What authority do the declarations of Lambeth Conferences have? If appeal is made to that of 1998 for its teaching on sexuality, why cannot appeal be made to that of 1948 for its teaching on marriage?
One of the major studies undertaken in and by the Lambeth Conference of 1948 (which lasted five weeks) was entitled, “The Church’s discipline in Marriage”. This may be read in the Report, The Lambeth Conference 1948, pages 96 to 105.
If the doctrine set forth there is (as I, for one, think it to be) truly biblical and that which a reformed Catholic Church ought to teach and practice, then, regrettably, one must note that the Bishops of the Provinces of the Anglican Communion of the North/West have since forsaken it, and none more so than those of the Episcopal Church of the USA.
It is to be remembered that the two previous Lambeth Conferences, those of 1920 and 1930, both declared that “our Lord’s principle and standard of marriage is that of a life-long and indissoluble union.”
The Conference of 1948 set out the fundamental principles of marriage in this statement:
(i) Marriage is a holy estate, instituted by God and so existing in the natural order, involving the union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
(ii) The purpose of marriage is the establishment of a home and family life, including the procreation and upbringing of children, and the full development of the personalities of husband and wife, both by the right use of the natural instincts and through the mutual companionship, help, and comfort that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.
(iii) A marriage is created by the free, competent, and open consent of the parties who contract it. This contract is not terminable by either party; it establishes a permanent relation.
(iv) Marriage entered upon by Christians is endowed with the gift of special grace to the man and the women for the fulfilment of its obligations and the realization of its ideals. The blessing of the Church hallows and enriches the union. The efficacy of the grace received depends on the cooperation with God of both husband and wife (or of one of them) in the use of it.
It goes on to insist that our Lord’s teaching imposes upon those who marry a life-long obligation and that for Christians this obligation has an absolute character. Thus “to repudiate such an obligation is always deplorable in the extreme; and re-marriage after divorce, during the life-time of a former partner, must always involve a departure from the true principle of marriage”.
Then in a pastoral mood, there is this paragraph:
“We cannot condone what our Lord condemns. We believe that in the confused situation of the present time there is urgent need to proclaim to all men and women everywhere the fact that marriage always entails the obligation of a life-long union. More particularly would we earnestly implore those whose marriages are unhappy to remain steadfastly faithful to their marriage vows, relying on the unfailing resources of God’s grace.”
Then the bishops continue by expressing the hope that the Church will allow “the divine light of our Saviour’s tender compassion” to shine upon those whose marriages are breaking or broken and who need much support and help. So they insist that those who are divorced and those who are divorced and remarried should be cared for with all godly kindness, wisdom and compassion. But this does not include the right to a wedding for divorced persons in church – but it may include a blessing perhaps after a civil service with the permission of the bishop.
It is interesting to note that even in 1948 the position of the bishops from the USA (all by modern standards very biblical, conservative and traditional men) was in general slightly open to the possibility in certain (then rare) circumstances of allowing a marriage of a divorced person (whose former spouse was still alive) in church. This possibility is indicated in a footnote which states: “The Church in the United States uses the phrase that marriage is ‘in intention’ life-long, but makes provision for the bishop to give judgement as to the marital status of those who have been divorced by civil authority.” However, the nine Episcopal Bishops on the Drafting Committee all agreed to the basic statement “that the marriage of one whose former partner is still alive should not be celebrated according to the rites of the Church”. Obviously, they were thinking of some kind of annulment procedure by the Bishop, allowing for what was then regarded for church law as a first marriage on Christian principles. (One needs to add that it was this power given to Bishops that became one of the root causes of the later development of a rather free and easy attitude to re-marriage in Episcopal parishes.)
If modern biblically-based opponents of the blessing of “gay unions” appeal to Lambeth 1998 for the agreed mind of the Bishops of the Anglican Communion, then why do not they also appeal to the agreed mind on holy matrimony set forth in Lambeth 1948? One thing I cannot understand is this -- that the African and Asian Primates, who must surely have been made aware of the acceptance (practically speaking) of the divorce culture even in the conservative parts of the ECUSA , have not as yet chosen to take it to be a serious problem – not even apparently a real problem – but simply focus on opposing the blessing of gay partnerships by the liberal part of the ECUSA, leaving the divorce culture in the conservative dioceses unchallenged and not addressed. I think that the authentic, biblical Anglican Way, and the Mind of Jesus, require them to address both – that is to remember Lambeth 1948 as well as Lambeth 1998!
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
No comments:
Post a Comment