Step by step or all together?

In response to my several little pieces/tracts on the present Crisis in ECUSA as a God-given opportunity to engage in a full reform and renewal of the Anglican Way, several thinking persons have written to tell me that a jurisdiction of the Church of God can only be cleansed step by step, one thing at a time. Thus they say: "Let us, as biblically-minded Episcopalians, get rid of the gay bishop elect and dispel from our midst all talk and practice of blessing same-sex unions as a starter and be concerned about other things later."

There appears to be sense in such a plan of action. It is practical; It can be done with pressure from overseas and internal campaigning; and from a propaganda and communications angle; It is easy to sell and easy to grasp.

But God's truth and God's ways are not simplistic.

The problem with this approach is that the matter of "gay unions" is not an isolated subject that has no relation to the religious context of the present ECUSA and of the social, cultural context of the western world in which we all live. Gay sex cannot be prized apart from other forms of modern, sexual relations for they All belong together within the modern revolution in sexual ethics, the revolution that entered the western world with the general availability of contraception and has been sustained by the emphasis on human autonomy, human fulfillment, human rights, and abortion.

So in context the "rights" of "lesbians" and "gays" to equal treatment and in dignity are all part of the general "rights" claimed by heterosexual persons engaged in temporary or long term partnerships, by married persons to get a quick divorce, and of divorced persons to get married again and be socially acceptable as such.

Now the Episcopal Church at the local level in many parishes has for several decades tolerated and treated as normal the partnerships of heterosexuals, the marriage of divorced persons, and also but quietly same-sex partnerships. What has been declared by government departments, big business and prestigious universities to be acceptable sexual ethics has become the norm for many Episcopalians, even if they do not like all of this agenda and everything that is happening. (And there has been a tremendous effort in terms of counseling and therapy in parishes to keep all this under control and outwardly healthy.)

Over and over again it has been said within the parishes and at diocesan meetings:

"We Episcopalians no longer keep to the biblical rules about divorce and remarriage; we reject the idea that a faithful sexual partnership of a man and woman is fornication; and we reject the teaching that by remarrying while the first spouse is alive a person commits adultery. It is not that we have abandoned the Bible; rather it is that we have learned to read the Bible in a sophisticated way and not be tied down to old ideas by recognizing the presence in the Bible of patriarchalism, androcentricism and sexism. We have freed the Word of God from its cultural and social context and so can hear It afresh and know what It really is all about. Did we not also apply this most successfully over the innovation of the ordination of women, as we interpreted the Bible in a new way so that we found that it actually agreed with what we had learned from the world around us about the development of civil and human rights and the emphasis upon human dignity & worth?"

It would appear that in terms of sexual ethics the real difference between the average conservative Episcopalian (e.g. who is heading for the Plano/Dallas Congress on October 7) and the average liberal Episcopalian (who voted for Gene Robinson's confirmation as bishop) is that, for the former, the sexual revolution does not include the blessing of faithful homosexual unions from the churches but pretty much tolerates the rest. Thus what separates conservative & liberal is a difference of degree of commitment to the new sexual order rather than a difference over the acceptance of the new sexual ethics. Even so this difference has the power to unlock powerful emotions and to empty deep pockets and fat wallets on both sides!

So I conclude that if there is to be reform & renewal, it has to be of the whole of sexual relations and sexual ethics and this includes doctrine, discipline and pastoral practice. Simply chasing away the homosexual problem will only be a temporary expedient for it will be back quickly unless there is no base left upon which it can set up its tent and make its claims to "we have the same rights as the heterosexuals".

In fact, what a sober examination of this whole topic reveals is that we conservatives need to look again at their Bible - the translation we use, our dependence on modern exegesis for acceptance of such topics as the ordaining of women, our apparent lack of acquaintance with classical exegesis and interpretation as it is found in standard historical sources like Liturgy, Confessions of Faith, Canon Law, Formularies and Commentaries by the Fathers.

This Crisis is surely God-sent to call us back to a whole-hearted and whole-minded commitment to the Holy Trinity and His will and purposes as these have been known and can be known in the Anglican Way as a jurisdiction of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

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