Gays and the Anglican church have been in the news in the past week or so, particularly at the Anglican general synod in Canberra. The global Anglican church has been brought to the brink of schism by the passionate attitudes unleashed in 2003 when a gay bishop was ordained in the United States and same-sex unions were blessed in Canada.

In Australia, where such controversial moves are not even on the horizon, the synod listened in respectful silence to the frequently distressing testimony of gay and lesbian people about how they were treated in the church. Negative attitudes have hardened, many claimed, so that in most churches gays and lesbian Christians are more comfortable in the closet than the pew, let alone the pulpit. On Saturday The Age gave several gays a voice.

The relation between religion and sexuality is a complex one that is easy to caricature but much more difficult to illuminate, as posters on my blog have demonstrated. Kneejerk positions on either side are not particularly helpful.

(NB: There is a reward for readers who get to the end.)

Matters are made more difficult partly because thoughtful and well-meaning people on both sides of the debate are acting as their conscience and principles demand, acknowledging and regretting the problems their position causes dissenters.

It doesn’t help that to many non-gays the dominant image of homosexuality comes from the Sydney Mardi Gras. As one of the accounts given to the Anglican synod said, “people get so hung up about gay relationships. They imagine they are only about sex. That is not true, any more than it is true about heterosexual relationships.” Nor does it help that many religious people accord homosexuality so much emphasis, as though the Bible did not condemn (for example) exploitation and injustice much more strongly.

However, regardless of whether Christians (and Muslims et al) should approve homosexual sex (they are required by law to accept it), there is no doubt that harsh attitudes inside the church have caused a great deal of pain to homosexual Christians, sometimes unthinkingly and sometimes viciously.

Negative judgments come from both sides, of course. As gay Anglican priest Nigel Wright told me, there’s plenty of anti-Christian prejudice in the gay community. In England, it is reported, a Christian couple have been forced to give up their 11-year-old foster son because they wouldn’t teach him that gay marriage was as acceptable as heterosexual marriage. Even if they agreed, why should they be forced to teach him about homosexual marriage at 11? That sort of political correctness – manipulating a troubled child to score ideological points – strikes me as bigoted cruelty and attempted thought control to match the worst of religious fundamentalism. (Later development: this decision has been reversed.)

Finally, no Christian, gay or heterosexual, advocates promiscuity, whether homosexual or heterosexual. The questions I am asking are not about sexual predators, homosexual or heterosexual. Faithful, committed relationships are certainly the ideal, I suspect, for non-believers too.

Please note that I am specifically not adopting a position on this blog. I am trying to keep my summary fair. Let’s keep the discussion polite. What are the key questions to ask in this debate? Is it a human rights issue or a moral issue, and how much can these be divided? Does banning same-sex unions protect marriage? Can Christians accept the Bible and homosexuality (or other religions and their sacred texts)? The traditional Christian position is that homosexual orientation is not wrong, only sexual activity (many priests, for example, are gay but celibate) – is this position reasonable or unfair?

And the reward,I promised: I was tickled by this report from Reuters, and hope you enjoy it too. A Singaporean judge sentenced a man to four months in jail for stealing a Bible, admonishing him with Scripture before hauling him off to prison, The Straits Times newspaper reported. District Judge Bala Reddy also gave a new Bible to the 26-year-old thief, who said he had tried to steal the book from a bookshop last month because he wanted to replace his old, tattered copy.

At the sentencing, the judge told the defendant – who has previous convictions for theft – to open his gift. “You will see at page 65 that it says “Thou shalt not steal,” Judge Reddy said. “While you are in prison, sit in prison and read the Bible, and ensure that you don’t come before the courts again.”

Posted by Barney Zwartz

November 2, 2007 10:39 AM

Related Reading: