Three 'inclusive' contributions to the sexuality debate

I have recently found three interesting contributions to the debates about homosexuality from an ’inclusive’ perspective and three different areas of academic expertise.

Most recent is the newly published submission from the Royal College of Psychiatrists which is available as PDF or HTML.

I also discovered the draft text of a lecture by Ian Markham, Professor of Theology and Ethics and Dean of Hartford Seminary - "Open Orthodoxy and Same-Sex Marriage: Where Should Christians Stand?", one of the Lebel Lectures on Christian Ethics at Calgary University, Canada. A MS Word document which asks not to be quoted offers - through a contrast with polyamory and engagement with VA Demant and biblical teaching in favour of monogamy - a defence of ’gay marriage’ as a distinctive form of Christian witness in contemporary society. This apparently draws on material in his recent book Do Morals Matter?

There is also the text of the lecture in May of this year by New Testament scholar, Richard Burridge, Dean of King’s College, London entitled Being Biblical? - Slavery, Sexuality, and the Inclusive Community which gives a foretaste of his eagerly-awaited and soon-to-be-published, Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics.

Abortion - Doctor's rights and patients' rights

I have just discovered an alarming news report in last Sunday’s Observer about a Christian doctor I know who is under investigation by the General Medical Council (GMC) for how she responds to patients seeking an abortion and being criticised by my own MP here in Oxford. Tamie Downes apparently gave an interview to the Daily Mail earlier this year in which she spoke of patients who decided to continue with their pregnancy rather than proceed with termination after her consultation with them. She is also one of the organisers of a petition to the British Medical Association (BMA) about the current abortion law and its briefing paper on the subject of early abortions.

While one must be cautious about basing too much simply on one news reports it would appear that Dr Downes is being targetted because other doctors - including Evan Harris MP - are unhappy that after conversation with her some patients decide not to have an abortion and that Dr Downes has spoken to the media about this fact. There is - in the report - no evidence that she has broken the GMC guidelines which do not prevent those doctors conscientiously opposed to abortion speaking to patients seeking termination but simply and sensibly state they must respect patients and their views and

You must not unfairly discriminate against them by allowing your personal views to affect adversely your relationship with them or the treatment you provide or arrange. If carrying out a particular procedure or giving advice about it conflicts with your religious or moral beliefs, and this conflict might affect the treatment or advice you provide, you must explain this to a patient and tell them that they have the right to see another doctor

As the Chair of the BMA’s medical ethic committee is quoted as saying at the end of the report

’In discussions with patients [about abortion] GPs may want to investigate a woman’s individual circumstances for requesting abortion to ensure their patients are confident about the decisions they make - this is good clinical practice. However, doctors who force their own personal views about abortion on their patients are acting against BMA and GMC guidelines and are not behaving in their patients’ best interest.’

This whole debate raises a host of important ethical questions. It would appear that (uniquely?) in relation to this medical "treatment" some people think that the doctor is simply there to do whatever the patient demands with no right to ask questions: agreeing to termination is the only professional medical response to someone who is pregnant and unhappy enough about being so to go to the doctor to enquire about abortion. Any doctor who thinks otherwise should, it appears, be banned from treating a patient in this condition and force them to see someone who will simply sign the necessary form. If they do not - and especially if they dare to tell people that actually quite a significant number of women, after talking, decide to continue with their pregnancy - then they must be reported to the GMC and investigated by the government. The irony is that Dr Downes is quoted in the article as saying, "It has to be the mother’s choice. I have no right to make that choice for them". It is the allegedly ’pro-choice’ movement that is here opposing attempts to ensure that women (many of whom are, unquestionably, wrestling with big moral questions and perhaps in some emotional turmoil) are truly giving informed consent. The basis for this appears to be the claim that doctors giving facts or allowing space to make this momentous decision are giving partisan and religiously biased advice whereas simply giving medical approval without necessarily engaging seriously with the patient as a hurting human person is somehow a ’neutral’ response and so the only legitimate one.

Homosexuality - A First Order Issue? (II)

In thinking through this question the first challenge is what is meant by the general reference to ’homosexuality’. After all, this is the issue which is being claimed as ’first order’ and ’communion-breaking’.

The problem can be seen if the relatively uncontentious claim is made that ’Christology’ falls into this category. What exactly is being claimed? One can think of a whole range of claims that could be made about Jesus - he was unmarried, he was Jewish, he was Israel’s Messiah, he was a prophet, he is God, he is the eternal Word of God made flesh, he had two wills (divine and human). Are all of these of the same order? Are all of them issues we would consider communion-breaking? Here there have been centuries of careful theological reflection and debate. Here presumably most Christians would agree we are close to the heart of Christian faith such that some claims about Jesus are not just wrong but strictly incompatible with genuine Christian faith and being part of the catholic church. Nevertheless, we need much greater care and precision than the general label of ’Christology’. How much more must that be the case when the category is ’homosexuality’?

What then is the focus in this claim about homosexuality? Again one could think of a whole range of claims. To take two extreme examples. Someone might claim that same-sex love was the highest form of human love or, alternatively, someone might claim that all homosexual attraction was demonic and thus never experienced by a true Christian believer. These are both claims a Christian might make about ’homosexuality’. Is the acceptance or denial of them a first-order matter of Christian faith? Should we break communion with those who hold these views?

Presumably the short-hand of ’homosexuality’ or ’the gay issue’ is used by most people to refer to some of the central claims of Lambeth I.10 e.g. that homosexual practice is contrary to Scripture, that same-sex unions should not be blessed by the church and that those in such unions should not be ordained. There does, though, need to be greater clarity about what exactly must be affirmed or cannot be denied about homosexuality (and what can and cannot be done in response to homosexual love) if one is going to define it as ’first order’ or ’communion breaking’. It is only by such sharper definition that one could weigh such claims about the significance of this subject and see how the issue at stake may be related to other important issues of Christian faith and practice.

The further complication with ’homosexuality’ in contrast to say ’Christology’ or ’Trinity’ or ’atonement’ is that it relates to a widespread human phenomenon and not to an element of divine revelation. That phenomenon encompasses human desires (what we often call orientation), human actions (practice), human relationships and, in the contemporary context, often human identity. Greater clarity is needed about in which of these four areas we are being told it is vital for Christians to treat interpretation and moral evaluation of this phenomenon as a ’first order’ issue with tight constraints on what classes as a Christian stance.

Finally, when it comes to saying that ’homosexuality’ is ’communion-breaking’ there are even more difficult questions relating to what one must say or do in relation to homosexuality for the issue to become a cause of impairment or breaking of Christian fellowship. Is it a matter of someone’s personal belief? Some of the reactions to Rowan Williams’ appointment suggest it is for some. Or is it a matter of their public formal teaching and ’campaigning’? Or is it only a matter of their own personal sexuality and sexual conduct? In that case Gene Robinson would be a problem for church unity but not his supporters who do not follow his way of life. Or is it that there are a variety of personal or corporate responses to Christian same-sex couples that require an end to life in communion with those who makes these responses?

I will try to return to some of these questions after some further posts trying to understand a little more what might be meant by the other key terms of the question - ’first order’ and ’communion-breaking’.