I was staggered when I read Shawn’s reply to my challenge to name his authority for the changes he advocates. I don’t know why I was so taken aback. I knew already that this claim—that there is a new move of the Holy Spirit—was being made. Maybe it was seeing the words actually written. I don’t know. Whatever the reason, I was utterly shocked.

One of us says: the church can and should recognize and bless SSU. The other says: the church cannot recognize or bless SSU. These two statements are mutually contradictory, and the inescapable fact is that it is impossible for both of them to be true. If either of us is even close to correct, the other one must have fallen into very grievous error, to the point almost of blasphemy. I do not use that word lightly. If I am right, then Shawn has called upon God in witness to something that is not true, claiming that God blesses what is, in reality, sin. If he is right, then my flat rejection puts me on a par with the people who said of Jesus: “by the prince of demons he casts out demons”—I’ve called evil something that actually came from God.

What then? In last Sunday’s epistle we heard “everyone who believes Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and anyone who loves the father loves the child too”. Shawn believes Jesus is the Christ. He says so, and I take him at his word. I also believe that Jesus is the Christ. Shawn is in the Church, and I am in the Church. Jesus prayed that the disciples would be one as he and the Father are one, but Jesus and his Father never contradict each other. I do not see how it is possible for the Church to include inherently contradictory truth claims. If it is not impossible, it is utterly incoherent. However, I am not writing this to advocate schism, but to ask, how is it possible to avoid it in this situation?

As you probably know, the Windsor Report was an attempt to deal with your question.  The word “adiaphora” was used, meaning something that could vary among Christian groups, something on the level of whether incense was used, or what type of vestments were used, and the question was asked:  how does the church determine whether a practice is adiaphora or not? The example of a Japanese (I think) woman who was ordained a priest in the 1940s was given.  When she found that the rest of the world-wide Anglican communion objected, she gave up her orders.  Later on, when women were legally (in the eyes of the church) ordained, she renewed her vows;  she may have been in Canada at the time.  The point of the example was that the woman was willing to yield to the whole church in this matter, and that those advocating the ordination of practicing homosexuals should do the same:  wait for the decision of the whole church for as long as it took, and to accept that it may or might not ever be decided the way the advocates of the change wanted.  In other words, have a moratorium on the practice unless (not “until”) the whole church agreed.  The Windsor Report recommended a mechanism for dealing with those who did not obey the moratoria. Some say that TEC is in defiance of the Windsor Report because it does not or cannot restrain its members who disagree.  Leaders of TEC like Bishop Chane of Washington, DC, refuse to go along with the recommendation of the Windsor Report, which brings in another issue related to “can two walk together, except they be agreed?” which has to do with respect for the recommendations of the wider church.  They insist that the Windsor Report is not legally binding on the US church, that the resolutions passed in TEC in 2006 supporting moratoria were unjust, and that what they perceive as a social justice issue on the level of the treatment of blacks or other minorities overrides any formal or informal pact among or within branches of the church.  They cite the biblical story of Peter and Cornelius as a justification for changing long-term practice in this matter, which they equate with the dietary rules binding on Jews.  This may have been a reference to what Shawn was talking about when he called changes in the treatment of homosexual practice a work of the Holy Spirit.

Hi Celinda,

You are quite right that the Windsor Report spoke of adiaphora.  Karen, the Church is filled with contradictions and has been since its inception.  I would highly recommend reading the article on Justice and Unity that Craig Uffman posted recently.  Its the second in the series that the Covenant authors are writing.  Very interesting stuff about the modern need for a uniformity of thinking and where that has come from in the history of the Church.

The reality is that we will not ever all agree on matters of faith.  The question that is set before us is how important is the inclusion of gays and lesbians in the full life of the Church?  Is this a communion-breaking issue?  Well, I don’t believe it should be, but the reality is that it has been used to be that.  I say “it has been used” because I believe that’s exactly the case.  Like conservative politicians, some conservative leaders in the Church have used this issue as a wedge issue.  With the widespread use of the internet and the help of the media’s love for anything to do with sex, it has grown to such proportion that it does indeed appear to be threatening the Anglican Communion.

By the way, I would suggest that you re-read the Windsor Report.  It is quite clear that it asks for a moratorium on the consecration of persons in a same-sex relationship to the episcopate and for a moratorium on public rites of same-sex blessings.  Now there are some who may have misunderstood this wording, but it is quite clear.  TEC has complied with those moratoria.  There have been no consecrations of persons in same-sex relationships to the episcopate since the Windsor Report and TEC has not ever had a public rite of same-sex blessing.  That would require action by either diocesan conventions or General Convention to institute.

However, I must point out that the Windsor Report has also asked for a moratorium on cross-border interventions.  Has that occurred by anyone’s understanding?  Not at all.  There was even a movement afoot at ACC to call for a moratorium on lawsuits.  Well, the lawsuits wouldn’t be necessary if the cross-border interventions ceased.

Furthermore, as I understand it, the Presiding Bishop does NOT support the repeal of B033 at this time.  We shall see if the rest of General Convention agrees with her, but I suspect that they will.

Karen, you are right that we have fundamentally different points of view on this issue.  But I would suggest that it is NOT a core doctrine of our faith.  If we were disagreeing on the Divinity of Christ, then we’d be disagreeing about a core doctrine of our faith.  But this is not a core doctrine of our faith.  There are people who disagree about the nature of the Eucharist.  Some consider it a memorial meal.  Others consider it to be a literal transformation into the Body and Blood of Christ.  And others everywhere in between.  I should think that would be a much more central feature of our faith as Anglicans than same-sex relationships.  Yet, we have lived with that disagreement since our break from Rome.

In Christ,
Shawn

I agree with you, Shawn. I find I need agreement in “core doctrine” (which I see as contained in the creeds) and I can live with and accept disagreements in matters outside of that realm.

Your thoughts on the nature of the Holy Eucharist help “bring it home” for me.  I have a very high view of this (almost to the point of those of Rome), but find I am still comfortable kneeling at the rail with my brothers and sisters who do not necessarily share my belief in that nature.

When considering we share various views on the nature of the Holy Eucharist, is it too much to think it may be possible to hold various views on the issue of sexual orientation? Are we placing more importance on human sexuality than we place on the Body and Blood of Christ?

Shawn. I don’t think human sexuality is a “wedge issue.” That term presupposes preexisting unity before the appeal to such an issue. Lack of unity in basic Christian doctrine long antedated the recent controversy over human sexuality. The issue of human sexuality is secondary to the issue of biblical authority, which has been flaunted in other ways in the modern Episcopal Church.

The concept of “core doctrine” is problematic. The Righter case defined it as “fundamental doctrine as supplying a basis for reckoning a Church to be a true Church,” arising “out of the Gospel itself…, rooted and grounded in Holy Scripture…, necessary for salvation, … binding on all who are baptized, [and] therefore … unchangeable.” I call this the modern Episcopal Church equivalent of dogma.

In The Fate of Communion Philip Turner wrote, “‘Core doctrine,’ as used by the jury in the Righter trial, refers only to the bare outline of the apostolic preaching as sketched by C.H. Dodd in 1935. Gone is the full scope of the biblical witness that once was thought to establish doctrine. Further, according to the panel of bishops who gave the judgment, even the thin reed of ‘core doctrine’ must be interpreted within its ‘contemporary context.’ In all cases of conflict between ‘core doctrine’ and the ‘contemporary context’ it appears to be the ‘contemporary context’ that wins out. In short, doctrine is gone and in its place there has appeared a Babel of theological opinion.” [FOC, p. 147]

Unfortunately much of blogdom is conducive to “a Bable of theological opinion.”
Dick

Hi Celinda

Celinda Scott - 20 May 2009 04:57 AM

The example of a Japanese (I think) woman who was ordained a priest in the 1940s was given.  When she found that the rest of the world-wide Anglican communion objected, she gave up her orders.  Later on, when women were legally (in the eyes of the church) ordained, she renewed her vows;  she may have been in Canada at the time.  The point of the example was that the woman was willing to yield to the whole church in this matter, and that those advocating the ordination of practicing homosexuals should do the same:  wait for the decision of the whole church for as long as it took, and to accept that it may or might not ever be decided the way the advocates of the change wanted.  In other words, have a moratorium on the practice unless (not “until”) the whole church agreed.

What do you mean when you say “the whole church”?  As I understand it, most of the provinces in the Anglican Communion still do NOT ordain women as priests.  Here’s the chronology:

1971 Anglican communion, Hong Kong. Joyce Bennett and Jane Hwang were the first regularly ordained priests.

1973 Anglican Church in Wales

1975 Anglican Church of Canada - first ordinations were 30 November 1976.

1976 Church of Ireland (Anglican)

1976 Episcopal Church (11 women were ordained in Philadelphia before church laws were changed to permit ordination)

1984 Church of North India [I think this the Church that is in the Anglican Communion]

1992 Church of England

1992 Anglican Church of South Africa

1992 Anglican Church of Australia

1998 General Assembly of the Nippon Sei Ko Kai (Anglican Church in Japan)

2000 The Church of Pakistan ordained its first women deacons. It is a united church which dates back to the 1970 local merger of Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans and other Protestants

(Here is my reference:  http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/Chronolgy_Ordination.htm )

(Here’s another source that just lists the provinces:  http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/Anglican_Communion_Provincial_Checklist_on_Womens_Ordination.pdf )

(Here’s another reference: http://www.religioustolerance.org/femclrg3.htm that speaks of Lambeth and ACC resolutions suggesting that all be respectful of each others’ decisions.)

Now, it might be possible that there are more provinces that this website is not listing.  Like, I am pretty sure the Anglican Church of New Zealand ordains women as does the Episcopal Church of Scotland.  There might be others as well.  However, we can hardly conclude that “the whole church”, even if we just restrict “church” here to the Anglican Communion, has accepted the ordination of women.  If we include the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox branches, then the overwhelming majority of the Church does NOT support the ordination of women.

Granted, I was in elementary school when this was all first occurring in the 70’s, but I understand that there was talk about the ordination of women “rending the fabric of the Communion” then as similar talk is suggested now.  Yet, we proceed along.  The Church of England ordains women as priests and is well on its way now to ordaining them to the episcopate.  Its quite possible that we could have a women as Archbishop of Canterbury within the next 100 years or sooner.

In Christ,
Shawn

Hi Dick,

Nice to see you participating.  I don’t know if you are new or a long time member, but I love to hear new or renewed voices.  Thank you for joining the conversation.

Dick Wire - 20 May 2009 11:08 AM

Shawn. I don’t think human sexuality is a “wedge issue.” That term presupposes preexisting unity before the appeal to such an issue. Lack of unity in basic Christian doctrine long antedated the recent controversy over human sexuality. The issue of human sexuality is secondary to the issue of biblical authority, which has been flaunted in other ways in the modern Episcopal Church.

By “wedge issue”, I mean an issue that is deliberately used to cause division.  I quite agree with you that there has been division in the Christian Church long before this current issue.  Arguably, it goes back to the inception of the Church with the controversy over allowing Gentiles into the Church and how that would occur.  And that was before the Canon was even complete to be flouted.

The concept of “core doctrine” is problematic. The Righter case defined it as “fundamental doctrine as supplying a basis for reckoning a Church to be a true Church,” arising “out of the Gospel itself…, rooted and grounded in Holy Scripture…, necessary for salvation, … binding on all who are baptized, [and] therefore … unchangeable.” I call this the modern Episcopal Church equivalent of dogma.

Yes, I quite agree that it is problematic.  For example is baptism “necessary for salvation”?  While Craig has pointed out that there is greater unity on the institutional level regardin this question, I can assure you that the “pew potatos” and those just above them, don’t agree.  Evangelical Anglicans of the reformed variety would not agree with baptism being necessary for salvation.  Considering that baptismal regeneration is found in the Nicene Creed, it would appear to be rather core to me.  However, there is disagreement on that issue.

In The Fate of Communion Philip Turner wrote, “‘Core doctrine,’ as used by the jury in the Righter trial, refers only to the bare outline of the apostolic preaching as sketched by C.H. Dodd in 1935. Gone is the full scope of the biblical witness that once was thought to establish doctrine. Further, according to the panel of bishops who gave the judgment, even the thin reed of ‘core doctrine’ must be interpreted within its ‘contemporary context.’ In all cases of conflict between ‘core doctrine’ and the ‘contemporary context’ it appears to be the ‘contemporary context’ that wins out. In short, doctrine is gone and in its place there has appeared a Babel of theological opinion.” [FOC, p. 147]

So again, as David has asked, if we cannot agree in on the nature of the Eucharist or the role of baptism in salvation yet we are able to continue worshipping together, why must human sexuality be a communion dividing issue?

In Christ,
Shawn

In The Fate of Communion Philip Turner wrote, “‘Core doctrine,’ as used by the jury in the Righter trial, refers only to the bare outline of the apostolic preaching as sketched by C.H. Dodd in 1935. Gone is the full scope of the biblical witness that once was thought to establish doctrine. Further, according to the panel of bishops who gave the judgment, even the thin reed of ‘core doctrine’ must be interpreted within its ‘contemporary context.’ In all cases of conflict between ‘core doctrine’ and the ‘contemporary context’ it appears to be the ‘contemporary context’ that wins out. In short, doctrine is gone and in its place there has appeared a Babel of theological opinion.” [FOC, p. 147]

Comes back to an authority question: What authority is appealed to to determine core doctrine? When scripture is the prime authority, contemporary context becomes a ‘part two’ concern. First understand scripture, then ask how it applies to current context. When human reason and human experience are prime, current context becomes ‘part one.’

Just because there is disagreement on what the “full scope of the biblical witness” says doesn’t mean we should throw out the baby of biblical witness with the bathwater of difference of opinion.

And so we get to the crux of the issue…

First off, I agree completely with Charlie when he writes:

Comes back to an authority question: What authority is appealed to to determine core doctrine? When scripture is the prime authority, contemporary context becomes a ‘part two’ concern. First understand scripture, then ask how it applies to current context. When human reason and human experience are prime, current context becomes ‘part one.’

I think that this is a critical issue.

Shawn has asked a very insightful question:

So again, as David has asked, if we cannot agree in on the nature of the Eucharist or the role of baptism in salvation yet we are able to continue worshipping together, why must human sexuality be a communion dividing issue?

I think that the answer is that while many other things can be intellectually disagreed upon without necessitating a divergence in behavior/action, the sexuality issue demands a divergence in behavior.

Open vs. closed communion, or lay presidency issues are also behavior/action issues - the very act of offering communion to the unbaptized or the action of a non-priest presiding at the Eucharist makes it very clear what the Church accepts.  On the other hand, differences in how we view the Eucharist are not behavior/action issues.  The priest presiding at the Eucharist may hold a Reformed view, the guy next to me may hold a near-Roman view, I might hold more of a Lutheran view.  But our actions don’t betray our views.

It is obviously much easier to permit a divergence of opinion within the Church if the Church’s “discipline” is not breached.  But when the Church’s discipline is breached - through either lay presidency, open communion, consecrating an openly gay bishop, conducing SSB’s, etc. - then divergence of opinion is much more difficult.

Hi James,

I’m afraid that would not hold muster with the evangelicals of the 19th century right around the Oxford Movement.  You see there were indeed behaviors involved, e.g. the use of candles, the use of vestments, the celebration of the Benediction, processions, recessions, etc. that are all hallmarks of catholic liturgy that were very, very opposed by the evangelicals at that time.  Now (thankfully in my personal opinion) TEC has pretty much adopted most of these catholic practices in many parishes except perhaps in the South??  I’m not sure.  So, if someone were a staunch low church evangelical, they would have a problem going to a parish that uses candles, vestments, incense, etc.

In Christ,
Shawn

Welcome back, Dick!  It’s wonderful to have one of our most prolific and learned commenters back among us.

Shawn:  I think, though, that there is a difference between vigorous opposition to a thing, and a view that if the church does that thing, then it has departed from the catholic faith to such an extent that separation is required.  We see this with the women’s ordination issue over the last 20 years or so in TEC.  For example, Bishop Iker clearly was vigorously opposed to women’s ordination.  No argument there.  Yet, he was able to remain part of TEC, while TEC practiced WO.  However, Iker was not able to remain part of TEC when it acted on its sexuality theology.  So, I think that the first question would be whether actions were taken which violates the church’s discipline.  If so, then the next question would be whether that violation of discipline is to such an extent that separation is required.

There is a third thing too, which I think plays a part.  As many here have observed, there is an (imperfect) correlation between liberal views on sexuality and much more extreme liberal views on many other important theological questions.  For example, we have Bishop Ingham from the Diocese of New Westminster who some years back declared that the sexuality issue was the battle for that day, and that the next battle would be over the uniqueness of Christ.  To a large extent (whether you like it or not) the sexuality issue has become a proxy for much larger theological issues.

Hi James,

In response to your first paragraph, you are speaking from the thick of your (our) own context.  If we were living during the Reformation, the battle between catholics and evangelicals was life-threatening!  It was far worse than any spat on a blog we have today!  Monasteries were destroyed.  People were jailed and executed for whatever the particular party in power considered to be heresy.  Entire wars were waged around these issues.

As for women’s ordination, Bishop Iker did not leave TEC but there are other bishops who did.  One of the breakaway groups (I’m sorry I don’t remember which one right now) began due to women’s ordination.  The same cries that the Anglican Communion would fall apart occurred then as now.

As for your second paragraph, people can draw all kinds of correlations that they wish to draw.  However, the truth is that there are people all over the theological spectrum on many different issues.  You and I might find ourselves on the same “side” when it comes to discussing the uniqueness of Christ or the continued inclusion of the Creeds in the Prayer Book.  It is irresponsible of all of us when we try to bundle people together because they may believe one way on one issue.

In Christ,
Shawn

Open vs. closed communion, or lay presidency issues are also behavior/action issues - the very act of offering communion to the unbaptized or the action of a non-priest presiding at the Eucharist makes it very clear what the Church accepts.  On the other hand, differences in how we view the Eucharist are not behavior/action issues.  The priest presiding at the Eucharist may hold a Reformed view, the guy next to me may hold a near-Roman view, I might hold more of a Lutheran view.  But our actions don’t betray our views.

James,

I think the distinction you are making has merit, but I’d want to be careful. Ideas ALWAYS have consequences.

Plus I think there are areas where a divergence of belief leads to a divergence of action, but I don’t think, to a parting of the ways. Infant baptism, for example (while if often does lead to a parting of the ways, IMO, it doesn’t need to).

So David’s question

why must human sexuality be a communion dividing issue?

I say it doesn’t need to be, but what I think is communion dividing is the source of authority used to come to to a position.

To put it in technical language, authority that is ultimately anthropocentric will clash with a view of authority that is theocentric.

James said:

To a large extent (whether you like it or not) the sexuality issue has become a proxy for much larger theological issues.

Coming to realize this has helped me understand my more conservative friends.

Shawn Strout - 20 May 2009 08:34 PM

As for your second paragraph, people can draw all kinds of correlations that they wish to draw.  However, the truth is that there are people all over the theological spectrum on many different issues.  You and I might find ourselves on the same “side” when it comes to discussing the uniqueness of Christ or the continued inclusion of the Creeds in the Prayer Book.  It is irresponsible of all of us when we try to bundle people together because they may believe one way on one issue.

Amen, Shawn.

I often find myself being lumped together with the most liberal of Episcopalians because I happen to be gay. While it may not be fair, it is the reality I face.

When we consider matters of core doctrine (the contents of the creeds, the uniqueness of Christ, the atonement, etc.) I find myself to be most “orthodox”. In fact, it is when discussing the issues with a more “liberal” group of people that I often find I have the most disagreement.

Suffice it to say, because of my sexual orientation and my loyalty to my church, I find myself being placed into a “category” to which I feel I do not belong. I suppose it should be comforting to know that this situation is probably the norm for many of us. It would be a shock to most of those who are constantly seeking “purity and uniformity” if they knew how varied the opinions were across the church….the opinions and views we share here on this forum is only a taste of the variety that surely exists in our parishes. The average Anglican is almost certainly not as vocal as we are here