There are examples of exceptions to the Church’s moral teaching made for pastoral reasons. The African adaptation of the teaching on marriage so as to be able to incorporate polygamists and their wives is a good example. This exception also allows African Anglicans to teach the classic doctrine that marriage is for one man, one woman. One could object that allowing polygamists into the church””at whatever level””is de facto an approval of adultery. That in fact was the initial objection, and on the face of it, polygamy (or polyandry, or its contemporary expression in the West, polyamory), is adulterous in nature. However, the overriding concerns of justice for the wives and children, and mercy for the polygamist, allow the exception to be made. From the biblical perspective, some evidence is found to allow polygamy, as the Mormons will tell you, even though the prophets and the church of the New Testament did not accept it. This ambiguity also gives the exception some sort of biblical backing.
On this basis an exception can be made, and it is clear that Anglicans everywhere now accept it. That the Lambeth Conference came into being to advise on the case of Bishop Colenso, deposed for, among other things, advocating this exception, is proof that this process of approval is by no means automatic or rapid.
However, while a province may make such exceptions, there are limits. Polygamists are not allowed to add more wives, for instance. In particular, when one makes a pastoral exception for a certain group of people, ordaining them to the ministry, and especially the episcopate, is unacceptable. It must be pointed out, however, that the first consecrations of bishops of color were justified as pastoral exceptions made for the sake of mission””while sinfully continuing to deny the equality of those first bishops with others, since they were themselves part of an “inferior race.”
The churches that are dealing with the open presence of gay people in their midst are developing strategies to reach out to them. This Conference recognized that this development in these churches is not the fruit of doctrinal drift or abandonment of the faith. They are trying to create ways of incorporating gay people as part of their mission. As the Lambeth Indaba document states (para. 22), the church exists as the instrument of God’s mission””God is doing the sending, and the church is the extension into humanity of that mission. Furthermore, successive Lambeth Conferences have affirmed for thirty years that gay people are worthy to be received into the church, equally beloved with the rest of us by God.
As those churches trying to accomplish this mission in their context wrestle with the appropriate missional approach to and with gay people, they are trying to discern whether a pastoral exception is called for, as with polygamy, or whether in fact homosexuality can be fully accepted as part of living a holy Christian life for those who are so oriented. As Bishop Gene Robinson has pointed out a number of times, there is still significant indecision in the American context itself.
But I think Bishop Wright put the question squarely: can homosexual practice be validated as an acceptable way of life for those whose sexuality orients them toward it? The answer will clearly outline the shape of evangelism and mission to gays and lesbians, as well as pastoral and ascetical practice with gay people.
Bishop Whalon is mistaken in his use of the term “polyandry” in reference to Africa.
Here are 2 readings that might clarify:
http://college-ethics.blogspot.com/2008/08/christian-polygamy-say-what.html
http://college-ethics.blogspot.com/2008/08/cases-of-polygyny-growing.html
If we could have the same restrictions to homosexual unions as we have to polygamy.
1. No blessings of polygamy take place. Thus, there are no blessings for homosexual unions.
2. No polygamist is allowed (or should be allowed to be) ordained while > 1 wife is still alive. Thus, no person involved in a homosexual union can be ordained while (s)he is still involved in that union.
This is all that the reasserters have ever asked for.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
At least Pierre Whalon tries to put an argument together.
He mentions polygamists. Polygamy is never praised but it is not condemned by scripture. Paul does state that bishops and deacons (ecclesios) should not practice it.
In contrast, homosexuality is condemned by scripture. But, I would have no problems with the same solution that Lambeth came up for the polygamists – they can be part of the church but cannot hold office.
Right on, Phil #3, you hit the nail right on the head!
Isn’t there also a clause that states the man who has more than one wife can keep all of them, but must restrict sexual activity to one to be a member of the church in good standing?
I think the good bishop is right on the verge of stating the reasserter position: Celibate gay clergy, yes; sexually-active gay clergy, no.
Quite right, Phil Snyder.
One could go on to observe that once baptized, the polygamous husband cannot marry any more wives; and that in (most? at least some?) cases of the Church’s pastoral response to polygamy in Africa, the Church asked the husband and the wives after the first to refrain from sexual activity. Thus by analogy, no homosexual relationships formed after baptism, and those formed before must after baptism become non-sexual.
Why are reappraisers so pitifully blinded to this when they triumphantly trot out polygamy as an argument-ender?
(In fairness, one should observe that a Church domesticated by too close a relationship with political power overlooked the post-baptismal polygamy of some of the Merovingian and early Carolingian kings of Gaul/France, including Charlemagne.)
Oops, am blogging during clinic and when I hit submit, I see the much wiser Phil Snyder had already said what I said.
Jeffersonian wrote:
[blockquote]I think the good bishop is right on the verge of stating the reasserter position: Celibate gay clergy, yes; sexually-active gay clergy, no.[/blockquote]
How about we simply define homosexual to be those who actively participate in homosexual relations. Then a person who has homosexual fantasies is just that. Freud said that we all have homosexual fantasies, some just subconsciously, others perserverating on them. If I have a subconscious homosexual thoughts, am I a homosexual? Of course not. If Freud was right (and I am not saying he was or wasn’t), everyone would be homosexual.
Of course, just as Jesus condemns lust as equivalent to adultery, homosexual thoughts can be condemned like homosexual actions. But only the good Lord knows what is in each man’s heart.
It would be interesting to know what African Bishops and Priests think about Bishop Pierre Whalon’s idea of “The African adaptation of the teaching on marriage so as to be able to incorporate polygamists”.
I doubt that Africans have adapted “to incorporate Polygamists” to the extent that Bishop Whalon suggests because most of the things I have read about the Anglican Church, in Africa, give me the impression that the Church is trying to influenced men and women to respect the Christian practice of marriage of one man to one woman and fidelity in marriage, especially since this is an important aspect of the fight against the HIV/AIDs epidemic.
Phil:
You are like Guiness Beer: “Brilliant!”
#11 raises a good point – there is a terrible conflict in advocating the acceptance of gay sexual relations and also of AIDS prevention. I just don’t see how you reconcile the two……
Phil, with all respect, I probably disagree. Suppose VGR, an avowed homosexual, one whose open teachings contradict scripture– suppose he had no partner and was celebate? Should he qualify for ordination? I mean, may some be disqualified because of heretical teaching?
And, as a practical matter, I wonder if there are, among the ordained/consecrated, those who are open about their homosexual orientation yet are celebate? Dick
#14:
1. They should be.
2. One hopes they are celibate. Also, that they don’t blab about their sexual desires (as one US or Canadian Melanesian apparently does). Whose concern is that?
Richard (#14)
1. A person who teaches heretical ideas should not be ordained regardless of his/her sexual orientation. I was only saying that an active homosexual relationship should be a bar to ordination just as an active polygamous relationship should be a bar to ordination.
2. I know of at least one person who is homosexual, celebate, and ordained. I would assume that there are others and have been others in the Church’s history.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
[i]That the Lambeth Conference came into being to advise on the case of Bishop Colenso, deposed for, among other things, advocating this exception, is proof that this process of approval is by no means automatic or rapid.[/i]
Interesting that Bishop Whalon should bring in Colenso in this manner. I wouldn’t have thought that accommodating polygamy was the principal reason why many of the bishops – including many of the American bishops – pressed for his case to receive attention.
As several have pointed out, the Bishop’s comparison is not valid. TEC has embraced a therapeutic model of pastoral care that is not consistent with Scripture. As usual, humanity in its fallen wisdom believes it knows better than God. The fall continues to influence us even in our denial.
The comments reflect a focus on the sexual aspect of marriage. What is less discussed is the property aspect of marriage.
In so far as marriage is an institution whose purpose is the accumulation of wealth and the establishment of peace, we must discuss the problem of property. God cares about property relationships (thus, thou shalt not steal; or covet). Adultery, as women had been considered the property of the patriarchal household, is also a property relationship.
Am I right that reasserters are generally uncomfortable discussing the property aspect of these relationships?
An asinine argument. The church has supported hundreds of AA groups, and to my knowledge there aren’t any churches out there handing bottles of booze to drunks, heroin to addicts, belts to wife beaters, etc.
I personally believe that a single, celibate heterosexual, who quietly enjoys the sin of “spiritual adultery” by watching a good-looking lady walking away from him, ought to be ordained if called. (One could call this “Jimmy carter adultery.”) And so, consistency requires that I also believe that a single, celibate homosexual can be ordained. Sexual activity outside of the state of marriage (which can only, within the church, be a state involving one male and one female), is the key here; no single, sexually active heterosexual should stand for ordination, and the same is true for sexually active homosexuals.
Our attitudes, our thoughts, our fallen nature, is properly addressed in scripture, but if we require purity of attitude and thought, then we are left with absolutely no pastors. Quiet repentance and resulting forgiveness for attitudes are needed; but it is the behavior itself, the activity itself, which the church must continue to resist.
Thus. . . celibate gay pastors, yes. Celibate single hetero pastors, yes. Sexually active single pastors, no. Period.
John,
The property arrangements are not the issue here. I a person is a part of a commune and desires to be ordained (and meets the other requirements, such as actually believing the Christian faith and having the call confirmed by the Church), then I say “OK.”
The problem comes in when you have two men or two women who promise to share property in a marriage like arrangement and share a home etc and say that they are sexually attracted to each other and even have a history of sexual activity with each other, but promise to live celibately. I doubt if we would accept that from an unmarried heterosexual couple and so I don’t think we should accept it from a homosexual couple. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen, but I doubt most people would accept that it is happening in most cases.
Marriage is more than a sharing of property and it is more than sharing sexual expression. It is a complete sharing of two people – male and female – making whole what God designed in creation.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
I am encouraged by Bishop Whalon’s essay. However, it will be necessary for the Church to revisit its history of lobbying publicly for abortion on demand in order to make a creditable evaluation of its ministry to straights as well as gays.
It is important for the Church to be clear about its attitude toward the unborn, both at home and abroad.
Bishop Whalon writes:
[i]If our disagreement were over a creedal issue, such as a province deciding explicitly to deny the virginal conception of Jesus, there would have to be an unequivocal action by this Conference and the other Instruments to declare that they are not in communion with this province. The faith is that which must be believed by all, everywhere, at all times (the so-called Vincentian canon).[/i]
And what if most bishops and clergy deny the virginal conception of Jesus but don’t change the creeds? In my experience most TEC clergy, if asked, will tell you that they don’t believe in the virginal conception of Jesus because it’s based on a mistranslation in the Septuagint, it’s biologically impossible, etc. (See Bishop Spong’s [i]Born of a Woman[/i] for one iteration of this.) And I have heard this preached from the pulpit on more than one occasion, including on Christmas Eve.
Most TEC clergy, however, are sufficiently lacking in integrity that they are willing to leave the creeds alone for liturgical purposes and recite them in services, while denying them in sermons, essays, Sunday school classes, etc. Or they rationalize saying things they don’t believe with arguments like Marcus Borg’s in [i]The Heart of Christianity[/i]. When most clergy in TEC are unwilling to make their yes mean yes and their no mean no, what difference does it make that the creeds have not officially been rewritten in the BCP? They have been rejected one way or the other.
Phil #16 and jkc1945 #21– I agree fully with you, Phil, that someone who teaches heretical ideas should not be ordained. And that would include VGR, even were he “celebate.”
And, I think I disagree with Jkc1945’s equation of a “single, celebate and quiet” hetrosexual with a sinful heart with a single and celebate homosexual. I’m not sure if there is such a thing as a single and celebate homosexual cleric, whose preference is publicly KNOWN, who is quiet, and whose teachings on sexuality are in accordance with scripture. Therefore, I don’t think jkc1945 quite has it when he suggests that the key to qualification is that of behavior. I believe that teaching is also critical. Best. Dick
Hi Phil,
You say, “Marriage is more than a sharing of property and it is more than sharing sexual expression. It is a complete sharing of two people – male and female – making whole what God designed in creation.” I agree, but I think that “male and female” does not make whole. In fact, I would argue that is a pagan construction of wholeness. Eroticism should not be gendered (that’s the problem the God of Israel had with the fertility Gods), and Paul did say that we were one in Christ.
If anything, you demonstrate my point: you simply decide not to deal with the issue of property as a real one within marriages. I think it remains useful and relevant.