Gary Thorne responds to Michael Ingham
The title of Michael Valpy’s article on the front page of the Globe and Mail, Thursday, 8 March 2007 was ‘Bishop demands 'better theology' of sex.’ ‘The Bishop’ is The Rt Rev’d Michael Ingham, of the Greater Vancouver Diocese of New Westminster. ‘Sex’ in the article refers not just to ‘genital intercourse’, but to ‘a full, loving interpersonal sexual relationship’. So far so good. But what does the Bishop mean by ‘theology’? This is not so obvious.
The word ‘theology’, of course, has many meanings, and in this article Bishop Ingham seems to be using it in its broadest sense, as ‘thinking about God and his/her/its relation to the universe, and the difference that a God (or God-talk) makes in our understanding of ourselves, our relation to one another and our environment, and our understanding of the universe.’ Bishop Ingham is definitely a theist. But it is difficult to see how the ‘better theology’ that he calls for will be specifically Christian. That is not a criticism in itself – the ‘better theology’ he is interested in might not necessarily be better Christian theology. In fact he claims the Christian Church to have ‘a deeply flawed understanding of sex’. The Bishop advocates for the Church to adopt ‘a new understanding of sexuality’ and dismisses the traditional sources of Christian theology (the Bible and church doctrines) because ‘the Bible and church doctrines have been shaped through the lens of male experience’.
The Bishop does point to the Bible in this article, but only to make the point that the Bible really has nothing to say about adult homo-eroticism.
So what does the ‘better theology’ consist of? Does the Bishop suggest that we attempt to discern Biblical principles relevant to the discussion, or to locate homo-eroticism in relation to the Christian theological understanding of creation, being made in the image of the Triune God, a growth in holiness, or Christian relationship and community? No, none of this. The ‘better theology’ will come about simply by accepting developments in the social sciences since the 19th century that describe homosexuality as ‘a basic and natural orientation experienced by some members of the human community’. This fact in itself is the Bishop’s reason for the Christian Church to accept ‘adult homo-eroticism’ as ‘God-given and good’.
This in itself is not ‘better theology’, but only a valuable piece of science and social science interpretation, upon which the Christian Church should without doubt re-think its Biblical interpretation, historic doctrinal statements, and traditional Christian theological understandings. It is only in such an ongoing activity of prayerful and careful re-thinking in the light of current scientific study that we can hope for an emergence of a better Christian theology of sexuality. By a ‘better Christian theology’ I mean a theology that articulates more fully a view of the human condition and universe that is faithful to the Biblical revelation of the Triune God in the ‘Word made flesh’, and that takes into account all that we know of God’s world through reason, natural theology, and scientific study. That is the path to a ‘better theology’. Unfortunately, in spite of what he promises, Bishop Ingham wants no Christian theology or thinking at all, but only a culture-bound and thoughtless secularity.
The Rev. Dr. Gary Thorne is the Chaplain of Dalhouse University and the University of King's College. He is member of the Primate's Theological Commission.
Administrator
3 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (3)
Well, I'm not so sure that's completely accurate. There are some studies that seem to support that conclusion, but they have not proven repeatable, and unfortunately the extreme pressure for political correctness has rendered much psychological research quite difficult to accomplish in a suitably objective environment.
In many respects homosexual behavior resembles addictions such as smoking, alcoholism, or recreational drug use, all of which will often be pursued by the addict regardless of physiological, moral, or legal consequences. In any case, there has been as yet no clear demonstration that the assertion above is even probably true, much less that it qualifies as a universally accepted conclusion.
Granted that most of the bishop's speech was a critique of Christian thought and theology regarding sexuality, the bishop did point to some ways toward a better theology. In particular, he said:
"What we do find in Jesus teaching – and everywhere throughout the Bible – is an emphasis on commitment, faithfulness, and integrity in relationships. Jesus’ teaching on divorce is deliberately set in the context of his rejection of infidelity. His whole life was an expression of his fidelity to God, and he spoke passionately about the promise of God’s fidelity to us. Over and over again, in the Hebrew Bible and in the New Testament, we learn of God’s faithfulness, and God’s unconditional love, and it is frequently contrasted with the unfaithfulness of human beings both in their relationships with each other and in their relationship to God. Integrity and commitment are what Jesus demonstrates in all his encounters with women and men in the Gospels, and finally of course in his death on the Cross.
"This suggests, then, that the primary criterion for a Christian sexual theology is not procreation but rather faithfulness and commitment. This is the supreme message of the life of Jesus and ought to be the principal standard for Christian sexual ethics – not sexual orientation, not propagation, nor even marriage. Fidelity to one another, to one’s partner, and to God, respect for the dignity of every human being and for the sacredness of the human body, a rejoicing in human sexuality as both gift and expression of divine creativity – these are the elements of a more positive approach to sexuality that the Church needs to pursue."
As I read it, in regards to homo-eroticism, the bishop is basically saying it is not terribly relevant. Nor is hetero-eroticism. Let us get over our obsession with sexual plumbing and get on with a concern about the quality of our relationships - whether they are truly loving, committed, faithful, integral, positive, joyful, and further God's mission in the world.
"Fidelity to one another, to one’s partner, and to God, respect for the dignity of every human being and for the sacredness of the human body, a rejoicing in human sexuality as both gift and expression of divine creativity..."
I find this language to be at odds with the Bishop's declaration that "we must challenge the condemnation by the Church throughout the centuries of such things as...abortion." In what exactly is sex an "expression of divine creativity", if not primarily in the coming forth of people, persons, human beings? I can see how one might say that sexuality can be an expression of divine delight and love, but to use the language of "creativity", and then in the same article to at least implicitly support abortion, seems rather contradictory to me.