Why on earth are evangelical statements of this kind treated differently?

I was surprised to read in today's Guardian two particularly good comments, within the same article, by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Here, Justin Welby outlined the difficult position in which the Anglican Communion finds itself regarding gay marriage.

The first comment, which really outlines the difficult position, was the headline of the article. Welby suggested that African believers will be killed if the CofE accepts gay marriage. He told of the mass grave he had seen in Nigeria of 330 Christians who had been killed by their neighbours. He said this atrocity was justified by those who committed it this way: "If we leave a Christian community here we will all be made to become homosexual and so we will kill all the Christians".

Welby went on to say "I have stood by gravesides in Africa of a group of Christians who had been attacked because of something that had happened in America. We have to listen to that. We have to be aware of the fact". If the Church of England celebrated gay marriages, he added, "the impact of that on Christians far from here, in South Sudan, Pakistan, Nigeria and other places would be absolutely catastrophic. Everything we say here goes round the world".

Welby is right to outline this issue. The Anglican Church does not operate in a Western Liberal bubble and its pronouncements are felt across the world. Moreover, it is not only those who subscribe to Anglicanism who are affected. All Christians will feel the brunt of their decisions and statements, irrespective of whether they themselves are Anglican communicants. Most people do not have enough theological nuance to differentiate between denominations and theological views. Typically, whether believers like it or not, Anglicanism is seen as the authentic voice of Christianity across the world. As such, not only do CofE pronouncements affect Anglican believers, they have knock-on effects for all Christians, especially those in countries in which Christianity is less than welcome.

However, the far more interesting part of the article came later, almost as an aside. The article stated:

Welby also condemned homophobia in England. "To treat every human being with equal importance and dignity is a fundamental part of being a Christian," he said. Although he continued to uphold what he called the historic position of the church, of "sex only within marriage and marriage only between a man and a woman", he agreed with the presenter, James O'Brien, that it was "completely unacceptable" for the church to condemn homosexual people more than adulterous heterosexual people.

This is the closest statement to the scriptural position on gay marriage I have seen from the Archbishop and it was this that caught my attention. 

As a caveat, I appreciate there are some fundamentalist, and fewer evangelical, churches who would not frame the Christian position in this way. There are those who would major on homosexuality in a thoroughly unhelpful (and unbiblical?) way. I also appreciate there are those who, though they would make similar comments, say and do a series of other things that rather undermine their stated position. Again, however, I think these churches are in the minority within both fundamentalist and evangelical circles.

This was the thing that interested me most. The Guardian, the paper most likely to cry foul play on this issue, reported fairly that the Archbishop "condemned homophobia". They rightly stated the scriptural position that all people should be treated with dignity and respect - irrespective of whatever sin they may have committed - as "a fundamental part of being a Christian". All of this was stated alongside the clear view of the Archbishop that sex is for marriage between a man and a woman but that it is nevertheless wrong to condemn homosexual behaviour more than adulterous heterosexual behaviour. All of that, I completely endorse.

Why then, given the Archbishop of Canterbury was deemed - by the Guardian no less - to have "condemned homophobia", do evangelicals who make exactly the same case get castigated as homophobic? Almost every evangelical church I have known (with few exceptions), would state the position of scripture and their individual, independent churches in almost exactly those terms. 

Recently, evangelical writer and rector of St Ebbes, Oxford - Vaughan Roberts - expressed precisely this view in an interview for Evangelical Now, as well as in his book Battles Christians Face. In both interview and book, he bravely spoke of his own personal struggle with same-sex attraction. Other evangelical writers have written similar articles and books making much the same case. It simply beggars belief that this statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury can be deemed to condemn homophobia whilst nigh on identical statements from evangelical quarters are roundly condemned as homophobic.

If the scriptural position stated by Justin Welby is recognised as condemning homophobia, continual claims of evangelical homophobia need to be addressed. If it be homophobic to call homosexual acts (whilst still respecting the rights and dignity of those attracted to people of the same-sex) sinful, in precisely the same way as calling adulterous heterosexuality (whilst still respecting the rights and dignity of those people) sinful, then it is hard to see how Justin Welby's comments escape this charge. If, however, the scriptural view is not deemed fundamentally homophobic - that all people irrespective of the particular sins they commit (of which, we all commit some) are worthy of dignity and respect but that any sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage does amount to sin - then Justin Welby, the CofE and the majority of evangelical churches cannot, and should not, be labelled uniformly homophobic.

I would love it if this signals a change in media reporting. I would be delighted if this means the genuine nuances of the scriptural view, and majority position within evangelicalism, are reported fairly. It would be great if Christians are not simply denounced as homophobic when they differentiate the choice to commit homosexual acts from the homosexual people who do not choose to be attracted to people of the same-sex. This is exactly the same as the differentiation between the heterosexual people who do not choose to be attracted to people of the opposite sex but do choose when, and with whom, to engage in sexual activity. 

When evangelicals speak of homosexuality as sinful, they rarely mean same-sex attraction is of itself sinful, intentional and chosen. I hope these nuances are reported fairly and this marks a sea-change in the way evangelical, and broader Christian, views of homosexuality are seen in the media and the public square. I hope this is the case but I shan't hold my breath.

Gay Marriage (again)

It was reported in Tuesday's Telegraph that UKIP would "strip Christian weddings of their legal status". Similarly, ten days earlier, Simon Hughes - Liberal Democrat justice minister - said Christian wedding ceremonies "should have no legal status". In both cases, an argument was advanced for the separation of Church and State. Under such rules, all religious groups (not just Christians) would be expected to undertake two ceremonies: a state-recognised marriage followed by a religious ceremony if the couple wish. Hughes argued "you would have a ceremony by which the state recognises the marriage, the wedding, and then the faith community has the ceremony which gives that the authority”. The Archbishop Cranmer blog has commented on the UKIP story here whilst The Christian Institute report on Simon Hughes' comments here.

This blog has made no secret of its position on either Church/State separation (see here, here & here) or gay marriage (see here & here). Rather unusually, one finds oneself in agreement with both UKIP and the Liberal Democrats simultaneously.

For Cranmer, the issue revolves around the disestablishment of the Church of England coupled to his rampant Euro-scepticism. The position espoused by Farage and Hughes would necessitate the disestablishment of the state church which, to His Grace, would be anathema. For the Christian Institute, much of the issue revolves around parity for homosexual marriage. Having previously denounced civil partnerships as "gay marriage in all but name" (see here & here), it is difficult for them to maintain "although the media and some homosexuals like to call civil partnerships ‘gay marriages’, they are not marriages in law or in reality" as they have since tried (see here). Their argument revolves around the existence of civil partnerships which, they claim, make gay marriage null and void. In truth, the objection is less about legal parity as cultural equality, an issue on which the boat sailed some while ago.

For the Christian, it is always difficult to work one's faith out in the public square. What are the issues on which we ought to legislate? Should we seek to implement scriptural commands in civil law? If so, which? How far do we allow for cultural mores that seem antithetical to scripture? Before we can answer the questions surrounding gay marriage, we must first address these basic first principles (my attempt to answer some of these can be read here). 

The non-conformist, dissenting tradition to which I belong has a long history of seeking freedom as a disenfranchised group. How sad it is that many now view evangelicals, most of whom belong to this camp, as limiting to themselves the freedoms for which they fought bitter battles. It is equally unfortunate that those who holds such views often fail to recognise it is precisely those battles won long ago that allow minority groups the freedom to campaign for their own interests over and against the opinion of many evangelicals.

On the issue of gay marriage, the proposals outlined by Farage and Hughes provide an opportunity for Christians to support another minority group's right to freedom (as we ourselves would expect from others) whilst maintaining a clear, scriptural view of the issue at hand. The State may grant legal, contractual living agreements to whomever it will whilst, with the separation of Church and State, the Church may provide ceremonies for whomever it will too. This solution removes discrimination at state level, the absurdity of certain churches forbidden to carry out ceremonies against their wishes whilst affording no protection to those who cannot countenance carrying them out, and grants legal parity to all whilst making provision for each to carry out their marriage (both institution and individual) in the manner befitting their belief and culture.

Coalition for Marriage and the end of the English language (supposedly)

Andy Evans has written an insightful piece regarding the Coalition for Marriage (C4M) claim that government provision for same sex marriage will lead to the dismantling of the English language as we know it. You can view the C4M video here.

I won't expand on Andy's comment too much as he has been much more erudite than me. I will limit myself to the following comments:

• Andy is right to agree this is something of a mangling of language but is absolutely correct this has always been the nature of language itself. So, in reality, this doesn't represent anything of a new departure.
• It is true that people can call whatever they like, whatever they like. As highlighted by this video, we often use such arguments in apologetics. We can rob any word of all its meaning and invest it of any characteristics we will. Ultimately, however, the characteristics of a thing are what define the thing itself, not the word we ascribe to it. We have no problem whatsoever making this connection in respect to defending the existence of God (we can call him a computer if we will), so why should this issue be any different?
• Whilst I am sure C4M have some good points they could make, I'm afraid this simply is not one of them. As Andy rightly notes, this is misleading and manipulative. In truth, such misinformation hardly helps the cause of those who support C4M. Christian people should be characterised by truth and light; this latest video can hardly be said to be that.

Redefining Marriage and the C4M

A few days ago I read a great piece on the Coalition for Marriage over at Andy's Study. I'm in broad agreement with his conclusions which, unsurprisingly, are largely the same as my reasons for not signing the petition. Interestingly, Matthew Parris has also joined the debate and made similar arguments in his Times column (which have since been picked up by the Christian Institute). There are a few comments I think worth adding.

It is true that the crux of the argument seems to revolve around who defines the word 'marriage'. Frankly, I find it odd that this has caused any argument at all. The reality is anybody can call anything whatever they will. Simply because one person chooses to define something in a particular way doesn't necessarily make it so. That Christians want to define marriage in a particular way does not necessarily make marriage that which they define. Similarly, that the government want to define marriage in a different way does nothing to alter the reality of what a marriage actually is. The suggestions of Andy's Study and Matthew Parris seem to recognise this and therefore suggest, legally, we do not define marriage at all and allow each his own definition (right or wrong though that definition may be). 

Legally, it seems right to me that all people should have access to the same rights and freedoms (for more fully formed thoughts on this see Should Christians try to bring biblical law into civil society). Contracts to formalise living arrangements - and let's be under no illusions, legally speaking, marriage is not much more than this - should be available to anyone who wants them be they brother and sister, uncle and nephew, or whatever. Civil Partnerships, although currently not available to a whole host of people (a result of the ill-conceived ideas surrounding the legal definition of marriage), would seem to be the natural answer to this. One can have a Civil Partnership, a purely legal contract, without being married. Likewise, those who view marriage as important can have a Civil Partnership as well as being married according to whatever definition they choose to take.

Unfortunately, Christians who are now agitating about the legal definition of marriage somewhat shot themselves in the foot during the debate surrounding the introduction of Civil Partnerships. Had Christians accepted from the outset that Civil Partnership were not marriage, nor equivalent to marriage, the simple solution would be to implement them, available to all, as protection in law alongside marriage for those who deemed it important. Sadly, the fuss kicked up by Christians (see comments by the Christian Institute) make it profoundly unlikely that many will view this as an acceptable solution.

It is a sad reality that many Christians are keen to gain freedoms for themselves and less keen to win them for others. There is irony in that many of those in the dissenting tradition, once a disenfranchised group active in seeking freedoms for many, are now the very people arguing against the freedoms they have been granted. Admittedly, this is far from a phenomenon limited to Christians - it seems to be a very human reaction - however, as Christians we are surely called to be different (again, for more fully formed thoughts on this, see Right-wing Evangelicalism has forgotten its heritage).

I am convinced the answer lies in removing legal definitions of marriage altogether and replacing it with a contract in the form of Civil Partnerships. The only issue that would remain is whether churches would be required to carry out same-sex Civil Partnerships. The sensible answer would seem to be that churches would never carry out any Civil Partnerships, only marriages (in accordance with their own definition - hopefully biblical - of the term). Therefore, civil partnerships - the legal contract - would only be conducted by the State and marriages would be carried out by whomever wished to do so in accordance with their own definitions of what that entails.