Bishop of Exeter on "Gay Marriage"

Bishop of Exeter: 'Gay marriage is not a faith issue – it is a challenge to our society'

Saturday, December 29, 2012

The Bishop of Exeter the Rt Rev Michael Langrish debates redefining marriage.

Humpty Dumpty sat on his wall talking to Alice: "There's glory for you," he said. "I don't know what you mean by glory," Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't till I tell you. I meant there's a nice knock down argument for you." "But glory doesn't mean a nice knock down argument," Alice objected. "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."

That is precisely how it appears to be with the Government's use of the word 'marriage'. A shared common meaning, with its roots deep in all cultures and faiths, is to be thrown aside and the term re-fashioned to mean what they wish it to mean, though reading the Government's response to the Consultation and the Secretary of State's Statement to the House of Commons, so many questions are left unanswered that I am not sure that the Government knows what it wants to mean!

Maria Miller has spoken of how marriage has evolved through human history; and it is true that it has, but one thing and one thing only has remained constant and that is that it relates to the union of a man and a woman. There have been many other restrictions on such unions which have varied from time to time and place to place with different laws relating to age of consent, number of permitted spouses, termination and what is allowed or prohibited or allowed between members of the same family group. What has stayed constant is an understanding that marriage is between male and female, based on the complementarity of the two sexes.

Those who advocate 'same sex' or 'equal' marriage have sought to define opposition to this development as a 'faith' issue. That is simply untrue. It is a societal issue, as it redefines marriage and that will have consequences for us all. For example, common to the definition of marriage up until now accepted by both Church and State, has been an understanding that the making of a marriage is not completed in the marriage ceremony – wherever that may take place. It must be 'consummated' in the sexual union of male and female, an act which also brings with it the potential for the creation of new life. Failure to consummate has been one of the grounds on which a marriage may be declared as invalid and annulled. What does consummation mean in the case of two people of the same gender? The Government has said that this is a matter that will be left to the courts. But then either there must be two separate definitions of marriage, which ministers say there cannot be, or else these judicial decisions will shape how any marriage including those already in existence, will be said to be a true marriage.

In spite of this huge difficulty, until this point I thought I could see where the Government was coming from. Why was it that civil partnerships were insufficient for those of the same gender who wished to make a public commitment to a permanent sharing of their lives? As we know, the law already provides for those in civil partnerships to share in the same legal benefits of marriage, and if there are remaining differences, it is easy to tidy up the law. However it seems that something more is being sought here because a civil partnership is simply an act of registration. Marriage however, in law, is seen as a 'performative act' bringing something new into being, something that until the exchange of vows and consummation did not exist. A desire for such a performative, celebratory act are aspirations I can understand and there are ways in which the law could be changed without depriving the concept of marriage of its single, central meaning.

But then Maria Miller suggested that an existing civil partnership could be transformed into a 'marriage' simply by signing a register. And if one marriage is simply a matter of civil registration with no vows, no performative acts and no criteria for consummation, then for every other marriage it must be the same; and each of us who is married will have seen that to which we have committed ourselves – some of us over many decades – irrevocably changed.

The Government has been keen to portray any difficulties with what they are proposing as an issue of faith, but it is a matter that touches one of the key building blocks of our society and therefore affects us all. It is not just a matter of special provisions for churches and other faith communities. Exemptions from conducting 'gay marriages' are being offered to churches, but nothing is being said about the education that is to be offered through Church schools. In Devon 30% of Primary School pupils attend Church Schools, and our presence in the Secondary sector is growing. Are Church schools to be allowed to teach a traditional understanding of marriage while in non-church schools a different understanding is to be taught? Or will Church Schools be forced by law to conform to a new understanding which has no roots in the doctrines of any of the major faith communities? If so this sets an extraordinary precedent for the State's power to determine articles of faith, unparalleled in history apart from in those repressive ideological states of the extreme right and left. At this point we will have left the realm of Lewis Carroll's Wonderland for the land of George Orwell's 1984.

Whatever the humane desires and good intentions that may have led Mr Cameron to embark on this project, there are so many unanswered questions and unforeseen consequences that ought to suggest caution before serious damage is done to the very thing that has been so precious a part of our social fabric – the lifelong union of one man to one woman to the exclusion of all others for the creation and nurture of the generations to come. It is possible that what is created may not even end up fulfilling the hopes of those couples it was intended to serve.

An Irish Girl in England

The Yorkshire Lady and her small poodle

 The good thing about the English Lady's new house was that, like the last one, it was child-free. People get very cross when I express my utter hatred of children.  Don't they understand the fear behind it?  I will tell the full story one day.

Life was quiet, which was good up to a point.  After that point, one is pleased to have visitors. I liked it when the Yorkshire Lady came. She had a small black poodle, who made me feel very big and confident.  He liked to sit on her lap, and if I went up to her, he would growl.

If I could have laughed, I would have.  This grumpy old man had no idea how small he was.  I used to give him a lick on the nose, which only made him grumble some more.  Then I would leave him alone, and lie on my bed, or sit next to the English Lady to be stroked and petted.

I was safe.  I should have been perfectly happy.  Safety was what I had always longed for. But still I was beginning to yearn for something.  I couldn't see or smell

The Irish girl

what I wanted. But something in my doggy heart was saying, "There's more, Sheba, there's more."

Hate Crime

It’s a normal day in the office,

                                    mostly boring with nothing great planned

When the phone rings, not routine any more,

                                    nor boring, nor quiet, nor bland.

But a man disabled and living with pain,

                                    whom the locals have started attacking-

Name calling at first, then throwing things,

                                    coming closer when punishment’s lacking.

There’s no choice to be made,

                                    it’s just not hard to know

That it’s wrong, and a crime,

                                    and I tell the man so.

I call the Police, go as high as I can,

And find a policeman, who’ll visit that man.

And I long to know

                                    that the cowards were caught,

And taken to court

                                    and a sharp lesson taught,

Though I don’t really think that it’s so.

It’s a normal day in the parish,

                                    assembled on Sunday to pray

And the man who’s leading the prayers

                                    is ever so clearly gay.

We think we know his value –

                                    musician we love to have play

But we didn’t know how much we’d hurt him

                                    til we heard what his prayers had to say.

“We pray for those socially unacceptable people

 who long to be who they are.”

Unpartnered now maybe for ever,

                                    he will celibate go to his grave

Because we couldn’t allow him

                                    the love that it’s human to crave.

I wonder if Jesus will bless us,

                                    as Bibles held firmly in hand

We march in our holy procession

                                    towards his promised land

Or whether he’ll say that Aquinas

                                    was simply a man of his time,

And explain that he’s told Paul of Tarsus

                                    what the God of love thinks of his crime.

How do you know you’re right about homosexual expressions of love?

Deciding other people that they are not only wrong in their thinking but sinful in their behaviour can be a form of oppression if you hold all the power in a decision that affects their lives. Reaching that position requires great care.

Biblicism

The simplest Biblicist approach sees the Bible as infallible because it contains the very words of God. Biblicists tend to assume that the Bible not only contains but is intended by God as a set of rules that will provide an answer for every situation in human life.  (Messer, 2006)  For them Romans 1:14 -31 is a clear condemnation of all homosexual acts and relationships. (Alison, 2004)

Even among those who would be happy to see the Bible used as a kind of moral compass, some would feel uncomfortable with this. Fee and Stuart (2003), for example, offer two rules and a number of problems to show why we cannot always simply lift a sentence or even a paragraph from Paul’s epistles, and apply it as if it were written specifically to us yesterday.

Alison (2004) adds a further caution from the Roman Catholic perspective, which is from the teaching of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1993 :

‘Clearly to be rejected also is every attempt at actualization set in a direction contrary to evangelical justice and charity, such as, for example, the use of the Bible to justify racial segregation, anti-Semitism or sexism whether on the part of men or of women.’

 Larson (2009) cites Hays as offering “five good ways to read the Bible:

1.      As a story that it is primarily about God;

2.      As a coherent narrative from Genesis to Revelation, requiring each portion of it to be read in light of the whole;

3.      With awareness that specific texts can have multiple meanings;

4.      In collaboration with others in contemporary Christian communities; and

5.      A willingness to be surprised, challenged, and transformed.”

Hays’ position is here approaching that of virtue ethics, as we shall see. In recommending that we read collaboratively, he deprives us of what seems like an advantage – instant access to God’s word, and so an apparently ready answer, but also guards us against the error of misguided readings.

Alison’s own reading of Romans 1 is that it is a diagnosis of the human condition, with its punch line in Romans 2:1:

‘Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.’

On this basis, he argues that Romans 1 is not primarily about homosexuality at all.

Hays reaches a different conclusion, based both on New Testament scholarship and on conversations with a homosexual friend:

‘Both of us had serious misgivings about the mounting pressure for the church to recognize homosexuality as a legitimate Christian lifestyle. As a New Testament scholar, I was concerned about certain questionable exegetical and theological strategies of the gay apologists. As a homosexual Christian, Gary believed that their writings did justice neither to the biblical texts nor to his own sobering experience of the gay community that he had moved in and out of for 20 years.’ (Hays, 1996, p.380)

Hays recognises, however, a distinction between exegesis – which leads him to say that Scripture is entirely univocal in condemning homosexual acts -  and hermeneutics, the application of Scripture to our present-day situation. Hermeneutics will necessarily take account of experience.  He is aware of “Individuals who live in stable, loving homosexual relationships and claim to experience the grace – rather than the wrath -  of God therein.” (Hays, 1996, p.398) However, “claims about divinely inspired experience that contradicts the witness of Scripture should be admitted to normative status only after sustained and agonising scrutiny by a consensus of the faithful.” (Hays, 1996, p.399 – author’s emphasis) We shall see that virtue ethicists seem to share this conclusion.

Clements (2005) appears to offer a clear way forward for Biblicist deontologists when he suggests that we need to distinguish between considerations that are primary, and worth standing firm about, and those that are of secondary importance, where we need simply to remember Paul’s advice about being considerate of the scruples of our “weaker brethren”. The three traditional rules he supports are:

In things essential - unity.

In things inessential - liberty.

In all things - charity.

Not all, however, would accept his paradigm, which is Paul’s view on permissible diet, (an inessential in Paul’s view) as applying to the issue of homosexuality.  Alternatives might be the woman taken in adultery (“Go now and leave your life of sin.” John 8 11) or tax collectors and sinners (“It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.” Mark 2:17) which would suggest a need for repentance and/or healing.

Virtue ethics

The starting point for virtue ethics is not with any authority, nor with any question about what actions are right or wrong, but rather with the question of what kind of person I should be. (Messer, 2006) Aquinas, for example, recognised the “cardinal” virtues of prudence, courage, justice and temperance, and the “theological virtues” of faith, hope and love. (Messer, 2006) Today’s proponents of virtue ethics are inspired to this approach by MacIntyre’s brilliantly argued thesis that his predecessors had been doomed to failure from the Enlightenment onwards.  This was because the Enlightenment philosophers sought to free themselves from what they saw as the dead hand of authority based on tradition and religion, and tried to base their ethical arguments on reason alone.  MacIntyre’s analysis of the tradition they had abandoned was that it formed an interlocking, self-consistent and rational system of thought with three main propositions:

·         human nature is not as it was meant to be

·         human beings need to attain to that state of being for which they were intended

·         the purpose of ethical reasoning is to enable human beings to move towards the state which is their true end.

The “true end” was defined by culture and, in Christendom, by the Church.  It was exemplified in stories which illustrated what good character was. Thus Hauerwas stresses the importance of Biblical stories as part of the cultural context in which ethical thought can make sense, and denies that ethical reasoning can make sense if divorced from its proper context. He argues that if we seek to reach agreement internationally or cross-culturally, we need to be explicit about where our ethical values are coming from, rather than assuming that any culturally neutral ethic based solely on reason is possible.

The “Enlightenment project” failed, according to MacIntyre, because the logically necessary third strand of the classical ethical argumentation, the idea of a proper telos or end purpose for human beings, was rejected.  This left philosophers with what purported to be reasoned argument, but in fact was or became simply “emotivism”, as they vainly sought to support by reason alone those conclusions, inherited from the older tradition, that they still believed to be true.

Virtue ethicists suggest that we can best cultivate a virtuous character in the context of a community. For Hauerwas, that community is the worshipping church (Hauerwas and Wells, 2006). In “The Peaceable Kingdom” (2003) he has written about the church as “A Community of Virtues”, particularly stressing peace, patience and hope:

‘           The church must learn time and time again, that its task is not to make the world the kingdom, but to be faithful to the kingdom by showing to the world what it means to be a community of peace. Thus we are required to be patient and never lose hope (…) in God and God’s faithful caring for the world. (Hauerwas, 2003, pp103-104)

It is therefore not surprising that he would seek to locate any discussion about homosexuality within a community’s self-understanding. Olasky (2007) reports him responding to an interview question about homosexuality by saying:

I do not think that the issue of homosexuality can be determined by any one verse of Scripture. Rather it has to do with how a community understands the significance of having children. Christians believe that marriage is the normative practice necessary for being able to welcome children into the world. That's where you have to begin to think about homosexuality.

This seems to refer to a debate within his own church, as illustrated by “Duke” magazine’s January-February issue of 2002.  In a transcribed and edited conversation, Hauerwas begins:

The problem with debates about homosexuality is they have been devoid of any linguistic discipline that might give you some indication what is at stake. Methodism, for example, is more concerned with being inclusive than being the church. (…). Even worse, the inclusive church is captured by romantic notions of marriage. Combine inclusivity and romanticism and you have no reason to deny marriage between gay people.

The ambivalence of this response continues to its end:

For gay Christians who I know and love, I wish we as Christians could come up with some way to help them, like we need to help one another, to avoid the sexual wilderness in which we live. That’s a worthy task. I probably sound like a conservative on these matters, not because I’ve got some deep animosity toward gay people, but because I don’t know how to go forward given the current marriage practices of our culture.

This is consistent with his position that ethical reasoning  - or even better, ethical behaviour – needs to take place within the church community.  If the church community’s practice and thinking about sexual relationships are disordered – and Hauerwas seems to say that they are – then its ethical reasoning cannot hope to be anything but confused and confusing.

Hursthouse (1995), addresses the criticism that virtue ethics may never be able to give us an answer to our ethical queries. Her argument is that we may indeed sometimes face “tragic” problems (where only undesirable choices are available), but that if we have developed a good character by our practice of virtue ethics, we shall behave with more grace and integrity than someone who has not done so.

 Others, however, have sought to show how an issue can be resolved. Johnson (2007) in America and Jones (2010) in England have argued for  acceptance of a diversity of ethical convictions about human sexuality, and for continuing engagement between holders of different views. The “Changing Attitude” blog particularly welcomed the fact that the Bishop had arrived at this position after accepting a challenge to listen more carefully to what lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people had to say. This is certainly modelling peacefulness in a way that Hauerwas would have to approve, but MacIntyre might well object that it abandons any claim for ethical statements to be either true or false.

Bibliography

Alison, J. (2004) A Catholic Reading of Romans 1

from http://www.courage.org.uk/articles/Romans1.shtml

accessed  17.3.10

Alli, W. (7.3.2010) A victory for religious freedom

 from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7385701/Lord-Alli-A-victory-for-religious-freedom.html

accessed 18.3.10

Cavanaugh, W.T. (2002) Faith Fires Back – A Conversation with Stanley Hauerwas, in Duke Magazine, Vol. 88, No. 2 Jan-Feb 2002, published at:

http://www.dukemagazine.duke.edu/dukemag/issues/010202/faith.html

accessed 1.4.10

Clements, R., (2005) Weaker brothers, damnable heretics - and how to tell the difference

from:

http://www.courage.org.uk/articles/article.asp?id=45

accessed 17.3.10

Coward, C. (6.3.2010) James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool calls for Anglicans to “accept a diversity of ethical convictions about human sexuality”

from: http://changingattitude-england.blogspot.com/2010/03/james-jones-bishop-of-liverpool-calls.html

accessed  1.4.10

Fee, G.D. and Stuart, D. (3^rd edn. 2003) How to Read the Bible for All its Worth, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan

Hauerwas, S. (2^nd edn.2003) The Peaceable Kingdom, London: SCM Press

Hauerwas, S. and Wells, S. (2006) Christian Ethics as Informed Prayer, in

            Hauerwas, S. and Wells,S. (eds.) (2^nd edn. 2006) The Blackwell

Companion to Christian Ethics, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing            

The Friendly Enemey

My new Lady was OK.  I’d got fond of her quite quickly.  That was all down to the walks, of course.  In the first days when I lived with her, there would be breakfast, and then walk.  Then came my midday dental chew and walk. Later there was my evening meal, followed by a walk.

As time went on, other things were introduced. Sometimes I had to be a Good Girl through meetings. Once I even found myself in a place called a vestry! When I got bored with that, I trotted out onto the nice red carpet, where I lay down in comfort, and watched the Lady and the other people standing up, sitting down, and singing.  They were all very obedient.  I thought they did well.

So life was pretty relaxed for me, until Lily came.  Can you imagine? Another bitch, younger than me, smaller than me, and on my territory! I was very angry, and let her know it.  My Lady and Lily’s Lady made us walk up and down together, They insisted we sniff each other. Not my idea of fun, I assure you! Then they expected me to allow Lily to sit in my kitchen!

Of course, there was no way I could tolerate that.  I attacked as soon as Lily sat down. As I was on my lead, we were soon pulled apart, to the sound of some very cross words from my Lady.  Finally, the two Ladies made a line of chairs to divide the kitchen into two, with Lily on one side, and me on the other.  It looked like this:

                                                            Chair

                                                            Lady                       Me

                 Lily                                     Chair

                                                       Lady Table

I lay on my tartan bed and sulked.  Lily curled up in her round brown bed, and lay still.  Slowly, her scent permeated the kitchen. To my amazement there was no fear in it, no aggression. That was one relaxed, calm little bitch!

We were fed on either side of the chair-line that evening. Then Lily disappeared to go upstairs with her Lady. I relaxed, and I too slept. Maybe, just maybe, I could make friends with this peaceable, curly-haired little schnauzer. Maybe we could hunt together. I could show her the best smelling-places. We could form a pack.

I dreamt of a hunt and a teamwork kill; crunching bones between my teeth, play fights and chasing games.

JCG Blandford, 23^rd January, 2012

Moonlight Mystery

It wasn’t unusual, that summer, for the collie and I to walk in the dusk, or even the dark. We would stroll out onto the downland with the bright banners of sunset fading on our left, and the last rooks settling into the trees that lined the trailway below us.

That evening, we trod quietly, because we were hoping a patrolling owl would thrill us with a hunting pass. He didn’t appear, so at last I set the collie free to run and race and bounce and dance. How she loved that! Her piebald face would turn to me at the end of a racing circuit of the grass, and seem to laugh for very joy.

That was when I spotted the German shepherd trotting northwards, and then turning east towards us.  Suddenly anxious, I bent to my panting dog, to re-attach the lead to her collar. “We’ll meet this big dog together,” I assured her, and she licked my hand in understanding.

I looked up, to locate the German shepherd.  But he had utterly disappeared.  We looked for him that night, and for many nights to come, but never saw him again.  Yet in my mind, I can see him now, loping towards us, silvered by moonlight, beautiful.

JCG

Blandford, 22d January, 2012 

Repatriations

Times have changed since I was a Swindon boy


GWR thousands used to employ

Still it’s nice to reminisce

When a train ride to the sea was sheer bliss

Cycling was a joy

When I was a boy

We would cycle to “Bassett” with a mate on the bar

And hardly ever see a car

Wootton Bassett was then a small country town

Now through fate it has world renown

It is in the county of Wilts

And has an ancient town hall built on stilts

If only those walls could talk

As between the pillars we walk

Over the years many celebrations it’s seen

Weddings and coronations of kings and our queen

History books tell us of wars in the past

The Great War was supposed to be the last

Till Hitler decided Poland to invade

And Chamberlain his “ we are at war” speech made

VE- day was an epic event

Since then to various conflicts our troops have been sent

Repatriations are on the increase

From foreign conflicts that do not cease

From the current one ,the “fallen ” to RAF Lyneham fly in

That’s where the sad journeys begin

When the church bell tolls all is quiet and still

As the cortege comes up over the hill

When at the cenotaph it arrives

We mourn the loss of so many lives

A new generation are paying the ultimate price

Why oh why can’t everyone be nice?

British legion members salute with pride

As the standards are lowered side by side

Complete silence as the cortege passes by

In the crowd many a tear in the eye

Lining the street are both young and old

What will the toddlers by their mothers be told

Continuing the journey more homage is paid

We are proud of the effort we have made

As the convoy finally departs

We return home with heavy hearts

The world should be a wonderful place

Whatever has happened to the human race?

G.E.Maller

September 2009