Let’s start by underscoring something: the paradigmatic transgression of the Law of the God of Israel is idolatry. It’s no coincidence that Judaic moral reflection pays relatively little attention to Adam and Eve, and much more to the sin of the Golden Calf and the apostasy of Baal Peor. In the legal portions of the Torah, God sets out numerous specific commands, ordinances, and statutes; but over and over again God cautions the people against idolatry. Not only is idolatry a sin itself, but it entangles the idolater in various other sorts of misbehaviour. Idolatry is both an arch-sin, and a cause of further specific sins. So God warns the people against it, commands them not to do it, explains that they’ll slide into all sorts of wickedness if they relax their exclusion of idolatry the tiniest bit, and generally does everything divinely possible to fend off the perils of idol-worship.
It’s very, very, very bad.
This morning in church we read the marvellous story about Naaman, the general in the army of Aram, who suffered from leprosy until Elisha sent him to wash in the Jordan. A great many sermons will have touched on the hospitality of Elisha, in curing a foreigner (and the leader of their army at that), and on Naaman’s scorn for the Jordan, about Naaman’s conersion to worship of the God of Israel, or on the ways that leprosy prefigures X or Y or Z (I’m usually very dubious about “yesterday’s leprosy is like today’s [name an affliction]” sermons; they usually seem imprecisely attuned to leprosy in antiquity, and they have been known to give pain to contemporaries with the affliction-du-jour. But I digress). Kelvin preached a fine sermon this morning about rivers and baptism and otters. But what struck me this morning while I heard the lessons was the extraordinary gesture at the end of this part of the story. Naaman asked Elisha, “But may the Lord pardon your servant on one count: when my master goes into the house of Rimmon to worship there, leaning on my arm, and I bow down in the house of Rimmon, when I do bow down in the house of Rimmon, may the Lord pardon your servant on this one count.” And Elisha said, “Go in peace.”
Naaman asks Elisha for a free pass for condoning and participating in idolatrous worship. Now, Naaman makes it clear his heart wouldn’t be in it; he imports two muleloads of the soil of Israel so that he can pray to Israel’s God on, as it were, a plot of Israel’s land in absentia. One might think that if there’s anyone, anywhere, who had to be guarded against involvement with idolatry, it would be the recent convert Naaman (“how soon these newbies forget their obligations!”) — but Elisha seems to say, “That’s all right. Go ahead.” Go ahead and do the single most offensive thing possible in the eyes of God. No biggie.
I suspect that part of the reason I was moved almost to tears this morning was that it has been reported in the press that Jeffrey John, the Dean of St Alban’s, will be short-listed to become the new Bishop of Southwark. This would be a pretty dull bit of news relative to a well-known, intelligent, pastorally-acute, effective clergyman, were it not for the fact that the Rev. Dr. John is gay and in a committed civil partnership. (There’s a lot more as well, including an agonising drama over Dr. John’s previous nomination to be Bishop of Reading, which nomination his close friend the Archbishop of Canterbury apparently required him to refuse; and there’s the additional six years of sturm und drang in the battered Anglican Communion. And the recent consecration of the Rt Rev Mary Glasspool as Suffragan Bishop of Los Angeles. Et cetera.)
Some proponents of Dr. John’s consecration will point out that his relationship is strictly celibate; hence, although he loves another man, their love is no more transgressive than Diego Maradona’s affection for whichever of his players he’s closest to at the moment — or David’s legendary love for Jonathan. I have heard tell that some people disbelieve him, though that smacks of the worst sort of bigotry; gay folks can be celibate just as much as anybody else, and Christianity has known and approved (cautiously) celibate heterosexual marriages. Some have alleged his past sexual activity permanently disqualifies him from church office. In all of this, I feel acute pain for his enduring the grim experience of dozens, hundreds, perhaps even thousands of people making loud pronouncements about the extent and moral ramifications of his sex life.
I bring this all up this morning because I have heard no allegation against Dr. John’s serving as a bishop except those related to his sexuality. In every other respect, everybody who has mentioned him has cited no defect to his qualifications for this ministry. Many of us discern no impediment at all to lesbian and gay clergy serving as bishops, so that’s no problem for us. And among those who do object on the grounds of commandments against sexual activity, Dr. John’s public avowal of celibacy (much more about his sex life than I want to know) should settle the matter; the relevant prohibitions forbid sexual activity, not affection. Yet even if simply loving someone of the same sex spiritually as opposed to physically were forbidden, which it is not and which possibility I advance despite my unyielding confidence that it cannot intelligibly be, even so — cannot Dr. John be shown as much grace by his opponents as Elisha showed Naaman?