The Case for the Recognition of Same-Sex Relationship - Essay Example

The Case for the Recognition of Same-Sex Relationship Clearly, same-sex relationship remains a controversial and polarizing issue, particularly in many Western societies wherein the legal and social norms emphasize equality. In recent years, the gay movement has effectively promoted its cause to the point that same sex relationship and same sex marriage became an issue of civil rights. There are now several Western countries that opted to adopt the legalization of same-sex marriage. In the political and legal spheres, the recognition can come easily especially for democratic s states – those with Constitutions that mandate equality, freedom, tolerance and diversity. The case, however, is not as easy on the part of religious organizations. Recognizing same sex relationships and union are still widely viewed as against what is prescribed by Biblical law and that a homosexual recognition undermines one of the core values upon which religions, particularly, Christianity is based on.1 Yet, religious organizations are under increasing pressure from various groups, sectors and even the very legal landscape that they operate in. In this condition, churches are faced with the issue of relevance, tolerance and sometimes accusations of bigotry for its refusal to accept homosexual union. In order to address these dilemmas, the Church of England, through its Council of Bishops, issued the Report of the House of Bishops: Working Group on Human Sexuality or more popularly known as the Pilling Report released in 2013. This particular report is important because it marks a shift in religious perspective towards the gay issue. A suggestion was proposed for local churches to hold services that are marked as same sex unions. However, this is still not an official recognition but an ambiguous suggestion that passes the responsibility to the local churches. With this particular position the Church of England risks muddling the issue further. Since it has already addressed the issue in the first place and gave some religious ground, the Church, therefore, ought to recognize same sex relationships and homosexual unions. The Pilling Report The Pilling Report becomes the most important material to date that so far indicates an emerging position on the part of the Church of England. While, there is no tacit approval given to same-sex relationship, it contains statements and explanations that signal could pave the way for this ultimate outcome. This paper, therefore, will heavily draw from the report in arguing that the Church of England should already recognize same-sex relationship and as well as formally officiate same-sex unions. The Pilling Report is divided into three sections. The first part introduces the composition of the working group, including the rationale for its establishment. This section also included outline of the current teachings of the Church of England, serving as the standard against which all the discussions, evidences and recommendations were evaluated. The second part includes the summary of the homosexual issue and the evidences for and against it in religious and even scientific contexts. The discussion is contained in the third section while the findings and recommendations were stated in the final section. The Changing Times The overall tone that is perhaps sweeping the Church of England can be depicted in the statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury about his experience in the House of Lords debate on same sex marriage delivered before the General Synod in 2013. This statement also opened Pilling Report, underscoring its perceived importance especially from policymaking perspective. To quote: The cultural and political ground is changing… There was a noticeable hostility to the view of the churches. I am not proposing new policy, but what I felt then and feel now is that some of what was said by those supporting the bill was uncomfortably close to the bone… We may or may not like it, but we must accept that there is a revolution in the area of sexuality, and we have not fully heard it.2 The bishop’s sentiment echoes the reality that faces the church today. It provides several insights to the issue that underpin why the church must make a position on same sex marriage and why such position must be in the affirmative. First there is the issue of the “revolution”. The social and political acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual relationships is changing the landscape of human relations. Most importantly, there is the fact the state has already legalized same-sex marriage. Britain passed the law in March 2014, effectively making same sex union legal in England and Wales and Scotland immediately followed suit with a similar law taking effect last December 2014.3 The state is very clear with respect to the legalization of the same-sex marriage. Prime Minister David Cameron stressed that it is part of Britain’s “tradition of respect, tolerance and equal worth,” further citing that achievement in ensuring that “gays or straights” are now equal in the eyes of the law.4 The implication of this development is important since it would clearly establish and reinforce new social norms with respect to homosexuality. The most important is, of course, the recognition of homosexuals and their practices. The implied legal view is that doing otherwise would be tantamount to discrimination. It would not be unlike refusing a black man to sit with a white man in a pub or rejecting a job applicant on account of gender. This alone is enough to change the public’s mind today and in the future. What this means is that more and more homosexuals and their lifestyle would be accepted and their relationships could lead to partnerships. This last would inevitably lead to civil unions and a new type of family with different composition. To put it another, “relationship” in general including familial relations will be redefined. The above points are critical because the family is the basic unit of the society. It is where the development of individuals begins and continues way until adulthood. Without the guidance of the Church, many individuals would be growing without strong Christian values. This was highlighted in piece written by Reverend Jessica Martin, which received an important highlight in the report. Particularly, the concept of modern reality was underscored wherein family and human interactions continuously struggle against consumerism, materialism and a potent advertising culture. Christians values, Reverend Martin stressed, are necessary in navigating all these so that people grow old nourished, contributing to the flourishing of the individual and the community.5 By rejecting all the above developments, the Church will not only be alienating the public but it would also risk the opportunity to minister and guide a significant portion of the population. The Pilling Report cited important statistics that indicate not just the large number of people who identify themselves as homosexuals but also the almost equal parity of the general public as well as identified Anglicans who believe that the Church recognition of same-sex union is correct.6 The figures do not necessarily need to be equal between those who agree and disagree but what is important is that there is a significant portion of the public who is clearly for same-sex recognition. On Purely Civil Union It is tempting to hold that same-sex union could then exist as a civil contract. This is within the framework of a firmly traditional position for the Church, wherein same-sex partnership cannot be recognized as church-sanctioned marriage and church-defined family but it is tolerated within the context of peaceful coexistence. This position could be seen as a compromise, one that guarantees that Church teachings and values remain the same while avoiding charges of discrimination and even bigotry. Simply put, the Church will refrain from condemning same-sex relationships in favor of respectful tolerance to appease critics and unfavorable public opinion. Here, if people want to enter into same-sex partnership, then it becomes a prerogative. A legal contract is available and the Church is hands-off on the matter. This is a viable alternative if only for the fact that the church can never adopt this position. Revered Martin again tells us why this is the case: No relationship, seen in the light of Christ, can be transactional or even purely contractual; all need to be properly attentive relationships which seek to recognize and to be recognized. People can never treat each other as if they were things, even by mutual agreement, because to do that is to damage the soul. Human bodies are sites for the sacred and holy… Our relationships are modeled on the generous pattern of Jesus, rooted on mutual trustfulness and not in the wielding of power for its own sake.7 The Church cannot divide the line for human relationships because such union will ultimately lead to the discourse of the family. Unfortunately, the Pilling report dangerously hovers close to this position as it maintains an ambiguous position. It is not unlike being fence-sitter or being advocate of the status quo. There is an imperative to resolve this issue and the only way to do so was for same-sex recognition. The Homosexuality Context In the introductory section of the second part of the Pilling Report2, where the evidences were outlined and discussed before the Working Group, it was proposed that the Church may have misunderstood human sexuality, particularly with respect to the contemporary socio-cultural conditions that exist in many of the world’s society.8 The report noted that “sexuality is something that we interpret, to ourselves, and to others, in terms moulded by culture.”9 These statements indicate an admission on the part of the Church that there could be new societal dynamics and variables that cannot be explained and addressed by existing religious teachings. There is, for instance, the area of human desire. The report noted that there are several factors unique to this age that wield influence on this specific aspect. A person loves or desires another according to the idealization that is dictated by culture or commodification, for example, in addition to other environmental and scientific variables such as genetics. These were not present when the core of the Church teachings were established. Therefore, it calls for a revision or an update of the rules and this include those that cover same-sex relationships. Another and the more important aspect to this issue of the Church’s misunderstanding or incompatibility with new socio-cultural phenomena that influence human relationships is the issue of context. This area is critical because it could ultimately underpin the imperative for a revision in the current teachings of the Church of England with respect to homosexuality. This context pertains to homosexuality in the Bible. Despite the Church’s strong opposition to this concept, there is actually no mention of the word homosexual or homosexuality in the holy text. There had been numerous studies that investigated this theme and these have so far revealed that the concept as we know of it today was not present, cited or discussed in the Bible.10 One can say that sodomy, which is specifically rejected in the Bible, has been mentioned but, again, this has different meaning and, again, it has different context. Sodomy in the Bible refers to the penetration involving orifice not intended for sexual contact.11 It also must be taken into account that the disapproval of this act was part of the wider context wherein the Holy text underscores the importance to the purpose of sexual union, which was to procreate. Suppose the authors of the Bible knew about the technological innovations that allow us to procreate today without resorting to sexual union with the opposite sex, would they then hold the same opinion or write the same view when it comes to marriage. Consider again, the various socio-cultural variables that are present today. Would they have any bearing at all, had the ancient theologians worked within this modern context? The popular story of Sodom and Gomorrah is perhaps the basis for much of Christianity’s attitude and teaching about homosexuality. There is the belief that the destruction of these two cities was on account of the homosexual practices of their people. However, this might not be the case because, as Alalade pointed out “the Old Testament ties the destruction with two major events: the efforts by the men of Sodom to rape the visiting angels, and for their unfair treatment of widows, orphaned children, visitors, and the poor.”12 God’s disapproval of homosexual orientation has never been mentioned anywhere in the Bible. The disapproval to same sex relations maybe cited in some parts but this human relationship was confined mainly to the act of sodomy and its consequences.13 Again, it is entirely different from the concept that we know today. Homosexuality, as a sexual orientation, wrote Alade, is a 20th century outlook on sexual behavior and certainly did not exist some thousands of years ago.14 Many scholars support this. Himbaza, Schenker and Edart, for instance, argued that the holy text presents normative and non-normative behaviours and was primarily a guide to the period typified by Abrahamic traditions.15 They stressed that: What the Scriptures purportedly say or do not say about homosexuality is central to some of the most contentious contemporary issues: from homosexual relations tout court, to gay marriage, gay adoption, military service, priestly and Episcopal ordinations.16 Clearly, the existing attitude maintained by the Church of England – as is the case in many Christian denominations – on homosexuality is an anachronism in modern times. This is particularly the case when one evaluates the Church position when it branded homosexuality as incompatible with the Scriptures in the1998 Lambeth Conference.17 A call for change in the church policy in this area could not be merely considered a reactionary response to a trend or temporary secular pressure. The issue of homosexuality encompass several other areas such as family, marriage, equality, occupation and way of life. It is, therefore, here to stay. Moreover, it will contribute in shaping the trajectory of human history today and in the future. There is an imperative to correct the current Anglican attitude on the issue; otherwise, the Church will be doing an injustice on a huge number of people and their way of life. Criticism The main criticism for the Church with respect to recognizing same-sex relationship involves the charge that, with this development, it is – in effect - letting society shape its teachings. For example, The Global South of the Anglican Communion released a statement in response to the Pilling Report where it was stated: The Church of England should not worry about the gap, or the principled tension, between the church and society, especially after the House of Lords and House of Commons accepted same-sex marriages. The Church should not allow the state to put pressure on it. Indeed, the Church needs to respond to the demands of the society, but not at the expense of its faith, practice, and unity. In fact, the Church needs to be the conscious (sic?) of the society, providing spiritual leadership and guidance. A faithful church will always have a principled tension between her and the society. This gap makes the church distinct as salt and light.18 Indeed, there are several parts in the Pilling Report that echoed the same sentiment. For instance, the Working Group pointed out that “to paint the trajectory of social trends concerning human sexuality as an inexorable progression to greater enlightenment is simply misleading” and that “Insisting that the Church should catch up with modern mores and be ‘relevant’ begs many questions.”19 In his dissenting opinion published in the report, the Bishop of Birkenhead, Keith Sinclair also pointed out that religion and the church of Christ will “undermine the discipleship and pastoral care of many faithful Christians and, by leading the Church into the kind of cultural captivity which much of the prophetic writings warn against, weaken our commitment to God’s mission.”20 The Bishop argued that Jesus never discriminates people who live in sin and immoral practices. His position argues that the he welcomes and embraces those who wish to repent and his church must provide the guidance in this path, particularly in the “inclusive call of the gospel” to radical discipleship and obedience.21 The above positions appear to be valid. There is a clear mandate for the church to provide a path to a righteous and holy way of life. Therefore, it should not be held hostage or be persuaded to change this stance just because of a strong public clamor or that there is a pressure from the state. However, it is helpful to remember that the issue of same-sex relationship stems from the church interpretation and attitude towards homosexual orientation. The report and the Bishop of Birkenhead himself recognized that church does not fully comprehend the dynamics and nature of human sexuality.22 There is a recognition of a great mystery, that despite the evidences presented by science and theology, one could still not comprehensively account for- and understand the interplay of genetics, environment, cultural and social influences that drive human desire and sexuality. Human responsibility in this area is therefore, still ambiguous and, hence, it is unjust to consider homosexuality, its orientation and practices as sinful, necessitating a call for repentance or rejection. Moreover, there is no clear passage in the Scriptures that describe homosexuality as a violation of God’s commands. To address the issue of change, that the church cannot be held hostage to contemporary social pressures, it is also important to recall the points and cases when the Church of England has changed its position on several issues within an enlightened reform framework. Precedence The Church of England has undergone several reforms and upheavals since its founding in the 1530s. The changes should provide insights as to the how and why behind the necessity of reform in the course of Church of England’s history. In its early years, the theology and practice have changed several times. This was transpired within the evolutionary period where the Church of England identifies texts, theological methods and styles that would establish the church identity.23 There are the cases, for instance, of the new pattern of worship introduced by the reformist Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer as well as the introduction of the confession for the Church, the Forty-two Articles, which - for its part – was revised to become the Thirty Nine Articles. This confession would be revised later in other confessional iterations. Perhaps, the most important change to Anglican doctrine emerged during the Elizabethan period when the via media or middle way doctrine was introduced. This established a major shift from the Church of England’s Catholic traditions towards reformist doctrines: sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia.24 These, effectively established a return to the roots of the Christian religion as well as the focus on the Scripture.25 It is also important to note that the Church of England has ecumenical councils and ecumenical creeds for purposes of revision, update and introduction of the church doctrines. What this means is that the Church has always anticipated the need for reform and that a framework is always ready in order to address change. To say that all of the Church teaching is infallible, rigid and can never be amended is therefore out of the question. A recent example, which bears striking resemblance to the issue of same-sex relationship, is the ordination of female ministers, which the General Synod of the Church of England confirmed in 1992. This established the precedence where doctrinal change is possible. Interestingly, the manner by which the Church approaches the issue of same-sex relationship and homosexuality is almost the same with the process of recognition for female priests: it began by relegating decisions to ordain female ministers to local parishes and diocese.26 One should probably take into account the organizational structure of the Anglican Communion in the area of policymaking. There is a great deal of independence given to local churches.27 A parish church in Durham, for instance, could declare that it is no longer under the jurisdiction of the diocese or it is adopting a different doctrine or liturgical practice and the leadership of the Church of England could do little about it. This is further supported by the fact that there are gay ministers who, themselves, have same-sex relationships and bless same-sex unions. A high profile case includes that of Canon Jeremy Pemberton, who defied the Church and married his partner. He was stripped of his work as a priest in the diocese of Southwell and Nottingham but the Church cannot dismiss him for his gay marriage because the Church’s position is that it is not a doctrinal issue.28 The current Church attitude towards same-sex relationship – as reflected in the support for the Pilling Report - appears to favor the normalization of the Church recognition through local church practice.29 The ordination of women went through this process before it finally gained the Church’s approval. This process may be better than outright rejection of same-sex relationships and some may view it as tacit approval on the part of Church authorities. However, it must be noted that it took decades before female priests were officially recognized. It is not recommended for the Church to adopt the same protracted process to resolve the homosexuality and same-sex union issues. This is the area where the Church could really make a social difference (in addition to its pastoral ministry objectives), particularly in eradicating the incidence of homophobia, which the Pilling Report noted with concern.30 Mission-shaped Church Through the years, particularly in the search for identity, the Church of England came to resemble the so-called mission-shaped church character. To put this in another way, in the search for identity, relevance and efficacy, the mission-shape church is increasingly becoming an imperative model for the Anglican Church. It is in this discourse that the view of homosexual relationship could be reconciled with the teachings and mission of the church. In a policy paper authored by a working group of the Church of England’s Mission and Public Affairs Council, the concept was defined within two themes: 1) that the Church is the fruit of God’s mission; and, 2) that as such it exists to serve and to participate in the ongoing mission of God.31 This conceptual framework for the Church allows it to be open to change since it embraces the idea of the changing times. Here, an impetus for new policy or the so-called “fresh expressions of the church” are called for in order to solve challenges and take advantages of opportunities for ministry.32 For instance, there is the change being called for in the organization of pastoral care. Cray explained: Churches needed to be planted into networks… However, it is now clear that the relationship between neighborhood and network is more complex. It is not sufficient to think of neighborhoods being supplemented by networks or of network churches as a s supplement to geographical parishes. Not only are networks more dominant for many people, but parishes are not what they used to be.33 The above example may call for a minor or structural change to the Church and, hence, does not call for radical change to doctrine and theology. However, it provides insights to the extent and degree of socio-cultural change that is transpiring today, including the incapacity of the church to address them in its existing hierarchy and attitude towards ministry. What is also interesting with the above evidence, according to Cray, is that the attempt at connecting with to the flock is no longer effective if the Church view them traditionally such as through the place where they live but. Rather, the situation became more complex as people are now supposed to be better approached through the manner in which they live.34 The explanation of new model of ministry was succinctly captured in the description of current situation and the proposal on how the Church should address it. The report stated: The Church has got to realize its missionary responsibilities. We live in a society, whether that be urban or rural, which is now basically second or even third generation pagan once again; and we cannot simply work on the premise that all we have to do to bring people to Christ is to ask them to remember their long-held, but dormant faith. Very many people have no residue of Christian faith at all; it’s not just dormant, it’s nonexistent; in so many instances we have to go back to basics; we are in a critical missionary situation.35 The mission-shaped church advocates for a change in the current policy where it is generally viewed that people must “come to the church”. Rather, a shift towards “going to them instead” was recommended so that the Church is better able to bring the gospel to the people and guide them in navigating the prevailing social and cultural forces so that they lead righteous lives. The case is supposedly no longer about the “where” but the “how”, wherein the Church is exhorted to connect with people and how they live.36 An understanding and the capability to link with people’s values, lifestyles and networks were underscored. In this context, homosexual relations becomes a mere structural problem in a more meaningful and important mission of going to the people to spread the word of God, invigorate their faith so that the ministered people themselves engage in their religious respective missions either by spreading the gospel or by leading a life with strong Christian values. This can finally address the harmful influences of the modern times. Conclusion In the Pilling Report, the Church of England officially committed itself to a continuing dialogue about same-sex relationship and same-sex marriage. Later Church pronouncements would echo this sentiment.37 For some, there is an ambiguity to the report, displaying no clear position about the issue. This is understandable given the divisions and differences in opinion of the bishops of the Church. This has been reflected in the Pilling Report and the succession of released Church statements in recent years. The most important change, however, is the recognition on the part of the Anglican Communion that a new policy deserves a strong consideration. Moreover, it has recognized the prerogative of local churches to decide for themselves whether they will or will not conduct same-sex blessings. This, for most signal, a shift in policy. This is the very factor why the Bishop of Birkenhead expressed his dissenting opinion. While there is no clear change to church policy, there is now a way to change the church teaching about homosexuality and same sex unions through practice. With the question of whether the Church of England must recognize same-sex relationship. The answer is a resounding yes. To do this early would mean less confusion among the flock, less time spent on debate and conflict and more time spent on updating the Church teaching so that the Church mission, which should be foremost among its concerns, could finally be given attention. Additionally, the Church can now contribute to addressing problems such as homophobia, the redefinition of marriage and the achievement of a truly diverse, tolerant and harmonious society. Bibliography Alade, D, Holy Bible Holy Koran: Almighty and All Powerful - Side by Side (Lulu 2011). BBC News, Same-sex marriage now legal as first couples wed BBC (March 2014) accessed 9 April 2015. Chapman, M, Anglican Theology (A&C Black 2012). Church of England, House of Bishops Pastoral Guidance on Same Sex Marriage Church of England (2014) accessed 10 April 2015. Church of England, The Ordination of Women to Priesthood: A Second Report (Church of England 1988). Brown, A, ‘Second priest defies Church of England to marry his same sex partner.’ The Guardian, (June 2014) accessed 11 April 2015. Cray, G, Mission-Shaped Church: Church Planting and Fresh Expressions of Church in a Changing Context (Church House Publishing 2009). Helminak, D, What the Bible really says about homosexuality: Recent findings by Top Scholars Offer a Radical New View (Alamo Square Distributors 2000). Estes, J, Anglican Manifesto: A Christian Response to One world Religion (Wipf and Stock Publishers 2014). Goddard, A, Rowan Williams: His Legacy (London: Lion Books 2013) Himbaza, I, Schenker, A and Edart J, The Bible on the Question of Homosexuality (CUA Press 2012). House of Bishops, Working Group on Human Sexuality (London: Church House Publishing 2013)10 Stott, J, Through the Bible, Through the Year: Daily Reflections from Genesis to Revelation (Baker Books 2011). The Global South of the Anglican Community. Global South Response to Pilling Report Shows Missiological Gulf. Archbishop Cranmer (2013) < http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2013/12/global-south-response-to-pilling-report.html> accessed 10 April 2015. Percy, M and Slocum, R, Point of Balance: The Weight and Measure of Anglicanism (Hymns Ancient and Modern Ltd. 2013). Vasey, M, Strangers and Friends: A New Exploration of Homosexuality and the Bible (Hodder and Stoughton 1995) Wold, D, Out of Order: Homosexuality in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (Baker Books 1998). Worsley, H, Anglican Church School Education: Moving Beyond the First Two Hundred Years (A&C Black 2013) 120. Legislations Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act of 2013 Marriage and Civil Parntership (Scotland) Act 2014 Read More