I thought I would pause after covering three hard issues and reflect on what distinguishes them from the next three. It does seem that many Christians have identified sexuality, abortion and ordination of women as their flagship ethical issues.
These are all about sex and to some degree are issues generated by the attitudes of the churches themselves. There is a significant consensus about them, covering a range of traditions some of which don't even recognise each other. Instead of speaking in a prophetic voice about economic and political issues, where there will be less consensus between Christians, the voice of the churches is uncertain and derided as its ethical attitudes are seen as outdated and unjust.
Of the three sexual issues I have chosen, perhaps abortion is something of an exception. Here we do have killing, albeit lawful, although why the lawful killing that takes place elsewhere doesn't attract equal wrath is something of a mystery. The problem is 'abortions' or 'no abortions' are not the options we face as a society. Our options are 'regulated abortions' or 'unregulated abortions'. The only way we can possibly know whether or not the numbers of abortions are increasing or decreasing is through regulation.
The issue for some is of course whether legal abortion means society is condoning sin. This is what makes these three issues instances of the same problem, an inadequate grasp of the nature of sin.
What we are dealing with here is prejudice, prejudice that is based on fear of sexual sinning. It will be said that we must obey the commands of God. So, my question is why does God command we discriminate against women or homosexuals? The reply will be of course that it is not for me to question God's laws. My response? In asking the question, I'm not asking God, I'm asking you.
People suffer through injustice and we are not called to arbitrarily choose verses from the Bible to oppress them further. Our calling is to identify injustice and seek to redress it wherever it occurs. When the world sees a people of irrational prejudice, picking on people who are not white, male and straight, they see nothing of God.
These three issues are stances some Christians have chosen to demonstrate their faith. They are not stances based on an understanding of injustice and they distract from far more serious problems facing the churches. They betray a basic insecurity, portraying a church afraid of the modern world and unable to articulate its faith.
Let me finish with a quote from Karen Armstrong's new book, The Case for God, page 123, where she describes Augustine of Hippo's views on these matters.
Whenever the literal meaning of scripture clashed with reliable scientific information, Augustine insisted, the interpreter must respect the integrity of science or he would bring scripture into disrepute. And there must be no unseemly quarreling about the Bible. People who engaged in acrimonious discussion of religious truth were simply in love with their own opinions and had forgotten the cardinal teaching of the Bible, which was the love of God and neighbour. The exegete must not leave a text until he could make it 'establish the reign of charity', and if a literal understanding of any biblical passage seemed to teach hatred, the text must be interpreted allegorically and forced to preach love.
Comments