August 15, 2003

Honesty, Asceticism, and Logic

In all the bruhaha over the election of Gene Robinson and the election and withdrawal of Jeffrey John as bishops in the Anglican communion, some distinction was made between Canon Robinson, who is open active in his sexual relationship outside of marriage, and Canon John, who claims to not be.

At least Canon John has come clean about one thing. He is clear in his belief that gay clergy need not be celibate, even if he is. Since he is in a long-term committed relationship, I'm not sure why he is so emphatic about the lack of active sexual expression in it, if it doesn't matter anyway.

In a set of essays to be published next week, as reported in The Times, he says “A covenanted homosexual partnership involves no less demand for self-denial than a heterosexual marriage (arguably rather more in the face of social and ecclesiastical hostility), and is no less a school for sacrificial love.”

It seems to me that he would have to logically argue that not only is it not necessary to refrain from sexual relations, but if these relationships are the equivalent of marriage, then homosexual acts should not be avoided. Doesn't the imperative "Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time" apply here?

Canon John is not big on the ascetical life generally, as he says, “There is nothing good about self-denial for its own sake (on the contrary, it generally has a warping effect), nor does God demand pointless and arbitrary sacrifices.” He was referring to this in the context of sex, in essence saying that to deny the craving of homosexual sex is warping and pointless.

In his views, Canon John has the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury. We should not take the Canon's withdrawal under the Archbishop's pressure as indicative of the Archbishop's lack of support in principle. Rowan Williams simply sacrificed his principles in an attempt to salvage the impending Anglican schism. Williams' 1997 essay on the issue is being republished and he has specifically asked that nothing be changed from the original.

Again, as reported in The Times, the Archbishop sets out "a possible case for active same-sex relationships by arguing that revisionists who support 'sexual expression' for homosexuals may, like evangelicals, be trying to be faithful to the Bible." This is what happens when the Bible is separated from the Apostolic Tradition and is understood in terms of whoever makes the best case.

Posted by david at August 15, 2003 11:58 PM | TrackBack
Comments