FIVE UNEASY PIECES: Essays on Scripture and Sexuality

Introduction by Michael Kirby

Foreword by Bill Countryman

~~~

FOREWORD

The Hon. Michael Kirby AC CMG

Inconvenient truths:

There is no doubt about it. The Christian Churches (and doubtless other religions) have got themselves into a terrible pickle over human sexuality. The source of the mess is the age old problem of the Text. And the human disinclination, in the face of new knowledge, to adjust to the necessities of new thinking.

After twentieth century advances in psychological knowledge were reinforced by the revelations by Alfred Kinsey concerning the relevantly stable and widespread appearance of minority sexual attraction, it became more and more difficult to assert that members of these minorities (mostly homosexuals and bisexuals) were ‘evil’ people, in a tiny minority, who were ‘wickedly¡’ choosing expressions of sexuality ‘contrary to the order of nature’.
For them, it appeared, their minority inclinations were (on the contrary) the very expression of their nature. Still later research suggested that in some (perhaps many) cases, they were actually the product of genetic hard-wiring, over which the persons concerned had no more choice than they did over their skin and hair colour, eye pigmentation, height, gender and left or right handedness.

These inconvenient truths began to spread throughout the world after the 1950s. What commenced as a trickle of research soon became a wild fire so that now it has spread everywhere. One would have to be living on a remote desert island to be unaware of the proliferating investigations about human sexual variations undertaken by the scientists. They have been intrepid in their pursuit of verities long hidden. And their revelations have been taken up by the subjects of the research themselves: gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, intersex, and otherwise ‘queer’ (GLBTIQ) people. And pressed upon everyone who will listen and some who will not. With an energy born out of a repression lately thrown off, just as the prisoners in Beethoven’s Fidelio threw off their chains as liberation finally arrived.

Anglican compromise

So what have the Christian Churches done in response to these unpleasant and unwelcome discoveries of science? Well, most of them have prevaricated. A minority have accepted the inevitable and begun to re-think their intellectual and spiritual positions. I am proud to say that many of the Christian leaders who have adopted the latter stance have been Anglicans ¡V the denomination of Christianity in which I was raised: in the sternly Protestant tradition of the Sydney Diocese. That simple faith disclaimed too much ceremony. It found its roots in the revolutionary doctrinal Christianity of Jesus of the manger, and of the Cross. Other Christian denominations have taken a similar stance, particularly some in the non-conformist traditions now gathered in the United or Uniting Churches. Still, other Christian Churches have not been so friendly. They include the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and the Pentecostal traditions which, for differing reasons, have generally tried to cling onto old beliefs and to cite old Biblical texts in support of doing so.

Bishop Desmond Tutu, one time Anglican Archbishop in South Africa, who had earlier tasted the sting of racial discrimination, has been a valiant defender of the equality and dignity of GLBTIQ people. He has explained that he could no more embrace the hatred and discrimination of Christian brothers and sisters against the sexual minority than he could embrace the racism of apartheid, now overthrown. The Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. Rowan Williams) appeared, at first, to be of a similar mind. Until the practical realities of holding the Anglican flock together was brought home to him at Lambeth, since when he has been struggling to accommodate the irreconcilable tensions in the worldwide Anglican Communion.

Nevertheless, the issue of adjustment to scientific reality has certainly begun in my denomination. Not all that surprising. From the beginning, Anglicanism has been a branch of Christianity that has had to reconcile itself to internal conflict and disagreement within the one institutional tradition: the Catholic, ceremonial, authoritarian ways of the old Church. The sparse, undecorated Protestant, bookish ways of the new. This uneasy dialogue continues. This book is, in a sense, a contribution to that dialogue. It offers intellectual insights into the tradition of internal institutional ambivalence which has so far proved the saving grace of Anglicanism: protecting its adherents from the extreme of the contesting claims of eternal rectitude:

‘It has been the wisdom of the Church of England, ever since the first compiling of her publick Liturgy, to keep the mean between the two extremes, of too much stiffness in refusing, and of too much easiness in admitting, any variation from it. For, as on the one side common experience sheweth, that where a change has been made of things advisedly established (no evident necessity so requiring) sundry inconveniences have thereupon ensued; and those many times more and greater than the evils, that were intended to be remedied by such change: So on the other side, the particular Forms of Divine worship and the Rites and ceremonies appointed to be used therein, being things in their own nature indifferent, and alterable, and so acknowledged; it is but reasonable, that upon weighty and important considerations, according to the various exigencies of times and occasions, such changes and alterations be made therein, as those that are in place of Authority should from time to time seem either necessary or expedient.¨1

And not only in Liturgy, but also in the understanding of sacred texts.

An unstable resolution

Of course, the Christian churches (and other beliefs) could simply ignore the instruction and discoveries that science is presenting. They could go on believing that GLBTIQ people (including in the families, friends and neighbours in the congregation) are simply ‘wicked’, or ‘inclined to evil’. They could go on citing the old texts and denouncing those who urge new understandings and new beliefs. They could continue suggesting that these GLBTIQ people are nasty and unnatural types who persist in defying God¡¦s ordinance to pursue their unconventional ‘lifestyle’. How dismissive is that word ‘lifestyle’. Yet it is the word that is constantly used by the Holy See at international conferences, where a most unholy alliance is often forged with the International Islamic Conference in preaching the continuation of the old ways and old beliefs, grounded in the old texts.

So here comes the pickle. Science has made it so intolerable for intelligent leaders of Christian Churches that they are finding it more and more difficult to assert that GLBTIQ people are wicked in themselves. In the face of expanding knowledge about variation of sexual orientation, to do this would be as foolish as to preach the inherent wickedness of women; or of left-handed people (although each of these assertions has been tried in the past at various times).
In this way, an unstable compromise has been brought about. It has resulted in the suggestion from important church authorities (including some in Anglicanism and including my own Bishop in Sydney) that adherents to Christianity must not discriminate against people simply because of their sexual orientation. Poor things, they cannot help their warped inclination to ‘evil’ acts. But people of this orientation must be told, kindly but firmly, that they must never ever do anything that follows naturally for them because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. They must sin, if at all, only in their minds and in their imaginations. And quietly. They must never have lovers with whom they can share acts of physical intimacy. They must never create domestic arrangements of tenderness and love. They must somehow sublimate their feelings in this regard ¡V life long. No act of a sexual kind must ever be allowed. And no faithful, long-term, relationships between them must be recognised. No desire for children must be fulfilled. No family celebration must be permitted. No civil law should be changed to recognise the truth and reality of this minority. Like the black majority in South Africa, they must forever be cast into a kind of sexual apartheid, where their rights are denied and their desires frustrated. This is the command of scripture. It must be obeyed.
I say that this is an ‘unstable’ instruction for obvious reasons. A desire for sexual expression is part of the powerful hard-wiring of every human being. Celibacy does not come naturally to humans. (It does not come at all to other species). The recent record of so-called celibate religious people has been so disappointing, in so many countries, and so damaging to the Churches of Jesus, that one would think that religious people, above all would realise the unreasonable nature of demands for widespread global celibacy. Particularly on the part of a huge number of human beings (say 4% of 6 billion) who are not inclined by vocation, profession, or immediate necessity to embrace celibacy: the one sexual inclination that Freud was prepared to describe as ‘unnatural’.

So, in so far as the Christian denominations recognise GLBTIQ realities but demand celibacy, they, of all people, should appreciate that it is unreasonable, irrational and is just not going to happen. Certainly, it cannot be a permanent solution to the quandary of how to deal with this pesky minority which, now supported by science, lawyers and fellow citizens, is standing up and demanding its rights to human dignity, respect, equality and legal recognition.

Responses to the instability

So what can happen in present circumstances? What is the next step in this international game of chess as the pieces on the board are quickly being moved in radical and surprising ways, undreamt of in earlier generations?
The first response is one which increasing numbers of Australians, and others, are embracing: agnosticism or atheism. Or just plain indifference to the instruction of the Christian Churches. Already this was the response that greeted earlier demands addressed to Christian communities by the organised Churches in respect of contraception, women’s sexuality, in vitro fertilisation and other changes brought about with advances of science and modern knowledge. According to the Australian census, the community of non-believes is the fastest growing ‘religion’ in the Australian nation. When, recently, we filled in our 2011 census form, my partner and I differed as we have long done. He proudly answered ‘no religion’. Equally proudly, I affirmed my adherence to Anglican Christianity. Over 42 years, we have had many constructive discussions on this issue. But neither of us will shift. I have to acknowledge that his beliefs seem to be attracting increasing support in my community. I also must acknowledge a greater understanding of his position than I held when we first met, so many decades ago.

A second response can be described as ‘business as usual’. Stick to the old ways. Change nothing. Rely on traditions stretching back even to the Book of Genesis in the Old Testament and to the holiness code in the Book of Leviticus, as we have understood it. With modest adjustments to recognising the need to discourage actual violence against GLBTIQ people, this has been the most usual response of the Christian Churches in the West over the past 50 years. Perhaps it cannot be maintained forever: any more than the long held belief that earth was the centre of the universe; that the sun circled around the earth, not vice versa; that the world was created in six days about 5,000 years ago; and that animals and beasts of the field and birds of the air were ‘things’ put on earth solely for man’s pleasure and use, not sentient beings with feelings of pain and fear to be respected.

Ultimately, Christian people, for the most part, adjusted their thinking and understanding of Scripture to the science taught by Darwin and his scientific successors. But it was a mighty struggle for a time. And in some parts of the world, the struggle goes on. We are still in the midst of the struggle in relation to the science of sexuality. Perhaps we should just leave things to evolve. Where big changes are required, and conservative institutions and personalities are involved, we should not rush things.

However, things are being rushed, to some extent, because there is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come. Once the scientific truth about sexuality arrived in the human consciousness, like the earlier Darwinian evolution, it could not be suppressed. Good people, including most Christian people, are now beginning to feel very uncomfortable indeed about being nasty towards the ‘lifestyle’ of people whose sexual orientation is different from their own. They are beginning to recognise the need to accept the legitimacy and necessity of human and sexual relations, including for minorities. So long as those minorities are adult, acting by mutual consent and conducting themselves in private, the legitimacy of their conduct is increasingly accepted by others who recognise, in themselves, the needs for, and social utility of, loving and supporting human relationships and being at peace with one¡¦s basic identity. The attributes that bind such relationships together make them strong and socially workable. And ordinary citizens around the world, including churchgoers, are coming to realise this.

So this is where the subject matter of this book comes in. Once it is realised that a (proportionately small, but in numbers very large) group of people have a sexual orientation different from the majority, a real puzzle is presented to spiritual people. Why would God as the Creator make a significant cohort of people inclined by their natures to ‘evil’ acts? Why be so perverse as to plant in them an inclination to ‘wickedness’? Why, in the face of evidence of their long-term loving and faithful relationships amongst them, would the Almighty want to deny happy and loving contact which, objectively, does no harm to anyone? And actually strengthens society and is good for the physical and psychic health of all those concerned?

The realisation of these truths, and of the apparent incompatibility of the past understandings of scriptural texts to the contrary, has led the authors of this book to explore the scriptural sources that are said to stand in the way of a kinder and more inclusive view about sexual variation. Not only do our past understandings appear to conflict with the concept of a universal and loving God. They are also understandings that seem specially out of harmony the New Covenant, with the simple message that Jesus Christ came to teach us all.

Hermeneutics and law

I am no expert in hermeneutics 2. But I know enough about legal interpretation of ancient texts to recognise some of the common features that exist in my discipline and in the more ancient discipline of unravelling the meanings of biblical passages.

When I was studying law in Sydney in the 1950s, the tradition of the English law that we learnt was one that generally demanded a literal and verbal interpretation of binding texts. So unrealistic were the outcomes often produced by that approach (especially in the interpretation of enduring documents like national constitutions) that, in the intervening years, a new doctrine began to emerge. It has demanded attention not only to the text of words; but also to the context in which those words appear; and the purpose or policy which the words appear to reveal. Increasingly, in the law, we have come to realise that interpretation is an art, not a science. That values are inevitably important considerations for ascertaining meaning. How much more true must this be of Holy Scripture, as of the words of man?

Thus, the several authors of the chapters of this book have examined, successively the passages in the Book of Genesis and of Leviticus in the Old Testament and the Letters of Paul to the Romans and to Timothy in the New Testament, which together provide the textual foundations for the worldwide animosity and even hatred towards sexual minorities. These essays are understandable to me because they approach the tasks in hand in ways that seem more consonant with the developments of approaches to interpretation that we now follow in courts of law throughout the English-speaking world. The old literalists are, largely, dying off. Though some of them remain to do mischief in the law, as certainly they still do in Scripture.

I do not really regard these chapters as ‘Uneasy Pieces’. I regard them as full of ease and Grace. We should feel uneasy about the translation of words that causes cruelty and unkindness to vulnerable minorities. Surely we have learned enough in the last century about the error of those approaches to Scripture: including the source in St. Matthew’s Gospel which was the textual origin of the anti-Semitism, that fuelled the hatred of the Jews in Hitler’s Germany 3.

Eyes to see and ears to hear

The journey we are taking in this matter will not be completed quickly. It is a long journey because it comes after long held earlier understandings about the direction that we should take. But science today requires us to rethink the past Christian position. The essays in this book afford new light on how this may be done, with the legitimacy, integrity and the authenticity of true scholarship.
For those who contribute to this new enlightenment, in harmony with at least this Anglican¡¦s understanding of the New Covenant, I express thanks. I hope that this little book will be sent to bishops and archbishops and others of the Faithful in the Anglican Communion everywhere. And to those others too who have eyes to see and ears to hear the message of kindness and inclusiveness that lie at the very centre of this spiritual endeavour.

~~

MICHAEL KIRBY One time Justice of the High Court of Australia. Past President of the International Commission of Jurists. Member of the Eminent Persons Group on the Future of the Commonwealth of Nations.

1 The Preface to the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England, London, Eyre & Spottiswoode Limited

2  The art or science of interpretation, especially of Scripture. Commonly distinguished from exegesis or practical exposition. Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 2011.

3  Matthew, 27, 25: Then answered all the people [the Jews] and said, His blood be on us, and on our children¡¨.

(Published here with the author’s permission)

~~

Five Uneasy Pieces in ‘The Age’ newspaper:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/cause-still-has-long-way-to-go-says-gay-priest-20111128-1o38f.html

Review by Brendan Byrne SJ in The Melbourne Anglican, 6/03/2012:

http://www.melbourne.anglican.com.au/NewsAndViews/TMA/Pages/2012/2012-03/Viewpoint-hs-1-Homosexuality-revisited-001250.aspx

See also http://atf.org.au/files/atf/TOC/TOC%20Five%20Uneasy%20Pieces.pdf

And this: http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/turnbull-praises-the-great-dissenter-20110405-1d1vb.html