Bishop Signals Hope for Same-Sex Relationships: A Way Forward for Ex-Gays?
The Bishop of Liverpool has apologized for his part in opposing the proposed appointment of openly gay cleric Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading. The Right Reverend James Jones – perhaps the Church of England’s most prominent evangelical bishop – has also drawn attention to God-sanctioned same-sex relationships in the Bible, describing the story of David and Jonathan as a “witness to love between two people of the same gender,” and signalling an openness to more dialogue on the subject.
Jones was one of nine Anglican bishops to put his name to a letter publicly opposing Jeffrey John’s consecration in 2005. The Very Reverend John, currently Dean of St Albans, has been in a civil union with his long-time partner since 2006, but has always said the relationship is celibate, in keeping with Church rules. Writing of the controversy, the Bishop of Liverpool now says:
I deeply regret this episode in our common life. … I still believe that it was unwise to try to take us to a place that evidently did not command the broad support of the Church of England but I am sorry for the way I opposed it and I am sorry too for adding to the pain and distress of Dr. John and his partner. I regret too that this particular controversy narrowed rather than enlarged the space for healthy debate within the church.
In the essay, which was published last month in A Fallible Church: Lambeth Essays (ed. Kenneth Stevenson), the Bishop goes on to talk about the Old Testament story of David and Jonathan:
Their friendship was emotional, spiritual and even physical. Jonathan loved David “as his own soul”. David found Jonathan’s love for him, “passing the love of women”. There was between them a deep emotional bond that left David grief-stricken when Jonathan died. But not only were they emotionally bound to each other they expressed their love physically. Jonathan stripped off his clothes and dressed David in his own robe and armour. With the candour of the Eastern World that exposes the reserve of Western culture they kissed each other and wept openly with each other. The fact that they were both married did not inhibit them in emotional and physical displays of love for each other. This intimate relationship was sealed before God. It was not just a spiritual bond it became covenantal for “Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul” (1 Samuel 18:3). Here is the Bible bearing witness to love between two people of the same gender. I know that at this point some will ask, “Was the friendship sexual?”, “Were they gay?”, “Was at least one of them homosexual?”, “Were they both heterosexual?”, “Were they bisexual?” I want to resist these questions at least initially. Immediately you start using such words you conjure up stereotypes and prejudices. Further, you assume that it is a person’s sexual inclination that defines their personhood. Is it not possible to say that here are two men with the capacity to love fully, both women and men?
As an Anglican in Bishop James’s diocese, I welcome this apparent acknowledgement that gay men and women can and really do love. Although this clearly does not affirm gay sex, it is nevertheless a massive step forward from the blanket prejudices of many of the Bishop’s fellow conservatives.
He refuses to draw conclusions, but hints tantalizingly at the possibility of celibate same-sex covenants. This author wonders whether such relationships can ever be a way forward for ex-gays? It has been suggested before. In 20 Hot Potatoes Christians Are Afraid to Touch, US evangelical Tony Campolo argued in favor of exactly this, proposing committed, but celibate relationships as an alternative to “practicing” homosexuality.
More thoughts from the commenters at Thinking Anglicans and Dr Mike Homfray. This was also reported in The Guardian, which rather misleadingly tells only half the story.
For a Greek and Latin audience reading the passage stating:
amabilis super amorem mulierum
would make one flinch for a second or two because the word “amor” is used instead of “diligo.” “Amor” is designated for intimacy as a rule, whereas “diligo” is non-intimate love.
honora patrem et matrem et diliges proximum tuum sicut te ipsum (Honor your father and mother and love your neighbor as yourself.)
ait illi Iesus diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo et in tota anima tua et in tota mente tua (You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind.)
Diligo is where we get the word “diligent.” The word “diligo” means to esteem, to admire, and is the kind of love one would give to their parents, siblings, family members, friends, and even to strangers.
“Amor” is reserved for a person and the feelings and emotions he or she has towards another person with the understanding of a physical relationship either realized or desired to be as such.
nakedness:
expoliavit se Ionathan tunicam qua erat vestitus et dedit eam David et reliqua vestimenta sua usque ad gladium et arcum suum et usque ad balteum
The Douay version translated “expoliavit” as “stripped” which is pretty accurate.
Emily:
And yes, you are correct in assessing what I am asking for.
I didn’t see your post at first. Thanks.
That is precisely what I am trying to say.
Thanks again Emily.
Comment removed by me, Timothy.
מא הַנַּעַר, בָּא, וְדָוִד קָם מֵאֵצֶל הַנֶּגֶב, וַיִּפֹּל לְאַפָּיו
אַרְצָה וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים; וַיִּשְּׁקוּ אִישׁ אֶת-
רֵעֵהוּ, וַיִּבְכּוּ אִישׁ אֶת-רֵעֵהוּ, עַד-דָּוִד, הִגְדִּיל.
Ivan:
challenge – in fifty words or less – translate the Hebrew portion that says in English
“until David exceeded.”
and explain why it cannot mean “erection.”
Alan,
I commented above in response to what Emily originally posted. I can’t see how you’re critiquing what I wrote to her, nor are you correcting me. If you have something to add on, or if I said something wrong in your opinion, show me where and then we can go from that point. Blankly asking me to translate something, and then to show you why it doesn’t mean what you think it means, after already responding, doesn’t give me much. Emily didn’t translate anything. Emily only gave a theory, which I responded to.
If I’m misunderstanding something, perhaps you can clarify.
And again, if you don’t know Hebrew well enough, why are you asking me? What difference would it make?
Ivan:
Forget it. I’ve had root canals that are less painful than this.
Moving on.
I wanted to comment on the fact that the Episcopal Church (and the Angelican Church in general) has made great progress in the inclusion of the LGBT community. It has not an easy road for this branch of Christianity, but I applaud the Church on its effort to make the message of Christ be accessible to everyone and to give its LGBT members a home and to those of us from other faith communities. True there are some who are opposed to inclusion, and the many churches who have broken from the Episcopal Church in the US is causing controversy, but the Episcopal Church, under its present bishop, is willing to hold fast and leave the doors wide open to welcome all who seek to worship God in love and truth.
So I guess you didn’t have much to say after all. I could have used the time efficiently had you said so earlier on.
Alan, it’s true that the first thing Ivan did when he came to this post is to respond to the interpretation i presented.
Also, there is no Hebrew word that directly relates to “eros” (greek) or sexual love. the word used most commonly is “אהב” (“ahav”) – much like the English “love,” it has different meanings depending on its context. “ויאהבו” is used to describe how Jonathan “loves” David as his own soul – “ahav” is used here within that word. The same root word is used to describe how Jacob “loved” Rachel when he first saw her. Rachel became his wife. So ambivalence seems to abound.
Ivan, you are not adding anything productive to the debate. It’s becoming clear that you simply can’t answer Alan’s question. It would indeed have saved a lot of time if you had just said so in the beginning, and it would have been much kinder to all involved.
Now that Alan has withdrawn his question in frustration, let’s just leave it alone, ok?
David:
It seems actually, that Alan didn’t really have anything to ask. If he wanted to contribute, he could have critiqued my response to Emily, added something on, corrected me or asked me another question. He did none of the above except throw out a general request, which would have been meaningless to him had I complied.
Perhaps he didn’t have access to a “Hebrew scholar” from which to borrow a critique. Either way, I believe you were somewhat condescending toward him and that wasn’t necessary.
We’ve already beat this one into the ground, my comments included.
I do think that we must look at the Bible on this issue and it is stated in the Sacred Scriptures that among many things as well as thieves, liars, adulterers, homosexuals have no part in God’s kingdom. This person who “apologized” for blocking this homosexual’s ordination should be ashamed of himself because God requires us to be holy and coming from homosexuality myself, I am appaled at gays who believe that you can be gay if you were straight before, but can’t be straight if you considered yourself gay before. I think that homosexuals are the most intolerant people that you can meet because while many say that they are being oppressed and battered only 177 hate crimes were reported as such and not only gays, but cops, lawyers, seniors, soldiers, and even pastors have been targets of hate crimes. Not only that but in upstate NY a billboard promoting a pro life cause was paintballed but there was no word of a hate crime being commited when it was done with the intent of destroying something that these group of Christians belived and on top of that it was private property and is a hate crime. I think as far as gay clergy, no biblically minded Christian is going to want anyone who is a practicing homosexual serving in ministry, it is an affont to God and is an injustice to those being served as they will become cold to the movement of God and his convicting power.
Emily,
Thank you. Your response helps me understand why St Jerome used the word “amor” in the Vulgate.
Emily, I realize that, and thank you for pointing that out. I merely wanted proof from Ivan for what he said. As you probably already know I don’t just take things at face value (or if you don’t … now you do!
)
And thank you for the link again. It has proven to be very helpful.
David:
ditto
If anyone is interested in the Episcopal Church and the direction it is going in the US, I recomend Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori’s book “A Wing and a Prayer.” I think the Church in the US is greatly influencing the Church in the UK in a positive way. I think they are beginning to see how being open to all God’s people is what it’s all about. Her book is an excellent starting point to understand what this branch of Christianity is all about for the GLBT community.
Not to say there isn’t controversy, but at least the head of the US Church understands the need to include the GLBT community in the church, and not just as pew warmers, but active participants in the Body of Christ.
I do not know much about the differences and nuances of the “mainstream” protestant churches in the US. I was under the impression that the Episcopalians were “fairly” liberal – am I wrong? I also thought this of Presbyterian (USA) – but some churches of that denomination tout ex-gay therapy!
The Episcopal Church owes its liberalism to Queen Elizabeth the first who, by her desire to keep the church united, made a compromise in which an attempt was made to include all levels of faith under one Church of England. While most were willing to accept this, the extreme traditionalists (Catholics) resisted being part of the Church of England and the extreme Protestants (Calvinists) resisted as well.
This is thew dilemna the Episcopal Church is facing yet again with the Calvinists, this time under the title “fundamentalists,” not wanting to remain in the Church.
The Episcopal Church is often been referred to as “Catholic Lite,” same great faith, less guilt. As an Orthodox Catholic going to a “middle church” Episcopalian Church, it is easy for me to adapt because the liturgy is fairly similar (I just had to get used to it being in English). There are no high churches in the Long Beach area that I know of, but I hear they would rival a Catholic Church any day. Low churches are usually Calvanistic or ultra-Protestant at best. These are the churches that, for the most part, are breaking away from the Episcopal Church of the US and forming alliances with churches in Africa.
I am not familiar with Presbyterians, but my experience in understanding Protestantism is that there always seems to be two versions of the same type of community: accepting and not accepting not just of gays, but of everything). Some are open communities and some are very closed. They usually tend to be divided BECAUSE of being liberal or conservative, but I hate using those terms because they have negative cognotations to them now.
Enough with the David and Jonathan stuff! The story here is that Bishop Jones may be coming around to a more inclusive understanding of Christian community, and thus be putting some distance between himself and those who would use ostensibly Christian language to lord it over the rest of us. That is welcome news exactly because it does help to set the people at liberty. Text arguments here, even when they do get past proof-texting, are not going to do much about the changes in his mind.
Hear, hear. The bottom line is that the Bishop has signalled that as gays and lesbians we have a place at the table. That is worth much when many in the Anglican communion (as per today’s article) are spreading hateful myths about us, and doing all they can to deny us our rights and our dignity.
So, what about Ruth and Naomi, just to start something a bit different…?
Any Hebrew scholars want to comment on the relationship between Ruth and Naomi?
I’m not a Hebrew scholar, and I don’t want this to end up going Off Topic.. but I’ll briefly point out that there are two peculiar things with that story: One is the use of the word that translates to “cleave,” as in, “Ruth cleaved unto Naomi.” This word is also used to describe Eve’s relationship with Adam – the quintessential Biblical couple. This definition remains ambiguous in Ruth’s case, however. But the second peculiarity is the fact that Ruth 1:16-17 is often recited at weddings from one spouse to the other as a declaration of eternal love. I’m sure not every engaged or married couple knows that it was Ruth declaring her love to Naomi in these verses.
David said:
Perhaps he didn’t, but this isn’t the “choose a critique” hour. I posted a critique of something. If Alan disagreed, he should have said why, so I could respond. The best he could do was reminisce about a root canal, and throw out a general request to translate and explain, and presumably, (since he wasn’t specific), take into account every pro-gay interpretation, despite not knowing Hebrew well enough to translate.
Maybe, but nowhere near as condescending as you and Timothy were to me. Nonetheless, Alan (and anyone else), if I was condescending, I’m sorry.