I remember your minister introducing the hustings we held in this place of worship back in the election campaign of 2001. He asked us all how we thought Jesus might vote. I rather fear he might abstain but it is a useful test and I will come back to it at the end.
I have no answers but only questions.
Should our laws reflect God’s law?
Should we live as Christians within the nation or have we a right to expect to live in a Christian nation. On what reading of the new Testament is that a legitimate expectation?
Or is there a separation between personal Christian ethics and the law of the state so that we render to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar and to God that which is God’s?
The two readings we have heard, first the 10 commandments and then Jesus’ summary of Law as loving God with all your strength and your neighbour as yourself, cut to heart of the heart of the question: the division between the law and the Gospel. Does the Gospel complement the law? Does it complete the law? Or does it abolish the law (what need have we for the law when we are saved not by obedience to it but only by God’s Grace)?
What kind of law are the 10 commandments? Clearly it some have to be real laws backed by the coercive power of the state: thou shalt do no murder; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness. We know the 10 commandments are not enough We know we would be given short shrift if we were to present ourselves at the pearly gates and expect to get in by mere obedience to them “at least I didn’t murder anyone…or steal anything, or not very much”.
With one exception exception, the fifth (honour thy farther and mother), they are prohibitions.
Are they really just a measure of the moral turpitude of the Israelites after generations in the flesh pots of Egypt followed by wandering in the desert, that they needed such quite commonplace moral direction?
Jesus’ summary of the law transforms the prohibitions, what you shouldn’t do into what you ought to do. By no means impossible but it is much harder to make law backed by the coercive power of the state to make people do things. Like the 10 Commandments the overwhelming majority of our law are laws against doing particular things.
Commandments 1 to 4 are about our relationship with God and are summarised as the demand to love him whilst 5 to 10 concern our relationship with others and are summarised as loving our neighbours as ourselves.
In the Book of Common Prayer we ask for forgiveness because “we have left undone those things that we ought to have done” and only then as almost an afterthought, “and we have done those things that we ought not to have done”. The primacy is with what we didn't do not what we did.
In the Jesus’ terrifying description of the last judgement in Mathew Ch 25 the damned are separated from the saved because of what they failed to do: they didn’t feed the hungry and thirsty; they didn’t welcome the stranger; and they didn’t visit the prisoner.
So Jesus’ summary of all the law and the prophets, eternal-life determining commands, are a world apart from mere adherence to commandments. This is the important stuff; it is this that singles you out as a Christian (where we would expect everyone to adhere to, at the very least to 6 of 10 of the Ten Commandments). Of course Jesus’ summary cannot be codified into law and enforced by the coercive power of the state. Instead it is simply responding to the daily opportunities presented to us by the Holy Spirit to glorify god by using those talents of silver that he has given too us.
Now I want to examine part of the dilemma facing Christian legislators with what has become the “gay adoption issue”. The 7th Commandment “ thou shalt not commit adultery” plainly signals that sexual relations should be within marriage. This is Catholic social teaching. I expect it is also Baptist social teaching. As C of E I am never quite sure about Anglican teaching. Accordingly Catholic adoption agencies only place children with married couples or single people. They do not discriminate against homosexuals. Homosexuals are eligible as heterosexuals so long as they are sngle. They only discriminate against unmarried couples. That Catholic adoption agencies should fall foul of the regulations about to be published is a measure of the horlix that our legislators have made. The Equality bill passed last year without division; there was unanimity on the principle of the bill: that there should be equal treatment and dignity for people irrespective of gender; disability; race; or sexual proclivity. I did not vote against it and I stand by that decision. I did however try to have it amended so that the detailed provisions of the bill were in black and white on the face of the bill so that they could be fully debated, understood, and where necessary changed. I was unsuccessful and the regulations will be made by ministers, Parliament having no power now to change them. Even if ministers had published the regulations earlier in draft form then we might have had a sensible and informed discussion leading to appropriate changes.
There are many that hope that that the regulations will seriously compromise Catholic adoption agencies and rejoice because of it (and it does not help to have a Labour deputy leadership election going on in the background with consequential posturing) but by and large this mess is the result of cock-up and not conspiracy.
This is no way to make law.
The misnamed and completely misunderstood gay adoption issue is only recently blown up. Many of you have written to me with quite different concerns: First, you were worried about the teaching of homosexuality becoming compulsory in school. We have have yet to see the regulations but ministers have given assurances that the school regime will be unaffected and that is certainly the case in respect of the Northern Ireland regulations now implemented.
Second you wrote to me putting the case of a Christian guest house offering B&B which, under the new regulations, would have to discontinue because it would be wrong to condone homosexual practice by admitting a gay couple. Comrades, I am sorry, but it is a pretty thin argument. If Our Lord was running a guest house the whole spirit and letter of the Gospel declares that he would not have turned away a homosexual couple, had such a thing existed. Would St Paul have done so? I think most certainly not: he never passed by an opportunity to evangelise, now there is a thought.
Are you seriously arguing that people should be allowed to put up a B&B sign and then one hanging underneath saying “ but no pooftas”. Even if you did it more politely 'heterosexuals only' is that really any different in principle to one saying 'whites only'?.
The suggestion that we might grant an exemption to the law for Christians strikes me as quite unsatisfactory. The law is for everyone and all are subject to it. I would no more countenance an exemption for for Christians than I would one for Muslims to practice Sharia.
Now there will be Christians who are even now working themselves up to be martyrs over these regulations. Beware. Remember St Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 3 “though I give my body to be burned and have not charity, I am nothing”.
When we think of all the evil and wickedness in the world are we absolutely sure that the Holy Spirit is calling us to make the equal treatment of homosexuals our line in the sand?
We have yet to see the regulations. Parliament cannot change them: there will be one vote. So when it comes to the crunch we will be left with one issue: are we for or against the equal treatment of homosexuals. How would Jesus have voted? |
