it is time for repentance

Bishop David Russell: COMMENT

November 18, 2005: The Constitutional Court is expected to give its decisive verdict soon on the emotive issue of same-gender marriages. It will be announcing whether the Supreme Court of Appeal was correct in its judgement that such marriages should be allowed in accordance with our Bill of Rights.

The churches, in the meantime, are still deeply divided, with majorities in virtually all denominations arguing adamantly against such a proposal on biblical and traditional grounds.

I want to suggest that, in spite of all the long-held conservative arguments, in the final analysis, perhaps the main reason why the majority of church members and leaders are against change is one of attitude -- a generally negative attitude towards homosexual people and to same-sex orientation. Change attitudes, and I believe the arguments will change.

Let us start with an example from within the Christian faith, since it is churches' attitudes that are being addressed here. We know now, thank God, that slavery is offensive to God, and to the conscience of enlightened humanity and the teaching of the Church. We also know that for most of its history the church thought that slavery was basically fine with God. It was assumed by all (generally speaking, by the dominant cultures within societies) to be a God-given fact of human life -- part of God's order of creation. This is what the church taught for most of its history.

We also now know (many are still coming to know) that the way the church has treated homosexuals -- rejecting them, demonising them, killing them, effectively denying their humanity -- that such treatment is offensive to God. A great questioning is going on; and a great defending is going on.

Yet no one can now respectably defend the cruel treatment of homosexuals by the churches and their members. It is a time for repentance. This much is being acknowledged. Whatever one's interpretation of biblical texts may be, we can no longer deny that such treatment is morally, humanly shocking. We should therefore thank God also for our Bill of Rights, which provides strong support to this process of healing destructive attitudes and behaviour.

The acknowledgement of the sinfully rejecting treatment of homosexuals represents a profound shift from the past, even if many Christians have still to catch up with it. The shift in recognising the fundamental humanity, dignity and equal worth of homosexual persons is bound to have its effect on the way we approach and revisit the great biblical themes and texts.

When you really do respect someone as an equal child of God and human being -- as a fellow Christian -- then you really begin to listen to them and appreciate their faith with humility. You begin to recognise that you may just have "got God wrong" about what you think God really finds offensive. On the other hand, even if you continue to disagree on the issue, the tone and quality of your disagreement will be different, and the way you relate will be transforming for all concerned.

The letter of Paul to the slave-owner Philemon has much to teach us here. Some people who continue to defend the traditional teaching on homosexuality read this letter as an example within scripture of a teaching and attitude which was eventually to lead the church to recognise that "scripture taken as a whole" is "against slavery" after all. Paul encourages Philemon to take back his runaway slave Onesimus "for all time … now not just as a slave, but more than a slave: he is your dear brother in Christ".

Here we have the roots of the eventual undermining of the institution of slavery. I think that this interpretation is right. But traditionalists then go on to argue that this is precisely not the case with homosexuality and scripture. I think that they miss the deeper meaning of this letter (let alone other epistles) and of the "scriptures taken as a whole".

Why did it take the church all those centuries to reread this letter of Paul (let alone other New Testament writings) in a way that finally recognised slavery is offensive to God? The truth is that these verses in question could equally plausibly be read as a clear endorsement by Paul of the institution of slavery, depending on your attitude and assumptions about the practice in the first place. It could well be argued that the "endorsement interpretation" is the stronger "plain reading" of the text, particularly when taken with what Paul says about slavery in other letters. He is not criticising the institution of slavery. The question does not even arise for him.

Thus, Paul and the early Church continued to flow with the religious traditions and cultural assumptions of their faith, and with the social world view of their time. We read this from the familiar texts in the epistles firmly endorsing the practice: "Bid slaves be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory -- but show entire and true fidelity, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour" (Titus 2:9); "Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ" (Ephesians 6:5 -- and see also Colossians 3:22, I Timothy 6:1 onwards, I Peter 2:18 onwards).

We should not be surprised at this. To have expected different teaching at that time would be anachronistic. I believe that the same can be said of beliefs about homosexuality and attitudes around the issue. It took a long time for the Christian community to realise that slavery is offensive to God. It has also been taking a long time for the Christian community to realise how offensive to God are people's rejecting attitudes towards homosexuals.

It is only as new attitudes emerge that different understandings are recognised and discovered in the scriptures. To express it in the language of faith: it is our conviction that the Holy Spirit brought us to the recognition that, in spite of the fact that Paul and the early church upheld the institution of slavery, the deeper meaning of scripture nevertheless teaches us that slavery is offensive to God.

Likewise, concerning issues of human sexuality, an increasing proportion (albeit still a minority) of committed church members -- parents, youth, theologians, clergy, laity, whether gay, lesbian or heterosexual -- have come to believe that God is not condemning of faithful, committed partnerships of whatever orientation. They believe, in fact, that exactly the same Christian ethical criteria and standards should be applied to homosexual practice as to heterosexual practice.

What is offensive to God is the way homosexuals have been treated and are, alas, still too often being treated and regarded. This is now acknowledged on all sides of the debate (perhaps reluctantly in some places). Let us work on our attitudes.

David Russell is the former Anglican Bishop of Grahamstown, now retired