On bishops and spinning...

There are few churches in the western world where issues of human sexuality and what Christians believe about the unique rightness of sexual expression within heterosexual, monogamous marriage are not difficult. In many churches that is simply because people find this issues very personal and hence very emotive.

But in the Church of England (and most other traditional denominational churches) there is the additional problem that many people and leaders in the church simply do not accept the Bible's teaching on this issue and want Christian ethics and practice in this area to be different from what they have been throughout the histroy of the Church.

Into this maelstrom has stepped the Bishop of my home town, Liverpool, Dr James Jones. Bishop James has generally been considered to be a "traditionalist" in matters of human sexuality (I think this is Anglican shorthand for believing the Bible). He publicly opposed the ordination of Dr Jeffrey John (a gay man with a partner in a celibate relationship but who considers that active homosexual relationships may be compatible with living as a Christian) as Dean of St Alban's.

Bishop James' latest contribution to the debate seems to have taken him quite a long way from this position. I say "seems" because the nature of his comments makes it very difficult to ascertain what he actually thinks about this issue now. Bishop James is a highly intelligent man so I take it that his ambiguity (and downright obscurity) at some points is a deliberate attempt to make it impossible to tell if he has changed his mind or not. I am sure that this is something the Bishop has done to try and encourage openess and debate about this issue in Liverpool and more widely in the Church of England and the nation. But it seems to me that he is profoundly wrong for a number of reasons...

If you want to read the article before following my response you'll find it here.

1 Bishop James talks about the working group he has set up to look at issues around the area of homosexuality and which was tasked to arrive at a "Theology of Friendship". Whilst dialogue with people holding all sorts of view that differ from you if usually a good and valuable thing, he fails to consider that our theology must be arrived at not from conversations with others but from what God has revealed of himself in his word. Others may help us to understand what God has written. But you cannot well develop theology in conversation with people who hold a radically different view of the Bible - because the source of their theology will always be something other than God's word.

2 Bishop James uses the physical intimacy between David and Jonathan to show us that "here are two men with the capacity to love fully, both women and men." It is surely right to realise that our culture is not necessarilty any more (or less!) "biblical" than cultures where men's affections for each other are more demonstrative. But nobody is questionning whether or not we should love others "fully" whatever their sex. Rather the issue is whether homosexual relationships are, in fact, a failure to love fully; which they must be if they go against the commands of a loving God. In any case even if David and Jonathan had been involved in a homosexual relationship (which the Bible gives us no reason to believe) that would not have made it right - any more than David's adulterty with Bathsheeba was right.

3 The Bishop's essay makes reference to the incident in John 8 where Jesus says to the woman caught in adultery "Neither do I condemn you; go and from now on sin no more." he points out that the words of comfort come first and that "the pastor speaks before the prophet." This is, frankly, a very silly reading of the text! The ESV (and some other translations) has all this as one sentence. Jesus spoke the two parts of it more or less instantaneously. So it is ridiculous to use this text to suggest that we should create some sort of gap between listening to the views of others and coming to Bible driven conclusions.

Obviously we should listen politely and respectfully to the views of others on all sorts of issues. But where the Bible has been believed by Christians of all sorts to speak clearly on an issue for 2,000 years we should not put our proclamation of that view on pause simply to listen to the opinions of a group of people who, largely, do not hold to anything like an historic Christian view of the Scriptures.

4 The bishop repents in his article of opposing the ordination of Dr John at St Alban's and of causing pain and distress to Dr John and his partner. I find this totally astonishing. Obviously it is a matter of great sadness that this man and his partner should have been caused distress, as doubtless they were, by the media circus that surrounded his appointment. But it was not Biship James or anyone else who put him in that position. Rather Dr John accepted the post knowing full well that his appointment would disturb millions of Anglicans and other Christians around the world who believe that his position on homosexual practice contradicts the teachings of God and the doctrines of the church he is meant to uphold.

Bishop James says that the controversy over the appointment "narrowed rather than enlarged the space ofr healthy debate within the church.". Does this mean that the best way to achieve debate would be for people who disagreed profpundly with dr John to have stayed silent? That hardly sounds like a recipe for debate!

Fundamentally it seems that Bishop James is trying to have his cake and eat it. He wants "healthy debate" but not for anybody to feel hurt or disappointed or excluded. But, precisely because this issue is one that, for all of us, goes to the heart of some of our deepest emotions, fear and insecurities, this is simply not possible.

If you are a person in an active homosexual relationship and describing yourself as a follower of Jesus Christ I cannot possible hold and express a view that you should not be in that relationship without causing you pain and distress. I do not wish to do so. But, as a pastor, I am called to explain what God says as clearly as I am able. I long to do it with gentleness and compassion but, rightly understood, these are never at the expense of clarity.

Bishop James is in a very difficult place. But the solution to the sensitivity of the Church of England on this issue is not to create more "space for debate" by promoting to positions of power those who hold a different view of Christian Scripture and Christian Ethics - because that is the cause of the problem!