The opinions expressed in the content of this article are the opinions of the author. The inferences you make are your responsibility.
This article by D. R. (Bob) MacDonald addresses the dialogue of distress that has begun because of the decision of the Diocese of New Westminster on the blessing of same gender relationships. Representatives of eight parishes which walked out of diocesan synod in New Westminster following the announcement that synod had voted in favour of same-sex blessings have sent a reply to the Archbishop of Canterbury following his June 18 letter to them. Most letters can be found at http://www.anglican.ca/news/online/
Brothers and sisters, greet one another with a holy kiss. (Romans 16:16)
You have no need that any man should teach you. With this statement undergirding the authority of the anointing (Greek chrisma) we have in Christ, John effectively questions all human authority (1 John 2:27). The same author in the same letter defines God - first, as light, and second as love (1:5, 4:8,16). We are to walk in the light (1:7) and love one another (3:11).
A. How shall we teach each other in these days that are ours? What authority shall we accept?
Paul in Romans 13:1-7 advises submission to the existing authority of the Diaspora synagogues - because God is One and is the God of both Jew and Gentile (3:29-30). (This explanation developed by Mark Nanos, Mystery of Romans 1996, seems the best interpretation of that difficult paragraph which in full abstraction to the empire and emperor loses its context and takes on meaning which is insupportable in general.). There is a tension between John and Paul's advice. For us they have the authority of the apostles and the authority of the written word. In spite of the invitation to know the teaching of our anointing, we would not know this instruction if it we did not accept John's apostolic words. And Paul instructing the gentiles of Rome to defer to the scruples of the non-Christ-believing authorities in the Diaspora, still expects those who know the authority of Christ in the Spirit (which I must assume is the same unction that John speaks of) to submit to human authority even though their freedom in Christ does not demand it. So we are not rudderless, but we have a human teacher who tells us we do not need him and we have an apostle of freedom who advises submission to the apostolic decree and the established authorities. Such a beginning of tension prior even to introducing the topic. And as usual, the authority question cuts both ways and can be used to shore up either position. As in my 1994 essay on this topic, I will explore some questions and images that arise for me within the dialogue. Most arguments seem to presume an answer prior to their start. I wish rather to stimulate self-questioning on all parts with or without prejudice. I am surprised with the direction that the Spirit has taken me. You may judge as you wish whether my work is in Christ or not. You may also judge if I am rhetorically or doctrinally out to lunch.
B. How do we learn from the Spirit?
John the evangelist tells us that the Spirit gives us the things of Christ. He will take what is mine and show it to you (16:14-15). Can we trust each other to interpret the teaching of the Spirit?
C. What changes have we seen in the things of Christ Jesus over the past 200 years?
Scholarship has brought us a myriad of discussions and questions, some better, some worse. We have however, recognized together that slavery is not a divinely ordered state of affairs, and we have accepted women as persons, teachers, priests, and bishops. There has in this been deep searching and questioning of the previously held opinions on the authority of the written words of scripture, though both these distinctions: slave-free, man-woman, were well known and addressed in freedom in the ancient texts (Galatians 3:28). The Jew-gentile relationship, first on Paul's list, has not fared well in Christendom, but overall until recently, fared much better in Islam.
While the social and liturgical issues around the abolition of slavery are largely accepted (though abuse of persons in this area is by no means ended), the social and liturgical place of woman in equality with men is far from universal in the church or in the world. In the former, the abuse is personal and economic. For the latter, abuse is still common and is similarly personal, economic, and sexual. Not surprising that circumcision is the sign of the Jewish covenant and that there are significant regulations on manumission of slaves - recognizing also the love that can develop even in an unequal relationship. In master-slave and male-female relationships, an inequality in law and strength may also be present. Now we are forced, in a situation far from consensus, to look at relationships in love between persons who are not of opposite genders.
D. What changes happened to Israel in the first century?
Two spring to mind: the removal of animal sacrifice, and the relaxation of purity laws especially re circumcision for gentiles in Israel (as determined by the early Christ-believing Jews).
Animal sacrifice ceased for Israel because of the destruction of the temple, the only place where its practice was ordained (the place where the name dwells, Deuteronomy 12:11, Psalm 74:7). It is still practiced widely in Islam. The issue in animal sacrifice is one of guilt and transference - a psychological power. Gift and protection are also in view. Where the perfect gift has been given as it has in the death of Jesus, there is no longer any obligation towards other powers that be. The removal of power relationships is an important aspect of human relations among those who differ.
The issue of Torah, the works of the law, is one of purity. Romans was written in part out of the desire in Paul to preserve unity in the face of pressures to disunity. The compromise of the apostolic decree (Acts 15) was one of his tools in this battle. The gentiles coming into Israel as equals in Christ were expected to conform to minimal purity rules so as not to offend Jews - out of deference to their faith in God, not out of moral or legal obligation. The disputes over the need for circumcision as completion of the proselyte process were severe. Many did but many did not accept Jesus as Messiah and the gentiles' effective circumcision in him (Colossians 2:11). The changes for Jews were resisted in that first century, the resulting split eventually producing the two religions we know today as Christianity and Judaism (to speak in a very oversimplified fashion).
It seems to me, looking at these issues, that we must examine our history more deeply and understand how we use the power we have, how we learn about our person - who we are - and how we choose to submit to authority. I have hedged this discussion with issues of change in two centuries which have caused sharp disagreement and division in both.
Brothers and sisters, greet one another with a holy kiss. (Romans 16:16)
E. What does God teach us about sexual behaviour?
Much in every way. The surface of Scripture is about fruitfulness (Genesis 1:11, 20, 24 by fiat, 28 by commandment), yet self-indulgence, seduction, deceit (e.g. Genesis 38, Matthew 1:3) are all portrayed in its early chapters. I think it could be argued that the use and abuse of sex is evident in every book of the Bible. Three prostitutes are named in the line of Messiah (Matthew 1). And throughout, there is a hidden charism, from the mercy and loving kindness of God to the ecstasy of the apostolic word. To you therefore who believe is the preciousness (1 Peter 2:7).
F. Who is pure that would judge these behaviours?
Certainly not the Church (or the world's) hierarchy who have in ignorance or knowledge allowed abusive behaviour against slaves, women, and children over the years. I would hesitate to leave this out because the learning of our human sexuality is so important to each individual. Every created thing is good and to be received with thanksgiving. (1 Timothy 4:4). How does a person come to know the hidden gift of God: the mercy to the Hebrews and then by the Holy Spirit through our own Bridegroom of blood in the New Covenant. (See the story concerning Moses' wife, Zippora, in Exodus 4:24 ff.)
Your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19). Paul has a clear equal teaching on the sexual relations between a man and a woman in 7:1-7. (Note how this is expressed in terms of power.) Then in verse 8, he notes his own gift, but without comment except to say some have a gift one way and some another. It is traditional to assume that for Paul there were two options, marriage or asceticism. But what is his asceticism - is it not hidden? Why should we assume we know what it is or what it is not. We fear what is hidden and suppress what we don't understand. This makes us poor judges. If anything is to be understood from Romans 1-2 it is that our judgments condemn us (2:1).
The letters linked above contain poor judgments. Archbishop Carey's opinion is: "I do not accept that homosexual relationships can be treated as being on a par with the man-woman ideal portrayed in Holy Scripture." I would be hard pressed to know what he means by the man-woman ideal. Is it Abraham and his many concubines (1 Chronicles 1:32, Genesis 25:5)? Jacob and his two wives? And for comparisons, I note David's comment on the death of Jonathon. (David hardly portrays the man-woman ideal but he lauds the relationship between himself and Jonathan as love "more wonderful than the love of a woman". 2 Samuel 1:26)
How does a man know what is par? Who has the handicap here? What gives one man's judgment validity in the hearing of others? There are many bureaucratic answers possible, and it may be that again the network of Diaspora authority should be submitted to and in fact is by many. I would note that Paul speaks of ascetic marriages in 1 Corinthians 7 also. Who is to say what gifts God has in Christ for consecrated relationships?
Now I cannot find some of the linked letters - it looks as if one letter has been withdrawn from the web. The second difficulty I wish to point out was in that letter and others. This is the use of the terms gay and lesbian by those who consider the named behaviour immoral. One cannot accept a person by name without accepting the implications of the name. I was in misery, I have decided to be gay. I have named myself in distinction from what you accept but in my struggle with myself and my God, I have come to this conclusion. The whole name and behaviour in the context of the person who is doing the naming is not immoral. The affront to the established opinion is clear as John Stott says in his article in Christianity today 1993: "If it ever became the official view of the Anglican church, I would find it difficult to stay in." I would have sympathized with him in 1993 - but not in 1994. And difficulty - are not many things difficult in the Church? The letters say rightly that "this issue touches on major Christian doctrines: creation, redemption, soteriology, Christology, as well as Christian ethics and pastoral care." My prayer and the prayers of my friends who cannot tell their left from their right hands also touch on these doctrines. When you touch - you touch - and while we should be gentle with the pastors, for their task is very difficult, they have not always dealt well over the past years with their charges. (See Jesus less gentle rebuke of the religious leaders of his day in Matthew 23:13: But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.) That they use the terms gay and lesbian, or even homosexual, a term that Paul would not have recognized, is an indication that they accept to some degree the statement of power that the names are making: they are impoverished names used by those who wish to avoid the abuse of power, who wish to point out their marginalization and their counter to the abuse and scorn they receive from others. Are not abuse and scorn the mark of the righteous?
It is said of Simeon that the Holy Spirit rested on him. He prophesied over Mary and Jesus about the sword that would pierce her heart and the sign to be rejected. In the area of same-sex relationships, who is rejected and why? Do we see here a sign against the church and its fear or do we see a new acceptance that we are required to come to? The imagery of the consolation of Israel - which Simeon was waiting for - is where we need to look for a positive understanding of this part of our humanity.
Brothers and sisters, greet one another with a holy kiss. (Romans 16:16)
G. Is it possible to see same sex relationships positively through Biblical imagery rather than seeing these deep friendships and love only in contrast or compared to "normal"?
The major issue spoken against in Israel is its exclusivism. All of us are guilty of it. It is easy to argue against same-sex relationships for they by their nature exclude the 'other' - that which is different from themselves. Yet even that is transcended if we look at David and Jonathon. Thy love is better than the love of a woman, David says at Jonathon's death (2 Samuel 1:26). Here the same is bound together, and David is a man after God's own heart (1 Samuel 13:14) - the one who brings many sons to Glory (Hebrews 2:10) - all images of Christ the first-born. There is uniqueness and sameness here that is filled with Glory, a word of the Spirit, that act of communion between the Father and the Son. Are all possible varieties of human able to take part in this Glory? Are there not some images of God which lend themselves to sameness rather than the other?
Exclusivism - excluding the gentiles - is part of Israel's problem (Jonah, Isaiah 49:6). But there is also the exclusion of women. In many ways though the imagery of the Bible is boy meets girl (Genesis), love deeply (Song) live happily ever after (Revelation), much of the language is male only. The male, in fact, takes the female image of bride onto himself (Romans 7, Israel and Torah as depicted in the Zohar). This can exalt the female, but there is the risk that the religion is no different than other phallic oriented religions. It is a part of Paul's argument against those who trust in the flesh (circumcision) both in the Galatian epistle in which the mother goddess in the background is ready to castrate her devotees, and in Romans where the gentiles outnumber the Jews. There are many passages where woman is excluded. One notable is the mention of the 144000 virgins who have not defiled themselves with woman. (Revelation 14:3). It is difficult to explain this as part of an ideal man-woman relationship in the Bible. Don't misunderstand my position. I have not read the Bible out of hate but out of necessity which has become love. It is deeper than its limitations, but its limitations are a real scaffolding, a historical, cultural, and necessary container for its transforming gift to us. And where woman is included, it may not mean what we think we want it to. Dr Susan Elliott speaking about Galatians 3:28: "No longer male and female (note the and) probably says, 'You're already androgynous in Christ' rather than anything about equality between men and women." (from an online seminar). The inclusiveness here suggests Genesis 1:27, the full image of God as male and female.
Rephrasing Romans (3:29), Is God the God of the heterosexual only? or the man only? or the free only? or the Jew only? No. God is the God of all. Now we know there are slave and free, Jew and gentile, male and female, and these distinctions are no more in Christ - yet they remained for Paul. What shall we do now for the distinction between homosexual and heterosexual? First we start with Christ Jesus in whom we are circumcised (Colossians 2:11), who was shamed for us (Hebrews 12:2). Are we in Christ? Whosoever will, let him or her take the water of life freely (Rev 22:17, John 4:10). What is this water? Is it the water of the word? (Ephesians 5:26) Or of the Spirit (John 7:38)? Is it the Spirit of wisdom which is in the incarnate Son, his words of eternal life? (6:68) Living water is a deep image in the Bible, both in Tanakh and New Testament. Is this stream restricted? The bride washed in it (Ephesians) is noted as a garden stream, a well of fresh water in Song 4:15. The water that flows from the temple of God is that stream flowing from the Lamb that was slain for us. (Rev 22:1). We long for this presence as a hart longs for water (Psalm 42:1) and it is ours for free.
Imagery is more than connecting the dots or free association of ideas. What were our canonical writers getting at with their images? All of them point so securely to Jesus in one way or another: as word, as sower of the word as seed; as wisdom; as the one who baptizes with the Spirit; as source of living water. Think about it - this tree of life, our bloody husband, sows his seed in us, his word of life so that we might bear fruit for God (Matthew 7:20, John 15:2, Romans 7:4). We become the vessel carrying the word of God to term. Let us indeed lay our head against his breast and be his beloved disciple (John 13:23). We have sat under his shadow and his fruit is sweet to our taste (Song 2:3). This free understanding might be seen as an irresponsible licentiousness with God's word, but if we are Christ's, we have crucified the flesh and its desires (Galatians 5:24), whether covetousness and status, inordinate appetite, or the desire to be right on our own terms. And now that we are his - there is a certain fearlessness that should be in us. Should we not celebrate this in consecration of friendships and love relationships whether same sex or otherwise? It is not the abusers who are asking for our inclusion. We have seen enough of these in our schools, churches, and war tales. It is those to whom God has taught his own mercy, those who are already his beloved.
H. Or do you judge otherwise?
If indeed, you have known God, whom to know is eternal life. If indeed you are in him who was crucified and he in you, then you will know that your limited judgment of your own body is not the basis on which you could have judged yourself let alone judge the consecration of brothers and sisters who do not conform to your purity scruples. Depart from me Lord, for I am a sinful man, says Peter at the miraculous catch of fish (Luke 5:8). If God has shown you the fire by which he accepts even a water-logged offering, you will know that no one who thinks differently from you about sexuality will have taken this stand simply out of lasciviousness. Let God be the judge. Have no fear. What better place is there to be (as David says) than to fall into the hand of the Living God (2 Samuel 24:14).
I. You might then ask - who are you to write this way? What authority do you have?
Only the authority of the anointing that John writes of. Paul similarly had no authority in Rome - he was not their apostle, though he hoped to be. One might say he was representing Diaspora relationships in this letter but only as interpreted through the apostolic decree. In this he would not yet have the ear of non-Christ-believing Jews. He wrote to them a 'bold reminder' (15:15) - stepping beyond his bounds since the Jews and gentiles there were not those to whom he had preached in his usual pattern (Jew first, then gentile). Note he addresses not a church - but all God's beloved in Rome (1:7). I too have stepped beyond my bounds. This is a bold invitation, a stimulus to love one another, for perfect love casts out fear (1 John 4:18). Perhaps what we need is to deal with these sharp divisions more completely - another apostolic decree.
Brothers and sisters, greet one another with a holy kiss. (Romans 16:16)
J. Are there any apostles in the Anglican Church?
I am looking at the reported concerns worldwide in this issue. Is there no-one in authority who has learned from the Spirit? Admittedly the press will not report accurately, but where are they who recognize the love of Christ? Read again the text of Acts 15 and note particularly Peter's speech:
"... God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us. Now therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."
Is it possible to draw a suitable parallel to this sharp division in the first century? James and Peter agreed on the basis of the prophesies about the Gentiles that they would not impose the 'yoke' that was unbearable. It is clear we are good at creating unbearable yokes for others. The number of abused and abusive lives in the area of sexual expression is too high. Shall we then say - well express your sexuality how you please? God forbid! Sexuality is a relationship, an act of love that must proceed from love to love. Consensual expression between adults may be destructive or constructive in the human sphere. When those who know the gift of the Spirit express themselves, it is not an act of the flesh.
Anglicans, as my mother might have said, just "don't talk about these things". The result is dysfunctional relationships and abuse of the weaker by the stronger. The number of dysfunctional marriages is evidence enough. The abuse in our colonial schools is a millstone, a far greater embarrassment than the consecration of friendship in Christ. A recent decree from Oxford calls the synod decision a "serious breach of order". I am not a lawyer, but love is not a breach of order. Archbishop Carey is quoted as saying that the decision "undermines marriage". Why? No one is forced to become homosexual. The declaration says there is "confusion over our identity as male and female". I think it is time the Church recognized the clarity it has failed to preach that there is no longer "male and female", but we are one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28). Let us maintain our unity by reaching deeply into his death, so that his life may be shown in us and known by us. This is not "unfaithfulness to the teaching" as the Oxford declaration claims. They claim that "pastoral care of the sexually broken is obstructed." Who are the broken? What pastors have been caring? It is time to note that the judgment has come on those who refuse to hear what the Spirit is saying to the Churches. They speak of "threatened parishes". No one is threatening anyone - in fact threats are lessened. Parishes who disagree are not under any obligation to bless commitments. They consider that the questioning of some clergy "constitutes a clear abuse of ecclesiastical power and a grievous failure of Christian charity". Abuse of power and failure of charity are a real concern indeed. Where is the knowledge of the Spirit, that act of communion between the Father and the Son, that should be preached in our pulpits? Consider who has been abused and where charity has failed.
see also http://www.stjohnthedivine.bc.ca/openletters/20020630samesexsermon.pdf
The Oxford Declaration; A statement on an issue of faith and order by the consultation on the Future of Anglicanism, July 2002: http://www.anglican.ca/news/fyi/ann.html?annItem=2002-07-10_a.ann
Letter of solidarity with the affected parishes in the diocese of New Westminster: http://www.anglican.ca/news/fyi/ann.html?annItem=2002-07-10_b.ann