From the Niagara Anglican (page 8):
Have the gays of the Diocese achieved their goals? Not really. Okay, let’s be honest, not at all. The Diocese of Niagara has agreed upon and published the Niagara Rite of Blessing of Civil marriage. Right? No, actually. This document is to be used at the discretion of individual priests to bless, for example, a gay couple already married in the civil courts. Priests have been able to bless most anything (such as furniture, hymn books, pets) and anyone (such as those going on a long trip) so why was all this effort necessary to enable them to bless same-sex unions? Furthermore, is anyone performing this rite?
But there now is a movement towards the development of a liberal breakaway group. More walking. This concept has matured enough to reach my generally un-political ears. Here is a paraphrase of a recent email:
“The leaders of the Diocese are doing their best but what’s happening is that many genuine seekers of God’s Spirit are being left on the side of the church’s road-way simply because they are homosexual. After years of unsuccessful struggle to make the Anglican Church of Canada inclusive, there is now a very serious call to begin an alternative (liberal) church that expresses no protest, politics, or need for property. They are people who simply want to worship God together by sharing the scriptures and breaking bread in justice and love.”
This tends to confirm my suspicion that General Synod, by neither approving nor condemning the blessing of same-sex unions, has stirred discontent in both conservative and liberal camps. While the stubbornly optimistic are prepared to soldier on under the guise of compromise, the more strident, hot-blooded – if I may be allowed such an oxymoron – Anglicans are still straining in opposite directions.
So while I find it difficult to image a more liberal diocese than Niagara, clearly for some, Niagara is simply too orthodox. For how many, I wonder? Between 3 and 5? More than 5? Surely not more than 10. Will they try to take their buildings with them? Will the diocese find itself in the peculiar position of suing liberals as well as conservatives while trying to persuade the apathetic centre to continue paying for lawyers?
The parish I attend has a potting shed that it might be willing to rent to a breakaway Anglican hyper-liberal cartel.
But David, you forget! If we rent the potting shed, we have to share the proceeds with the Dio. St.H’s and the Dio would have to form a committee to discuss the suitability of “the renters”, and then come to agreement about budgeting maintenance, car park usage. and tractor usage for mowing shared lawn space.Oh me, oh my, I’m in hysterics already!! The potential is staggering!!
Good grief!
the cathedral will be completely empty now.
This may be a blessing in disguise. Remember Mark 10:17-31. The rich man could not bring himself to follow the instructions given to him by Jesus and he walked away. Interestingly, Jesus let him go.
Perhaps something similar is happening here. Those pushing the homosexual agenda are not willing to follow Jesus and so they are now threatening to walk away. I say we follow the example set by Jesus and let them go. Keep in mind that His Church will always be here for them to return to if they ever change their minds.
So what is the blessing in all of this? The heretical influences that are presently infecting His Church will be lessoned, thus allowing the True Faith a better chance of being proclaimed.
You’re assuming, of course, that greater liberalism is the goal of gay Anglicans. In fact, you might take comfort in knowing that many I spoke to were just as appalled as you are at the theological content of the Niagara Rite.
Geoff, although a gross generalisation, yes I was assuming that since justifying – from a Christian perspective – acting on same-sex attraction does seem easier from the liberal end of things.
Your comment prompted me to have another look at the Niagara rite: I searched in vain for theological content. I’m not a theologian, of course, so perhaps that’s why I missed it.
Well any rite has theological ramifications – the question is are they positive ones. And my point is that many gay Anglicans – whom you seem to expect to be eating this up – would agree with you that the answer in this case is no.
You’re certainly not alone in assuming a linear continuum running from “orthodox” to “liberal” with gay Anglicans being happier the closer the church is to the latter end. And given that, it’s no wonder you’d be baffled by this column – what more could they possibly want! But the fact is that many gay Anglicans would just as happily tweak the pronouns in the BCP service. The right has repeated its straw man – that our goal is to gut the Christian doctrine of marriage – so often that it believes it, and is now bemused that gays aren’t happy now that +Michael has given us what we “want” – forgetting that all along that that was only ever their caricature!
I am still baffled: why would your most ardent supporters give you a caricature of what you want rather than what you actually do want?
You’re baffled that the Diocese of Niagara would promulgate a theologically hollow liturgy? I’d expect no less! “Ardent supporters” or not, that doesn’t mean they or their document share the doctrinal scruples of most gay people in the pews. Whatever you may think about their views on sexual morality, few are modalists who would care to “bind” themselves to their spouses “in the name of God, Creator, Word, and Spirit.” And this is the trouble with the use of “orthodoxy” as a euphemism for “Lambeth I.10.”
No, not at all. As you surmise, I am associating a looseness in the Biblical interpretation of sexual ethics with the looseness of interpretation of many central Christian beliefs.
In liberal dioceses, modalism is certainly something that seems to go hand in hand with the desire to bless same-sex unions.
I’ll take your word for it that this is not so much the case of those in the pew – it does surprise me, though.
“In liberal dioceses, modalism is certainly something that seems to go hand in hand with the desire to bless same-sex unions.”
Ah, but you see you’ve put your finger on it. This sentence is redudant – it basically says that the two go together for those for whom they go together. I’m sure if the Diocese of Niagara had the opportunity to rewrite the marriage service itself the result would be just as pathetic. Does that mean anyone who believes in marriage at all is flaky-heterodox? It is theological laziness that is the problem, a problem on which no one sexual orientation has an exclusive claim. It may well be that most of those who advocate modalism are also in favour of same-sex blessings, but since most gay Anglicans I know are staunchly Anglo-Catholic, the reverse could hardly be said.
“As you surmise, I am associating a looseness in the Biblical interpretation of sexual ethics with the looseness of interpretation of many central Christian beliefs.”
That’s kind of the problem though, isn’t it? The genital requirements for marriage aren’t a “central Christian belief” but a technical question about the administration of one of the Church’s “lesser” sacraments, so the association begs the question. One can find the notion that God blesses only heterosexual unions theologically questionable without having to cross one’s fingers during the Creed, Catechism, Prayer of Consecration, Baptismal service, or any other expression of our faith. You might not know it if you’re taking Niagara as your sample, but then that’s rather like me pointing to Nigeria as evidence that all those on the “conservative” side support the state-sponsored mass murder of gays.
It’s telling that in Louie Crew’s legislative database on General Convention, Bishop Ackerman’s 2003 “Endorse Certain Historic Anglican Doctrines and Policies” is categorized as an action “neither favourable nor unfavourable to lesbigays” and some of the bishops who voted with +Keith to uphold the Articles, Athanasian Creed, and all that good stuff, were equally consistent in their record of voting for SSBs.
Not al all. Saying smoking and lung cancer seem to go hand in hand is not tautological and neither is the assertion that liberalism and same-sex blessings go hand in hand. Liberalism bends Scripture to fit its own ends: it erodes Scriptural injunctions against homosexual sexual activity just as it does Scriptural pronouncements on the basics of the faith.
I should have thought that the gay Anglo-Catholics that you cite, on seeing the theologically dubious company they find themselves in, would be stirred into more rigorously questioning the compatibility of their sexual activity with Scripture. After all, if Niagara gets just about everything else wrong, why would they get this right?
Yes, because it is liberal.
Obviously not. You have confused cause and effect. Niagara’s liberalism causes it not only to look kindly on same sex-blessings, but also to muddle just about anything else it does.
It is holding a low view of Scripture that is the problem, not theological laziness. There are endless theological position papers being produced on SSBs; their authors aren’t lazy.
Homosexual activity is an activity; obviously it isn’t part of “core doctrine”. Making one’s living as an assassin isn’t part of core doctrine either, but it is an activity that the church wouldn’t bless, since murder is forbidden in Scripture – as is homosexual sex.
since murder is forbidden in Scripture – as is homosexual sex.
Well, certainly SOME “homosexual sex” is forbidden (as is far MORE heterosexual sex!)
But we’re talking about the blessing of a marriage of two persons of the same sex. Evidence of forbidding, please?
[NB: a simple repetition of the “Clobber Verses” ain’t gonna cut it.]
“Saying smoking and lung cancer seem to go hand in hand is not tautological and neither is the assertion that liberalism and same-sex blessings go hand in hand.”
You’ve shifted gears here, though: I agree that theological liberalism and same-sex blessings are linked, but that wasn’t what you were saying. You were saying that christological heresy and same-sex blessings go hand in hand. You’re also sliding back into your tacit and mistaken assumption – the one that prompted this thread – that the only people who support SSBs are “liberals.” That those who are weak on Trinitarian orthodoxy also tend to support SSBs does not allow you to infer that support for SSBs can only exist in a heterodox framework – it is you who are confusing cause and effect here.
“Niagara’s liberalism causes it not only to look kindly on same sex-blessings, but also to muddle just about anything else it does.”
Precisely – you acknowledge that Niagara is generally theologically incompetent, yet instead of attributing the poor quality of the rite to this incompetence, you assume it to be a necessary symptom of having a rite for same-sex blessings – you do not consider the possibility of a non-modalist, Nicene rite for SSBs. As I say, if Niagara issued a particularly bad rite of marriage, you would dismiss this as a failure on the diocese’s part and not a reflection on marriage in general. But when they come up with a bad rite for same-sex blessings, you take this to mean that any rite for same-sex blessings is necessarily bad. But all it means is that if you leave Niagara in charge of it, they’ll drop the ball – but that’s true of anything, including heterosexual marriage, and doesn’t mean a better job couldn’t be done.
“It is holding a low view of Scripture that is the problem, not theological laziness.”
In any case, my response holds: neither of those problems is something that necessarily goes with SSBs. It’s funny how we tend to think interpreting the Bible is always something other people do, and yet it is impossible to read the Bible without interpretation. Assuming they take out life insurance and are fine with women reading the lessons in church, “reasserters” cannot simply quote the Bible and expect it to be self-evident that same-sex relationships are sinful independent of any explanation for why on earth God is supposed to condemn those who are made gay simply for playing the hand they’ve been dealt with as much integrity as they can.
Well, I would say liberalism and heresy are also linked; so if you admit liberalism and same-sex blessings are linked, the only way to maintain your point is to claim no connection between liberalism and heresy.
I did say above that – although this hasn’t been my experience – I’d take your word on it that many gay Anglo-Catholics otherwise hold to orthodox Christian beliefs. I do think there is an inherent contradiction in this position, though.
“Incompetence” was your word; I think they probably have some perfectly competent theologians – to whom they presumably didn’t listen when the rite was put together. The poor quality of the rite is what you find upsetting: I agree it’s a poor quality, but we differ in that I would like it no more – perhaps less – if it were of a high quality, whereas you would. I don’t think it should exist at all.
True, but my interpretation of what the Bible has to say on sexual ethics is only what the church has taught – and, for the most part continues to teach – for over a millennium. Those who think this should change need a very good reason for doing so – and they don’t have one, or we’d all be convinced.
A few points:
I don’t think the evidence that some people have been “made gay” is particularly conclusive. Even if it were, though, your argument doesn’t work, because you could substitute any number of human failings for “gay” in what you have said and justify almost any behaviour.
I don’t think God does condemn those who are gay, nor do others who hold to the received teaching of Scripture on sexual ethics. God does judge sinful activity – yours, mine, a gay person’s – but provides an avenue of reconciliation through Christ’s atoning sacrifice. That doesn’t mean he winks at the sinful activity and is happy for us to continue in it, though.
If, when, you say “playing the hand they’ve been dealt with as much integrity as they can” you mean be celibate, then I agree; I have a feeling that’s not what you were getting at, though.
“Well, I would say liberalism and heresy are also linked; so if you admit liberalism and same-sex blessings are linked, the only way to maintain your point is to claim no connection between liberalism and heresy.”
Hunh? That doesn’t follow at all. The fact that you can link heresy and same-sex blessings together in less than six degrees of separation doesn’t mean that they’re somehow inseparable.
“Those who think this should change need a very good reason for doing so – and they don’t have one, or we’d all be convinced.”
All the evidence has been laid out; some have chosen to avert their gaze. If nothing else, the work of Tobias Haller has put paid to the notion that a consistent reading of Scripture can support the traditional position. The conservative refutation of the claims that have been made is conspicuously outstanding.
“I don’t think the evidence that some people have been “made gay” is particularly conclusive.”
On the contrary, it’s well-established. When I say “made” I don’t claim to know (or care) whether my sexual orientation was hardwired at ensoulment or developed as a result of early environmental factors. It’s enough to say that it occurred early in the game and certainly without my having a say in it. As far as a moral conclusion goes, that’s really all we need to know about aetiology.
“I don’t think God does condemn those who are gay, nor do others who hold to the received teaching of Scripture on sexual ethics.”
Ethics doesn’t come into it – what on earth is the ethical difference between a gay relationship and a straight one? (And what can “the received teaching” be on a form of relationship that has only developed as we know it long after the finalization of the Canon?) Ultimately, “reasserters” have to explain why anatomy equals ethics, why all of the graces and virtues of marriage – all that goes out the window if you don’t have a matching set under the hood. And they can’t do that – or we’d all be convinced!
Geoff,
It seems unlikely that we’ll agree and I don’t think there is any middle ground.
I’ll let you have the last word: thank you for the interesting and civilised exchange.
“It seems unlikely that we’ll agree…”
If you cannot answer these questions, then why cling to your position?
Blanket assertions such as this are the real reason why it is unlikely that you and David will agree. I also suspect your presuppositions concerning the origin and trustworthiness of Scripture are quite different than David’s – regardless of questions of interpretation or exegesis.