John Sentamu: I think, for myself, that the 1998 resolution was very clear on where the church stood, and it actually invited everybody to engage in the listening process to gay and lesbian people. I still think it was not a good thing for the Episcopal church, while we are still in conversation, to proceed the consecration of Jim Robinson. I happen to think they actually pre-empted the conversation and the discussion. Now what I don’t think should happen now [is] that the whole question of gay and lesbian people — when we said we should listen to their experiences — should now become the kind of dominant theological factor for the whole of the communion. Because really the communion, at the heart of it, has got to do a number of things. While on one hand upholding Christian teaching, [it] must also be very loving and kind towards gay and lesbian people because that’s part of the resolution. And it must also continue to listen. And I’m not so sure, when some people speak as if the debate has been concluded, or we cannot engage with this, you’re being very faithful to the resolution.
Secondly, the Windsor Report has made it very clear that the four instruments of unity — that is, Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Primates Meeting — should be the kind of instrument that actually allows all of us to talk. So those who now say, for example, that they don’t want to come to the Lambeth Conference in 2008 because there may be people from ECUSA , well all I want to say is that church history has always taught us that churches have always disagreed. I mean, over the nature of Christ, the salvation of Christ, there were bitter, bitter, bitter disagreements in the early church, but everybody turned up at those ecumenical councils to resolve their differences. So my view would be, if you’re finding this quite difficult, please do not stop the dialogue and the conversation.
Stephen Crittenden: Well indeed, you’ve warned — just in the last few days –warned the conservative bishops of the global south that if they don’t come to Lambeth, they’d effectively be severing themselves from the rest of the communion. That’s a bit tough, isn’t it?
John Sentamu: Well, the Lambeth Conference is an invitation from the Archbishop of Canterbury to all bishops of the Anglican communion to come to Lambeth and talk of matters of common concern. Now if there is already a fracture within the communion, I would have thought everybody would want to turn up in order to work out how we as a communion are going to go forward. Secondly, the Primates Meeting in Tanzania set out a fairly clear way ahead in its communiqué, as well as the whole question of the covenant. Now if we’re going to continue to talk about the covenant at Lambeth Conference, and some people absent themselves from this, what is it that actually they think they’re going to be achieving? You see, again I want to challenge them in terms of the debate about the nature of Christ and the salvation of Christ — no church in the seven Ecumenical Councils absented themselves from it, because they were trying to represent the faith as they saw it. And only by people meeting around the table and having a conversation are you likely to find some kind of thing. I think the thing I was reacting to was a question that some people were planning an alternative Lambeth Conference, and my view was there can be no alternative Lambeth Conference, because the Lambeth Conference is always at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury in line with the four instruments of unity. And I cannot see an alternative, actually, for another Lambeth Conference. I mean that’s the logic for it.
TEC preempted the conversation and the discussion but we should still continue as if none of this happened. The Archbishop is logically incoherent.
The logic is a split in the AC, due primarliy, on the ABC’s failure to exercise what little power he does have. I see nothing here but an invitation for endless and meaningless talk, while the TEC etc. continue to act and proceed with their agenda.
“. . . the doctrine of salvation or the doctrine of the nature of Christ, or the doctrine of creation. Those are not on the agenda. Everybody believes those truths.”
Hence, the problem with his leadership.
“Well, the Lambeth Conference is an invitation from the Archbishop of Canterbury to all bishops of the Anglican communion to come to Lambeth and talk of matters of common concern.”
But this is not true — not all Bishops in the Anglican Communion were invited.
“Talk” is irrelevant if there is no way to make and enforce policy. There is such a way forward. It would be nice if the ABC would lead but the archbishops have decided to lead in spite of the ABC.
We have listened and found out all that we need to know. Thank God for godly archbishops who are done with useless talk and are acting.
DonGander
Should the Episcopal House of Bishops in six weeks decline to give the assurances requested by the Primates, Archbishop Williams will have to decide whether they continue to be bishops of the Anglican Communion. Archbishop Sentanu was at the 2006 General Convention. He is aware of the sentiments of the majority in the Episcopal Church.
Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC
I have no objection to continuing the conversation, though it has been a long time since I have heard anything new. However, recall that the flash point for this crisis was not talk, but action in the GC2003. Anyone advocating continuing the conversation without also having and actively advocating a plan to reverse the actions of GC2003 is being naive at best, and more likely disingenuous.
Re. post 3….
At the risk of reopening debates which might be considered closed, I don’t follow the logic of this post. Is it being taken as proved that the endorsement of same-sex unions represents a denial of the Christian doctrine of creation? This question seems to me moot. After all, Archbishop Williams himself in his ‘The Body’s Grace’ essay seemed to be able to hold the two things together … and in this he is representative of many English Christians who would be classically orthodox on issues creedal, but ‘liberal’ on this question of sexual ethics. In other words … we believe God created all that is out of nothing, we believe that God the Son was incarnate and Virgin Born, that he rose again from the dead leaving behind him an empty tomb, that he will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. Many of us even believe that, speaking generally, man and woman are made for sexual union with each other.
What I at least am reluctant to say is that there aren’t exceptions to that last statement or rule. For reasons I don’t understand, it just seems that some people of the same sex love each other and do all the things for each other that my wife and I do for each other in heterosexual marriage. I’m reluctant to say that their love is something that the Church can have nothing to do with. I wish TEC hadn’t acted as precipately and boldly as they did in asserting that point, but I’m not going to regard them as self-excommunicated for doing it.
So I guess what I am asking ‘re-asserters’ is: given our agreement on so much, does our disagreement on this point mean that you can’t be in communion with me?
Sorry for a rather hazily written post … perhaps debate might help to clarify my thought!
Peter
[blockquote]not all Bishops in the Anglican Communion were invited[/blockquote]
Sentamu didn’t say they were. He referred to all bishops OF the Anglican Communion. There is a distinction between the bishops IN the Anglican Communion and the bishops OF the Anglican Communion, just as we may be IN the world but not OF the world.
[blockquote]For reasons I don’t understand, it just seems that some people of the same sex love each other and do all the things for each other that my wife and I do for each other in heterosexual marriage. I’m reluctant to say that their love is something that the Church can have nothing to do with. I wish TEC hadn’t acted as precipately and boldly as they did in asserting that point, but I’m not going to regard them as self-excommunicated for doing it.
So I guess what I am asking ‘re-asserters’ is: given our agreement on so much, does our disagreement on this point mean that you can’t be in communion with me? [/blockquote]
Peter, I very much sympathize even though I’m on the other side of the divide; I have sat where you are sitting. I have been convinced that the problem with such a position is the great violence that would have to be done to the language of Scripture.
I’ve had gay friends tell me that with “friends” of the ilk of Spong or Pike or Borg or Chane, they don’t need any enemies; such people “convince others that supporting gay relationships goes hand-in-hand with heresy.” But I now, very reluctantly, have concluded that they are incorrect; a refusal to see that both Scripture and Tradition are uniformly negative toward same-sex sexual relationships — or to admit that this is decisive — simply means that there are aspects of the Faith (“we believe God created all that is out of nothing, we believe that God the Son was incarnate and Virgin Born, that he rose again from the dead leaving behind him an empty tomb, that he will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead”) that they are unwilling to give up. It doesn’t seem to me to be a coherent theological position.
It’s not that homosex is the worst of sins. The worst of sins the pride that asserts that, while your temptation to light fingers or hot temper or laziness or alcoholism is a symptom of the fall and you should ask for the grace to do better, my same-sex erotic attraction is the Way God Made Me and therefore Good.
Peter, the prohibition on acting on homosexual eroticism has a deep root in our Christian faith for important reasons that are subtle and not always easily seen. I mean, sure, in the immediate sense, there is love and affection in homosexual relationships. Seems hard to condemn, right? The problems with blessing that, though, are many: (1) it tears at the fabric of manhood and womanhood, (2) it creates even greater sexual confusion than already exists for teens and young adults coming to grips with sexuality who may have bisexual tendencies (and apparently this is in some way most of us), (3) it greatly elevates the pleasure side of sex, given that homosexual eroticism is not aimed at procreation, (4) it promotes what appears to be largely a myth that those that have only same sex relationships were genetically hardwired to be homosexual, (5) it excuses men that want to find a new sexual pleasure as their wives age who can claim that they are “finding out” that they are gay, (6) it fosters major dysfunctional sex-based power structures in all-male prisons and allows them to reorient themselves during their period of incarceration away from their wives, and (7) fosters the terrible falsehood that fathers are easily traded out of the family in a lesbian relationship and that fathers (or mothers for a gay union) do not really add anything unique.
In my view, every single one of these issues is a major practical as well as theological wrong. Ensuring that the Church speaks clearly about wisdom in matters of sexuality is of great importance to families as well as adults. The only alternative is, at best, that these myriad issues be relegated to parents having to discuss them with kids (that being a hugely unfair burden on parents) or that popular culture take over these roles in all its randomness and often cruelty.
Even if someone who finds him or herself absolutely incapable of loving someone of the opposite sex (and this is likely a far, far smaller number than the reappraisers would admit, probably just a tiny percentage), nothing prevents such folks from having soul mates of the same sex. Many of us have them. If they feel the need for marriage, from having the great honor of marrying the Church by dedicating their lives to Christ (as the Roman Catholic tradition says). The ban is on homosexual eroticism.
What we need is also to disconnect ourselves and our culture from the proposition that sexual gratification is so incredibly important. I am not married (though I have a girlfriend), and I am celibate. I am perfectly happy with that, it’s not even an issue–and it simply need not be.
Thanks to NWOhio Anglican and Reason and Revelation. Several thoughts suggest themselves – and again, I know I am at risk of rehashing a debate that you have all had no doubt many times! Firstly though, I ask again – does the fact I don’t share your views on this question of human sexuality mean that we are out of communion? This is the question which is raised for me when bishops say they will not come to Lambeth if those they disagree with are coming, and today was raised by George Cray’s comment on John Sentamu’s leadership.
On the wider point … I agree that Scripture and tradition are uniformly negative about same-sex relations. Now, at the risk of really rehashing debates, I would say this doesn’t end the argument. It doesn’t end the argument because it is to me at least unclear whether Scripture ever thinks of same sex relationships in terms of loving, faithful, monogamous unions – all it can see is vile immorality. One could draw a parallel with the question of other religions … one could easily make the case that the Scriptural view of other religions is that they are all vain idol worship. I would want to say – and I suspect some ‘reasserters’ might too? – that that isn’t really good enough, and we have to acknowledge that dealing with (say) Sufi Islam just isn’t the same thing as dealing with Moloch worship. In a similar way, dealing with my friends’ gay relationships – which as far as I can possibly judge are good and lifegiving – just isn’t the same thing as dealing with eg. the scenario Reason and Revelation suggests of men tiring of their aging wives and turning to other men for sexual thrills.
I know two Anglican priests who are in a long (15 year) same sex partnership. They are both very, very good priests. I would say that for both of them, part of the reason they are good priests is the emotional background each gives to the other’s life … not in exactly the same way as my wife gives to me, but not a million miles from that. Sexual intercourse – while I have never been rude enough to ask – I guess plays roughly the same part in their lives as it does in mine: it is very important, even indispensable, it cements and builds their loves … but there is more to their life together than how they reach orgasm. Incidentally, on R&R;’s last point, at least one of them (the one I know best) says that as far as he is concerned children DO need mothers and fathers … which he wouldn’t seek a child with his partner, and why he thinks the language of ‘marriage’ is inappropriate to same-sex unions.
We are talking about thoughtful, good Christians … part of whose goodness comes from their love for each other, a love which involves but is much more than its physical expression. I guess if you could show me what in such relationships makes it like alcoholism, light fingers, or hot tempers (to cite NWOhio Anglican’s alternative vices), ie. show me what is intrinsically damaging to the social good about unions like the one I’ve talked about above … then I would need to rethink. Of course there are bad homosexual relationships such as R&R;outlines … like there are bad heterosexual ones. The challenge to ‘reasserters’ though is to show what is intrinsically socially damaging about even the best kinds of homosexual relationships. The good they do is apparent … where is the evil?
Thanks … I’m enjoying the debate.
Peter
[blockquote]does the fact I don’t share your views on this question of human sexuality mean that we are out of communion?[/blockquote]
That’s the key question, isn’t it? Here’s my own short answer:
If you disagree but submit to the teaching of the Anglican Communion (that is, Lambeth 1998.1.10) on this subject, then you are not out of communion.
If you follow the Protestant heresy of “my exegesis trumps that of the vast majority of Christians” — and there are lots of examples of such prideful privileging of novel exegeses, not at all limited to homosexuality or to “progressive” Christianity — then you are out of communion.
If Anglicans are Catholic, which has been a rather consistent claim since Cranmer, there is no other way. It’s the failure of church discipline that is causing the schism.
As for the rest, you are privileging experience over Scripture, I think. As I’ve said elsewhere, no Anglican — given our somewhat Calvino-Lutheran heritage — should trust the experience of radically sinful, fallen humanity over Scripture. We Anglicans aren’t even supposed to trust tradition over Scripture!!
To head off one possible counter-argument, Richard Hooker made it quite clear that “what Scripture doth clearly set forth” trumps anything whatsoever. There is no lack of clarity in Scripture, either the OT or NT, about homosexual conduct — “pansies” (malakoi) and “b***-f***ers” (arsenokoitoi), as St Paul crudely put it.
I would ask of your priest friends, who don’t believe that same-sex marriage is of God, whether they think they are setting a good example. It’s one thing to recognize that same-sex sexual relationships may be out of God’s original intention and symptomatic of the fall (like divorce and remarriage), but pastorally perhaps the best that some people can do. It’s another for clergy to not be held to a higher standard than the laity. The Pastoral Epistles make rather abundantly clear that clergy should be held to higher standards.
And yes, I think that divorce and remarriage ought to be a disqualification for presbytery as well.
Sorry, the “may be” in my penultimate paragraph should be “are”.
I think the Archbishop of York would be well advised not to say anymore on this topic. The more he says the less coherent his logic seems to be.
I’m n ot sure how the Archbishop is being unclear. It seems to me he’s being very clear: The Windsor report, Covenant Process and Tanzania Communique made clear our direction forward. Why would conservatives absent themselves from Lambeth and make the outcome a liberal fait accompli.
If you look at the trajectory of the Communion, it makes no sense for orthodox to say the communion is lost when 1988 was the first time westerners were outnumbered by indigenous Bishops, when the conference in 1998 took a clear stand for biblical teaching against radical liberalism and it seemed as though 2008 would put us on even firmer footing. Basically, what seems to be happening is the orthodox are preparing to give up the field and go home, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory all over their frustration at the process. I pray I’m wrong in my assessment, but we’ll have to wait and see.
Meanwhile Down Under, Aspinall, the Primate of Australia, has invited Spong to preach in Brisbane Cathedral, while Sydney has banned him from their churches.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22239593-421,00.html
Outside of Sydney, the Anglican church is basically dying in Australia, and Aspinall is hurrying along the process. Why doesn’t he go the whole hog and invite Richard Dawkins as well?
Jody has hit the nail firmly on the head. Whilst I can quite understand the frustration of the orthodox bishops this is precisely the wrong moment to be walking off.
# 18: Actually, I’m not really sure what the point is of these expensive jamborees (VERY expensive where many Africans are concerned). If they don’t legislate for the Anglican Communion in the way that Vatican II did for Rome (and they don’t, otherwise the pro-homosexualist movement would have been stopped dead in 1998), then they are talk shops, and there are better and cheaper ways of communicating and fellowshipping than transporting 3000+ people to a very expensive country for three weeks or so. Isn’t the Lambeth conference one of those things which have outlived their usefulness? On the other hand, a regional gathering makes more sense.
I’d like to know who has said yes. Bet most of Tec has rushed in. Well, let’s see how thigns stand in October.
I think Jody is wrong. I think the ABC is deliberately calling the Primates’ bluff. That’s why the timing was so important. He wanted a response to his invitations before TEC had a chance to act figuring the orthodox would commit themselves to coming and would not back out when TEC rejects the Primates’ requests. Thus TEC attends and the Orthodox attend and another line in the sand is drawn and the process of delay continues to play out. And the ABC never has to actually make a decision.
I don’t think this is how it is going to play out. What I think the ABC will accomplish is a split in the AC because many of the Primates now no longer see the AC as a solution, but as a problem of the same magnatude as TEC.
I disagree that the orthothodox are snatching defeat out of victory. At the present time they are loosing because of the ABC’s continued ability and determination to do nothing. It’s like the carrot on the end of the stick, you just never get there.
jody: I used to agree with your position, but it should be noted that this Lambeth Conference was billed as being non-legislative. I.e., it’s just a dialogue. Further, Williams set a deadline to respond before 9/30, basically saying that orthodox have to commit to coming to a conference of folks they are not in communion with purely out of loyalty to him and to listen even more. We have listened for 20-30 years and have had endless meetings. The deadline was set. Williams is a nice guy, but it seems like he is too nice to be a leader and is willing to put out bad work product, like that sub-committee report at Dar and this gambit, to avoid tough decisions. 9/30 was the deadline. TEC should be out, the new province should be in (if only as visiting guests of Lambeth this time around), and the covenant process should continue from there. There is no reason whatsoever for TEC to be in the covenant process at all except to allow Williams to avoid the tough call.
peter:
One reason the need to draw the line in the sand about homosexual sex is because the GLBT strategy has always been, so to speak, “an inch at a time.” I.e., just don’t get upset that your organist is in an actively gay relationship (1970s), let him play the organ and leave it at that. Then, don’t get too upset about this or that, we’re not asking for anything more. Inch by inch TEC has arrived at gay bishops, GLBT clergy, Muslim-Episcopalian priests, and same-sex blessings. Marriage very well be soon to come from GC. The goalposts keep changing, and that is part of a very savvy political strategy. If you do not stand for the gospel now, it will be way too late later. These guys from the Global South are a lot smarter than we orthodox in the US ever were.
Regarding the proposition that faithful homosexual relationships were never considered in the Bible, that is a clever myth concocted by the revisionist camp. The island of Lesbos was a popular story in the ancient world (that may or may not have been true but the point is that non-abusive homosexual relationships were certainly conceived of at that time). Likewise, homosexual relationships were formed by men in ancient Greek and Roman armies as a sexual outlet on long campaigns. The loving aspect of homosexuality was known. It was not tolerated in Christianity because of the long-term corrosive effect that it has on society and on people, and it sets a bad example. There are lots of things that feel good and make us happy in the immediate sense but which are harmful to society and the Church.
I disagree that sex is an essential, needed part of a relationship, and I know from personal experience. With a little Christian discipline in hand, it need not even be a serious temptation. Again, personal experience here, and I am a normal, red-blooded male, age 30, peak hormone season.
Being good friends with someone of your sex can obviously be greatly fulfilling, and there is no need for sexual gratification to be a part of it.
Br. Michael, whilst you mabe right that ABC was attempting to keep the conversation going by getting the replies in early I think you have clearly shown the nub of the danger in your premise that the orthodox are losing. That may be true in TEC, but it is fundamently NOT true in the AC where they have a significant majority. But it needs that majority to turn up. That is the point that ABY is making, and he is right. Yes I bet a lot of Americans have signed up, and very quickly in the hope it wil make the notion of disinvitation more difficult. All the more important the Africans come as well, and make their views very strongly known.
Good point, simon, but here’s the rub: if this Lambeth is not going to be legislative but rather a very expensive group Bible study and prayer event, the Africans can legitimately say they won’t show up and spend all that huge amount of money on bishops and their wives, but will show up at the primates’ meeting where real work is done. This is what Williams does not really grasp. The listening process has been decades now, and TEC is the entity that breached that listening process by unilaterally acting in violation of Lambeth I.10 as well as all the subsequent entreaties and reports and communiques. If nothing else, the discipline should be that TEC has not followed the listening process rules in the most flagrant and painful way and must leave the table until it is willing to sign onto the expectations clearly laid out.
The thing is, I am hard-pressed to see Williams refuse to invite the GS to the primates’ meeting the next time around, right? Or to void the covenant design process, right?
The GS ought to (honestly) say they aren’t coming to a non-legislative, tea-time and Bible study Lambeth purely on a cost basis. Even without the crisis in the communion, it sounds to me like a huge expense. Thousands of dollars per bishop? That could probably pay the salaries of half a dozen priests for a year in a lot of areas of the Global South. I love Canterbury charm as much as the next Anglophile, but we’re talking about places of real need.
Following on the posts from NWOhio Anglican and Reason and Revelation…
This has to be a quick post as I really should get some work done! But several thoughts suggest themselves.
Firstly, the point about being out of communion if one goes against the teaching of Lambeth 1.10 and decides to consecrate actively gay bishops or bless same sex unions. Part of me wishes that TEC and Canada hadn’t done so, precisely because unilateralism is a bad way of making big decisions in a Catholic Church. However, it is worth recalling that Lambeth Conferences don’t have a legislative authority in the Anglican communion – what authority they have is moral. Still not to be despised or treated with contempt of course, but not a sort of collective papacy. I’m not sure that going against the judgement of a Lambeth Conference is the kind of thing that shoud excommunicate people … and were it so, hard questions might have to be asked about the failure of many reasserters to listen respectfully to the experience of gay and lesbian Christians, as also required by Lambeth 1.10.
It is difficult to listen respectfully, of course, if you think that the final word on these matters is the clarity of Scripture: pansies and butt f***kers, to translate S.Paul as NWOhio Anglican does (slightly more brutally, I think, than most lexicons would!). I guess we approach the nub of the problem here: if it is true that the judgement conveyed in such words is the clear teaching of Scripture on homosexuality, I just don’t think that has much to do with the lived reality of many homosexual couples today. To reduce my friends’ relationships to sodomy is about as crude and wrongheaded as to reduce my marriage to vaginal intercourse … it is a lot richer and more complex than that. If all Scripture can say is ‘butt f***kers’ then, yes, I do think its imagination needs to be enlarged … just as (to use the parallel case suggested earlier, which I note neither of you respond to) we need to say more about eg. Sufi Islam than ‘vain idol worship’.
Is this making experience the judge of Scripture? To a certain extent, yes … only to a certain extent, though, because I would stil say that Scripture sets forth the norm for human sexuality, and sets forth a tremendous vision of what is good about heterosexual union as that norm. Where the imagination needs to be enlarged, I would say, is in recognising that there could be other goods apart from the norm – that, if you like, there might be ‘quirks’ in creation, oddities such as homosexual attraction that can still be lived out in holy ways and reflect the goodness of God.
Of course, that couldn’t be so if like R&R;you are convinced that all homosexuality, by definition and regardless of the way in which it is pursued, has a long term detrimental effect upon society. I’d need to see the evidence for that though, not just the statement. It seems to me – and this addresses one of NWOhio’s points – that my priest friends are actually doing rather a lot for the community around them. They do it by modelling faithfulness and commitment to each other, and they do it by loving others with the love that is grown in them through their love for each other …. in (sort of) the same way my heterosexual marriage helps me be a decent Christian too.
Its great R&R;that celibacy works for you. I know others for whom it works too … but I think it is presumptuous to say to people, because you are gay, therefore you need to be celibate. Of course you can be fully human without having sex … but for most of us, having sex is one of the way God fashions us into being fully human. To a certain extent, ‘by their fruits shall ye know them’ – and if people are better Christians – better lovers, in the most complete sense of that word – through homsexual love and intercourse, why are we getting in their way?
A very last thought … what is the real problem here? Is it the act of sodomy which is objected to, or genital contact between members of the same sex? Or would reasserters have an equal problem with men who kissed each other with tongues, or who hugged each other, or sucked nipples? Pardon the graphic detail – the reason I go into it is because I am not sure what constitutes, in the reasserter’s mind, an active homosexual. R&R;, you mention that you have a girlfriend and are celibate … but on the other hand, I’m sure you do things with her that you wouldn’t do with girls who are just your friends, yes? In that broader sense, it is a sexually active relationship, even if it doesn’t involve intercourse or orgasms. Would you deny an equivalent level of sexual activity to same sex couples? If so, then you are asking them to do something rather tougher than you lay upon yourself … if not, what would justify where you draw the line?
I should have started working about fifteen minutes ago! I’m quite interested in this debate, as you can probably tell, but realise the thread is largely on the tactics of Lambeth invitations etc rather than the fundamental issue of sexuality … no doubt because it has all been thrashed out before. If you’re willing to continue, I am too … but I accept that this might not be the time or place.
Best wishes
Peter
Note 24. And we start all over again. We talk and talk and debate and debate and listen and listen ad nausium. And for people like peter.w no one has any authority to impose anything on them and they will simply impliment their agenda. 22, Simon, this is what I menat by loosing. They act ane we talk and pass unenforcable resolutions. The AC can impose resolutions all day till the cows come home and TEC will never accept them as binding. The ABC will never use what limited power he has.
AT the end of the day then the AC is simply an expensive empty suit.
Br. Michael :
Your summation is very clear. Thanks!
I think Jody and Simon Cawdell have been comprehensively answered. A Lambeth conference with 100+ Tec bishops will NOT compel Tec to return to orthodoxy, it will only convey (for the spinmeisters) a spurious legitimacy.
Africa does not need an expensive Bible study-cum-boat trip on the Thames.
peter:
First of all, the number of people who have such a severe sexual disorientation that they cannot find the opposite sex attractive is a lot lower than the number of people who choose to participate in the homosexual lifestyle. Shoot, for women it’s probably down near negligible, and for the guys, a lot of them are bisexual and have ended up, for as many reasons as there is sand on the beach, not expressing any heterosexuality. I know from personal experience people who have claimed to be gay but have later either admitted to being bisexual or otherwise plainly shown bisexual history/conduct. The “born gay†theme is popular for obvious reasons, because it means as a practical matter that there is only one person who can say whether the person was hardwired to be gay or not, and that is that person. It is a clever approach but one that ignores significant evidence against it that I am sure you are aware of. Notably, the genetic causation hypothesis in vogue a decade or two ago is now fairly defunct for lack of any proof. In fact, especially for women, the opposite is true.
So, environment, as well as choice, is important for the vast majority of people.
That being said, there appear to be a very small percentage of people for whom attraction to the opposite sex is very difficult or impossible. For those few (as well as for many straight people, including those outside of wedlock), celibacy is an honor and a great service. We all do service and restrain ourselves in our passions. Sexual gratification is not some sort of sine qua non of human existence, and sexual gratification that is contrary to right reason and good social order as expressed so well in Biblical teaching is not good.
Likewise for those who never find true love and marriage. Celibacy is a service and an honor that this country so needs to reconsecrate.
As for me, sure, we kiss and whatnot, but to be honest with you, if someone told me I couldn’t kiss her until marriage (or ever for that matter, if that were my calling), that would be fine with me. I’m not saying it just because it is a convenient argument, that is just the truth. I kiss her if for no other reason than that she would think I was pretty weird if I didn’t. Again, I’m not some sort of unsexed person or repressed, it’s just how I have trained myself. No big deal.
In 25, Br Michael wrote responding to my last post:
And for people like peter.w no one has any authority to impose anything on them and they will simply impliment their agenda.
Am I allowed to be a little cross at this? I accept plenty of things as bindingly authoritative. I am a Christian priest, and don’t think I could be if I could not recite the Creed without reservation. I swore an oath of obedience in all things lawful and honest to the Bishop and intend to follow it. I do my best to live up to the ethical commands of the faith. On the point in question, I observe the Church of England’s ban on any public blessing of same sex unions – even though I am at least partially convinced it is wrong. I observe it because it is the mind of the church, even if it is not my mind. For the same reason I regret that TEC and Canada made the decisions they did – whilst part of me wants to cheer, the other part thinks it shows up the inadequacy of traditional Anglican theories of provincial autonomy, and that they should have heeded the Primates’ request to stop before consecrating VGR.
So I feel a little bruised by Br. Michael’s sweeping generalisation about people like Peter W, and I don’t know what agenda I’m meant to be have.
R&R;, I know the debate about the causes and prevalence of homosexuality is complex. I also know many people whose orientation seems pretty firmly fixed – and frankly, debating how they got that way isn’t very helpful. The question is, how do they live it now? Its great that celibacy works for some of them, and great that it works for you – but to make it a universal requirement of gay people seems terribly harsh. Unless you can show that some great social evil is prevented thereby … but I’m not sure that you can?
It’s impossible for me to just write a bunch of paragraphs and thereby make a convincing case that there is great ill that results from ratifying homosexual sex. The list of seven problems that are a virtual inevitability from viewing homosexual sex as fully equal to heterosexual sex I listed above are a start. I can certainly vouch for having seen all of them in personal experience.
Also, I disagree that “debating how they got that way isn’t very helpful.” In many ways, it is of great importance, because it’s not just saying “let it be” for a few gay priests who are otherwise serving the church. That puts the Church’s stamp of approval on homosexuality and conveys to the children and adolescents of the Church that the two are equivalent and there is no reason to prefer a straight lifestyle and marriage to a gay/lesbian lifestyle. Those adolescents who are experiencing homosexual feelings are then far more likely to cultivate and explore them during absolutely critical years of growth and development and can lose sight of their womanhood or manhood as heterosexual people. Again, I have seen this first-hand; this is not conjecture. Deep down, I would bet that you have seen it, also.
Growing and learning how to relate maturely and naturally to members of the opposite sex is important because, among other things, most folks are going to be parents. You don’t want to go down the primrose path before you even become an adult. It is a lot easier to find a same-sex mate than an opposite sex mate for about 90% of us out there, and so the path of least resistance is a great allure.
Once a kid adopts the gay/lesbian lifestyle, there is all too often little turning back. For guys especially–and the simple hard truth is that girls view any active homosexual past for a guy to be an immediate red flag. Them’s the hard facts, and maybe that is a rational thing. At any rate, these are all parts of a whole picture of sexuality in a community. It is not just about two people of the same sex having fun by themselves. There are real impacts on life, theology, society, and child-rearing. For 2000 years, Christian communities have been built around the divine and practical wisdom of the Bible, and there is a good reason for keeping this wisdom in our Anglican community.
Let me add, Father Peter, thank you for your service to our Church and for your willingness to engage in dialogue. I’m listening!!
Br. Michael,
[blockquote]Note 24. And we start all over again. We talk and talk and debate and debate and listen and listen ad nausium. And for people like peter.w no one has any authority to impose anything on them and they will simply impliment their agenda.[/blockquote]
As a reasserter, this offends me. Here we have someone from the other side who is asking questions and attempting to have a civil dialogue, and is seems to me that you are jumping to conclusions about peter that aren’t clear. If we are to be a church where no one is allowed to question beliefs, or wrestle with doctrine, then what do we have to offer? “Come to our church, but don’t ask tough questions.” Does everyone who has questions also have an agenda?
R&R;,
[blockquote]the number of people who have such a severe sexual disorientation that they cannot find the opposite sex attractive is a lot lower than the number of people who choose to participate in the homosexual lifestyle.[/blockquote]
Just a quick note, and I may say more later. I’m not sure what this point says, unless one clarifies the meaning of attraction. As a heterosexual man, I find Matthew McConaughey attractive, but I am not aroused by that attraction. Participating in the “homosexual lifestyle” to me would be like eating mushrooms; I am capable of doing it, but it would be entirely unpleasant.
Yes, sexuality is often malleable, and it does seem to be more so with women than men. However, most of the homosexual people I’ve known well (and that has been quite a few) tried living the “heterosexual lifestyle,” and while they could do it, they found it to be like eating mushrooms is for me. And I’ve known quite a few lesbians, so my experience is not just with men.
Does that mean I think homosexual unions should be blessed? No. As much as it pains me, considering how many people dear to me are homosexual, I find Scripture to be very clear on the matter, and have found no convincing justification to ignore Scripture. We can all live without sex, though as a married man I am not called to do so all of the time. But I do struggle with the same issues that peter w. struggles with.
Well, this has grown into more than just a quick note, but I do think that sexuality is not as easy to change as you think, at least not always. In fact, teenage experimentation with homosexuality (in whatever form) is not uncommon, and hasn’t ever been, but it doesn’t always (or even most of the time) result in adopting “the lifestyle” permanently. I agree that we are called to refrain from such things, but I don’t think such behavior will result in any kind of massive explosion of homosexuality. Just my 2 cents.
Adam, sorry you are offended. The point is that we are having the same argument and discussion over and over again. In the meantime the reasserters continue on their course. peter.w’s first paragraph privileged listening over the clear command to stop the innovations. The innovations have not stopped and TEC has shown no inclination to do so. Peter.w is jumping into the discussion about 6 years too late.
Br. Michael – and yet peter is willing to debate and not violate Lambeth 1.10 while there is no clear consensus to do so. I took his first paragraph to be a question as to whether his belief (which he [b]has not acted on[/b]) itself puts him out of communion with the reasserters. I get that this argument has been going on for years; if you’re tired of it, then stop posting. But for those who come in late, and are seeking some sort of clarity on it, it’s not fair to hold them accountable for what you’ve already told others. It’s elitist to me; you’re telling us to either follow blindly, or go find something else. That sort of dismissal of questions I expected in my fundamentalist background, but not among orthodox Anglicans.
Again, I have questions. What’s my agenda? If you keep kicking people off of your island, then eventually there won’t be many left.
peter was even gracious enough to acknowledge that this may have already been hashed out, but asked nicely if people would continue the discussion with him. Is this how you would treat a seeker coming to your church? Seriously, I’m glad I wasn’t treated that way when I was seeking after abandoning my faith previously; I would have stayed abandoned.
peter, re: post #3, and your original question
Here’s post #3:
[blockquote]â€. . . the doctrine of salvation or the doctrine of the nature of Christ, or the doctrine of creation. Those are not on the agenda. Everybody believes those truths.â€
Hence, the problem with his leadership. [/blockquote]
I think the issue here is not that blessing homosexual relationships = having a different doctrine of salvation, nature of Christ, creation, etc. The point is that what ++Sentamu says is not true, i.e. in TEC not everyone believes those truths. There are many in TEC, including the PB, who seem (I’m being generous) to have a different view of salvation and Christology than the orthodox view. We also have a retired bishop who famously has denied the divinity of Christ, and he’s not the only one who does. To say that “[e]verybody believes those truths” is at best an exaggeration.
I do know truly creedal Christians who are, as you say, “liberal” on the question of homosexuality. I can commune with those folks a lot better than those who recite the creeds with their fingers crossed, of which there are many here in TEC.
Does that answer your original question? Or did I completely misinterpret it?
[blockquote]Well, this has grown into more than just a quick note, but I do think that sexuality is not as easy to change as you think, at least not always. In fact, teenage experimentation with homosexuality (in whatever form) is not uncommon, and hasn’t ever been, but it doesn’t always (or even most of the time) result in adopting “the lifestyle†permanently. I agree that we are called to refrain from such things, but I don’t think such behavior will result in any kind of massive explosion of homosexuality. Just my 2 cents. [/blockquote]
Thanks, Adam, and I generally agree with your post. I think your post is a little contradictory because it says on the one hand you can’t change people away from it, but on the other hand there is often experimentation in the teen years that does not go anywhere. I agree with the first premise (ironically): once the homosexuality sets in, it is extraordinarily difficult to undo and usually becomes even more a permanent part of who one is than addictive narcotics. That is why I referred to it as a “primrose path.” Both psychologically and socially, even a few steps down the path can often be permanent–hence the need to draw a firm line on acting on homosexual desires. Not that people cannot and often do not change (especially women, who find it far easier to switch gears, though there are definite problems with lesbian ideologies and mindsets that should not be toyed with). For guys, for complicated reasons a few steps down the path is often permanent and any heterosexual potential gets snuffed out as he grows in a gay mindset.
I agree that most of us have the definite potential to express homosexuality (as witnessed by the near universality of it at times in the ancient Roman world). At any rate, I do not think that blessing it in the Church would create an explosion of homosexuality, but I do think that it would encourage it for those on the fence, and I can directly point to at least three people I personally know for whom Episcopal ratification of homosexuality has had a substantial influence on their expressing homosexual conduct. Point being, there is an important connection between culture, values, and what people do. It always has been true and always will be true.
Thanks, Adam from TN (is that Tenesee?) for the supportive comments. And for your reading of post#3, where all this started from. You’re correct that if its being argued that no one is in dispute over these essentials, then the Archbishop is being naive – I think sometimes British and other Anglicans, myself included don’t realise quite how ‘liberal’ some sections of TEC are on issues creedal. Therefore perhaps we don’t always appreciate quite how imperilled the ‘orthodox’ feel themselves to be, and with what justice they might feel this. (Although I think there is still a debate to be had about the legitimate place ‘liberalism’ has had and still might have with Anglican theological tradition, and what its proper limits might be … that is almost certainly for another debate!)
An interesting question … if there weren’t already doubts over the creedal faith of the TEC leadership and reappraisers, would the current split be happening anyway over the sexuality question alone? Or could that admittedly strong and important difference be lived with within the overarching unity of belief?
And a further reflection … I was struck by Br. Michael’s statement that I privileged the listening process over the ‘clear command’ of the Primates for TEC to stop what they were doing. Several thoughts:
no.1: at least part of me thinks they SHOULD have stopped what they were doing.
No.2: nevertheless, it has been part of Anglican ecclesiology at least up till now that no-one ‘commands’ provinces to do anything. We do not have a papal model of authority, let alone the Ultramontane one suggested by ‘command’. What the Primates did was to appeal – an appeal which TEC could not, on our existing ecclesiology, be compelled to heed. I grant you that the more Catholic part of me thinks they should have heeded it nonetheless!
No.3: an appeal was also made to those on the other side of this argument – to refrain from extra-provincial action, and to engage respectfully with gay and lesbian people, resisting all forms of homophobia. That appeal wasn’t always heeded … and frankly, it is that lack of respect which makes the more ‘liberal’ part of me want to stand up and cheer TEC for sticking to its guns.
As for entering the conversation too late … I have a similar reaction against this as I do the language of ‘command’. The conversation isn’t over … and that is the official position of the Communion. I suppose one reason why some reasserters might wish it to be over is because they are convinced that that those on the ‘liberal’ side of it will never change their minds, that it isn’t a genuine conversation but a ploy. There is an element of truth in that: no-one likes to change their minds. On the other hand, you must see that reappraisers could cast the same stone: you don’t want to talk because you’re not open to change.
I understand that you think you CAN’T change, because Scripture’s teaching on the matter is clear. But that is why you need to engage with me further, to show me (1) the rationale of Scripture’s teaching – ie. why Scripture thinks homosexuality is such a bad thing, as R&R;has been trying to do, and (2) why Scripture’s wisdom on this topic is considered complete and final, when I imagine it isn’t on others – which was the point of my analogy between how we approach loving homosexual relations and how we approach Sufi Islam. A challenge as yet unaddressed?
Oh dear … yet another afternoon’s work being bitten into…
R&R;,
[blockquote]I think your post is a little contradictory because it says on the one hand you can’t change people away from it, but on the other hand there is often experimentation in the teen years that does not go anywhere.[/blockquote]
I see where that seems contradictory, but what I’m saying is that I’m not sure teenage experimentation leads to homosexuality, particularly in men. We can’t know, obviously, but I think that those who end up identifying as homosexual would do so with or without the experimentation, as most boys who do experiment pass through it as a phase.
And while I’m saying that everyone can express homosexuality, I don’t mean that to say that preferring homosexual relationships over heterosexual ones is a choice. I didn’t [i]choose[/i] heterosexuality; it chose me. There’s no way I could will my preference to be homosexual. If the reverse were the norm, and heterosexual relationships were considered sinful, I would be called to celibacy; I don’t believe I could change my preference.
Is it that way for all people who prefer homosexual relationships? No, I don’t think it’s that simple. Clearly you know of people who chose their sexual preference/orientation. My homosexual friends would think they were crazy; universally, they wouldn’t have chosen to have the attractions that they do. That’s why this issue is so difficult, and even for those of us who believe that the Bible is clear about the sinful nature of homosexual relations, there are no simple answers for how to deal with the issue.
peter w, there are two sides to the reasserter coin if you want to debate the underlying issues. (1) for xyz reasons, changing the Church position to consider homosexuality no different than heterosexuality is bad; or (2) trying to engage in such discussion is futile because it’s like trying to redesign society from an armchair, and the Bible’s wisdom is so much greater than us armchair generals that we should defer to it.
I have mostly gone with (1), but (2) is similarly important and why so many reasserters are saying that the essence of this debate is whether or not we consider Biblical moral teachings divine and authoritative or just a series of resolutions for debate. Now, in a world where we do not believe every word of the Bible is literally, historically true, reappraisers would say that the dam’s been broken and the Emperor has no clothes. There are two problems with this reappraising position. First, it wrongly assumes that the Bible is either word-for-word true or it is just a book (this has historically been a big problem for evangelical theology), because the Bible plainly speaks in metaphors and is most concerned with our right moral relationship to God and ourselves, as Jesus constantly taught.
Second, it critically underestimates the depth of the wisdom that has been worked out through the centuries as a practical effect of cultural evolution and winnowing out the wheat from the chaffe in the canonization process guided by the Holy Spirit. The problem with the reappraiser position is that it fails to acknowledge the incredible wisdom of this spiritual, Christian process and presumes that individuals, even super-clever folks with multiple academic degrees, can second-guess it. It is like the super-smart 7-year old who tries to second-guess his parents. He may be a sharp cookie, but even if his parents are not perfect, their experience and understanding of received wisdom far outstrips anything this boy genius can come up with. We are that 7-year old. For important and prudent reasons, deference to our faith’s teachings, even when we think it’s a bunch of road apples, is the path we as Christians take.
peter,
Yes, I’m in Tennessee; Nashville (Guitar Town) to be exact.
[blockquote]I think sometimes British and other Anglicans, myself included don’t realise quite how ‘liberal’ some sections of TEC are on issues creedal. Therefore perhaps we don’t always appreciate quite how imperilled the ‘orthodox’ feel themselves to be, and with what justice they might feel this.[/blockquote]
Exactly. This is the bigger issue for me, though I don’t want to minimize the debate on sexuality. Still, the sexuality debate seems to be all that the press is interested in acknowledging. There are much deeper issues, chief of which (to me, at least) is the Lordship of Christ. I do think that there is a proper place for an orthodox “liberalism” within Anglicanism, and that’s why their needs to be constraints, or a defined “orthodoxy.” What we have in much of TEC is blatant heresy.
[blockquote]An interesting question … if there weren’t already doubts over the creedal faith of the TEC leadership and reappraisers, would the current split be happening anyway over the sexuality question alone? Or could that admittedly strong and important difference be lived with within the overarching unity of belief?[/blockquote]
It’s a great question. My guess is yes, because I think that is the issue for most laypeople in TEC. I also think that the AC would be reacting in much the same way as it is now. But I know a lot of us would be more comfortable trying to keep the dialogue going about sexuality (as I am now with you) if we shared a creedal faith. I think the unraveling of the Communion would be going much slower if the debate were sexuality alone.
[blockquote]What the Primates did was to appeal – an appeal which TEC could not, on our existing ecclesiology, be compelled to heed. I grant you that the more Catholic part of me thinks they should have heeded it nonetheless![/blockquote]
You’re right, of course. Therein lies the problem. I certainly don’t want a papacy, but what we’ve learned in TEC is that there’s no effective way to deal with rogue provinces other than to withdraw communion, and there is question as to whether that can even be done. If TEC can thumb its collective nose at Lambeth resolutions with no consequence, then of what use is it as an instrument of unity?
[blockquote]…to refrain from extra-provincial action, and to engage respectfully with gay and lesbian people, resisting all forms of homophobia. That appeal wasn’t always heeded …[/blockquote]
As far as extra-provincial action goes, this is true. There needs to be an accounting for that, even though I think it was historically justified (other bishops would step in when a bishop was apostate; you could make the case for apostasy for at least some bishops in TEC).
As far as engaging respectfully with gay and lesbian people, and resisting all forms of homophobia: certainly some individuals may not have heeded these calls. You might even make the case that some provinces have done the same, but that’s a tricky proposition. Either way, I do see your point, but I believe that most of the reasserters were respectful in engaging with gay and lesbian people, at least before GC 2003. I hope that most have been since then as well.
By the way, I wanted to point out that I’m still reading. It’s just that R&R;and Adam are doing just fine; I don’t have anything to add.
[blockquote] I didn’t choose heterosexuality; it chose me. There’s no way I could will my preference to be homosexual. If the reverse were the norm, and heterosexual relationships were considered sinful, I would be called to celibacy; I don’t believe I could change my preference.
Is it that way for all people who prefer homosexual relationships? No, I don’t think it’s that simple. Clearly you know of people who chose their sexual preference/orientation. My homosexual friends would think they were crazy; universally, they wouldn’t have chosen to have the attractions that they do. That’s why this issue is so difficult, and even for those of us who believe that the Bible is clear about the sinful nature of homosexual relations, there are no simple answers for how to deal with the issue. [/blockquote]
I do think that there is a huge incentive either to pretend that one has not chosen homosexuality or to convince oneself that one has not chosen it. As an analogy, in the 16th-19th century Protestant United States, predestination was a dominant theology. There were literally many, many people who genuinely believed that they were predestined NOT to be the elect, probably including Abraham Lincoln. Stunning, but they believed that they knew deep within themselves that such was their predestination, not a theological choice. I’m sure you see my point, and I also acknowledge that there is some completely uncertain subset of people who apparently are incapable of loving a member of the opposite sex.
Assume for the moment that homosexuality “chose” you. However this is vaguely phrased, it is quite consistent with the proposition that homosexuality is powerfully influenced by one’s environment and childhood. Trying to come up with ways to avoid that is further desirable because it allows avoiding the extreme pain of parents thinking they must have done something (or the kid indirectly having to think that). Again, personal experience–I’ve seen this dynamic a few times over. This type of homosexual orientation is not genetic, but it is also not choice. However, one of the most important roles of a Church is to foster the right environment for a family, and THAT is why minimizing a homosexuality-fertile environment is so important.
Like you say, none of your friends would ever have wanted to choose homosexuality. The reason why they say that is exactly why we want an environment that fosters our children’s heterosexual growth.
Re. R&R;’s post #40, which opens up the bigger issue of what sort of authority Scripture should have over us:
‘so many reasserters are saying that the essence of this debate is whether or not we consider Biblical moral teachings divine and authoritative or just a series of resolutions for debate’
I agree that this is a crucial question. The problem from my perspective, though, is that there seem to be various moral teachings of Scripture which we have let quietly slide. Three examples come to mind:
(1) Scripture seems to be OK with the holding of slaves – as long as you treat them well. I guess most Christians would now reject slavery on principle, and approve of slaves’ efforts to free themselves (in contradiction of Paul’s command.
(2) Scripture condemns the lending of money with interest charged – not just when this is done exorbitantly, but in principle. Again, few Christians will object to this today.
(3) more controversially, Scripture in some sense teaches the subordination of women to male authority, both in home and in church. I’m well aware that that the precise meaning of this is open to question, and that many Christians would still hold it in some form. But I raise it because by no means all those who condemn loving gay practice would also condemn feminism … and why the former is elevated into the point of principle, the one thing that can’t be changed.
In short, it strikes me that if the reasserter position is that Biblical moral teachings are divinely authoritative for all time, more consistency needs to be shown in holding all of them. This is not the old trick of saying that if you disapprove of homosexuality, you must simultaneously approve of killing astrologers or people that collect wood on the Sabbath (as an isolated reading of Leviticus and Numbers would suggest). The examples I’ve chosen are more part of the Scriptural mainstream … and yet, many if not most reasserters depart from one or more of them.
R&R;writes: ‘The problem with the reappraiser position is that it fails to acknowledge the incredible wisdom of this spiritual, Christian process and presumes that individuals, even super-clever folks with multiple academic degrees, can second-guess it. It is like the super-smart 7-year old who tries to second-guess his parents. He may be a sharp cookie, but even if his parents are not perfect, their experience and understanding of received wisdom far outstrips anything this boy genius can come up with. We are that 7-year old. For important and prudent reasons, deference to our faith’s teachings, even when we think it’s a bunch of road apples, is the path we as Christians take.’
I suspect that here we are getting to the real heart of the difficulty between us. Yes, we have to be cautious – extremely so – about exercising private judgement and finding against Scripture and tradition. Yes, we have to be cautious about exercising synodical judgement and finding against Scripture and tradition. Where I part company, I think, is that I would say there are occasions where nonetheless, in all caution, you proceed. I think R&R;is saying you never do, that once Scripture’s teaching is clear there is no possibility of contradicting or moving beyond it. I disagree. I think God gives the church the wisdom and maturity to move when necessary, and with great caution, beyond the teaching of Scripture.
I’m conscious as I write that that it is not the classic position of Richard Hooker, or any number of other respected teachers of the faith. I’m duly nervous. I fully expect your rebukes! But … isn’t this what we have done with usury, and slavery, and men and women? Isn’t it what we’re called to in dialogue with the world religions (and I know I have banged this particular drum before, so let me clarify: I am definitely not saying that they are all equally good and true, or think its OK to be a Muslim-Anglican…). The answers the Church generally has given to these questions has changed the way in which Scripture can be said to function as an authority for us … it just seems that our theory is taking some time to catch up with our practice.
I’m conscious that this is a long post already. I need to think through the positive sense in which Scripture does then serve as an authority for me and those in my position, if it is not in the way in which it does for R&R;. The answer will have something to do, I think, with the role of the Church. The Church after all created Scripture: the common life of prayer, sacrament, serving, evangelising and arguing after all is what generated Scripture, not vice versa. The key thing is the ‘mind’ of that life … which will always be shaped in dialogue with Scripture, but can move cautiously beyond its teachings. That’s why it was (probably) wrong for TEC to move how and when it did – beyond where the mind of the church was at. But it is also why I – unlike R&R;- couldn’t preclude it moving that way sometime, if the wider mind was to move too.
Forgive me for such a long and involved post – it is your collective fault for making me think so much! One last question before I go … can you be in communion as reasserters with someone who holds this kind of view of Scripture and authority? Never mind the actual question about sexual ethics … this is about how we make decisions. What do you think?
“The Church after all created Scripture” Bishop Bennison said something like this. What he said was “The Church wrote the scriptures and the church can re-write them”.
#44:How can this be made clear enough, that homosexuality is different probelm in nature and significance than not suffering a witch to live? Or whether scripure permits slavery? Or should the wife be submissive to the husband? These are social issues; the question of mortal sin does not arise in this, that is, the soul is not at stake. (And there is a practical element: wives who are submissive to their husbands were probably as rare in 30AD as they are now. Such a regulation is much like the Puritans telling women not to buy fashionable clothes. ) Homosexuality is a fundamental disorder; it strikes ate the very root of both Biblical thought and action and evolution’s central tenets (if I may call them that). Fundamental remains fundamental, and your divigations and qualifications will not change this.
Men and women are paired because this is a vital spiritual bond as well as a practical social bond. Moreover, they are paired because all survival depends on it. But can there not be a powerful spiritual bond between men, e.g., Roland and Olivier? Of course, but it is not a sexual bond. AS soon as it becomes a sexual congress, it violates our very origins. But surely this Sexual Thing is now out of all proportion, an inflated issue that derails our attention to more important things? Of course not. Human sexuality and how we undertake it, how we procreate and raise children is of the very essence, and the present confrotation over homosexuality and what to do with its believers is precisely as big as it should be, and it will be bigger before it diminishes. And so it should.
YOu have done a serviceable job making homosexuality and the Bible seem conformable or commensurable, but it simply cannot be done. This is NOT a question of the scriptures inerrancy or infallibility, although you wish to make it so. There is a hierarchy of strictures in the gospels; this should be obvious. Some we go the ramparts over, some we shout about and some we disagree about and then get supper ready. The wife’s submissiveness is someplace between the last two. Homosexuality is at the very top. LM
[blockquote]I suspect that here we are getting to the real heart of the difficulty between us. Yes, we have to be cautious – extremely so – about exercising private judgement and finding against Scripture and tradition. Yes, we have to be cautious about exercising synodical judgement and finding against Scripture and tradition. Where I part company, I think, is that I would say there are occasions where nonetheless, in all caution, you proceed. I think R&R;is saying you never do, that once Scripture’s teaching is clear there is no possibility of contradicting or moving beyond it. I disagree. I think God gives the church the wisdom and maturity to move when necessary, and with great caution, beyond the teaching of Scripture. [/blockquote]
Thank you for your response.
1. Regarding slavery, I am not a Biblical scholar, but the passages I have seen when reappraisers make this typical analogy are a lot more innocuous, if not purely morally neutral, than is insinuated, or the verse will just acknowledge the fact of slavery and deal with its reality without ratifying it as morally acceptable. Of course there are other principles of the Bible that are directly contradictory to slavery, such as Thou Shalt Not Steal and so forth.
2. Usury prohibition: This is one of the very few reappraiser counterarguments regarding Biblical interpretation that strike a chord with me. While I am not a Biblical scholar and do not know what the meaning of the usury prohibitions was, they seem to be clear, and I think we can genuinely say that it is an absurd moral prohibition as applied to today’s world if the verses actually mean no interest at all. I do think that there are “rules for living” in the OT that it is entirely consistent to say were not moral rules but rather practical rules that needed to be adhered to with solemn intent back then but you’re not putting a hole in the dike to say that God does not call us to obey those rules today. One might make an argument that the usury laws were as such, but I am skeptical. Usury prohibitions do appear to be moral in nature.
This is why I started out my remarks on this thread not from Biblical authority but from the practical arguments on the importance of Biblical teachings as a deep, wise structure, because I am not a fundamentalist (I think you may have gotten that impression, and I am not). This calls into question the entire Protestant/Anglican experiment. Where the Bible appears insufficient or problematic, who makes the call? The beauty of the Roman Catholic Church is its wonderful Magisterium and interpretive history to apply scripture. Congregationalists in many ways just have the Bible, and punch a hole in the Good Book and the whole boat is cut adrift. The Baptist Conventions have accordingly attempted to ratchet up a little on theology in recent years. The question is whether we as Anglicans can rise to the challenge or whether we will disintegrate, one tough principle after another, into buffet-style Christianity. I hope that the Covenant process can aid in that.
I was at a worship team meeting at church last night where people candidly joked about how they refuse to say parts of the Nicene Creed in front of the minister, who was quite accepting of this approach. This is reality in TEC. Oh also, last night we agreed to cut the Creed from the evening service. Hey, bygones.
Regarding the usury example again, I do not want to cede without reservation that the usury prohibition was irrational in the time period or that the usury verses should no longer apply to today. I am not a sufficient Bible scholar to comment even remotely on it. It is possible, if not likely, that the usury prohibition made a great deal of sense in the time period for various economic reasons but that the economy has changed now and we can have moderate amounts of interest charged consistent with our religious obligations (if so, we need a hermeneutic that can wisely adjudicate this issue or determine whether usury is an eternal moral teaching or a practical economic rule). It is also possible that a fair reading of the Bible shows that there was never an absolute prohibition on usury, but only in certain circumstances. Here’s a link that appears to make a case for that point based on a plain meaning of the verses:
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/1300-19.htm
I don’t know whether this is good or bad exegesis, so I’m sticking with my earlier point that if we are not going to regard the Bible as absolutely authoritative, Anglicanism darn well ought to have something better than buffet Christianity in its place. Very little, if anything, has changed about the fundamentals of sexuality in the last several thousand years, despite the efforts of reappraisers to come up with something of that nature.
Also, in the end, I am willing to engage the issue straight up with no deference to the Bible, as you saw above. I have to say that I think it’s telling that, in the face of all my lengthy argumentation, you have picked what I would say is low-hanging fruit (the bit about Biblical authority). In the end, I am not prepared to say that the Bible is the end-all-be-all, but I do believe it deserves great deference, and the reappraisers have done surprisingly little to actually engage with and address the multitude of practical arguments against viewing homosexuality as fully equal to heterosexuality. For the record, when I am unsure about the Bible, I consult the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings. Right now, I am finding that Anglicanism (or at least TEC) has little to offer in comparison. Shoot, we have Lambeth I.10, Windsor, Dromantine, Dar es Salaam, and a whole 400-year history of honoring the Biblical view of sexuality and even now flouting these teachings is rapidly industry standard in TEC and growing elsewhere. It is theological chaos over here.
Anyway, time for work……
Oh, just to complete the circle, regarding women submitting to men, there were some important economic reasons for that chain of command thousands of years ago. Today, I think that in a marriage, a woman should submit to a man, but also the man must submit to the woman. This is consistent with the Bible. Men and women naturally have different roles in life and must mutually respect and submit to these roles–that’s a good marriage, so far as I can tell (never been married, so I can’t pretend to comment one way or the other anyway about the issue).
Just to add ONE MORE THING!!!! Regarding my last post, I don’t think that gender roles are immutable by any means, though there are some natural proclivities. I love me some kitchen time, and my gf thinks I’m sexy in an apron. But, however the marriage works out, man must submit to woman as well as vice versa in important ways.
R&R;- Re: #43, I do think that the fact that homosexual attraction/preference is not a choice for many (most?) homosexuals does not imply genetic causation. It’s the classic nature vs. nurture debate, and I think there are clear cases where experience predisposes someone to homosexual attraction (and in my experience this happens more often with women, though I have no idea if that holds true across the board). As far as if there is a genetic basis for homosexuality, I don’t think that’s been resolved one way or another. I’ve read some of the research, and many of the critiques of some of the research, and I don’t think that any consensus will emerge anytime soon. Unfortunately, the issue has become too politicized for an objective evaluation of the issue IMHO.
[blockquote]Like you say, none of your friends would ever have wanted to choose homosexuality. The reason why they say that is exactly why we want an environment that fosters our children’s heterosexual growth.[/blockquote]
I think this is a bigger question, and I’m not sure I agree with you, though I’m not sure I disagree either.
peter,
[blockquote]Scripture seems to be OK with the holding of slaves – as long as you treat them well. I guess most Christians would now reject slavery on principle, and approve of slaves’ efforts to free themselves (in contradiction of Paul’s command.[/blockquote]
Scripture does not condemn slavery as it does some other behaviors, but it doesn’t endorse it either. What Paul instructs is how to be Christ-like within the context of slavery, both owner and slave (unless I’m forgetting something).
In that regard, however, since Paul (nor anyone else in Scripture) addresses how to behave in a same-sex relationship and still be a Christian, it’s more indictment against homosexual relations. Granted, to me 20th & 21st century Western mindset, slavery seems like the greater sin, but Scripture does not concur with my sensibilities.
Unfortunately, I can’t speak intelligently about the usury prohibition either. The submission issue is one that has been misused to subjugate women (and I’m very much a feminist, while still being an orthodox believer). We are commanded to mutual submission, though the Scriptures clearly appoint men as the spiritual head of the household; still, the position is one of greater responsibility than power over one’s partner. This is another topic entirely, though.
I agree with you that we need to be open to the Holy Spirit, and that we can’t ever say that an issue is fully resolved. In fact, that’s why the Dar es Salaam communique (I believe) calls for no action in violation of Lambeth 1.10 unless a different consensus is reached within the AC. In my mind, the AC can become the model we saw in the early ecumenical councils, and maybe the church catholic before the great schism. I think we need to abandon at least some of our notions of provincial autonomy, and perhaps submit to the consensus of the primates. I know this may seem too “Romish” to some, but I think it’s worth exploring.
[blockquote]Men and women naturally have different roles in life and must mutually respect and submit to these roles–that’s a good marriage, so far as I can tell (never been married, so I can’t pretend to comment one way or the other anyway about the issue).[/blockquote]
As a counselor and someone who has been married for 10 years, I would wholeheartedly agree. Mutual respect and mutual submission can help a couple avoid so many pitfalls. Not always easy to accomplish, though.
Thanks for the response, Adam, and for your candid participation in this discussion. I truly appreciate it. This is what the Windsor listening process should be about.
[blockquote] This is why I started out my remarks on this thread not from Biblical authority but from the practical arguments on the importance of Biblical teachings as a deep, wise structure, because I am not a fundamentalist (I think you may have gotten that impression, and I am not).[/blockquote]
If this is where you are basing your discussion then you are wasting your time. If Scripture is the word of God then everything in it is important. If it is not, then you are indeed having a nice, polite and irrelevant discussion. If, at the end of the day, Scripture is not the Holy Spirit inspired word of God, then it is not authoritative and all appeals to it are worthless.
Br. Michael,
[blockquote]If Scripture is the word of God then everything in it is important.[/blockquote]
Certainly it is. But we don’t obey every command in scripture the same way; that’s what fundamentalists do. Or do you believe that a woman must pray with her head covered? (I Corinthians 11:5)
I know that’s a ridiculous example, but it means that answers are almost never as simple as “the Bible says so.” If you’ve read the entire conversation, I think it’s fair to say that R&R;believes the Bible to be the word of God. I would say that peter believes so as well. Certainly I do.
BTW, with all due respect, for someone who complains we’re talking “ad nauseum,” you seem to still be wasting your own time with the discussion. And you still haven’t told me what my agenda is. I really don’t like to be that snarky, but if you’re going to take shots at those discussing and assuming our motives, I feel that it needs to be pointed out.
Reason & Revelation,
I appreciate the discussion too. This sort of discussion has been part of the church since the council of Jerusalem (guess I’m just like Bennison too, eh Br. Michael?), and I think if Christians can come together and talk in good faith and charity, the Holy Spirit could do some work. Some may think I’m naive, and that’s ok; My faith is in God, who can accomplish anything. Glad we can be in this boat together.
Well, seeing as we’re all being nice to each other, let me say that I really appreciate the tone of most of this conversation too!
And my apologies to R&R;… because you’re right to suspect that I was thinking you might be a fundamentalist (albeit a decent and intelligent one!!). I suppose that shows the dangers of assuming we know what the other side in an argument is really like … just as I think Br. Michael misjudged me, I’ve been at risk of misjudging you.
That said, didn’t you invite that misreading with your analogy of the seven year old child, and how they should always defer to parental authority? You seemed to be saying there that even if reason leads one to (say) reevaluating homosexual practice (and I fully accept that you don’t believe it does), that we should stick with Scripture’s evaluation of it because it is Scripture’s evaluation? Which would be in effect to say: We do this because God is telling us to do it, although it goes against our instinct and intellect – perhaps rather like Abraham agreed to sacrifice Isaac? We obey without understanding … isn’t that in some ways a classic trait of fundamentalism?
Let me reiterate: I accept that you’re not a fundamentalist – but that is a fundamentalist trait in your argument, isn’t it?
I went for the ‘low lying fruit’ of biblical authority because I thought it was where our key difference probably lay. But if I understand you correctly now, you base your position more on the wisdom of Scripture’s teaching, not just the fact that it is Scripture’s teaching. So we’re back onto the noxious effects of homosexual practice on individuals and cultures. I could engage with you point by point on this, but I think we might fight that one to a score draw and stalemate.
So how about a different approach? Whether or not homosexuality is noxious, its pretty clear (?) that has always existed and always will. Centuries of condemnation by the church haven’t seemed to have much of an impact on its prevalence (I accept this is a really difficult statement to verify), while what they have done is to accentuate the sordid side of it – for example, by denying a socially approved framework for gay love parallel to heterosexual marriage, it has encouraged promiscuity. If people are told they are outlaws, they’ll behave like it. So, if the aim is to reduce the harm that homosexuality does, couldn’t it be argued that the best way to do that is to encourage the best kinds of homosexuality? Could it be possible to support people like my priest friends in their faithful, loving relationships without signalling that heterosexuality and homosexuality are equally good things, totally on a par with each other (which, incidentally, is something I share your discomfort over … especially when it comes to the question of whether gay couples are interchangeable with heterosexual ones when it comes to parenting. As a rule – not without its exceptions – I’m sure they’re not).
One more thought on the exchange resulting from my last post. I accept that the point from slavery isn’t terribly strong – although it is worth remembering that at the time of the abolition debates, many bishops defended slavery on biblical grounds. I’m really struck though by the idea that Scripture teaches the mutual submission of man and woman in marriage. This seems to me a suspiciously modern reading of the NT – and even if held true for marriage which based on Eph.5 it might, it would be very hard to argue in the face of 1 Corinthians and the Pastoral Epistles that it held good for life in the church. There the subordination of female to male seems anything but mutual. And I’m not convinced by LM’s view that this is lower in a hierarchy of truths than the same-sex love issue. On what basis could that claim be substantiated? There’s at least as much about gender subordination in the NT as there is about homosexuality, and I suspect that S.Paul on his more conservative days would have viewed both issues as involving an equally grevious violation of the created order.
It is now very late – my son is going to wake needing soothing at 4am tomorrow, and I need to go to bed! I guess this conversation might be winding its way towards its end soon – but I look forward to engaging more with you all.
I even said some prayers for you today! Do the same for me.
55, I appreciate your snarkiness. Have fun.
peter w, thanks for your response.
1. On the fundamentalism issue, I suspect we are not that far apart, given your previous statements. Neither of us believes that the Bible is to be taken literally word for word, and both of us agree that it is to be accorded great, solemn deference as wholly divinely inspired.
Whether or not we advocate viewing it as a seven-year-old views a parent’s instructions or a thirty-seven-year-old views a parent’s instructions is of course going to be influenced by the subject matter at hand. Hence the fundamental problem of the Anglican Communion that is at a cross-roads. Does the Church help us understand how to apply Scripture to our own lives, or is it (like in TEC) pick and choose for each province, and the Communion is basically a historical organization instead of a religious one? The AC has long been based on “in essentials, unity, in nonessentials, diversity, and in all things charity.†Is there any essential here?
Just as importantly, is Church going to show us some way to relate Scripture to life or do we slide twoards “strong deference†or “weak deference†as we wish and the topic at hand? There is nothing wrong with a Church speaking with authority. Most churches do it in some form, and the Catholic Church does it in a particularly intellectually sophisticated manner—you aren’t sacrificing the intellect by putting Scripture front and center.
Even assuming only weaker deference to scripture in the Hooker three-legged stool, though, I would submit that the reappraisers have not risen to the occasion to address systematically and fully the deep, comprehensive reasoning behind Biblical sexuality teachings. That sure hasn’t happened in TEC.
2.
[blockquote]Centuries of condemnation by the church haven’t seemed to have much of an impact on its prevalence[/blockquote]
I actually think that is not true. In ancient Greece and Rome, homosexuality, especially casual homosexuality, was quite common, and sometimes even the norm. It is certainly possible, if not likely, that one of the reasons Christianity moved so many people was because of the healthier overall lifestyle it required as opposed to the lifestyles that were prevalent during the time and popularized in common religious myths and practices. One can see frustrated women whose husbands had no compunctions about having homosexual relationships in the baths, military, and cults very drawn to the much stronger, solemn bond of marriage that the Christian evangelists preached and their insistence on only sexual relationships within heterosexual marriage as the non-negotiable standard—and that they wanted this for their children. Women, of course, were some of the most important early converts to the Christian faith. Certainly this is speculation, but it speculation with some degree of anecdotal factual support.
But, to get back to the basic issue, I would contend that homosexuality is a great deal less prevalent now than it was before Christianity.
3.
Regarding the patriarchal aspects of the Bible, that is kind of a large topic, and without specific Bible verses to address, we seem to be talking past one another. Like I say, there is nothing about female submission to men that can’t be consistent with and equalized by male submission to women in other important ways. This isn’t changing the Bible, it’s adding to it and fleshing it out.
I genuinely don’t see that as a hermeneutic problem. I agree it’s a modern approach. There’s nothing problematic about taking general principles and applying them in differing ways as life changes but staying true to the fundamental principles. That’s how Scripture has always been read and God gives us that approach, as long as we don’t twist His principles for our purposes and without wisdom (again, we get back to whether the Church holds true to this hermeneutic or just winks and nods at us without any real core doctrine).
Also, I might not be giving a conservative approach to the Bible its due on this, as I have some significant progressive/feminist background in my previous years that continues to inform me (for the record I was pretty pro-Gene Robinson back in 2003). I can remember, for ex., being on dates and trying real hard to be really equal with the girl and that just being sand in the gears. Nothing greases the gears better than holding a door for her and so forth, not as lording over her but honoring her by leading the dance as she wants it to be led. Is this how God made us? Does the Bible help us understand general principles, even if the application changes over time? I can’t pretend to answer those questions, but there you have it.
[blockquote]So, if the aim is to reduce the harm that homosexuality does, couldn’t it be argued that the best way to do that is to encourage the best kinds of homosexuality?[/blockquote]
An essential part of my argument is that blessing monogamous homosexuality is itself a huge problem, because it inevitably leads to the unwise proposition that a confused youngster can just pick and choose between the twain at will and the Church can vouch for this being perfectly smart. Does the Church think that a child needs a father and a mother, such that our life paths early on relate to our eventual desires to be parents (for the vast majority of us)? Does the Church think that women and men do not have natural differences and inclinations that are completed by each other? Does the Church think that an 18-year-old is mature enough to embark on such journeys without the need for Biblical guidance?
I am not someone who says that homosexuality is a choice like having chicken or beef for dinner, but it is the kind of thing that is powerfully influenced by the environment, intellectual/religious environment, and so forth. The Church’s theological choices have consequences. Further, one of the absolutely most important functions of the organized church is guidance to our youth, to help out parents where they cannot do it all. Otherwise, why not just be a Christian on your own time? & that’s why so many come back to Church after their roaring 20s–when they start having kids and want that support and guidance in a Christian community. The Church would be decimated without it (one of the reasons TEC has increasingly hemorrhaged members).