I agree with Canon Robinson that those within the ECUSA who threaten to break communion with him and all dioceses who support him (presuming his election as bishop) are neither wholly consistent nor genuinely pastoral in their doctrine.
By voting for the right of “gay” couples to have their personal covenant blessed by the Church as a partnership that God blesses and will bless, the ECUSA will be consistent in the path it has followed and walked for about fifty years or so.
By voting for the right of “gay” couples to have their personal covenant blessed by the Church as a partnership that God blessed and will bless, the Bishops of the ECUSA will be pastoral in their treatment of these persons, female and male, as they recognize their human rights.
In stating these things, I am not saying that the ECUSA will please God the Holy Trinity by approving and blessing such unions (and confirming persons in them as worthy persons to be candidates for holy orders). I am saying that in terms of what the ECUSA has already approved, to approve this further measure is merely to continue her modern tradition and is to be acting justly and fairly to a minority with claimed rights.
Consider these things.
When the PECUSA in the 1950s and following approved the marriage of divorced persons, including priests and bishops, in church and then allowed divorced priests and bishops to be ordained or to continue in office, it was generally agreed that the Church was going against the mind and teaching of Jesus and also against the moral teaching of Anglican (and western catholic) canon law. Now the divorce culture is so much part of modern Episcopalianism that it is taken for granted.
If the solemn teaching of Jesus can be set aside for heterosexual persons, why not for homosexual persons?
Further, in this area of sexual relations, if marriage can be understood as only a union for sexual pleasure and companionship (as is common now in the ECUSA) without procreation being intended, why cannot “gay” persons enjoy companionship and sex?
When the ECUSA changed her Formularies in the 1970s, setting aside the classic received Formularies and putting in place new ones, many recognized that deliberate and major changes were being made to the doctrine, worship and discipline of the Church. Those innovations are now embedded in modern Episcopalianism, providing a foundation for its innovations.
If the classic received Formularies of the Anglican Way can be set aside and new ones brought in, why cannot the old rules about homosexual sex be changed to meet new conditions?
When the ECUSA, having innovated by ordaining women as priests and bishops, then went ahead to mandate acceptance of this innovation (as though this novel doctrine was a proposition of the Creed), it was known that the Anglican doctrine of reception (approved by the Lambeth Conference & Primates’ Meeting) was being set aside in order to force the acceptance of the innovation and the place of women in all dioceses.
If such a mandate can be in place to support the women of the Church, why cannot there be an appropriate mandate in favour of monogamous, faithful “gay” couples?
When the ECUSA has not a clear voice against abortion and has no discipline to impose on its members who approve, make use of or perform this surgical procedure, it is widely known & accepted that biblical and traditional teaching on the sanctity of life is being breached.
If space is made for the “right to choose” abortion movement in the ECUSA, why should there not be the right to choose a sexual partner for “gay” persons?
Over the years the ECUSA has been wide open to the adoption and absorption of the calls and demands of the civil rights and human rights movements. Since governments and corporations now accept the rights of gay persons why should the ECUSA hesitate any longer to do what is right by them?
For the ECUSA Convention in August not to approve same-sex partnerships and not to elect Gene Robinson will be either to delay the seeming inevitable until next time or it could be the beginnings of a major U-turn.
Conclusion
Those who oppose same-sex blessings and the election of Gene Robinson need to be consistent. They need to go back to the drawing board (the Bible, the Creeds, the pre-1979 Formularies and Canon Law) and determine to renew their dioceses & parishes by returning to the whole of biblical sexual ethics and only allowing those human and civil rights that are not contrary to the Law of the Lord our God. Only radical reform and renewal energized from Above can restore classic Anglican Christianity to the ECUSA or parts thereof. For it to start those claiming to be “orthodox” and “biblical” will have to become so in spirit and in truth.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
No comments:
Post a Comment