By Savitri Hensman –

Savitri Hensman

Arguments within faith groups can be puzzling to those outside and sometimes even members, especially when rifts widen or rivalries become intense. The tone of a recent article, ‘Inclusive Sri Lankan Anglicans Welcome Non-Christians & Dogs’, is in my view intemperate and the harshness of its criticisms of fellow-Anglicans (including me) questionable. Nevertheless it raises issues on which it is worth reflecting. 

Questions are sometimes raised about whether religious groups focus enough on what matters most, especially acting compassionately in a world in which there is so much unnecessary suffering. I was born in Sri Lanka, live in England and often meet people from other countries, as well as writing on human rights and other issues. All too often, amidst soaring costs, ordinary people struggle to pay their bills and feed their children, while those in charge seem more concerned with lavishing further favours on a handful of their already-rich cronies. Governments override basic human rights and brutally attack or lock up peaceful protesters, with large numbers of police deployed to silence dissent. Public services are run down, ethnic minorities and disabled people brutally mistreated, deepening social divisions. Past misdeeds are glossed over, fresh ones committed by the powerful. Amidst environmental destruction, huge areas are scorched or flooded. Humans are fallible and all societies will inevitably have flaws but that is no reason not to seek at least some improvement.

In this context, some might say, if Christians are going to get indignant, surely there are more important matters on which to focus than the fine detail of religious ceremonies, especially if fellow-believers are trying (however imperfectly) to practice their faith? As well as feeding the hungry, caring for the sick and welcoming the stranger, does not loving one’s neighbour as oneself mean not getting sidetracked from addressing the conditions which leave so many people struggling merely to survive, let alone thrive? There may be sincere differences on how best to achieve this but, if Christians end up arguing heatedly, should this not at least be about such vital matters? 

The language of worship and neighbourly goodwill

In reality, many faith groups do spend a lot of time on practical care for the needy and vulnerable and, sometimes, defending the vulnerable and challenging abuses of power, even if this may not get much media attention. Believers with varying views often work together to serve meals to the destitute, offering a listening ear to the lonely and bereaved or urge prosperous businesses to pay staff a living wage. Yet it is true that debates on what, from the outside, might seem quite minor issues or specialised areas of interest can absorb huge amounts of energy and sap goodwill. 

A sense of proportion, and willingness to reflect on, rather than just react to, the uncomfortable and unfamiliar can be helpful (encouraged perhaps by the Wisdom tradition which forms such an important strand not only in the Old but also the New Testament). The prophets of the Bible repeatedly reminded their listeners that piety should not displace concern for the poor and oppressed, Jesus challenged religious leaders who focused on minute details of observance but neglected weightier matters of justice and mercy. Yet precisely what happens during worship is very important and trying to get this as nearly right as possible does matter, even if this is by no means straightforward.

Religious services, as well as prayer or meditation in smaller groups or on one’s own, can help to shape us, enabling us perhaps to deepen our relationship with God, grow spiritually, be comforted or disturbed, receive the guidance and strength we might need to relate well to one another and tackle the tasks ahead. This applies at a collective as well as personal level. But this is complicated when seeking to share an importance inheritance of faith with fresh generations, across cultures and in new contexts, as well as rediscovering aspects of tradition which might have been buried for centuries. What Christians might describe as seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit is vital if this is to be done well.

One important principle which dates back to the early church is that diverse people should feel included and valued during Christian gatherings, as far as possible. The Epistle of James, for instance, warned against showing favouritism to the rich while the poor were treated as if they were worth less. Showing partiality was contrary to the royal law, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ Over the centuries, Christians have often fallen short of treating everyone equally, yet, when this happens, it can bring healing and renewal.

In the church where I regularly worship, we tend to use quite ‘traditional’ concepts though expressed in modern English, which is very common in the Church of England, whether parishes might be labelled evangelical, Anglo-Catholic, liberal, middle Anglican or some combination of these. To the best of my knowledge, for most Anglicans worldwide, whether ‘inclusive’, ‘conservative’, both or neither, the resurrection is central (including in Canada, as reflected in core liturgical texts, and preaching). This is, I believe, the same for most ecumenical partners. Certainly that is so for me, not simply as a historical fact which happened two thousand years ago but also as a present reality: selfishness, indifference, cruelty, injustice, even death itself do not have the last word. Given our failings as individuals, communities and the whole human race, and all that goes wrong in our universe including disease and natural disasters, this might seem wildly hopeful, but there it is.  

At the same time, pastoral sensitivity matters. It is inadvisable for chaplains at the bedside of a dying child to harangue the parents with pious phrases which take no account of their distress; while those undertaking ministry to groups who may have been badly hurt by churches, or who find certain language has painful associations, may have to choose their language with some care. This includes functioning in a post-colonial context. 

What is more, mere mortals of all faith traditions cannot possibly grasp or convey the full reality of an infinite God, unbounded by time and space. Even the complexities of our own world are hard to understand and we are bound to get things wrong. Though the quest for truth is important, lack of humility and getting too competitive in dealings with neighbours of other beliefs can be unhelpful.

I trust Jesus’ promise, according to the Gospel of Matthew, that mercy will be shown to the merciful; and, regarding acts of compassion to the hungry, thirsty, stranger, naked, sick and prisoner, ‘just as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you did it to me.’ Likewise I believe that, to quote the first Epistle of John, ‘God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them.’ This includes love in intimate and distant relationships and even for enemies. And that is so, in my view, whatever system of belief someone professes.

Change in society and LGBTQ+ inclusion

Sometimes reactions to change in the churches overlap with those in wider society. Economic insecurity, along with loss of what is familiar and arising of new threats as well as opportunities, can affect people in various ways. 

In my view, it is perfectly healthy to be wary of change. While medical breakthroughs, for instance, deserve to be celebrated, the development of weapons of mass destruction and use of social media to share crude images of women and incite hate crimes do not. Yet when, say, some Americans cling to nostalgia for the days when their ancestors owned slaves and embrace a distorted version of Christianity which fuels the notion of racial superiority, there is something badly wrong.

It is important to be selective as to whether particular changes should be embraced or rejected; and it may take a while before the full implications of new developments become clear. Shifts in society include the growing visibility of people who might now be termed lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer (LGBTQ+), though language and concepts have differed across places and in history.

In Sri Lanka, not so long ago, there might have been a tacit acceptance in many communities that some men might be strongly emotionally and physically drawn to other men, likewise women to women. But, as long as people were reasonably discreet and fulfilled family duties, which might include marrying someone of the opposite sex and preferably having children, this might not have been regarded as being of overwhelming public interest. Perhaps on a smaller scale, people noted as physically male at birth who could not succeed in thinking of themselves as men, and likewise with those physically female, could get on with their lives if they presented in expected ways on certain occasions. 

Brutal state persecution was widespread in the large urban centres of England in the early and mid-twentieth centuries, which caused much misery but did not generally change people’s sexuality and gender identity, though in many colonies and newly independent countries this was less intense. In the West and beyond, resistance to what was growingly recognised as cruel and pointless led to change, in which people could live more openly, though discrimination and sometimes violence still went on occasionally. 

Meanwhile increasing numbers of Christian thinkers in different parts of the world pointed out that a handful of Bible passages focusing on sexual abuse, exploitation, infidelity or excess could not be applied in a straightforward way had little or nothing to LGBTQ+ people today trying to lead ethical lives. Many Christians who were not themselves LGBTQ+ who wished to treat others as they wanted to be treated, in line with the Sermon on the Mount, came to believe that others should not be denied the joys and challenges of entering into the kinds of faithful, loving commitments they themselves enjoyed.

In Sri Lanka today, there is far greater LGBTQ+ visibility than was the case a few decades ago, though some people disapprove, and decriminalisation is likely to happen soon. I recognise though that even people committed to human rights for everyone may not necessarily think that different types of relationship and self-expression not harmful to others are equally valid, for varied reasons.

Precisely how the Bible and tradition should be interpreted, and what it might mean to perceive God’s image in everyone, of whatever sexual orientation and gender identity, and treat them with care and respect, remains contentious. Some people sincerely believe that being affirming is not spiritually helpful, while others point to the ‘good fruits’ which have stemmed from accepting diversity, in contrast to the harm (not just to individuals but sometimes their spouses), and the wasted energy which could have been spent on doing good, when people have been pushed to conform.

Sometimes two single adults entering into a faithful, self-giving partnership, for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and health, until parted by death, wish to be blessed by a minister of religion, in a place of worship. In some denominations and countries this can happen whether or not they are of the same sex, in others it cannot at present, at least officially. Whatever the pros and cons, it is far-fetched to believe that this will somehow lead to unrestrained debauchery or murderous rage. The lives of LGBTQ+ people in loving long-term relationships are often fairly similar to those of others, including dealing with the discipline and demands of care for each other, family and community. In most of the 24 years I had with my partner, until she died of cancer, we were carers for adult relatives, as well as supporting each other in various activities linked to community health and wellbeing and social justice. 

Unity and its limits

Occasional disagreement within faith communities, sometimes on important matters, is almost unavoidable. I believe there is much to be said for trying to remain in fellowship despite differences, where possible. 

Yet I think there are times when strong challenge, at least, may be needed. For me, the twisting of religion to incite violent hatred against minorities or wars of conquest deserves to be opposed and resisted. And when faith groups try to justify or cover up abuse against children or adults at risk, this too is unacceptable. 

Nevertheless, on a range of other matters, some measure of pastoral discretion and freedom of conscience can be valuable. It can take time for some matters to become clearer, even when people are open to listening and learning from one another. Meanwhile other core aspects of belief may continue to be shared and people of faith can keep working together to care for those in need and protect the vulnerable.