Submission to Sexuality Working Party - Revd Gillean Craig - August 2012
The Archbishops of the Church of England have set up a Working Party to consider the Church’s doctrine, attitude and practise in relation to matters of Human Sexuality, and as a preliminary element in their work invited parishes, groups and individuals to make submissions to them. This is an area in which I have strong views, and one where I believe that the church’s current belief and practise are out of step with the Gospel, so I felt it important to make a personal submission. I made it clear then, and I want to stress now, that this was indeed my PERSONAL view and in no way pretended to express the views of our church or parish. I do think, though, that on such a topical and contention issue the congregation of our parish is entitled to know what I think, and so I place it here on the website for anyone who wishes to read it.
2012_08_gc_paper_to_swp
Download File
1 Gender:
It seems clear to me that although the vast majority of humankind is either male or female, these apparently absolute either/or gender definitions are in fact points along a continuum. Genital sexual characteristics in new-born babies are not always decisive either way, and I accept as genuine the convictions of those who find that they are female trapped in a male body and vice versa: I support those who, after proper counselling, seek transgender medical procedures.
2 Sexual Orientation:
I believe that there are potentially two aspects to an individual’s sexual orientation. One is inherent, the orientation that is deeply embedded in that person’s identity (although the relative significance of firstly, one’s given DNA, as it were, and, secondly, crucial early childhood experience will differ from person to person as to how that orientation is fixed). The second aspect relates to context: the need to give and receive love and commitment is so strong in most people, and the link between this need and the desire to express it physically so natural, that people of essentially heterosexual orientation may in prolonged single-sex environments fall in love with and/or feel desire for same-sex partners (and, I suppose, vice versa). So here is another spectrum: most people will be essentially either hetero- or (a small but significant minority) homosexual, but can in particular circumstances be drawn to the opposite orientation. I object strongly to the characterisation – common in some circles – of homosexuality as ‘a lifestyle choice’. Most of the homosexual people whom I know well struggled and found it hard to accept their orientation – it was something they did not wish to admit to themselves until they found that they had no choice (this may be far less the case with younger generations). And we all exhibit a mixture of what are usually thought of as male and female characteristics – in other words a third spectrum. If we take seriously the concept of God being revealed in his creation, these spectrums, as opposed to black-and-white, either/or definitions, are significant. And recent studies in biology are demonstrating more and more instances of homosexual behaviour among other species.
3 Scripture:
Scripture can only be understood properly in its historic context. As far as the subject under discussion is concerned, it is essential to appreciate how much the Ancient World took for granted on the one hand, cultic male prostitution, and on the other the unequal sexual relationship of mature men with adolescent boys. The people of Israel were highly unusual in treating both these practises with repugnance, and believed that it was God’s revealed will that they should do so. I think that the passages referring to homosexuality in OT & NT writings are talking about these practises, and not what is being considered by the church today, that is the extent to which it is proper for Christians to enter loving, equal, committed same-sex relationships. The four Gospels contain within their writing evidence of the development of the handing-down of the story of Jesus, of a moulding and redacting of the oral memories and proclamation. I am persuaded by those scholars who maintain that, for example, there are adequate hints that in the actual ministry of Jesus the part played by his women followers was far greater than the texts committed to writing appear to record. This means that any one passage must be measured against the general, broad thrust of the ministry and teaching of Jesus: and I take that broad thrust to be a message of radical, shocking inclusion, revealing a God of love, challenge and acceptance encountered far beyond the boundaries of what we feel is safe or seemly. And his Church has been truest to Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection when she has been open to dynamic and surprising developments of doctrine and discipleship. We are wonderfully practised in closing our ears, hearts and minds to the prompting of the Holy Spirit, evidenced by the long centuries it took for the church to acknowledge that slavery, racism, the considering of women to be inferior, are entirely contrary to the mind of Christ. I believe that the same Spirit is today beseeching us to rethink our understanding of same-sex relationships.
An insistent theme in the teaching and example of Jesus is the significance he places on acting in generous and self-giving fashion rather than slavishly and unlovingly being obedient to perceived divine injunction. My own attitude to homosexuality is strongly conditioned by my experience that some of the most consistently Christian lives I know are lived by homosexuals, and many of them with partners. These same-sex partners are not some aberration that spoils what would otherwise be an admirable life of discipleship, but central to it: exactly, as far as I can see, the same dynamic of mutual support and companionship, the same experience of what it is to grow in love and commitment with another person who is at once wonderfully, intimately close and at the same time entirely and infuriatingly different, that those of us in heterosexual relationships know.
I cannot accept that it is pleasing to God for people of homosexual orientation to enter into emotional commitment with same sex partners but refrain from any physical expression of that love. The relationship between affection, love and physical sexual expression is enormously complex in all heterosexual relationships: it seems impossible to predict whether emotional attachment (‘falling in love’) – precedes physical attraction (lust) or the other way round. Either can lead to the other. We believe in God revealed in Incarnation: the physical body is of central importance to Christians. I see no logic in denying physical sexual relations to loving committed same-sex couples.
I long for the day when the Church of England explicitly affirms and supports same-sex couples in committed loving relationship and proclaims that such relationships are pleasing in God’s sight and are signs of his kingdom. I believe that Incumbents should have the right, after due consultation with their PCCs, to act, having sought the Bishop’s permission, as registrars in conducting Civil partnership ceremonies in their churches, for couples who meet the same criteria that we nowadays apply to those seeking church weddings. I would like these same-sex partnerships openly to be accorded equal honour and acceptance to heterosexual marriage, and would want them to be celebrated with the same liturgical richness.
I do not believe that such same-sex partnerships are identical to heterosexual marriage. It seems to me that the standard basic biological distinction, most clearly expressed in the different roles played in the procreation of children, offer a clear difference. I do not therefore plead for same-sex marriage – but I would like a far more worthy title for this state than ‘partnership’, if someone could find one. I do appreciate that I am (as I believe most committed members of the Church of England are) on a journey here, and do not rule out the possibility that I may some day be convinced of the rightness of same-sex marriage.
Although I believe that the Holy Spirit speaks to us from many places and in many ways, I am sure that my position on this matter is not arrived at by allowing my fundamental Christian convictions to be undermined and subverted by secular influences. Neither is it driven by a pastoral concern, a desire to be able to offer that which is pleasing to members of the congregation or parishioners. I’m pretty robust in refusing to do anything, which I hold to be contrary to the will of Christ. Rather it is borne of theological consideration and reflection over many years, and scrutinising by the light of faith what I experience of the lives of those around me.
I believe that it is scandalous and theologically incoherent for there to be one rule for the laity and another for ordained ministers. It’s either proper for all or for no-one. Deacons, Priests and Bishops should be as free to enter committed same-sex relationships, blessed by the church, as anyone else. Of course it is proper to require of the clergy, and these requirements to be backed up by discipline, the highest standard of how we live out our state of life - celibate, single, married or partnered.
Gillean Craig
30 July 2012
The Archbishops of the Church of England have set up a Working Party to consider the Church’s doctrine, attitude and practise in relation to matters of Human Sexuality, and as a preliminary element in their work invited parishes, groups and individuals to make submissions to them. This is an area in which I have strong views, and one where I believe that the church’s current belief and practise are out of step with the Gospel, so I felt it important to make a personal submission. I made it clear then, and I want to stress now, that this was indeed my PERSONAL view and in no way pretended to express the views of our church or parish. I do think, though, that on such a topical and contention issue the congregation of our parish is entitled to know what I think, and so I place it here on the website for anyone who wishes to read it.
2012_08_gc_paper_to_swp
Download File
1 Gender:
It seems clear to me that although the vast majority of humankind is either male or female, these apparently absolute either/or gender definitions are in fact points along a continuum. Genital sexual characteristics in new-born babies are not always decisive either way, and I accept as genuine the convictions of those who find that they are female trapped in a male body and vice versa: I support those who, after proper counselling, seek transgender medical procedures.
2 Sexual Orientation:
I believe that there are potentially two aspects to an individual’s sexual orientation. One is inherent, the orientation that is deeply embedded in that person’s identity (although the relative significance of firstly, one’s given DNA, as it were, and, secondly, crucial early childhood experience will differ from person to person as to how that orientation is fixed). The second aspect relates to context: the need to give and receive love and commitment is so strong in most people, and the link between this need and the desire to express it physically so natural, that people of essentially heterosexual orientation may in prolonged single-sex environments fall in love with and/or feel desire for same-sex partners (and, I suppose, vice versa). So here is another spectrum: most people will be essentially either hetero- or (a small but significant minority) homosexual, but can in particular circumstances be drawn to the opposite orientation. I object strongly to the characterisation – common in some circles – of homosexuality as ‘a lifestyle choice’. Most of the homosexual people whom I know well struggled and found it hard to accept their orientation – it was something they did not wish to admit to themselves until they found that they had no choice (this may be far less the case with younger generations). And we all exhibit a mixture of what are usually thought of as male and female characteristics – in other words a third spectrum. If we take seriously the concept of God being revealed in his creation, these spectrums, as opposed to black-and-white, either/or definitions, are significant. And recent studies in biology are demonstrating more and more instances of homosexual behaviour among other species.
3 Scripture:
Scripture can only be understood properly in its historic context. As far as the subject under discussion is concerned, it is essential to appreciate how much the Ancient World took for granted on the one hand, cultic male prostitution, and on the other the unequal sexual relationship of mature men with adolescent boys. The people of Israel were highly unusual in treating both these practises with repugnance, and believed that it was God’s revealed will that they should do so. I think that the passages referring to homosexuality in OT & NT writings are talking about these practises, and not what is being considered by the church today, that is the extent to which it is proper for Christians to enter loving, equal, committed same-sex relationships. The four Gospels contain within their writing evidence of the development of the handing-down of the story of Jesus, of a moulding and redacting of the oral memories and proclamation. I am persuaded by those scholars who maintain that, for example, there are adequate hints that in the actual ministry of Jesus the part played by his women followers was far greater than the texts committed to writing appear to record. This means that any one passage must be measured against the general, broad thrust of the ministry and teaching of Jesus: and I take that broad thrust to be a message of radical, shocking inclusion, revealing a God of love, challenge and acceptance encountered far beyond the boundaries of what we feel is safe or seemly. And his Church has been truest to Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection when she has been open to dynamic and surprising developments of doctrine and discipleship. We are wonderfully practised in closing our ears, hearts and minds to the prompting of the Holy Spirit, evidenced by the long centuries it took for the church to acknowledge that slavery, racism, the considering of women to be inferior, are entirely contrary to the mind of Christ. I believe that the same Spirit is today beseeching us to rethink our understanding of same-sex relationships.
An insistent theme in the teaching and example of Jesus is the significance he places on acting in generous and self-giving fashion rather than slavishly and unlovingly being obedient to perceived divine injunction. My own attitude to homosexuality is strongly conditioned by my experience that some of the most consistently Christian lives I know are lived by homosexuals, and many of them with partners. These same-sex partners are not some aberration that spoils what would otherwise be an admirable life of discipleship, but central to it: exactly, as far as I can see, the same dynamic of mutual support and companionship, the same experience of what it is to grow in love and commitment with another person who is at once wonderfully, intimately close and at the same time entirely and infuriatingly different, that those of us in heterosexual relationships know.
I cannot accept that it is pleasing to God for people of homosexual orientation to enter into emotional commitment with same sex partners but refrain from any physical expression of that love. The relationship between affection, love and physical sexual expression is enormously complex in all heterosexual relationships: it seems impossible to predict whether emotional attachment (‘falling in love’) – precedes physical attraction (lust) or the other way round. Either can lead to the other. We believe in God revealed in Incarnation: the physical body is of central importance to Christians. I see no logic in denying physical sexual relations to loving committed same-sex couples.
I long for the day when the Church of England explicitly affirms and supports same-sex couples in committed loving relationship and proclaims that such relationships are pleasing in God’s sight and are signs of his kingdom. I believe that Incumbents should have the right, after due consultation with their PCCs, to act, having sought the Bishop’s permission, as registrars in conducting Civil partnership ceremonies in their churches, for couples who meet the same criteria that we nowadays apply to those seeking church weddings. I would like these same-sex partnerships openly to be accorded equal honour and acceptance to heterosexual marriage, and would want them to be celebrated with the same liturgical richness.
I do not believe that such same-sex partnerships are identical to heterosexual marriage. It seems to me that the standard basic biological distinction, most clearly expressed in the different roles played in the procreation of children, offer a clear difference. I do not therefore plead for same-sex marriage – but I would like a far more worthy title for this state than ‘partnership’, if someone could find one. I do appreciate that I am (as I believe most committed members of the Church of England are) on a journey here, and do not rule out the possibility that I may some day be convinced of the rightness of same-sex marriage.
Although I believe that the Holy Spirit speaks to us from many places and in many ways, I am sure that my position on this matter is not arrived at by allowing my fundamental Christian convictions to be undermined and subverted by secular influences. Neither is it driven by a pastoral concern, a desire to be able to offer that which is pleasing to members of the congregation or parishioners. I’m pretty robust in refusing to do anything, which I hold to be contrary to the will of Christ. Rather it is borne of theological consideration and reflection over many years, and scrutinising by the light of faith what I experience of the lives of those around me.
I believe that it is scandalous and theologically incoherent for there to be one rule for the laity and another for ordained ministers. It’s either proper for all or for no-one. Deacons, Priests and Bishops should be as free to enter committed same-sex relationships, blessed by the church, as anyone else. Of course it is proper to require of the clergy, and these requirements to be backed up by discipline, the highest standard of how we live out our state of life - celibate, single, married or partnered.
Gillean Craig
30 July 2012