Believe Differently

I came across some comments today, on the BBC news website, made by Paul Eddy - of the Conservative Anglican network in the UK - concerning the current “goings-on” in the Anglican communion, and felt I needed to add some of my own remarks – though, I would also read Bishop Marc Andrus’ response if I were you.

Paul Eddy writes:

The Bible is clear that sex is a gift from God and is intended for a life-long committed relationship of marriage between a man and a woman. Any sex outside marriage, whether heterosexual or homosexual is therefore against God’s plan for his children and his will.

I do not think the bible is clear on anything. Apparent perspicuity, or stability in meaning, is the function of the interpretive community and not the text. Meaning seems clear until one steps out from the confines of one’s community to find others who read the same text and yet reach radically different conclusions. There are not quite as many interpretations as there are readers – although, actually, there possibly are: no two readers are ever going to absolutely agree - but there are certainly as many as there are interpretive communities. Those that claim a literal understanding as the understanding are simply unread; else they have only chosen to read - or listen to – others already in agreement.

Eddy writes

Ordinands who believe they have sexual desires towards people of the same sex are able to be ordained priests so long as they maintain the Biblical standard of no sex outside marriage, just like single heterosexual priests. They may openly declare that they believe they are gay, but must remain celibate.

I have no idea what the phrase “biblical standard” actually means. I doubt Eddy regards something as biblical just because it is in the bible. The biblical text is far from univocal on matters of morality. Biblical standards are not always that great in my opinion! Only a certain reading which chooses to attenuate a good deal of the Old Testament would suit the modern ethical palette.

Also, while we are on the subject of “biblical doctrines”, I thought something close to the heart of most Evangelicals is the doctrine known as the “priesthood of all believers.” How is it that “bible believing men” such as Eddy are able to stay in communion with a church which clearly distinguishes a priestly caste? Surely – to use Eddy’s terminology – this is a “first order issue”? Could it be that something other than a concern for “biblical principles” is influencing Eddy’s theology?

Concerning the ordination of woman bishops, Eddy writes:

Some parts of the evangelical wings of the Church and certainly the Anglo-Catholic wings would have problems here, although this is generally felt to be a second order issue. There will be diocese/Provinces at Gafcon and Lambeth who will and will not appoint women Bishops.

Why is the ordination of woman bishops a “second order issue”? On what “principle” do these Evangelicals decide one issue to be “first”, and another “second?”  Could it simply be that their homophobia outweighs their misogynism?