As the Spiritual Friendship blog’s resident Episcopalian, this is the kind of thing I gather I’m expected to have opinions about:
The bishop of Grantham has become the first Church of England bishop to publicly declare that he is gay and in a relationship. In a move that will be embraced by campaigners for equality but is likely to alarm conservatives who fear the church is moving away from traditional teachings, Nicholas Chamberlain said there had been no secret about his long-term — albeit celibate — relationship with his partner.
What should those of us who are traditional Anglicans—who continue to believe the Scriptural teaching that marriage is the union of male and female, with openness to the gift of children—make of a story like this?
For starters, we should make sure we get the facts straight. Bishop Chamberlain is accountable to his ecclesiastical superiors, and they have found his life to be in accord with the Church of England’s traditional teaching on marriage. As the Guardian story notes,
Chamberlain was consecrated last November, and all those involved in his appointment — including Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury — were aware of his personal situation. During the process of being appointed as suffragan bishop of Grantham, he said, “I was myself. Those making the appointment knew about my sexual identity.” His appointment was made by the diocesan (senior) bishop of Lincoln, Christopher Lowson, and endorsed by Welby.
Chamberlain said he adhered to church guidelines, under which gay clergy must be celibate and are not permitted to marry. In the appointments process, “We explored what it would mean for me as a bishop to be living within those guidelines,” he said.
In a statement, Welby said: “I am and have been fully aware of Bishop Nick’s long-term, committed relationship. His appointment as bishop of Grantham was made on the basis of his skills and calling to serve the church in the diocese of Lincoln. He lives within the bishops’ guidelines and his sexuality is completely irrelevant to his office.”
Insofar as I understand my calling as a conservative lay Anglican, my job is to assume the best about the bishops in my Communion—to assume they are adhering to and defending the teachings of Scripture and tradition in the absence of evidence to the contrary. As Alan Jacobs once put it,
I remind myself that the churches of the Anglican world are governed by bishops, and I am not a bishop. One of the chief reasons I have held firm to Anglicanism over the years is that I believe that the threefold order of ministry—bishop, priest, and deacon—is the model taught by the apostles, the governance particularly approved by God. In this model I, as a layman—even though I am also a member of the priesthood of all believers—have a highly circumscribed role. If my pastor asks me to teach, I teach; otherwise I shut up. In the unlikely (and unwelcome) event of a bishop of the Church asking for my thoughts I would share them; otherwise I keep them to myself, at least in public. The decisions that will shape the future of the Anglican Communion will be made by bishops, not by laypeople, nor even by priests; if I care about that Communion—and I do—I had best be praying for those bishops, and not repeating the error of Job in darkening counsel by words without knowledge.
Having said all that, it is of course entirely possible that Bishop Chamberlain holds a view that goes something like this: He himself is gay; after studying Scripture and the Christian tradition, he has come to believe that the traditional view of marriage needs to be expanded to include same-sex couples; furthermore, he has come to believe that eventually the Church of England will affirm the legitimacy of same-sex marriage; and yet he also believes that he should not violate the standards of his church in the meantime, and so, in the interim, he is celibate out of deference to the longstanding Anglican tradition of sexual morality. I have no idea if that is what he believes, and there is, at present, zero evidence that he does.
One thing I do think is vital for us traditionalists to remember at this point is that the Scriptural, traditional teaching focuses on the prohibition of certain sexual acts, not on “relationships” (to use the Guardian’s word). As I have written before on this blog,
The so-called Great Tradition of the Christian faith, the ecumenical mainstream, if you like, has always held, since the earliest days of the apostles (see the infamous Romans 1 passage of St. Paul), that sexual coupling between members of the same sex is immoral. But that traditional teaching has focused its condemnation on the sex acts themselves, not on the legitimate human desire for closeness that may or may not accompany those acts. In other words, traditional Christian teaching has said that gay sex misses the mark of the Creator’s design of human bodies and of marriage: it takes something intended for procreation and male-and-female spousal bonding and care and makes it about something else. (This was the point of Melinda Selmys’ recent post on concubinage.) But that same teaching certainly isn’t condemning all the things about “gay culture” that give us those weepy chills when we see them at their best. Historic Christianity certainly isn’t saying that gay people themselves or their partners are somehow irretrievably perverse and that all their longings and loves are any further removed from God’s design than their heterosexual neighbors’ are.
It would be good, at this time, for us traditionalists to remind ourselves that Bishop Chamberlain’s commitment to his partner most likely involves the kinds of virtues traditional Christians have long celebrated between people of the same sex: loyalty, comradeship, kindness, and a host of others. The fact that the bishop practices these virtues while experiencing himself as same-sex attracted is no proof that those virtues are thereby diminished. And it is also no proof that he is living a so-called double life.
But maybe I could also say something about what I find myself wishing Bishop Chamberlain might say publicly someday. I find myself thinking about something another Englishman, Martin Hallett, wrote several years ago:
There are probably nearly as many Christians with homosexual feelings who do not believe that homosexual sex is right for Christians as there are those who are advocating its acceptance…. A friend of mine in Sweden (Erik) is a Lutheran priest who believes in the traditional biblical teaching on sexuality and has homosexual feelings himself. He determined, from the beginning of his call to the ordained ministry, that he would be open about his sexuality at every stage…. Ultimately, as more evangelicals make such a public stand, it will seem less costly and will, I believe, have a tremendous impact for the kingdom of God…. [I want to] encourage those leaders in the church who have homosexual feelings but who believe homosexual sex is wrong to be more open. People like Erik… are not a tiny minority in terms of all homosexuals in the church…. I wish their voices could be heard saying that “We believe our homosexuality is part of our value and giftedness to the church, but homosexual sex is a sin.” What a difference this would make to the life, witness, and future of the body of Christ.
What a difference indeed.
Without intending to overstep any of my boundaries as a layman, here is the kind of thing I would love to hear Bishop Chamberlain say one day:
Yes, I am in a committed, faithful relationship with another man. I love him deeply and hope to spend the rest of my life in his company. And no, we don’t sleep together. But I think it’s important for you to know that we don’t sleep together because of our love for each other. You see, we’re Christians, and Christians believe that God has made us and that He set up sexual relations for a specific purpose. God intends sex to bind a husband and wife together in intimacy and to lead to the gift of new life through procreation. And, likewise, God intends same-sex closeness, guarded by chastity, to build up each of the same-sex friends in love of Himself and love of neighbor. It would actually, then, diminish the closeness my partner and I enjoy if we were to sleep together. It would be taking one thing—sex—and using it for a purpose other than what its Designer intended it for. And, as we all know, when we misuse the Creator’s gifts, we don’t gain more intimacy; we simply find ourselves further alienated from Him and from one another. So, no, we’re not having sex. And we’re living our lives as celibate men in the hope that we’ll be able to love each other more deeply, more truly, and more in line with how God in Christ has made us and redeemed us to be.
Something like that, at least, is what I find myself praying for Bishop Chamberlain—and for all the gay folks in my broken, beloved Anglican Communion.
Great post like always Wes.
Well, if you remember, all of us are broken – and as my son said years ago – God doesn’t make any junk. So we love each other regardless of their sexual orientation. Everyone is God’s child and should be respected as such
A “committed relationship with another man” is sin. It is not what God teaches us, in His Word.
Well it depends on what is meant by “relationship”.
Is a friendship a relationship?
You might want to define what type of relationship you mean. Is a friendship among two guys sinful? Is a deep connected brotherhood between two guys sinful? Is a romantic non-sexual relationship sinful? And the list goes on. Specify! And if you are going to call out sin, then call out what is sinful about it.
As you note (correctly), “One thing I do think is vital for we traditionalists to remember at this point is that the Scriptural, traditional teaching focuses on the prohibition of certain sexual acts, not on relationships” (internal quotations omitted).
I have a hard time seeing this as different from a bilateral committed friendship. The only difference is the use of the word “friendship” instead of “marriage.” Even so, Anglicans have long since permitted “marriage” to include all manner of relationships that do not conform to the traditional Christian definition of marriage.
I would join Robert Song in wishing that we would limit “marriage” to those relationships in which people have elected to bind themselves to the strictures of the traditional arrangement, and to adopt another word for opposite-sex and same-sex companionate relationships. But we haven’t. And it’s unclear to me why we would extend “marriage” to include opposite-sex companionate relationships, despite their failure to conform to the traditional strictures of “marriage,” and not permit the same allowance for same-sex analogues. To to less would seem to give unwarranted credence to Freudian (and evangelical) notions about the reducibility of all human relationships to a desire for coitus.
I am confused by “gay culture”. If in gay you mean celibate “gay culture” could some one explain/illustrate the unique attributes or manifestations of ‘gay culture’ that is uniquely different from heterosexual culture?
Also if, “gay culture” is to mean encompassing the breadth of gay culture that is expressed in the gay parades or other venues, I am confused by the association with something that is a disordered expression of the male/female design of the Trinity.
Gay culture is whatever brings gay or ssa people together – which isn’t always sex. Mostly it is just social stuff. LGBT rainbow flag Pride culture peaked in the 1990s – when it was still necessary to search out other gay people to remain sane in a much more homophobic world. It has declined a great deal since then as gay people (who come from lots of very different backgrounds) no longer feel a need to escape their home communities.
Exactly. A 50-year-old gay colleague was recently sharing his frustration over this fact. Identifying as “gay” used to mean that one was opting into a fairly narrowly defined social script. It no longer means that. These days, it simply means that one is opting out of the fairly narrowly defined social script of heterosexuality, but is rather open-ended beyond that. When I last attended a Pride parade (in 2009), the straights probably outnumbered the gays by a 3:1 margin.
Thanks for your response. Could “gay” culture be about everything except sex between two people of the same sex? I am trying to figure out how “gay culture” could be redeemable when as aspect of the gathering together would be accepting or tolerating a behaviour as sinful? To me an analogy would be holding an event that would be celebrating the family and one of the seminars would be “how to decrease emotional connection with your child”. It would be go against what you are celebrating. I have yet had someone explain to me “gay culture” for Christians to understand let alone see the goodness in it. Thanks
It’s going to be difficult to define “gay culture” precisely. – and, yes, a lot of it will refer to behaviors and relationships that conservative Christians believe are sinful.
There is an expectation that gay men will have a certain ‘sensibility’. It’s a bit of a stereotype but there aren’t many gay men who are interested in team sports. – so there aren’t many (or any?) gay sports bars. The one gay man I know who wants to talk football struggles to have that conversation with any of his gay friends.
I walked away from the “gay lifestyle” over a decade ago. As much as I love my new church family, I don’t think I would have remained a Christian if I had to rely on them for friendship. I just can’t talk to or relate to straight evangelicals in the way that I can with other gay people.
“There is an expectation that gay men will have a certain ‘sensibility’. It’s a bit of a stereotype but there aren’t many gay men who are interested in team sports. – so there aren’t many (or any?) gay sports bars. The one gay man I know who wants to talk football struggles to have that conversation with any of his gay friends.There is an expectation that gay men will have a certain ‘sensibility’. It’s a bit of a stereotype but there aren’t many gay men who are interested in team sports. – so there aren’t many (or any?) gay sports bars. The one gay man I know who wants to talk football struggles to have that conversation with any of his gay friends.”
There is at least one gay sports bar, in the world. The one I know of is located in Columbus, OH. It is called “Shooters”. In Columbus gay people certainly do talk football- OSU football is practically a religion in Columbus among all sorts and conditions of men- and women too! I think disliking team sports is more a regional thing than something inherent in being gay.
I’m skeptical. Is it a sports bar or a fetish bar?
Wouldn’t a committed, romantic, celibate gay relationship be the same as a straight couple who romantically love each other and live with one another but don’t have sex? Isn’t it just playing house or putting a hot fire in your lap? Wes I don’t think the friendships you mentioned in your books where they loved one another as Spiritiual friends is the same as this erotic, romantic love that is happening with this bishop…
That’s make take on it as well. Jeffrey John was turned away by conservatives for doing what Nicholas Chamberlain is doing.
This is not exactly on topic for this post, but I just realized that you referred to yourself as SF’s “resident Episcopalian”. Therefore it appears that you have switched jurisdictions, from ACNA to The Episcopal Church at some time along the way. I’m glad to see that by the by- I’m an Episcopalian myself, and I think you’ll be an ornament to our church, just as you were to ACNA in the past. If you don’t mind writing about your reasons for changing jurisdictions I’d love to read about them.
I think homosexuality should be accepted but not made such a big deal of example being it shouldn’t be all over the tele all day and rubbed in peoples faces. The core of society and marriage should always be man and woman