Canon Dr Angus Ritchie observes that “the
depth of disagreement flows from the different narratives that Christians use
to interpret history,” the narrative of disobedience (the story of human
rebellion against God) and the narrative of liberation (the work of God to free
people from unjust oppression). He notes
“The last few decades have seen changes Christians of all traditions are rightly resisting – towards an increasingly consumerist and hedonistic society, where the values of faithfulness and obedience are eroded by a ‘me-first’ attitude to both economics and to sex (both of which are key areas of biblical teaching). For some, any move to allow sexual relationships outside of heterosexual marriage is seen as part of that erosion of biblical values. They see the push to accept same-sex relationships as a further unfolding of the narrative of disobedience, as Britain becomes a more secular nation. Likewise, Christians from across the theological spectrum acknowledge the presence and power of God in the fight against slavery and segregation, apartheid and other forms of racism – despite the misuse of Scripture to justify these practices. For some, equality for women in the church and for same-sex couples represents a further unfolding of that same narrative of liberation... Each group believes its position to be the one most faithful to the Gospel – to its call to counter-cultural obedience and to the liberation of the oppressed.”
The remainder of this piece published in April 2015 in
effect argues that the CofE has no other choice but to accept two integrities
on the question of non-celibate gay relationships because there is no chance
that we will come to a common mind on this question and no chance of the CofE
enforcing its current rules. And our living with disagreements on the
remarriage of divorcees and on the ordination of women to the priesthood proves
that we can do it. (The appeal to 1 Corinthians 8 is misplaced, as the solution
there is abstinence.)
“The challenge for opponents of such a settlement on same-sex relationship – wherever they stand on the substantive issue – is twofold. Firstly, they have to explain why we can live together amid disagreement on both the remarriage of divorcees and the ordination of women to the episcopate, but not on the blessing of same-sex relationships. From the point of view of faithfulness to Scripture and the Catholic faith, it is very hard to see why the first two issues are ones where we can cope with diversity and the issue of same-sex relationships is not. But, secondly, they have to map a realistic path from the current situation to their preferred outcome.”
A first response: These are helpful observations and
thoughts but they overlook the issue of trust (and breakdown of trust) and assume too readily that our
settlements on remarriage after divorce and on the ordination of women are a success.
The jury seems to be still out on this and many opponents of a settlement on same-sex
relationships could point out how hard it is to oppose one or the other without
being vilified. The slippery slope argument is usually no argument at all but
the fear that respecting the traditional view moves quickly towards tolerating,
then marginalising, vilifying and finally excluding the traditional view is not
altogether without basis. Indeed, even today the traditional call to sexual abstinence outside diverse-sex marriage is considered intrinsically homophobic by most proponents of same-sex partnerships or marriages and it seems therefore unlikely that any agreeing to disagree on their part would be anything other than short-term political rather than principled.
So, as for the challenge. Firstly, some opponents may feel that they had their
fingers burned enough and that having to live with a damaged hand and a broken foot
is not reason enough to accept a chest infection as well. I would not really
want to put it like that but that there are disagreements which we know we must
tolerate and others which we feel we cannot is obvious. If that were not the case, we would be
either forming our own independent church in which we all agree or belong to the Roman Catholic
church because no disagreement was or is worth splitting away from the main body.
Would tolerating the blessing of sexual activity outside marriage as
traditionally understood fall in a different category from tolerating
remarriage after divorce or the ordination of women to the priesthood? I am not
best placed to address this, being on the “progressive” side here. I can live with
the former two settlements because I can respect the “conservative” view as an
expression of Christian discipleship. Being on the “conservative” side on the third
question, I would find it much harder to accept the “progressive” view as a
genuine, even if misguided, expression of Christian discipleship. This is related
to the fact that unlike sexual activity outside marriage I do not see remarriage
after divorce or the ordination of women prohibited for Christians in
Scripture. Angus Ritchie seems to believe that what is prohibited in Scripture in
all three cases is not what we encounter today. If that were the case, he would
be right to query why one can disagree on two but not the third of those
questions. What he overlooks is that those who accept or at least tolerate the
current settlements on remarriage after divorce and on the ordination of women
to the priesthood do not necessarily do so for his reasons and following his
hermeneutic.
