In recent days both the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd have made statements about the need to accept homosexuals as people – people who can and do love, and people who are to be included in our communities and churches.
Although one of these public figures was further advanced in his Christian journey on this issue than the other.
The Archbishop of Canterbury recently urged Christians to “repent” for their treatment of gays.
He said that the church has to “face the fact that the vast majority of people under 35 think not only that what we are saying is incomprehensible but also think that we are plain wrong and wicked and equate it to racism and other forms of gross and atrocious injustice.”
Finally, it seems that we have some leadership on this issue from the top of the purple shirt brigade.
Thank God.
It would appear that Welby arrived at this position from a kind of market analysis – as might be expected from an evangelical.
His argument is essentially driven by sound marketing logic: the “traditional” position of the church on sexuality and its denigration of same-sex relationships is unsellable.
St. Paul used precisely this same logic against St. Peter in their debate over the necessity of circumcision for converts to Christianity (Luke 15). St. Paul had, after all, seen God’s gracious work among the gentiles, even as many of us have seen it among homosexual people.
I wholeheartedly agree with Welby that no truly missional church can be seen to be unjust, uncaring and dismissive of the love of others.
Like St. Paul, Welby’s position emerged from listening, from real encounters, whereas St. Peter was moving from tradition. According to the report in the Telegraph, Welby told the General Synod in July “that the strength of feeling he encountered in support [of marriage-equality legislation] prompted him to reassess his own beliefs.”
The need to listen to the voices of homosexuals and those supporting their inclusion in church and society was enjoined on the Anglican Church by the last Lambeth Council. It appears that Welby, at least, has done it – though there is little evidence of it happening elsewhere.
Welby said he stands by his decision to vote against same-sex marriage in the House of Lords because he did not believe that “‘re-writing the nature of marriage’ was the best way to end discrimination against gay people.”
But he also said his thinking was still being shaped on this issue, and that he is and will be listening. So we live in hope. With that in mind, I would remind him and others who currently oppose marriage-equality of two things:
One of the greatest forms of abuse is to tell people in same-sex relationships that their love is inferior, or somehow “other.” We used to do this – and some of us still do – to divorced persons seeking remarriage.
What greater indignity than to be told your love is not really love.
Two male friends of mine, stalwart members of an Anglican church, have been together in a committed, loving, marital relationship for 52 years. They and I hope the law changes so that they can marry before one of them dies.
Second, as for “re-writing marriage,” it has been already been re-written by those engaging in it and in law.
In the past 150 years, western society has re-defined marriage from a patriarchal property institution to one focussed on the love, companionship and mutual support of the couple. The church has not yet caught up with this change.
It does not define marriage. It blesses marriages – fewer and fewer of them every year. Now in Australia, clergy are involved in fewer than 30% of weddings; more than 30% are re-marriages and about 80% of couples have lived together before marriage.
Given this, it is not in the churches’ best interest to block the availability of the grace that comes through committed loving relationships, or to refuse to recognise God’s gracious gift in them.
This brings me to Kevin Rudd’s eloquent and passionate defence of marriage equality last night on Q & A. While Welby moves from a kind marketing logic, Rudd argues from the Bible and sound Christian theology that opposition to the acceptance and inclusion of homosexuals, just as they are, is unbiblical and contrary to the Gospel of the unconditional grace and love of God.
Rudd seems to move from Jeremiah 1:4-5 and Psalm 139:13 and other such passages, where God speaks of “knowing us in the womb,” of knitting us, of knowing “of what we are made.”
Rudd starts from the givenness of sexuality as experienced by the person, a givenness attributable to God – he thus affirms homosexuality as part of the created order, not a result of any “Fall.”
Rudd further grounded his comments in an understanding of the Gospel call to love, to include, to welcome the outcast (Luke 14:1, 7-14). His understanding of the Kingdom of God is pure Gospel. He is not worried about “marketing,” but about following the call of Christ to love, welcome and heal.
Rudd responded to questions by describing his journey to this position, his review of Scripture, his deepening understanding of the love of God and what that love expects of us in turn.
He was articulate, grounded and forceful. The Collect for Pentecost 15 puts these same sentiments well:
“O God, you invite the humble and the sinful to take their place in the festive assembly of the new covenant: teach your Church always to honour the presence of the Lord in the poor and outcast, so that we may learn to recognise each other as brothers and sisters gathered around your table.”
Justin Welby and Kevin Rudd can both see that in its “traditional” teaching on sexuality, the church has produced the very outcasts that Jesus commands us to include.
Welby has taken a courageous step to promote the marketing the faith. Rudd follows the logic of God’s unconditional love to affirm homosexual people and to celebrate the love they share and the commitments they make.
They are both Anglicans and have restored my delight to be an Anglican. They have also given me hope that another injustice may soon be overcome.
I hope that others associated with Christianity will make clear their support for this change toward inclusion, acceptance and grace.
I hope other bishops get on board with this and support Bishop John McIntyre of Gippsland, who alone in Australia has stood courageously and sacrificially for the way of Christ and God’s unconditional love.
The Rev’d Professor Gary Bouma AM is the UNESCO Chair in Interreligious and Intercultural Relations – Asia Pacific, at Monash University, and Associate Priest at St John’s Anglican Church, East Malvern.
Author: Gary Bouma
Publication: ABC Religion & Ethics
Date: 3 September 2013