The Church of Scotland finds itself debating the doctrinal significance of homosexuality. I gather that the outcome of the debate is that the General Assembly has imposed a moratorium on the appointment of ministers in openly acknowledged same-sex relationships for the next two years.
In the news this morning, Scott Rennie, the minister of Queen's Cross Church, Aberdeen, whose appointment has sparked off this controversy in the Church of Scotland, said words to the effect that,
"If a major company announced that it was going to have a moratorium on the appointment of gay employees for the next two years, there would be an outcry".
(I'm quoting the Rev. Rennie from memory and on the basis of a sound bite, so I beg his pardon if I have misconstrued him.)
Meanwhile, on the other side of the Northern Hemisphere, the Supreme Court of the State of California has upheld the constitutionality of the the recent referendum banning gay marriages in that State.
Competing intrinsic goods
As one would expect, these debates can often be reduced to the a calculation of the pecking order of what a Natural Lawyer might call "Intrinsic Goods". The Californian Supreme Court seems to have made its decision on the basis that, in the case of the legalisation of gay marriages, democracy as an intrinsic good - expressed by a referendum - trumps the possible intrinsic good of gay marriage as a civil right.
My judgement of Scott Rennie's position is based on a very scant knowledge of the facts of the case. I assume that it assumes the intrinsic good of a committed same-sex relationship and I assume that it also assumes that this can, from the Christian point of view, be guaranteed by propositions found in revelation (i.e. scripture). What was curious was his supplementary appeal to the intrinsic good of the employment policies of large, private corporations. He seems to be arguing that the Church should use "the world" (which has specialised meanings in Christian discourse) as a source of doctrinal guidance.
Trying to decipher aspects of the debate
The debate about the status of same-sex relationships seems to have assumed a highly symbolic - and rather complicated - role in the conflict between religion and secularism. I'd like to suggest what may be a couple of the complicating factors in this phenomenon.
- Firstly, in Western societies, the appointment of clergy is one of the few areas in which Churches maintain some degree of direct power - Churches have long since given up being the gatekeepers of entry to education, the franchise, or the military hierarchy. (Once upon a time, in England and Wales, a woman seeking a licence to practice as a midwife had to apply to the bishop of the diocese.) So, from the perspective of many a secular fundamentalist, ecclesiastical employment policies are an expression of what Churches would like to do if they had a more direct influence on employment policies in the secular world.
- Secondly, for many orthodox Christians, one of the things at stake in the debate about same-sex relationships is the value of the Christian revelation: amongst other things, capitulation on this question to prevailing secular views is a nearly unequivocal admission that the orthodox Christian must beware of trusting specifically Christian lights.
And yet there's an unresolved irony underlying the decision of the California Supreme Court: that certain gay rights do not have the same status as an intrinsic good as the simple will of the majority - two goods that many secular fundamentalists otherwise regard as intrinsic.
Posts
Saying something is good just because someone or some group says it is so obviously won't do but would you argue an exception should be made in God's case? In other words, God says something is bad, therefore it is bad - end of story?
ReplyDeleteIn both the case of, say, Californian voters and the Almighty I guess we'd actually want to argue that the kind of surface indicator - a majority of public opinion in the case of Californian voters and a kind of moral judgement delivered from on high in the case of God - is just one facet - albeit the apparent end point - of a complex process. What both Californian voters and God want isn't just expressed by box-ticking or snap judgements. Another way of saying this is that sixty million Californian souls are just as unfathomable as God and one utterance is never going to be definitive.
Also, you can't rule out an overlap between the two - even if a referendum result doesn't make gay marriage (in)valid except in a narrow legal and political sense, you cannot know for sure how God if he were Governor would have acted - would He have allowed a referendum, voted for or against the proposition or so on.
Stupendous comment. Many thanks. I'll have a go at this in two stages. For the moment, I'll stick to your first question.
ReplyDeleteYou start off with the classic, Kantian question: is something good simply because God says so?
Oddly enough - and despite the huge, public disagreements between Kantians and Catholics - I can't help but feel that the Catholic doctrine of the authority of conscience produces much the same result as Kant's ideas on autonomy. I believe that a Christian who cannot at some level say, "I believe on the strength of my own reason and/or intuition alone that there is something fundamentally good about the nature of God," is also failing to act in accordance with orthodox Christian belief.
I think that a Christian should both honour and respect the person who, on the grounds of a well-informed conscience, rejects orthodox Christian teaching on the subject of sexuality. Indeed, the same respect must be extended to the person who rejects Christianity as a whole on the same basis.
I also believe that the legal provisions for marriage are ultimately matters for the state: I believe that the state has the right to authorise same-sex marriage (and polygamy, etc).
Hmmmm - that led to a lot of pleasant research on my part - thanks.
ReplyDeleteOn Kant, I'm no expert (I did propose on Matters today that as well as Openings course the OU should do ten point really hard courses for those willing to have a crack at really difficult stuff - Kant would be the perfect example!)but I think I see what you're saying - voters should vote (and believers should believe) not because of what some external entity tells them (heteronomy) but in tune with their conscience and whatever else their brain tells them. I'd personally start to get a handle on this by saying this is a variant of 'dare to know' - don't rest on your assumptions, don't be cowed by institutions and be happy to demolish Kant, God, your self and marriage! In other words, I'd say reason and conscience contain the seeds of their own destruction. Doesn't mean they can't rise again from their ashes or just kind of sneak up on you behind just when you thought they'd vanished.
On your second paragraph, genuine respect=what though? There's a kind of dilemma: if you respect other people's conscience etc., then Christians should vote in favour of secular laws permitting full marriage equality - it would be up to the individual as to whether they took advantage of those laws, refused to attend gay weddings or whatever - it would be a stage beyond the current 'No gays please' sign hanging over the civil marriage ceremony. OTOH orthodox Christianities may say that it is right to speak out here, campaign against such measures and so on. So you're caught between different kinds of respect.
On polygamy, I hope you're not going to say that if we let in gay marriage you 'll be able to marry your pet goldfish.
Kant, as a teacher, had a reputation for pushing his students to think for themselves – he would have more sympathy with what you say than some might guess!
ReplyDeleteAs to the issue of respect, I would say that there’s a difference between agreeing with something and believing that the state has the right to permit something – there must be vegetarians who can make an extremely powerful moral argument for the damage to human health and to the environment done by the large scale breeding of cattle, sheep, and pigs for the table but who nevertheless respect the right of some to eat meat.
A fellow OU student of my acquaintance once had to deal with a client who wanted to marry a tree. Ho hum.
Well, thanks Greenianman - this little convo has made me think too.
ReplyDeleteI'd say that neither vegetarianism nor tree-love were categorical imperatives - in fact, you could end up consuming bits of your tree-spouse and it would cause all sorts of trouble.