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.”
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.
Read it all at Mercator
