Last Wright

(I don't know how much longer I can work variations on this pun.)
The noted New Testament scholar (i.e., person with the right sort of degrees from the right-sounding place who has written several books about NT and environs, some of which have sold almost as well pulp Christly bodice-rippers -- and to much the same folk), N.T. Wright, Bishop of Durham, has delivered his last address to the Synod of his diocese. As Americans expect in association with "Durham", it is largely bull. He touches (in a generous use of the term) on many topics, only a couple of which are of interest here, circling inevitably around homosexuality and the Anglican Communion.

I begin with his discussion of adiaphora (things that don't make a difference, not communion deal-breakers). He notes, correctly, that the question of ordaining women was discussed across the communion before it occurred and suggests that it was agreed that this was adiaphora (hereinafter "trivia") and then various provinces ordained or did not, as they chose. What happened, of course, is that, while the communion (meaning mainly the bishops) were still taking a generally negative position on the issue, some provinces (indeed, some dioceses within provinces) just went ahead and did it. After the dust settled -- a few congregations here and there leaving, a little rewriting of some rule books, a few provinces getting in a huff -- it was discovered that the communion still held together, that the issue was trivia. The discussion was good groundwork, but the decision that it was trivia was never made as such and came after the fact.

This leads to the consecration of a lesbian in a committed (20-some year -- match that, breeders!) relationship as a Bishop in Los Angeles. This has not been declared trivia, he correctly notes, and flies in the face of the clear NT prohibition against sex outside of marriage between man and woman, he claims. Where to start?

I suppose by noting how clever Tom Durham is here at avoiding all the interesting issues. As noted above, the issue of a declaration of triviality is irrelevant: they just don't happen until the battle is over, if at all. But notice what the issue that is not officially trivial is: sex outside of marriage -- not homosexual sex, objecting to which by name would open one to a charge of homophobia, which is bad pr, especially Durham, apparently. Duh! No one wants to do away with the prohibition against sex outside of marriage (officially -- practical applications are another matter and one needs it around to deal with public scandals and as reason of last resort firing irksome underlings). The issue has not even come up for discussion, which Tom sees as a necessary precursor for action. The same cannot be said, of course, about the real issue: the role of homosexual person in committed relationships in the orders of the church. No one has even suggested that homosexual sex outside of such a relationship should not be regarded as as serious a block to orders as promiscuous heterosexual sex (indeed, practically it is more effective and more used than the more common kind).

Notice, too, that the issue (which is again a real one in the situation) of the equivalency of committed homosexual relationships with marriage between a man and a woman is nicely finessed by building the assumption that marriage is necessarily heterosexual into statement of the issue (petitio principii), which is, again, taken to be whether sex outside marriage is an obstacle to participation in Christian practices. Further, the authoritative prohibition against sex outside of marriage is restricted to the NT, since bringing in the OT would introduce so many special cases as to make a clear prohibition unlikely (and even when we get a clear case, David has probably violated it and been rewarded by God again -- he didn't even get punished for a flagrant bit adultery, though he did lose a child for trying to cover it up by killing the husband. It's always the cover-up that gets the powerful. But the next child of that particular escapade was Solomon.)

And in the NT is is possible to get a number of passages that are against sex outside of marriage, Paul's "If you can't keep it in your chiton, then get married already" being the most obvious (strictly "It is better to marry than to burn" -- whether in Hell or with lust is unclear). But anyone who talks about a clear prohibition in the Bible is someone who has not read the Bible much or very carefully (hence the snarky remarks about "noted NT scholar" above). Consider (from the OT) how the 10 Commandments of the KJV have become much hazier on investigation ("kill" -> "murder", for example). Even such a clear statement as "A divorced man who remarries commits adultery" (from nearly historical Jesus, not from mythical Moses) is immediately suspect, since it implies that a wife has conjugal rights in a marriage, a concept that Christianity and Rabbinical Judaism would get around to introducing later, but was not available to Jesus in 30 CE. But even if it were ever so clear, such a command does not guarantee that the thing prohibited will not be "declared" trivial, as the case of divorce clearly shows. There was some talk about it, then some places started remarrying divorced people, then the rules got changed and lo, the communion remained (I remember a grilling I got for my second marriage, in 1975 -- and the priest who gave it got an even more thorough one from his bishop, and even in 1990, my intended was offered the choice of only spinster or widow -- not her actual, divorcee -- to describe her status. That one was resolved by the suggestion that the parish got to vote on which to apply).

So the jump from "It's in the Book" to "It cannot be changed" doesn't work in fact. So, even if our Tom's strong position, that sex outside of marriage is unequivocally prohibited in the NT and was therefore a block to some roles within the Christian church, were correct. It does not follow that it cannot be "declared" trivial. But, as noted, no one is suggesting that it should be.

A fortiori, the claim that the NT holds certain kinds of sex outside of marriage are a block to some positions in the church or ought not be sanctioned by the church does not mean that they may never become trivia. And it does not mean that these items cannot be discussed and positions acted upon to test the water -- not precluding the outcome that the water stays unperturbed and the issue "declared" trivial. And, of course, someone is suggesting that this should be: homosexual sex within a committed relationship.

To be fair, when the Bible talks about sex outside marriage, it does mean outside heterosexual marriage (although outside an institution very different in most respects from a marriage in the modern world). In Biblical times, there was no official conception of homosexuality and so none of homosexual marriage. Paul does move a bit in the direction the modern notion by talking about people whose erotic attention was turned to members of their own sex, but then he deals with it as an acquired characteristic of "normal" (heterosexual) people (and, moreover, as part of the punishment for -- or general chaotic result of -- sinful society). Classical culture had only two recognized forms of sexual interplay between members of the same sex: pederasty (or "ephebophilia", as participating chicken hawks like to correct us to say), which involved a heterosexual keeping a young person around for sex and maybe (at least officially) for educating, and homosexual prostitution, which involved a heterosexual person going out and buying the temporary sexual services of someone in that business. One cannot use the Bible's failure to speak on the issue of homosexual marriage (or committed relationship) and its relation to other similar phenomena (heterosexual marriage, homosexual promiscuity or "mentoring", heterosexual promiscuity) as evidence that the activity is forbidden (as the promiscuities and the mentoring clearly are). It should be noted that the love that dare not speak its name (indeed, could not, because it didn't have one) surely went in ancient time much as today, either under the mentoring guise or simply by keeping the whole thing well hidden away (we get occasional hints -- and even fairly clear stories -- in the records). Incidentally, Jesus' only recorded contact with this (or a case of regular mentoring) ends with him restoring the mignon without any further comment (you could claim there was no comment because this wasn't such a case, but that is hard to hold reading even the short passage with a sense of what went on back then).

So, the situation that Wright is talking around is this. There is a long tradition in the church that people who are known by the general public to engage in homosexual sex (or are presumed to because they live with someone of the same sex in an intimate way) not be appointed to public positions (ordained ministry and certain sorts of public lay positions) in the church. This is because such sex is outside the only kind of sex in fact (or, indeed, possibly) approved by Scripture. Notice, importantly, that this tradition does not prohibit appointing to such positions people who are homosexuals but not sexually active (that ship sailed before the church was a church and any beep worthy of his stick knows that he can't get by with without his homosexual priests and active parishioners -- gays really like church) . It also does not apply to sexually active homosexuals whose activities are not known outside the cadre, at least if these are in stable relationships (some even become saints!). A parallel tradition is that the church not officially recognize, bless or sanction committed homosexual relationships. This tradition also has an array of exceptions, these, however, being a matter of different times and places, rather than about public knowledge (since, of course, a church blessing or the like would be public in some sense). There is now some discussion about changing these traditions, but no decision has been reached by the communion as a whole. Right now, that is, going against these traditions is officially thought to be a communion buster. A few "rogue provinces" have taken steps that amount to going against these traditions and the dust is now flying.

I want to step back a bit and look again at the notion that discussions are now going on, since Wright seems to think this is important. (Wright is a self-proclaimed strong supporter of women in all orders of ministry, i.e., of women bishops in England now. He does feel, however, that the discussion has not yet reached the point where action can be taken, because it has not yet worked out how the issue can be genuinely trivial , i.e., available to all but forced on none. In practice, this means that no one has come up with a magic salve which will allow any diocese to have a woman bishop and yet allow any extremist (fundy or papist) parish in the diocese to avoid getting lady-cooties from such oversight. In short, he feels C of E should not go ahead until it has found a way for a woman to have the full authority of a bishop and yet not have authority over some parishes within her diocese. One assumes that he would have any discussion on the issue at hand here to continue without action until the parallel self-contradiction is resolved). The discussion so far over the last 40 years, give or take, has been of the form:
A proposes a theological ground that permits the contravention of the tradition and offers some testimony by and about homosexuals, as recommended by the Listening Process
B ignores this and recites a litany consisting of a handful of Bible verses and the claims that it will complicate our life with other churches and with the Muslims. B also claims that there are no such things as homosexuals, or, if there are, there are none in its country/church, or, if there are, they are either foreign or paid agents of some international conspiracy (rather like the leaders of those same churches).
A critically evaluates the passages cited and examines the relevance of other churches and Islam to out church and its mission, showing that these need not prevent the change proposed and adds new arguments for the change and new lgbt testimony.
B ignores this and repeats its litany and denials.
Repeat from step 2.
(I may be unfair to B here a bit, but I haven't found the evidence of serious involvement with A's arguments nor deviation from the litany. Can someone steer me to any of this?)

Clearly this is not going to arrive at a decision on rational grounds -- and, as noted -- such debates never have. So, as usual, various "rogue" provinces, dioceses and parishes have acted in a variety of ways: blessing homosexual commitments, either with informal liturgies fadged up for the occasion or samizdat forms that circulate; openly ordaining open homosexual clergy in various offices and using openly homosexual laity in publicly visible church roles; performing civil union or marriage ceremonies in church where such certifications are civilly available; openly preparing liturgies for such ceremonies and so on. These have been going on for at least forty years, but have become more common in the last decade (it's a new century and homophobia is so 20th century). The crisis seems to have come when some dioceses officially approved liturgies for blessing same sex commitments and when a province actually consecrated a homosexual openly in a committed relationship as a bishop (doing so a second time, nearly a decade later, is the immediate spark for the current kerfuffle).

And, at the moment, the disruption has not subsided, although its character has changed. There seem to be about an equal number of provinces on each side, with again about the same number not yet really heard from. So a declaration that the matter is trivial is not in view (but never was nor will be). On the other hand, the communion is not split yet, although there is a certain amount of being in the same communion but not taking the same communion wandering around. And there is a lot of rearranging going on: parishes are pulling out of dioceses and dioceses out of provinces to join with like-minded folks in distant lands, new organizations are coming into being or old ones receiving new powers in the interest of bringing some coherence to the discussion process as well as finding a way enforce the tradition upon the rogues. Since, in many ways the C of E is the most rogue of the provinces (though not doing many things officially), one group of these organizations is aimed to set up a communion (of the pure) which does not revolve around the ABC and the mother church. The other seems to be more occupied with centralizing more decisio0n making (declaring trivial) power in a the ABC and a collection of other beeps.

In a sense, Wright is right that the discussions have not gone on enough. This is because, as his version of the issue show, the issue has not yet been fully stated. What is needed is to get away from sex and back to marriage. No synod has yet taken up the following propositions, though many have circled around it:

A committed life-long relationship between two people of the same sex is the moral
equivalent of a heterosexual marriage and therefore:
1. being in such a relationship is no bar to any office in the church;
2. the church should urge civil authorities to recognize such relationships and give them all the rights and dutes given to heterosexual marriage;
3. the church should allow the formalization of the legal version of this commitment with the church when then the law allows -- and the blessing of it in any case;
4. the church should develop liturgies, similar to those for marriage (or identical if the civil law permits), for formalizing and blessing such commitments.

In one sense, this declaration would complicate matters, since it makes clear where the issue lies and thus can focus the negative reaction. On the other hand, it also restrict what one has to do to support the position. The need to discuss homosexual sex vanishes, for it is the commitment (and thus the mirroring of God's love for the church and the intra-church love of each for all) that is the distinctive feature to be defended, We do not, after all inquire into the sexual practices within heterosexual marriage, nor mention them in the wedding ceremony. Why bring them up in this parallel case? And most of the arguments now used against this proposal turn around and support it.