The church and gay unions: the most spiritual of divisions
James Barr
Monday, 3 April 2006
DESPITE protests by the Australian Christian Lobby and some churches over the ACT Civil Unions Bill, the opposition to civil unions for same-sex couples among the churches is far from unanimous.
There have always been homosexual people within local churches and there would be few congregations without at least one family where adult children or grandchildren have opted for a gay lifestyle. The pastoral and theological issues involving gay identity and relationships are complex, and it is not surprising that there are a range of responses held in good faith by Christians.
A strong and shared value in churches is faithfulness in relationships. Some of us interpret the bible to prohibit any form of homosexual relationship and conclude that any such relationship betrays faithfulness to God and our essential nature. Other Christians hold different assumptions about how the bible is to be read.
All of us recognise parts of the biblical witness as elements of culture that are not binding on Christians in a very different time and place. I know of no Christian today who seals a contract by placing his hand on the thigh of the person with whom he or she is solemnly contracting (akin to holding the other person’s genitals as a sign of trust). We no longer insist that a man should marry the widow of his brother and raise up children to his brother’s memory. This principle of interpretation (that some things, although clearly biblical, no longer apply) is accepted by all, it is just where the line is drawn that differs. At the heart of this difference in view are complex issues of theology and interpretation.
Some see the prohibition of homosexual activity and relationships as part of the abiding core of Christian teaching – others read it differently in the light of the teaching and principles of Jesus and how they are to be applied.
One of the clearest applications of this interpretive approach is the case of slavery.
Slavery was an accepted social and economic institution throughout the entire period of the bible. There is no biblical teaching to oppose or outlaw it and many passages that accept it and seek to regulate it. Slavery was finally rejected only in the 18th and 19th centuries after a campaign that argued there were other biblical passages and principles embodied in the teaching of Jesus that precluded it from a civilised and Christian society. Into the middle of the 19th century there were still those (many, alas, from my own denomination in the United States) who argued from the bible their right to own other human beings.
The irony of the current debate over civil unions for same-sex couples in the ACT is that both sides are motivated by a common value: faithfulness.
The opponents of the legislation see homosexual relationships as a breach of faithfulness because of their biblical reading of faithfulness in relationships. Those seeking the enactment of civil unions see an opportunity for same-sex couples to express their commitment to each other and protect important civil rights (such as the right to be involved in each other’s medical care and assign and receive property and assets) which are a part of keeping faith with each other.
These are issues not just of personal morality, but of social justice. Even those who hold moral and religious objections to the acceptance of homosexual relationships should acknowledge that the state has obligations to all its citizens. Where some people have chosen a particular lifestyle and desire the recognition of their relationships by the community, should the objections of another group preclude society responding? At stake here is our view of society.
There are states where religious leaders have a major role in shaping the legislation that governs social life. In its most extreme forms, people can be executed by the state for holding dissident religious views.
In some parts of the world people who convert to Christianity face the social sanction of execution.
In most religious faiths leaders try to influence the shape of social life and civil legislation. What differs is the extent to which they want control. Some want to see religious law enforced in full by the state (such as those who want sharia law adopted in their countries or regions). Others see only certain religious interests or social behaviours as needing state protection.
My own strand of the Christian tradition – I am a Baptist minister – was one of the first to argue that freedom of conscience and the separation of church and state were foundational to the ordering of the Christian community.
At a time when Christians were still burning people alive for heresy , my spiritual forebears argued that no one should be compelled in matters of conscience and should be free to believe and act (under the law) as they, in good conscience, saw fit. The corollary to this was that matters of religious faith should not be established by law or controlled by the state. Over the long conversation that we know as the Enlightenment, thinkers religious and secular refined these ideas until they became part of our way of life.
Of course, all people, including people of faith, have a right to put their views in the great debates over what governments should enact. But a key tenet of our way of life is that religion has no privileged voice.
In the debate over civil unions, Christian leaders know and support these principles.
Some Christians strongly oppose civil unions for homosexual couples, others see them as an appropriate response to the needs of a part of our community.
Reverend James Barr is a Senior Minister of the Canberra Baptist Church, Kingston.
Related Articles:
- Greece: can you believe this/them?
- Syria February 2012: Two Perspectives
- EGYPT: THE GROSS INSECURITY OF THE DHIMMI
- Female Circumcision in the Maldives, the Islamic Movement and Islamophobia
- Australia Day message
This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Australia License.
Discussion
No comments for “The church and gay unions: the most spiritual of divisions”