Whilst I understand fully where Bishop Jones is coming from, I want to suggest that his analysis and comparison of issues around human sexuality and just war is incorrect for a number of reasons, some theological and some sociological and biological.
First, issues around human sexuality cut deep to the core of anthropology in a way that the pacifism/militarism debate does not. The traditional human moral is not just about how human beings should behave sexually but on a much deeper level about core issues of identity. As Bishop Jones himself recognises in his speech, human sexuality is an ontological identification in a way that an ethical position on war or peace can never be. Sexual orientation and identity lies at the heart of a person’s sense of being, and often this is misunderstood by those in this debate, especially on the conservative side of the argument. To often we try to make clean and clinical divisions between sin and the sinner, but when one’s attractions are integral to our sense of person-hood such a dichotomy is difficult to maintain. We are created sexual beings and sexual activity is vital and essential to the procreation of the human race ”“ it is something that we simply cannot do without. The argument over war and peace is a discussion about how to resolve issues on a corporate level ”“ the argument over sexual activity and identity is a discussion about the very depth of our created beings. People never define themselves as “born pacifist” or claim to have “pacifist genes”, but when it comes to sexual orientation these fundamental propositions are constantly presented and appealed to. The discussion is not just about how we should act, it is about who we were created to be.
I want, I really want, to be sympathetic to the Bishop James Joneses of the world. My former – and current – bishop says pretty much the same thing: “Gosh we’re nice people and we really, really mean well and we want to do the right thing and look at our humungous credentials for Pete’s sake and we’re trying real hard and we’re doggone polite and we are really trying to listen to God and there are a whole bunch of us and we all have big credentials and we would never, ever turn people we disagree with away from an ongoing conversation and did we say we mean well…?” Of course I’m all for good intentions and I’m all for ongoing conversations and I’m all for nice people and I’m all for being polite. But I’m also all for sensible and coherent biblical theology, careful philosophical argumentation and evaluation, accurate and properly limned scientific definition, not to mention being in actual fellowship and continuity with 2000 years’ worth of saints, sages, prophets, apostles and martyrs. And I really, really want to do the right thing for people who suffer from homosexual temptations. The problem I continue to have with the avatars of the homosexual movement is they come nowhere close to establishing any actual theological, philosophical, biblical or scientific bona fides for the position they want to advance. The mere fact that a position is being advocated by holders of titles like “Right Rev.” and “Rev. Dr.” does not necessarily mean that it has earned the sort of respect that Bishop Jones or the leaders of TEC want to have the rest of us accord it. Where and oh where is the careful, critical, scholarly evaluation, not of scripture or the Church’s tradition – that is being done in spades – but of the definitions, propositions and understandings of the homosexual movement itself? Where, as Bishop Whalon recently noted, is the theology? Where, in other words, has the work been done to demonstrate that the pro-homosexual-imitations-of-marriage position deserves acceptance as a valid option for Christians of conscience? It continues to look to these eyes like the answer is, in the words of George Carlin, “Nowhere, mon frer.”
James Jones is truly out of his depth: a good man who started in the evangelical fold but has truly wandered off the reservation and is leading his folk (if they will follow) in the wrong way.
Only good taste prevents me from making an obvious namesake comparison.
It’s worth noting that Jones used to be chairman of the Governors of Wycliffe Hall, England’s leading evangelical seminary, but has since left the Council.
For the past couple of years he has been distancing himself from his evangelical roots, in the same way that John Gladwin of Chelmsford did – and ended up alienating half of his diocese form himself.
Is Jones making the same mistake?