To respond ‘no’ to this question is to be ignorant to the dynamic tradition that Anglicans of the Church of England share, and the world of the 21st Century in which we live and its advances in the understanding of sexuality as formed biologically, psychologically and socially. Our theology risks redundancy if it overlooks the most important forms and features of contemporary society, and Feminist, liberation, and lesbian and gay theologies that have made permanent contributions to and inextricably changed our theology. There is, therefore, only one possible answer to this question: ‘yes, the time has come to revise the traditional Christian teaching that full sexual relations should only take place within marriage’, but only because the traditional concept of marriage should be revised to include people otherwise excluded, namely gay and lesbian people. Karl Barth said that “marriages are made in heaven,” and with the growth of same-sex unions, it appears that the Holy Spirit is working to form a new pattern of mutual commitment, of ‘marriage’. That Christians should abandon the teaching that full sexual relations should only take place within marriage is a notion that I would not stomach for both sexual intimacy and marriage are important and should not be taken lightly.
Any response to this question must first establish what ‘traditional Christian teaching’, and for me this in an Anglican context. Today there is a near-universal assumption that marriage begins with a wedding yet only in 1754, after the Hardwicke Marriage Act had been passed, was a ceremony a legal requirement in England and Wales. Prior to this, marriage had been a two-stage process involving an exchange of consent followed by consummation, and a wedding did not have to take place for the Church to recognise this as a valid marriage. Marriages were of social importance for inheritance, and therefore power, depended upon male heirs. Whilst this was still important amongst the less wealthy, the less material one had the less a formal and voluntary nuptial and its legalities mattered: yet the essential betrothals, although legally binding, did not require witnesses and were risky. Originally the betrothal involved no religious element and was a personal and private civil contract, only to be entered into by the couple. Nuptials took place at the church door with the priest only as witness to the sacrament made between the couple. Betrothal, not the nuptial, signified the transition from friends to lovers, bestowing the right to sexual as well as social intimacy, but this was premised by the intention to marry. Betrothals and nuptials remained separate until they were united after the Reformation as the propertied classes imposed their standards on the rest of society using an earlier Puritan concept of marriage to distinguish their formal wedding from the traditional alternatives. Sexual expression can be controlled in a socially stable marriage, and by the reign of Elizabeth I weddings were conducted inside churches under tighter ecclesiastical and civil control. Thus the modern Anglican wedding service includes both betrothals and nuptials, and sexual intercourse belongs within post-ceremonial marriage exclusively.
For Anglicans marriage is God-given, creative, and instinctive. We believe that through marriage a man and a woman may learn and grow in love together and commitment is required of the couple to stay with each other “through changing circumstances, through personal development and growth, and through the process of growing older and approaching death”. People marry because they love, and to be helped to love, for without marriage love would be exhausted and fail, perhaps harmfully. Marriage is the central focus of relationships for a couple, around which other relationships grow. Anglicans believe that “the grace of God in the Holy Spirit is given to all who enter marriage in the conscious desire to hear his call, seeking his strength to live together as they have promised;” and that marriage is called to reflect the love that God has shown humanity in Jesus Christ. Thus marriage in the context of worship is an important ministry. Traditionally the three legitimate purposes or blessings of marriage are the procreation of children, remedy against sin and avoidance of fornication, and the mutual society, help and comfort which each affords the other in prosperity and adversity.
Yet the Church of England has moved away from emphasising procreation when the 1930 Lambeth Conference grudgingly approved contraception, aware that it is prudent and positive with limited resources within the family and humanity, a radical reassessment of a tradition the Church has shared since Augustine wrote De Bono Conjugali. Moreover, the Church of England has moved away from emphasising avoidance of sin, in favour of emphasising marriage as “an intimate, pleasurable, and mutually supportive relationship,” assuming an equality impossible a century ago. “Marriage has become a place for ‘godly conversation’, physical and spiritual... a pilgrimage for two, each learning the discipline of the other,” (Martin, 2007) powerfully modelling the Christian life. Seen in these developments is a willingness to allow the outworking of traditional Christian principles, such as lifelong marriage, in practice to be shaped by pastoral realities and dilemmas, like marital breakdown. The dynamic gospel tradition that is the Church’s apostolicity is thus embodied in our generations, the changes in human understanding forcing us to confront the possibility that settled essentials are now uncertain. These dramatic and radical changes in the understanding of marriage reflect the movement of the Holy Spirit no less than did the abolition of slavery.
The developing understanding of what it is to be gay is integrated with these changes in human self-awareness. Despite this and these radical breaks with its theological tradition of marriage, our Church demonstrates reluctance to a change what is already working itself out and, instead of offering a profound reflection upon what it means for us to be sexual beings, we, the Body of Christ, present ourselves as having an interest in sexuality in terms of control; instead of teaching intimacy and trust, communication and negotiation, or even forgiveness, we appear obsessed with who does what to whom in bed in a narrow reading of a Christian theology of sexuality. We need to develop an honest, self-critical reception of our transformation, discerning those movements of change that are “not opposed to the providential will of God,” to be more capable of creating and sustaining the Church in the twenty-first century.
As part of this reflection process, the 1987 Synod affirmed “that the biblical and traditional teaching on chastity and fidelity in personal relationships is a response to, and expression of, God’s [inclusive] love for each one of us,” whilst simultaneously excluding homosexual people by affirming “that homosexual genital acts fall short of this ideal.” In 1991 Issues in Human Sexuality affirmed that “heterosexuality and homosexuality are not equally congruous with the observed order of creation or with the insights of revelation as the Church engages with these in the light of her pastoral ministry,” reaffirmed in 2003 by the House of Bishops’ Group on Issues in Human Sexuality. For the authors scripture reveals “an evolving convergence on the ideal of lifelong, monogamous, heterosexual union as the setting intended by God for the proper development of men and women as sexual beings.”
The Bible is a multi-layered, flexible text through which our living God speaks. Written contextually we cannot read it with the same meaning it had when written, or at any other point in history. We hold different interpretations in tension and live with the ambiguity to search for the right balance in our dynamic apostolic tradition. Richard Hooker argued that it was not self-evident from scripture but “must be by reason founde out” which of the scriptural examples and precedents are always to be followed, and which “the Church hath power to alter” when “it manifestly appears to her that change of times have clearly taken away the very reasons of God’s first institution”. Jesus also set the example with his radical attitude to ethics and his disregard for the written law when this conflicted with the commandment of love. It is right to re-examine traditional views of biblical teaching, especially when the biblical theology of marriage is rich and diverse, holding in tension remedium with its sexual pessimism and sacramentum which inserts conjugal love into the love of Christ for the Church.
Marriage and celibacy are gifts of God in creation: those called to marriage renounce the freedom of the single-life, accept the sorrows of marriage, and submit to the needs of spouse and children; those called to celibacy or temporary singleness renounce the joys of sexual intercourse and the possibility of enjoying family life. Yet homosexual people are like all people and share humanity’s drives and desires to find fulfilment in union with another as well as in union with God, even while the sex of the person they can love is different and sexual fulfilment through genital activity can only be with a member of the same sex. Our current tradition, therefore, offers a choice between evils, either allowing oneself most of the sexually ambiguous responses that fall short of any complete sexual fulfilment for oneself or one’s partner, or attempting the impossible task of rigorously suppressing every sexual response in an imposed and uncalled celibacy. The presumption that homosexuals are called to the positive vocation of celibacy is demeaning to genuine celibates, and the gift of ceremonial marriage is not an option within the Anglican tradition. Yet what should we call the presence of committed, long-term partnerships recognised by civil law between adults of the same sex? It is the fact that husband and wife are baptised which gives the marriage its sacramentality. “Marriages are made in heaven”(Barth, 1961): a couple who have exchanged consent and who have sexual intercourse may be married, under Barth’s accepted concept of marriage, for marriage belongs to creation and redemption.
A significant cultural change is taking place as those who self-identify as homosexual have increasingly sought to ‘marry’ in publically recognised unions from the early 1980s culminating in the civil partnership recognition in 2004, even though many had chosen to live in monogamous, committed relationships for many decades since decriminalisation in 1967. Concurrent to this change is a shift in biblical interpretation, each affecting the other; and this is a repeated pattern. Society retrospectively recognises views like slavery as out-dated and mistaken, forgetting that such views emerged from Scripture. Archbishop Moore in the 1790s supported the continuation of the slave trade as a legitimate occupation for a Christian; a hundred years later, Archbishop Benson affirmed that girls under 16 should be allowed to be given in marriage, today considered child-abuse. Another century on, the increasingly redundant absolute condemnation of same-sex intimacy relies on an abstract fundamentalist deployment of very ambiguous texts and a non-scriptural theory about natural complementarity. We have to look for a fuller sexual ethic that is seriously informed by scripture, not based on the flat citation of isolated texts. We need to be enabled to read the Bible in life-giving ways when exploring sexuality rather than the cacophony of discrimination of the past, ostensibly authorised by scripture. We need to be predisposed towards settling for a life-enhancing interpretation whilst retaining high critical and scholarly standards.
Even as there are parts of scripture about marriage which are not life-giving, “justifying violence against women and stereotyping them as whores deserving punishment” (Thatcher, 1999), there are difficult biblical texts that exclude homosexual couples as ‘contrary to nature’ and ‘abominations’, since for Jews it was repugnant for men to be penetrated as this treated a man as an inferior woman in their patriarchal society. Continuing this pattern, conservative Anglicans in the Church of England relate homosexuality to a disease and prostitution – a sin of abuse. Likewise, Ugandan Anglicans at the 1998 Lambeth Conference related homosexual behaviour to bestiality and paedophilia. Our discussions about these scriptures and traditions must address their effects on those marginalised, Christian brothers and sisters who are homosexual.
Conservative Christians argue that Genesis 1 and 2 contend that human sexual differentiation is integral to humanity’s creation in the image of God, and that, if not marriage, sexual relationship between men and women is the culmination. The former notion ignores the proportion of Christians who, being created intersex, do not fit sexual bifurcation and challenge the Church’s ethical thinking; the latter notion overlooks scholarship that argues Genesis 1 and 2 is one “of the origins of the sexual drive and the need for relationship and human community, not the institution of marriage” (Mein, 2007). The God-given need for relationship exposed in Genesis 2 and symbolised in sexuality is thus discounted for those who are not heterosexual. Yet an alternate contention exists: Adam, as the representative of all humanity, chooses his partner, a choice God respects; therefore, it is “God’s will for each of us to find the partner we delight in, and God will be prepared to respect our choice” (Mein, 2007), and the Church already accepts this for people who are intersex.
Continuing the life-giving interpretation, we recognise that several biblical writers turn to sexuality to speak of the “complex and costly faithfulness between God and God’s people” (Williams, 1989); sexuality is celebrated in the Song of Songs as allegorical of divine love. This faithfulness reached its culmination on the cross and is exemplified in the Eucharist; this faithfulness is God desiring us as if we are God, “as if we were that unconditional response to God’s giving that God’s self makes in the life of the trinity” (Williams, 1989). This faithfulness, this desire, this transformational grace shining through the Eucharist enlightens our understanding of sexuality even as our sexuality enlightens our understanding of God’s faithfulness in the Eucharist. This is the love of God that we are called to understand and it is this that is central to the debate about homosexual relationships.
Sexuality is therefore about communion, and expresses mutual generosity, of a love which “gives itself to the Other in the interests of the Other” (Thiselton, 1995) . This Jesus expresses as he gives us his body, and thus our being is ultimately from God, a gift of every moment. So should the expression of our sexuality: sexual intercourse is saying, deeply, with one’s body, “I give myself to you without reserve, now and for ever, and I receive all you are as a gift” (Radcliffe, 2007). This other-regarding love of God that exists within the Trinity and which is communicated through Christ and the work of the Spirit is incarnated in Christian marriage, the theology of which should seek to affirm genuinely other-affirming relationships. Trinitarian and incarnation theology, therefore, leads us to accept and celebrate samesex relationships for the life of the Christian community has as its rationale the task of teaching us grace, of knowing we are significant, we are wanted. Christians in a same-sex sexual civil partnership are living out marriage in a way which is elevated by the fact that each is acting out the role of Christ loving his Church by giving his life for the other, and the Church has begun to recognise this.
Yet incarnational theology, even while leading us to this inclusion, makes demands upon us who have the Spirit working in us to live in Christ. Our sexuality operates on a more ambiguous level than the clear-cut rules of our tradition, for what part sexuality plays in any relationship (Mat. 5:28) is only known within oneself and God. As we present ourselves as living sacrifices, every sexualised response should be a matter for moral care, but because explicit sexual acts are currently forbidden in every situation for a homosexual, life quickly becomes unendurable under this demand. Since sexual behaviours are not neutral and are holistically bound to our faith, the extant marriage rules are necessary but inadequate for today’s society. They need to continue to change in response to collective discernment about human need and dignity, which is the work of the Spirit in the Body of Christ, the Church, as they already have about contraception.
The Church must constantly proclaim that God’s plan for humanity is not arbitrary, but the ‘traditional pattern of family life’, based on the eighteenth-nineteenth century development, is not ‘best’ for society moving into the twenty-first century. Sexual intercourse, practised within the gift of marriage as a sign of the unconditional love that is shared within the Trinity and into which humanity is invited, is a beautiful celebration of the mutuality of the relationship as each reaffirms desire for the other, reflecting the Eucharist. They become ‘one flesh’, a spiritual and physical union, an act of personal commitment that is an expression of the relationship. It becomes impossible to see why this does not apply to two men or two women who are committed to each other in this sense of mutuality, with tenderness, and neither force nor pressure on the other, and who are seeking a union which brings their lives together as fully and completely as possible. Why does the Church of England, which declares that all who share one bread are one body, condemn some of its members in committed relationships bearing fruits of the Spirit, who are innately homosexual, for committing sin when they desire to act on, express, and deepen their love?
The Church of England should bless same-sex sexual unions to give them a life, a reality, so they have freedom to ‘take time’, to mature and become as profoundly nurturing as they can. The covenanted love of a couple should be celebrated by the Church so that it ‘may be caught up into the Spirit’s proper work of doing these things for the love of the Father and the Son’ in the eternal dance of the Trinity: thus these ‘marriages made in heaven’ become mimeses of God. The Church’s crucial role is to assist couples to ground their being in this transcendental dimension, to offer all couples a positive theological understanding of their relationship, to help them realise the hope, the ideal, of secure, faithful, life-long love.
No comments:
Post a Comment