' - you ask what being gay means in my case. For me it means that my sexual/intimate desires are for my own sex - as I say I'm 'never saying never' but I have not experienced any shifting of desire towards the other sex. I am aware of people who say their desires have indeed moved towards desiring the other sex but I don't think such people's experience negates mine.

Sorry if I'm getting unclear - must go to bed soon! Would just like to say that I think your last but one paragraph may well be largely right, although coming out may always have some significance just because gay people are a minority.

Lastly I think you're right about the David and Jonathan story - I don't think it legitimates faithful gay partnerships (or same-sex sex full stop) and it seems to me anachronistic to read it that way.

Time for sleep now...
in friendship, anon

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon. It is important to distinguish between whether we are dealing with first and second-order issues and the analysis of the passages in question. If the passages are not saying what the church has traditionally held, then this not merely ceases to be a first-order issue, it ceases to be any kind of issue. Simon Butler’s position, in this regard, is ill-considered. If he is right, then AM and myself are wrong and are the false teachers. Incidentally, LGCM, Changing Attitude, Integrity and others realize this well.

Having said that, there are a number of problems with the suggestion that in Romans 1 Paul writes about ‘violent and rapacious desires.’

I think Paul is writing about everyone in this opening ‘blast’, not individuals. We don’t have to be able to tick all the boxes to be included. He moves from the gospel ‘to everyone who believes’, to wrath ‘against all unrighteousness and wickedness’. (The connective ‘For’ at the beginning of v 18 is significant, though omitted in NIV.) I find myself implicated in this passage, though I could claim never to have been particularly prone to most of the sins it specifies.

Furthermore, I don’t think the strictures about sexuality are limited to violent or rapacious acts. First, the point at issue is the exchanges involved: the truth about God for a lie, and ‘natural relations’ for ‘unnatural’. It would not matter if this was done tenderly, any more than it matters if idolatry is done faithfully.

Secondly (though this is often overlooked), Paul begins with women (v 26), and it is hard to see how the suggestion of violence and rapaciousness would fit there.

Thirdly, we know a fair bit about pre-Christian attitudes to homosexuality, and in many respects they are comparable to today’s emerging Western view (the difference being we now have government legislation to enforce this view). Bruce Thornton’s Eros: the myth of ancient Greek sexuality is a helpful read. The introduction to the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy article on homosexuality also seems to get it about right.

Given this background, I suspect that what Paul’s readers thought he meant on reading this passage (and 1 Corinthians 6) is what Christians in subsequent generations have generally thought he meant, namely that he was criticizing the kind of sexual behaviour that was widely taken for granted. (Though perhaps they, too, struggled with what Paul said, “Can he really mean ...?”)

As to identity, the intersex states you refer to are generally well-know syndromes caused by specific defects (you can find a list of them here). The issue of ‘masculine and feminine characteristics’ is worth a section on its own. I have argued elsewhere that these are not absolutes but relational attributes - only intelligible when we look at them in the context of male-female relationships. In both cases I agree this is without moral significance.

I would love to explore more the whole ‘never say never’ issue, as I think this is something which intrigues those of us who’ve not been there. I find it simply baffling, for example, that Gene Robinson can have fathered two children and yet say he is ‘gay’, if by ‘gay’ we mean ‘the opposite of “straight”’. Indeed, this suggests to me that particular distinction is misleading. Perhaps you can point me in the direction of some useful reading.

Anonymous said...

Hello again John, and many thanks for your thoughts.

Well, first, I don't know in detail what Simon Butler's position is or how he reached it - for some reason I can't find his post on the Fulcrum website - so feel I can't comment on it. Responding to the rest of your first paragraph, I'm aware that in my last post I went into attempts at analysis (if one could call it that!) of the Biblical passages rather than trying to show how/why the gay issue could be considered second-order. This was simply because I'm unsure of how to argue this cogently. I may regroup and try again!! One thing: it seems to me that our interpretations of the Biblical texts are affected by among other things, whether or not we think this is a first-order question - which suggests that deciding whether or not this is a first-order issue can't be done solely by use of the texts.

Some thoughts prompted by your comments on Romans 1. I was struck by your finding yourself implicated in this passage and realise what I'd written reads as though I was counting myself outside it. I agree that Paul is "writing about everyone" so I can't and don't claim to be wholly free from idolatry or the destructive desires that flow from it (I can be envious or insolent for instance). So I am also implicated in this text. I suppose what I wanted to say in my last post was that there are same-sex acts that aren't born of idolatry - that Romans 1 is not a 'clincher' for me because not all same-sex (or opposite-sex) acts are disordered or rapacious, unlike the sins Paul speaks of.

I agree that the point is "the exchanges involved" - it seems to me that exchanges here means something like travesty or betray. I don't see how this could be done tenderly - or at least if there were any tenderness there it would surely be deceptive and detectable as such in time.

It seems to me that Romans 1 is read as directly applicable to gay Christians in the sense that it's taken to explain the cause of our (and for that matter all) same-sex desires. I think this is where what I posted last time, about not recognising other gay Christians or myself in Paul's depiction, comes in. In short I suppose I'm saying that in saying 'I'm gay', I don't think I'm deceiving myself - if what Paul writes depicted 'the inner workings' of all same sex desire then to say 'I'm gay' would be self-deception. I don't detect that I'm rejecting or betraying a truth that at some level I know is true - but this is what Paul depicts. I can glimpse that this could sound dangerous - that it could sound like self-justification, setting myself up as my own authority - and that just saying 'I am not deceiving myself' doesn't amount to much! I think there could be more to say here but I'd like to comment on other things you said and this post must be plenty long enough already.

On verse 26 I think James Alison's point is notable: that commentators prior to St John Chrysostom in the late 4th C didn't read it as referring to lesbianism but to "women having anal intercourse with members of the other sex". So it could be said that the Bible doesn't refer to lesbianism and that Romans 1 doesn't only mention same sex acts. (I'm referring to and quoting his lecture, ''But the Bible says...? - a Catholic reading of Romans 1', the text of which is on the jamesalison.co.uk website).

Thanks for the Stanford Encyclopaedia reference. Must confess I have only skimmed part of it so can't say much. But one thing that did strike me was the references to status being "of the highest importance". This seems to me a key difference between then and now. If men and women both have "full status" now then the meaning of penetrative sex between them can't be closely tied to marking a power/status difference (though I realise there's still sex that demeans, degrades, and worse). It would follow that one wouldn't be 'unmanned' by being penetrated by another man (because not 'reduced to the status of woman' as woman has equal status) - so male-male penetrative sex needn't automatically be seen as marking domination/submission.

I'm too tired to write much more! But just on your last paragraph: am not sure what to say about Gene Robinson specifically as I can't know. I guess that gay/straight is a misleading distinction in that there doesn't always seem to be an absolute opposition with no ambiguity. I remember someone saying to me that they didn't think they were 100% straight, for instance. I don't want to make that much of the 'never say never' thing for me... maybe I could have sex with a woman but I don't think my heart would be in it, more bluntly. I don't know what to suggest for useful reading except perhaps Paul Monette's autobiography, 'Becoming a Man' - his life story includes some of this.

in friendship and with thanks,
anon

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon. I really regret I cannot carry on this discussion for a while as we have a serious illness in the family - basically waiting for someone to die, and it is, as I'm sure you're realize, very demanding. I'll try to get back to it later. I know you'll understand. John R

Anonymous said...

Hello John,

saw your post a few days ago about the member of your family who is seriously ill and have been thinking of/praying for you.

in friendship, anon

Anonymous said...

Hi Anonymous. With things unchanged on the family-crisis front, nevertheless I thought I should have a go at replying to your last post.

I had a look at James Alison’s material - though not in complete detail, I must admit. It seems to me, though, that even if we allow that Chrysostom is right about what Paul is saying in Romans 1 (a moot point), it simply shifts the train onto a parallel track (as it were) rather than sends it to another station. Chrysostom is saying the act itself is ‘unnatural’ - contrary to nature - and would therefore make an identical application to male same-sex acts for the same reason, which does seem to be more or less where Paul is going.

In this context, it is worth noting that Bruce Thornton (Eros: The Myth of Ancient Greek Sexuality) quotes the example of Aeschines criticizing the homosexual Timarchos for ‘outraging his own body para phusin’ (‘contrary to nature’) - the same phrase Paul uses about the women in Rom 1:26.

I have also wondered elsewhere whether it is significant that Paul doesn’t use the word ‘kinaidos’, which was apparently widely used to apply to the passive partner in homosexual acts. The kinaidos was a despised figure in Graeco-Roman culture, (see this Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effeminacy) and might have presented an easy target. I wonder, though, whether Paul’s arsenokoites isn’t more deliberately targeted at the act, not the person, because it is the act and not the person that he wants to condemn. Arguments from silence are, I know, dangerous, but the word was available and disapproval would have met with general agreement.

The conclusion would be that the emphasis should lie on what is done, not why it is done. If I had the affection for another man that Jonathan had for David, therefore, that would be a good thing, but it is entirely irrelevant as a justification for any sexual involvement.

Can we, though, drive a wedge between affection and eros in this way? I think the answer lies in considering the implications if we don’t. Let us assume, for a moment, that the entire ‘revisionist’ case is correct. (I am not, incidentally, regarding ‘anonymous’ as a revisionist.) Does it make sense - common sense, I mean - to suggest that not only lesbian and gay, but bisexual and transexual forms of expression are on a par with heterosexual acts? I would have thought the answer was self-evidently no. On the one hand, gay and lesbian acts can never correlate with the reproductive functions of our sexual organs. On the other hand, the relational arrangements necessary to include bisexuality are beyond anything the church has ever considered endorsing previously. (Indeed, my experience is that this is something which the ‘revisionist’ studiously avoids discussing.)

I think that anyone thinking objectively about the actions, rather than subjectively about relationships (or rights), would be forced to admit that heterosexual acts and same-sex acts can never be treated as ‘variants on a single theme’. To put it rather bluntly, same-sex erotic attraction and activity is not a form of ‘sexual orientation’ but sexual disorientation.

This, I suspect, is why the ‘never say never’ attitude and experience is found to the extent that it is in the gay community. The potential for a homoerotic ‘orientation’ to be directed towards an ‘heteroerotic’ object is surely greater than the other way round, simply because that is the way sex-organs and their accompanying hormones are inclined to function.

This latter point doesn’t, in itself, settle the moral question. We might well accept that homoeroticism is a form of sexual disorientation, but assert that this is of no moral consequence. What is going on socially in the UK at the moment, however, is something very different - the assertion that objecting to homoerotic activity on moral grounds is itself utterly immoral, and the imposition of legal penalties to enforce this entirely novel view! (But that is, as they say, another story.)

From a Christian point of view, however, I would suggest there are objective grounds, outside even our hermeneutic, for a suspicion of same-sex activity, which is born out by Scripture rather than being solely dependent on it. This would be comparable to Paul's comments about the essential nature of God being revealed in the things which have been made - a matter of general, not just special, revelation.

Anonymous said...

Hello John,

Just wanted you to be aware that I have not walked away from our discussion. I've had a busy 10 days. I hope to reply tomorrow. Also I think it's time to stop being 'anon' and use my name - it seems more appropriate.

I hope you and your family are well supported at this time.

in friendship, Blair

Anonymous said...

Dear John,

Somewhat later than I said I would, but here I am again.

Was interested in your thinking about the act and the person, and that in working through it, you asked whether it's possible to "drive a wedge between affection and eros in this way?". It seems to me that if it "would be a good thing" to have "the affection for another man that Jonathan had for David", it becomes difficult to hold that any sexual acts that might flow from such affection could only be bad or destructive. If there is the possibility that same-sex sexual acts in such a context could be a good, then perhaps the possibility also opens that same-sex sexual relationships can be good and enriching, can even "come to image the love and justice of Christ" (borrowing a phrase of Rowan Williams'). I don't mean this as any kind of justification for any/all same-sex sexual act; just that it seems to me to be a possible consequence of the logic you were following. This is one sense in which I find it problematic to split 'the act and the person'.

As an aside I note you took care to say you're not assuming I'm a revisionist - would be interested to know what you mean by this term. It may well be that I am one!! When I hear the word revisionist in this context, I suppose I take it to mean someone who holds that committed same-sex relationships can show "what marriage shows of the God who promises and remains faithful" (Rowan Williams again), and that church teaching could be adjusted to this. In this sense I am a revisionist - but as I say I'd like to hear what you mean by the term.

I'd like to respond also to your thoughts about whether LGBT (for shorthand's sake!) "forms of expression are on a par with heterosexual acts". I'm wondering what your thoughts would be about relating the fact that "gay and lesbian acts can never correlate with the reproductive function of our sexual organs", to the use of contraception. If a man and a woman make love using contraception, it seems to me very difficult to see how this affects the mutual self-giving that the act could express. Yet they are deliberately 'disabling', if you will, the reproductive function of their bodies (or alternatively, one or both could be infertile) - and Anglican church teaching does allow this. If this is valid, then I'd want to suggest that the fact that gay and lesbian acts can't produce children, isn't a strong objection to them.

I was interested also that you refer to "thinking objectively... rather than subjectively" about the matter. It seems to me that if "same-sex erotic attraction and activity is not a form of 'sexual orientation' but sexual disorientation", this does need to be backed up by reference to experience, in order to be objective or at least bolster its objectivity. If being gay is "sexual disorientation" then I guess it would follow that there couldn't be the mutual self-giving I referred to above, in a same-sex relationship; that such a relationship could, in the end, only be destructive because based on a disorientation not a true orientation. Clearly it's possible that this is so, but as I say, one might expect that this would be detectable by observing and studying people's experience. If the fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5:22ff) can be discerned in a gay Christian (or even non-Christian) partnership, then it seems to me that this must put a question against a characterisation of same-sex desire as sexual disorientation. I'd like to borrow from James Alison again: "By means of study, we have come to distinguish between people who steal, and people who are kleptomaniacs; betwen people who take measures to slim, and people who suffer from anorexia; between people who consume alcohol and people who are alcoholics". And he goes on to say, "...we know, furthermore, that our distinction is objective: that kleptomania, anorexia and alcoholism are not only minority behaviour patterns, but conditions which, if they are not controlled, put the health and flourishing of the person into danger. In the same way it should be possible to detect if self-acceptance as gay tends to put in jeopardy a person's health and flourishing, or if, in the case of people who have these desires but do not accept them as part of their being, it is rather this non-acceptance which puts their health and flourishing into danger". Perhaps too long a quote... but it's from his 'Good-faith learning and the fear of God', available at www.jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng17.html - wish I knew how to put links in! In my post on 13th Jan I mentioned the possibility of deceiving myself about being gay - it strikes me that discernment such as James Alison speaks of, is one bulwark against that.

As another aside I think you're right that bisexuality is usually not discussed - by just about everyone in this 'debate', I'd say (I think there have to be inverted commas given the manner in which it's been conducted by some on all sides). You speak of "the relational arrangements necessary to include" it - I will risk the assumption (am trusting you'll correct me) that you're thinking of polygamy or what some would label 'polyamory'. Well, I don't really know what to say about bisexuality as such, but I don't think that modifying church teaching to allow committed same-sex partnerships would immediately have a domino effect, if you like, of opening a door to polygamy/polyamory also. This is because such relational arrangements wouldn't (I'll risk saying) reflect the promise and fidelity of the one God to the one creation - not sure if that works or if it just sounds pompous... I've never known anyone in a polyamorous arrangement but one might think there'd be problems of jealousy (among other things) in such relationship.

Well, as usual I could probably say more but am sure I've gone on too long already!

in friendship, Blair

PS forgive my pedantry but thought it worth adding that the quotes from Rowan Williams are from his essay, 'Knowing myself in Christ' in Timothy Bradshaw, ed., 'The Way Forward? Christian voices on homosexuality and the church', London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1997.

PPS is it also worth adding that I'm single?!

Unknown said...

Hi Blair

Sorry to be so long about replying. Life is very busy.

The more I’ve read and thought about the ongoing debate in the Church about same-sex relationships, the more I’m convinced we need to start much further back than we tend to. Most Church debate seems to begin somewhere around what the Bible says, yet I am increasingly convinced this is unhelpful, for a number of reasons.

First, within these debates, there is clearly disagreement about ‘what the Bible says’. Secondly, the Bible isn’t widely read outside Christian circles, which means that, thirdly, possible objections to same-sex relationships are understood by outsiders to be confined to those who take a particular view of the Bible, with resulting opprobrium being heaped upon Christians generally and evangelicals in particular.

There is, however, a fourth objection, which is that the Bible itself doesn’t exactly begin in the Bible either. When Paul writes about same-sex relationships in Romans (whatever may be his precise concern), his objection is not rooted in special but rather in general revelation. God is known by all through what all may know about God, and is rejected by all, which is why all need salvation.

With that in mind, I’m inclined to suggest we should start with what may be known by all about sex, before we move to what is arguable from special revelation.

And what can be known by all about sex (in the sense that you need no religious or philosophical pre-understanding in order for agreement to exist), is that it is basically a biological process leading to reproduction, distinguished from asexual reproduction by the presence of meiosis (division of the parent cell into two haploid gametes) and genetic recombination (fusion of two gametes to form a new ‘egg’).

Biologically speaking, everything else is, as they say, commentary. We find in nature a variety of ways in which gametes are brought together, varying from wind pollination to penetrative intercourse. But the underlying elements are always the same — involving two gametes, always from different parents, and initially resulting in one zygote, or 'egg'.

In this regard, it must surely be agreed by all that same-sex activity involves a dis-orientation of a biological impulse.

This is not a religious or philosophical deduction, therefore it can involve no moral judgement. Once we are agreed on that, however, we can proceed to the next question, which is whether sexual acts in themselves have any ethical significance.

This is not the same as asking whether the context of sexual activity is ethically significant. The response is often made that sexual acts are ethical when they are ‘loving’, ‘committed’, etc. But the same might be true of, for example, killing another person — that it is justified when it is to protect someone else. That still leaves open the question, however, of whether killing as such has any ethical significance.

It seems to me that the secularist answer is increasingly that sexual acts have zero ethical significance in themselves. I would want to question this, however, not on a ‘biblical’ basis, but on their own terms — is this an ethically neutral area?

Rather than post any more at this stage, I’d like to stop there and await responses.

Anonymous said...

But to return - first and second-order things
On the one hand, in any denomination there is apparently a splendid diversity of conflicting and incompatible views on issues such as the Resurrection or the Virgin Birth – as long as you aren’t too inyerFace about yer unorthodox views, there is plenty of latitude – I mean everyone willing to “affirm” the Creeds – depends what you mean by “Resurrection” innit.
On the other hand, Baptist minister who started baptising infants would soon be drummed out the brownies, and if word got back to HQ that the wardens or the Reader had led the Lord’s Supper, then the local Archdeacon would early be on the case, slipper in hand, breathing out threatenings and slaughter.
Imagine – what would happen if denominations were defined by views on the Resurrection and the authority of the Bible, say, as opposed to, say, one’s view of church government or one’s musical preferences?
There you go – first and second-order in practice – as opposed to theory – for all candidates: discuss.

Anonymous said...

Aye – and another reason why Church debate around what the Bible says is unhelpful is the fact that there is debate in the Church – which doesn’t do a lot for the Bible’s streetCred – or God’s – OK, I can see there may be disputed readings for trivial items, but we are talking incompatible interpretations of the basics – like (pace 1 Corinthians 14:33) God is the author of confusion – hmm
Weakness
Either God is confused and uncertain.
Or God is a lousy communicator – or both
Wickedness
The Word is deliberately ambiguous
Deliberate untruth and divine innuendo
OK – if the transmitter isn’t at fault, then there must be something wrong with the receiver – hmm