TROUBLE IN ST. ALBANS: A WORM'S-EYE VIEW

By Colin Russell

CEN Newspaper

In the last few weeks the diocese of St Albans has been racked by controversy following the appointment of Jeffrey John as new Dean of the Abbey. More heat than light has been generated and many ordinary people are hurt, angry, fed up and confused. So this is an attempt to clarify some of the issues by a parishioner who has no official role at all in the dispute. A worm's-eye view can sometimes be useful, if only because there are an awful lot of worms.

So what is at stake? To me it seems that several vital distinctions have got lost in the fog of acrimony and recrimination. We need to clarify these distinctions before the real issues can possibly emerge. For many people the question of homosexuality is what the row is all about, so we begin there.

First of all, then, there is confusion between homosexual inclination and homosexual practice. "Homosexuality" can mean two quite different things. An inborn homosexual tendency is not at all the same as homosexual practice. We are all born with tendencies towards this or that, be it inclinations towards same-sex relationships, or towards adultery, football, music, paedophilia, murder, poetry or voting for New Labour. As they say, "it's all in the genes."

Except that it isn't, for genetic predisposition is only one factor in determining action, just as it may be in causing disease. Something outside is often needed to trigger the effect. In the case of illness this may well be an invading virus. For social action this might be peer pressure or the demands of a rootless, post-modern society.

So a person who calls himself or herself a "homosexual" may well be describing a built-in tendency and no more. A truly Christian response is to show to such a person the love of Christ and to welcome them to the company of sinners that we call the Church. Their natural inclinations are no more blameworthy than the colour of their eyes.

The matter of homosexual practice is completely different. For centuries this has been regarded as contrary to God's plan for humanity or (in plain language) sinful. This is true of not only Christian cultures but those of Judaism and Islam as well. There is no evidence in any of these traditions that it is more sinful than (say) adultery, but equally none that it is less sinful.

The point is that we humans have freedom to choose to follow our inclinations or not. And in Christ this freedom may be gloriously realised even more. We need not be the captives of either our genes or social pressures to conform.

So it is perfectly consistent to love the homosexual and yet to deplore his or her fall into temptation. We must cling to the Christian doctrine of Divine love, a love that wants what is best for His creatures, not a poor substitute. And through the Cross the sinner who repents can always find forgiveness. The tragedy in situations like the present one is when there is no evidence of repentance by the chief actors for either past or present practices and attitudes.

There is also a second area of confusion, between scientific and religious views of humankind. In his address to the June Synod the Bishop of St Albans made brief (though sadly inaccurate) reference to 19th and 20th century science, concluding that psychology and genetics play a comparable role to Christian tradition and the Bible in helping us "classify human beings."

In fact genetics has almost nothing new to say about (for example) the tendency of some individuals to crave same-sex relationships. We knew all about that long before DNA came on the scene. All genetics does is suggest a general mechanism whereby such tendencies might be inherited.

To suppose that this or any other science gives insights comparable with those of religion is completely to misunderstand the nature of the scientific process. On matters of moral and ethical values science is completely silent. It is as irrelevant to the current debate over homosexual practice as it is to appreciation of a Beethoven sonata. It cannot be used in formulating sexual ethics or justifying certain behaviour.

Another forgotten difference is that between personal abuse and reasoned debate. In society as a whole homosexuality is a hugely emotive issue, passions run high and logic gets short shrift. To write to Christopher Herbert and accuse him of not being a Christian is utterly indefensible. None of us has any right to make such pronouncements, the prerogative of Almighty God alone. In any case the making of martyrs, even episcopal ones, is not to be commended.

However, the Bishop himself has resorted to caricature. His opponents are said to claim "absolute authority" for their views, to be "alone" in their beliefs and to be simply throwing around "proof-texts." This is simply untrue of all discussions I have encountered. Anyone can portray extremists as the norm. Reasoned debate is even harder when decisions are presented as a fait accompli, with the implication "like it or lump it."

Finally, there is the immense difference between human and divine authority. If, as Anglicans are supposed to believe, the Bible is our ultimate court of appeal then to confuse it with modish ideas from fashionable society is just crazy. The relativistic notion that "anything goes" is not only incompatible with science, but is also totally subversive for the church. Both are committed to objective truth, revealed in the "two books" of God's works and God's Word. Of course there are many ways to interpret much of the Bible, and we are grateful for all scholarship that helps us to do so. But in the case at issue the Biblical text seems crystal clear and no amount of scholarly wriggling can enable us to evade the conclusion. It is interesting that the Bishop has routinely declined to discuss precisely those parts of Scripture where homosexual practice is strongly condemned.

Here, surely, is the core of the St Albans problem: the authority of Scripture. Whether "dispersed" in the lectionary and preaching or focussed in specific credal statements, this authority is vital to the survival of the church. If the diocese now formally repudiates that authority the consequences could be catastrophic. Even the worms will turn.

Colin Russell is Emeritus Professor of History of Science at the Open University and Past President of Christians in Science.