Two Integrities?

Rt. Rev. Martin Shaw (the Bishop of Argyle and the Isles) has written in the Scottish Episcopal Church magazine, 'Inspires':

Conciliatory voices on the issue of homosexuality have used the image of  “two integrities”.  There are those who have a strong adherence to a particular approach to Scripture and its authority which would see an ordained priest in a same sex relationship as being a major challenge to the authority of Scripture. This position is held to have integrity.  The other position is that faithful homosexual relationships are consistent with a developmental interpretation of Scripture. The community of faith is one where God is implicitly revealed in the loving relationships of many kinds, including those of a homosexual nature. This is also regarded by some to be an approach of integrity to the issue.  So the question is: how are the two integrities to be debated, when there is an assumption of a winner or loser?  Discussion can often lead to hurtful comments and defensiveness.  How then do we move forward, without the consequence of division and fracture?

Perhaps it is in a vigil of silence and patient waiting that polarised integrities can be held in the creative tension of the Love of God. No discussion. No debate. No winners. No losers. No rejection.  In the silence of patient waiting, we are with the God who loves through the contention.

This was as part of his proposal that churches in the SEC hold silent vigils during Lent. We'll certainly be praying enthusiastically for the bishops, the SEC and for the Anglican Communion, as we have done over the last year.

But the whole idea of 'two integrities', is a creation of those who now need to justify their position. They desperately need to head off disagreement and establish their views as justified.

The truth is that one position has integrity, followed by the Church for nearly two thousand years, and is still the most widely held one by Christians in the world today. The other is a position adopted by some segments of the Church as a response to cultural and political pressure, as well as numerical decline. To say that the latter has integrity, is to somehow say that it is true, and this is a matter of deep concern for reasserters.

The bottom line is that many Christians believe that the reappraising stance does not have Christian integrity.

The bishops will keep us talking about this as long as they can, but ultimately, after all the talk, we will have to decide from one of the following five options:

1. The Scottish Episcopal Church, reasserts the position that the wider Church still holds to (from the text of the Lambeth Conference Resolution 1.10):

'in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage.'

2. The Reasserters of the Resolution above, give in and allow the idea of 'two integrities'. This will damage their ecumenical relationships, their integrity, and the membership of their churches, as many people will leave as a direct result of such compromise.

3. The bishops come up with a scheme that allows for a true recognition of 'two integrities', by creating a strong measure of alternative episcopal oversight, and ensuring that finances provided by reasserting churches are ring-fenced to ensure that they are not being used to develop policies that they would have no agreement with.

4. The two sides part amicably, and pursue the purposes that are in their hearts.

5. The two sides part in enmity, with possible property and legal problems to contend with, as well as the emotional and spiritual pain this will cause.

It appears that what we really need is for our leaders to declare their intentions and how they propose to solve this issue. Clarity, not further obfuscation is required. We'll all then know where we stand and can also act accordingly. To maintain an neverending dialogue will divert energy and resources from our mission to share the gospel of new life in Christ.

The 'let's agree to disagree, and live happily ever after' stance, has worked to some extent for the twenty two years that I have been in the SEC structure. But now that stance will no longer work. Despite our pleas over the years, the public stance  of our church changed at this time last year, with the publication of the bishops' statement. At that point many realised that they could no longer compromise.

In the intervening months that realisation has, if anything, strengthened.

Comments

[Endie]

My initial, knee-jerk response on this one is to adhere to tradition. But I've been having a long-running discussion around the broader area of Paul and his proclamations building a new Law with my father (a recently ordained CoS minister), and I cannot help but suspect that my initial position is informed less by religious sensibilities than by personal opinions.

Given that the old testament has no bearing on this - we don't follow the Judaic law, we are told not to, and to pick and choose the bits we like is unsupportable - we are left with the proclamations of Paul. Paul was a basically good man, but a man of his time, and any church which enforced his views on the place of women, for instance, or which went along with his line on slavery, would be abhorrent to me. So I cannot start saying that he is the final arbiter on the subject of gay clergy when I am happy to discard his more extreme teachings as "of their time".

I am, of course, even more uncomfortable with a literal and fundamentailst reading and construction of Paul, which would see the Christian church move to a Wahabbist stance on most questions.

[GadgetVicar]

Some assume that ancient people did not know of homosexual practice as we know it. This is a non sequitur, I'm afraid. See the work of Robert Gagnon at http://www.robgagnon.net as to just how much understanding of homosexual practice there was in the ancient world.

Also, Paul's concern was to get the gospel message out. Were there women church leaders? Of course there were, but some women were abusing their new found freedom in Christ, and bringing disrepute on The Church.

As for slaves, can you imagine what would have happened if Paul had said, 'Right, all slaves rebel!'. Christianity would have been snuffed out overnight. He never condoned slavery.

You see, context of scritpure is very important......

[Endie]

The period from 500BC to 200AD, largely in the Greek world, is, I suppose, my specialist period (at least so far as degrees go), so you needn't have any concerns on that score.

I'm well aware of Rob Gagnon, too. While I disagree deeply with his methods of scholarship, my main problem with him is, to be honest, that I don't see Jesus saying what he says. I mean that both literally - in the Bible - and also theoretically, as a thought experiment.

He, and others like him, are probably more responsible than anyone for my change in opinion on this subject, having driven me by example to consider that, if these are my allies, I should question my own opinions or risk falling into the same traps.

While I find many of those on the left who are lobbying for change on this question to be hectoring and motivated by extra-scriptural concerns, I find the motivations of many "antis" to be even more suspect, ignoring as it does a great many logs in a great many eyes. Obviously, there are many on both sides to whom the comments do not apply.

Do you, in your ministry, insist that women ermain quiet, and that if they have any questions they should wait until they are home and ask their husbands? If not, why do you afford latitude in interpretation here that you do not afford to homosexuals?

And the same goes, only more clearly, for the question of slavery. Yes, at the time, Paul made a wise political judgement. And that shrewd calculation is now embedded in scripture. If someone, recently escaped from the existing institutions of slavery in Sudan or Mauritania, came to you for advice, would you adhere to the example of Paul? If not, why do you insist that some parts of Pauline scripture are timeless and unalterable, while others are mutable and open to interpretation with changing social and political mores?

[Endie]

I should say that I wasn't being wholly rhetorical here, and was genuinely interested in how you make the judgement between that which you see as open to interpretation, and that upon which you see the gates of interpretation as being closed, to use the Islamic term.

[GadgetVicar]

Sorry, I have been really busy. I try to stick to 10minutes a day writing on the blog (yes, I know that I shouldn't be provocative, if I want to stick to that).

What is wrong with Gagnon's scholarship? And what do you think Jesus says? Or is it like Diarmid McCullough- that on this, as in other things the Bible is wrong?

I agree about 'logs in eyes'. We can all be inconsistent. There is a view that the slide began in orthodox circles when remarriage after divorce became common. In other words that, as marriage was devalued by orthodox Christians, it became increasingly hypocritical to criticise other failings.

As for the limits of interpretation: one must take scripture as a whole- scripture interprets scripture. So, in sexuality, the Bible universally testifies to male/female sexual relationships as being ordained by God. Sexual activity between members of the same sex is disapproved of, with not one positive word on it. There is not nuch room to wriggle here.

There were women leaders in the early church (Euodia and Syntyche contended alongside Paul), and women did speak in church (1 Corinthians 11:5). The problem in 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim might have been that women were giving their prophecying husbands a hard time, and causing disruption as a result. 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 would support such a view, as would the whole context of worship problems in the Corinthian church.

For a most helpful examination of the differences between slavery in the ancient world, 'New World Slavery' and the modern context, take a look at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html
I would offer sanctuary, because I am free to do so.

Of course, there are pragmatic considerations in our global context. In the OT polygamy appears. Does this mean that it is the best thing that God intends for us? The rest of scripture holds to 'two in one flesh' relationship. That is the biblical norm. Yet in Africa, one might find polygamy amongst Christians. Is this the best? No, but the economic hardship inflicted on abandoned wives and children would be great if they were forced to leave. African bishops I know do not sanction polygamy, but occasionally have to deal with its consequences.

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree.

I was giving you the final word, by the way!

[Endie]

>> I was giving you the final word, by the way!

Ah, but I wasn't arguing! Neo-Platonist that I am, I find I discover very little by doing that. I was asking because I suspected I would find your answers enlightening. Which I certainly did.

You're right that we will, in all likelihood, continue to differ. But, like Lewis, I see more than one way to approach the single truth. Two integrities, I suppose ;)

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

[ryan]

You should do more of this stuff. Googling "reappraiser" or "reasserter" (not on this site,I mean a general google search) wasn't very helpful. It's a bit odd that you criticise modernisers for bowing to cultural pressures and then say that many people will leave church if the liberals win; isnt't that just a pragmatic argument?

If - as you've said in the past - reappraisers look to other sources than Scripture for their theology then I don't see what good recommending Gagnon would do. His *biblical* scholarship might be impeccable, but his "reasonable" arguments are less so. "The fittedness of the penis and vagina" is a very stupid phrase.