Jeremy Halcrow - 11 April 2008 04:12 PM

David, the SMH website has the full correspondence online. if you look at the SMH story online the link to the letters is under Justice Kirby’s photo.

Thank you Jeremy, I missed the link but have now read the correspondence.

Without resiling from what I said earlier, I have some questions and comments:

By what authority did Mr Lane write to Michael Kirby?

What church does Michael Kirby attend – Mr Lane’s? If so private conversation and if unresolved barring him from the Lord’s Table is the normal course of discipline, even for Anglicans surely(?)

If he doesn’t attend Mr Lanes’ church then perhaps at the least Mr Lane might have considered taking the advice of his Bishop on the best way to proceed.

Clearly Mr Lane felt a burden, clearly in my view someone should have challenged Michael Kirby - his Rector if he attends church, one of the Bishops, the Archbishop since he seems to know him.

In any advocacy we need to remember the four voices of the church: the prophetic, the professional/academic (ie well supported and articulated evidence), the persuasive and the artistic. I would say Mr Lane got the prophetic voice in good and strong but he could have tried some more persuasion which might have been along the lines “could we please meet and discuss”.

I think the sarcasm of the second letter is unfortunate and as someone said it may have helped to defer writing a day or two or else shown the proposed letter to a friend who is able to be critical.

I find Kirby’s response fascinating and could have been much better responded to. By allowing sarcasm to take over, Mr Lane missed an opportunity to challenge Michael Kirby on a number of the points he made, because challengeable a number of them certainly were. And “Laney” and “Kirbs” simply won’t do.

However the Judge needed to be challenged after the interview with Monica Attard and the Rector of Bellevue Hill rose to the challenge and deserves acknowledgement and support for so doing.

I hope this doesn’t sound patronising and if it does I apologise profusely.

David

Could someone please show me this otherwise unknown passage in Scripture where active, continuous, unrepentant, public false teaching (which is what Kirby has been doing) is dealt with by sitting down casually, having a calm chat and finally agreeing to disagree?

As Richard pointed out in his first letter (and, yes, I too feel his second letter was unforunate) the reason he wrote was because Justice Kirby was making false statements about the Christian faith in the public arena, and hence leading people into sin - and all the while claiming he was a Christian.

This was never a question of a Christian personally falling to temptation where Galatians 6 (“Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently") would apply. Rather, it’s about unrepentant sin and false teaching.

If you say that Richard’s first letter was unwise, unloving and lacked grace then you’d have far worse things to say about 2 Peter 2 or Jude, for example - and the words of Jesus.

Unless Justice Kirby repents he is destined for “blackest darkness” because he is a “godless man, who has changed the grace of our God into a license for immorality” (Jude 13, 3). That’s the Biblical reality, and the Biblical language.

The fact is that if in his letter Richard had simply introduced himself then quoted most of Jude then Kirby, the baying hordes of the secular press and many in our churches would have labeled him “unloving” and “unchristian”. That’s where we are today it seems - the Bible is unchristian!

Yes David P, my understanding is that the Archbishop has ongoing private dialogue with Justice Kirby.

My understanding is that Justice Kirby attends St James King St. The debate was an event associated with this parish

I’ve just gone back and read all the additions since Jeremy alerted me to the letters.

Jeremy Halcrow - 11 April 2008 07:37 PM

If you read pro-gay church material they will often cite specific accounts of such cases… this narrative will increasingly find its way into the secular press. And it is difficult to reply to real pain with logical propositions.

Spot on, the second letter was a shocker, it is damaging if only because it is graceless and will circulate through the worldwide homosexual community with the potential to be thrown back at us ad nauseum..

I really think when we engage publicly it is wise to work in tandem with a trusted critical brother. My son fulfils that role for me. Everything I write whether for Australian Presbyterian or The Age always goes to him, because he is in his early 30’s, well read, cultural antennas whizzing around and razor sharp, and I can trust him.

I hope Mr Lane has some good friends to get alongside him because what he tried to do was so courageous and in the absence of anyone else taking action (I don’t know whether this is so), it was right for him to challenge Kirby.

Yeah, I agree that the sarcastic tone in the second letter was pretty poor. In Lane’s defence, Kirby threw some barbs his way that clearly found their mark. And I think Kirby was delighted with the opportunity to share the impolite letter with a wider audience.

But what’s more of a problem - calling someone a liar, deceiver, fool, hypocrite etc right off the bat while trying to open a dialogue (if you can call it that) with someone of considerable standing and intellect who is obviously sensitive to personal criticism because of his sexuality, or replying to his response in such a flippant, sarcastic manner?

Are we really that uncritical of those who share similar views, simply because of those shared views?

To me that is the most disappointing revelation of this episode, and sadly illustrates Kirby’s point.

I would be interested in what a considered response would actually look like. David P or anyone else - would you like to share how you would approach someone like Kirby in an unsolicited letter essentially asking them to terminate their relationship with their partner (which would be to essentially divorce them - and we all know how unpleasant that experience is) for starters? I’m curious as to what a genuinely loving, Christian response would look like.

Hi Luke.

You not being fair to me of course! You are using the chapter of the that I have tried to think hard about obeying the last year or two and found myself failing at miserably.

We all need to be very careful about how we respond to things we feel passionate about.  I cannot speak for Richard Lane in this case so perhaps if someone knows him well he might like to post on this thread.

In the heat of the battle things will come out more agressive than we want to and I have been guilty of being graceless, agressive and sarcastic when I have been pushed into a corner (on this forum on one or two occasions I have been guily of that).

James says that not many of us should presume to be teachers, because we will be held accountable for the lives that come under our teaching.

So what do we say of Richard then?  Is what he was teaching Mr Kirby incorrect?  Harshly put?  Perhaps. Sarcastic? Maybe he has a case to answer for there. But was it wrong? Justice Kirby calls himself a Christian and so Richard speaks to him as a fellow Christian who is sinning. 

Again I think you have a point about James 3 and taming our tongue. I have to tame my tongue all the time because I can behave in a foolish way, so I guess Richard could be more careful with the way he said things.

But as to what he was teaching someone who claims to be a brother; was the content of what he said wrong?

What then would you say to Justice Kirby? Since he has raised his sexuality in such a public forum and related to the Christian faith that he claims to follow - how would you encourage him to follow Christ? Would it involve any sort of rebuke?

They are my rather hasty thoughts. I was planning to not read this thread after my first post for the sake of not saying anything too quickly. James says that we should be slow to speak and quick to listen and often posts on threads like this are great ways to go against what James says -in my case anyway.  Maybe I haven’t answered the question properly but I felt I should answer you tonight.

Luke Stevens - 11 April 2008 08:19 PM

I would be interested in what a considered response would actually look like. David P or anyone else - would you like to share how you would approach someone like Kirby in an unsolicited letter essentially asking them to terminate their relationship with their partner (which would be to essentially divorce them - and we all know how unpleasant that experience is) for starters? I’m curious as to what a genuinely loving, Christian response would look like.

A fair question.

I think something along these lines:

Dear etc

I read/heard with interest your interview with Monica Attard in which you said......

As an Anglican minister I was concerned about your response.

I trust you won’t take offence if I outline the reasons for my concerns.

Spell them out........ quoting a few carefully selected scriptural texts and comment, but doing so in a way to anticipate some of the points Kirby will make about alternative ways of reading the Bible.

I would bring out the judgment aspect (did so myself in a submission to Victorian LRC last year re decriminalisation of abortion)), but not as per top of p3 of first letter “Justice Michael Kirby, as one appointed....”

(BTW, this is what I said to the VLRC: “Governments and their agencies, as much as individuals, are accountable to God for their actions and one day there will be an accounting for all our actions before the Judgment throne of God. There is a well known text in the Bible, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Book of Proverbs 14:34), that speaks directly to this issue.")

I think I would conclude by making some appeal to consider his position with enough bite (but not as much as Mr Lane employed), so that I got a response.

one and half pages is more than enough! And I definitely see no value in using any of the words Kirby took exception to with the exception possibly of “hypocrisy”.!

If Kirby comes back with, say something like his first letter, then I would select points to respond to.

So looking at his first letter:

1. I’d put a train through the Kinsey Reports
2. wouldn’t let him get away with the exegesis
3. I would engage him on Ted Huggard, etc
4. I think I would answer him re Jesus (p3) with comment on Jn 8, moneychangers and a few other things
5. I would have something to say about the character of Anglicanism and current schism taking place
6. I would say something about the sociological negatives of the homosexual lifestyle while acknowledging his and Johan’s fidelity
7. and finally as compassionately as I could I repeat my earlier warning with renewed and greater strength.

My first letter is softer but gauged to get a reaction, the second is the harder one, but regardless, no sarcasm, no smart arse stuff.

How’s that, what do others think?

Got to go and make tea, and wash it down with some of that luvely Victorian shiraz.

David

But what’s more of a problem - calling someone a liar, deceiver, fool, hypocrite etc right off the bat

It was a little more nuanced than that...though not much!

while trying to open a dialogue

I don’t think he was trying to open a dialogue. I think Lane knew that Kirby is set in his ways, and he was calling him, strongly, to repentance.

someone of considerable standing and intellect

Absolutely. Kirby’s intelligence is beyond dispute, and he has played this situation well

who is obviously sensitive to personal criticism because of his sexuality

I’m not convinced by this. My gut feeling is that Kirby enjoys being a bit of a stirrer.

As I’ve said earlier, Richard Lane should have walked away when he got Kirby’s reply to his initial letter and taken a deep breath before replying. Yet I can fully understand his anger. Consider this quote from Kirby:

For more than a century, science has been unravelling the truth about sexual variation, not only in humans but in other mammals, A good place for you to start would be to read Kinsey’s reports. Although sampling techniques have improved since the 1940s and 1950s, the basic truth of Kinsey’s investigations have been affirmed and reinforced by more recent research. The cohort of human beings who are exlusively attracted to their own sex is about 5%. This is a relatively small proportion. But, then again, the Jews (also often victims of Christian hatred) were about 5% of the population of Germany in 1933.

Once a stable proportion with this characteristic is appreciated (numbering in all millions of human beings) it is self-evidently absurd to suggest that such people are evil wrong-doers,That would truly be a presumption to attribute such an error of genetics/hormones to God. This realisation obliges us, in the current age, to re-read the scriptural texts (often metaphors for mysterious truths) with the frest eyes granted to us by contemporary science.

Apparently, all you have to do to change something from being a sin to not being a sin is make sure that enough of you do it - a stable rate of one in twenty of the population or more is enough. Great news for the adulterers, sexually immoral, thieves, greedy, drunkards, slanderers or swindlers among us (1 Cor 6:9-10) they should easily make the cut. Or to turn Kirby’s remarks back against himself - given the tens or hundreds of thousands of people who participated in genocides throughout the 20th century, does this now mean that those guilty of participating or supporting genocide are now off the hook with God?

While it is right to condemn Lane for his intemperate remarks, our real anger should be directed towards Kirby, whom Lane rightly called on to repent.

Why should we, as distinct from God, be angry with Justice Kirby? Please explain. Should we be angry at the lost?

[comment deleted by author]

Good question John - we should extend compassion to the lost, and I think that is what Lane was attempting to do.

But I can understand that some feel a bit angry when someone who is unrepentantly sinning claims, in the same breath, to a be a good Christian and Anglican.

A couple of other points -

1. The fact that someone has a genetic predisposition toward a behaviour does not make it right. In *The Blank Slate*, Pinker presents evidence that some men have a genetic predisposition toward rape. Should it therefore be accepted?

2. Kirby is a member of a local Anglican church, and also flagrantly living a homosexual lifestyle. The proper course of action is, ultimately, excommunication. Of course, if you were to try and excommunicate someone like Kirby, you would need to bring along a couple of barristers, because it would certainly end up in court.

3. I think it’s great that the issue of the morality of homosexuality has been brought back up into the public consciousness.

We should also acknowledge the firm but compassionate response of our Archbishop. He did a very good job.

I think there has been a disappointing lack of pastoral consideration in the discussions here. There are strong overtones of winning the point, but not winning the man - indeed perhaps it is winning the point at the expense of the man.

The excuses that Jesus or Paul could occasionally speak in harsh terms fall flat in my opinion - show me a man with the same moral authority as the Christ or an apostle and I’ll grant the point, but until then, I think those annoying little verses about love, compassion and a controlled tongue are probably worth heeding.

If I had a pastor who acted as Rev Lane did in private correspondence with someone he did not know, and thought this was acceptable pastoral witness as a minister to a Christian he did not know who he believed was in error, I would make a bee line for the door, if that is him at his most compassionate.

Likewise, I think the pastoral question of what Kirby should do with his long term relationship (almost 40 years! He’s doing better than most heterosexuals in that regard.) has not been addressed. How would people here (David P, Craig S), suggest Kirby go about divorcing his partner of 40 years? That is essentially what is being asked of him. What care should be provided for the other party? How should Kirby deal with the pain and loss? How should Kirby feel morally about initiating the end of the relationship and inflicting such dreadful pain and turmoil for all involved?

Celibacy is often suggested as the appropriate lifestyle for those who are same-sex attracted. Perhaps we should all practice celibacy for the sake of the weaker brother?

‘Perhaps we should all practice celibacy for the sake of the weaker brother? ‘

That would at least decide the issue of where clergy send their kids to school!

;-)

Luke Stevens - 12 April 2008 06:15 PM

I think there has been a disappointing lack of pastoral consideration in the discussions here. There are strong overtones of winning the point, but not winning the man - indeed perhaps it is winning the point at the expense of the man.

The excuses that Jesus or Paul could occasionally speak in harsh terms fall flat in my opinion - show me a man with the same moral authority as the Christ or an apostle and I’ll grant the point, but until then, I think those annoying little verses about love, compassion and a controlled tongue are probably worth heeding.

I guess on this forum we are not trying to win the man, but simply discuss the rights and wrongs of the exchange of letters. Probably the best way forward would be to write to the person and maybe suggest a quiet chat over a coffee. Hard to do with a High Court Judge I suppose. 

Letters, like posts here are more prone to be misunderstood than a face to face chat.  Firing off cranky letters and emails never really touch the heart of anybody. A quiet pastoral chat with someone is much better. Having said that John the Baptist (who was not Jesus or Paul) spoke with moral authority to Herod and seemed to diss him and his wife a fair bit.

The words in James should be heeded, as well as using love and compassion. It is much easier to do that face to face. My understanding is that the Archbishop is doing just that with Justice Kirby and we must commend him for that.  When a fellow Christian has rebuked me when I have sinned, at the time I really hate it - It is later when I have calmed down that I appreciated that they could speak the truth in love to me, but also call on me to repent. I am therefore grateful for their words of rebuke because I often need to listen to them.

What I am trying to say is that sometimes words may sound harsh, but often they are meant with our best intentions in mind.

How would people here (David P, Craig S), suggest Kirby go about divorcing his partner of 40 years?

He would have to say, “X, I’ve come to realise this relationship is not pleasing to God. I’m sorry, but I have to end it.”

No-one is saying that would be easy - it would be incredibly hard. A similar moral dilemna might be a heterosexual man who is married but has a long term mistress. If he became convicted of his sin, he would have to end the immoral relationship. It would be very painful for all involved, but it would have to be ended.

That is essentially what is being asked of him.

Yes - and it is a hard ask.

What care should be provided for the other party? How should Kirby deal with the pain and loss?

As a church, we should provide as much support as we are able to those amongst us who are hurting.

How should Kirby feel morally about initiating the end of the relationship and inflicting such dreadful pain and turmoil for all involved?

The same as the adulterous man would feel. He is doing the right thing in ending the immoral relationship. But it is still going to hurt badly.

Sometimes sin means that there is no easy way out, no painfree way out. Sometimes doing the right thing is very painful in this world.

Luke, straight question. Do you believe homosexuality is sinful? Or do you have your doubts?

@Michael J, heheh

@Michael D, thanks for your reply, and your earlier one too.

@Craig, thanks for acknowledging the difficulty of the situation, if people want to encourage Kirby (or any gay person in such a relationship) to do that then I think it’s appropriate to make it clear what you’re requesting, if for no other reason than so the person making the request is aware of the full weight of what they are asking and can tailor their language and response appropriately.

As for the similarity between a man with a long term mistress and wife, I can see where you’re drawing similarities, but I’m not sure they really fit given there’s no third party in Kirby’s case. I’m not really sure the pain of divorce is pleasing to God either.

A closer (but imperfect) similarity might be someone who marries a divorced person, lives with them happily for 40 years, and then becomes convicted that marrying a divorced person is sinful and displeasing to God, and therefore ends (or is encouraged to end) the relationship and become celibate.

Luke, straight question. Do you believe homosexuality is sinful? Or do you have your doubts?

Nice pun ;P heh but that’s a bit of a trick question. Before anyone yells “But the bible is clear!” I ask, is same-sex attraction inherently sinful? (What’s your view on that Craig?) To me homosexuality mean “same sex attraction” more than gay sex, so unpacking the term I don’t think hurts. I’d be curious if anyone has any evidence that the biblical writers had in mind the nuance between same-sex attraction and gay sex that we have now, I’m not saying they necessarily didn’t, just wondering.

So, do I think same-sex attraction is inherently sinful? No. Do I think same-sex attracted people choose to be same-sex attracted? No, I think it’s purely biological.

From there, we have a few choices:

Is gay sex always wrong, regardless of the context? I’d say its certainly unnatural simply because it can’t produce offspring (I don’t buy the ‘It occurs x% of the time therefore it’s natural!’ argument), but be that as it may, some say yes it is always wrong, but I think context matters, because while I think any and all sin separates us from God, I don’t think all sins are equal.

So there’s casual sex to serial monogamy which are wrong (gay or straight), but then there’s gay relationships which are quasi-married relationships (such as Kirby’s 40 year relationship), which are, you must admit, a long way from casual gay sex!

I’m guessing, but I think Abp Jensen recognises this in his ‘ongoing dialogue’ with Kirby. I could be wrong, but Abp Jensen is otherwise in error for not publicly condemning Kirby & demanding his excommunication post haste. It’s hard to imagine Archbishops of previous generations having the same nuanced approach as Abp Jensen here, wouldn’t you agree?

Anyway, Is gay sex within that context a sin? Possibly, but if it is, it’s at the very harmless end of the scale as an expression of love between two committed, loving, consenting adults, especially in light of most other sin, sexual or otherwise.

However this raises an interesting question: what if sex was taken out of the relationship? Are close, deep, affectionate, non-sexual relationships between homosexual partners wrong? What would we say if someone in our church confessed to being in such a situation - would we say they were in sin? I think we would, which changes the earlier definition of homosexual sin being gay sex.

So again there’s a problem of establishing where the sin in same-sex attracted relationships actually exists (or starts, depending on your view) that makes binary “yes/no” answers about homosexuality difficult when you think about it.

On the flip side, I realise and quite happily accept that it’s possible for some same-sex attracted men to live happy, heterosexual married lives, but that said I wouldn’t say that because some can, all should.

So we’re left with a situation where a gay person cannot enter an (officially) married relationship with someone of the same gender, cannot (in the churches eyes) have a particularly close, non-sexual relationship with another person of the same gender, and (in some/most) circumstances, cannot move to a sustainable, bi-sexual orientation (at minimum) where they can marry a woman.

That can be a lonely, hard road to follow, & anyone on that road certainly deserves a lot of love and support from the community around then. Will they get it from the church? I have my doubts, especially given the support Richard Lane’s comments received.

The other interesting question is that if homosexuality is biological, and occurs in the womb (which I think is where the evidence is pointing), should we “cure” it? Sure - in a few generations the number of gay people (men at least) could drop dramatically. That doesn’t help us form an appropriate response now of course, but it’s interesting to consider. We do need to acknowledge a lot of the hostility gay people have (and do) face currently though, I think!

That’s my thinking on the topic as of right now, anyway. I’m sorry I can’t give a binary yes/no answer, but I think to do so would dismiss the complexity I’ve outlined above, which would be pretty silly & pointless.

The trap with yes/no questions is that if you don’t give the appropriate response (’yes’, in this case, despite its apparent meaninglessness), then you’re seen to be in the wrong, but if that’s the price of trying to think through an issue carefully, so be it.

Finally I think it’s always worth considering that the overall burden sexual sin is heterosexual by a factor of, I don’t know, 100? 1000? For some reason, it doesn’t get 100 or 1000 times the attention that gay sexual sin does, which is a shame.

Anyway, if anyone wants to take me up on the points above, feel free…

I ask, is same-sex attraction inherently sinful? (What’s your view on that Craig?)

Yes, I think it is a consequence of our sinful nature, in the same way that desiring to steal something is sinful, or desiring another man’s wife.

You might reply that the homosexual man can’t help what he desires. True - but that is no different to the heterosexual man. Sometimes I will covet my neighbours wife - I have to catch the thought and repent. I know married men who strongly desire to look at porn. They can’t help the desire, but that doesn’t somehow validate the desire. And it doesn’t justify them acting on the desire.

The call to celibacy is a hard one? It can be, for some people. But *all* unmarried Christians are called to celibacy, including people like you and me! So homosexuals are not being singled out here.

Must a celibate life be a lonely life? I don’t agree. I know some single people who are lonely, but I know plenty who are not. Conversely, I know some married people who are dreadfully lonely. So I don’t accept that calling a homosexual to celibacy means condemning them to loneliness and misery.