- Free newsletter
- The Latest
- Topics
-
About
Is this really the right moment to cancel chastity?
December 03, 2024
9 Reactions
Chastity is not a world-beating idea. Iran's recent “Chastity and Hijab” law will not enhance its appeal. Trump did not win his election by promising to “Make America Chaste Again”.
Nonetheless, chastity has been a core part of the Judaeo-Christian culture for more than 3500 years. “Thou shalt not commit adultery” was one of the Ten Commandments given to Moses on Mount Sinai. This prohibition is not limited to wife-stealing. It has a positive aspect to it as well. For Christians, it means mastery of sexual impulses and using sex only within marriage.
Antiquity is not the best argument for extolling the virtue of chastity, but it’s a good start. Which makes it perplexing that Australia’s first female Anglican archbishop, the Most Reverend Kay Goldsworthy AO, of Perth, has "abolished" it in her bailiwick.
Australia’s 23 Anglican dioceses have “faithfulness in service” guidelines for clergy and staff. The Perth diocese is the eighth to remove the word “chastity” from these guidelines.
At a moment in history when clergy are widely (and mostly unfairly) suspected of sexual abuse of all kinds, cancelling chastity seems like burning antibiotics in a TB epidemic. But Archbishop Goldsworthy has dug her heels in. She accused her critics of targeting her because she is a woman.
Here are some of her changes:
Instead of “maintaining chastity in singleness and faithfulness in marriage”, priests and staff should value God’s “gift” of sexuality by “taking responsibility for their sexual conduct”.
The original guideline “7.4 You are to be chaste and not engage in disgraceful conduct of a sexual nature” becomes “7.4 Your sexual behaviour should be characterised by faithfulness and integrity.” This abolishes not only chastity but also the notion of “disgraceful conduct”. What would be disgraceful, if anything?
Another guideline used to be “7.7 You should avoid situations where you are vulnerable to temptation or where your conduct may be construed as a breach of the standards of sexual conduct in this Code.” It becomes: “7.7 You should avoid situations where your conduct breaches the standards of sexual conduct in this Code.” This helpfully abolishes “temptation” and the ancient sin of scandal. Situations should be avoided only if they breach the new code, not if they might appear improper to others or lead them into sin.
Many Anglican clergy are outraged by the changes. The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Kanishka Raffel, told The Australian, the newspaper which broke the story, “Biblical standards have not changed and yet one more diocese has changed the guidelines to permit sexual activity outside marriage, whether in heterosexual or homosexual relationships, and other sexually permissive practices. This is neither scriptural nor Anglican teachings.”
Join Mercator today for free and get our latest news and analysis
Buck internet censorship and get the news you may not get anywhere else, delivered right to your inbox. It's free and your info is safe with us, we will never share or sell your personal data.
How did the Anglican Church, or portions of the Anglican Church, get itself into this mess?
The first reason is that clergy like Archbishop Goldsworthy no longer believe in virtue. This does not mean that they are depraved or are endorsing sexual misconduct. But they think that the way to stop people misbehaving is to enact ever more detailed rules. If you want to put labels on it, it’s a clash of virtue ethics with deontological ethics. But chastity, like all the Christian virtues, springs from the heart, not from rule books.
In any case, it doesn’t make sense for Christians. Christ said: “Love your neighbour as yourself”. He didn’t say: “According to Article 7.2, subsection 6, neighbours (subject to Article 8.3) should be loved (ref. glossary) as yourself.”
A virtuous person normally does the right thing because he has an upright character; a rule-keeper just tries to avoid being entangled in a thicket of regulations. The effect of Archbishop Goldsworthy’s new morality upon sexual conduct is quite predictable. “Don’t get caught” is a great way to get caught. In fact, it’s more like Iran’s pettifogging hijab law.
But what was the cause of this evolution from the Good Book to the Rule Book? This is the more challenging question.
At the root of the changes is the acceptance of same-sex relationships for both laity and clergy. Let's be honest here: “maintaining chastity in singleness and faithfulness in marriage” is not an integral part of the LGBT lifestyle. There is a danger that the Anglicans would lose their LGBT faithful and clergy. So “inclusion” has trumped chastity.
A conservative Anglican priest in Perth, Rev. Marc Dale, told The Australian that the rules had been changed to accommodate Anglican clergy who were openly living in same-sex relationships. Under the old guidelines, their behaviour could not be condoned. So rather than censure them for disgraceful conduct, chastity has been abolished.
This is a teachable moment for all Christian churches. During the debate over same-sex marriage, its defenders assured people that nothing substantial would change. Legalisation was merely going to give LGBT people the respect that they deserved.
For the Anglican Church, at least, this has been a hollow lie. To maintain its credentials as an LGBT-friendly institution, some of its leading figures are abandoning its ancient moral traditions and doctrines.
This is unspeakably sad. Authentic Christian teaching gives people hope that they can rise above their moral failures; Archbishop Goldsworthy’s changes are counsels of despair.
Our contemporaries hardly know what chastity is. More than just self-control, it is the ability to see other people as people, not just as desirable objects, not just as tools for pleasure. It’s a way of admiring the world with the love of the Creator Himself.
But Google “chastity” and all you see are pornographic travesties of the virtue, mostly featuring chastity belts. The result: an epidemic of sexual abuse, pornography addiction, fewer marriages, OnlyFans, and a sterile hook-up culture. People want more than that; they deserve more than that.
The first Christians cracked the code on how to live chastity. They succeeded, and so did men and women down the centuries. “Blessed are the pure of heart for they shall see God.” Christ would not have said this without giving his followers a key which made chastity possible. Archbishop Goldsworthy used to have that key. But she has tossed it in a gutter, leaving her faithful to stagger on in the darkness of ignorance. More than a scandal, her new rule book is a tragedy.
Forward this to your friends!
Michael Cook is editor of Mercator
Image credits: Bigstock
Have your say!
Join Mercator and post your comments.
-
mrscracker commented 2024-12-07 03:48:59 +1100Yes indeed, Mr. Rob. Thank you for sharing that.
-
Rob McKilliam commented 2024-12-07 01:50:26 +1100Hi mrscracker. You are quite right. One of Jesus’ brilliant teachings that I particularly like is Matthew 7: 15-16.
“ Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. ” -
mrscracker commented 2024-12-06 23:35:04 +1100Good morning Mr. Fedders. I apologize. I saw your comments yesterday but it became a rather hectic day. Grey, rainy, and hectic.
I’m glad that better minds like Mr.Rob could reply more quickly to your comments.
🙂
Christians are warned against adopting the ways of the World. Ive never heard your take on that which seems quite unique. We certainly can be influenced by the world. That’s true, but I don’t think the influence is generally for the best. The world, the flesh, and the Devil are always calling to us but our job is to resist temptation with God’s help.
How many Christians begin well and humbly and end up otherwise? When TV evangelists fall from grace were they listening too closely to the Gospel or to the World? I remember one husband and wife team who appeared on tv and eventually raked in enough donations to buy an air conditioned house for their dog. And the virtue of chastity became an obstacle for the husband too, if my memory serves.
Ive spent much time with Mennonite friends who do take the Gospel seriously. They live simply, serve others, and are always kind and charitable. They actually do influence their communities. And in the best ways possible.
You have a blessed day Mr. Fedders and Mr. Rob. 🙏 -
Rob McKilliam commented 2024-12-06 16:13:05 +1100Emberson. You raise excellent questions. I struggled with the same questions during my recent journey from atheist to Christian.
I found the following explanation very interesting and satisfying:
There are three types of ‘Law’, Ceremonial Law, Civil Law and Moral Law.
From the age of about 30 until his crucifixion at 33 Jesus angered the priests by teaching a new way of understanding the Torah, (ie: the Old Testament). Society by that time had obviously been fundamentally changed by science and agriculture since the Torah was spoken/written. According to the New Testament, Jesus specifically said that he was not trying to change the Torah, but to “fulfil it” (Matthew 5:17-18). So I think this means that Jesus was sent by God to update our understanding of the Torah.
Jesus ‘fulfilled’ the ‘Ceremonial Laws’ of the Torah by dying on the cross. The ‘Civil Laws’ had already been superseded by the Roman occupation. Jesus’s brilliant observation was: “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”.
Only the ‘Moral Law’ remains, which is what Jesus concentrated on teaching. -
Emberson Fedders commented 2024-12-05 12:17:51 +1100Hello Mrs Cracker, I hope you are well. Grey old day on the coast today. Our hint of summer has receded for the moment!
The Old Covenant says “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable” (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13). The Old Covenant also says “If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.” Deuteronomy 22:22.
Why is the first adhered to while the second is ignored? I am genuinely interested in how many Christian reconcile this into their belief system. If the bible is the word of god, how can you claim to follow god, but pick and choose which words you will follow?
My own thinking is that Christians are far more influenced by secular thought that they like to believe, or even realise. We don’t execute people for adultery anymore because non-biblical thinking decided it was wrong.
The New Covenant, which I understand to mean the New Testament, contains the wonderful philosophies of Jesus. Care for the sick, look after and feed the poor, love everyone, that wealthy people should give away their fortunes before they can enter heaven.
And yet most public (or performative) Christians (and there are a few writers at this site that fall into that category) ignore these central ideas all the time! Indeed, they label them ‘woke’ or socialist’. And fall back on cherry-picked words from the Old Testament to validate their bigotry.
I am very confused. -
mrscracker commented 2024-12-05 02:10:43 +1100Hello Mr. Fedders, for Christians there’s both an Old & a New Covenant. I know there are theologians with a much better ability to explain that but for a believer in Christ not everything under the Law of the Old Covenant applies today. It’s not about picking & choosing.
And the teaching about women & their “uncleanness” at certain times was/is more about respect for the sanctity of life. Life is in the blood. This has been misunderstood by a great many people. Including some Jews. It’s not anti-woman but pro life. As Christians we’re not bound to follow that practice but many Orthodox Jews do that today & it works for them. Some say it’s a positive thing for their marriages. Having that time apart & then coming back together is like a little honeymoon. -
Emberson Fedders commented 2024-12-04 11:24:47 +1100‘“Thou shalt not commit adultery” was one of the Ten Commandments given to Moses on Mount Sinai. This prohibition is not limited to wife-stealing. It has a positive aspect to it as well. For Christians, it means mastery of sexual impulses and using sex only within marriage.’
But that’s clearly not what god said to Moses. That is humans imposing their own views on the very clear message from god. Unless the meaning of the word adultery has changed over the years? ‘“Biblical standards have not changed and yet one more diocese has changed the guidelines to permit sexual activity outside marriage, whether in heterosexual or homosexual relationships, and other sexually permissive practices. This is neither scriptural nor Anglican teachings.”’
That is correct – Biblical standards have not changed. But performative Christians pick and choose which standards they wish to apply. They hate on gay people because of the bible but ignore everything about a woman being ‘unclean’ during and after her period.
“If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.” Deuteronomy 22:22.
You guys ignore this one all the time.
I’m genuinely curious, how do you know which commands from your god you follow and which ones your ignore? Why is it important to hate on gay people, but not on adulterers? Why don’t you view women as unclean for seven days after her period, even though your god specifically told that to Moses.
It’s almost like you’re using a 2000-year-old text to support your bigotry. -
mrscracker commented 2024-12-03 23:28:19 +1100Very sad.
-
