Sunday, 9 May 2004

The Reformation Continued

University Sermon 2nd May 2004 preached by Revd Dr Giles Fraser
University Church, Oxford

In the years leading up to 1519, Martin Luther experienced what might be described as both mental breakdown and theological breakthrough:

“I did not love God” he said “I hated the just God” and was indignant towards Him, if not in wicked revolt, at least in silent blasphemy.”

Martin Luther’s admission that he had come to hate the God in whom he believed sparked a theological revolution that was to transform the political geography of Europe. What was it that he hated? For Luther, service to a God who demanded human beings earn His love had become service to a heartless despot, impossible to please. Consequently, the confessional had become a private hell of never being good enough, of never earning enough merit to satisfy the unattainable demands required for salvation. This was the shadow-side of the Pelagian’s breezy moral optimism. Luther’s deep sense of the extent of human inadequacy made him appreciate that a God who dealt with human beings strictly on the basis of merit, strictly on the basis of what they deserved, was always going to be a God of punishment. Rowan Williams writes: “this experience was an experience of hell, a condition of moral and spiritual hopelessness. The God who presides over this appalling world is a God who asks the impossible and punishes savagely if it is not realised”. In the years leading up to 1519, Luther came to see his former understanding of Christianity as inherently abusive, and the psychology of the confessional as a destructive cycle whereby the abused child constantly returns to the abusive heavenly father for comfort.

In exposing this cycle of abuse Luther blew apart the theological establishment. Parallels with arguments that are now transforming the political geography of Anglicanism are remarkable. For the debate about homosexuality is a great deal more than a debate about sex. It’s a debate about the nature of God’s love for human beings that has much in common with debates that drove the Reformation. For the message the Church has given to gay Christians is the message Luther came to see as inherently abusive: God does not love you as you are - you need to be completely and fundamentally - and perhaps even impossibly - different before He will love you.

Consider the Bishop of Chester, Dr Peter Forster’s advice to gay Christians that they should find a way of being cured of their homosexuality. Having investigated allegations, the Crown Prosecution Service decided his comments did not amount to a prosecutable offensive - the Public Order Act of 1986 only applies to the incitement to racial hatred. Nonetheless, his remarks deserve the deepest theological censure. For gay Christians who have tried to become acceptable to God by subjecting themselves to electric shock therapy, or by being bombarded with pornography - thus to “cure” themselves of homosexuality - have been forced into precisely the sort of private hell Luther experienced in the confessional. The Bishop of Chester’s theology serves only to describe a cruel and abusive God who cares little for the emotional or spiritual welfare of His children.

Luther’s theological breakthrough was to describe a wholly non-abusive God, a God who loves His children gratuitously and not on the basis of merit. God’s love is experienced as grace, freely given: not as a demand that in order to be loved human beings must first become something impossibly different to what they already are. Luther’s articulation of this very different conception of God released Christians from bondage to a theological construction that made the Christian life seem as desperate as the life of a hamster on a wheel. Against those who would conscript this desperation into financial gain through the system of indulgences, Luther spoke of Christian freedom and the Babylonian captivity of the church. Against those who would make sexuality a part of the whole package of guilt and self-disgust, Luther would renounce his monasticism in spectacular fashion by marrying a nun. Ecclesiastical authorities can no more insist upon celibacy than they can “forbid eating, drinking, the natural movement of the bowels or growing fat” he declared.

Following Luther, generations of evangelicals described the huge joy of being released from the burden of impossible expectations. In countless hymns, the imagery is of throwing off a huge weight, thus to fall down before Jesus to accept His love. One of the best-loved of Charles Wesley’s Methodist hymns has it thus: “I woke, the dungeon flamed with light; my chains fell off, my heart was free, I rose, went forth, and followed thee.” The next verse begins: “No condemnation now I dread.” Being saved is evangelical language for describing the new life that opens up beyond the censure of an abusive God. The sense of finally facing the truth, the sense of admitting it to others, the sense of being accepted as one is, the sense of being released from the burden of impossible condemnation: being saved is an experience emotionally identical to coming out of the closet.

The problem, however, is that the ecclesiastical closet has become a crucial part of the structure of deceit without which a great deal of Church life could not continue. Unwilling to cope with another theological civil war, Church authorities have preferred to reinforce a culture of shame that condemns gay clergy to a subterranean existence. Of course, the church also desperately relies upon its gay clergy who make up such a high percentage of clergy in general. Roman Catholic historian Professor Eamon Duffy recently claimed “there is a real danger in the western Catholic Church that the clergy will become a profession for homosexuals”. Thus the Church’s preference for the ecclesiastical closet. And consequently, the nervous breakdown has become an almost inevitable phase of ordained ministry for gay clergy. But if the connection between the closet and Luther’s confessional is correct, what the church is afraid of turns out to be the very message that it is set up to preach: the reality of salvation.

The irony, of course, is that it is evangelicals who have so spectacularly lost the best insights of their own tradition. Where are the latter day Wilberforces or Shaftsburys? These were men who fought against tradition and, a narrow interpretation of scripture, in order to bring about liberation - most significantly perhaps the, liberation of slaves.

In America, it was evangelicals in the North, inspired by the Great Awakening, that began to agitate for the release of slaves from captivity. For Southern literalists, the North was perceived as inherently liberal, playing fast and loose with scriptures - in particular, Ephesians 6 - that were deemed crystal clear in their support for the institution of slavery. The Bishop who preached at Gene Robinson’s consecration in New Hampshire quoted one eminent divine as saying: “If the scriptures do not justify slavery, I know not what they do justify. If we err in maintaining this relation, I know not when we are right - truth then has parted her usual moorings and floated off into an ocean of uncertainty”. Sound familiar? Robert Dabney, one of Virginia’s leading Presbyterian theologians, insisted that: “The teachings of abolitionism are clearly of rationalist origin, of infidel tendency, and only sustained by reckless and licentious perversions of the meaning of the sacred text”. Those who supported slavery were, they claimed, the “traditionalists”, and those who sought a change in the historic teaching of the church were, in effect, trendy liberals more concerned with some nebulous “spirit” of scripture than with what it actually says. In one sense, the traditionalists were correct: the church had for centuries supported and defended the institution of slavery - as it had supported and defended the subjection of women: a battle, I have to say, that is still far from being fully won.

But those who argue for change are not foisting a politically correct agenda onto a reluctant ancient text. The issue is not about the nature of what it is to be gay or black or a woman: the issue is what it is to be God. And the one thing we know about God is that He seeks to call us out of darkness into light, to call us out of pain into joy, to call us out of deceit into truth, to call us out of oppression into freedom. In short, the Gospel is good news. What, I ask you, is good news about having to subject yourself to electric shock treatment or pornographic aversion therapy in order to become acceptable to God? A God who demands such of his children is not a God of good news or salvation, but a God of surveillance, a God of control, a God indifferent to the pain of his creation.

This is why there can be no compromise with those who wish to force gay Christians back into the closet, or who wish to drive them out of the closet thus to drive them out of the church. When Jeffrey John refused to hide within the ecclesiastic closet - thus sparking off global apoplexy amongst conservatives - his crime was to tell the truth. And the truth has changed things - truth has that effect. Jeffrey’s silent courage as a gay Christian suggests to me that there is some deep connection between the lyrics of one gay anthem: “I am what I am, and what I am, needs no excuses” and Martin Luther’s: “Here I stand, I can do no other.”

It is an example that more and more will follow.

Rise like lions after slumber, in unvanquishable number, shake the chains to earth like dew, which in sleep hath fallen on you, ye are many, they are few. And let the great assembly be, and declare with great solemnity, that ye are as God hath made ye, free.

Let the Reformation continue.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Sunday, 9 May 2004 at 4:05pm BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Sermons

A hearty Amen !

Posted by: David Huff on Monday, 10 May 2004 at 2:37pm BST

Your synopsis of US Abolition was audacious, and due to its simplicity, erroneous. Many conservative northerners opposed slavery (see for example, "The Autobiography of Peter Cartwright"), so abolition was not simply an outgrowth of New England Puritanism, which could hardly be called "liberal" in the modern context anyway. Second, your analysis of the South is also oversimple. Dabney might be representative of what was offerred as a legitimizing cover for the Peculiar Institution, but the real reason for its continuance was economic, and this reason was dying, just as Dabney's religious affectations were dying in their legitimacy. This death of slavery's supposed "morality" can be seen during the Reconstruction, where all manner of religious affectations like Dabney's were dropped in favor of blunt economic and political controls of a preindustrial, "reformed" economy under the Jim Crow laws.

Not sure how this weak foundation of your argument upon US slavery affects the rest of your points, but it certainly doesn't add much.

Posted by: Tom Roberts on Tuesday, 11 May 2004 at 9:05pm BST

I'll second the hearty amen. For reasons known best by the Almighty, I was a member of a high church parish in the old biretta belt for nearly ten years -- a parish that for well over 100 years has held a black belt in ecclesiastical closeting.

The deceits, the dissembling, the terrors, the outright lies, the blackmail (particularly for those on the ordination track), the forms of avoidance and denial in the face of HIV/AIDS, and the psychotic life-styles were, and are, a horror. For all its reputation as a parish of gussied-up liturgy and excellent music, it is, perhaps, more honestly described as a place of death and destruction, no matter how pretty its outward appearance.

Many have prayed and continue to pray for this place -- may the Reformation continue.

Posted by: S. A. Martin on Tuesday, 11 May 2004 at 9:34pm BST

As a Lutheran, I object to the Archbishop's misuse of Martin Luther's Reformation theology. Every day Luther taught his followers to mortify their flesh, not "affirm" it. EVERY catechumen was to memorise the following concerning the meaning of baptism: "What does such baptizing with water indicate?
It indicates that the Old Adam in us should by daily contrition and repentance be drowned and die with all sins and evil desires, and that a new man should daily emerge and arise to live before God in righteousness and purity forever" (Luther's Small Catechism - 1529).
Daily contrition means tackling on a daily basis what St. Paul called our "old self". "...We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin".

It is not a misuse of Scripture to recognise that the Bible defines much of what belongs to the "old self" that must be crucified. Read Galatians 5.19 etc. Much of what libertarians in the Church are trying to endorse, should not only be shoved into a closet - it should be mortified, crucified, just as God's word says.

Read Romans six and see that part of the Evangelical Gospel is that we may regard ourselves as not only forgiven from sin for the sake of the death and resurrection of Christ, but also "dead to sin". Those who "liberate" their sinful flesh are really going back to slavery to sin - and threatening their very salvation.

To equate Luther's liberating Reformation with today's sexual "liberation" is more than dishonest. It is a lie worthy of Druidism more than Christianity.

Posted by: Dr. Jonathan Naumann on Thursday, 13 May 2004 at 4:22pm BST

As a Lutheran pastor, I believe that I am somewhat knowledgeable about the writings and theology of Martin Luther. He'd be spinning in his grave if he knew that his teaching was being misapplied to defend sinful lusts and behaviors. The message of the gospel is not license to remain in our sins, as the preacher seems to think. We cannot imply that God is not offended by our sins (thought, word and deed). If that were the case, why did He send His Son to be tortured and die cruelly upon the cross? We might not want to take our sinfulness seriously, but I'm sure Jesus was taking it seriously as they lashed his back and nailed him to the tree. In the talk about homosexuality in the church today, where is the talk about the atonement and repentance - central themes in Luther? Jesus told the woman caught in adultery "I do not condemn you," but then added, "now go and sin no more." I'm not suggesting that homosexuality is a worse sin than any other, in the eyes of God, only that, to paraphrase our Lord, "Unless we repent, we shall likewise perish." Of course, I realize that the defenders of homosexuality in the church today do not speak of repentance because, against clear Scriptural testimony and the universal tradition of the Church catholic, they do not believe homosexuality is a sin.

Posted by: Rev. Scott Stiegemeyer on Thursday, 13 May 2004 at 5:14pm BST

Isn't thatone of the points Giles Fraser is making here - that there would have been no Reformation if Luther hadn't come to see that attitudes and practices previously considered sinful according to church tradition were not so. The false belief that church ethical teaching cannot learn from the experience of Christians is an aspect of the abusiveness which revelation and tradition tend to engender if not in dialogue with reason and experience.

Posted by: David Hodgson on Thursday, 13 May 2004 at 7:59pm BST

Heb 1:1 "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: 11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; 12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail."

Not sure what "church ethical teaching" has to to with this permanence of God's message, which is revealed incarnate in Jesus.

Posted by: Tom Roberts on Friday, 14 May 2004 at 12:26am BST

I've wondered for a long time whether there would ever have been a Lutheran Reformation if Prozac had been invented ...

One almost has to admire the hutzpah of this preacher. He traduces medieval Christianity, exalts Luther's peculiar mental condition into a paradigm of personal liberation, reduces the transformatiive power of the gospel to divine acceptance of "just as I am," and misrepresents Luther's clear distinguishing of Law and Gospel.

Our preacher knows neither Luther nor the New Testament. Really too bad, too, because he preaches with great passion.

Posted by: Pontificator on Friday, 14 May 2004 at 3:28am BST

I'm not about to get into it with our Lutheran brothers or any other comments by those disputing this sermon. However, I do find it instructive, perhaps curious, that none of the disputers have so far said anything about the dreadful ways in which homosexual persons have generally been treated by the Church, nor have they offered useful suggestions as to how the situation might be turned from death into life. Argue the basis of the sermon's statements all you want, boys; but when that's pretty much all you have to say, I say -- a pox on your share in the ongoing avoidance and denial.

Posted by: S. A. Martin on Friday, 14 May 2004 at 9:25pm BST

>For the message the Church has given to gay Christians is the message Luther came to see as inherently abusive: God does not love you as you are - you need to be completely and fundamentally - and perhaps even impossibly - different before He will love you. These were men who fought against tradition and, a narrow interpretation of scripture, in order to bring about liberation - most significantly perhaps the, liberation of slaves. “If the scriptures do not justify slavery, I know not what they do justify. If we err in maintaining this relation, I know not when we are right - truth then has parted her usual moorings and floated off into an ocean of uncertainty”. Sound familiar?<

Well, yes. But only because I've studied history, and recall Debow's Review. I can think of no contemporary parallel, nothing like it in this day and age. But, I am not using hallucinogens like Fraser and his kind must be. They see "racism, sexism and homophobia", whereas those who can see truly observe charity and compassion, even in the act of denouncing sin, perhaps especially there.

Posted by: Theologian on Friday, 14 May 2004 at 9:59pm BST

Your stupid system screwed up what I wrote, and even edited out the best parts. I say Fraser is wrong, debate his points, and most of my post is removed. Here again, I will say what I wanted to say before.

In answer to the first quotation I wrote:

I thought the message was to repent, which means the same for all people, that we must all change fundamentally, perhaps even impossibly. "With men this is impossible, but..."

In answer to the second quotation I wrote:

Actually, the abolitionists both here and in England based their beliefs on scripture, e.g. Deut. 23: 15, 16.

The third answer came through intact, but only after piling the three quotations together into one, and editing out what I said.

Posted by: Theologian on Friday, 14 May 2004 at 10:07pm BST

I can understand the problems that our Lutheran brothers and sisters have with Giles' approach. The radical so quickly becomes the orthodox! But he is right. When we feel that our belief paints a picture of a cruel God, we have only two choices: either to leave, or to change our understanding. The current 'orthodoxy' about gay sexuality is cruel. Gay people have no choice in their sexuality, and imposed celebacy is both cruel to them, and a travesty of Christian faith.

There is a lot of talk about 'Emerging Church'. But few people see this in terms of a new Emerging orthodoxy that accepts people regardless of their sexual orientation.

'Up, Peter. Kill and eat' is not confined to the first century.


Posted by: Richard Thomas on Friday, 14 May 2004 at 11:37pm BST

Those who did not like what Giles Fraser said in his sermon will not like this alternative version either, in his Guardian column today "Luther, love and Gloria Gaynor":,3604,1217306,00.html.

Posted by: Simon Sarmiento on Saturday, 15 May 2004 at 9:52am BST

The sermon was a good read and it is full of the passion for justice, and "good news for the poor" and the marginalised. I am no expert on Luther but the point is clear, God's love is UNCONDITIONAL. Why are people still claiming that a state of being human - homosexual, is a sin? and why the insistence that this state of being is one that is beyond the love of God? For men this is impossible but for God....
So yes a hearty AMEN from us too!

Posted by: Julie Withers on Saturday, 15 May 2004 at 7:17pm BST

Why are most arguments on the direction of the church not Gospel based? Christ called his deciples to cast their nets on the opposite side of the boat, When Peter by faith alone came OUT of the boat to approach Jesus, he walked on water, till he faultered in his faith. God through history has challenged his people to move beyond what they now know and chastised them when fear overcame them. I believe Luther was a move in that direction, and God continues to speak to his people today. God created a free people with one constraint, Jesus gave his church two comandments only, and the example of his life. Lets start from there.

Posted by: Bruno on Sunday, 16 May 2004 at 1:52pm BST

I do believe Luther had no intention of being used for this intention, that I can agree. But I reacted to how Stiegemeyer drew the line between, being gay equals being sinful and lustful in behaving. I am Catholic, finishing my theological studies at a Lutheran seminary in Norway. I grew up in a gay environment. My uncle is gay and has lived in a relationship for over 25 years.

I worked as a volunteer at a crisis centre for a few years and it was depressing work, since most of the abuse on the west coast of Norway was related to the Christian and church environment. They were never caugth, just silently asked to leave, giving them chance to apply for a similar job somewhere else. The irony then, is to hear Lutherans say that the abuse in the Catholic church is due to celibacy. Of course not. It's due to closet thinking! Wherever things can not be brought into the open, create a perfect environment for abusers, be it sexual or not.

I am not gay, but it hurts to see my friends and family being judged and despised, loathed and unaccpted. Love the sinner, not the sin. But I find that most Christians are not able to move beyond the "sin" and be truthful in their love. I would never ask a hyperactive child, with a disorder, to pull himself together and concentrate better at school. He couldn't even if he wanted to, and so if he set it as his goal, he'd be doomed for failure. It's not homosexuality that is a sin. It's promiscuity! I don't hear Christians give Britney Spears a sermon like they tend to give all gays, celibate or not. And she's after all, the role model for many children all over the world. Besides, one can not repent from something one does not consider a sin. I can name Christian abusers. They can not repent, as long as they do not see the harm in what they have done.

I am not married and have chosen a celibate life. It's not so difficult to live alone when you are young and I believe I have received the grace to live a life of chosen celibacy. But can I expect that of all homosexuals? Can I judge them for wanting the same love and companionship of a partner as heterosexuals do? Who am I to judge anyway? Are we not best off leaving that up to God?

Posted by: Kirsten on Saturday, 22 May 2004 at 10:54am BST

I thank you for your article.It was refreshing to read and a small glimmer in the stygian darkness that is church life today. The subsequent postings made me wonder what kind of God do these folks belive in, for a long time I have considered leaving the organised church because it seems only to be a refuge for the intelectually blinkered. To take a narrow point God created everything including those whose sexual preferences are different from mine, and if God is content who am I to question his doings.Worship reduced to a formula is to treat our Lord and Father as a Machine that can only be accessed by a performance in a certain way.For the love that Jesus went to the cross for us. Free us from the bondage of system worship and see all of God's works as an afformation of his unending forgiveness for us.

Posted by: Robin on Saturday, 22 May 2004 at 3:51pm BST

Giles Fraser demonstrates little understanding of Luther's biblical theology with this rather predictable apologia, as well as a woeful misunderstanding of the Bible's own treatment of slavery, and the latest thinking on sexual re-orientation. It would take a book to answer his errors (and they have been written, Giles, you just don't seem to know about them), but some brief pointers are: 1. see the essay on homosexuality by Wolfhart Pannenberg, surely the greatest living Lutheran theologian; 2. on the illegitimacy of the slavery/homosexuality comparison, see Robert Gagnon's magnum opus (and for much else on this debate!); 3. see the NARTH website on Dr Robert Spitzer and documented change in sexual affections and/or behavior - nothing to do with the old scare stories about EST and pornography.

Posted by: Commentator on Sunday, 23 May 2004 at 8:45am BST