Homosexuality and Women Priests: Challenges to the Church at the time of writing.
Created | Updated Apr 25, 2004
Homosexuality
Within sources of religious authority, a controversy exists over the issue of homosexuality1. Since the establishment of the Church (and before) both religious leaders and tradition have condemned homosexuality, with an argument primarily based on scripture. Today, Christianity, and particularly the Anglican church, is split over the issue, as is the individual conscience of society as a whole (e.g. it was only in 1967 that homosexuality was decriminalised in Britain, and today the age of consent is still two years higher than for heterosexuals). One of the main reasons for this controversy is the attitude of the bible. Key passages condemning homosexuality are often cited, such as Leviticus 18:22 (“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination”), Genesis 19:1-11 (in which the men of Sodom attempt homosexual rape, which Lot considers to be worse than the rape of his daughters), and Romans 1:26-27 (“For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, v.27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error”). Biblical criticism has, however, questioned the relevance of these passages (which we shall look at later) and has pointed out that in the entire bible, there are only about ten lines concerning homosexuality. Therefore, the authorities are heavily divided in their opinions.
At the time of writing, the debate over homosexuality still rages on, as intensely as ever. Returning to the biblical passages mentioned earlier, scholarly biblical criticism has attempted to remove them from the debate. Various points are made such as that in the Genesis passage2, rape of any persuasion is seen as immoral, and that Lot considers his daughters’ rape to be the lesser of two evils could be due to the fact that the male targets were his guests, and so he felt honour bound to protect them. Similarly, the letter of Paul3 can be seen as condemning the excesses of the Imperial court as opposed to a loving relationship between two consenting adults. Whilst the Leviticus verse4 seems unambiguous, the wisdom of basing such a controversial piece of teaching on one verse has been questioned, as has the Christian method of adhering to that one verse, but ignoring all of those referring to the food regulations or to chukim laws5. The individual conscience is still divided, although it is interesting to note that many who oppose homosexuality base their beliefs on these biblical passages, without the above considerations. The Catholic Church is still firmly opposed, as is general church tradition, but some Anglican Church leaders will accept homosexuality, and some openly homosexual men6 have been ordained in this church. Many Anglican leaders will not, however, accept homosexuality, and the Anglican Communion is at present threatening a schism over the consecration of the practicing homosexual Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire, and the issue of Canon Dr Jeffrey John7. The issue is still bitterly divided, with sources of authority supporting both arguments.
Women Priests
The problem of women priests has also fuelled debate among religious authority. The bible is very ambiguous on this point, mentioning little more then the fact that Paul had women deacons (thus women have for many years been allowed to be deacons). Tradition and many secondary sacred writings (especially those of Origen and Tertullian) are strongly against the idea, and argue points such as the fact that all the apostles were male. Scholarship has, however, counter-argued, that this point is only cited because it is written in the bible, but when the canon was formed (incidentally partly by Tertullian) books such as the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, which depicts the eponymous Mary as the foremost apostle were not included. As with homosexuality, the individual conscience is split on the matter, as is the church, although recent historical research has suggested that an anti-feminist bias in the church may owe more to the influence of Victorian values than to any earlier tradition.The Catholic Church is still greatly opposed to the idea of women priests, whilst the individual conscience continues to be divided. Greater feminism has seen the tradition of Victorian values challenged but many religious leaders are still against the idea. Some are not, however, and the Anglican Church has ordained women priests8 although not bishops. Under Section C of the General Synod Convocation which allowed female ordination, however, any Church which is opposed to this can refuse someone who has ordained women priests the right to conduct the Eucharist in the church9. This has created the need for ‘flying bishops’ who have not ordained women to serve these churches, thus laying the ground for a possible split. Thus we can see that in a similar way to the problem with homosexuality, whilst the divisions in religious authority exist, so too does the danger of a division in the religion itself.
1Specifically male. Both scripture, and in fact law are mysteriously silent on the issue of female homosexuality.2Gen 19:1-113Rom 1:26-274Lev 18:225Laws which seem to have no reason for existence, other than obedience to God (e.g. not wearing cotton and linen in the same garment).6As opposed to secretly homosexual.7The celibate homosexual priest who was appointed Bishop of Reading, but then withdrew his acceptance to aviod causing a split in the Church. Following the consecration of Gene Robinson, however, he has now been appointed Dean of St Albans.8March 2004 was the 10th Anniversary of this.9A right which, ironically, the parish church of Lambeth withholds from the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams.
