The Archbishop of Armagh’s recent lecture delivered at the USPG annual conference, is highly problematic at a number of levels. The problems are with his use of Scripture, his understanding of Richard Hooker, his view of the church and what she is or isn’t free to do and the pastoral care of those with same-sex attraction. It is regrettable and surprising that the Archbishop used a conference on mission to suggest a rethink of the church’s teaching on sexual morality, especially in the light of major events in the life of the Anglican Communion, which preceded and follow its delivery, namely GAFCON and the Lambeth Conference respectively.
1) As has been persuasively demonstrated by Professor Robert Gagnon in his response to the address, the Archbishop has misread the text of Romans 1:18-32. The essence of the passage lies in the observable or obvious nature of creation, the truth about which humanity rejects or deliberately “suppresses”. Rebellion against the order of creation, seen (as St. Paul makes clear) in creation’s design and purpose, finds its expression in the attempt to ‘join together’ two entities, which were not created for that end. This is why homosexual behaviour is considered unnatural: it is contrary to God’s design. Idolatry is a false trail in understanding this passage – it is the result of “exchanging the [obvious] truth of God for a lie”, not the cause. The Archbishop’s interpretation of the passage is weak and inconsistent with the rest of Scripture. He ignores the full implications of the creation narratives of Genesis 1-3 which are the back-drop to the argument in Romans 1.
The Archbishop suggests that the question of what is natural or unnatural lies in the issue of orientation, that the idolatrous Roman Christians had re-orientated themselves away from heterosexual to homosexual desire. However, we suggest that orientation is irrelevant, since orientation or desire is subordinate to the created order. There are a number of possible sexual orientations or attractions known to human beings, however, not all of these are regarded as acceptable. Why does the Archbishop regard same-sex attraction as acceptable? Indeed, current scientific wisdom on the issue of genetic predisposition is that there is no conclusive evidence that suggests a gay gene, as the Archbishop concedes. After two decades of research, where the social and sexual politics of the West are conducive to such a discovery, it is interesting to note that no serious geneticist will admit the possibility.
The rise of Western individualism prioritises the self and one’s desires, preferences and actions. This has, amongst many things, been detrimental to the family unit, leading to its fragmentation. We are disappointed that the Archbishop doesn’t challenge this phenomenon; rather, affirms it. We are also surprised that the Archbishop imagines the Apostle Paul’s knowledge of God to be somehow inadequate, thus, transmitting an inadequate revelation of God to the Church throughout the ages in his Scriptural writings. Could the omniscient God not have revealed the insights of 21st Century sexual science to the Apostle Paul? Also, does the Archbishop imagine himself to be a greater authority than St Paul, possessing a potentially greater knowledge (of whatever kind) than the Apostle?
2) The Archbishop’s employment of Richard Hooker’s theological methodology is questionable, especially since, in Hooker’s own work, the primacy is given to Scripture. Neither tradition nor reason is used to dumb the clear voice of Scripture, or weaken its authoritative position. He says that,
“what Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that the first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by face of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth” [Lawes, Book V].
The ‘plainly delivered’ and consistent voice of Scripture in both the Old and New Testaments is that God is unfavorable towards same-sex behaviour, indeed, any sexual behaviour outside heterosexual, monogamous marriage.
Moreover, we ask whether the Archbishop’s reasoning really stands? He suggests that a bodily reaction or genetic predisposition is enough to license behaviour. Would he say the same in the case of a propensity towards alcoholism, kleptomania, adultery or xenophobia if such a biological causation were to be found? Would he agree that same-sex behaviour is in a different category to writing with the left-hand?
The issue of same-sex relationships is not one of church order as in the 16th Century debates between Hooker and his Puritan contemporaries. Naturally, it does have implications upon church order in relation to ordination, the status of same-sex relationships etc, as the Archbishop suggests in the final paragraph of his address [2]. Instead, it is a first order issue, one of inclusion in the very Kingdom of God – therefore, this makes it an issue of utmost concern for all Anglican Christians.
3) The Archbishop imagines that churches can displace the primacy of Scripture, its ‘plain’ reading and the tradition of the church. We regret that his words have become a focus for disunity and confusion amongst the people of God. We acknowledge that a range of opinion on the issue of same-sex sexual relationships exists within the House of Bishops. However, we plead with the entire House to re-affirm the church’s traditionally held position on same-sex relationships since it is consonant with Scripture. Indeed, were the issue to be discussed at Diocesan or General Synod level, we plead for this same re-affirmation.
“Bishops, as chief pastors are called to share with their fellow Bishops a special responsibility to maintain and further the unity of the Church, to uphold its discipline, to guard its faith and to proclaim its mission throughout the world” (BCP 2004, “Ordination of a Bishop”, p.574). Bishops are called to be foci of unity, fusion rather than confusion, thus for the sake of clarity and the avoidance of doubt and disunity amongst God’s people, we ask that they speak with one voice. Relationships with Christians in other denominations will inevitably be strained. Within our own denomination, relationships may be troubled with many presently expressing their hurt and confusion over the Archbishop’s words.
4) A final concern raised by the problematic nature of the Archbishop’s address is in the area of pastoral care for those who experience same-sex attraction. We acknowledge the words of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11 where it is made clear that those engaging in same-sex behaviour will not inherit the Kingdom of God (alongside many other sins), but rejoice that rescue and salvation is possible for those who turn away from various lifestyles and live under the rule of Jesus Christ. We are concerned that the Archbishop has made unclear these serious Scriptural warnings and if Scripture “contains all things necessary to salvation” (something the Archbishop affirmed at his ordination and consecration), then we ask, does he see this address as responsible, pastoral care?
In conclusion, when comparison is made between the Archbishop’s piece and the Jerusalem Declaration of the recent GAFCON, it begs the question as to which provides clearer leadership to the people of God and which is closer to the will of God as revealed in the Holy Scriptures. The Jerusalem Declaration reaffirms the long-established Anglican position of the primacy, authority and sufficiency of Scripture and the proper place of tradition and reason. By contrast, the Archbishop’s address effectively questions the relevance and place of the Scriptures in the life of today’s Church. Sadly, as Irish Anglican clergy, we identify more closely with the approach taken in the Jerusalem Declaration than our own Primate’s. We find ourselves having a closer affinity with Primates and Archbishops in other parts of the Anglican Communion whose leadership and words more closely reflect the plain teaching of Scripture.
Despite clarifications from the official press channels of the Church of Ireland that the Archbishop did not equate same-sex relationships with marriage and that he was merely requesting ‘mature’ debate, we find it hard to believe that there is an alternative interpretation to the conclusions he drew other than the full acceptance of homosexual behaviour within the church, pending appropriate and convincing scientific development. To place science above the written Word of God and to attempt to justify this approach with the writings of Richard Hooker is highly regrettable.
August 2008
NOTES:
[1] Hooker: Of the Laws of the Ecclesiastical Polity, Book V, 8:2; Folger Edition 2:39, 8-14
[2] “Finally, let us be clear on this: it has not yet been conclusively shown that for some males and some females homosexuality and homosexual acts are natural rather than unnatural. If such comes to be shown, it will be necessary to acknowledge the full implications of that new aspect of the truth, and that insight applied to establish and acknowledge what may be a new status for homosexual relationships within the life of the Church”.