Monday, July 28, 2003
Gay Marriage, Polygamy and Polyamory
Maggie has written several important books related to the divorce culture and sexuality.--P.T.
In the new internet issue of The Weekly Standard: July 26
-Maggie Gallagher on gay marriage:
GAY MARRIAGE is no longer a theoretical issue. Canada has it. Massachusetts is expected to get it any day. The Goodridge decision there could set off a legal, political, and cultural battle in the courts of 50 states and in the U.S. Congress. Every politician, every judge, every citizen has to decide: Does same-sex marriage matter? If so, how and why?
The timing could not be worse. Marriage is in crisis, as everyone knows: High rates of divorce and illegitimacy have eroded marriage norms and created millions of fatherless children, whole neighborhoods where lifelong marriage is no longer customary, driving up poverty, crime, teen pregnancy, welfare dependency, drug abuse, and mental and physical health problems. And yet, amid the broader negative trends, recent signs point to a modest but significant recovery.
Divorce rates appear to have declined a little from historic highs; illegitimacy rates, after doubling every decade from 1960 to 1990, appear to have leveled off, albeit at a high level (33 percent of American births are to unmarried women); teen pregnancy and sexual activity are down; the proportion of homemaking mothers is up; marital fertility appears to be on the rise. Research suggests that married adults are more committed to marital permanence than they were twenty years ago. A new generation of children of divorce appears on the brink of making a commitment to lifelong marriage. In 1977, 55 percent of American teenagers thought a divorce should be harder to get; in 2001, 75 percent did.
A new marriage movement--a distinctively American phenomenon--has been born. The scholarly consensus on the importance of marriage has broadened and deepened; it is now the conventional wisdom among child welfare organizations. As a Child Trends research brief summed up: "Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes. . . . There is thus value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents."
What will court-imposed gay marriage do to this incipient recovery of marriage? For, even as support for marriage in general has been rising, the gay marriage debate has proceeded on a separate track. Now the time has come to decide: Will unisex marriage help or hurt marriage as a social institution? . . .
-Stanley Kurtz on polyamory:
AFTER GAY MARRIAGE, what will become of marriage itself? Will same-sex matrimony extend marriage's stabilizing effects to homosexuals? Will gay marriage undermine family life? A lot is riding on the answers to these questions. But the media's reflexive labeling of doubts about gay marriage as homophobia has made it almost impossible to debate the social effects of this reform. Now with the Supreme Court's ringing affirmation of sexual liberty in Lawrence v. Texas, that debate is unavoidable. Among the likeliest effects of gay marriage is to take us down a slippery slope to legalized polygamy and "polyamory" (group marriage). Marriage will be transformed into a variety of relationship contracts, linking two, three, or more individuals (however weakly and temporarily) in every conceivable combination of male and female. A scare scenario? Hardly. The bottom of this slope is visible from where we stand. Advocacy of legalized polygamy is growing. A network of grass-roots organizations seeking legal recognition for group marriage already exists. The cause of legalized group marriage is championed by a powerful faction of family law specialists. Influential legal bodies in both the United States and Canada have presented radical programs of marital reform. Some of these quasi-governmental proposals go so far as to suggest the abolition of marriage. The ideas behind this movement have already achieved surprising influence with a prominent American politician.
None of this is well known. Both the media and public spokesmen for the gay marriage movement treat the issue as an unproblematic advance for civil rights. True, a small number of relatively conservative gay spokesmen do consider the social effects of gay matrimony, insisting that they will be beneficent, that homosexual unions will become more stable. Yet another faction of gay rights advocates actually favors gay marriage as a step toward the abolition of marriage itself. This group agrees that there is a slippery slope, and wants to hasten the slide down. To consider what comes after gay marriage is not to say that gay marriage itself poses no danger to the institution of marriage. Quite apart from the likelihood that it will usher in legalized polygamy and polyamory, gay marriage will almost certainly weaken the belief that monogamy lies at the heart of marriage. But to see why this is so, we will first need to reconnoiter the slippery slope. . . .
---------------------
Log on to weeklystandard.com on Saturday, July 26, to read rest of these pieces, along with the entire new issue! And don't forget to try our NEW PAPERLESS SUBSCRIPTION. You'll get 48 issues for just $39.96!
posted by John at 6:48 PM CDT permalink
The Bishop of Quincy (who had to endure much ignominy in his waiting to be confirmed as bishop of the diocese) writes about the upcoming General Convention of the ECUSA. He is an Anglo-Catholic, a member of FiF NA and episcopal patron of the Prayer Book Society of the USA. It was my privilege when in the USA to be a member of his diocese.
July 27, 2003
Beloved in Christ,
I greet you in the Name of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit whose servants we are. I am certain that the Readings at Mass today have touched you deeply as we anticipate the upcoming General Convention of the Episcopal Church. It is important that we recognize that it is a general Convention and that it is a general Convention of one small part of Anglicanism which is an even smaller part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I say this to you because it is very easy for us to elevate our status beyond what it was ever intended to be. The Episcopal Church's general Conventions do not have the same authority as an Ecumenical Council, nor does it have the same authority (obviously!) as does that of Holy Scripture. As a convention its prime purpose is to order our life together in the small part of Anglicanism called the Episcopal Church, and does not have authority to change doctrine or the Holy Scriptures. It is important for all of us to remember this. This very costly gathering of Episcopalians that occurs every three years in origin was simply a gathering of the family and has evolved into a Convention that exceeds in size virtually every political gathering that exists in this nation. Indeed, its name alone "convention" carries a very different meaning than what our brothers and sisters in most parts of the Anglican Communion call themselves when they gather as a "Synod." The difference, by the way, is worth noting. We are convening a convention to transact business, not to change doctrine or dogma.
Certainly Protestant Denominations in the United States gather together with the authority to assess, evaluate, and change because they are, in many instances THE authority not connected in a worldwide sense and not in Communion with an historic See. In our case we are in Communion with worldwide bishops and with the historic See of Canterbury. The question is, does the Episcopal Church exceed its authority as one of many Provinces in the Anglican Communion when it revises doctrine, dogma, practice, and Holy Scripture? Indeed, we have heard often that parochialism and congregationalism are contrary to Anglican ethos. We have heard that "diocesanism" that is, unprecedented practices by a single diocese are contrary to the ethos of Anglicanism, and by implication so is "provincialism", namely unprecedented actions by one province without the consensus and cooperation of the worldwide Anglican Communion in conversation with ecumenical partners. The Archbishop of Canterbury has raised the question of what it means to be a Communion as opposed to being a Confederation of Provinces, and the same question can be applied to our Episcopal Church as to whether we are a "national church" or a confederation of dioceses. Virtually all legislation of late has reinforced a "national church" concept unlike our pre-1950's model, but only in certain cases, and in many instances, when it is convenient.
In the case of the New Hampshire election it has been noted by those who advocate the confirmation of the bishop-elect that each diocese has a right to elect whomever they wish. It is interesting to note that in 1994 many of those dioceses and bishops did not feel that way about the January 1994 election in the Diocese of Quincy, and thus the confirmation process took many months and the bishop-elect was barely approved because of one issue. There were notable exceptions to this rule, including the then Bishop of Newark and his Standing Committee. The confirmation of the bishop-elect of New Hampshire, however, will be center stage at general Convention, due to the canonical requirement that all elections held within 120 days of general Convention must be confirmed at the general Convention. Usually the "traditional" way during the rest of the triennium is for the name of the bishop-elect to be sent to all Standing Committees in the Episcopal Church and then to the Bishops after a sufficient number of consents have come from the Standing Committees. In addition bishop -elect rarely appear on television or in the secular newspapers, for they take a low profile and decline interviews that may prejudice the process. One must wonder why this post election and pre-convention process has been punctuated with an unusual number of personal interviews. The process now cannot be dealt with on a theological level nor a procedural level, but it is now all about a person. The public will make its own decision on a human rights level, and any theological debate that speaks contrary to the confirmation of the bishop-elect will be called a "homophobic reaction." What a shame that we cannot lovingly disagree without it becoming a personal issue and without labels being applied. Indeed, one might conclude that opposition to certain traditional perspectives is a matter of "paralabaphobia" that is, an irrational fear of tradition. But that is not necessarily the case, for there are often well meaning people drawn into both sides of debate.
Therefore, since this election has been placed into the center of media coverage it is not inappropriate to include worldwide bishops and theologians of the Anglican Communion who can remind us that this is not just a decision to be made by a single diocese, nor is it simply a human rights issue; it is a biblical, theological, and ecclesiological issue that cannot be determined by a vote. God does not change His mind on the basis of a vote, and to ask Him to do so on any subject is a bit arrogant.........
There is room for everyone in Christ's Church, but it does not mean that we canonize every perspective that is brought. St. Paul, the Patron of our Diocese, told us in today's Gospel that there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all." There are not multiple lords, multiple faiths, multiple baptisms and multiple gods......
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 6:41 PM CDT permalink
Sunday, July 27, 2003
Cosmic significance - holy matrimony
I think that we can agree that it is no accident of history that the debate over marriage/sexuality is raising much emotion and dividing friends and families now.
What is being revealed clearly to those with eyes to see is the rebellion of human beings against the Lord our God, against his revealed order, against the true nature of man as male and female, and against the poor of this world.
From within the Bible, and emphasised by the doctors of the Church, marriage has been understood for centuries as having a cosmic significance, while at the same time being about the relation between a man and woman. Marriage is a sign provided by God of the mystical union between Christ, the Bridegroom, and the Church, the Bride. It is also a sign of the union in the one body of Christ and in the one eternal kingdom of God of Jew and Gentle. The one flesh union of holy matrimony serves as a pointer to what God wills for humanity.
Therefore, any attempt to disturb, hide or destroy this sign is to become an enemy of God and his holy order.
The Churches of the West, and the Episcopal Church of the USA in particular, have been allowing even encouraging such disturbance and destruction in recent times. From their abundance and enjoyment of the goods of this world, from their commitment to the autonomy of man as central in the universe, from their commitment to self-realization and self fulfilment, and from their morality based on civil and human rights teaching, they have allowed even encouraged the break-up of marriage, the divorce culture, the cohabitation of couples and the blessing of same-sex partnerships. And they have done and do this in the name of their new “God/dess” who seems to be an idol, set up in opposition to the LORD.
We need perhaps to look again at the Preface to the Marriage service in the BCP of 1662:
Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this man and this woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee: and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprized, nor take in hand, inadvisedly, lightly or wantonly, to satisfy man’s carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
First, it was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, it was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body.
Thirdly, it was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined.
Here we get the cosmic significance of marriage and then a down to earth statement of what marriage in the real world ought to be about – not personal autonomy but co-creators with God where he makes this possible. The ECUSA especially, but not only, has got way off track!
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 8:23 AM CDT permalink
Friday, July 25, 2003
Orthodox, a relative term
If we exclude the ancient Patriarchates of the East and what is historically called [Eastern] Orthodoxy, it will be easier to reflect upon the use of the words "orthodox" and "orthodoxy" in the Western Church and within Protestantism in particular.
I want to suggest that within the Anglican Communion today "orthodox" is a relative term and relates not to fixed dogma and principles but rather to a position that is at the conservative end of the spectrum of public doctrine in a given Province at any one time.
"Ortho" means straight, right or correct. Thus "orthodox" is the holding of right doctrines and principles.
Who defines what is right? The Church meeting in sacred ecumenical council or in lesser synods. In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope also defines dogma on rare occasions.
For Protestants such as Lutherans and Presbyterians orthodoxy has been seen as those dogmas/doctrines, based on the Bible, defined by ecumenical councils and confirmed by synods together with further doctrines defined by local synods and usually stated in confessions of faith.
For Anglicans orthodoxy has been seen as relating primarily to the holding of the dogmas and basic teaching set forth by the early Church from the Scriptures in the definitions of the Ecumenical Councils from Nicea (325) to Chalcedon (451), the teaching reiterated in the sixteenth century and made the foundation of the Book of Common Prayer, the Articles and the Ordinal, the classic Formularies.
In a true and proper sense, orthodoxy is what is held and taught by the Church or by a jurisdiction of the same. Orthodoxy is a mark or characteristic of the Church. However, in modern times, with the increase of diversity of opinions in society and churches, it is common to use "orthodox" of a person.
And the way it is used today is often not in an objective sense, that is measuring a denomination or parish or an individual clergyman against a known standard [e.g. the classic Anglican Formularies or the Book of Concord (Lutheran) or the Westminster Standards (Presbyterian)]; but, it is in comparison with the known teaching and opinions of those who are at the "left" of the ecclesiastical spectrum - the revisionist radicals or whatever we call them!
Thus in the Episcopal Church people claim to be orthodox even when they have abandoned much of the classic heritage of dogma, doctrine, worship and discipline that belongs to the historic Anglican way. If they oppose same-sex blessings and state that God's plan is for the union of male and female in marriage, and if they express the view that the Bible is the Word of God and authoritative, then they are "orthodox". And they are so even as and when they are committed to the full use of the 1979 prayer book and to its teaching (which was intended from its creation and first approval in 1976 to change the doctrine of the Protestant Episcopal Church in major ways).
To be orthodox as an Anglican even in 2003 surely means more than being opposed to the innovators and radicals who lead the ECUSA. It means embracing the One Canon of Scripture, with its Two Testaments, with its major doctrines set forth in Three Creeds, and its dogmatic Truth expressed by Four Ecumenical Councils, and its required discipline, polity, ministry, liturgy and moral order set forth in principle in Five Centuries of development. And embracing this foundation one also embraces the classic Formularies of the Anglican Way from the 16th century. Then one may humbly claim to be orthodox - but, at the same time, one also needs to live out daily in one's life this faith and have fellowship with those of like mind and together be witnesses to Christ, saving grace and divine truth and order.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 8:11 PM CDT permalink
Not all Primates want to interfere in ECUSA GC
ACNS 3522 | USA | 24 JULY 2003
Anglican leaders raise concerns regarding human sexuality; Archbishop of
Cape Town responds
by Matthew Davies
A gathering of over 60 worldwide Anglican leaders held a press conference yesterday at Truro Episcopal Church, Fairfax, Virginia (a suburb of Washington, DC), to raise awareness of their concerns regarding issues of human sexuality in the Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion.
Their discussions particularly focussed on the upcoming General Convention of the Episcopal Church, USA, where it may be decided to confirm the election of Canon Gene Robinson, the first openly gay man to be elected bishop in the Anglican Communion. The other chief concern is that the triennial Convention may vote to approve the blessing of same-sex unions.
Participants at the gathering included Anglican Primates and Archbishops, US Episcopal bishops and international Anglican bishops, clergy and laypersons.
Archbishops Peter Akinola of Nigeria, Bernard Malango of Central Africa, Emmanuel Kolini of Rwanda, Yong Ping Chung of South East Asia and Peter Jensen of Sydney, Australia, wrote a letter to the Primates of the Global South asking that they confirm their agreement with a statement that they had drafted. The text of the statement read:
"We, primates of the global south of the Anglican Communion wish to indicate to the General Convention of the Episcopal Church of the USA that, should the Convention decide to confirm the election of Canon Gene Robinson as bishop or approve the blessing of same-sex unions or both, then we will convene within three months to confirm our view that ECUSA has thereby placed itself outside the boundaries of the Anglican Communion and that appropriate action will follow."
The Archbishop of Cape Town, the Most Revd Ndungane Njongonkulu, has responded to the request expressing that he "cannot in conscience and faith agree to support this draft statement".
"I believe that it is wrong and contrary to our Anglican Tradition and understanding of Canon Law to presume to interfere in the affairs of another Province," he said. "Such actions are a major threat to the fabric of our Communion. Let us respect the integrity of each Province."
Archbishop Ndungane was keen to proclaim that the Anglican Communion is bound together by shared links with the See of Canterbury and that "it would be profoundly inappropriate for any Province or any group of Provinces to presume to take on a role which properly belongs to the See of Canterbury, and with the whole Communion acting with the See of Canterbury."
"We need to approach each other with the love of Christ," he said. "We need to recognise that there are those who love our Lord on both sides of this difficult debate around human sexuality."
At the end of the statement the Archbishop said, "I would therefore plead with you my brothers to draw back from the way envisaged by the draft statement, and rather seek other ways of addressing our differences in the Body of Christ."
posted by John at 8:09 PM CDT permalink
Thursday, July 24, 2003
Order & disorder in the ECUSA
Adelphoi (Brothers and Sisters),
Order and disorder
Before I leave the comparative safety of the Church of England for the General Convention of the ECUSA, I offer further comment on divorce, women in orders and same-sex blessings within the ECUSA.
Those who argue against me are only able to cite a very few examples of divorced men being retained in ministry before the 1960s and as far as I can see will never be able to cite examples of women who are ordained as presbyters not exercising headship in some way or another (for it is within the vows they take and within most actions they perform).
One thing is very clear to me. The way that the divorce culture and the women's ordination culture are prominently placed within the ECUSA in 2003 can only be justified on modern human rights and secular arguments, never at all on biblical or theological or traditional canon law ones.
But there is an obvious connection between divorce and remarriage, women in orders and same-sex blessings which is deeper than the fact that they are all inter-connected as direct products of the post World War II civil and human rights movements - movements whose ideology now supplies public morality for much of the USA and western Europe.
That deeper connection is that each of the three in a different way violates the doctrine of divine order for the relation of the two sexes, who are equal before God but also different in their God-given natures and vocations.
Divorce shatters what God has joined together - order is broken. Remarriage confirms and solidified the broken order (whatever human happiness may be claimed by parties involved in these acts).
Women in orders shatters the rule first stated in Genesis 1. God created man in his own image, male and female created he them. There is order in God's creation and in this the man is first and the woman second - this is not inferiority for her but second in order. Equal but different. The N T idea of headship of the male is based on this fact of creation. Further, the human relation is an image and sign of the Order within the Blessed Holy And Undivided Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, Three Persons in an ordered relation one to another.
Same-sex blessing also is against the order of creation and the order of holy matrimony. For it is a blessing of serious disorder, of male united to male.
Because so many of us are involved in the divorce culture (directly or indirectly) and because all of us recognize the gifts and graces of women, we do not find it easy to see that divorce with remarriage and ordaining of women are both attempts to set aside the divine order within creation and within the new covenant. We find it easier to see that gay unions are against order because most of us have what is these days called a heterosexual orientation and we find some of the practices of consenting gay men repulsive.
It is no accident that in the post World War II history of the PECUSA, these three have been absorbed into the ECUSA at the same time as this Church set aside her classic Formularies (BCP, Ordinal & Articles) and adopted new liberal ones contained in the 1979 prayer book.
To be saved dioceses and parishes presently in the ECUSA need to return to divine Order so as to be recipients of divine Redemption!
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 9:30 AM CDT permalink
Wednesday, July 23, 2003
AAC, GC & Orthodoxy
(the major problem with this group who believe that they are orthodox is that their definition of orthodoxy is based on their comparison with the radicals of the ECUSA. If they were to compare their positions and pastoral practice with that of the classic Anglican Formularies and its traditional Canon Law, they would see that in many areas they too have departed from orthodoxy. But orthodoxy in the ECUSA is simply the latest line in the sand drawn by the more conservative membership and activists. So it includes much that is a departure from classic standards and norms.--P.T.)
AAC POISED TO TAKE STAND FOR MAINSTREAM ANGLICANISM AND BIBLICAL ORTHODOXY AT EPISCOPAL CHURCH'S 74TH ANNUAL GENERAL CONVENTION
"We're staying," says AAC President.
The American Anglican Council (AAC), the mainstream Anglican network in the Episcopal Church, today unveiled its comprehensive plans for the Episcopal Church's 74th Annual General Convention. The Convention will be held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, from July 30-August 8, 2003.
"The AAC will launch an unprecedented mainstream Anglican presence at General Convention designed to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ through legislative engagement, special events, worship and prayer, and the media," said the Rev. Canon David C. Anderson, AAC President. "We will also work diligently to prevent, on theological and practical grounds, any attempt by General Convention to step out of orthodoxy and affirm homosexual behavior."
In what most are calling a defining moment for the Episcopal Church, General Convention, through its votes on homosexuality issues, will be deciding whether or not the Church will break from the historic Christian faith and thus depart from the fellowship of the worldwide Anglican Communion. Specifically, Convention will vote on whether or not to give its consent to the election of Canon Gene Robinson, the openly homosexual Bishop Coadjutor-elect of New Hampshire. Canon Robinson is the first openly homosexual person to be elected bishop in the Anglican Communion. Convention will also likely vote on a resolution that would authorize the development of liturgies for the so-called "blessing" of same-sex unions.
"There are apparently many in the Episcopal Church who have decided that homosexuality is more important than remaining a part of the vibrant and growing Anglican family," said Canon Anderson. "Sadly they are willing to divide the family over an issue that the vast majority of the Communion has already concluded to be inconsistent with the Biblical faith."
"We will see at Convention if their voices win out," he added. "If they do, the Anglican Communion will see one of its family members leave the fold. As for the AAC, we are committed to remaining very much a part of the Anglican family. We're staying."
The AAC announced that its General Convention operations will be headquartered in the Central Lutheran Church, which it rented for the duration of the event. Central Lutheran is located directly across the street from the Convention Center. Most AAC events will be held in this venue, including the AAC's popular daily Legislative Briefing Lunches. Over the past several Conventions, the AAC's Briefing Lunches have earned the reputation of being the best way to find out what is happening legislatively on any given day. Legislative Briefing Papers, containing information compiled by the AAC's legislative committee monitors, are handed out during the daily luncheons and contain the very latest information on the status of most Convention legislation.
The AAC will also produce a daily newspaper at Convention, entitled "Encompass Daily." The four-page publication will offer daily Convention news, commentary, feature stories, a schedule of events and other items of interest. Douglas LeBlanc of "Christianity Today" will be joining the "Daily Encompass" writing team.
For those who can not make it to Minneapolis, the AAC has launched a special interactive website designed to provide the very latest news and information on Convention, http://www.aplacetostand.org. Up-to-the minute news, daily photographs and prayer requests will be posted on the site. Those who sign up on the website will receive regular Convention email news and prayer alerts from the AAC.
The AAC and its affiliated ministries will hold a series of innovative educational, worship, and prayer events throughout Convention. One of the highlights is a "Concert for the Orphaned Children of the World." The concert, which will be held at 7:00 PM on Friday, August 1st, is jointly sponsored by Compassion International, TOUCH (Treasure One Ugandan Child) and the AAC and will feature contemporary Christian recording artist, Dove Award winner and four-time Grammy nominee Geoff Moore. Convention attendees will be able to purchase discounted tickets.
Throughout General Convention, in fact, the AAC will encourage Episcopalians to sponsor African AIDS orphans through TOUCH. This important ministry provides a way for Episcopalians to make a difference in children's lives and to engage proactively in the fight against the African AIDS epidemic.
"To help make the AAC's plans a reality, we will be bringing a small army of volunteers to Convention," said Canon Anderson. "These individuals are giving up their valuable vacation time and coming to Minneapolis at there own expense to help the AAC take a stand for mainstream Anglicanism and Biblical orthodoxy. We are very blessed by their willingness to serve."
"We now face the moment of truth," he said. "What will happen is anybody's guess. But I urge all Episcopalians, and all Christians, to pray for General Convention. What happens in Minneapolis will affect us all."
-----
The AAC is a network of individuals, parishes, specialized ministries and Episcopal Bishops who affirm Biblical authority and Anglican orthodoxy within the Episcopal Church. For more information on the AAC, please visit our website at http://www.americananglican.org.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 7:47 AM CDT permalink
Presiding Bishop of ECUSA writes to the Primates of the Anglican Communion
ACNS 3519 | USA | 22 JULY 2003
[ACNS source: Episcopal News Service]
My dear brothers in Christ,
I write you on the eve of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, to let you know some of what is on my mind and heart during these days of prayer and preparation.
I am aware that earlier this month a letter was sent to "concerned primates" from a number of bishops of the Episcopal Church, USA outlining what they called a "deteriorating situation within the Episcopal Church and elsewhere." They particularly pointed to two matters that will be before our General Convention: one pertaining to the confirmation of the bishop-elect of the Diocese of New Hampshire and the other dealing with the authorization of the development of rites for the blessing of same sex unions which would then be brought to the General Convention of 2006 for debate.
The polity of our church places the election of a bishop and the nomination process which precedes it entirely in the hands of the electing diocese. The election then must be confirmed by a majority of the diocesan standing committees (made up of clergy and laity) and by bishops with jurisdiction, each voting separately. When an election occurs within 120 days of a General Convention, the General Convention becomes the consenting body. Each bishop-elect must first gain the consent of a majority of the dioceses in the House of Deputies, which is comprised of elected clergy and lay members from each diocese. Next, ballots will be received from bishops with jurisdiction and the bishop-elect must receive a majority of those votes, as well.
At this General Convention ten dioceses will present bishops-elect for consent. The Diocese of New Hampshire and their bishop-elect are the focus of attention, not because of the competency and gifts of the Revd Canon V Gene Robinson, or because he was elected overwhelmingly by the clergy and laity of a diocese in which he has served for 28 years, but because he shares his life with a partner of the same sex. As Presiding Bishop and chief pastor, my concern, as I said in a letter to our bishops, is "how we move with grace through this time." I am including a copy of this letter for your information.
This election, though profoundly disturbing to a number of Episcopalians, is not surprising given that increasingly in our part of the world there is an acknowledgment that some men and women find that their deepest affections are ordered to members of the same sex. Our church has a number of lay persons and clergy for whom this is true. Some have chosen the path of celibacy and others live within the context of a sustained relationship. In this latter case we are not talking primarily about sexual behaviour which in both its heterosexual and homosexual manifestations can be profoundly sinful and little more than the compulsive pattern of lust so soundly condemned by St Paul . What we are talking about is the core of the personal identity of men and women who share with us in the risen life of Christ.
I, perhaps more than anyone else, realize how very problematic this election is for some of you, as well as for some members of my own church, including the bishops who wrote to you. I am also aware of the efforts that have been made to draw you into this impending debate. Because we are members one of another in the body of Christ through baptism and are called to share each other's burdens, your concern is appropriate and welcome. And may I say that I am always grateful when one of you contacts me directly to express your concerns.
Over these last five years I have continually reminded our church that we are part of a larger reality called the Anglican Communion, and that what we do locally has ramifications both positive and negative in other parts of the world. At the same time I am mindful that each of us has to interpret the gospel in our own context and within the particular reality of our own Province; there is no such thing as a neutral reading of Scripture. While we all accept the authority of Scripture, we interpret various passages in different ways.
I believe that the report of the House of Bishops Theology Committee, which was shared with you, can be helpful here. In a section entitled Living In Disagreement it states: "Our present conclusion is that equally sincere Christians, equally committed to an orthodox understanding of the Faith we share, equally looking to Scripture for guidance on this issue, are deeply divided regarding questions with respect to homosexuality. It will be crucial for all parties in this debate to ask God's blessing on their ever-deepening conversion in Christ, and to pray for God's love and forgiveness to be granted to all. Faithfulness and the courage to offer love and acceptance to those with whom we disagree is the great need of the moment."
As Professor David Ford told us several years ago during one of our primates meetings, we are in the process of becoming a communion. I have reflected often upon his words and come to see more and more that communion is not a human construction but a gift from God. Communion involves not only our relationships to one another on earth but our being drawn by the Holy Spirit into the eternal life of communion which belongs to the Holy Trinity. Communion on this earth is always in some way impaired, both because of our limited understanding of God's ways and our own human sinfulness. Because we have been baptized into one body through the death and resurrection of Christ, we cannot say to one another "I have no need of you." (1 Corinthians 12:21) This means that maintaining communion is a sacred obligation. It is not easy and involves patience with one another, ongoing conversion, and a genuine desire to understand the different ways in which we seek to be faithful to the gospel. Declarations of being "in" or "out" of communion with one another may assuage our anger or our fear, but they can do little to show our broken and divided world that at the heart of the gospel is to be found a reconciling love that can embrace our passionately held opinions and transcend them all.
Please know how deeply I value each one of you as fellow pilgrims on a continuing journey into the ever unfolding truth of Christ. Grounded in Scripture, the historic creeds, the councils of the church and the sacraments of the new covenant, it is my prayer and deepest hope that our General Convention will reflect the mind of Christ such that our church can be an authentic sign of God's reconciling love.
Yours sincerely in Christ's love,
The Most Revd Frank T Griswold
Presiding Bishop and Primate, The Episcopal Church, USA
posted by John at 7:41 AM CDT permalink
Where I agree with bishop-elect Gene Robinson
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.)
posted by John at 7:37 AM CDT permalink
Tuesday, July 22, 2003
Suicide & British Politics, July 18-21, 2003
What I write I do so hestitatingly for I risk being misinterpreted and misunderstood. Yet I think what I say is worth saying.
After it was known that Dr Kelly had taken his own life last Friday, there was in the media the attributing of blame to various parties - No 10 Downing Street, the Ministry of Defence, the BBC, the Select Committee of Parliament, and so on. The Prime Minister set up immediately an official Enquiry into the reasons for the death of this scientist and civil servant.
What has struck me - amongst other things of course - is the fact that everywhere it has been taken for granted that this man had the RIGHT to take his own life. This right apparently exists when a person is under such pressures that he feels he cannot or will not bear them any longer (see E. Durkheim, Suicide, 1951, for complex motives involved in suicides).
Now I do not want to minimize the terrific pressures that this man was put under when it became known he had spoken to a journalist about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.
What I want to say is that the Christian doctrine has long been that suicide is always wrong, whatever the motive. This said, God is the judge of why a person is driven to this extremity and he is the Compassionate One.
In this case we do not know why, we can only guess. However, what we do know is that he had duties and responsibilities as a husband and father , to his family and others. Also we can say that he had no right ( in the sense of a human right) to take his own life and thus remove himself from the duties of life that he had taken upon himself.
Finally, in all the attributing of blame, no one (whom I have heard or read) has even suggested that he alone is responsible for his action. Others certainly brought great pressures upon him. But it was he who decided to commit suicide, and who planned it with precision.
We pray that God will have mercy upon his soul and minister to his bereaved family and give the rest of us clearer perceptions of our relation to and our duty to our Maker who is also our Judge.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 12:28 AM CDT permalink
Monday, July 21, 2003
ECUSA , the Pioneer & Innovator, & her General Convention, 2003
The PECUSA (more recently the ECUSA) has been a pioneer and innovator within the Anglican Family in a variety of ways since the eighteenth century. Since the 1950s she has greatly increased her pioneering! And the Anglican Churches of the North/West seem to be following in her footsteps, howbeit slowly and less confidently.
Consider:
She became an independent Church, outside the British Isles & Empire, with her own Polity, Bishops, Prayer Book, Ordinal and Articles of Religion in the eighteenth century, but remained in communion with the Church from which she separated.
In her Prayer Book of 1789 she not only revised the BCP 1662 to reflect conditions in the new U.S.A., but also to take account of doctrinal considerations and the latitudinarianism of the day (e.g., her Communion Office took from Scottish Rites; she omitted one of the Three Creeds of the Church of England and she revised the marriage service).
In her Polity, through her General Convention, she involved laity directly with Bishops and Clergy in her internal government.
In missionary work she established dioceses in other countries and passed on to the new churches the Threefold Ministry and her liturgical worship.
She produced the famous Statement of the Principles by which Anglican Churches are to approach ecumenical relations with other Churches - the Chicago Quadrilateral (1886) which became the Lambeth Quadrilateral when accepted by the Lambeth Conference of Bishops (1888)
Much American thinking, inside and outside the Churches of the USA, in the early days of the Republic, were conditioned by natural rights (life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness) and these easily were made part of traditional Christian Theism. Further, they fitted harmoniously into the latitudinarian theology and churchmanship of most of the late 18th and early 19th century leadership, clerical and lay.
From natural to civil & human rights
In the 20th century, talk no longer was of natural rights but rather of civil and human rights and these came into play especially after World War II and the famous United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (1948). The PECUSA (now calling herself the ECUSA) pioneered the absorption of civil and human rights by church action, teaching, polity, worship and canon law in the second half of the 2oth century. This was made possible because not only were a few Episcopalians closely involved in the changing American culture (as members of the new middle class in education, government etc.) but also because of the Church's inheritance of latitudinarian teaching.
In many ways the innovations that began in the 1950s and were accelerated in the late 1960s follow a pattern of development. For once the principles of civil rights and human rights are accepted, it is very difficult to discriminate between one set of rights and another, for they all have the same foundation - the individual human being as a person of dignity & worth (but worth judged by varying standards, from the secular norms of the day to traditional doctrines of man made in the image of God). Looking back it is difficult to find fault in principle with much of the civil rights claimed and gained - e.g., rights to vote, to attend school, to attend church, to sit on a bus and so on.
But with the human rights the evaluation of them is more difficult and complex for some of them, claimed on the basis that a human being not only has worth but is also autonomous, clearly are at odds with received Christian teaching and in some cases clear Biblical teaching. Here are some of the rights that have been absorbed by the Church/churches that are at odds with received doctrine as that was known in the 1950s:
- The right for a man or woman to marry again in church after a divorce
- The right to use contraceptives in marriage so as not to have children
- The right of a woman to be ordained presbyter and bishop
- The right of a "gay" person to live in a "faithful partnership" with another "gay" person
- The right to suicide and to Christian burial afterwards
- The right of a divorced person to be ordained priest or bishop and the right of a divorced priest or bishop to continue to serve after divorce
- The right of a "gay" person to be ordained priest and bishop
- The right of a church to make a mandated teaching any of the above so that office holders must accept it
- The right of a church to change official doctrine & liturgy " canon law in order to reflect its absorption of human rights' principles
- The right of a church to change the received language of prayer and doctrine in order to accommodate the sensitivities of feminists and "gays".
And so on.
Now the absorption of human rights into the life of the ECUSA did not occur in a vacuum of course. Society and culture were changing and the seminaries of the Church where priests were trained were paying less attention to the Bible and traditional doctrine and more to psychology and psychotherapy. Further, the emphasis in doctrine (as clearly reflected in the 1979 Prayer Book and its An Outline of the Faith) was on "doing theology from below" rather than "doing theology from above", that is, theology tended to start from the human being rather than from God in his self-revelation. Clergy were trained to be managers and therapists/counsellors and to seek peace and justice in society - not to save people from an evil generation into the ark of forgiveness, eternal life and grace of the heavenly kingdom of God.
Bearing all this in mind - and more - it is wholly to be expected that the General Convention of 2003 will continue to legislate that which are innovations, based on "secular" human rights and on a theology which begins from the human being (as she or he is seen through modern eyes). Specific examples will be in the approval of new liturgies and in specific sexual partnerships.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 7:35 AM CDT permalink
Saturday, July 19, 2003
BBC & Canon Gene Robinson
On Saturday, July 19th, at about 8.35 am London time the BBC on its Radio 4 Today programme, had an interview with Canon Gene Robinson, the "gay " priest soon to be elected bishop by the General Convention of the ECUSA (which event I expect to witness).
He seemed very calm and clear and confident.
He rehearsed all the familiar positions about homosexuality as an orientation and about the noveelty and goodness of faithful, monogamous same-sex relationships
He stated he was called by God to be a bishop and that with the help of his spiritual director he had distinguished his ego from the call of God and was sure that he was really called by God. He was not called to celibacy.
He believed that Rowan Williams, Archbishop, would one day bless him but he did not need his blessing now.
He was sorry about threats of breaking communion by conservatives and he urged them to pray more and discern more carefully where the Spirit was leading the Anglican family.
He was sorry about what happened to Canon John in England. There was opposition to the ordination of women and there is opposition to the ordination of a gay person; but both will pass away.
The unity of the Church, he said, is based on Jesus Christ not on sexual views and Jesus said nothing about same-sex partnerships.
I think that he will have impressed a lot of people and made them wonder what all the fuss is about. Most of his hearers belong to a culture where human rights provides the morality and thus they cannot see what is wrong in Gene's position, especially as he sounds so reasonable and kind.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 11:30 AM CDT permalink
Humanae Vitae, then & now
(Whether we like it or not, the matter of modern sexual practice & innovations cannot be separated from the wide availability of contraception. Read on! --P.T.)
Germain Grisez on "Humanae Vitae," Then and Now
The Dust Still Hasn't Settled, But There Are Signs of Hope
EMMITSBURG, Maryland, JULY 14, 2003 (Zenit.org).- The encyclical on birth control, "Humanae Vitae," remains as a milestone in the era after the Second Vatican Council.
As the document's 35th anniversary approaches, ZENIT asked Germain Grisez, professor of Christian ethics at Mount Saint Mary's College and Seminary, for a historical perspective.
Q: What was the primary significance of "Humanae Vitae"?
Grisez: With "Humanae Vitae," Paul VI reaffirmed the constant and very firm teaching of the Church excluding contraception. I believe and have argued that teaching had already been proposed infallibly by the ordinary magisterium -- that is, by the morally unanimous agreement of the bishops of the whole world in communion with the popes. Together, they had taught for many centuries that using contraceptives always is grave matter.
Their manner of teaching implied that what they taught was a truth to be held definitively. Thus, the teaching on contraception met the conditions for infallible teaching, without a solemn definition, articulated by Vatican II in "Lumen Gentium," 25.
Q: Pope John XXIII had set up a small committee to plan the Holy See's submissions about population, family and natality to international meetings. In June 1964, Paul VI greatly enlarged that body and directed it to study the questions that were then being raised about contraception. If the teaching was already proposed infallibly, why did Paul VI do that?
Grisez: After John XXIII died in June 1963, several theological articles were published either suggesting that the received teaching on contraception had been mistaken, or that it was subject to exceptions, or that using the "pill" to prevent conception was somehow morally different from other methods. Cardinal [Alfredo] Ottaviani, prefect of the Congregation of the Holy Office, was preparing a document rejecting such theological opinions.
But Paul VI's closest personal theological adviser, who in no way questioned the received teaching itself, was convinced that the pill was indeed similar to natural family planning, and therefore morally acceptable. Then some members of the committee John XXIII had set up urged Paul VI to delay judgment and study the matter.
Paul VI was determined not to ask anything of married couples that God does not require of them. That Pope also was a scholarly man, open-minded and willing to study. So, he told Cardinal Ottaviani not to deal with the subject, greatly enlarged the small committee but left it under the control of the Secretariat of State, and told it to study the questions at issue.
Still, Paul VI made no effort to define those issues. He wanted to give those who thought there was a way around the received teaching every opportunity to make their case.
Q: Did not the vast majority of the commission agree in their June 1966 report, which was leaked to the press, that contraception was morally acceptable for married people?
Grisez: The final report of the commission was not one of the documents that were leaked to the press, and, so far as I know, it has never been published. The leaked documents, which were misleadingly labeled, were among the appendices to the final report, and none of them was agreed upon by the majority of the 16 cardinals and bishops who made up the commission after it was restructured in February 1966, although they did approve sending those documents along to Paul VI.
True, the majority of the theologians, who were then among the periti [experts] advising the cardinals and bishops, had argued that contraception was morally acceptable, and nine of the 16 cardinals and bishops agreed with their position.
But virtually all the theologians and all but one of the cardinals and bishops also agreed that the pill was not morally different from other contraceptives, which had long been condemned.
Q: Still, having put the commission to work, why did Paul VI reject the conclusion about the morality of contraception reached by both a large majority of the theological experts and a majority -- nine of 16 -- of the cardinals and bishops?
Grisez: Because Paul VI was not interested in the number of those who held an opinion but in the cases they made for their views. In this respect, too, he acted like a scholar rather than a politician. Having received the commission's final report, he studied it.
After about four months, he announced on Oct. 29, 1966, that he found some aspects of the majority's case to be seriously flawed. He continued studying and concluded that the commission was right in holding that the pill is not morally different from other methods of contraception.
Eventually he became completely convinced that there was no alternative to reaffirming the received teaching. He then took great care preparing the document that was eventually published as "Humanae Vitae."
Q: The world had to wait until July 25, 1968, for the publication of the encyclical. What was happening in the meantime?
Grisez: Unfortunately, proponents of contraception among theologians and bishops took advantage of the delay to prepare an unprecedented response to the document. Dissenting theological statements were readied, and a strategy for maximizing the public impact of those statements was worked out.
Some groups of bishops also laid the groundwork for their later statements undercutting not only "Humanae Vitae" but the constant and very firm teaching on contraception itself. At first, Paul VI commented on the reaction, but he never really responded to the dissent.
Q: Facing down such intense dissent would have been difficult in any age ...
Grisez: Since the dissent was widespread and involved many bishops and even several conferences of bishops, disciplinary action plainly was out of the question.
It is worth recalling that Paul VI also was concerned about the "Dutch Catechism," some of whose formulations he considered to be incompatible with defined doctrines. In that case, too, he appointed a commission to deal with the problem. That commission proposed corrections, but the Dutch bishops refused to incorporate them. Instead, a version of the corrections was printed as an appendix in later editions. And Paul VI took no further action on that matter.
Q: What were the consequences of the dissent to "Humanae Vitae" and on the "Dutch Catechism"?
Grisez: During the next decade, theological dissent from the teaching of "Humanae Vitae" spread to other moral norms, especially those concerned with sex, marriage and innocent life. Pastoral practice on all those matters became far more permissive than it had been before Vatican II.
At the same time, many theologians published works on the central dogmas of the faith that proposed theories incompatible with defined doctrines. The teaching in many seminaries treated those theological views on both morals and faith as acceptable. During that period, the reform of the liturgy planned by Vatican II was carried through. But as the new rites were put into effect, abuses became widespread. Many priests and religious quit, and the numbers of seminarians and novices dropped steeply.
Q: John Paul II became Pope in October 1978. Has he not dealt with all those problems during the past 25 years?
Grisez: He certainly has tried to. He has taught vigorously and repeatedly, and Cardinal Ratzinger has worked closely with him in an effort to deal with theological dissent, both on moral teachings and on the central dogmas of faith.
However, in practice, dissent from the Church's moral teaching is prevalent in the affluent nations. And I think that the appearance of doctrinal unity among the bishops of the world is somewhat deceptive. In my judgment, the overall situation today is no better than it was when Paul VI died.
Q: Still, in many places, natural family planning is being promoted. There also are many young families with four, five, six, or more children. And a great many young people are active in pro-life activities. Doesn't it seem as if some people are listening to the message of "Humanae Vitae"?
Grisez: Indeed, some are. Though in my judgment the overall situation has not improved since Paul VI died, neither has it grown worse. The message of "Humanae Vitae" -- which is the message of the whole Christian tradition -- is still being heard.
Public opinion polls are notoriously unreliable, but it is interesting that they do not seem to show any significant decrease during the past 35 years in the percentage of Catholics who accept the teaching of "Humanae Vitae." That is remarkable and encouraging, considering that almost everyone who was over 65 in 1968 has died, and almost nobody under 40 today was able to read the news reports about "Humanae Vitae" when it appeared.
For that persistence of faith, we have to thank the Holy Spirit! But we also have to thank Pope Paul's courage and clarity, and Pope John Paul II's rich and very persistent teaching in a whole series of documents, especially "Familiaris Consortio," the series of talks that laid out the "theology of the body," "Veritatis Splendor," and "Evangelium Vitae."
Then too, we have to thank the many faithful pastors, teachers, parents -- all those who have kept the faith and handed it on, often in very difficult circumstances.
ZE03071422
posted by John at 11:28 AM CDT permalink
Canon John's Letter to Reading Paper
Here is the Letter printed in the local paper of the city of Reading, Berkshire (diocese of Oxford).
Jul 17 2003
Reading Chronicle
I WOULD very much like to thank all the local media and the many people of the Reading Episcopal area who welcomed my nomination as Bishop, and who have continued to offer me warm support over the difficult weeks that just passed.
I have received literally thousands of messages, including many hundreds from the Reading area. The overwhelming majority of them have been friendly and supportive.
As well as messages from Anglican clergy and laity, many came from leaders and representatives of other denominations and of other faiths, looking forward to our working together.
I am also extremely grateful to the Lords Lieutenant of Berkshire and Oxfordshire, to Reading's Members of Parliament and other Berkshire MPs, and to the many representatives of local government who sent their good wishes and offers of support. This avalanche of kindness has left me all the more saddened and disappointed that I cannot now come to serve you as your Bishop.
I have received an impression of Reading, and of the great majority of Reading Christians, as instinctively fair, welcoming, accepting and willing to give a stranger (even one with a 'gay' label) a chance to prove himself.
I am more sorry than I can express that in the end that chance was taken away.
Many of those who have written to me since the withdrawal of my nomination have said they are tempted to leave the Church in disgust.
That is a reaction I understand all too well, but it is not the way.
We have to keep praying, keep moving our communion, keep studying the scriptures, keep loving those who hurt and reject us.
Love wins in the end, and if we are faithful, in the end we will build a Church that looks more like Jesus and that will truly be a home for all God's children.
I will keep Reading in my prayers, and hope you will keep me in yours.
Jeffrey John
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 11:22 AM CDT permalink
Wednesday, July 16, 2003
How much is the introduction of the 1979 Prayer responsible for the modern ECUSA?
A discussion starter
Members of the Prayer Book Society of the USA have often said that the removal of the classic Book of Common Prayer (edition of 1928) and its replacement by a new type of Prayer Book (approved by General Convention in 1976/79) is the root cause of the ills, errors and contraction of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA. This is a broad and general claim and it has to be understood against the background of (a) the use of experimental liturgies from the mid 1960s through to mid 1970s; (b) the fact that the Prayer Book of 1976/79, though called "The Book of Common Prayer", is in fact a new type of prayer book, with new shape, new content, new style and new doctrine, and (c) a large decline in membership of the Episcopal Church from its high point in 1965.
As a popular kind of claim it has much to commend it but as a serious, historical claim it cannot be sustained.
What is absolutely clear to all is that the arrival of the new Prayer Book on the scene was a major part of great changes in the Episcopal Church as it responded to the ethos generated by the revolutionary 1960s. It was to be both a liberal Catholic and liberal Protestant kind of Anglican Church where there was room for all who were prepared to tolerate others of different mind and churchmanship (except "fundamentalists" and hard-core traditionalists). Conservative types would be tolerated but not encouraged so that they would "die out" eventually.
It is abundantly clear, to the trained observer, that much of the content of the new Prayer Book of 1976/79 is related to the changed attitude towards the Bible and the Christian Tradition that was being widely taught in seminaries & universities of the Church after World War II. If there is one primary cause of the demise of the PECUSA as a traditional Church, it is its absorption, primarily through the education of its clergy, of what may be termed low views of the authority of Holy Scripture in Faith and Morals, and thus also its acceptance of critical views of those traditional doctrines/dogmas that were based on a high view of the authority of Holy Scripture. A primary example of this change, which quickly was accepted, was the tremendous increase from the 1950s of weddings in churches for the divorced. The Episcopal Church gave a significant push to the spreading of the divorce culture because of its influential membership from the 1950s to the 1970s.
There is also no doubt but that the revolutionary decade of the 1960s had the effect of bringing the application of these low views of the authority of Scripture into general church life. At the same time the authority of "Experience" increased rapidly to fill the void or vacuum - that is Experience of what we learn from our own individual lives, especially what we feel, from the experience of people in general, and from the sciences that study experience. God became for many the God of peace and justice, the God who is to be served through working for human & civil rights, the God with whom I am in a personal relationship via my feelings. Thus at the point where "liturgical renewal" seriously began - the mid 1960s - the ethos of the Church was rapidly changing, even though many of the older membership, laity and clergy, had not yet grasped or realised the nature and extent of it.
The actual final content of the new Prayer Book (1976/79) would have been impossible without these massive theological, moral and cultural changes. However, and very significantly, these changes were set in what may be termed a conservative structure, skeleton or shape. Models or structures of services from the third and fourth century were used to provide the shape into which to place the new content. And so it was possible to make claims that this new Liturgy and certain recovered ceremonies were a return to the early Church. This greatly helped to make the content acceptable to both "Catholics" and "Protestants", the former impressed by its "ancient catholic character" and the latter by its "accessibility and intelligibility."
As the new Prayer Book took shape (1967-1976) the Episcopal Church also felt the full force of the civil rights and then human rights movements, and in response to this powerful cultural force, there came the ordination of women, the attempts to create a new form of "God-language" which was not sexist, and the increasing calls from the growing Lesbigay movement for full recognition in the Church. We need to be clear that there would have been the pressures from the Liberationist, Feminist and Lesbigay movements even if no liturgical changes were in process.
If we switch to other parts of the Anglican Communion to see what was going on there, we see that even where the classic Book of Common Prayer is preserved as the chief Formulary, there have been innovations introduced because of pressure from below - that is because of modern cultural forces. The Church of England and the Anglican Church of Canada bowed to the feminist movement and voted for the ordination of women. In fact, an argument was made from the nature of the language of the classic Prayer Book that since "he" can mean "she and he" and since "man" includes "woman" the Ordinal in the 1662 Prayer Book can be used to ordain women. And both these churches have now accepted that divorced persons can be married in church, and also are now in the painful process of accepting slowly but surely the rights of those who call themselves "gay". Further, through their production of alternative Service Books to exist alongside the Prayer Book, they have through these introduced most of the doctrinal and moral changes found in the 1979 USA Book.
I do not write the above to claim that the introduction of the 1976/79 Prayer Book was a good thing. It was for many reasons a bad thing. It made nearly impossible the existence and future of Biblical & Patristic Christianity in the Anglican Way in the USA. However, it was not itself and alone the primary cause of the great changes in the Episcopal Church in the latter part of the twentieth century.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon July 16th 2003
posted by John at 9:30 PM CDT permalink
Important Book now available in UK
(this is from Earl Fox who took a D.Phil at Oxford some years ago in philosophy. David Virtue is a well known journalist in anglican affairs. -- P.T.)
Peter,
The book by David Virtue and myself, "Homosexuality: Good & Right in the Eyes of God? the Wedding of Truth to Compassion and Reason to Revelation", is now available in England. ISBN #0945778015 at both Bertrams and Gardners via the Print on Demand process.
It is a long read (550 pp), but it is going to be a long war, and sound-bytes will not pass muster. My estimate is that we will lose the next several rounds. Most clergy here, as you no doubt know, will not touch the issue with a ten foot pole. So the other side marches on, virtually unopposed.
On the other hand, there are here and there intelligent and compassionate and hard-hitting voices beginning to be heard.
So far as I know, it is the only book available which has a comprehensive, Biblical, and scientifically credible strategy for taking the offensive and winning the sexuality debates. You can get more information about it on the Emmaus website with sample pages, etc. Hopefully it will be helpful over there.
Pentecost Blessings
Earle Fox
** Emmaus Ministries - a School of Christian Apologetics http://theRoadtoEmmaus.org
** 2605 Schooley Dr., Alexandria, VA 22306 703 765-7862
["HOMOSEXUALITY: Good & Right in the Eyes of God?" $22 postpd from Emmaus ]
posted by John at 9:38 AM CDT permalink
Which is the worst innovation in the ECUSA since the 1960s?
If the General Convention in August 2003 by a majority vote confirms the election of the "Gay Priest", Gene Robinson, as the Bishop of New Hampshire, will this be the worst example of an line of endorsements of bad innovations that it has yet approved?
1.Certainly some people think that it will be the worst innovation. They believe that God's will for sexual relations in humanity are to be confined to a couple who are joined together as one flesh in the covenant and sacrament of marriage. They hold that natural law and basic biology supports the ordering of a man towards a woman and a woman towards a man for procreation and companionship and for the nurture of children. Thus the ordering of a male to a male or a female to a female in sexual activity they see as an abomination. It matters not whether such activity is in stable partnerships or in random encounters, it is wickedness and invites God's wrath. (This position is held by people who approve of divorce and remarriage and by those who do not do so.)
2. Some people think that the innovation of a "gay bishop" in a relationship and thus of general approval for same-sex partnerships is before God and in the grand scheme of things no worse as a sin than is the general approval given by the General Convention over the years to the marriage of divorcees and the public ministry of divorced persons - that is the approval of the phenomenon of serial monogamy. There is general agreement that Jesus made little or no allowance for divorce and re-marriage in his ethics of the kingdom of God. Further, while serial monogamy is not so obviously against the natural ordering of the sexes as is homosexuality, it is against the natural order in that it does not usually or normally provide a stable home environment for children. Thus it is asserted that the innovations of the blessing of same-sex couples and the consecrating of a "gay man" as a bishop are not worse than the consecrating of a divorced man and the allowing of the marriage of the divorced. (This position is held by people who approve of divorce and remarriage and by those who do not do so.)
3. Some people think that the worst innovation was the decision to ordain women as priests and bishops and to mandate this doctrine and practice for all office bearers. They believe that the setting aside of the historic Ministry made up of men only brings into serious question the availability of the grace of God through what have been called "the means of grace" - sacraments etc. They hold that the Church ceases to be the Church of God, the Catholic Church, if her ministry is not valid. A "gay man" in holy orders remains a priest of God and the Sacraments he celebrates remain means of divine grace to worthy communicants. Likewise a divorced man in holy orders is a priest and a source of sacramental grace. Thus being divorced and being gay do not constitute barriers in the same way as does being an ordained women who cannot be by God's decree celebrants of true sacraments. (This position is held by those who approve of divorce and remarriage and those who do not do so.)
4. Some people think that the worst innovation was the decision to replace the classic, historic Book of Common Prayer (1662,1789,1891 & 1928) with a Book of Alternative and Varied Services and thereby set aside historic worship, doctrine and discipline. They trace all bad innovations to this primary and massive innovation which was passed by General Convention in 1976 & 1979, but was in preparation from the mid 1960s. However, there is not absolute agreement as to what are the bad innovations flowing from this change in Formulary.
And there are other positions that could be described.
How one evaluates the innovation of ordaining a "gay man" as a bishop will affect whether or not one sees it as a cause for separating from the ECUSA or for declaring a diocese or a parish out of communion with other dioceses or parishes. Those who see this innovation as the Church blessing depravity and judge it to be a sin of graver nature and consequences than other sins (innovations) they will face major questions and decisions.
The cynic will probably observe that the reality of the excellent pension fund of the ECUSA and the generally good stipends paid to clergy will weigh heavily not necessarily in how clergy and bishops talk but rather in what they finally do. This has been the story of clergy reaction to innovations since the 1960s. Only the few have departed. The majority has adjusted its theology and morality and made a new line in the sand of where orthodoxy ends and apostasy begins. Time will tell.
Meanwhile a once blessed Jurisdiction is increasingly submerged by the tides of secularism.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 1:29 AM CDT permalink
Archbishop of Canterbury delivers Presidential Address at General Synod
ACNS 3507 | ENGLAND | 14 JULY 2003
Does the Church of England exist? One thing that recent weeks and months have reinforced for me is that there are several different 'Churches of England'; that they do not communicate with each other very effectively; and that they need to learn how to do this better if they are to fulfil their primary task of witnessing to God's transforming power. Which means trying to find out what it is that makes these diverse 'churches' one; if we can't answer this, we are in trouble.
What do I mean by saying there are several Churches of England? In the first place, as we all know very well, English Anglicanism is a mosaic of groups many of which are sure that theirs is the natural, historically justified, faithful way of being an Anglican Christian. Some of these, for example - as in the sixteenth century - believe that the English Reformation is still incomplete, or barely begun. The reconstruction of the Church on faithful scriptural principles is not very far advanced, and must be fought for, with increasing urgency as it seems that unscriptural principle (or lack of principle) is controlling more and more of the territory.
Others are equally clear that being an Anglican Christian now, in just as natural and faithful and historically justified a way, is to offer a hospitable place for a wide variety of people engaged in spiritual exploration. We have never been bound to confessional statements in the way other churches have; we have a special relationship with the cultural life of our country, and we must not fall out of step with this if we are not to become absurd and incredible. We coax people towards a spiritual life that draws on the most sensitive and creative dimensions of what is natural to them, and try to encapsulate that in appropriate liturgies.
But meanwhile, there is a third Church of England, depicted in the news media. This is a soap opera. Its life is about short-term conflicts, blazing rows in the pub, so to speak, mysterious plots and unfathomable motivations. It is both ridiculous and fascinating. As with soap operas, we, the public, know that real people don't actually live like that, but we relish the drama and become fond of the regular cast of unlikely characters, with, in this case, their extraordinary titles and bizarre costumes. And for both actors and audience, the boundary between reality and melodramatic fantasy can get rather blurred at times, as if real human life were after all the jumble of unexamined passions, self-pity and self-advertisement that the drama takes for granted.
And there is yet another Church of England, quite hard to pin down but a serious presence: in a nebulous sense, this is a body which provides a spiritual hinterland for national life, an aura of seriousness, a scent of eternity. It may be in the form of that national religion which surfaces at times of national trauma; it is still for many people connected with the monarchy. But lately we have seen another version as well: it is surprising to see how liberal intellectuals in Britain so often express similar yearnings for a national spiritual hinterland. And the result is that when the Church shows signs of believing and acting upon things that do not derive from, or are at odds with, a progressive consensus, much anger and disappointment is voiced (our discussions not only sexuality but about embryo research touch this very closely). The Church is failing us; it is not truly a Church of the people.
Forgetting the soap opera for a moment, which mostly has only a virtual reality, the others live in a world of much anxiety. I now have a really remarkable collection of letters which say, 'Every Christian I speak to, and most people I know outside the Church, agree that...' - whatever view it is that the writer holds. And these views are dramatically incompatible. It's hard to avoid concluding that most of us speak and listen mostly to those who share our world, and assume it is indeed the natural one to belong to. But the anxiety comes at this point. If this is so natural, and if everyone I talk with agrees, how is it that this picture of the Church, of holy life, of effective mission, isn't 'winning'? Because decisions are being taken by those who don't find obvious what we find obvious. What has gone wrong? We ought to be the majority but apparently we aren't - or if we are, we are being defrauded of our rights. We end up with a situation where, as I have sometimes said before, everyone believes they are a persecuted minority.
And this is not a situation that encourages easy and honest communication. It is a situation that cries out for scapegoats. It encourages indirect communication - talking to third parties, to the media, to anyone except the actual people who represent that different way of being the Church of England which seems so incomprehensible to us. And the effect is so often of different churches, with strong and serious theologies and a high degree of spiritual integrity, or at least with a case to be heard, failing to relate except at a level of destructive and often angry bewilderment and denial; which, incidentally, does wonders for the soap opera market.
Is there a way of beginning to think around all this? I don't imagine we shall change our habits overnight, or come to agreements where there were none - though I hope we can do something rather urgently about the widespread assumption that my pain or our pain is automatically more real and serious than 'theirs' or 'yours'. There is no possible reconciliation while we are stuck in this mindset. But perhaps we can at least step back sufficiently to ask not so much what makes us one Church of England, but what makes us a Church at all. If we can answer that a little better, maybe we shall have something to say about whether there is a Church of England.
What makes a Church is the call of Jesus Christ, and our freedom and ability, helped by grace, to recognise that call in each other. The first reality is God's action summoning us together as a people - in the words of Jesus, which make it clear that we can belong to God's people if we trust what Jesus says about God and does in God's name, and in the death and resurrection of Jesus, which actively remove the barriers we set up by our sin to communion with God. To announce all this is to announce God's invitation. To accept the invitation, with all it carries of acknowledging what Jesus has done, is to be taken into Christ's living Body, finding there a company of unlikely people who have received and answered the same invitation. The Church's life develops as we slowly and clumsily start working on the ways we recognise each other as called by the same God and Saviour. Let me repeat that: working on the ways we recognise each other as called by the same God and Saviour. Our language, our doctrine, our worship all seek to be effective assurances that we are stepping to the same dance. At the centre of everything, the Scriptures provide the first test of that unity and coherence, to which all else is brought to be judged; then there are the basic identifying acts of the community which tell us that the life of the Risen Jesus is promised if we once let go of the self-protection we cling to (baptism) and that it is to be celebrated and deepened as we literally respond to the invitation of the Risen Jesus at his table (Holy Communion).
That's the Church. It is what happens when the call of Jesus is definitively heard. Some time ago, in the course of a conversation with the Archbishop of Sydney, we found we agreed wholeheartedly - pause for effect - we agreed wholeheartedly that the life of the church should be a matter of verbs before it's a matter of nouns - and that those verbs have God as their subject. God calls, God makes a difference of such a kind that a community appears, bound to and in his Son by the Spirit's power. For the moment, never mind the structures and the precise assurances as to what we agree about. What matters at first is that we are at one in recognising that we are called and who has called us.
If that's where the heart of the Church is, then we might quite properly expect that it won't always look the same or feel the same across the human world. We rightly say that we all need certain structures, in particular a ministry that is recognisable more than locally and that represents our continuity, as a focal part of the work involved in staying recognisable to each other. We hold to Scripture and sacraments as the essential common language God has given. And then?
Well then, I suspect, it's a lot more chaotic than we have usually assumed. We used to, in Wales, talk about the 'mixed economy' Church - that is, one which is learning how to cope with diverse forms and rhythms of worshipping life. Tearing up the rule book and trying to replace the parochial system is a recipe for disaster and wasted energy. In all kinds of places, the parochial system is working remarkably. It's just that we are increasingly aware of the contexts where it simply isn't capable of making an impact, where something has to grow out of it or alongside it, not as a rival (why do we cast so much of our Christian life in terms of competition?) but as an attempt to answer questions that the parish system was never meant to answer.
At present, we stand at a watershed in the life of the Church of England - not primarily because of the controversies that have been racking us (much as they matter, much as they hurt), but because we have to ask whether we are capable of moving towards a more 'mixed economy' - recognising church where it appears and having the willingness and the skill to work with it. Mission, it's been said, is finding out what God is doing and joining in. And at present there is actually an extraordinary amount going on in terms of the creation of new styles of church life. We can call it church planting, 'new ways of being church' or various other things; but the point is that more and more patterns of worship and shared life are appearing on the edge of our mainstream life that cry out for our support, understanding and nurture if they are not to get isolated and unaccountable. These may vary from the classic church plant model - a new congregation generated by an older one - to the Thursday night meeting for young people once a fortnight, the Sunday evening Songs of Praise in the pub, the irregular but persistent networking with the people you met at Greenbelt or Spring Harvest, the mums and toddlers event on Tuesday morning or the big school Eucharist once a term which is the only contact many parents and friends will have with real worshipping life. All of these are church in the sense that they are what happens when the invitation of Jesus is received and people recognise it in each other.
Can we live with this and make it work? This is where the unexpected growth happens, where the unlikely contacts are often made; where the Church is renewed (as it so often is) from the edges, not the centre. We need a positive willingness to see and understand all this - and to find the patterns and rhythms and means of communication that will let everyone share the benefits. That's to say we need ordained leadership which is capable of making and servicing connections between lots of different styles of 'church' - leadership which is therefore very clear about theological priorities, not protective of its status, skilled in listening and in interpreting what may seem very different language groups to each other. That's why, incidentally, when I've been asked about my priorities as Archbishop, I have regularly mentioned both the encouragement of new styles of church life and the need for theological education. And all this needs to be firmly in our sights as we discuss the proposals around ministerial education before us at this Synod.
I have to say that in spite of everything it is a moment of great promise. The Church Commissioners are encouraging us all to be more not less adventurous in planning for growth; Bishop Graham Cray's working party on this issue (New styles of Being Church) is about to report; the Pastoral Measure Review is looking towards greater flexibility in accommodating new churches that don't fit the parochial model; and my personal hope and plan is that the next stage in the work associated with the mission initiatives that have gone forward under the name of Springboard in the last decade will involve fuller co-ordination and resourcing for these new developments. Perhaps if there is a Church of England after all, it appears in the energy and commitment with which so many are discovering all this. Such people are usually very hard to stereotype within our conventional categories (let alone the cast-list of the soap opera); they can be cavalier about denominational boundaries, happily opportunist about who they co-operate with. But what emerges is authentically rooted in the central vision of a church both faithful to God and open to the community.
And it is sustained and made possible, of course, by so much that we hardly notice, the ordinary life of the Church of England as it is - that real Church of England which is visible where the parish priest chairs the school governors in the estate, sits with the asylum seeker to help them complete an official form, negotiates the grant that will allow the crypt to be developed for a drop-in centre, organises the distribution of goods from a farmers' market or the rota of lifts for a pensioner to get to church and shops; and where he or she is equipping their people to do all this and more. This Church exists all right, and you all know where it can be found. The debate on the report 'Called to Act Justly', triggered by the Stephen Lawrence case, illustrates another vital element of this 'routine' work (not routine enough, of course, in some places); the work of being a place where fundamental issues around the health of our society, around the wounds inflicted by racial vio!
lence and hatred for instance, can be addressed with seriousness and without self-justifying slogans.
So there are at least two Churches of England in addition to the ones I began with. There is the growing edge, the abundance of new things happening, with the new challenges about worship and ministry they bring. And there is the so-called routine, the ordinary life of the parish, where people are unobtrusively introduced to Jesus Christ daily. And these two are really one. Here we are looking at a Church with deep roots, both human and theological, getting on with the prosaic business (always so hard) without posturing, free enough from anxiety to be grateful for new things happening, even if they are not easily digestible, doing those basic and small things which are also earth-changing - reading the Bible, bringing people to baptism, celebrating the Lord's Supper. And what gives this Church its solidity, I suggest, is that it knows itself to exist because of God in Christ - not as a cultural fact, not as a society of militants with a human programme but as a community living in the space God has cleared; sometimes unclear about what exactly should be said about this, sometimes - I'm not sure what should exactly be said about this - deeply bewildered about the people who seem to be sharing this space with us, always at a loss as to how we should plan for future security, but confident because it was not our power or initiative that cut through the brambles and made a place to live.
This doesn't solve problems (theology doesn't, much). I hope, though, that it gives us something to remember when the various Churches of England jostle so noisily that we wonder where our unity is. If we believe in God's Church, two things are more likely to happen. We shall find more courage to explore new styles of Church life and the patterns and protocols we need to keep communication going with and between them. And we shall be freer to communicate with each other. The various 'Churches' I've described so often talk to each other, as I've said, through megaphones, through all kinds of indirect means. How do we recover the 'boldness', the parresia St Paul speaks of in our relation with God, as part of our relation with each other? It's been said often enough in recent weeks that we have too often been seen as a community that rewards dishonesty or concealment. It's been said also that some are intimidated in raising critical questions for fear of being stigmatised as fundamentalist and bigoted. These levels of fear and mistrust are cause for grief and repentance. If all the pain of these last weeks can in some way prompt us to see more clearly what we do to each other, why we threaten each other so, we shall have grown a little - grown a little into the space God has made, the new and living way. And I hope that Synod can lift its eyes for a moment from the traumas of recent weeks and days - not to pretend or forget, but to be newly aware of what God is already doing in our Church. If we can see that too a bit more clearly, we shall not feel paralysed. We shall know gratefully that there is indeed a Church, because of God, not because of us. And if that is so, we are free to follow where he has led, to grow and to celebrate.
posted by John at 1:26 AM CDT permalink
Monday, July 14, 2003
What to concede and What to hold firm in debates on homosexuality.
An initial attempt at clarification for those who claim to be biblically-based.
First, what should be conceded in order to begin the conversation and controversy at a reasonable starting point:
- That there are some persons within society who feel a deep attraction towards persons of the same sex.
- That homosexuality and pederasty are not necessarily linked.
- That the Lesbigay movement is now a powerful lobby in western countries and is unlikely to go away.
- That many public institutions and governments have accepted the general argument that “Gays” and “Lesbians” are permanently so constituted, that it is OK for them to be so, and that civil law must make provision for partnerships between same-sex couples, based on the analogy of contract law relating to marriage.
- That the whole drift and ethos of modern human rights is towards the recognition of any minority which makes serious claims and which does not threaten the general peace of society.
- That it is virtually inevitable that a National Church in Europe or a large, liberal USA/Canadian/Australian denomination will be affected by the ethos of human rights and by the decisions of State and big business in terms of giving sooner or later full rights to same-sex couples.
- That the existence of a powerful divorce culture in the West, and the conducting of marriages of divorcees in churches, have profoundly weakened the moral position of the Church in her teaching and defence of both chastity and holy matrimony.
- That the widespread cohabiting of heterosexual couples, and the performing of marriage service for some of them by the churches without any discipline involved, have also profoundly weakened the moral position of the Church in her teaching and defence of chastity and holy matrimony.
- That the widespread availability and use of contraceptive means and methods have profoundly changed the whole matter of sexual relations inside and outside of marriage.
To concede all this is to concede much and it is virtually to admit that in significant areas of modern western life the Lesbigay movement is already successful or will be so within a few years. But it is not to concede everything!
Second, what propositions should be firmly held and NOT be conceded at all.
- That God created man as male and female, and that male and female are in various orderly ways orientated towards and made for each other.
- That holy matrimony is the God-ordained form of permanent union between two persons, one male and one female.
- That a primary purpose of marriage is procreation. A marriage where procreation is possible and deliberately ruled out is not a genuine marriage.
- That chastity is not an ideal but a standard for all to abide by.
- That genuine friendships between persons of the same sex are good if governed by chastity.
- That Jesus Christ has an authoritative message about marriage, sexual relations, adultery, fornication and homosexual practice and the church is to follow the same.
- That the Bible does condemn not only active homosexual practice but also “faithful” same-sex partnerships.
- That all forms of active homosexuality are sinful, just as are many forms of heterosexual activities.
- That God does not make any person with a permanent homosexual orientation from birth, though such may possibly be gained through nurture, education and other factors.
- That the prevention of the acceptance of same-sex blessings by the Church will only be achieved if this prohibition is related to a positive doctrine and practice of chastity, and of holy matrimony, where remarriage after divorce is rare not normal, and where contraceptive practice is minimally encouraged and used.
To conclude: this is a discussion starter offered to ordinary clergy and laity in order to help them face the debate and questions honestly and positively.
July 14th 2003
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 7:05 PM CDT permalink
Saturday, July 12, 2003
Why get married?
The Exhortation in the Marriage Services of 1928, 1979, 2000 & 1662
Marriage is usually presented as a natural contract between a man and woman for a life-long union. The Marriage ceremony is a public ratification of this contract or covenant in the presence of witnesses. The two persons (the two parties to the contract) marry each other and are the ministers of the nuptial bond.
When matrimony takes place in Church or under the direction of a Priest or Bishop, then the Church both witnesses to this covenant and also bestows in Christ’s name a blessing on it, with suitable prayers for the couple that they will receive grace to remain faithful to each other and create a Christian family and home.
1928 U.S.A.
The first part of “The Form of the Solemnization of Matrimony” in The Book of Common Prayer (1928) of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the U.S.A. is an Exhortation, which is a shortened & edited form of that found in the English Prayer Book of 1662 (for which see below).
"Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this company, to join together this man and this woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought in Cana of Galilee: and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly and in the fear of God. Into this holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined."
This Exhortation proclaims and emphasizes that marriage is a holy and sacred state of human life. It was given by God as a divine institution for humanity from the beginning (Genesis 2:18, 24 & Matthew 19:5) and further, it was declared by the apostle Paul to be an expression between a man and a woman of the love that Christ Jesus, the Bridegroom has for his Bride, the Church (Ephesians 5:22-33). Therefore, matrimony is a unique relation between two persons and is to be entered into by them reverently, soberly and in the fear of God.
1979
In 1979 the Episcopal Church gave final approval to its new Prayer Book which contained a service entitled, “The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage”. This is wholly in “contemporary” English and it represented changes in emphasis from the service within the 1928, 1891 & 1789 editions of The Book of Common Prayer in the U.S.A. The initial address in that service made by the Priest to the Congregation is as follows:
"Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony. The bond and covenant of marriage was established by God in creation, and our Lord Jesus Christ adorned this manner of life by his presence and first miracle at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. It signifies to us the mystery of the union between Christ and his Church, and Holy Scripture commend it to be honoured among all people.
The union of husband and wife in heart, body, and mind is intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity; and, when it is God’s will, for the procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord. Therefore marriage is not to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly, but reverently, deliberately and in accordance with the purposes for which it was instituted by God."
The first paragraph repeats what is found in the Exhortation of 1928. In the second paragraph, an attempt is made to state the purpose of marriage as a divine institution. What is stated as a purpose for all times and for all couples is mutual help, comfort and joy through their union. In contrast, the procreation of children is of more limited reference for it is only “when it is God’s will”. The latter expression could mean when the natural desire to procreate actually becomes a reality (that is, where the providence of God causes conception and birth) or it could mean (and has come to mean) when and if the couple decide they want to have children.
2000
The Church of England introduced in 2000 a whole new set of services as alternatives and additions to those in The Book of Common Prayer (1662). The collection which is vast and growing is entitled, Common Worship. Within the volume devoted to Pastoral Services, there is “The Marriage Service”. At the beginning of the service, the minister reads the following:
"In the presence of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we have come together to witness the marriage of N and N, to pray for God's blessing on them, to share their joy and to celebrate their love.
Marriage is a gift of God in creation through which husband and wife may know the grace of God. It is given that as man and woman grow together in love and trust, they shall be united with one another in heart, body and mind, as Christ is united with his bride, the Church.
The gift of marriage brings husband and wife together in the delight and tenderness of sexual union and joyful commitment to the end of their lives. It is given as the foundation of family life in which children are [born and] nurtured and in which each member of the family, in good times and in bad, may find strength, companionship and comfort, and grow to maturity in love.
Marriage is a way of life made holy by God, and blessed by the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ with those celebrating a wedding at Cana in Galilee. Marriage is a sign of unity and loyalty which all should uphold and honour. It enriches society and strengthens community. No one should enter into it lightly or selfishly but reverently and responsibly in the sight of almighty God."
Here, as with the 1979 American service, there is much emphasis upon the mutual love, joy, affection and trust between the man and woman. Sexual union is specifically stated as part of the mutuality. However, procreation of children is not directly stated as a normal, specific purpose of marriage. Rather, within the mutuality of the togetherness of the couple, children can be conceived and born or they can be adopted, to be raised in a Christian family. Even so, the duty & possibility of procreation seem stronger here than in the 1979 address.
1662
The only service for use at a marriage available in the Church of England for three centuries was “The Form of Solemnization of Matrimony” from The Book of Common Prayer (1662). This service is a revised form of the Latin service used in England in the late medieval period. Here is the Exhortation with which the service begins:
"Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this man and this woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee: and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprized, nor take in hand, inadvisedly, lightly or wantonly, to satisfy man’s carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
First, it was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the feat and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, it was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body.
Thirdly, it was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. "
The similarity between this Exhortation or Address and all the others is clear. Marriage is ordained of God and is for the mutual help, comfort, fellowship and joy of the couple.
The difference is also clear. First, procreation is made to be a primary purpose of marriage. Having a family is a normal outcome of getting married unless there are good reasons (infertility, old age and the like). In marrying one intends to have children.
Further, this Exhortation alone sees marriage as a provision in a fallen world, where sexual temptations are common and powerful, for people to live according to God’s will.
Of course, much water has flowed under the bridge of the marriage service (better over the institution of marriage) since the publication of the 1662 Prayer Book. We have seen the acceptance of women’s rights as part of the human and civil rights movement, the arrival of contraceptives making for “safe sex”, the advent of the divorce culture, and the common practice of co-habiting (with or without a view to getting married). In this changed situation, very few people in the church would go as far as to say that procreation is a basic purpose of marriage. They would prefer to say that it is a possible purpose depending upon the desires and wills of the couple. There is no doubt but that the emphasis today is on mutuality and this of course is made possible and sustained by contraception as well as by the divorce culture.
In this context, where co-habiting is common, where couples marry without necessarily intending to have children, where marriage is seen primarily as for self-realization and gratification within mutuality, and where divorce followed by remarriage is common ( as common amongst church members as others), it is not surprising that “same-sex couples” have successfully gained their civil rights in western society and are much on the way to gaining full rights and blessings within the churches.
Perhaps the churches of the Anglican Way need to recover the teaching of the Exhortation in the Prayer Book of 1662.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 10:06 AM CDT permalink
Friday, July 11, 2003
Inferiority, no; Subordination yes; in family and church.
Adelphoi,
A discussion starter.
Those who argue that it is only men, called, prepared and tested, who are to be ordained as presbyters and bishops in the Church of God have to explain their position most carefully these days (if and where people are willing patiently to listen or read!). The reason for such clarity is that their doctrinal stance for this conservative position can be so easily misheard, misunderstood and misinterpreted. And they can be villified.
First of all, they have to make clear that they accept wholly the equality of women before God for the gift of his salvation & their equal dignity and worth with men in human society. They must make very clear that they do not propose any doctrine of the inferiority of a woman to a man, as was assumed by such great thinkers as Thomas Aquinas & Richard Hooker, based on the science of Aristotle. In fact, they need to teach that man and woman are so created as to be complementary the one to the other, equal but different.
In other words, they must make it abundantly clear that they do not espouse but rather they reject any notion of the inferiority of woman. And here they depart from much of the medieval, Reformation and post-Reformation teaching.
In the second place, they have to make clear that the only sound biblical and theological argument for allowing only some men to be ordained and thus against the ordaining of women to offices of pastoral leadership and oversight is based on the doctrine of Order. In the strict meaning of the word, they believe in the subordination of woman to man, that is, that woman is second in order to man in God's divine ordering of his creation. The basic biblical text is from Genesis 1:27, "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Here there is man whom God has made as two sexes, male and female. The order of the two sexes is the male first and the female second, but this ordering does not imply any inferiority whatsoever of the one who is second in order. In fact one has to be first in order and the other second.
Within the Order of the Holy Trinity, as revealed unto us, the Father is always the first, the Son second and the Holy Ghost third, but each of the Three Persons is equal in deity, glory and majesty to the Others (see the splendid statement of all this in The Athanasian Creed). It was Arianism not Orthodoxy which proposed a Trinity of three Persons not equal in deity and glory.
Man, made in the image and after the likeness of God the Holy Trinity, is an ordered creature and the ordering is first male and second female.
Now a prohibition of the pastoral leadership of a woman in the church has been often based in the past on the old Aristotelian biology and anthropology (accepted regrettably as true by many churchmen over the centuries). That is, women are deemed to be inferior to men. Such a position, though held by many of the great minds of the Church from ancient through to relatively recent times, must be rejected and rejected soundly.
Often the Aristotelian science has been fused with the biblical and patristic doctrine of Order. Today we must tear them apart to reject one and to keep the other.
Not sufficiently often has the biblical and patristic argument of Order been used carefully and in its fullness by those who believe, teach and confess that only certain males are proper candidates for ordination. Here the ordering of humanity is seen as reflecting the Order within God the Holy Trinity. Further, and specifically, the Order within the Church as the Family of God is also seen as reflecting the internal Order of God as God. In the New Testament this doctrine of Order is expressed in various ways, one of which is the Pauline doctrine of "headship". Again it must be emphasised that second in order is not inferiority.
Further arguments such as (a) that Jesus Christ only chose man as apostles and that the apostles only chose men as presbyters and bishops, and (b) the celebrant at the Eucharist is to be a man in order truly to represent the action of Christ who is Man, are probably best used as supportive rather than primary.
The only way to teach and defend the ordination of only some men (duly called and prepared) is on the basis of the Name and Nature of God as the Holy Trinity and the Order that He has placed within Man, within humanity, within male and female and within the family. In other words unless a high doctrine of Scripture is accepted and the patristic dogma of the Blessed, Holy Trinity is received, there can be no sound doctrinal argument in favour of the long tradition of a male-only presbyters and bishops.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 7:54 PM CDT permalink
Why "YOU" as second person singular in the ORDINAL?
The use of the 2nd person singular in The Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests and Deacons [ = The Ordinal] printed inside The Book of Common Prayer (1552, 1662, 1928) is most interesting, opening a window upon mid-sixteenth century English.
In all Three Services, God is addressed as "Thou/Thee" and "Thy" and "Thine" are often used. There are no exceptions to this rule. God is never the "You-God".
Further, in each of the Three Services, the candidate is ordained with words that also use the second person singular - e.g., "take thou authority" & "committed unto thee" & "be thou a faithful" & "thou stir up".
However, in the last of the Three Services, involving the Bishop, the Archbishop delivers to him a Bible after he has been ordained and as he delivers it addresses him. In the first part of this brief address the Archbishop uses the words "thyself" "thou" and "thee". Then, perhaps surprisingly, in the second half the Archbishop switches to "ye" and "you": "Be so merciful, that ye be not too remiss; so minister discipline, that you forget not mercy." With each set of pronouns, he is addressing the one and the same person.
There is another surprising thing in the Service for the Ordaining & Consecrating a Bishop. It is this. In each of the eight questions put to the Bishop-elect as well in the introduction and final statement of the questioning, the Archbishop addresses him as "you" and "ye". "Are you persuaded.?" "Will you maintain.?" and so on.
Now in the parallel questions addressed to the candidates within the other Two Services there is also the use of "you"; but, in these it is assumed that several men are being ordained together and thus the "you" is the 2nd person plural form.
So it appears that there is the use of "you" as second person singular in a large part of the Service for Bishops and that in one particular paragraph (the address as the Bible is delivered) the new Bishop is first addressed as "thou/thee" and then as "you/ye".
What are we to make of this?
We can see that both "thou/thee" and "you/ye" functioned as second person singular in the mid sixteenth century. At that time "you/ye/you" was a polite form (hence "your majesty"). Since a bishop belonged to the Lords spiritual, he was addressed as an Earl, Duke, Lord & King - "ye/you/your". However, in divine worship before God he is the equal of all the baptized and so he could also be addressed "thou/thee/thine/thy".
Further, most importantly, God who is the King of kings, lords, dukes and earls is always in the Ordinal (as in the Prayer Book itself) addressed as "Thou/Thee/Thy/Thine". That he is so addressed represents a definite choice by Archbishop Cranmer and his colleagues. Thus the English language of public prayer is no accident. It was planned! And when many ditched it in the 1960s and afterwards they lost a great treasure.
(To read more about the use of pronouns for God and for man in the English
language of public prayer, see Toon & Tarsitano, Neither Archaic nor
Obsolete: The Language of Common Prayer & Public Worship, 2003. ISBN 0
907839 75 4 available from Edgeways Books or The Anglican Marketplace In the USA call 1 800 727 1928)
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 7:27 PM CDT permalink
Thursday, July 10, 2003
Dumbed down Collects
Adelphoi,
If you wish to see the dear old Church of England, my "Mother", at her worst in her prayer, go to the latest and final edition of the new collects meant for those folks who find ordinary collects too difficult!
The General Synod is about to debate the proposed Additional Collects again, following revisions in response to consultation. You can see the final version - it will not be changed again - at:
www.cofe.anglican.org/synod/GS1493A.doc
I cry for my beloved Mother.
===
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 9:40 PM CDT permalink
How Collects get changed!
The Collect for the Fourth Sunday after Trinity both in The Book of Common Prayer (1662 & USA 1928) and in Common Worship (2000, England) is based upon the original Latin Collect from the Sacramentary of Gregory, via the Sarum Missal.
The original Collect may be translated:
"O God, the protector of all that hope in thee, without whom nothing is strong, nothing is holy; multiply upon us thy mercy; that, thou being our ruler and guide we may so pass through the good things of time that we lose not the good things of eternity; through Jesus Christ our Lord."
Archbishop Cranmer translated & edited as follows:
"O God, the protector of all that trust in thee, without whom nothing is strong, nothing is holy: Increase and multiply upon us thy mercy; that, though being our ruler and guide, we may so pass through things temporal, that we finally lose not the things eternal: Grant this, O heavenly Father, for Jesus Christ's sake our Lord."
Cranmer changed "hope" to "trust", added the verb "increase", and changed "the good things of time" to "things temporal [=things of time]". Thereby he gave the prayer a somewhat different emphasis. Passing through the "good things of time" is a more restricted reference than all the things of time. The original Latin presupposed that there are specific temptations in the enjoyment of the good things of time, temptations which may cause us to stumble and thus lose the gifts of forgiveness of sins, eternal salvation and life in the presence of the Lord with the beatific vision. Cranmer included good things and bad things by his "things temporal" and thus widened the reference of the petition greatly.
The editors of Common Worship generally followed The Book of Common Prayer but made their own additions/changes and in these substantially changed the meaning of the Prayer.
"O God, the protector of all who trust in you, without whom nothing is strong, nothing is holy: increase and multiply upon us your mercy; that with you as our ruler and guide we may so pass through things temporal that we lose not our hold on things eternal; grant this, heavenly Father, for our Lord Jesus Christ's sake."
Instead of "we finally lose not things eternal" [eternal life, eternal enjoyment of the beatific vision, eternal fellowship with the angels and saints, and so on] this prayer has "we lose not our hold on things eternal". The idea seems to be that we are grasping by our own power, or hanging on to by our own energy, the things of eternity and that there is the real possibility that due to the pressures of living in this [sinful] world we shall lose our grasp of, and be unable to hang on to, them now. That is we shall lose our hold on our union, communion, and relation to God the Father in the present.
Further, the deletion of "finally" removes the reference to the Last Judgment and makes the reference to be primarily in this world. Thus the problem with this rendering is that it makes too specific the human side of holding on to God and at the same time does not allow for God's holding on to us; further, it takes out of the whole prayer the sense that we all have to appear before the judgment seat of God to give an account.
If the editors of Common Worship wanted to change the Cranmerian rendering why did they not provide a good translation of the original Latin Collect?
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 9:39 PM CDT permalink
Wednesday, July 09, 2003
IMPLICATIONS FOR A CHURCH PROVIDING BLESSINGS FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES
a discussion starter
If the Episcopal Church accepts at its General Convention in August 2003 the practice of blessing same-sex couples (where each of whom claims a sexual orientation to the same sex only) in “a faithful relationship or partnership”, what will this imply in terms of “the development of doctrine” by the ECUSA?
I make various suggestions but do not supply a complete statement:
- That the church believes that some human beings though biologically of a specific sex (male or female) are so constituted that they do not have a normal internal ordering towards the opposite sex but rather an orientation towards the same sex. And that their sexual organs and their expressive natures are at odds with each other.
- That two such persons therefore have the right within the friendship and “faithful partnership” of being such a couple, to perform acts of a specifically sexual nature on a regular basis as appropriate and right, and expressive of mutuality and love.
- That the virtue of chastity does not apply and is not demanded in this case of two persons of the same biological sex in a “faithful relationship”
- That the fact that two persons are “FAITHFUL” to each other gives to their relationship a kind of divine approval making it “special” in the order of things and conformable to God’s law.
- The purpose of such a union is the most complete form of self-expression and self-development possible for each of the two.
- For all practical purposes such a couple is to be regarded as a “married couple” who can adopt children or if lesbian one can bear a child (the sperm supplied by a donor). Further, that they are to be given rights in terms of healthcare, inheritance and so on.
- Such couples are to have the same rights in terms of “divorce and remarriage” as their heterosexual colleagues.
- That the church’s teaching and practice on human relations and rights should follow that of enlightened western culture and secular laws. Thus in this regard it is the culture that is “the salt of the earth” and the “light of the world”.
- That such persons in this form of partnership be entitled to full membership of the church and thus potential & possible candidates for all offices, lay and ordained of the same.
- For any to oppose these rights and privileges is to be prejudiced and to destroy the unity of the Body of Christ.
- That active, occasional homosexual contacts outside a faithful relationship are to be regarded as a kind of fornication and thus seen as the same kind of sin as committed by heterosexual persons in extra-marital sexual experience.
- That the Bible has been interpreted in a new and significant way so that it now allows that which it was previously thought to forbid. And that this new form of hermeneutics has dramatic implications for other areas of Christian worship, doctrine & discipline - as time will quickly make clear.
- That the use of the orthodox dogma/doctrine of the Holy Trinity in terms of explicating what it means for man to be made in the image and after the likeness of God and to be a relational creature has to be abandoned, and replaced by a doctrine of God which allows for this innovation of same-sex partnerships.
- That the received doctrine of holy matrimony (as laid out in say the BCP Marriage Service 1662) has been abandoned as the norm and that it has become one option amongst others and thus can make no special claim on church members. Further, the important duty and privilege to procreate is no longer part of the nature and vocation of marriage.
- That in principle the ECUSA can now decide at will to change any other received doctrine or form/shape of worship and manner/type of discipline.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon July 8th 2003
posted by John at 9:57 PM CDT permalink
Monday, July 07, 2003
Canon John resigns as bishop-elect of Reading; The Bishop of Oxford ought also to go.
(July 7th, 2003)
This morning (July 7) I heard interviews on BBC Radio with the Dean of Southwark (where Dr John is a Canon) and with the Bishop of Manchester about the resignation. I also heard a summary of what the British newspapers say this morning about the affair. I have read the various Letters that have been released.
His resignation came after a long meeting at Lambeth Palace with the Archbishop and advisers. It is being commended from there as for the maintaining of the unity of the Anglican Communion of Churches and of the Church of England. In other words, the massive pressure exerted by the evangelicals around the world and in England has worked and the man they targeted has had to withdraw.
We feel deeply for the pain that Canon John has suffered through this long and bitter controversy.
There has been no triumph in terms of the accepting of a traditional doctrine & morality. Not arguments but sheer pressure has been victorious. Thus there remains a sizeable group of Anglicans, mostly in the "West", who believe that within the doctrine of human worth & dignity and of human rights "gay" people should be encouraged in their same-sex partnerships to be faithful. Likewise, there is en even larger group of Anglicans, mostly in the "South", who see all forms of homosexual behaviour as wrong and contrary to the way God has made the human race.
This means that the underlying cause - the call for the rights of gay priests to full acceptance in the Anglican Way in all its 38 Provinces - has merely been put on hold for a short time. It will be back in full swing in the General Convention of the ECUSA about lst August 2003, when there is voting on matters directly related to this issue.
While Canon John should never have been appointed, the person who ought now to resign is the Bishop of Oxford, who knew when he made this appointment what were the deep convictions of many Anglican leaders worldwide and of committed Evangelicals in the C of E. He even knew that the C of E (on the view that it is slowly becoming more liberal) was not itself yet ready for this kind of appointment. Further, as one who is often on Radio & TV the Bishop also would have been aware of the publicity it would cause and bring. It is he who caused all the controversy and brought the Church to shame in the media. There were other men he could have nominated but he chose this man deliberately knowing the consequences (but not necessarily the intensity of them). The Bishop of Oxford should resign not only for his deliberate decision to cause this controversy but also for what he has said and written since in defence of his action and in defence of homosexual practice.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, we hope, has learned a lesson from all this and will be most careful in this sensitive area of homosexuality in the future. He could have blocked this appointment early on in the process before it was a public matter and did not so do. This failure was a serious error of judgment.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 8:56 AM CDT permalink
Sunday, July 06, 2003
Gay priest rejects bishop post
Canon Jeffrey John says he is now celibate
(From the BBC) Gay priest Canon Jeffrey John has said he will not take up the post of Bishop of Reading.
It follows weeks of bitter argument within the Anglican Church about whether or not he should be allowed to hold the position, because of his sexuality.
Dr John said he made the decision because of the "damage" his consecration might cause to the "unity of the Church".
Read the rest of this story
posted by John at 9:41 PM CDT permalink
Saturday, July 05, 2003
EXPERIENCE, Experience & experience
Adelphoi,
If you want to know where the innovations of the ECUSA come from, read on...
ECUSA,1&2&3&4&5 - Welcome to Experience
In the latter part of the reign of Elizabeth I , there began the custom (first in the sermons of Lancelot Andrewes, who became the major editor and translator of the King James Bible of 1611) of explaining the doctrinal foundation of the reformed Catholic & National Church of England (ecclesia anglicana) through the use of the numbers 1 through 5. This was a simple device and most helpful for memorization. I still use it when referring to the Church of England and the Anglican Way as a form of reformed Catholicism.
There is ONE CANON of Scripture, wherein are TWO TESTAMENTS, and to provide a summary of the Christian Faith based on these there are THREE CREEDS. Then there are the first FOUR ECUMENICAL COUNCILS, wherein the classic, foundational dogma of the Church is set forth, and there are FIVE CENTURIES of life of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church wherein the principles of canon law, liturgy, ordained ministry and other important matters were developed and established as principles or guides for all time.
Since the 1960s this foundation (reflected in the classic Formularies of the BCP, Ordinal and Articles of Religion) has been increasingly eroded and even abandoned by modern Anglican Commissions, Synods and Conventions, and thus locally by clergy and parishes.
The emerging foundation on which modern doctrine, morality, canon law and liturgy is unstable; but, it can be summarised in five parts as the classic foundation has been so described.
There is EXPERIENCE as the only foundation, and this comes in TWO PARTS (that recorded in the Bible and that in the life of the Church in the world for 20 centuries). The THIRD CENTURY is the most important period for providing models for Worship and Doctrine. The modern Church benefits from FOUR REVOLUTIONS in the history of the Church; and the same Church utilises FIVE (a plurality) of forms of worship, types of theology and morality.
EXPERIENCE is a very wide category and includes direct personal experience & the study of human beings as experiencing persons and is all about the observation of persons, facts and events as a source of knowledge. Thus it is never fixed but always changing and developing, revising and expanding.
In the Bible there is a special kind of record of human experience - experience in search of God and finding him. However and regrettably it is much more the experience of males than of females and so it is imbalanced, needing careful interpretation. Yet it is unique in that it is primary and irreplaceable. In the life of the church and her members over the centuries there has been a continuing experience of God, the world, themselves and each other. Christians today are most aware of their own experience and look into it for revelation from God. So EXPERIENCE COMES IN TWO PARTS (within the Bible and outside the Bible) and is fundamental in the modern Church.
In terms of providing guidance for the modern Church, the THIRD century has been regarded as the most important. The Church then found herself in a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-ethnic world, and she was not favoured by the Emperors and thus not corrupted by the world. She was free to be herself before she was trapped into conformity to alien principles from Greek culture and Roman law by her being adopted by Constantine the Great and his successors. So it is to this THIRD century that we must look for guidance as to the Shape and Content of Liturgy, for Doctrine that is not over defined, and for freedom to be her true self in a rich cultural environment.
Further, the Church of today has to recognize that she has been through FOUR major revolutions and all these have shaped her and what she can be. By the Reformation, she left behind medieval ways and superstition; by the Enlightenment she began to do theology "from below" rather than "from above" and she embraced the full use of modern reason & science; by Liberal Theology (of the 19th Century & early 20th) she learned to read the Bible in new and critical ways and see it as a human document; and by the tremendous changes after the 1960s and after the impact of Vatican II, she has felt wholly free to dislodge and abandon traditional doctrine, language, discipline, liturgy, morality and canon law and introduce innovations.
FIVE is not to taken literally but rather as meaning "many" or "multiple" - many options within prayer books for all services and to suit all tastes; many permissible forms of morality; & many types of theology and doctrine (except the classic & traditional). The result of all this is that relativism is part of this modern mindset.
In the ECUSA this type of Foundation is more apparent than anywhere else in the Anglican Communion (but other Provinces are catching up quickly) for though the Bible and Tradition are respected, it is generally as Bearers of Religious Experience to be evaluated for words from God, rather than God's Word to be heard and received. Further, much of the argument for modern innovations - in doctrine and morality - concerning sexual matters is from Experience with material from the Bible arrived at by new forms of interpretation being used to support this. (How often do we hear not "Scripture, Tradition & Reason" but "Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience" where the latter two are at least as important if not more important than the first two!) It was the claim of the primary architect of the American 1979 Prayer Book that it was modelled on the early Church - especially the 3rd century and St Hippolytus' writings. We know now that this model was used in a most selective way!
Where this type of Five Point Foundation is in place, or in the process of pushing out the old norms, there is no possibility of the genuine Renewal of the Church. The new foundations have to be shaken by a great earthquake from heaven for there to be real Reformation and Recovery of the inherited biblical and orthodox Faith!
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 7:42 AM CDT permalink
Sermon for July 4th
"Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name. He is thy praise, and he is thy God, that hath done for thee these great and terrible things, which thine eyes have seen" (Deuteronomy 10:20-21).
In the late 1960s, the television show Star Trek ran an episode that was meant to be a parable. The Enterprise had encountered a more or less duplicate Earth, with this exception-instead of a modern civilization, the crew observed two warring tribes, the Yangs and the Coms, slowly exterminating one another.
Captain Kirk, accompanied by his usual helpers, landed in what should have been "North America" and "the United States" to investigate. To make a long story short, it turned out that on this twin Earth the Cold War had gone hot, so that the Yangs were all that was left of the Yankees, and the Coms were all that was left of the Communists. Both groups has slipped into an utter primitivism, so that the hunted Yankees, living in the wild, had adopted a way of life very similar to that of the American Indians when the first European settlers arrived, included medicine men, totems, and secret words of power.
The original point of this story, in the 1960s, was the pious hope that World War III and a nuclear exchange could be avoided. And, so far, in the intervening years, that hope has come true. What's interesting on this Independence Day, however, is the fact that we did not avoid another kind of war-an internal war of traditional Americans against revisionist Americans, a spiritual war of vain and arrogant human beings against God Almighty.
Both God and the devil are in the details, and in the details of that old television show an unintended prophecy was made. The totem of the barbaric Yangs' medicine man was a tattered American flag. His secret words of power were the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, reduced to an ignorant, illiterate jumble, in which the words "We the People" had become the gibberish "Wi plan ista."
And this is the unintended prophecy: our moral and cultural disorder, based in our growing national alienation from God, is much more likely to reduce our beloved flag to a totem for savages and to transform our Constitution into useless gibberish than any foreign enemy, than any technology of modern war. In our contempt for God's Word and Commandments; in our contempt for the family, for the marriage bed, and for the innocent life conceived there; and in our contempt for the hard lessons to be learned from the history of Christendom and from the history of our own nation, we are already more primitive and more barbaric than the imaginary Yangs of the 1960s.
When I say "our," of course, I mean for us to think of ourselves as a single nation, under God, rather than as a collection of disconnected human atoms with no interest in anyone but themselves or a loose association of Pontius Pilates, who wash their hands of any responsibility for whatever their government or their neighbors do. As a nation, we are being dragged farther and farther from God and from God's protection every day, and the real question is, are we resisting this hijacking of our nation as well as we can, so that there is no doubt that we are, at least, being dragged kicking and screaming?
Those who would expel the God of the Bible from American life have been and remain well organized, but can the same be said of us? The typical enemy of God (and do not doubt that the celebrity, media mogul, politician, judge, or plain neighborhood slob who rebels against God's truth and righteousness, and would deny them to others is God's enemy) lies awake nights thinking of ways to fight against God's kingdom and to undermine the faith and morality of his neighbors. On the other hand, can it be said of us that we lie awake nights thinking of ways to serve God and his kingdom or to support our neighbors in the divine obedience that gives eternal life? The practical results say "no."
But we do have an alternative to watching helplessly as our nation sinks into barbarism. We can get help, and that help is the Lord God Almighty. We can begin what amounts to a counter-revolution in our very own homes and with our very own families by begging him for the restoration and renewal of a submissive awe and wonder before the Almighty and Eternal God: namely, for that gift of the Holy Ghost that the Bible calls "the fear of the Lord." When we, and our parents, and our children, and our husbands and wives have received this gift and cultivated it, we will be able to begin keeping again the commandment that God makes both for individual persons and for nations: "Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name."
George Washington once predicted that if the oath "so help me God" every became meaningless, our nation, our government, and our system of justice would crumble, and his prediction has been proven true before our very own eyes in our very own lifetime. But decay into the modern Sodom and Gomorrah need not be the end of the American story. When we fear God again, we will be grateful to God again, recognizing that every good thing about ourselves and our nation is his doing alone. As Moses reminded another rebellious people: "He is thy praise, and he is thy God, that hath done for thee these great and terrible things, which thine eyes have seen."
God can save us if that is his will, and all of our lives, publicly and privately, should be dedicated to seeking God's good will for our nation's conversion and for its rescue from self-destruction. The more we love the United States of America, the more we must love God, who is the sole surety of a person or a nation.
A place to start, today, is with an experiment. On this Independence Day, as you hear praises heaped upon the United States of America, take each of those praises in turn and prefix it with "God did this." Some of those praises will be consistent with the God of the Bible and his promises. Those are the things for which we must thank God and for which we must fight. On the other hand, some of those praises will be unimaginable as the work of God, since they will praise actions or states of life that we know God has forbidden in his commandments. These are the sins for which we must beg forgiveness, and it is against these things that we must fight.
Continue this experiment for a while, and you will discover in quite practical terms the nature of a real and true patriotism. What God wills is the only health of a nation, and those who resist God, whatever they say about loving their country with their mouths, hate their country just as much as they hate the God who made it: "Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name. He is thy praise, and he is thy God, that hath done for thee these great and terrible things, which thine eyes have seen." In other words, Happy Independence Day.
(WRITTEN BY LOU TARSITANO)
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 7:38 AM CDT permalink
Friday, July 04, 2003
Discipline, Morality or Doctrine: To which of these do modern Innovations belong?
Adelphoi,
(in part answer to queries!)
A discussion starter.
It is claimed by some that the question as to whether or not the church should bless same-sex partnerships belongs to the sphere of morality (i.e., what is right and wrong) rather than to doctrine (i.e., church teaching). It is also claimed that the question as to whether the church ordains women as presbyters or not belongs to the sphere of discipline (i.e., what a national church is free under God to do for edification of the whole - see Article XXXIV of the Thirty Nine Articles) rather than to doctrine.
In other words there is no primary doctrinal question involved in either of these modern innovations that the ECUSA and other parts of the Anglican Communion are embracing.
I suggest that underlying both these questions as far as the Church is concerned there is a major doctrinal issue which contains both the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the doctrine of man.
Man is made in the image and after the likeness of God, and further man is made of two sexes, male and female. How male and female relate to each other in the church and how they are ordered one to the other in marriage is meant to reflect (in a dim human way, but a real way nevertheless) the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity (of the Father, together with his only-begotten Son and with his Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father through the Son).
Each of the Three Persons is equal to the Others in Godhead and Majesty; and likewise male and female persons are equal in worth and dignity. The Three Persons are in an eternal, dynamically fixed order of relation - first the Father, secondly the Son and thirdly, the Holy Ghost. This is the internal reality of God as God is unto himself and how God reveals his identity and relations to us. Likewise male and female are ordered in such a way that the male is first and the woman is second (and children third).
In practice reflecting God's plan this means that in the Church & Household of God men and women are equal before God as his children and they each have eternal worth; but, that there are ordered in such a manner that the male is first, which means that he alone (not all males but the one called) has the headship (thus is pastor of all). In human relations male and female are ordered towards each other in a divine complementarity of equality and in this relation, the male is first in order either in matrimony or in the congregation of Christ's flock. How this is worked out (discipline) will differ from place to place but the doctrinal basis is that of Order.
Because of this divine ordering, sexual relations between persons of the same sex, or between persons of opposite sexes outside of a God-given relation, are against divine Order and thus wrong in nature and in grace. Nevertheless, because of sin in the world and because of imperfections in human nature and persons, it may seem at times as though what is unnatural is acceptable and even commendable. In fact, disorder may be claimed as an aspect of order in a fallen world! The presence of aberrations from the norm, however, does not disturb the reality of divine ordering, although it does and should much affect the way the Church evangelises, teaches and exercises pastoral care.
So the doctrine of Divine Order is primary for God is the Creator, Redeemer, Judge and Lord of all. We are to reflect his order rather than seek to make him the author of our disorder. And we are to ensure that the Church's morality and discipline in all sexual relations is to flow from Order and be motivated by Love.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 10:57 AM CDT permalink
Is Jesus "The Son of the Carpenter & Mary", or is he, "The Carpenter, the Son of Mary"?
The Gospel in the Common Lectionary for next Sunday (Trinity III) in the Church of England is Mark 6:1-13.
In Mark 6:3 there is an important question from the crowd in Nazareth, but in different manuscripts of the Gospel it occurs in two forms:
The form which could cause offence is: "Is not this the carpenter the son of Mary.?" And the form which causes no particular offence is: "Is not this the son of the carpenter and of Mary.?"
Most English translations follow the first of these possibilities as being used by the more important collection of manuscripts.
However, the well known Church Father, Origen, in his treatise "Against Celsus" VI.36, strongly asserts that in none of the Gospels is Jesus called a carpenter. Thus the copies of the Gospels which he had contained only the second of the possibilities, that Jesus is the son of a Carpenter and also of Mary.
The parallel text of Matthew 13:55 provides the question in this form: "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary?." Here there is neither an assertion or denial that Jesus was a carpenter; and significantly Jesus is not called "son of Mary."
To call Jesus "son of Mary" is very strange in a Jewish context where a boy was said to be the son of his father. It is possible that the designation as "son of Mary" is an indication that there was rumour or knowledge in Nazareth that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. In other words this is an indirect reference to the virginal conception of Jesus by Mary.
Further, in the ancient world to describe someone as a carpenter, a manual worker, was to confine them to the lower orders of society, from where great teachers, prophets and leaders did not arise. To be the son of and to rise above the station of manual worker was fine, but to be a manual work was not fine.
It seems highly probable that what Mark originally wrote was "carpenter, son of Mary" for this was the truth of the matter. Jesus did have a manual trade and he did not have a biological human father. It also seems that Matthew - aware of the feelings in Judaism and the Gentile world - softened the original Marcan words to make them more palatable. Further, it seems that some copyists of Mark's Gospel adjusted the original Marcan words to conform to what was in Matthew.
To assert that Jesus had not been trained in the rabbinic schools but had worked as a carpenter is to take him off the map of respectability!
To assert that he had no biological human father is to raise all kinds of suspicions about his identity!
But if it be true that Jesus was a manual worker and that he had no biological father then these facts must be asserted as part of the doctrine of the Incarnation, wherein the Son of God not only took human nature but also became a servant , for us and for our salvation.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 10:52 AM CDT permalink
Wednesday, July 02, 2003
Three innovations together
In answer to questions, I offer the following as a further discussion starter:
Why THREE modern innovations, though different, belong together.
It should not really surprise us that three innovations in modern church life have occurred within the same time period and are interlocked and interweaved in various ways. These are the ordination of women to the presbyterate, the blessing of marriages involving a divorced person, and the blessing of partnerships of "gay" couples.
The causes of the introduction of these innovations into the "liberal" Churches in the latter part of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st are many and varied. Chief amongst them are the human rights movement of the 20th century moving into the church from secular society and the abandonment within the Church of the doctrine of Order.
By the human rights movement, energy and reasons have been supplied to women and to men who support them to press for the inclusion of women within the ordained Ministry of the Church. It has been argued that women are the equal of men, that the professions are now opened up to women, and that before God all people are equal and should be treated justly. From this standpoint the Bible has been re-interpreted so as to support this innovation.
Also, through the human rights movement, energy and reasons have been given to divorced persons and those who support them to press for the Church to change her received doctrine and discipline concerning those who may be married in church and receive God's blessing. It has been argued that divorced persons deserve a second chance at happiness in a blessed "relationship" and that the teaching of Jesus does not forbid such marriages.
Finally, because of their use of the human rights movement and its success in changing attitudes and practices in modern society, those who wish to establish the rights of "gay" and "lesbian" persons to live together in same-sex partnerships with the approval of the State and to be blessed by the Church therein have been very successful. This success has also been because they have successfully conveyed the message that some persons have an inbuilt orientation towards the same sex and that provision should be made for the exercise and practice of this in faithful partnerships.
It does not really matter for our purposes here just how each movement has used and benefited from the strong human rights movement of modern times. The fact is that they have done so and done so very successfully that anyone who questions their achievements runs the risk of being dubbed a bigot or homophobic or prejudiced.
However, it was not enough in the churches for the human rights movement to blow away the cobwebs and change the ethos and atmosphere. The Christian doctrine of sexual relations, inherited from the Old and New Testaments and enshrined in patristic teaching and ancient canon law, had to be abandoned - or more subtly had to be reworked and re-interpreted to make it speak with a new voice in support on the innovations.
The Christian doctrine is that of Order - the ordering according to a divine plan of the relations of male and female persons both in nature (creation) and in the new covenant established by the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. This Order is a pale but real reflection in human relations of the Ordered Eternal Relations that constitute the Three Persons of the LORD God, who is a Trinity in Unity and a Unity in Trinity, and who always exists as Three but in this order - first the Father, second the Only-Begotten Son and third the Holy Ghost who proceeds from the Father and the Son. While all the Three Persons are equal in Godhead and Majesty, they are different in Order, with the Father eternally the First.
Man (mankind/humankind) is made in the image of God and after his likeness. This includes his being created with and in Order. God created man, male and female created he them. Though man and women, male and female, are equal in worth and dignity and have a God-given, designed complementarity and are ordered towards each other for procreation and companionship, they are not equal in order, for it is the male first and the female second. This does not mean that the female is inferior to the male but that in the divine ordering she is second in order, even as the Son is subordinate - second in order - to the Father.
By this doctrine women are not called to be bishops/pastors because they are second in order and by this doctrine same-sex relations are contrary to nature and order. And by the doctrine of one flesh in the union of the male and female the remarriage of divorced persons is prohibited (as it was in canon law of the C of E until 2003).
In the modern Church, we have re-written the dogma of the Holy Trinity and departed from the doctrine of Order and thus we have allowed ourselves to be dominated in our thinking and decisions by the secular human rights movement (which though it has much importance in the modern world in certain spheres is not to be the basis of Church doctrine). There is no way of holding back innovations if we are basically dominated by human rights principles and we have little or no theological dogma.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 9:49 AM CDT permalink
A WORD FROM THE BISHOP of ALBANY NY State of the election of a Gay Bishop
(he is one of the few bishops who seeks to be biblically based)
It is with deep sadness that I write to the people and clergy of the diocese. No doubt most of you have heard that the Diocese of New Hampshire has elected a person who is an openly professed, practicing homosexual to become their bishop. Of course, Episcopal elections that occur within 120 days of a General Convention must be ratified by a majority vote of the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops.
I do not know the Bishop-elect, the Reverend Canon Gene Robinson and therefore have no feelings about him personally. What I do know is public knowledge; that he was married with two children, divorced, and subsequently entered an openly homosexual relationship with another man. If his election is ratified by the General Convention it means that the Episcopal Church is clearly approving the kind of relationship of which Gene Robinson is a part. Such approval would have a significant impact on the Convention's consideration of the blessing of same sex unions which is a major issue already on the agenda.
It is my hope that the General Convention will not ratify this election and I will join with those who oppose it, not because of the individual or the process but because it represents a radical departure from the clear teaching of the Holy Scriptures, the doctrine and tradition of the Episcopal Church, the resolution of the 1998 Lambeth Conference of Anglican Bishops, countless resolutions of the General Convention and the expressed will of the Anglican Primates at their recent meeting in Brazil. The approval of this election will have serious consequences in our relationship with the rest of the Anglican Communion as well as in our own National Church.
Certainly all Christians are called to stand up for justice and civil rights, for non-discrimination against any persons or people; to love and care for all people as children of God. But Christians are not called to uphold or even tolerate all behavior. The approval and blessing of sexual intimacy, heterosexual or homosexual, outside of traditional marriage of one man and one woman is not a question of justice or civil rights, it is a question of morality. And morality cannot be decided by a majority vote of any group or body, including the General Convention. In all fairness, I must acknowledge that many of those who want to change the teaching of the church on human sexuality are people of faith. In an effort to recognize this and prevent a disastrous decision at the General Convention, the House of Bishops of the Fourth Province, following the lead of the Theology Committee of the National House of Bishops, unanimously approved affirmations which say essentially that there is no consensus on this issue and we should not try to resolve it by legislation. These affirmations, which will be sent to the General Convention as a resolution, were endorsed by the Fourth Province Synod which consists of the Lay and Clergy Deputies to General Convention and the Bishops of the twenty dioceses of the province. Originally crafted by bishops on both sides of the issue, I believe they are a way forward without dividing the church, defeating our evangelistic efforts and fracturing our relationship with the rest of the Anglican Communion.
After having said all that, and there is obviously much more that could be said, I am still saddened by this turn of events but I am not discouraged or dismayed. God is faithful and our ultimate trust is in God, not in the institutional church. The church is not infallible =96 she can and has made mistakes. But the church is indefectible; that is, her purposes will not ultimately be thwarted, God will prevail. That means that God will win in the end and our job is to be faithful in the meantime. I am calling the faithful to be faithful; to stand firm in the faith of our mothers and fathers, the authority of the Holy Scriptures and the historic teaching and tradition once delivered to us by the saints. We have a goodly heritage in this diocese and an unlimited potential. Let us not grow weary in well doing; let us continue our works of mercy and evangelism. Let us press on toward the heavenly prize by working and praying harder, by giving more liberally of ourselves and our resources and remembering, that neither death nor life nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:38-39)
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
posted by John at 9:43 AM CDT permalink
