Book Review

A gate that should not be shut

A Conversation Waiting to Begin: the Churches and the gay controversy

Oliver O’Donovan is a conviction Protestant with sufficient knowledge of the Catholic world to have lectured at the Gregorian University and at Maynooth. His concern in these “polemical essays” (his own description) is the Gay Controversy, which has all but split the Anglican Communion with the consecration of a divorced homosexual as Bishop of New Hampshire. O’Donovan, who holds the chair of Christian ethics and practical theology at Edinburgh University, is no fundamentalist; he has a strong and nuanced sense of the coherence of Christian theology and ethics; and he asks the Churches to address the gay issue with this in mind.

At the 1998 Lambeth Conference a resolution was passed condemning homosexuality in fairly strong terms, especially with regard to the clergy: “practising” homosexuals should not exercise ordained ministry. Of course Lambeth is not for Anglicans what the Magisterium is for Catholics – the authority of its resolutions has never been entirely clear.

Nevertheless, O’Donovan believes that the Lambeth resolution should have provided the framework for the debate that the Church so urgently needs to have. It was never intended as a “last word”, for, although it reaffirmed the Church’s traditional position on homosexuality, it also required the Church to listen to the experience of homosexual people. In other words, it sought to be faithful to Scripture and tradition while making clear that there was significant exploration to be done in which gay Christians would inevitably have a crucial role. In practice, the resolution has been ignored in its fullness, each side of the debate grasping the part it found congenial and rejecting the rest. The American and Canadian Churches have been unwilling to restrain their pro-gay policies, leaving the more conservative parts of the communion increasingly outraged. There has been much foolish and inflammatory rhetoric from those on the conservative wing who feel that there is simply no need to listen to those they believe already stand condemned. What has been lacking throughout is a principled debate grounded in theology.

O’Donovan believes that homosexual Christians have things to say to the Church, but by simply insisting on their “rights” in secular terms they are not helping that principled debate to take place. Their plea for acceptance is based on a liberationist agenda which is much more vulnerable than is often believed. Liberals have attempted to cut short the necessary process of exploration by refusing to acknowledge that there is a real problem. It is simply assumed that the “answer” to the issue of homosexuality is permanent committed relationships on a par with marriage. Yet, as O’Donovan points out, many homosexuals, mostly males, consider that variety in relationships is central to what it means to be gay. Others reject the marriage analogy in favour of some notion of covenanted friendship. The liberal mistake has been to assume that ethics alone are the touchstone of Christian authenticity, with the result that the “ontological question” of the meaning of homosexuality is bypassed.

O’Donovan’s approach is thoroughly Anglican in the tradition of Richard Hooker: his conservative instincts are supported by reason rather than rhetoric. He is sympathetic, both to the conservative Christians who see the New Hampshire election as an expression of gross disobedience, and to those gay Christians who experience verbal and emotional abuse from fellow Christians. He insists that if the really important conversation is going to begin, homosexuals must find ways of giving an account of their experience less in terms of personal liberation and more in terms of Christian integrity. He is prepared to acknowledge that there may be gay Christians who do not recognise themselves in the description that St Paul presents in the Letter to the Romans (or, in a Catholic context, who find it hard to see their orientation as “intrinsically disordered”). Such people may want to follow Christ seriously and yet find it difficult to accept a celibate lifestyle. How can they hear the Gospel as good news, and what good news do they have to offer the Church?

O’Donovan does not offer easy answers. There is no special gospel for homosexuals; all have fallen short of God’s will and all are subject to God’s judgement and mercy. Our sexual desires and our sexual behaviour need to be addressed in the context of faithfulness both to Scripture and to the collective experience of the Church down the ages. Yet he leaves open a crack in the door which thoughtful liberals may be persuaded to lean against.

If the Lambeth resolution urges the Church to listen to the experience of its homosexual members, is there a chance that they can help the Church to understand what God could mean by homosexuality? Could homosexuality be regarded as a kind of vocation with a part to play in the freedom and flourishing of all humanity? Or is the tragedy of homosexuality that it is inherently incapable of making such a contribution because it is indeed an intrinsically disordered state, which can never express the purpose of God? For these questions to be addressed honestly requires a long and serious process of discernment, and the prerequisite of such a process is a restraint and forbearance, which has so far been lacking.
Meanwhile, the gate should neither be shut entirely, nor broken down. Seriously trying to understand the challenge of homosexuality requires serious patience. Whether Anglicans on both sides of the debate can find that patience is another matter.

Back to homepage

       

There was an old Sixties TV series, Branded, about a disgraced soldier that always began ...

"Whoever comes to me, I shall not turn (him) her away" (John 6:37). Many readers will recognise ...

When do the bad actions of a few completely overshadow the good of the past?
This question ...