Thank God for Muriel Porter
"The Prime Minister has put the subject on the Australian agenda with
legislation to ensure marriage is restricted to heterosexual couples."
Dr Muriel Porter, The Age, June 14, 2004.
Writing in The Age, June 14, 2004, Dr Muriel Porter, Anglican laywoman and society and religion
journalist, called for a "reality check in the gay marriage debate" and
made the comment that "denying public recognition to long term gay
relationships simply promotes homophobia." Her article points to
the actions and opinions expressed by leaders of our nation and of
churches that have sensationalised the facts, polarised the community
and perpetuate harmful prejudices. Pointing beyond Australia,
Porter writes...
"At the same
time, conservative Anglican Church leaders are demanding that the
Canadian church be expelled from the worldwide Anglican Communion
because it has said that committed gay unions have both "integrity and
sanctity". The same leaders have already threatened a catastrophic
split unless the American church revokes its appointment of an openly
gay bishop."
Looking closer to home, similar threats are being made within the Uniting Church in Australia (UCA), by neo-conservative,
evangelical groups who promote a new orthodoxy based upon
discrimination and the erection of barriers based on sexuality, that
delimit participation and leadership within the ministry and mission of
the Church. Ordination of gay persons and gay marriages are made
issues of contention that threaten division. Comparing
her pointed statements, with issues within the UCA, contributes to the
current debate
over faith, sexuality, membership and ordination of gay persons within
the Church. While gay marriages have not been given specific reference
in current UCA debates, they are topical in Australian politics and
relate to other issues that face the nation, its people and its
Christian churches. Gay marriages are certainly of interest to
many homosexual members of the UCA and their families and
friends. An excursion into issues of gay marriages and
recognition of gay relationships in general, as aspects of care, also
throws light on issues of homophobia and Christian mission. Much of what Porter says of Anglican and other Christian communities can be applied more widely.
Porter notes that
opponents of gay marriages and gay leadership also present a degree of
ambiguity, pointing out that the same persons "who want to deny gay
couples any vestige of formal recognition for their union, are also the
first to denounce the stereotypical gay lifestyle." Porter
continues:
"They deplore the promiscuity presumed to be part and parcel of the world of gay bars and saunas.
On health grounds alone, they are right. But if
they refuse to honour monogamous same-sex unions, what alternative are
they offering gay people? Do they really think lifelong celibacy
is a realistic option? As the Catholic Church has learnt to its
cost over the centuries, it is not possible for the vast majority of
human beings. Most people, whether they are straight or gay, crave love
and intimacy. Without it, their lives can easily become less than
human."
A call for honesty, and integrity is timely. The reality of the current debate within the UCA also
highlights the need for similar searching and similar questioning of
the values and politics of the neo-conservative, right wing of the
Church. The potential remains high, for treating gay, lesbian,
bisexual and transgendered members of the Church as less than human or
vilifying them behind stereotypical views and fearful innuendo.
The play of power politics that drives attempts to enforce
neo-conservative opinion, risks schism and thwarts religious and moral
development, demeaning both the UCA and its members. We all seek
unity and peace, to order the world around us and to bring
life-affirming change to our lives and our institutions, however, unity
and peace will not be achieved through xenophobic, social practices of
applied stereotypes and unrealistic values. Social delusion is
not an acceptable solution. As Porter points out,
"(i)f gay people
are denied proper public recognition of their partnerships, they are
left with little other than the lifestyle offered by the gay community,
which inevitably leaves them in a kind of shadowland. To the wider
community, the myth of gay relationships as invariably short-lived and
somehow degenerate, remains unchallenged.
Those who oppose gay unions know all this. They
know that they are condemning gay people to a life of marginalisation,
at the very least. But that is the object of this distasteful political
exercise. They want a world they can control, where conventional
marriage is the only recognised form of sexual relationship."
While highlighting ill-informed, community attitudes about gay
relationships is commendable, Porter clouds the issue here by referring
to "the gay community" and "lifestyle" without challenging these notions. We may ask, what constitutes
"the gay community"? Does such a thing exist or is this just a
trite catch phrase, an oversimplified generalisation? Is there a "gay lifestyle"? To apply
Porter's own call for reality here, it is wise to recognise that there
is no "gay community" and that criticising stereotypes by applying
other stereotypes, does not advance us very far. There is a great
diversity in gay social groupings, relationships and communities (and
even in sexual expression), that belies the notion of a "gay
lifestyle". Among conservative Christians, the notion of a gay
lifestyle is an untruth, promoted to ensure that homosexuality is seen
as a matter of choice or a continual engagement with sin and
sinning. Besides challenging community perceptions of gay
relationships, challenging the fib of "a gay lifestyle" is also
due. This could be done in ways that do not hide the realities of
values and opinions that enflame homophobia, enforce secrecy and
confound life-affirming lives for many gay persons.
Teaching or promoting necessities of good health is one thing, decrying
community opinion when it is prejudicial and uninformed is another, but
perpetuating other stereotypes in the process is irresponsibly unjust.
The issue of same-gender
marriages is also not a simple one. It
remains to be seen how far it becomes part of "the Australian agenda",
if indeed there is such a thing. In truth there are
many social, religious and political agendas within Australia that will
attract differing amounts of attention within their own contexts. With
regard to same-sex marriages, for example, not all homosexual persons
may want to enter into marriages or engage the issue. Shorter
term relationships may be among preferred options. In which
case, some definition of appropriate ethics or moral approaches to such
relationships will need to be worked out. Again, context and
experience will hone the issues. Already, the UCA has flagged issues
relating to ethics of right relationship with respect to all human,
sexual relationships, and has met resistance from those who claim that
rules such as "celibacy in singleness and faithfulness in marriage
(cisafim)" are the only appropriate ethical norms. This
resistance subverts the process of considering appropriate ethical
standards.
Porter draws attention to similar, restricted thinking among Australian
an New Zealand politicians, who act to delimit marriage to heterosexual
person only. Looking away from Australia, she notices that
reactionary or retrogressive opinion is creating dangerous precedents,
where opinion
goes further than John Howard's comments on marriage as a heterosexual
prerogative and invites discrimination. Porter's words are
informative and her criticism of retrogressive developments is precise.
"Across the
Tasman, where the New Zealand Parliament is preparing to debate a bill
designed to give gay couples the same legal rights as married couples,
the newly elected Anglican primate (leading bishop) has actually
declared that he wants to see homosexuality become publicly
unacceptable once more.
Bishop Whakahuihui Vercoe is adamant that
homosexuality is unnatural and not morally right. The New Zealand
Herald says his vision is of a "world without gays".
It is disingenuous of church leaders to condemn
homophobia in the same breath as they condemn same-sex unions. Denying
gay people public recognition tacitly promotes homophobia."
The views of Bishop Whakahuihui Vercoe
project a deplorable negativity into the debate about sexuality.
In a world that experiences extremes of fear, racism, hatred, terror and
violence in pogroms, religious persecutions and acts of ethnic
cleansing, it is not difficult to comprehend what the bishop seeks.
Are barriers of exclusion to be raised in churches and schools?
What forms of censorship do they expect, in order to create a "world without gays"? Are hotels to be closed,
persons scrutinised for offending taints of homosexuality on playing
fields, in board rooms, clubs, theatres, libraries, bars or the
streets? How will they police their intolerance? Will
jack-booted brigades return images of The Third Reich and Hitler's
"final solution" back into the world in new guise? Describing
these bishops as "disingenuous" is something of an
understatement.
Porter is correct, denying gay people public recognition incites homophobia. When does
disingenuousness become social fraud, xenophobia and hatred?
To back up their claims, Porter reports that nay-sayers quote the Bible
in support of their view. Her criticism there is telling, and
again points up the diversity that exists in Christian interpretation
and application of the Bible. She says of this:
"Their claim that the Bible condemns all gay sex, giving them no option but to condemn as well, is scarcely convincing.
Not all biblical scholars agree that the Bible
condemns the modern phenomenon of committed, long-lasting homosexual
relationships - but even if it did, the Bible condemns many things with
far greater insistence and ferocity.
For instance,
it condemns lending money for interest - any amount of interest - and
up until the 17th century the Christian Church regarded usury as an
extremely grave sin. It is convenient that church leaders turn a blind
eye to that particular biblical teaching today, or they would have no
choice but to condemn the entire capitalist system underpinning modern
economies.
The Bible condemns greed, character
assassination, and judgmentalism, and particularly pertinent for
contemporary Australia, it is uncompromising in its condemnation of
those who reject the stranger in need at our gates, or who allow any
harm to be done to children."
Biblical
interpretation and application of
biblical quotes to engage "wedge politics" is challenged, notably with
biblical references via indirection. We know our Bibles and read
them selectively. Emphasising
local situations and asking appropriate questions concerning
"ancient sins" against humanity and the stranger is commendable.
The
implications are that "sins against humanity" are widespread, not only
in extremes abroad, but in our own political and social actions as a
nation. Attention to gay marriages serves to divert
attention from the personal, social and political needs of others.
Porter
asks:
"Why then are
we not seeing greater political division over the treatment of asylum
seekers and their children in detention, or even over corporate greed,
instead of cynical "wedge politics" over gay couples?"
And why aren't Anglican Church leaders uniting
to condemn these ancient sins so rampant in the modern world, instead
of indulging in an unedifying struggle to return gay people to the
closet?
Sadly, the answers are only too plain. Because
of continuing community homophobia, gay people remain an easy pawn in
the political power games of politicians and bishops alike.
It is high time the bluff of these community "leaders" was called."
Muriel Porter
has successfully shown the extremes of opinion from which
fear and hatred can develop and persecution increase. She
uncovers gay people as "easy pawns in the political power game of
politicians and bishops alike" and questions indifference and asks why
there is no outrage over these issues and other issues that currently
impact Australian politics. Why indeed? However, let us not
lose sight of the fact that attacks on gay people are real and require
real solutions rather than denial. So who will call
the bluff of these community leaders?
It's time for a reality check.
Our concern
is within the UCA. To its credit, it has spoken of asylum seekers and
their children
in detention. It seeks social justice and decries vilification of
gay and lesbian persons. It is a community leader in
reconciliation and building right relationships with our indigenous
peoples. It provides a safe place for migrant-ethnic communities
and welcomes their churches as part of its fellowship in union.
However, it seems incongruous for such a brave church to contemplate a
life that bars accepting leadership from its homosexual members because
of "ancient sins" and spurious notions of religious and human
purity. Christian reality needs to be re-stated in terms of
justice that puts aside discrimination, hatred and revenge, in favour
of forgiveness, reconciliation and building of authentic,
relational communities. This will require more than "bluff
calling". It requires spirited leadership and active
participation. Are our leaders and churches up to the task?
Ed..
Dr Muriel Porter, an Anglican laywoman, writes regularly for The Age on religion. She is the author of “Sex, Power &
the Clergy”, published by Hardie Grant Books, 2003, which tells the story of the current crisis from an Australian perspective,
outlining church response today and in earlier decades. It analyses the
effectiveness of the church’s response and, in particular, asks why the
churches still have not begun to understand the causes of sexual abuse in their
ranks.
A WORLD WITHOUT GAYS?
A New Zealand Aotearoa Perspective.
New
Zealand Aotearoa commentators have made significant comments on Bishop
Whakahuihui Vercoes' call for "a world without gays", pointing out that
his views deny much of his own Moari and Polynesian cutural origins,
where same-gender relationships were practised.
Like Muriel Porter
in Australia, they call the bluff of Christian fundamentalism, pointing
to the fact that pre-Christian Polynesian societies accepted a wider
variation in sexual preferences much earlier than Europeans,
as shown
in the fa'afafine of Samoa, faka leiti of Tonga and mahu of
Tahiti.
They question bigotry and the injustice of intolerance. They also
raise questions for Australian readers, who are told little of
Polynesian culture and history by the Polynesian migrant-ethnic
churches in Australia. One Polynesian writer plays with a suggestion that Pacific
peoples "have played a seminal role in the emergence of modern
homosexual identity." Another writer questions
anachronistic, conservative opinion and the third explains that bigots
have put the mental in fundamental. More ...
Arming Yourself for battle: know what to say.
A commonsense Guide to Christian Inclusivity
The
Sunday Service went well and you and your companion are enjoying an
equally refreshing cuppa’ after the Service. The room is a buzz
with church-talk- the kids from the Sunday School are proudly showing
off their paper creations showing Zacchaeus up the sycamore tree- some
are singing a catchy nursery song- the hospitality group is inviting
people to a luncheon- teenagers are gathering around the poster
displaying the photos from the recent church camp- Mary is dolling out
material scraps and balls of wool to members of her craft group- while
everyone else stands in small groups, cup in hand and chatting.
Beckoned by a smile and a "come hither" tilt of the head, you join a
group of people who had been sitting near you in church. You are
greeted with a question, "Well, what do you think of the all this
proposal 84 thing?" Before you catch breath, the questioner adds,
"It has opened the way for ordaining homosexual ministers." His
wife nods her concurrence and tightens her lips. You finally take a
breath, smile, thinking of a polite response for a moment, and you say
…
Well, just what would you say? Continued over page...
Sanctified Unions: an Approach to Same-gender Marriages:
Reviewing an article by Eugene F. Rogers
By Welwood L. Anderson
A recent article in Christian Century
presents a way of looking at same-gender marriage or "unions" that
invites consideration. In taking an approach to marriage via a doctrine
of sanctification, Rogers shows a tradition that does not place
lust, biology, procreation or the raising of children as the reason for
marriage. Other values are ascribed to marriage, such as
beneficence derived from improved socialisation, human growth as
persons in relationship and opportunity to love and to experience intimacy and friendship. Marriage or "sanctified unions"
become incarnate vehicles for metanoia,
relational growth and holiness,
as an embodiment of human diversity that celebrates the diversity of
Creation. Rogers' approach opens an enclusive pathway so that
attention to sexuality may not become unjust and that the possibility
of sanctification of intimate relationships is open to all persons.
Now that John Howard has put gay marriages back on the Australian political and social agenda, new
approaches may be timely. Of course, Howard appears to be
parroting the American President, with his neo-conservative opinion,
and it is from the USA that we hear other voices address similar issues
within American politics and George W. Bush's social vendetta against
gay marriages. It is in that context that Rogers speaks, considering
gay marriages from a
theological position that renders the type of reductionism visited upon
the American and Australian communities by its leaders, as graceless
and
contrary to the well being of the Christian community.
Approaching from traditions within the Orthodox Church, Rogers opens
the possibility of understanding Christian marriage as a relational
discipline, through which a persons open up to the possibility of
growth in personhood and in holiness, for God's sake and each
other. In this, marriage is likened to life in an ascetic,
monastic order, in which "both the monastic and the married give
themselves over to be transformed by the perceptions of others; both
seek to learn, over time, by the discipline of living with others
something about how God perceives human beings."
Quoting
Rowan Williams, Rogers contends that "Grace, for the Christian
believer, is a transformation that depends in large part on knowing
yourself to be seen in a certain way: as significant, as wanted."
Through love and marriage, knowledge of self and other becomes
transformative, so that each perceives and knows the other as
significant and wanted. In this we understand something of the
divine, too, for God also brings us in to relation with God so that we
know that we are significant and wanted persons, in fact, sanctified
through relationship. The sanctity is in the relationship and not
in the sexuality or the gender of the persons.
"The whole
story of creation, incarnation, and our incorporation into the
fellowship of Christ's body tells us that God desires us, as if we were
God, as if we were that unconditional response to God's giving that
God's [Son] makes in the life of the Trinity. We are created [and we
marry] so that we may be caught up in this, so that we may grow into
the wholehearted love of God by learning that God loves us as God loves
God."
Rogers argues that marriage implies monogamy, relational fidelity,
which, like monasticism, embodies divinely initiated features of the
tiune life that celebrates love responsively. Sexuality is for
sanctification, that is, for God, and is understood by Rogers as "a
means by which God catches human beings up into the community of God's
Spirit and the identity of God's child. As relational, carnate (embodied) beings
there is an implicit, human diversity that also participates in the
life of the Spirit in Creation. In fact, Rogers argues that human
diversity, including homosexual persons, is "ordered to the good" and
questions contrary opinion. He argues that gay marriages augment
good order and "that conservatives wish(-ing) to deprive same-sex
couples not so much of satisfaction as of sanctification," threaten
good order.
Read Roger's article here...
 Download it as a WORD file for your own personal study.
Star of Greece Wreck: Part of a Geography of Sorrows
An account of shipwreck and early SA history.
Our Editor walks past the wreck site and its red marker buoy just about
every day. It has become a place of personal contemplation,
saddened by the thought of the events of Friday 13th, July, 1888, when
the steel hulled ship went aground on the reef, 200 yards from
shore. The officials in the colony of South Australia made no,
effective rescue attempt, even though suitable vessels stood ready at
Port Adelaide, 30 nautical miles away. 18 lives were lost.
More ...
Welcome ! ?
An article from the United Church of Canada negates images of bouncers at the door.
Set to begin airing March 1, a UCC television spot parodies two 'church
bouncers' who choose which people are 'worthy' to come inside.
The 30-second commercial
stars two muscle-bound "bouncers"
who stand guard outside a fabled,
picturesque church where they discriminately
choose which persons will
be permitted to attend Sunday services.
Then a tag line touts the UCC's different
approach: "No matter who you are, no
matter where you are on life's journey,
you are welcome at a United Church of
Christ congregation." More ... (An External Link to the UCC)
Bloody Mary: Bloody Minded
In an article in The Age, entitled "Gay ministers still up for debate",
July 29, 2004, (read it here), the Religion Editor, Barney Zwartz, quoted Evangelical spokeswoman, Mary Hawkes, as saying,
"There's an old saying: 'There has to be blood on the
floor of the assembly for the church to live in peace.' Decisions have
to be thrashed out," she said. "In the past people have been so nice.
We're all nice people so we back off when things get ugly. There will
be blood on the floor at assembly." ["Gay ministers still up for debate",
The Age, July 29, 2004.]
To what sort of church does this woman belong? To what ugly kind of church does she invite us? More...
Quotable Quotes
In thinking about issues
surrounding continuing discussion of "Resolution 84", Rev. Jason John
provides a few remiders from the previous reflections of the Church on
issues of biblical authoruty and interpretation and on church
srtucture. Quotes from Davis McCaughey on populist church
governance make informative reading in light of the SA Synod current
consideration of a "one synod, one presbytery" structure and the danger
of slipping into a sect-church mentality. Other quotes from
publications of The Joint Commission on Church Union and papers from
Chris Mostert and Andrew Dutney bring the Basis of Union into focus at
this critical time. More...
AMERICA: CALL TO RENEWAL
In "A Call to Renewal", a US Baptist of a kind different to Jerry
Falwell, asks, "How do we nurture the healing side of religion over the
killing
side? How do we protect the soul of democracy against bad theology in
service of an imperial state?"
Bill
Moyse, presents his keynote address to the Conference,
Call to Renewal
Pentecost 2004, May 2004, Washington DC, and questions
contemporary politics of the relgious right in America.
He outlines how political alliances built "with the religious
right – Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority and Pat Robertson’s Christian
Coalition – who happily contrived a cultural war as a smokescreen to
hide the economic plunder of the very people who were enlisted as foot
soldiers in the war."
He
explains how the religious right has "hijacked Jesus, " how a new class
war has emerged that is based on pursuit of money and power and the
government of the many for the benefit of the very few. He draws
on criticism of a wide ranging function, from the Pentagon to the
Capitol, from Washington to the prisons in Iraq, that belies the
American dream that "all men are created equal.". He concludes, "Call to Renewal is
the fight of our lives."
His
notable address may be read at the following link: http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0408&article=040810x
|
S. Gormann, (Ed.), Sexuality and Leadership in the Uniting Church in Australia: biblical and theological reflection resources,
is now available from the Assembly of the Uniting Church in
Australia, through Synod Offices. Copies may be purchsed from
meetings of Friends of Unity. A link to the Assembly website provides
access to
downloadable versions at http://nat.uca.org.au/EBook/download.htm
The role
of Centrelink is displayed on a poster bearing the rubric, "Solving
problems and developing opportunities", under which is drawn an
illustrative cartoon. A ship is shown heading for disaster upon
some rocks, upon which a lighthouse stands being held aloft by a
company of men, to raise its beacon above an obscuring layer of low
cloud. The beam of light shines out above the clouds, now
elevated above the encircling nimbus that had supposedly masked its
beacon from sight from the ship. All appears well, a disaster
saved by a clever stratagem, except for one fact, obviously missed by
the artist or by Centrelink, the ship still cannot see the light from its
position beneath the clouds
Of the event, Horrocks later wrote, "