The bishop’s article purports not to take sides in the dispute that is threatening to split the Anglican Communion. But such ”˜neutrality’ is not what it seems. What the Guardian has done with the piece is not fair, but nor is it entirely scurrilous. It represents the kind of over-simplification that nonetheless identifies the main ”˜cash value’ of what is being said. The 1991 report Issues in Human Sexuality essentially reaffirmed traditional Christian teaching, but it allowed for a freedom-of-conscience exception for lay-people who sincerely believe that it is God’s call to them to be in a homosexual sexual relationship. The press had no interest in the reaffirmation of traditional Christian teaching: the ”˜cash value’ of this was that the Church of England was giving approval to homosexual sexual relationships. The 2005 pastoral statement from the House of Bishops of the Church of England on Civil Partnerships, while on the surface of it much more restrictive, has in the public perception – and arguably in actual practice – done for the clergy what Issues in Human Sexuality did for the laity.
The attempt to keep the opposed views all at the table together in the name of the higher value of unity is admirable when the matters in dispute are not of core importance, or when it is not yet clear whether they are of core importance. But in relation to ethical matters the attempt to keep the conversation going over an extended period is to give victory to the most libertarian of the options under consideration, and especially so when the forces of politically correctness in the wider culture are all aligned with the most libertarian view. We would not countenance a protracted period of consultation ”“ with its implicit weakening of the force of existing guidelines ”“ if the issue at stake was, say, compulsory euthanasia of the over-sixties in view of the effect of population growth on the ecology of the planet. While there is always an important place for debate about how ethical principles are to be applied in practice to complex situations, there is no weight of moral conviction behind views that need to be endlessly questioned.
There is always a danger that Christian groups are only reflecting the values of their contexts; and there is always a need for Christian groups to clarify their values in relation to their contexts. In relation to questions of homosexual sexual practice the Bible both engages with and transcends its larger social context. Its guidance in this area is clear and it is equally clear that it treats the matter as one of profound importance. Listening to the experience of gays and lesbians, Christians or not, will always be important. So will valuing them as people, drawing close to them, extending compassion to and giving all practical support. But we do no kindness to anyone (homosexuals included) or to our society at large, if we allow ourselves to drift away from traditional Christian sexual morality.
Bishop Jones was the Chairman of the Council for Wycliffe Hall, Oxford (or the equivalent term). Is he still in this post? That would represent quite a paradox, as David Wenham (Gordon’s brother) was in a well-publicised conflict with Wycliffe (whose Principal has been supportive of Reform) and who is now with Gordon at Trinity Bristol.
A good piece of writing. Bishop Jones was always seen as reliably ‘open evangelical’ (as they’re called in England, i.e. like Tom Wright, believes in physical resurrection, WO, moderately leftish), but his half-digested ruminations on homosexuality and his failure to clarify just what he was saying were counter-productive. Indeed, he *seemed to be waving the gay flag at points in the article, and he was out of his depth in dealing with the biblical material. Shows the perils of thinking aloud without coming back to the Bible.
It is good to have two first class scholars in OT and NT call him back to evangelical orthodoxy here. In these post-GAFCon days re people in England losing their deferential awe of bishops?
#1: disputes have many sides to them.