Earlier this
month, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, Cardinal Keith
O’Brien was named by the gay rights organisation Stonewall as its ‘bigot of the
year.’ This dubious accolade was awarded in recognition of the Cardinal’s
forthright statements against homosexuality in general and same-sex marriage in
particular.
Labelling
someone a bigot seems to me to be both ungracious, and unhelpful. To use this
kind of language is to demonise and hold at a distance those with whom you
disagree, rather than engaging with them and seeking to understand their
perspective. In criticising what they see as the Cardinal’s bigotry, Stonewall
have been equally bigoted themselves.
The SNP MSP John
Mason, himself a Christian and an opponent of same-sex marriage has called for
both sides in the debate to use more balanced language rather than trying to
‘wind up and upset the other side to get a reaction.’
For in fact,
Cardinal O’Brien’s language has also been strong and provocative, and not conducive
to dialogue with people who see things differently. He has referred to
homosexuality as a ‘sexual aberration’ and to gay marriage as ‘a grotesque
subversion of a universally accepted human right.’ To those on the other side
of the argument, these are hard, wounding words.
The Cardinal,
and other Christians who speak bluntly against homosexuality would argue that
they are faithfully upholding the centuries-old convictions of the Christian
truth. They would quote the words of St Paul. He describes those who have
turned from faith in God, and focussed their living on goals other than God:
‘Because of this
God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural
relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations
with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.’
And these
Christians would argue that their own words were no harder than the words of St
Paul, hard words courageously used to challenge gay people to repent and seek
forgiveness.
While the
Cardinal and others who speak forcefully against homosexuality may be gentle
and empathic in their dealings with individual gay people, their words don’t
give the impression that they are prepared to listen with love and
understanding, to build bridges.
Words like
‘grotesque’ and ‘aberration’ must especially pierce the hearts of Christian gay
people who fully accept traditional Christian teaching, and struggle to remain
celibate while contending with a sense of being gay which they believe to be a
case of ‘mistaken identity’, the result perhaps of wounds in early life.
There are other
Christians with an equal regard for the Bible, some of them evangelical, some
with a different approach to interpreting the Bible who feel that St Paul can’t
possibly be referring to people who have been gay as long as they can remember.
The context of
Paul’s words, they tell us, implies an abandonment of God, and an element of
choice. Christian gay people, they emphasise, have not abandoned God, and may
feel they have never had any choice in their sexual orientation. Taking this
thinking a step further, some Christians see committed gay relationships as a
valid expression of the principle of love which is held so highly in the Bible.
Christians are
called to take a stand, to sound a clear, unequivocal note on moral issues, and
on many issues the Church does speak with one voice. It is this clarity of
vision which the Cardinal seeks.
But on this
issue of homosexuality and gay relationships, Christians are not agreed. We all
have a strong desire to be sure that the position we hold on any issue is the
right one, and consciously or unconsciously we may try to undermine the case
made by those who disagree with us.
On this issue,
each group tends to question whether those with opposing views have the right
approach to the Bible, or whether in fact they are truly Christian. Some
dismiss the Cardinal’s views as ‘conservative’, hopelessly traditional, out of
touch. Others dismiss the views of those who are accepting of gay identity as ‘liberal’,
driven by society’s agenda rather than God’s agenda, focussing purely on love
while ignoring holiness.
It seems to me
that since on this issue Christians who love God and love their neighbours and
love their nation have different views we need on each side of the debate
sensitivity, a willingness to admit we might be wrong, an openness to God
and to each other.
So in the coming
months, we need to find a way as Christians to engage in discussions on this
issue with, in the words of Ruth Davidson leader of the Scottish Conservatives
and herself both a gay person and a woman of faith ‘generosity, tolerance and
love,’ respecting others while not necessarily agreeing with them.
(Christian Viewpoint column from the Highland News dated 15th November 2012)
No comments:
Post a Comment