PRIORITIZATION OF THE "GAY" ISSUE

Thought to provoke better thoughts

The expression "the prioritization of the homosexual issue" has been used by a few conservative Episcopalians, including myself. It assumes that there are other very important issues and that a choice is being made by the majority (or by the leadership of the American Anglican Council and Bishops in a few dioceses heading this majority) to place blessing "gay" partnerships either first on the list, or even as the only item on the list, of concerns about the Episcopal Church of the USA.

To open up this discussion leads us to the heart of a major disagreement within conservative Episcopalians, and thus amongst those who will gather at Plano/Dallas on the 7th October. The disagreement is whether the homosexual issue is THE real and true problem in the ECUSA or rather a most serious PRESENTING problem behind which are other, even more important, problems.

But let us be honest. In terms of communication, political strategy and simplicity, to focus on one clear message - e.g., it is wrong that the Church consecrate a man who is living in an openly "gay" union - is a winner amongst many social conservatives be they churchmen or not. Here the ECUSA leadership is the "bad guy" and those who oppose this wrong are the "good guy". (A danger here, of course, is of self-righteousness by those who do the condemning.)

Let us agree that those who claim that the homosexual issue is THE primary issue (and not merely a very serious presenting issue) have to go on to affirm that if this is put right then the ECUSA will be generally OK. That is, the major decisions to innovate taken by the General Convention since the 1960s are within the acceptable standards of the kingdom of God and within the principles of historic Anglicanism. Thus, for example, ECUSA's rejection of the classic formularies and its adoption of new ones in 1976/79; the approval of the ordination of women in 1976 and the making of this doctrine part of the received Creed in 2000 for church officers; the acceptance of serial monogamy and the allowing of divorced and remarried persons to continue in and be promoted in ordained ministry and lay leadership since the 1960s -- all these are generally acceptable and cannot be either the real problem or a major problem at all. They can be safely discarded and we can all carry on much as before as long as we get rid of the "Lesbigay" presence.

Let us now look at this whole thing in a different light.

Let us suppose that the homosexual issue is only there prominently in the ECUSA in 2003 because of what already exists in ECUSA as well as what has been going on within ECUSA for fifty years or more - i.e., a way of worship, doctrine and discipline that owes more to modern views of human rights, personal fulfillment and autonomy and secular values than to the principles of holy Scripture & historic Anglicanism. This issue, as it were, sits on the back of other issues/facts and, to change the metaphor, is only the tip of the iceberg. And when something is a presenting problem it will remain there expressing itself in one or another forms for as long as the underlying causes and problems are left alone. (We know this from experience in many areas and walks of life.)

Thus those (at present the minority - even a small minority) who claim that the homosexual issue is an offence unto Almighty God, but only is occurring in intensity because the ECUSA has prepared for it by a series of acts of apostasy since the 1960s, have to say that in the present crisis, and in sending messages to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates, conservative Episcopalians have to be honest before God, man and their own history.

That is, they accept that the homosexual issue can be prioritized IF AND ONLY IF it is clearly indicated (in the accompanying "annotations") that the "gay" issue is inextricably related to other foundational issues and that these must be dealt with as soon as possible so that a proper and right Anglican foundation is laid for any future reformed Anglican presence in the USA as part of the Anglican Communion. In other words, they say that unless the matter of the rejection of (a) the authentic formularies, (b) the doctrine and discipline of Holy Matrimony, and (c) proper ecclesiastical discipline by ECUSA is stated as needing urgent attention so that error, heresy, apostasy, and antinomianism can be dispelled. If this is not made clear, then to lead off on the homosexual issue (and stay with it alone) is a grave & fateful mistake, and the last state will be worse that the first.

Certainly this is all about recovering Biblical doctrine, but that means in practice recovering it wearing the right spectacles and using the right lens. ECUSA has been using the wrong spectacles and lens for thirty or more years. There needs to be recovered an orthodox way of reading and interpreting Scripture that is within the ongoing central Tradition of the Church of God.

The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)