View From The Pew
by Gerry Hunter
(Posted July 10th, 2001).
Comments on Bishop Michael Ingham’s Remarks During the Panel Presentation on Sexuality, General Synod, July 6, 2001.
It seems, judging from the remarks of Bishop Michael Ingham, that once one sets aside Holy Scripture as God’s revealed Word, and consigns it to the bin of symbols and myths, one then is then moved to do the same in every area. Through a sequence of myths, the remarks serve to unveil to one and all a new symbol adopted by the bishop - the protector.
The mood of myth is set in the very first paragraph. The question at hand, it is posited, concerns, “not really a problem but a request from people who would like to come into church and have their life-long, permanent and faithful relationships blessed by the church.” One does get weary of this canard, in the face of study after study that records the prevalent promiscuity that is so tragic a part of the homosexual experience, even in “relationships.” But the adjectives, though inappropriate to observed reality, do serve to set a (presumably) desired mood.
Next, we move to one of the most curious discourses on migration and demographics I have ever read. On the showing of the speaker, almost all of us on the West Coast are virtual refugees. We, supposedly, “attempt to seek refuge from various kinds of oppression: whether a politically motivated oppression, or economic disadvantage, or religiously-based prejudice.” Well, so much for the many, many people I know who moved here for the climate, or to take advantage of an opportunity. Curious, too, that the ethnic Chinese parishes, many of whose members more closely fit the mould the bishop describes, are among the strongest opponents of his efforts to bless the unblessable.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that this missive of myth incorporates some pop psychology. And so, we read, “Many people who do not experience themselves as sick because of their sexual orientation are quite confused when the church offers healing to them as 'pastoral care'. “ It is fitting that we should venture into pseudo-science, given the preceding free fantasia on demographics. And now, straight from the world of cognitive behavioral therapy (a quite unproven technique, boasting no scientific basis, but only “satisfied customers”), we have the concept that if one does not experience one’s self as sick, then one is not sick. One wonders why this poppycock intrudes, whether or not we are indeed talking of sick people. One also wonders whether or not, given the bishop’s taste for this brand of pseudo-science, past year’s Buddhist meditations in our cathedral will be the precursors of seminars in Christian Science in future years.
To encounter Jesus Christ, according to the next myth, is to be made happy with one’s self. A bishop who referred to God the Holy Spirit as “it” would miss the revelation that accepting Jesus Christ means being indwelt by that Holy Spirit, and that that is a life changing event. In spite of Brian Wren’s influence on the new Hymn Book the bishop has spoken well of, the old hymn has not been revised to say, “Take my heart and let me be.” Jesus was no pop psychologist. He changed lives, and not necessarily by making people feel good about themselves. And, he called for obedience to His Father, too.
But now, it is time to turn to a characterization myth, directed at those of us who oppose apostasy. It begins by consigning our obedience to God’s commands as “the church's historical understanding of homosexuality and its current pastoral practices.” Since when, one might ask, has years of obedience to Holy Scripture been merely understanding, other, of course, than the understanding that obedience is not an option or a matter of consensus. But then again, we must recall that the obedience is to Holy Scripture, which, on the showing of his writing, the bishop has consigned to a place where obedience is not called for. This disagreement between believing Christians and the bishop is too well known to need elaboration here. We merely note its presence in the mythical construct the bishop is spinning.
To bolster the myth, we are treated to a rather fanciful interpretation of the issues and the programs undertaken to give effect to what has now been two acts of apostasy by the Synod of the Diocese of New Westminster. The focus is shifted from marriage to “partnerships.” Blessing, it seems, is no longer an act of God, but a matter of “feeling” on the part of someone who has chosen a certain course for their lives. Presumably, according to the spin, if one feels good about something, it must be a blessing from God. The “dignity” of the first debate at Synod in 1998 is noted, but its utter lack of substance is ignored. Decreed dialogue is presented as a time of “study,” when it was a time of studied coercion. The reference to the ex-gay contribution omits reference to the monumental obstacles placed in the path of its being heard, and the brutal suppression of that voice being heard in a video produced to counter an unannounced and blatantly one-sided pro-apostasy video. This video was never planned in the dialogue structure, but was inserted with little notice in so high-handed a manner that some facilitators simply wouldn’t show it at the twinning meetings. In the end, the characterization of the process since 1998 passes myth, and goes on to border on outright deception.
It has all led to, we are expected to believe, a situation where “there is no sense among us of rebelling against the Word of God, no sense among us of wanting to engage in doctrinal change or deviance, but rather in obedience to God's Word, to end religiously-based prejudice and discrimination against gay and lesbian people based on inherited cultural assumptions, or irrational fears, or misuse of scripture.” This is indeed an incredible description of an effort, through the legislative effort of a gerrymandered assembly, to disobey scripture, ignore tradition, and enact apostasy. And the vote has favoured doing so twice, now.
Such a mythical construct as the one formed in the panel presentation requires careful cloaking, and the chosen cloak is “pastoral care.” In a pseudo-scientific effort to create apparent victims out of everyone in his diocese, the bishop implies that 100% of his diocese belongs in some kind of therapy, that will make them feel “loved and cherished.” On the one hand, we have the hopeful apostates, in need of comfort because their efforts at disobedience have yet to come to fruition. On the other hand, we have those who would be faithful to the faith once delivered to the saints, in need of comfort because the rude remarks about their psychology (they are “unloving” as distinct from “obedient”) which have become their regular bill of fare. However, rather than continuing to slag us, the man who would protect us seems quite content to leave us to our “traditional consciences” until, presumably, we leave or die off. We now know, at least, how he interprets the increased margin in the vote for apostasy.
The most insidious suggestion is that the issue is one of respecting conscience. It is not. The issue is faithfulness to revealed truth, and obedience to the God who created us. Shifting the ground to the individual conscience is a very clever way of ignoring both scripture and tradition. It is to incorporate the approach of such movements as the United Religions Initiative as a substitute for obedience. But then, a God who does not change lives can hardly be expected to form consciences either, so the approach is at least consistent. Dressed in the robes of pastoral care, utter abandonment of Christian teaching, it is hoped, will be accepted as a caring act. And the man who would say “yes” would be seen as a protector of all. The myth would be complete.
Love cannot sanctify anything; God sanctifies. He has revealed to us the relationship He will bless, and that is marriage. Feeling good and being loving will not change that. Believers seek to have their consciences formed and strengthened, not respected or tolerated. Care which does not do that may have pop-psychological appeal, but it is in no way pastoral in the Christian setting. In what sense will we have protection of anything, when the whole premise is that we are dealing with something we have dreamed up, rather than with a revealed truth we have been given to share and guard?
At the end of the day, it seems to me that the votes by the Synod were in fact acts of apostasy, and therefore approving them, on any pretext, will be giving assent to apostasy. Are believers really expected to seek protection from one who would give such consent? Are they to take heart if the governing bodies of their national church accepts the myth, and do nothing should consent happen? David Mills once observed that placing community before truth is not koinonia, but cowardice. May God give believers the strength to resist this latest call to cowardice. And may He be our protector!
- END -