For many in the Episcopal Church the rights of gay and lesbian people are seen unequivocally akin to the rights of African-Americans. There is a poignant irony here for it is with Africans from contemporary Africa that many American Episcopalians are most at odds in a cause that they feel parallels the plight of and the fight for justice by their ancestors who came to America two centuries earlier. Gay rights are civil rights. It is a matter of natural justice. Failure to understand this at best mystifies and at worst angers the majority in the Episcopal Church that was once so guiltily complicit in slavery and is now so anxious to shake off the shackles of the past and prove its commitment to social justice which is such an important strand in the prophetic literature of the Bible. These are serious historical and contemporary moral and social perspectives that need to be understood in the international debate about human sexuality.
What I have learned from our on-going tripartite conversation is that we need to have and protect the space for genuine dialogue in the spirit of Lambeth 1:10. I worry about the Windsor proposals not because I doubt the courage and integrity of those who are working on them but because I fear that they will take us in the direction of narrowing the space and of closing down the debate on this and any future issue where Christians find themselves in conversation with their culture on some new moral development or dilemma. The result is that energy is sapped by internal definitions rather than released into engaging with the world so loved of God.
The description in John’s Gospel of Jesus “full of grace and truth” presents us with a person who created space around himself for others to “see the Kingdom of God”. He was neither truthless in his grace, nor graceless in his truth. I fear that in our debates with each other and with the world especially on the subject of homosexuality we have come over as graceless. Jesus was a pastor, as well as a prophet. He spoke commandments with compassion. And when in John 8 he was asked to judge an adulterer he said “Neither do I condemn you” before adding “Go away and sin no more”. The Pastor spoke before the Prophet. Had it been the other way around she would not have been there to hear his words of mercy. I am not here equating homosexuality with adultery but simply registering the priority Jesus gave to the pastoral approach.
I know there are some ”“ from all sides of the argument ”“ who might feel that to be in conversation with those with whom you profoundly disagree is to legitimise their own position and compromise your own. I know too that the continuing debate does not alleviate the suffering of those most affected. In this time we are particularly dependent on the grace of those who are hurt by the words and actions of others. All I know and can testify to through our own discussions within the Diocese and with our partner Dioceses is that entering the debate prayerfully in the company of the One who is “full of grace and truth” takes you to places beyond “all that you can ask or imagine”. I know that many are pessimistic about the future but I find myself strangely and surprisingly optimistic that if we can maintain the space to listen to “the still small voice” there might emerge a new understanding and paradigm that none of us can yet imagine.
Before anybody starts bashing the Bishop, read the entire article and remember that this is not a reappraiser, but someone who has been considered as one of the more conservative Evangelicals.
I just find his exegesis of David and Jonathan along with that of Jesus and John speculative in the extreme, and hence counterproductive to the bishop’s goals. He is sloppy in his use of the the term ‘love’, and I’d recommend switching to the Greek originals if he wished to be clear on what he is actually saying. But I think his smudging what is a sharp line for many is in fact his purpose, not clarity.
First, all of the rancor of the last several years has not been primarily about sexuality. That is just the hot button topic de jure. What has happened in the US is the complete denial of the basic tenants of Christianity by the so called presiding bishop of THE Episcopal Church. She has made statements that undermine the authority of the Bible, denied the divinity and saving grace of our Lord saying he is “only one way and to say different puts God in a small box”. Well GUESS WHAT, the pretend bishopess is WRONG. When you deny the divine authority of the Bible and deny Christ, you are no longer Christian. Are you suggesting being in communion with non believers? That is what she has demonstrated she is, and is leading her organization to be.
All this talk about “rights” is so much garbage. African Americans in the US should be incensed that the GLBT crowd dares compare the rights based on race to their demand for rights based on behavior. No one makes them perform unnatural perverted sexual acts. That is a choice. Who they are attracted to has nothing to do with their ultimate behavior. Many people in the world are celibates by choice. The GLBT says that they should have rights because they CHOOSE not to follow the word of God. Sex outside of marriage between one man and one woman is wrong. Heterosexual or homosexual makes no difference. Should I assert that I have a legal right to engage in extramarital sex and should receive preferential treatment from the government, the church, insurance companies, small business like photographers mentioned in another thread and other people for that reason? That is exactly what the GLBT crowd shoves down everyones collective throats. The GLBT lobby has made it politically fashionable to be gay or lesbian. How dare they compare that and race.
The Bishop needs to get real and realize this is about much more than sex. What the TEC through it’s pretend bishopess queen has done would have gotten her burned at the stake in earlier times. Yes, we have progressed beyond that. Another grave error concerns ‘rights’. NO ONE of any race, sex, national origin, sexual orientation or any other qualifyer you tag them with has a RIGHT to ordination in God’s Church. There are many people that feel called to the ordained ministry that are disqualified or not qualified for various reasons. The Bible states some of the basics. That does not include living in a non-marital sexual relationship with anyone. It also does not include being activly involved in unnatural sex. Homosexuality by its very description is unnatural. Ordination is a grace given by God through the Holy Spirit that includes certain authority and much responsability and should not be entered into lightly. Churchs also should not be to quick to ordain either. The GLBT argument here is a non starter.
People change constantly and science does evolve. We deny Christ ourselves by our behaviors, and then go back and try to repent in many cases. Socitey as a whole has become totally of the opinion that we know better than the poor ignorant peoples of 2000 years ago. What they are saying is they are better, and that there are no constants or absolutes. That is right out of the atheist playbook. If man does not have absolutes as guidance, we will gladly self destruct. The Anglican Communion has gradually become more like a can of worms than a bowl of pasta. What do you suggest we do? Listen untill the perverbial hell freezing over? We have listened long enough, been lied to too many times, subverted by petty power play political actions, had vile devilish teachings forced on people by so called bishops such as Spong, Benison, Bruno, Robinson, Schori, we have had books forced on the church that are theologically corrupt as in the 1979 abonmination and on and on. Enough is enough. This bishop along with Schori Robinson Bruno et al seems to be saying that they are much more advanced than those poor black savages from Africa, give them 50 years and they will maybe catch up with us. And the bishop says be in communion with that? Can’t do it. Won’t do it. Enough said.
My remembrance of the Greek terms for “love” is that there are at least 6 different – sometimes opposed – definitions. English is an impoverished language in this regard. So, would the good bishop study up on his Greek and spare us the syllogisms about a meaning for love that he is not prepared to defend? The Middle Eastern culture and some African cultures ( as in ages past) endorse men holding hands while walking or reclining near each other while talking. Does this bode anything homosexual?
This essay critiques the contextualization of the debate in America and Africa, but not in England. Interestingly, the essay seems to be adopting a position(not Marriage, but perhaps civil union) that has been emerging in England. It’s very difficult to critique one’s own context because it involves the various presuppositons and prejudices that allow us to go about making our way. Evangelicals have a tendency to fall prey to the latest fashions because they don’t have a bulwark(Sacred Tradition) upon which to rely. My sense is that this bishop is allowing his reading of the Jesus-John and David-Jonathan stories to be colored by his context and not by the Tradition of the Church.
“I worry about the Windsor proposals not because I doubt the courage and integrity of those who are working on them but because I fear that they will take us in the direction of narrowing the space and of closing down the debate.” Dear Bishop Jones, is that really your biggest worry about Windsor, five years after 2003? Lack of debate? Oh dear, I think it’s time I became a Trappist.
Bash away at the Bishop, I say. When the issues under discussion in the Church are homosexuality, and same-sex unions, and the ordination and consecration of admitted and unrepentant practicing homosexuals, it is irresponsible in the extreme to give an ambiguous address about “same-sex relationships”, reserving the defense that “I didn’t necessarily refer to EROTIC relationships.”
If, somewhere in Christendom, there’s a lively ongoing discussion about whether men should be dear friends with men, or whether they should feel free to express affection physically but chastely, then the Bishop should inform us of that discussion and place his remarks in that context. But I am completely unaware of it and doubt it is happening.
Instead, advocates for the blessing of perverse relationships are tearing down the Church’s respect for the coherence and authority of the Scriptures, and the Bishop’s response seems to be to labor to find an eccentric point he can make by way of apparent concession.
When the issue under discussion is homosexual relations, it is nothing less than blasphemous to make the creepily ambiguous observation that Jesus and the beloved disciple were intimate friends, and stop there.
[i]” I invited Professor Ian Markham then Professor of Public Theology at Liverpool Hope University and now Dean of Virginia Theological Seminary to chair a group exploring “A Theology of Friendshipâ€. The group’s membership reflected the diversity of opinion, theological , ethical and ecclesiastical and was inclusive of gender.”[/i]
Bishop’s approach seems to accept as a foregone conclusion that homosexuality exists as an unchangeable part of a person’s being, as is one’s race. Yet more and more the science is catching up and pointing to the fault with this conclusion. Although Bishop assembled a diverse group to participate in this listening process, it seems he did not include a person who has come through and put behind him or her their struggles with same-sex attraction, someone who could attest to being able to overcome this behavior without giving up one’s humanness and in fact, only then discovering their full humanness.
I posted the following over at StandFirm, but I repost it here. I am in agreement with Dale here. Please read what Jones has to say with an open mind and realizing that he is an evangelical.
*****************
I think many here are joining the Guardian [where excepts of this essay were first reported and spun to make it sound like Jones had become a liberal] in grossly misinterpreting what the Bishop of Liverpool has written. Jones does not anywhere claim that David and Jonathan or Jesus and John were homosexually involved with each other. Rather, Jones is really doing the opposite – arguing that our society naturally (but wrongly) assumes that a love between two men expressed fully and physically must be homosexual in nature. He also argues AGAINST one being defined by one’s claimed sexual inclination. Both of these points are contra the liberal argument.
Another important thing to note is that Jones does NOT apologize for opposing John’s appointment. He only apologizes for the MANNER of his public objection. Jones makes it clear that he still thinks John’s appointment was wrong. Remember that Jeffrey John claimed (whether you believe him or not is another story) at the time that his same-sex relationship was celibate.
I think that what Jones is saying here can best be appreciated after reading George Barna’s book “Unchristian†(discussing perceptions of Christians as mean and judgmental). I think the key to understanding what Jones was saying can be found in the following quote from this essay:
I think that we orthodox should heed what the good bishop is saying.
“I can see how the Church of Nigeria’s response to the sexuality debate is contextualised. The law of their land prohibits homosexual acts. It is therefore difficult for the church to be party to an international debate about a practice that is actually outlawed and illegal.”
It’s unfortunate that a bishop of the Church of England naturally assumes that other Anglican provinces are so easily swayed by the fickleness of political opinion – talk about inappropriately projecting your own context. Maybe they’ve reached their conclusions by reading scripture or the fathers.
Has anyone had any success finding the “Theology of Friendship” Report he mentions? I could not find a link on either his diocesan website or via Google, though I found lots of other (pretty predictable) stuff. If someone finds it online, please post a link here.
Until I have looked at it I will only make two comments.
1.) A sexualized interpretation of Jonathan & David and Jesus & John is the only one allowed by the “LGBT” worldview. Any other interpretation is considered ‘denial’. In short, the only intimate relationships possible are sexual. What a depressing prison. What a thing to teach boys, especially the increasing number of boys having trouble fitting into the ever-intensifying ‘mainstream’.
2.) Regarding the “shapelessness” of the Communion, consecration of a bishop is not ‘shapeless’ at all but is, rather, quite definite. Indeed, it is the very laying on of hands which imparts the definiteness. Likewise the sealing of a legal document to launch an action by a Human Rights Commission is not ‘shapeless’ but is quite definite: http://www.zenit.org/article-21689?l=english
There has really only ever been one issue: What to teach in Sunday School?
This breaks my heart open with hope. I will carry it with me through lent. He has picked up a cross with this letter that I could never carry.
#1: I have read the whole essay and find it a confused and incomplete thing, raising questions but then ignoring them as it goes on to think aloud with rather poor and ambiguous exegesis: just what DOES Jones mean in saying there was a ‘physical relationship’ between Jesus and the ‘beloved disciple’? Does he really think it was homoerotic? He can’t raise questions and leave them dangling in the air. And does he think the same of David and Jonathan? This reads like os much pro-gay claptrap from the 70s. I’ve read the essay twice and still don’t really grasp what Jones is gesturing at.
Here’s a perceptive critique from England:
http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/
Yes, Jones was known as a ‘conservative evangelical’ in England but he seems ready to shed such associations.
Another criticism of Jones’s essay from a ‘postgay’ perspective.
http://www.peter-ould.net/
Has Bishop Jones never heard of ‘the occasions of sin’?
Why wouldn’t the Bishop be creating a real graceful space for true dialogue by stating clearly what he believes to be the truth about homosexual acts? It’s my opinion that the Anglican communion has seriously damaged its relationship with persons with SSA by its inability to speak the truth.
A good comment from a contributor to Stand Firm:
“Surely there is some minimal requirement of common sense for bishops. To suggest that the relationship of Jesus to one of his disciples is relevant to a discussion of homosexuality puts one among the lunatic fringe. It is one thing to have cowardly bishops or rash bishops or dim bishops or sinful bishops, but for one to think this point is helpful to the conversation raises questions about his minimal competence. At this rate we can expect him to be quoting next from the Secret Gospel of Mark.”
At some point it would be helpful for someone to explain how this sort of talk is going to come as positive support to Richard Turnbull at Wycliffe in Oxford. The press reports +Liverpool as chief amongst those supporting the Wycliffe Principal, and yet this must be a very unwelcome set of remarks for Turnbull. One must pray constantly that good institutions are not set aside by internal battles that then spill into a very different context, dividing colleagues and then dividing those who appeared to be on the same side. Lenten prayers for Wycliffe Hall and all those affected by this very hard season.
I am not an academic but I see the the Episcopal Church as an evolving church. We are ever mindful of shameful past deeds but I am full of hope when I see our litttle churchs responce to events as Katrina. As an Episcopalian from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan going out in the world as a young adult I saw a very catholic like Episcopal Church in Wisconsin and in S.E. Michigan a low church Episcopal Church.When I travel I am greeted by a rector in Houston asking me if he can be of assistance to to seeing Baptist children taking communion with me at the National Cathedral. They had followed me when I guided them in the use of the prayer book. It was uplifting. I didn’t ask if anyone was gay or lesbian. I have gone to a Catholic Church wedding for my niece at which the 74 year old priest said ” all baptized Christians are welcome to receive communion”. He told me after that he particularly liked that Episcopalians were more inclusive. I asked couldn’t the bishop reprimand you? He said he could. But I take care of 4 churches and I’m retired. I am not gay . But I do believe that Jesus accepts us all as sinners and we ask for His repentance. I do not want the Episcopal church to end up like the Westbrook Baptist Church that goes around and at military funerals calls the fallen soldier a FAG. I reject that and I hope most people do.
17: “this sort of talk” – do you mean Jones’s essay or the comments on this site?
The best you can say about Jones’s remarks is that he hasn’t thought through clearly what he’s trying to say – and that really isn’t good enough for a bishop in a teaching role.
Yooper #18:
[blockquote]I do not want the Episcopal church to end up like the Westbrook Baptist Church that goes around and at military funerals calls the fallen soldier a FAG. [/blockquote]
Do you really think that is even the remotest possibility?