Anglican Mainstream

Lisa Severine Nolland

Summary

BBC Radio 4 aired ‘From Calvary To Lambeth’ on the 27th of November, 2007.  This heavily advertised 36½ minute programme focused upon Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Mpilo Tutu, who we were told is one of the two most admired men in the world today. My response here by no means addresses all the critical issues raised in this programme, and those I do speak to could be explored at far greater depth. I begin with praise for the great man.  Then I discuss the limited format of the programme and Desmond’s profoundly worrying theology and its moral and sexual implications, using as a foil the thought of an equally remarkable individual, Victorian social and sexual reformer, Josephine Butler, whose life and work I presented in A Victorian Feminist Christian:  Josephine Butler, the Prostitutes, and God (Paternoster 2005). I then describe the sexually-liberated ‘ethics’ espoused by Changing Attitude and affirmed (apparently) by Desmond, its most prestigious patron.  I finish with a  critique of ‘inclusivity’ and ‘tolerance’.   

Response

BBC Radio 4 aired ‘From Calvary To Lambeth’ on the 27th of November, 2007.  This heavily advertised 36½ minute programme focused upon Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Mpilo Tutu, who we were told is one of the two most admired men in the world today. Given Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams’ disappointing public track record on gay rights, it seems to have fallen to Desmond Tutu to champion the gay agenda against the reactionary forces of barbarity, bigotry and ignorance, against endemic homophobia in the church and outside its walls.

Desmond’s Big Idea was one that was heard often in the 1970’s and 1980’s from the World Council of Churches: that is, that issues of corporate social morality are far more important than a narrow privatised ‘religious’ agenda.  This view, updated and incorporated into a 2007 package, targets what Desmond considers a fixation -‘almost an obsession’ (his words) – of the church with inconsequential issues of sex.  However, not many appear to realise that it is precisely those people who bought (and sold) this Big Idea in the 70s and 80s who, in many cases, would go on to shipwreck their own marriages and home lives.  The proof of the pudding was in the eating.  The Archbishop also seems unable to connect ‘trivial’ issues of sex with the pandemic spread of HIV/AIDs. With the exception of contaminated blood, needles and mothers with HIV, how else are people infected by this dreadful disease?   

My response here by no means addresses all the critical issues raised in this programme, and those I do speak to could be explored at far greater depth. I begin with praise for the great man.  Then I discuss the limited format of the programme and Desmond’s profoundly worrying theology and its moral and sexual implications, using as a foil the thought of an equally remarkable individual, Victorian social and sexual reformer, Josephine Butler, whose life and work I presented in A Victorian Feminist Christian:  Josephine Butler, the Prostitutes, and God (Paternoster 2005). I then describe the sexually-liberated ‘ethics’ espoused by Changing Attitude and affirmed (apparently) by Desmond, its most prestigious patron.  I finish with a critique of ‘inclusivity’ and ‘tolerance’.   

The Archbishop’s contributions to the healing of South Africa; his moral courage and  willingness to stand (alone); his rock-solid convictions but also the easy, chilled way of holding those convictions;  all these are hugely impressive.  His religion is not one of an uptight, ‘kill-joy’ martyr; he presents as an accessible, humane, totally delightful human being. Desmond’s identification with the life’s victims — the Unwanted and the Uncared for, — is powerful. He has suffered, and appears able to relate to sufferers, hence his empathy.  Desmond’s focus upon and celebration of the embracing, healing love of God and the necessity to put that love into concrete, practical, ‘worldly’ action here and now is also invaluable.  Finally, Desmond understands that at least many in the gay and lesbian world do not see themselves as having chosen their sexual feelings.  With the exception of politicized lesbians who intentionally rid their intimate worlds of the male, the GLBT voices I listen to insist they ‘had no choice’.   

In terms of the broad format of the programme, Desmond was granted the lion’s share of time (I clocked up 18-19 Desmond-oriented minutes). Moreover, Desmond never appeared to lose Michael Buerk’s fulsome support. One would hope that Michael would be willing to admit it if his hero was seen to possess significant blind spots. (And for the historical record, Henry VIII did not establish a new church because of sex!  Attractive sexual outlets were never in short supply for the Tudor monarch; the need for a legitimate male heir was, however, a problem.)     

Michael rightly emphasised that the Bible and its interpretation — hermeneutics — were at the heart of this debate.  Of course, engaging with and understanding the Bible is an immense challenge, and given the limited nature of this response, I am not able to engage with all that is involved in relation to linguistics, exegesis, genre, historical and cultural background and so forth.  However, may I encourage my readers to have a look at Grant Osborne’s magisterial  The Hermeneutical Spiral (IVP Academic, 2006), Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart’s lighter How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Zondervan, 2003) and specifically, in relation to gay issues, Robert Gagnon’s online article, http://www.robgagnon.net/JohnThorpResponse.htm (2007) or William Webb’s Slaves, Women and Homosexuals (IVP, 2001).  

We were informed by both Desmond and Michael that Jesus spoke very little about sex and that sex was not important to or for him. I asked myself what the basis was for such a statement.  John Nolland has recently written a study on sex and the gospels in which he points out that  ’while Jesus commends the virtue of mutual love with fourteen uses of the agap word group and commends or models concern for the poor with about the same number of uses of ptwchos and a few times in other ways, he speaks against adultery and other sexual immorality, explicitly or implicitly, with no less than twenty three uses of the key terms, and somewhat more indirectly another three times’.(‘Sexual Ethics and the Jesus of the Gospels’, 2007, pub. forthcoming)

Moreover, John argues that Jesus did address homosexual sex via his prohibition of porneia, which his Jewish listeners would have understood included homosexuality as well, though moderns would not recognise it as such. As we heard in the programme, George Carey rightly insists that one cannot prove anything from Jesus’ apparent silence; we skate on thin ice if we do so. Jesus did not make public pronouncements on all sorts of ethical minefields – incest, paedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, abortion, even cannibalism. Were they matters of indifference to him then?  No, they were simply irrelevant to the world of the 1^st century Jewish person, mercifully protected from them by the Hebrew Scriptures and Jewish tradition.   

Many however argue that the concept of same-sex orientation we know of today is novel, a revelation in terms of cognitive understanding of the diversity present within human psycho-sexual development.  However, this view, though understandable, is simply wrong, as the historical record of the Greco-Roman world demonstrates. Mutually committed gay lovers existed back then too — their sexual practices were described, analyzed and evaluated in the literature of the day. See Rob Gagnon, ‘Appendix 2:  Does Scripture’s Indictment of Homosexual Practice Apply to Committed Homosexual Unions?’  http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexWinterResponse.pdf;  ‘Why the Disagreement over the Biblical Witness on Homosexual Practice? A Response to Myers and Scanzoni, What God Has Joined Together?‘, pp. 66-79;  http://www.westernsem.edu/files/westernsem/gagnon_autm05_0.pdf

***

In broader terms, Desmond’s biblical theology is fatally flawed.  Though he claims he loves the Bible and especially the words of Jesus, in truth Desmond’s theology is seriously compromised by a Pick-n-Mix approach.  His bottom line seems to be the overwhelming love of God and the requisite to ‘do good’ within a broader framework of ‘progressive’ 60s Liberation Theology.  Desmond preaches the ‘soft’, human, God-has-low-standards-and-wears-his-heart-on-his-sleeve Jesus; the ‘hard’ Jesus holds little appeal and is either ignored or rejected.  Christ’s teaching about the wrath and judgement of Almighty God on personal sin; individual choice pregnant with eternal consequence for good or for evil; holiness, righteousness, truth and morality; heaven and hell and so forth are filtered through the lens of Matthew 25 (‘I was hungry, and you fed me’ etc.) – and very little remains.  The ensuing void thus severely truncates the Christian Gospel on a good day and radically deconstructs it on a bad, as Bob Duncan notes.

It almost feels like we have turned back the clock to the days of 19^th century theological liberalism, with its emphasis upon the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man, God’s care for and immanent presence in the world, the inherent goodness and value of the individual, the urgency and importance of attending to the Here and the Now. The main difference is a present focus on systemic, structural injustice as seen through a Marxist lens and a heightened concern for minorities:  the poor, the disabled, women, racial and sexual minorities.              

The Archbishop mentions a case in point — divorce — where he claims he rejects the hard words of Jesus but at least he is honest; conservatives don’t believe or obey them either but pretend otherwise.  It is interesting to note here that Desmond echoes very closely the view of another gay advocate, Jeffrey John.  Both deploy a mistranslation of the divorce prohibition (Jeffrey John, Permanent, Faithful, Stable: Christian Same-sex Partnerships, 2000) and then proceed to argue for the moral equivalence of divorce and gay sex.  In essence, the former is now accepted, so the latter should be too. However, there is a complete disconnect between the two. The Old Testament frowned upon but tolerated divorce, and God himself divorces Israel after her continuous spurning of his love and care!  Jesus allowed for divorce in Matthew  19 — see David Instone-Brewer’s careful work on the social context which explains what is happening in relation to the rather ridiculous question asked of Jesus, ‘Is is lawful for a man to divorce his wife for every cause?’ — when everyone knew the answer (‘Of course!  He can even divorce her for burning his dinner.’) (Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible – The Social and Literary Context, Eerdmans, 2002).  However, each occasion gay sex is mentioned — and in whatever context it comes — it is always condemned in the most serious, categorical, non-negotiable, and — in the wider Greco-Roman world of Paul — counter-cultural manner.   

***

Desmond’s theology heavily influences his sexual morality as well.  And here one of the primary parallels with Josephine Butler is most clearly manifest. Actually, much that I have written about Desmond — his great heart for the hurting (victims all!); his moral courage and the cost he has paid for his convictions; his belief that God is invested in the totality of life — resonates with Josephine and her engagement with Victorian prostitutes and other Down-and-Outs.  Both Josephine then and Desmond now have distanced themselves from the biblical realities of the Fall, original sin, human depravity, the judgment of God and the need for a supernatural redemption; both have tended to emphasize the love and mercy of God, the goodness of the created order and the incarnation — Desmond far more so than Josephine, to be fair (Ann Widdecombe touched upon this in her discussion.)  And in fact, given Desmond’s investments, ‘Bethlehem’ needs to be inserted in the place of ‘Calvary’:  that is where his heart lies.   

But therein lies a conundrum.  Josephine was aware that the pieces of the psycho-sexual puzzle were not fitting together as they ought and she came unstuck theologically and psychologically. Desmond actually should be worried too but appears blissfully (and given his stature, irresponsibly) ignorant.  What am I referring to, you may be asking? 

Well, caring as she did for prostitutes across the social, economic and ‘kinky’ scales,  Josephine knew far more than most Victorian ‘Ladies’ of her class about the workings of different kinds of sex.  However, the sexual realities forced upon her in the 1880s, in the years of the London child sex scandals, undid her (or so she later admitted). And though contemporary historians dispute various aspects of this phenomenon, there is no doubt but that parts of it were fairly dire – Josephine certainly thought they were!  One of her sons even dressed up in disguise to discover what was occurring behind closed high-class brothel doors.  In essence, some working-class pre-pubescent girls experienced sexual torture/rape/enslavement in these brothels. Visions of the ‘padded rooms’ (so that the screams would not be heard) and ‘half-grown children struggling in the grasp of grey-haired demons’ shattered Josephine’s equilibrium, even more so because of her unshakeable commitment to the goodness of nature and nature’s processes.  Why would ‘nice’, decent men do such things to little girls’ bodies?  Even worse, such behaviour was obviously freely-chosen, intentional and ‘natural’ – and worked from the male end, at least.

How this connects with Desmond is that he seems to believe something similar in relation to the inherent goodness and rightness of the created order, and in particular, of sexual orientation.  He says in the programme that gay and lesbian folk have been created that way, ‘that’s how they’ve come from God’ and that ‘it’s very good’. He also claims that ‘not to welcome, not to invite people because of sexual orientation’ (in relation to the Lambeth Conference) is completely unacceptable and profoundly anti-Christian. Given that God made them as they are in the first place, he is being glaringly inconsistent then to forbid them to express who they really are in terms of sexual lifestyle.   

Sadly, Desmond speaks from a vantage which has a stale, 1980s feel to it and makes pronouncements from an inadequate and ill-informed information base.  First, I would contend that even if gay and lesbian people were ‘made this way’, it does not solve the moral issues.  As Ann Widdecombe briefly noted, people come into the world with all sorts of predispositions which we do not thank God for but rather endeavour to correct.  Why should we not do so here?  Sexual orientation is just as fallen as anything else on this planet; indeed, we are just beginning to see true sexual orientation ‘diversity’ emerging from the closet since the phenomenal success of the LGBT contingent.   The others want to get in on the action, too.   

Desmond should have started to get worried when bisexual people began to speak up to tell their sexual truth, or does he not realise what bisexuality actually entails? It is either simultaneous or sequential love/sex commitments to both sexes and genders.  The Noah’s ark — two-by-two — paradigm simply does not work!  Sexual monogamy, love, sex and commitment to one life partner, is obsolete, discriminatory and possibly quite offensive.  Of course, bisexuality is but one aspect of the newly-emergent polyamory (committed non-monogamy), which insists that ‘polys’ are just like LGBT folk, that they have been wired differently and oppressed culturally, religiously and politically and wait impatiently for their freedom.  In terms of the highly-acclaimed Listening Process, how about listening to what polys have to say of themselves? For tasters see http://www.uupa.org/Literature/Understanding.htm  or    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003979242_polyamory28.html     

Of course, polys are not the only sexual orientation queuing to receive full social recognition and approval now.  The paedophile (who bitterly resents accusations of  child molestation) is waiting impatiently as well.  As a self-conscious, recently-out sexual minority, paedophile leaders like the Danish Paedophile Association’s Dan Markussen agree with Frederick Berlin, founder of the Sexual Disorders Clinic at Johns Hopkins Hospital in the US, that paedophilia is ‘an orientation’ (Frederick also claims it is a disorder, a view Dan finds highly offensive and part of the reason why it is so difficult to be happily paedophilic in today’s society). http://www.nj.com/specialprojects/expresstimes/index.ssf?/news/expresstimes/stories/molesters1_otherside.html  

Paedophiles might not have to wait too much longer though, given Western society’s shift toward child rights (which include rights of sexual choice and expression) and the softening of hitherto hard, non-negotiable moral absolutes. Canadians recently polled demonstrate the sea change presently underway in their culture.  81% were opposed to paedophilia, leaving an alarmingly high 19% in favour or unwilling to oppose it publicly. http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/12241

‘Zoos’ (those who form romantic/sexual relationships with non-homo sapien warm, vital life and sometimes even prefer them to human  partners) sound like LGBT folk from two decades ago.  Hani Miletski spent years listening to their voices and incorporating them into her doctoral dissertation done at the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco.  http://www.drmiletski.com/prolog.html  See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia Another zoo situation was dramatized in this year’s film, ‘Zoo’, about a man who had sex with a horse in the PNW (Washington State, USA) and died afterwards; a review is here: http://www.slashfilm.com/2007/01/25/sundance-zoo-movie-review/

The above discussion is premised upon the notion that sexual orientation is a given, like blue or brown eyes.  As I have tried to demonstrate, all sorts of people keep asserting that they are psycho-sexually wired in all sorts of ways.  That is obviously their sexual truth!  Whether it is equally true to say that these folk were ‘born’ that way is a completely different issue. Indeed, I would want to argue that the ‘born gay’ theory is absurd.  The studies of twins done on gay folk and their siblings demonstrate that this is simply not so. Gays and lesbians well may not have consciously chosen this lifestyle but to claim that it is in their genes or hormones is quite another matter! Even gays only started playing the ‘born gay’ card in the later 1980s and 90s when they realised how effective it was, how it elicited great sympathy, trumped other moral considerations and shut up the opposition (Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, After the Ball:  How American Will Conquer Is Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s, 1989, p. 184).  As a black pastor friend of mine says, he has never met an ex-black person, though he has met many ex-gay people.  Moreover, Desmond appears completely ignorant of the development in the whole ex- or post-gay realm.  Though he may not have met such folk, I have.  But given the cultural intimidation which mandates a gay-friendly atmosphere in the public now in the UK (which he also appears oblivious of), many in this country are loathe to ‘come out’ as post-gay.

***

The Archbishop would have us affirm how good gay and lesbian sexuality is — it is from God, after all!  Hence he publicly champions as a patron, Changing Attitude, UK’s premier Christian LBGT advocacy group.  I have to ask myself if he has read the documents on their site.  If so, it is worse than I feared.  The only public policy document on sexual ethics on CA’s site,  http://www.changingattitude.org.uk/publications/PDF/booklets/Sexual-Ethics.pdf , advocates ‘serial commitments, and serial faithfulness’; the psychological necessity of ‘infidelity’; the legitimacy of ‘brief and loving sexual engagement between mature adults in special circumstances (which) can be occasions of grace’; multiple sexual partnerships as part of an ‘exploration of our sexual selves’;  the sexualisation of ‘friendship’ which ‘embrace(s) all intimate and sexual relating’;  and finally, in terms of sex play, ‘no serious physical hurt or harm’ (non-serious pain and damage is fine, though).  Sex information from the Terrence Higgins Trust demonstrates how to do gay sex ’safely’.  The following is very graphic and thus not for the squeamish. However, the Terrence Higgins Trust is a widely respected and successful British health charity and is not describing anything other than standard gay ‘health’ (in broad terms) information.  Is this really the sort of sex we as Christians wish to endorse and teach to our children at home, in youth groups and at school? Is this really the sort of sex we wish to endorse as a society? http://www.tht.org.uk/informationresources/publications/gaymengerneralinformation/bottomlinethirdedition124.pdf  also   http://www.gmfa.org.uk/sex/howriskyis/index 

***

Finally, the Archbishop pleads from the heart for inclusion for all – he desires a loving, tolerant, everybody-wanted-and-welcomed-inside-the-church.  Is he serious?  Does he really mean to include everyone - even the practicing bis, polys, zoos, paedophiles (their preferred self-identity is ‘boy/girllover’)?  Is he serious about including life-long, active members of the Mafia or the KKK, or the extortioner, the liar, the sex-worker (PC for prostitute), those who enjoy abusing animals or children or the elderly and who will continue doing so until they die? Of course they are wanted and welcomed in church – since there is no doubt that they are equally loved by God.  However,  Desmond stops there!  He keeps playing the God-is-just-oozing-with-love card; Desmond keeps insisting that God especially cares for the Transgressor – but what then?  Do they just stay as they are, the difference being that the God ‘bit’ is now operant in their lives, they oppose institutional evil and feed the hungry?!   Of course, great as God’s love is for the sexual and social outcasts, it cannot be accepted that they will remain as they ‘are’.  God first accepts and then he transforms.  He loves these people too much to do otherwise. 

At the heart of this issue, however, is how do we know that God is love?  We know because of his revelation in his word and supremely in all that Jesus was, and taught and did. And what is the basis of any inclusivity? Surely it is Jesus’ revelation in teaching and practice that not only are all created by God and therefore equally of value but also that God showed his love in dying for all – sinners each one – and in the cross of Christ broke down the dividing wall of hostility between groups.  In other words the basis for what Desmond so firmly affirms is what he denies – that the Bible is the reliable revelation of God.  

But it is my guess that even Archbishop Desmond has his non-negotiable absolutes which means that he will have to show some – the out-and-proud practicing pedophile, for instance – the door, sooner or later.  He cannot have it both ways!  Sadly, his understanding of church involves an oxymoron, and he does not realise it, nor does he appear to realise the irreconcilable contradictions at the heart of his theology.  ‘The Bible says…’ – to which sometimes his response is Thank God! - often though, it seems to be anything but. 

Perhaps the Archbishop can live with that – others however find it less persuasive, as church history demonstrates. In the West, thriving liberal groups and denominations in the 19th century have shrunk to a shadow of their former selves in the 20th and now 21st.  They have perhaps kept the name, status, history and a handful of adherents – and not much else.  They are inclusive and ‘tolerant’ – and very much in terminal decline.  

Will the Anglican Communion do likewise?

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.