Here are three books on sexuality, all published this year, all with a
focus on the Church of England, and all making the case for acceptance of same
sex relationships.
Amazing Love and Journeys were both published in time for
the General Synod’s July session which included ‘Shared Conversations’ on
sexuality. They were supplied to all the Synod’s members by their
authors/publishers.
Amazing Love is written by
Andrew Davison but ‘in collaboration with’ 8 other Anglicans. It is a brief,
readable argument based on human experience, scientific study, reading of the
Bible, the story of revelation and the Church’s mission today.
Journeys has contributions
from 11 ‘leading Evangelicals within the Church of England’, who speak from
their own experience of the development of their understanding of sexuality, or
for some, the painful journey of coming to terms with their sexuality.
Thinking Again has chapters by
11 theologians and ‘aims to guide readers into the practice of thinking theologically about marriage’. It claims to
reflect a broad theological spectrum, but the contributors share an
understanding that ‘Scripture neither knows nor speaks of the relationships we
understand as same-sex relationships today’, so it certainly doesn’t reflect
the breadth of the Church of England. Not that all the authors are Anglican –
in that sense it is broader than Amazing
Love and Journeys, and it is not
so overtly a political tract – but it is clearly stimulated by Church of England
and House of Bishops statements, in particular their increasing reliance on a
doctrine of the complementarity of men and women as fundamental to all thinking
on sexuality.
The Reviews
Numerous reviews have been published already, so to avoid repetition,
and because the response to these books is interesting in itself, I will review
the reviews before making some brief remarks of my own.
Adrian Thatcher, a prominent academic in the field, wrote an uncritical
joint review of
Amazing Love and
Journeys for the
Church Times, which usefully
summarises the content and ends briefly welcoming both books as contributions
to the task of urging the Church of England to be inclusive.
Richard Peers, a priest and now Director of
Education in Liverpool Diocese, has reviewed both
Amazing Love and
Journeys positively
on his
blog.
Amazing Love has ‘not much new in it
but would save the reader searching out many other publications’. The chapter
on mission is of most interest since from Peers’ experience the church’s
attitude to same sex relationships is widely considered ‘exclusive, prejudicial
and simply wrong… In all my years of teaching I have never heard a pupil say
anything else’.
Journeys is moving
testimony. ‘There is raw honesty and most of all deep faithfulness to Jesus and
to Scripture’. Each book needs more passion, a sense of a cry for liberation,
the fulfilment of the good news; and missing also is a more fully Catholic
voice in relation to the sacrament of marriage for same sex relationships.
Peter Sanlon, Vicar of St Mark’s Tunbridge Wells,
has written a 5000 word review of
Amazing
Love, in two parts, both of which are on the Church Society blog (
pt1,
pt2);
the first part only is on
Ian
Paul’s blog. He claims the book has ‘an embarrassingly simplistic view of
“science”’ and that there is evidence to question its claims that same sex
attraction has a biological basis (amongst other factors) and that for the vast
majority that attraction cannot be changed. There is a ‘lack of academic
credibility’ in the chapter on the Bible, and ‘No alternative views… are noted
at any point’. The chapter on mission receives the severest criticism as
‘deceptive and manipulative rhetoric’. Part 2 is an extraordinary diatribe
elaborating on this last point. The book is ‘an instructive example of the
rhetorical strategy being deployed by the homosexualist [sic] movement’. The
authors are accused of ‘duplicity’ and of giving warning ‘of the kind of
invective and threats which will be levelled at those who do not submit to the
views promoted’.
Martin Davie is academic consultant to the Church of England
Evangelical Council and the Oxford Centre for Religion and Public Life and
formerly Secretary to the Faith and Order Commission, Theological Secretary to
the Council for Christian Unity and the Theological Consultant to the House of
Bishops of the Church of England. He has written a 13,000 word review of
Amazing Love (itself only about 19,000
words), available on the
Latimer
Trust website. The review is comprised of an extensive summary of the book,
a section on ‘What we can agree with’ (100 words in length) and a section on
‘What is problematic’ (9000 words). Like Sanlon, Davie questions the
presentation of evidence.
Amazing Love ‘almost
entirely ignores the large amount of evidence that says that involvement in
same-sex sexual activity is harmful both to people’s physical and mental
well-being’ and ‘fails to take seriously that same-sex parenting is not good
for the children and young people involved’. In response to the
counter-argument that the Church might model healthy same-sex relationships,
Davie argues that the more likely outcome would be that the Church would then
accept promiscuity. Contrary to its claim to ‘pay attention to reality’,
Amazing Love ignores the reality of the
entire biblical picture, and doesn’t face the biological reality that for
same-sex relations ‘the pieces simply do not fit’ and there is no ‘potential to
be generative’, whereas even an infertile heterosexual couple still has that
orientation, a point illustrated by a baseball team that never wins but still
has an orientation towards winning.
Tom Creedy, a member of the Vineyard movement, has written a review of
Journeys, published on
Ian
Paul’s blog and
Anglican
Ink. He finds ‘clever disingenuity’ in ‘the premise of the book that it is
possible to be a “biblically rooted evangelical” and also to have a “positive
view of same-sex relationships”’. Colin Fletcher is frustrating when he pleads
for ‘an openness amongst evangelicals’ because evangelicals are open – ‘we’ve
just found certain arguments wanting’. Paul Bayes calls for inclusion but
‘simply doesn’t make an argument’. Personal stories are not enough to change
doctrine or practice. Finally, ‘it is telling that this particular book is
self-published – it seems to add little genuinely new to the conversation’.
Ian Paul has written his own
review
of
Journeys. He questions whether the
authors are all ‘leading’ and ‘Evangelical’, and in the comments states that
the editor is wrong to claim that the contributors are ‘affirming of same-sex
marriage’. If evangelicals are unclear on sexuality, ‘could it be that people
like Colin [Fletcher, Bishop of Dorking] have singularly failed, as evangelical
leaders…?’ Paul Bayes (Bishop of Liverpool) uses a disingenuous argument to
show how the Church may learn something new. Repeatedly, authors are criticised
for not having engaged with scholarship. David Ison (Dean of St Paul’s) offers
‘not much evidence… of collaboration with “traditional” understandings’.
Anthony Archer (lay General Synod member) uses the wrong scholarship. Gavin
Collins (Archdeacon of the Meon) ‘offers no evidence that he has engaged with
good evangelical material’. Furthermore, he contradicts Jesus and Paul by
arguing that ‘the notion of celibacy outside marriage “is simply not a tenable
position for the Church”’. None of the ‘views and positions expressed connect
with anything that would be recognisably evangelical in terms of engaging with
Scripture’.
The
review
of
Journeys by Andrew Symes
(Executive Secretary of Anglican Mainstream) summarises and critiques several
of the chapters. Paul Bayes is in ‘serious error’ in his ‘conviction that the
contemporary discovery of the “goodness” in LGBT relationships is a sign of God
changing his mind’. David Ison is wrong to think that Jesus could have learned
something new. Several authors ‘do not engage at all with the many conservative
commentators’, nor with the liberal commentators who are clear that ‘in order
to promote a progressive agenda while being honest with the text one must
disregard the Bible’. ‘The views of the book’s authors including Jayne Ozanne
on one hand, and those she criticises so offensively on the other – can they
really coexist in the same church with “good disagreement”? It is surely time
for separation.’ (The offence here, noted by Ian Paul also as superiority, is
to regard those gay Christians wounded and scarred by the Church as bearing the
‘stigmata of Christ’.)
Martin Davie’s
review
of
Journeys, entitled ‘Journeys into
Darkness’, runs to 15,000 words. For each chapter there is both a summary and a
presentation of the conservative position and scriptural interpretation in
response. ‘The issue of homosexuality is a first order issue like the doctrine
of the Trinity or the doctrine of the person of Christ.’ ‘Acknowledging [those
who argue for an acceptance of ‘homosexual practice’] as fellow Evangelicals
would be wrong…’ Anthony Archer asks ‘What conceivable harm is done by two
people of the same sex entering into a relationship which they hope and pray
will be lasting, covenanted and monogamous…?’ Such a relationship may be
beneficial ‘temporally speaking’, but ‘they face the danger of God eventually
saying to them “thy will be done” with the result that they are cut off from
him for ever’.
I could only find one
review
of
Thinking Again, by Berenice Martin
for the
Church Times. It is a an
appreciative summary, concluding that ‘All the chapters in the book repay
reading, but the whole adds up to more than its parts and is a rich resource
for current debates’.
Remarks on the Reviews
It is disappointing that some reviews of Amazing Love or Journeys
use the following words: deceptive, manipulative, duplicitous and disingenuous.
It would help conversation between Christians enormously if we recognised that,
in relation to our opinions, words and actions, in this and other areas of
difference, we are in no position to perceive our own motives and honesty with
complete clarity. Much less are we free to pass judgement on the motives or
honesty of others.
There are moments where I cringed. Words matter, and ‘homosexualist’ is
awkward at best, offensive at worst. The use of a baseball team which never
wins as an analogy for a marriage without children is appalling. To speak of
pieces which don’t fit is a crude reduction.
A number of errors in some reviews need to be noted. Contrary to Peter
Sanlon, Amazing Love gives no warning
that invective or threats will be levelled at those who disagree. Contrary to
Tom Creedy, Journeys isn’t
self-published. Contrary to Ian Paul, the editor of Journeys doesn’t claim that all the contributors are affirming of
same-sex marriage; nor is it accurate not to note that Gavin Collins is speaking
against forced celibacy. Contrary to
Andrew Symes, Paul Bayes doesn’t speak of God ‘changing his mind’.
Several reviewers use a straw man argument by expecting a certain level
of academic rigour or engagement with biblical scholarship and then finding Amazing Love or Journeys wanting. (Peter Sanlon even regards DLT as an academic
publisher – it is not.) Amazing Love argues
a case for the general reader. Journeys
is a series of short, personal testimonies. It is unreasonable for each reader
who holds a conservative position to expect the particular biblical arguments
that weigh with them to be addressed.
On the evidence from science and human experience, it seems to me that
Amazing Love fairly reflects the broad consensus in our society. Does it
overstate the scientific evidence? Possibly a little, but not in a way which
materially changes the conclusions (cf. the recent extensive
survey of this
controversy by Bailey et al). If the
reviewers above who challenge this think they can provide convincing evidence
that the norm for homosexual orientation is that it is changeable or that the
best evidence shows homosexual relationships and same-sex parenting to be
intrinsically harmful, then they have a job on their hands.
Some Comments on the Books
Amazing Love is likely to
become the most popular book making the case for revision in the Church, and
rightly so. Several reviewers have commented that it offers nothing new, but
that was not the point. However, I did feel that Andrew Davison’s appreciation
of Aquinas showed signs of coming through as something new in the short section
on ‘Paying attention to reality’, and this could have been developed further. ‘God’s
commands are not arbitrary. They are all about helping us to live more fully,
to be what we were made to be’ (p8). The conservative reviewers’ interpretation
of Scripture appears to be independent of the data from human experience; it
would be helpful to their case, but not necessary for knowing what is right, if
same sex relationships were intrinsically harmful, for example. Martin Davie is explicit that such relationships may be beneficial temporally,
but eternally damning. There are differences here at the level of the doctrine
of God and creation.
The section on the ‘unfolding’ of revelation was useful in principle,
though I wasn’t convinced by the idea that a progression is due to God only
communicating what ‘we can assimilate’. Jesus spoke much that was not
understood, and the communication of Christ himself could hardly have waited
until people were ready to understand fully. Something of the interaction
between faith and the Spirit and revelation is missing here.
The three-page chapter ‘Being in Love’ has come in for some criticism,
and it has to be said it leaves itself open by making it all seem so simple: ‘…do
we first also need some special theology of same-sex love? No – we don’t. Love
is love… We can take this love – these relationships, these people – into the
heart of the Church because that’s what we do with love…’ Unintentionally, I
suspect, this is open to being read as something like ‘situation ethics’ – just
do what looks and feels like the most loving thing – an attractive and
dangerous shortcut, bypassing the Church’s discernment as a body. If this
reflects some impatience, it is understandable, and on the question of the
right balance between passion and cool rationality, it’s ‘no win’ for advocates
such as these authors.
Journeys is best read as
testimony, very much in keeping with the spirit of the ‘Shared Conversations’,
and to be welcomed rather than criticised regarding the scholarship. I’d be
just as ready to read a collection from ‘Leading Liberals’ who have come to a
conservative position, if it were possible. No chapter alone, nor the book as a
whole, is likely to convince many people, and it doesn’t make a sufficient case
for me. But it does make the point, as does Amazing
Love, that advocates for change include those of conservative theological
persuasion. The authors include Gavin Collins, contemporary with me as an
ordinand at Trinity College Bristol, and David Runcorn, a tutor there at the
time. (The Principal from that era, Bishop David Gillett, is a surprising omission
from the book.) All this is useful in exposing the false dilemma, often posed by
some who hold a conservative position, which likes to identify advocacy for
change with disregard for Scripture.
Journeys is the right word, because
it shows that whatever position we now hold, it is not justified by a view from
nowhere, as if a supposed dispassionate, objective, left brain assessment of
the scholarship is the route to truth. That is no deficiency, simply a
recognition that the whole of ourselves is involved in forming where we place
our trust, especially including the relationships we find ourselves in. That
the Church discerns truth as a body is the wider expression of this.
Thinking Again is a different
animal, longer, more demanding, more theological jargon, but not scholarship
for scholars either (it includes suggestions for further reading). If Synod
members are as well read as they should be, then this is the book which would better
have been circulated, to help their thinking go wider and deeper. Copies should
certainly be sent to all members of the House of Bishops.
It is most helpful in setting a wider context for thinking about
marriage. A common standpoint of the authors is that they are ‘circumspect
about the idea that marriage is a “creation good”, something instituted by God
at the beginning of creation and understood as basically unchanging’. Mike
Higton and Charlotte Methuen demonstrate that marriage is something which
people have had to think about through history, and think differently at
different times, and our duty is to respond to the ‘call to discover together
the possibilities of godly growth and transformation that our created natures
give us’. Susannah Cornwall turns around the argument of Pope John Paul II,
that the specific embodiment of males and females should not be disparaged, by
saying that what matters is that ‘we are faithful to these sexed bodies, not to mythical or theoretical ones’, i.e.
thinking more about specific embodiment, not less.
Ben Fulford steps back from the usual biblical texts to see ‘the
Scriptures primarily as testimonies to the identities of God and creatures, and
as patterns proposed to the people of God for discerning their lived response
to God’. This doesn’t bring our thinking to an end but conditions our
reasoning, giving priority to the story of Jesus. Some will find it frustrating
that he never gets to the usual texts, and argues that he would need to do a
lot more work beforehand.
There’s much more, which convinced or engaged me to varying degrees, and
it’s all summed up very well by Rachel Muers in the final chapter: ‘…if we were
to stop thinking about marriage in terms of an ideal to be “lived up to” (and thus, inevitably, “fallen
short of”), and instead to see it more as a vocation to be lived in to, we might be able to recognize and
celebrate more of the gifts that real marriages offer to theology’.
