Rev. Dr. Stephen Andrews
In answer to the question put to it by General Synod 2004, the Primate’s Theological Commission (PTC) concluded that “that the blessing of committed same-sex unions is a matter of doctrine,” but “not a matter of what is often referred to as a ‘core’ doctrine, in the sense of being credal doctrine.”
Now, I readily admit that the PTC’s conclusion is not especially profound, and I can understand why some are not pleased with it. After all, it does not clearly satisfy anyone’s prejudices.[i] But before I comment further on the categories of doctrine discussed in the St. Michael Report (SMR), let me suggest that this should be one reason why the report ought to be commended to the church. While the SMR doesn’t develop a theology of sexuality or sexual ethics, it does lay out what we think needs to be talked and prayed about in the hope that the church will be helped to overcome the supercharged rhetoric that divides us.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said at the Primates’ Meeting in February 2005: “People are no longer confident that we are speaking the same language, appealing to the same criteria in our theological debates. And the deep lost-ness and confusion that arises from that and the anger that arises from that is something that does not in any sense help the long-term health of the body or our search for truth together in the Body.[ii]”
It was the hope of many of us on the commission that the SMR might furnish insights that were new to some, and suggest a theological vocabulary that could be used to promote deeper discussion and perhaps even healing.
A discussion must begin with terminology that is in use, however. Consequently, the PTC chose to organise its discussion of doctrine with reference to the terms “core doctrine” and “adiaphora.” I don’t think that any of us were particularly happy with either term, but we used them because they are the terms used by the Windsor Report and we were conscious of the fact that our work would form another stream of that same conversation. Let me say something about each expression.
The phrase “core doctrine” doesn’t have much of a pedigree, really. It comes from the 1996 trial of Bishop Walter Righter in the Episcopal Church in the United States. Charges of heresy brought against Bishop Righter of Newark for ordaining a sexually active homosexual individual were turned down on the grounds that the bishop’s action was not contrary to the “core doctrine” of the Episcopal Church. In this instance, the term was used to apply to what the court called “the apostolic kerygm” (a phrase which itself is only about 70 years old and, although scholars debate what it actually means, is generally taken to indicate the earliest proclamation of the gospel, identifying Jesus as the crucified and risen Messiah.)
In the St. Michael Report “core doctrine” has a broader reference: “The credal and earliest conciliar explications of Scripture with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity and the person and work of Jesus Christ.” (§8) These are the central convictions of the undivided church of the first eight centuries and, of course, any deviation from such fundamental teachings would automatically make a group not only non-Anglican, but non-Christian.
By contrast, the term “adiaphora” has a venerable ancestry. Originally devised by ancient Stoic philosophers to describe things that are neither evil nor good, Cicero rendered it “indifferentia,” or “matters indifferent.”
We mustn’t understand this in the sense of being unimportant or deserving of an apathetic response. For Classical philosophers, these matters included such things as pain and death. On a more positive note, the word was useful for the Medieval theologians in their discussion of those activities Christians are not duty bound to perform, but that were deemed meritorious (the theological phrase for these is ‘works of supererogation’ – from the Latin meaning “to spend over and above;”; but see Article XIV.)
The term was pressed into service again in 1548 when the Lutheran Church was thrown into controversy over a cluster of ritual, theological and ethical questions that seemed important at the time. Should priests be permitted to marry? Should lay people be given both bread and wine at Holy Communion? Could the Mass be said in Latin (omitting, of course, references to sacrifice and saints)?
What motivated much of this debate was the fear of reverting to Roman Catholicism. The definition settled on by the church was a moderate one – these are adiaphora: matters neither commanded nor forbidden by God’s word and not opposed to good doctrine. In the context of the English Reformation the term was understood as referring to those things that Christians could observe or omit for the sake of order in the church, and it applied, in the case of John Hooper (c. 1495-1555), to the question of whether or not he should be required to be consecrated wearing a surplice. The authors of the Windsor Report clearly use it in its Reformation sense when they define adiaphora as matters “upon which disagreement can be tolerated without endangering unity” (§A.36).
For my part, I do wish that the PTC had done more work on the definition of doctrine and the nature of doctrinal development. Nevertheless, I want to reflect a little bit on where the issue of same-sex blessings fits in this spectrum between core doctrine and adiaphora, leaving aside the question of whether or not same-sex blessings are “commanded or forbidden by God’s word.”
There are many beliefs that are rightly understood as “doctrinal” in that they represent the acknowledged teaching of the Anglican Church and are essential to its identity, polity (that is, structure and organisation) and mission.
The SMR rightly observes that an issue like same-sex unions, while not itself a matter of core doctrine, carries strong implications for central doctrines such as what it means for human beings to be made in the image of God, salvation and marriage. So it would be a serious misreading of the intent of the report to isolate the category of “core doctrine” and claim that because same-sex unions are not to be categorized as such, they are not important enough to require greater consensus in the Anglican Church’s deliberations.
It may surprise some to learn that, at one time, the existence of bishops in the Church of England was regarded as a “matter indifferent.” The great 16th century Anglican divine, Richard Hooker, said that the Scripture does not require episcopal structure and that church government itself is not a matter of salvation (Laws III.2.2). Nevertheless, he said that episcopal structure could be biblically defended and that it was integral to the role of the monarchy in England; i.e., without it the church would cease to be Anglican. There are, therefore, “indifferent” doctrines which, if deviated from, could call into question our church’s identity as an Anglican church within the definitions of its own formularies.[iii]
Thus, it would seem to me that we all adhere to a notion that there is a “hierarchy of doctrine,” that there are some doctrines that are more fundamental to our identity as Christians and as Anglicans than others. Lacking a confessional basis, we are not sure what to call these doctrines (perhaps they will be articulated as “covenantal doctrines” if the proposal of the Windsor Report is ever developed.) In any event, the model of concentric circles as described on the church’s website is unhelpful. The status of doctrine is contingent not only on its relationship to “core doctrine,” but also on historical and circumstantial factors that relate to the church’s identity, order and mission.
Stephen Andrews is a member of the Primate’s Theological Commission and Provost of Thorneloe University.
[i] For my commentary on the PTC’s work, see my report to the Anglican Consultative Council at http://www.anglican.ca/about/accp/andrews.htm
[ii] http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/sermons_speeches/2005/050217.htm
[iii] A lucid discussion of this and the broader theme of adiaphora can be found in Stephen Sykes’s article, ‘The Fundamentals of Christianity’ in the book he edited with John Booty, The Study of Anglicanism (London: SPCK, 1989), pp. 231-45.
Comments (22)
The Rev. Dr. Andrews suggests some adiaphora may indeed be matters important or fundamental to Anglican identity. They are “covenantal.” But they are not “creedal” or “core.” I take it if we reject “creedal” doctrine we’re then not Christian. Granted. A Christian pretty well has to acknowledge the divinity of Christ, for example.
But if we reject “covental” doctrine, although we may be Christian, we’re not Anglican. We have rejected things fundamental to our identity, polity, or mission.
Which leaves the question, how do we determine that our identity, polity, or mission is Anglican?
North Americans Anglican have a quite different polity than English Anglicans, or African Anglicans – I don’t see anything linking us besides that we all have bishops (which of course the Romans and the Lutherans do, too). Our mission? Is there a specific Anglican mission?
It’s similar to asking what are these “strong implications for central doctrines” which place same sex-blessing is the never-never land between core doctrine and adiaphora? Lots of things have implications. What makes them “strong”?
But I am grateful to Dr. Andrews for the knowledge that Hooker suggested bishops are adiaphora. I certainly think primates are. No disrespect meant towards Archbishop Andrew, but I really don’t think the Anglican Communion would be in the hullabaloo it is if we didn’t have primates and their far too frequent meetings.
Neale Adams
Vancouver BC
Posted by Neale Adams | February 27, 2007 6:18 PM
Posted on February 27, 2007 18:18
Not being theologically trained, and not having grown up in the Anglican tradition, I can only take a very simplistic view of this whole issue.
I have to ask myself some very basic questions:
1) Are we all equal in the sight of God?
2) Does homosexuality not have a genetic, and therefore god-given basis?
2) Is honesty and personal integrity something that is demanded of God in our worship of him?
3) If I, as a straight person, perform a homosexual act, am I not defiling myself in His sight?
4) If somebody, as a gay/lesbian person, contrary to his nature performs a heterosexual act, is that person not defiling him or herself in His sight? In both instances is there not a lack of personal integrity and honesty?
5) If a practising homosexual person adheres to the core doctrine, or principles, of the Christian faith, is he or she less of a Christian than me?
6) How is such a homosexual person less able to preach the gospel, spread the good news of the death and resurrection of Jesus, and perform the work of the Almighty?
7) Is the question of core doctrine vs. covenantal doctrine vs. adiaphora really all that important when we get down to basics? And finally, I have to ask myself whether it is better to follow the dictates of the Anglican Communion, or the dictates of Jesus, who said Love thy neighbour; and who upheld those who were looked upon as unfit to participate in the society of His day.
Fred Stephens
Weyburn, SK.
Posted by Fred Stephens | February 28, 2007 4:08 PM
Posted on February 28, 2007 16:08
It seems to me that Rowan Williams put his finger on the issue when he said: "People are no longer confident that we are speaking the same language, appealing to the same criteria in our theological debates." That is, do we really all mean the same thing when we say the creed? Do we really agree on the 'core doctrines'? Further, how we interpret those core doctrines will in large part predetermine what we consider to be appropriate practices for individual Christians and for the Church.
While 'liberals' and 'conservatives'(for lack of better terms)both use terms like 'the gospel', evangelism, justice, holiness, etc., they use those concepts from within very different theological frameworks. In turn, they understand the demands of God upon the Christian life very differently. Thus, someone who understands the good news to be our deliverance from sin through the death and resurrection of Christ will stress personal purity and holiness (often interpreted in behavioral terms). If the primary message of the gospel is 'God's love as revealed in Christ, our example', the important issue becomes God's all-inclusive love; if it is the establishment of 'the Kingdom of God', we may stress social justice, etc. Each perspective is true--at least in part--but only as part of a larger whole. The danger comes when one interpretation of the gospel becomes gospel truth, thus making a part of the gospel into the whole of the gospel.
Perhaps all sides of the current debates need to heed the advice of Jesus (given in a slightly different context!): "What God has joined together, let no one separate".
Dr. Jane Rowland
High River, Alberta
Posted by Jane Rowland | February 28, 2007 4:39 PM
Posted on February 28, 2007 16:39
There is a critique of the SMR at www.msgr.ca in the Journal "Thaw". In response to the question above, the meanings of doctrines, the way they are held by "conservatives" and "liberals" is so different that one person's adiaphora is another persons core. For instance the plain word of the Scriptural text to some is the very Word of God, to others it is a sign, and the Word must be discovered as the "Word within the word". The General Synod will have to deal with the proposal that same sex relationships can be blessed in liturgy, akin to marriage but not quite. It doesn't matter if some call the issue core or otherwise. Doctrine, core and otherwise, is fluid; it is subject to interpretation; it is a teaching transmitted in a two way process from a teacher to a pupil. Someone, above, spoke of the Divinity of Christ. What does he or she mean by "the Divinity of Christ"? Ask a congregation. Among 10 Anglican theologians there will be 11 definitions. The discussion itself is adiaphora; it will be swept away by the decisions of Synod.
Posted by Harold Macdonald, Matlock MB | February 28, 2007 6:38 PM
Posted on February 28, 2007 18:38
I am curious to know if it is of more importance to remain in all things 'Anglican' or Christian? From my reading of the above, I would venture to say the answer would be 'Anglican', but I could be mistaken.
To my mind, these terms of 'core doctrine' and 'adiaphora' are merely cunning words being employed to try and find a way for two opposed sides to stay together for the sake of visible unity at the expense of truth.
God is very clear in Scripture about what a covenant means. He has been very clear about His purposes in creating mankind; male and female. He has been very clear about the identity of His only Son. The doctrine of marriage in Scripture is also quite clear. These are all inextricably tied together. Whether one chooses to accept all of this or not is another matter.
It matters deeply what we think about same-sex blessings and Christian marriage. The way we address these issues (whether you call them 'core' or not) will impact how you receive the rest of God's word; and this is a matter of salvation.
Thank you,
The Reverend Eric Melby
North Peace Parish, British Columbia
Diocese of Caledonia
Posted by The Reverend Eric Melby | March 1, 2007 12:05 AM
Posted on March 1, 2007 00:05
Danielle Moffat, Edmonton Alberta.
It seems to me on reading this that all of us need to be careful to remember that our understanding of the Bible and Christianity is not likely to be exactly the same as someone elses'. Over time our understanding of what is core doctrine and what is not core doctrine has changed and will likely change again. What we think is important and critical now may not be the same in a few years. So, while we may be able to justify a certain stance today, it might not be the same over time. In addition, my idea of what is core doctrine to be a Christian, or even an Anglican, might differ greatly from the person sitting next to me in the pew. Reports are written for our information and for something to ponder but they certainly will not represent the views of every person in Canada who calls themselves an Anglican. In the end General Synod has a very difficult issue to wrangle with, no matter the qualifer of core doctrine, or not core doctrine.
Posted by Danielle Moffat | March 1, 2007 10:27 AM
Posted on March 1, 2007 10:27
Dr Andrews has attempted to explain how the Primate's Theological Commission developed its distinction between 'core' doctrine and matters adiaphora. The problem is, in part, due to the lack of a specific definition of 'doctrine' in the Anglican tradition.
The nearest we have come to a clear distinction is found in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral which begins with the proposition that the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God and contain all things 'necessary to salvation'. The Quadrilateral then proceeds to identify the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds as the 'sufficient' statement of that doctrine, i.e., what is necessary to salvation.
Using the logic of the Quadrilateral leads one to this conclusion: If a matter is not 'credal', then it is not 'doctrine'. Thus the conclusion of the St Michael Report that the blessing of same-sex covenants is not 'credal' would, if the Quadrilateral, a generally accepted statement of Anglican conviction, were taken seriously mean that they are not 'doctrinal', i.e., not a matter necessary to salvation.
A more useful distinction is that of 'discipline'. Discipline is the way in which a church lives out its doctrine. The remarriage of divorced persons is not a matter of doctrine but of discipline. The ordination of women is not a matter of doctrine but of discipline. Whose life-long monogamous and exclusive sexual relationships we bless is a matter of discipline not doctrine.
The Rev'd Dr Richard Leggett
Vancouver BC
Posted by Richard Leggett | March 1, 2007 9:35 PM
Posted on March 1, 2007 21:35
Dr. Stevens is correct in that the SMR recommendations for study, reflection and dialogue are essential. If they are conducted with integrity, open, and well enunciated the Anglican Church may move forward united. However mainstream Christianity is in great flux and in great struggle for a renewal of theology and refocusing of the lens, especially to meet a pluralistic/scientific world. Mutual comprehension of terminology and clarity in use of fact is necessary to talking together fruitfully. (see Ref. below)
The difficulty will be in achieving dialogue with 'agape love' in a changing church.
Reference: Presentation to the Anglican Consultative Council
However, some of Dr. Andrews comments are not so clear or accurate.
The quotation from John Spong 'within the context....'is not sourced. It is, like all single sentence quotes, difficult to place in context of the originator's thoughts. Spong [Sins of Scripture] places St. Paul's homosexual comments [Rom 1:21,26-27] as punishment of heterosexuals for improper worship of God. About as ludicrous as AIDS is a scourge from God. The questions remain: What biblical, cultural or personal prejudice does St. Paul carry? Are they valid today?
'porneia' is male prostitution, and granted it probably (likely) included same sex intercourse, however, it is a leap to connect it to freely consenting sex between equals. It would seem more reasonable to link biblical condemnation on heterosexual married males' use of 'porneia', slave or juvenile. (today 'males' could be 'persons'). It is a censure closer to sexual domination / exploitation or pedophilia.
Regarding biblical sexual commentary, it condemns intercourse during menstruation, celibacy, marriage to non-Jews (pro racial segregation?), naming sexual organs, masturbation, some nudity, and birth control. The Bible permits prostitution, polygamy, levirate marriage, sex with slaves, concubinage, treatment of women as property, child marriage, divorce (OT). [Walter Wink: Homosexuality and the Bible] All generally reversed in this day.
It is encouraging to read that 'to debate the meaning of biblical text with people who, like I, are willing to change their minds [is fascinating]'. Let's pray all Synod attendees are like willed. Remember also that some in the pews have to change mind as well.
Rowan William's has described the church as 'counter-cultural'[http attachment 2005/050217]. This is erroneous. The church lives in a culture, its own, within a societal culture. To be counter-cultural is to be without focus and ultimately self destructive(maybe he's right!). The church, biblically, is anti-domination system (not post 300AD traditionally) and pro distributive and restorative justice. That may be counter-governmental, counter-prejudicial, and/or counter-societal injustice. The church is (should be) God's restorer and righter.
What is the direction of the journey to the Kingdom on earth? Towards agape and more agape.
Dale Sparkes
Thunder Bay,ON
Posted by Dale Sparkes | March 1, 2007 11:30 PM
Posted on March 1, 2007 23:30
Again, cunning words are being employed so that a way may be found for people to do that which God does not want us to do.
The blessing of same sex unions, or affirming the integrity and sanctity of such unions, is basically sanctioning and affirming the fact that those to whom the blessing is designated, are publically showing that they are living lives of unrepentance. In the beginning God created the world, and then the pinnacle of his creation was man and woman; whom He joined together and blessed, and then told them to be fruitful and to multiply. This is the type of union that God and His Church may be safe to bless or affirm.
Continuing to live a life of sin and being unrepentant is to show and declare to God and others that you do not have faith. Repentance and faith are inseperable. There cannot be one without, or apart from, the other. Article XVII states:
Of note, the definition of carnal is: "relating to physical, esp. sexual, needs and activities."
So we can throw around 'credal', 'non-credal', 'doctrine', 'adaiaphora' and the like. We can come up with clever ways to twist words and doctrines to suit our fancy; whether we be Conservative or Liberal. I only draw your attention to the last paragraph of the Article for prayer, reflection, and meditation.
Thank you,
ii Peter 3:14-18
The Reverend Eric Melby
North Peace Parish, British Columbia
Diocese of Caledonia
Posted by The Reverend Eric Melby | March 2, 2007 2:23 PM
Posted on March 2, 2007 14:23
The question is "What is the difference betwen 'Core doctrine' and 'Adiaphora'?" At first,I read it too quickly and thought that it said 'amphora'; after all, I come from the diocese of the 'Swift Moving'.
Amphora are large jars used in biblical times to hold wine, they were the centre of Jesus' first miracle at Cana, daily used in their society and lead us directly into discussion of the Eucharist. Can a denomination be Christian without the Eucharist? The Salvation Army, formed in the mid nineteenth century when the cultural norms were very different to ours and prohibition was all the rage, would say so but the Anglican church of Prince Albert's day, feeling that biblical teaching outweighed cultural norms, did not think so and 'sent them out' to thrive in their own.
A century on, when the charismatic movement came, the question arose whether a separation between receiving the Holy Spirit and filling with the Holy Spirit could be understood as compatible with being Anglican doctrine and practice arose, and it was decided over time, that this was compatible with scripture, traditions and our instruments of unity. This did not mean every Anglican accepted this interpretation, or that every charismatic found it possible to stay within the Anglican Church, but it did mean that ARM and New Wine could function within rather than outside the church structures.
Core doctrines, as proclaimed at the River Jordan, drive us towards very simple statements of faith, "Jesus is Lord", which none the less will be shocking and unacceptible to both to athetists and most practionners of other major religions in our society. On this basis, we can meet other Christians for the World Day of Prayer to do both of the things in Psalm 34,0-9; to have corporate worship and to alleviate the plight of the poor.
Adiaphoria will form into two categories: those which separate us Anglicans from other Christians, for unlike the Exclusive Baptists and pre-Vatican-two Catholics we have never regarded ourselves as the only true Christians left, and those which distinguish parishes and individuals within the Anglican fold.
Reading the Windsor and St. Michael's reports, it is fairly obvious that Same Sex Unions is adiaphoria rather than credal. Given that we are a denomination rooted in an understanding of Scripture as the Word of God, and that the Anglican Church of Canada has pledged before this came up, to listen to and act on the words of the aboriginal elders and the global south rather than grey haired guys with English accents and English degrees like me, it should also be obvious that this is an adiaphoria which separates Anglicans from some other denominations that orginated in North America and identify more with the secular culture than we do.
In Saskatchewan, for centuries we have have had the issue that 'marriage after the custom of the people' does not always correspond to Christian marriage. We do not nag or drive out those in Common-Law relationships, often even accepting refugees from other denominations, but we also do not compromise on the teaching that we have received nor recognize as leaders those who want to do so by word or deed.
In His Love
John Rye
Prince Albert, SK
Posted by John Rye | March 3, 2007 10:15 AM
Posted on March 3, 2007 10:15
Reading this article makes me fear that lay delegates to General Synod with no formal theological training will be unable to understand and participate. Will debates at General Synod be akin to "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
It seems to me that in our North American culture, the type of person open to experiencing God and participating in religious activities, has also the type of personality which may include being homosexual. Where does that leave us?
John DosSantos
Fredericton NB
Posted by John DosSantos | March 3, 2007 5:41 PM
Posted on March 3, 2007 17:41
All the above seems to me to be little more than an academic exercise. We can discuss this issue till the cows come home and still not reach concord. The reason for this is that we are talking passed each other.
The Reverend Melby has indicated twice his dislike of "cunning words" and I would like to point out to the good reverend gentleman that Paul was able to employ cunning words in the evangelism of the gentiles in Greece. One of the reasons given by the Church of Rome for its schism with the Eastern church was that that church was too involved in sophisitcated debate. Cunning words have long held a place in the Church of Christ, and a glance throught the Gospels will reveal that Jesus Himself was able to engage in lively debate.
Another person has mentioned the possiblity that homosexual persons are genetically pre-disposed to that way of being. Last I heard science was still working that one out and was a long way from answering the question. If it turns out to be true, then it would provide a basis of an arguement for the full inclusion of homosexual persons in the life of the church, that is if such arguement is actually necessary.
I think ultimately what is happening in the Anglican Communion as a whole is not so much a division along lines of conservative or liberal, but along lines of equal ignorance. There are those who oppose same-sex blessings using the Bible as a proof text, but who are likely reacting out of a deep seated feeling that this is just wrong. If push came to shove and they were asked to articulate exactly why, they would only be able to tell you, because it is.
On the other side of the story there is a similar problem, inasmuch as people are attempting to help (think of it as a social justice issue) their brothers and sisters (as they see it) to enjoy the full benefits of being in the Anglican Communion. But just attending an Anglican parish does not entitle one to all that the Church has to offer, otherwise we would not have instutitions such as ACPO for determining the fittness of those who intend to lead our parishes. We would let whoever wants to lead, and if their doctine is unsound, oh well. But we don't do that, neither should we jump to the aid of those we may well love, without very seriously considering the issue in its broadest sense.
To that end, I thnk all persons attending this synod should educate themselves to the best of their ability on the issues surrounding this topic. Consider that homosexual persons are made in the image of God, for no where in Scripture does it say otherwise. Consider that not everyone is ready to admit of this just yet, and may well never be ready. What would a Yes vote mean to the worldwide Communion? What would a No vote mean? Whatever the answers, please approach this meeting prayerfully and in humility, after all, God knows all, we don't.
Lee Stephenson
Victoria British Columbia
Posted by Lee Stephenson | March 7, 2007 2:01 PM
Posted on March 7, 2007 14:01
Steve Cassidy
Wawanesa MB
After reading many comments on this issue - begining with the United Church debate - it is clear that we are able to debate this issue to death but we are not ready to vote on it. A delay in the vote would cause some discomfort to those involved, however it would be healthier for the body of the church. The real issue is retaining a church body that is whole and sound. Our goal should be to heal rifts in the church not create more. To paraphrase Dorothy Sayers... God is the creator and is the only one with that power, Satan has the power only to disrupt and destroy. Given that understanding, to proceed with a vote at this time on such a disruptive issue is to side with evil. (Curiously discussion of evil is not popular these days)
Posted by Steve Cassidy | March 9, 2007 11:25 AM
Posted on March 9, 2007 11:25
Lee Stephenson said:
Careful....what you are saying is that St. Paul used skill in achieving his purpose of preaching through deceit or evasion; that's what 'cunning' means. If Paul believed the Gospel to be untrue, your statement might be admissable. However, he preached the Gospel plainly.
and
If I may respond, first, no one should use the Bible solely as a proof-text. Second, speaking personally as a priest, there is a deep-seated feeling that this is just wrong because God tells us so in His word. The reason why I have not articulated the reason why, is because I am trying to respect the length restrictions of this forum. Were I able to provide a Biblical defense, I would not simply tell you, 'because it is.'
There have been comments that this thread is all academic; well, that's part of the discussion. All Christians are in different stages of their walk in Christ. What can be said is that God does not want us to remain stumbling around without clear direction or intent. That, of course, is part of our debate.
What is clear, and what should be clear to all who read this thread, is that there are two opposing and vociferously different viewpoints on human sexuality and Biblical interpretation that are not reconcilable. This matter needs to be dealt with, and a decision must be made this year at General Synod. Not voting on the issue is going to simply leave whatever wound has occured to fester and remain open to infection.
Those who feel that the blessing of same-sex unions is wrong will not be convinced otherwise; and likewise for those who feel the opposite. No amount of 'dialogue' is going to change people's minds, only the Holy Spirit can do that, and even then, it will only be through the true, authentic preaching of God's Word plainly and clearly to all.
Thank you,
The Reverend Eric Melby
North Peace Parish, British Columbia
Diocese of Caledonia
Posted by The Reverend Eric Melby | March 10, 2007 9:11 PM
Posted on March 10, 2007 21:11
On their recent visit to our companion diocese of Central Buganda in Uganda, friends of mine were accompanied by their 35-year-old unmarried daughter. She was repeatedly told by Ugandan Anglicans that she was shaming her parents by remaining unmarried! I mention this only to highlight the fact that what is truth in one part of the Communion is not truth in another, and that many matters of adiaphora/core doctrine/call them what you will would seem to be as much culturally based as they are theologically based!
My concern is that as we approach General Synod 2007 with the weighty matter of same sex blessings/marriage hanging like the sword of Damocles over our heads we are going to be asked to reach a conclusion that may culminate in our remaining in Communion or not.
As a lifelong Anglican I have always treasured the 'big tent' of Anglicanism, that seeks to preserve unity without demanding uniformity. Consequently, while the idea is anathema to me, a Canadian, I can understand the agreement that allows African Anglicans to continue in plural marriages, that allows the Rt. Rev. Philip Jensen of the Diocese of Sydney, Australia, to engage the notion that lay people should be allowed to preside at Eucharist, and that allows polity to be set in the North American Church by democratic vote at Synods rather than by the House of Bishops only, as in other parts of the Communion. What the African Church or the Australian Church or even what the Church of Englan decrees does not affect me as a Canadian Anglican, and I am content with that (much as I may raise my eyebrows at some things that are llowed in other parts of the Communion).
Here in Canada we have struggled long (and, too often, bitterly) with the issue of the ordination of women, the role of lay women in the life of parishes and dioceses, revised prayer books and hymn books, admission of the non-confirmed to Holy Communion, and other matters. Now we are about to deal with the issue of whether or not the Canadian Church will allow the blessing of committed, loving relationships between members of the same sex.
In Christ, we are told, there is no Greek or Jew, no male or female, no slave or free men and women, and that all are equal in the eyes of God. We are taught that we are created by God, that God loves us just as we are. Moreover, great emphasis has been placed on the First and Great Commandment, to love our God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength, and the Second, "which is like unto it", to love our neighbour as ourselves. On these two, we're told, hang all the law and the prophets.
Now we come to a vote that will affect many faithful people who are homosexual. I pray that we will not continue to exclude them, that we would not deny them full membership in the church, full freedom to worship and serve the God they love, using their gifts and talents in ministry, lay or ordained. In our baptism, we are taught, we become members of the Body of Christ, and no part of the body should have privileges not shared by all parts.
Rather than focusing on the verses from Leviticus and Romans, perhaps we need to focus on Acts 10:9-16
In Christ
Rene Jamieson
St. John's Cathedral, Winnipeg
Diocese of Rupert's land
Posted by Rene Jamieson | March 12, 2007 3:11 PM
Posted on March 12, 2007 15:11
Rene jamieson [above] asks us to look into Acts. Peter has a dream and is invited by God to ponder the invitation to eat certain animals.
I'm not sure that that ceremonial uncleanness that arises from eating food that God has declared unclean for the purposes of helping define the Jews as a people who do things differently from other nations is in the same kind of uncleanness that occurs when two men [being of the same sex] engage in their behaviour that is their sexual activity.
Making a decision to bless unions between two men or two women may very well make the Anglican 'nation' a separate one, one that is anathema to the rest of Christendom.
It is just this kind of appeal to scripture that muddies the waters. Doctrine ought to be clear, and easily accessible in its clarity. In his essay, Stephen Andrews points out the very recent development of the concept of 'core doctrine.' This very fact ought to give us pause in our considerations. Christianity and Anglicanism need to be accessible to people who are poorly-educated, not-so-smart-, even illiterate. Little children come to Jesus for salvation, and the faith needs to be so clear as to be understood by them.
In the case of marriage, I ought to be able to clearly state what God's design is, that babies and families are the expected result of two people who choose to demonstrate their love for one another. But when the idea of doctrine, even if it is not core doctrine, includes the idea that God wants to bless two loving committed men, I'd be struggling to do so with equanamity and grace, when I ponder that these two men would have to not be virgins before they get to commit themselves to each other, while I would want to explain to a child that the standard of sexual behaviour before a wedding, or getting the blessing of the church should be that both the man and the woman be virgins.
Brian Johnson
Little Trinity Church, Toronto
Posted by Brian Johnson | March 13, 2007 11:45 PM
Posted on March 13, 2007 23:45
In response to Brian Johnson's comment, I wonder what makes him think that two people of the same sex would not have to be virgins to be married in the church, according to the church standard? I doubt very much if all the heterosexuals who are married in the church are virgins when they marry. Divorced people who remarry in the church certainly don't meet the virginity standard.
Rene Jamieson
St. John's Cathedral, Winnipeg
Diocese of Rupert's land
Posted by Rene Jamieson | March 14, 2007 12:13 PM
Posted on March 14, 2007 12:13
In light of the Apostle Paul's teaching on marriage in Ephesians 5, particularly how he inseparably links human marriage between a husband and wife with a practical picture of and witness to the relationship between Jesus Christ and His Bride, I find it curious that anyone would be so quick to classify doctrine about human sexuality as 'adiaphora'. Paul is saying here that our take on marriage and human sexuality is the practical outworking of our Christology and our Ecclesiology. If we can't get sexuality and marriage right, what does that say about our doctrines of Christ and the Church?
This is not a difficult line of thought to follow. Why is a biblically functioning marriage so key in Paul's mind? Because through godly, obedient marriages in the Church, the gospel is given visible, tangible qualities that witness to those in need of salvation and glorify God as people live the way he first intended them to.
The fact that Paul makes such strong statements against homosexuality (and many other forms of sexual immorality as well as other sin) within his endictment of the fallen and sinful human race in the beginning of Romans and links such sin to a rejection of the Creator God in favour of an idolatrous worship of creation should also make us reconsider any false notions that these were just cultural predjudices that Paul was blinded by. And then there is that little teaching in Scripture that the whole of it is God-breathed and useful for training, rebuking, correcting and instructing in righteousness (read: right-living). Presumably this includes those parts that God the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to pen.
Dan Glover
St. Martin's, Fort St. John, BC
Posted by Dan Glover | March 14, 2007 8:11 PM
Posted on March 14, 2007 20:11
Reading a few of the previous comments in this thread again, I found one particularly interesting.
"There are those who oppose same-sex blessings using the Bible as a proof text, but who are likely reacting out of a deep seated feeling that this is just wrong. If push came to shove and they were asked to articulate exactly why, they would only be able to tell you, because it is."
If by proof texting, Lee Stephenson means taking verses out of context and throwing them at their opponents in a debate like so many snowballs (it may have finally stopped snowing here in NE BC), then yes, that is an incorrect use of those texts.
But, if some folks are taking pains to exegete Scripture in light of Scripture, within its proper context both with respect to the epsitle as a whole and the canon as a whole (I have Paul in mind here since he was picked on previously in this thread), seeing it as God's revealed will for His people from generation to generation, and taking into account the theological and redemptive-historical lines of reasoning the Holy Spirit has inspired the apostolic writer to employ, this label is hardly fitting. Then if one goes on to affirm what the Bible says, knowing full well that in todays cultural climate, both inside and out of the Anglican Church of Canada, one will be in the minority and will be accused of all sorts of blasphemes against the reigning cultural trends and causes, I think this is hardly a fair accusation. Especially if someone who has taken such pains happens to be standing within the traditional bounds of orthodoxy throughout the church's history, including the that of the Anglican Church, and is saying what they are out of a love and desire that all people would repent of any and every sin and turn to Christ to receive his grace.
I think that it is more fitting of such a label to be placed on those who are arguing for the full acceptance of homosexuality within the life and doctrine of the church. They know that the weight of popular opinion is on their side. They know that smart sounding slogans and social justice terminology will win all the support required in the court of public opinion today. "Why is homosexuality right. It just is. Every thinking person knows that." And if you disagree you are either a bigot or uneducated. Imagine someone calling Thomas Cranmer, C.S Lewis, Richard Baxter, J.I. Packer, John Stott, Alistair McGrath, N.T. Wright, or J.C. Ryle uneducated.
Blessings,
Dan Glover
St. Martin's, Fort St. John, BC
Posted by Dan Glover | March 23, 2007 7:28 PM
Posted on March 23, 2007 19:28
From what I can gather, both the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson & the Blessing of Same-Sex Unions in the Diocese of New Westminster, were all "legal" in the sense of complying with various canons and constitutions, and yet the results have been disasterous for the whole Anglican Communion.
At General Synod we will again be looking for a "legal" way through our impass.
I would strongly suggest that we look at the consequences of any action, rather than the canonical way round the issue.
What do we stand to lose or gain, if we say yes or no? must be the ultimate question.
The Rev. John McKay
Red Deer, AB
Posted by The Rev. John McKay - Red Deer, AB | March 24, 2007 12:47 PM
Posted on March 24, 2007 12:47
Well we who watch from a bit farther south are keen to discover how the Synod conversation will go, and whether or not at the end of the day the traditional (which means negative) definition of homosexuality (acts, nasty unclean acts) will prevail, or whether some other views or frameworks will prevail.
Let me hasten to say that the last thing my spiritual walk requires is to constantly be the object of such controversy and strong negative feeling, as we queer folks often are, even nowadays. The point is to walk humbly with God so far as my particular human capacities permit, and to do justly with my neighbors - yes, all of them, a high standard indeed.
I can no more walk the negative traditional path, repenting of my sexual orientation, than I can wish twenty years off my life cycle's calendar. For better or for worse, depending on your views, I am going to spend the rest of my life as an Out, Partnered, Parenting gay fellow. Each term is an ethical promise, to me. I came out, promising to walk in honesty with myself and with as many others as could tolerate what I could manage of the truth. Coming Out changes people, quite often all for the better, though the negative definitions stolidly refuse to change because they cannot ever be wrong.
Oh well.
I got partnered up, since honesty opened up a whole new life and made the growth of caring so possible that it became almost unavoidable, though slowly and invisibly to me in any given day's joy.
Parenting was a similar surprise, since after all I came out as a gay man back in the day when Coming Out supposedly meant you were willing to give up the dreamy pretense of that high thing, heterosexual pretend generativity, in favor of whatever real piece of generativity you could better pull off - by being honest, and by real growing in real caring. (Not pretend growing into being straight.)
Nobody wishes to rub any conservative believer's vulnerable condemnatory feelings and strongly negative legacy judgments in boiled onions or stale ketchup, just by doing the queer best one can in love and work, openly.
The fact is, I need a worshipping faith community where I can breath oxygen and bear continuing witness to the fine and challenging thing that Coming Out has become in my life (along with Partnering, along with Parenting) without repeatedly bumping into all the legacy negative furniture which automatically dramatizes my queer status as the guy who hasn't had the guts to repent yet, either by reference to addiction or child molesting or murder, or by reference to all queer folks being toddlers in God's eyes because we are not quite mature enough to bear our mysterious crosses, pale and invisible and silent, while our straight betters throw wedding parties and baby showers with the church's loud blessing.
Using legacy straight theology to define queer folks as more innately immature than straights are (by sheer virtue of their sexual orientations), and because they do not deny that their sexuality is just as much a part of their loving as if they had been straight instead, quite frankly, is only a sermon that will convince the conservative and traditional Anglican choirs.
Many non-Anglican friends bolster me up by reminding me that I am still going to be welcome, elsewhere, up to and including their changing faith communities.
All you have to do to get me to leave, then, along with my life partner and our children, is ask. It will be just that easy.
I have a passing life to live as as Out queer fellow. I have a partner and children to whom I am as pledged as I may be. I am not going to pull the plugs on all that, just because someone's traditional negative religious views cannot bear to consider me basically adult and decent.
I can pray and give thanks and sing just down the blocks. No problem, really. The great Anglican legacy negativities will be clearly preserved. I will still be just down the city blocks, too, engaged in Tikkun. No matter what the vote happens to be. In that sense, our tensions and conversations will continue, and we will probably have to talk over in the public squares what may be voted out of bounds inside the Anglican Church of Canada. I didn't wait for global consensus before I Came Out. Nor before I got partnered. Nor before I became one of two daddies. I don't mind explaining myself from time to time to incredibly skeptical and negative conservative believers, but it is hardly the worried center of my ethics or prayer or citizenship in daily life.
By far the easier path, so far as power and tradition goes, will be to say yet again how awful being gay or lesbian is, definitively, using every scriptural lexicon that we have as our legacy. Abomination comes to mind, but unclean is pretty familiar, too.
Prayerful best wishes to all who will talk, muse, talk, pray, talk, pray, and perhaps finally, vote, at Synod.
Posted by Dr. Dan Fee, Berkeley, Calif. | April 17, 2007 11:29 PM
Posted on April 17, 2007 23:29
I conclude that same sex blessings/unions must be a doctrinal matter. The St. Michael Report’s separation of core doctrine from “adiaphora” doctrine isn't supported by Scripture. I think it can be said that all doctrine is core, because every single doctrine helps to explain our understanding of God, humankind and God’s plan for humanity, including sexual relationships. For example, the Bible clearly portrays marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The reason that marriage is not mentioned in any Early Church creed is simply because it was understood by everyone in the cultures of the Roman world as naturally being a husband and wife relationship. It therefore is at least an implicit doctrine, just as “core” a doctrine as any doctrine delineated by Early Church theologians. However, there is actually an abundance of teaching in Scripture about the parameters of marriage to make it an explicit doctrine. Examples include Gen. 2:23, 24; Matt. 19:5; Eph. 5:22-28 and 1 Peter 3:1, 7. In addition, as St. Paul explains, this human institution of marriage is foundational to our understanding of the doctrine of the Church, primarily because of the similarities in roles and obligations between the husband and Christ and between the wife and the Church. Since the doctrine of the Church depends, at least in part, on a proper understanding of marriage, how can someone conclude that the Church is “core” and marriage is not?
Blessings,
Chuck Venhuizen,
London, ON
Posted by Chuck Venhuizen | June 21, 2007 6:39 AM
Posted on June 21, 2007 06:39