There is a passage in St.Matthew's Gospel in which Jesus has been teaching the crowds and he has ended with the parable of the wise man, who build his house upon a rock. The reaction of his audience is telling (Matt 7.29): 'Now when Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were astounded at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.' The scene is not unique. In Luke's Gospel we find (Ch 2) Jesus, as as twelve year old, debating with the teachers, who are amazed at his understanding and his answers. In Mark's Gospel (Ch 6) we find Jesus teaching in the synagogue in his home town and his audience responds in wonder: 'Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done at his hands! Is not this the carpenter...?'
There is here a contrast between the teaching ministry of Jesus and the somewhat run-of-the-mill teaching of the Scribes and Pharisees, to which the people were far more accustomed. This was so much the case that the people were astonished at what he said. He spoke with that inner sense of authority in which truth is perceived and understood, an authority which self-evidently genuine and brings its audience to a new place of insight. We might be tempted to affirm Jesus' authority in the light of his death and resurrection. We proclaim him as the risen and ascended Lord, so of course his teaching carries authority. Yet the texts I have quoted, whilst written in a post-Easter setting, seek to portray Jesus has having an inherent authority for people who did not yet ascribe any status to him, except for the power of the words he used.
We can take this portrayal of authority out of the overcoat of divinity with which we cannot but help envelop Jesus. When Albert Einstein said that e=mc2, he astonished the world with a truth that radically altered our perception of reality.Here was a truth that had not been perceived in this way before. Yet, once stated, the truth stood on its own merit with its own authority. It is that authority with which Jesus spoke. In a world of clever debate about the minutiae of what was lawful, Jesus simply spoke the truth. At first it amazed his hearers. Then the truth make them feel uncomfortable, for it challenged their perception of reality and undermined the basis of their own power. So they crucified the revealer of Truth, for he was a threat to the edifice of reality by which they crafted their own sense of identity and truth.
We live in an age in which, somehow, a significant number of Anglicans have come to believe that their view of marriage, together with their assumptions of the sinfulness of same-sex relationships, is a touchstone of true believing. The Church of England bishops attempted to address this situation by issuing a report which they presented to General Synod. Synod had only to 'take note' of the report, a formal procedure that recognizes a report, but which does little else. Synod took the unusual step of failing even to recognize it. That was a set-back for the bishops, a challenge to their authority. Yet that was not really surprising. Their report was an attempt to hold together two conflicting principles, firstly to defend marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman and, secondly, to say that being gay does not put you outside either the love of God or the fellowship of the Church.
The bishops have now embarked on a two year process to produce a teaching document about sexuality and marriage. I cannot help feel that this is like watching a train crash in slow motion. What will come out at the end of this process and with what authority will any document be presented to the church? Will the document have its own inherent authority by which people are led to see truth in a new way? Or will the document be another example of writing which seeks a middle, and political, line of holding together an resolvable tension? My fear is that what is produced will be something that would make the Scribes and the Pharisees proud, a masterpiece of clever argument, yet a document which carries no inner authority. If its authority depends on the signatures of the two Archbishops, signing on behalf of an unanimous vote by the College of Bishops, then not only will the document lack any real authority, but the authority of the bishops will have been diminished by this. They will speak with the same authority as the Scribes and the Pharisees, but they will not have spoken with the mind of Christ in a way that astonishes and changes lives.
Can such an authoritative document be produced? By prayer and an openness to the Spirit, we must hope the answer to be yes. Such authority is to be seen in 'Body Grace', a paper once written by Rowan Williams. Touches of such authority burst into the open in a collective way through the Second Vatican Council. Of one thing I am certain. Nothing produced will have any relevance to our society, if it is based on a internal church war over issues which long ago ceased to concern our nation. Only teaching, which is vibrant with truth, will touch peoples lives so as to astonish and delight them. Perhaps then they will be helped to affirm human sexuality afresh as a gift from God, through which the transcendent can be experienced and deep joy can be found in the vulnerability of giving and receiving between two people, whose life-journeys have become inextricably entwined.
