The Ballad of Reading Gaol

Martyn Percy (Editorial, Modern Believing, Volume 44:4, October 2003)

This edition's amusing apocryphal ecclesiastical tale concerns a broad-minded Vicar, who was once invited by an equally broad-minded headmistress to talk to her sixth form about sex. The vicar's wife kept his diary for him, and being a rather prudish woman, the Vicar entered the engagement in his diary as 'talk to girls about sailing'. The talks went well. But the vicar's wife bumped into the headmistress a week later. 'Your husband gave us an excellent talk', exclaimed the headmistress. The vicar's wife looked puzzled. 'But I can't imagine what he knows about the subject' she replied. 'He's only done it twice. The first time his hat blew off. And the second time he was sick'.

There is no need for such circumspection these days. Sex is in every bishop's diary. Their postbags are full of letters demanding their views on the formerly-bishop-designate of Reading. Hardly a day goes by without the subject being discussed. Indeed, the Church of England seems to be somewhat imprisoned by the debate; unable to extricate itself from a mire of its own making.

The news that Canon Dr Jeffrey John is to withdraw from his nomination as Bishop of Reading was a major setback for the Church of England, and for the Anglican Communion as a whole. Dr John was, by any standards, an able and suited person for the appointment. Moreover, he was living his life within the guidelines laid down by the (deeply flawed) 1991 document, Issues in Human Sexuality . But for some, Jeffrey John's sexual abstinence was not enough. And in a series of unprecedented manoeuvres, Anglican bishops in England and from abroad united to scupper Dr John's consecration. At a stroke, powerful conservative forces have emasculated the historic power of appointment vested in a diocesan bishop (Dr Richard Harries), and set back the cause of inclusiveness and tolerance by decades.

Conservative Christians may feel that they have chalked up a notable win in this debate. But I suspect the victory will be of the pyrrhic variety. For in pressurising Dr John to withdraw, the Church of England has failed to taken note of the cultural change that has been gathering pace for several years. Instead of presenting a national church that was able to accommodate gay and lesbian people within its ranks, it has shown a face of fear, ignorance and prejudice. Such a stance will not woo a nation back to church; it will alienate the young in their droves, and baffle and bewilder all but the most hard-hearted.

But in the midst of such ecclesial and theological disputes, it is easy to lose sight of the main argument. Interestingly, this is less about sexual ethics, and much more about the identity of self-appointed guardians of the faith. Liberals and Conservatives, of course, claim the title with equal aplomb. And if the church is to have any future at all, it will have to come to terms with how to live with difference, and recognise that the custodianship of Christianity is a shared task. (Actually, its Christ's Church, not Reform's or the MCU's - but you know what I mean).

For Liberals, faith is normally best guarded by tenacious cultural engagement, adaptability and flexibility - but without compromising the essential core content of faith, namely the good news of the gospel. This is, for Christians, living and proclaiming that God is in Christ, reconciling the world to himself. Most Conservative Evangelicals would not dissent from this. So the difference between the camps is merely a matter of degree. How much engagement? What kind of adaptability? Flexibility over what, exactly? This is the rub.

Put another way, we might say that Conservative Christians still hope and expect the Bible to define and delimit cultural norms - in society, as well as in the church. The Bible seems to speak about homosexuality as a sin and as an abomination to the Lord. So it is; and that is the end of that. Here, the Bible is above culture. Liberals, in contrast, insist that whilst the Bible is true, authoritative and inspired, it inevitably reflects the cultures from which it emerged. Therefore, there are some things that the Bible says and advocates which need reading against what we now know from modern culture. In other words, in the Conservative position, homosexuality is a sin, because the Bible says so. In the Liberal position, however, loving, consensual same-sex relationships that embody fidelity, faithfulness and integrity should be read as 'alternative' lifestyles, and not seen as a sin at all. And so the battle lines are drawn.

But Liberals might press their case a little more. How could a loving same-sex relationship (that is legal, does no harm, and is the fruit of a faithful and lasting commitment) be described as 'sin'? Not on any grounds, clearly, unless you think God has ruled it out as 'unnatural', 'perverted' and 'corrupting'; a kind of wilful disobedience against God's own created order. This might just work as an argument, except for the fact that most people who are gay simply claim to be expressing their sexuality 'as they are wired up'. It is instinctive; more than a matter of will. Moreover, biologists and zoologists now know that about 10-20% of sexual acts amongst other mammals are 'homosexual' or 'same-sex', suggesting that sexual orientation is part of the natural, created order, and not a matter of 'sin', or a form of sickness.

To be sure, the 'gay issue' argument is divisive. But it won't ever be settled by one side being vindicated as orthodox, and the other condemned as heretical. In truth, every form of Christianity is an incarnate accommodation of culture; a creature of eternity - but living in time. There is no version of Christianity that is absolutely 'pure', and nor has there ever been so. (No, not even in Nigeria - which protested most vigorously over Dr John's nomination). Every type and expression of faith has its own 'local accent' and customs. Thus was it always so - even in the New Testament. So one must be wary of any group that tries to denigrate another by disenfranchising their right to call themselves Christian. Nobody has 'copyright' on the term. This is an important point, because it has to be recognised that there have always been Christians who have been homosexual. They have been a small but significant part of the church for many centuries - indeed, there since the beginning.

What Conservative Christians find problematic at the moment is that many more people today want to be more open about their faith and sexuality, rather than marginalized. They want to be in the church for who they are, not locked in the vestry closet. This openness is surely to be commended, but it is also clear that many find it stressful and problematic. (All the more reason then, to rue a lost opportunity for the people of Reading to experience a gifted priest and scholar as a bishop, who also happens to be gay).

But Conservatives Christians are not only struggling with the church; they are fighting against the world as well. The tectonic plates of culture have shifted markedly in the post-war era, and homosexuality has clearly moved, sequentially, from being a private vice for which one could be prosecuted and imprisoned, to being an alternative lifestyle that is largely accepted in the public sphere. The world in which Conservative Evangelicals are now living has changed far, far too quickly for their liking. It might once have been OK to snigger quietly at Larry Grayson and other 'camp' acts on TV. But can Conservative Evangelicals really laugh at Graham Norton? Are Conservative Evangelicals really happy with sex education in the classroom, where homosexuality is narrated as 'alternative', rather than being sinful or a sickness? I doubt it.

Ours is now the kind of society where Conservative Christians want to resist 'culture' at almost every point. Sunday shopping, women priests, 'alternative' lifestyles: sex is their last stand. And by taking a stand in the church on sexuality, they hope to teach the world a lesson. But it is both doubtful and dubious to presume that the climate of tolerance, openness and hospitality, which has been emerging for some time now, is something that Christians should be trying to reject.

Of course, the Bible does encourage the church to be discerning. Christians are to turn away from sin and error. But the only absolute division that the New Testament ever calls for is between believers and non-believers. And as gay Christians are clearly believers, their sexuality is very much a second order issue. Conservative Christians who therefore try to make it a first order issue and a key test of orthodoxy are on dangerous ground. Where will it all end? Going back to excluding re-married divorcees from communion? Ostracising anyone from a congregation who is involved in money-lending? Or perhaps going the extra mile, and stoning gay people, as the book of Leviticus demands?

Plainly, the Bible does not speak evenly or unambiguously about sexuality. The few references that may refer to homosexuality - and it is a may - are opaque and problematic. And the texts themselves have a long history of not being consistently interpreted and applied. (The church too has a long history of embodying this, mostly by adopting covert double standards). It is therefore a mistake to try and putatively proscribe moral codes for consensual loving same-sex relationships, basing arguments on a few slight and rather unclear biblical references. It is surely time to relocate the debate within more central gospel themes. Any who is without sin may cast the first stone. Judge not, lest you be judged. These might do for starters. And in the period of quiet reflection that follows, and that Dr Williams has rightly called for, Christians may begin to learn to live with their differences.

Finally, what can we say about the Liberal contribution to the debacle of the 'Jeffrey John Affair'? I think it leaves a lot to be desired. True, several bishops spoke up in favour of Jeffrey John's appointment. A few prominent Liberal church leaders and theologians (myself included) huffed and puffed our way through various rounds of media interviews, trying to put the case for reasoned faith, tolerance, modernisation and the like. But in truth, the Liberal response was a shambles. It was uncoordinated, unprepared, and almost wholly lacking in tenacity, acuity and concentrated effort.

Ultimately, the 'Jeffrey John Affair' might (and perhaps should?) make Liberals ponder: how it was that a small group of disparate Evangelicals managed to generate the leverage they did, and force the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Crown to buckle and capitulate on the appointment of a bishop? The answer lies in their organisation, and in their concerted, focussed and concentrated campaigning. Evangelicals have, amongst other bodies, the Evangelical Alliance at their disposal. This is a well-resourced body with several full-time staff and other appointments. The EA has a Director, research officer and other key personnel, and its role is to co-ordinate and focus the concerns of Evangelicals nationally, as well as speak alongside other Evangelical bodies (old and new), with more meagre resources (e.g., Reform, Church Society, etc).

In contrast, Liberal organisations have shown a marked reticence to pool their resources to form a constructive Alliance that could rival the EA. Liberal organisations - and I include the MCU in this - potter along, ploughing their own furrow, eking out their meagre resources amongst an ageing and declining membership. They occasionally collaborate with worthy causes and organisations such as SCM, GRAS, MOW or even LGCM. But for the most part, we, as Liberals, remain apart. And for as long as we do, I suggest that we shall be as weak as we are divided. Liberals need to learn the art of speaking through one mouth: focussed, concentrated and concerted, in order to provide a counter-weight to the tactical and organisational advances that Evangelicals have made in recent decades. Is it really too much to imagine a well-staffed office somewhere in London, with the ear of the media, with personnel engaged in research and resourcing churches, that spoke for mainstream Liberal Christianity? The Alliance of Broad Churches (ABC), perhaps? Or the Liberal Alliance? 'Where there is no vision, the people perish': that is the lesson that the 'Jeffrey John Affair' has taught Liberalism.

Modern Believing, MCU, October Vol. 44, No. 4, October 2003