Diocese of Toronto Same Sex Consultations
Authority & Ecclesiology
The Question.
Does the Church have the authority to declare that God blesses same sex unions?
1. The Church is not autonomous.
Neither the Church as a whole nor any part of the Church is autonomous. The confession of Christ as Lord is the heart of the Christian faith. God has given Christ all authority in heaven and on earth. As Lord of the Church he bestows the Holy Spirit to create a communion of men and women with God and with one another. To bring this communion to perfection is God's eternal purpose. The Church exists to serve the fulfilment of this purpose when God will be all in all. (cf. Authority in the Church I, ARCIC, 1976). Please hang on to the importance of communion - with God and the whole community of believers, and with the communion of local churches. GodÕs authority in the Church is experienced in the context of communion and serves our communion with God and each other. The Church is not merely a human society with the authority to order its life according to the wishes of its members or its leaders, or by decisions of elected bodies, without reference to the divine authority which is over and within the Church. The Church is under GodÕs authority. As the body of Christ, the Church is meant to share the mind of Christ and to live and believe accordingly.
How then do we know the mind of Christ who is the Lord of the Church and the living Word of God? First of all the Church relies on Scripture, ÒGodÕs Word writtenÓ, for the inspiration of its life and mission and as the standard by which it tests its teaching and practice.
The teaching of Scripture has been discussed by others in another section of this consultation. We must answer two questions.
á First, is homosexual activity contrary to the teaching of the Bible? Article XX, Of the Authority of the Church, states, Òit is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to GodÕs Word writtenÓ. If it is incompatible with Scripture, then the Church does not have the authority to provide a rite for blessing it in GodÕs name. The matter stops there. But we need more than the absence of this obstacle before we can go ahead.
á So the second question is to do with positive authority. Can we now say with confidence that there is a scriptural basis on which we can claim that homosexual activity expresses the right ordering and use of the sexual drive? Of course we cannot claim any such thing. The Bible makes it clear that the right ordering and use of the sexual drive is very important and prohibits the misuse. No matter how much you would like to be able to bless a same sex union, you cannot do it in the name of God and the Church unless you can show by what authority you do it.
Christ, the Living Word is the ultimate authority for all Church teaching. It is very dangerous, however, to contemplate claiming the living ChristÕs authority for something that the written Word appears to condemn and certainly fails to affirm.
One of our problems today is that you are hearing
contradictory interpretations of what Scripture teaches. How do we know
which interpretation carries authority? As
Anglicans we have to be very careful as we approach this. We rightly emphasize
freedom in responding to the Word of God. We have a culture of
comprehensiveness which usually serves us well. Yet sometimes we appear to be
always for Òboth/andÓ and never for Òeither/orÓ. The Scriptures remind us that
the people of God must be willing to make either/or choices. GodÕs Covenant
with us is based on either/or. ÒI have set before you life and death, blessing
and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live,
loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice, and cleaving to himÉÓ!(Deut. 30.19
&20) There are some questions of faith and morals that cannot be solved by
the both/and approach. To be faithful disciples we must make a choice. Just
about the worst way to make this choice is simply to pick an interpretation
that we think will suit us best. What we need, and what God provides through
the Spirit in the Church, is an authoritative interpretation of Scripture. We read and interpret the Scriptures in communion, with
God, with the believing community, with all the churches through history and
throughout the world.
Anglicans, of course, also appeal to the natural order and to the traditional teaching of the Church throughout the world and through history as sources of their teaching on the issue before us. Insights from these other sources are always tested by Scripture. When there are serious differences of interpretation it becomes immensely important for one part of the Church to listen to the others. I repeat. The Holy Scriptures are to be read and interpreted in communion with God and with other churches and believers. Individualistic interpretation of the Scriptures is not the Anglican way. ÒWord of God and Church of God cannot be put asunderÓ (The Gift of Authority, 23. ARCIC, 1999)
Remember: when we are faced with a difficult decision and our local community is divided we must be particularly attentive to what we learn from our partners in communion and this means listening very carefully to God as well as the wider Church, and being extra careful to test our perceptions to be sure that we are not being overly influenced by cultural pressures. Remember also that the question we address is whether or not we can we claim GodÕs authority to bless same sex unions. We can easily say that we support the proposal that the state give legal status to same sex unions and even not be too upset if language is modified to describe them as marriages. We might also say that we find it easy to love and work and worship with people who are in these relationships. But we cannot claim divine authorisation for these opinions without being able to show the basis in Scripture, Tradition or the mind of the Church as a whole.
2. To understand the Church we must consider both the Universal and the Particular.
When we address the question of the blessing of same sex unions, it is very important to remember the context in which this is being discussed. Most of the important issues with which we struggle have to be seen in the context of both universal pressures and concerns and also of particular situations and experiences. We cannot spend time this morning philosophizing about the One and the Many. But, when we consider what the Church should do about blessing same sex unions, we seek to balance the perspectives of the universal Church and of particular Churches. This is not merely a political necessity but is rooted in the Church seen as communion. Anglican proposals for what is called Òthe local optionÓ ignore the concerns and claims of the universal and consider only the pressures of the particular and local. Our Anglican ecclesiology does not permit us to do this. We are part of the Anglican Communion, not of the Federation of Autonomous Anglican Provinces and we rejected a congregational ecclesiology centuries ago. The attempt to avoid an authoritative discernment for the whole Anglican Communion by making decisions about same sex blessings a matter for Òlocal optionÓ threatens the integrity of the Anglican Communion and pushes us away from catholic communion towards a chaotic and individualistic congregationalism.
In holding together the universal and the particular the bishops carry special responsibility. A bishop is ordained for the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God and promises to hold and maintain the Doctrine, Sacraments, and Discipline of Christ, as the Lord has commanded in his holy Word, and as the Anglican Church of Canada hath received and set forth the same. Episcopal accountability and responsibilities are universal, regional and local. Bishops are not monarchs in sovereign territories. The authenticity of the teaching of individual bishops is evident when it is in solidarity with that of the whole Episcopal college and that teaching must be faithful to Holy Scripture and consistent with apostolic Tradition (cf. The Gift of Authority, 44. ARCIC, 1999)
When we gather in our local congregation we confess our
common faith together. In the Creed we commit ourselves to the One, Holy,
Catholic and Apostolic Church, not merely to St JohnÕs, York Mills, or the
Diocese of Toronto, or even the Anglican Church of Canada. Of course we belong
to particular churches and the richness of our diversity within them is to be
affirmed. We see diversity as a gift from God. The diversity God gives is not
divisive. The unity of the Church is necessary because God is one. ÒThere is one body and one SpiritÉ. one God and
Father of us allÓ (Eph. 4.4-6). (I am focusing this morning on Unity, but we
also need to remember the implications of the holiness, catholicity and
apostolicity of the Church. All of these come from the ChurchÕs communion with
God, and all are relevant and would lead us to reject the blessing of same sex
inions just as conclusively as the argument with reference to unity). Serious
disagreement and differences of practice can threaten or destroy the communion
between the churches. The Church has to distinguish between tolerable
and intolerable diversity not only with
reference to expressions of the apostolic faith, but also in the area of life
and practice. That is the process in which the Anglican Communion is engaged at
present. This is made immensely more difficult when individuals,
congregations, or dioceses become impatient and decide to act independently.
Furthermore, Anglicans are committed to the goal of the full visible unity of the whole Church. Therefore we must listen to our partners in ecumenical dialogue when facing divisive issues. I simply do not have the time to address this as well as deal with some of the Anglican messages that we must hear. Nevertheless, if we could attend to ecumenical messages this morning, particularly from our largest partner in dialogue we would hear a very strong warning not to proceed with the blessing of same sex unions in GodÕs name.
3. The message from Anglican Instruments of unity and communion is clear.
So what is it? What are we hearing from the rest of the Anglican Communion?
Although Anglicans do not have a central legislative body, we do have international instruments to serve our mutual responsibility and interdependence in the Body of Christ. Within the network of relationships and meetings that hold us together and serve our mission there are four acknowledged formal communion-wide instruments. These are the Lambeth Conference of Bishops, the Anglican Consultative Council, the Meeting of Primates, and the Archbishop of Canterbury. In recent years there has been discussion of the need to strengthen these Instruments so that there could be some more effective binding authority within the Communion as a whole. We, however, have to address the present crisis using the instruments that we now have. I believe that it is immensely important for us to renew our respect for the moral authority which has held us together in the past and could still serve us well. If we really believe in our mutual responsibility and interdependence we can be helped and guided by each other through our existing structures.
á The Anglican Consultative Council met in 2002. Although the situation in New Westminster was one of the problems concerning the Council, same sex blessings are not the only threat to our communion with each other. Resolution 34[2] calls upon dioceses and individual bishops not to undertake unilateral actions or adopt policies which would strain our communion with one another without reference to their provincial authorities; and provincial authorities to have in mind the impact of their decisions within the wider Communion.
While the message from our central Anglican organs is clear, it is much more difficult to summarize the regional and local response to the message. Bishops have to hold their local church in communion with the universal at the same time as being faithful to the demands of the Gospel in their local situation. Sometimes bishops in the same region disagree with each other about how this is to be done. This is not limited to North America but on this particular issue the division is most obvious here.
Because so much of the strength of Anglicanism is found in Africa we must pay particular attention to the voices of Africa. The Primate of Southern Africa and the Primate of Nigeria met at the end of March and issued a statement. Their statement is mostly about more important matters than same sex issues, but it includes the words:
We concluded to work together to
strengthen the position of the Church
in Africa on the issue of Human Sexuality. We uphold the Lambeth
resolution on Human Sexuality as passed at the 1998 Lambeth Conference
and subsequent Primates Meetings which categorically say no to same-sex
marriages or unions.
This was followed by a strong statement from the Primates of the Council of the Anglican Provinces of Africa (CAPA) meeting in Nairobi on April 14, 2004.[4] We should note particularly their warning:
We appeal to the Commission (i.e.
The Lambeth Commission) to consider the serious implications of not taking
strong disciplinary action against ECUSA, which will definitely tear the
Communion apart and will badly affect our ecumenical and interfaith relations
as a Communion.
I hope and pray that actions by our Canadian General Synod or the Synod of the Diocese of Toronto will not lead to similar words being said about our behaviour.
4. Belonging to the Church is about our salvation and
sanctification. GodÕs Grace is
Amazing.
Anglicans are all agreed that GodÕs love is offered to all. Because of this we often speak about the importance of being inclusive. When we are baptized we are grafted into the body of Christ. We can describe the Church as a school for saints or a hospital for sinners. All of us acknowledge that we are sinners saved by grace, and none of us claim to have reached perfection. Yet we are members of One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. You and I are being sanctified. The Holy Spirit is at work in us. Inclusivity in the Church means that we welcome all into the sphere of GodÕs love, not that we say that God endorses all forms of human behaviour. Obviously some disorders that humans discover in themselves are not of their choosing, and they cannot be held morally culpable for a condition they did not choose. However, they still retain their human dignity as moral agents. The human sexual drive is notoriously unruly and the right ordering and use of the drive are morally challenging. But you cannot ask the Church to admit defeat for the Gospel. As believers journey towards holiness, the moral and pastoral advice that they are offered in the Church when they seek counsel and direction should, of course, be sensitive, accepting and loving. I believe that the pressure to legitimize same sex activity as part of GodÕs plan for humanity, bringing an inevitable refusal to do so because the Church lacks the authority to speak in this way about God, has actually made it harder for the Church to be seen as a community of Good News in which all can grow into holiness.
We enter the Church voluntarily. Membership is our free choice. Belonging to the Church and our sanctification require that we are willing to accept the will of God as well as the grace of God. ARCIC, echoing Article X and the insights of S. Augustine (De gratia et libero arbitrio, 17.33), wrote in Salvation and the Church (19. ARCIC, 1987):
In restoring us to his likeness, God confers freedom on fallen humanity. This is not the natural freedom to choose between alternatives, but the freedom to do his will: "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death ... in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us" (Rm 8:2, 4). We are freed and enabled to keep the commandments of God by the power of the Holy Spirit, to live faithfully as God's people and to grow in love within the discipline of the community, bringing forth the fruit of the Spirit. Inasmuch as we are recreated in his "own image and likeness", God involves us in what he freely does to realise our salvation (Phil 2:12).
We are called to holiness and it is our eternal destiny
to share in GodÕs holiness. The Church does not have the authority to diminish
this Gospel. The world has the right to hear of and encounter
GodÕs amazing Grace.
John Baycroft,
Ottawa,
04/04/29
[1]1998 Lambeth Conference, Resolution 1.10.
Human Sexuality
This
Conference:
a. commends to the Church the subsection
report on human sexuality;
b. in view of the teaching of Scripture,
upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union,
and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage;
c. recognises that there are among us persons
who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation. Many of these are members of the Church
and are seeking the pastoral care, moral direction of the Church, and God's
transforming power for the living of their lives and the ordering of
relationships. We commit ourselves
to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them
that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful
persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of
Christ;
d. while rejecting homosexual practice as
incompatible with Scripture, calls on all our people to minister pastorally and
sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational
fear of homosexuals, violence within marriage and any trivialisation and
commercialisation of sex;
e. cannot advise the legitimising or blessing
of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions;
f. requests the Primates and the ACC to
establish a means of monitoring the work done on the subject of human sexuality
in the Communion and to share statements and resources among us;
[2]ACC, 2002. Resolution 34. Province-wide and Communion-wide consultation
This Anglican Consultative Council, being concerned
about a range of matters of faith and order which have arisen since we last
met, and having in mind the constant emphasis on mutual responsibility and interdependence
in the resolutions of successive Lambeth Conferences, from the call in 1867 for
Òunity in faith and discipline É by due and canonical subordination of synodsÓ
(1867, IV) to the call in 1998 for a Òcommon mind concerning ethical issues
where contention threatens to divide ÉÓ (1998, IV 5 (c)) calls upon:
1. dioceses and individual bishops not
to undertake unilateral actions or adopt policies which would strain our
communion with one another without reference to their provincial authorities;
and
2. provincial authorities to have in
mind the impact of their decisions within the wider Communion; and
3. all members of the Communion, even
in our disagreements to have in mind the Òneed for courtesy, tolerance, mutual
respect and prayer for one anotherÓ (1998, III.2 (e)).
[3] A Statement by the Primates of the Anglican
Communion meeting in Lambeth
Palace, October 16, 2003.
The Primates of the Anglican Communion and the Moderators of the United
Churches, meeting together at Lambeth Palace on the 15th and 16th October,
2003, wish to express our gratitude to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr
Rowan Williams, for calling us together in response to recent events in the
Diocese of New Westminster, Canada, and the Episcopal Church (USA), and
welcoming us into his home so that we might take counsel together, and to
seek to discern, in an atmosphere of common prayer and worship, the will and
guidance of the Holy Spirit for the common life of the thirty-eight
provinces which constitute our Communion.
At a time of tension, we have struggled at great cost with the issues before
us, but have also been renewed and strengthened in our Communion with one
another through our worship and study of the Bible. This has led us into a
deeper commitment to work together, and we affirm our pride in the Anglican
inheritance of faith and order and our firm desire to remain part of a
Communion, where what we hold in common is much greater than that which
divides us in proclaiming Good News to the world.
At this time we feel the profound pain and uncertainty shared by others
about our Christian discipleship in the light of controversial decisions by
the Diocese of New Westminster to authorise a Public Rite of Blessing for
those in committed same sex relationships, and by the 74th General
Convention of the Episcopal Church (USA) to confirm the election of a priest
in a committed same sex relationship to the office and work of a Bishop.
These actions threaten the unity of our own Communion as well as our
relationships with other parts of Christ's Church, our mission and witness,
and our relations with other faiths, in a world already confused in areas of
sexuality, morality and theology, and polarised Christian opinion.
As Primates of our Communion seeking to exercise the "enhanced
responsibility" entrusted to us by successive Lambeth Conferences, we
re-affirm our common understanding of the centrality and authority of
Scripture in determining the basis of our faith. Whilst we acknowledge a
legitimate diversity of interpretation that arises in the Church, this
diversity does not mean that some of us take the authority of Scripture more
lightly than others. Nevertheless, each province needs to be aware of the
possible effects of its interpretation of Scripture on the life of other
provinces in the Communion. We commit ourselves afresh to mutual respect
whilst seeking from the Lord a correct discernment of how God's Word speaks
to us in our contemporary world.
We also re-affirm the resolutions made by the bishops of the Anglican
Communion gathered at the Lambeth Conference in 1998 on issues of human
sexuality as having moral force and commanding the respect of the Communion
as its present position on these issues. We commend the report of that
Conference in its entirety to all members of the Anglican Communion, valuing
especially its emphasis on the need "to listen to the experience of
homosexual persons, and to assure
them that they are loved by God and that
all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual
orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ"; and its
acknowledgement of the need for ongoing study on questions of human
sexuality.
Therefore, as a body we deeply regret the actions of the Diocese of New
Westminster and the Episcopal Church (USA) which appear to a number of
provinces to have short-circuited that process, and could be perceived to
alter unilaterally the teaching of the Anglican Communion on this issue.
They do not. Whilst we recognise the juridical autonomy of each province in
our Communion, the mutual interdependence of the provinces means that none
has authority unilaterally to substitute an alternative teaching as if it
were the teaching of the entire Anglican Communion.
To this extent, therefore, we must make clear that recent actions in New
Westminster and in the Episcopal Church (USA) do not express the mind of our
Communion as a whole, and these decisions jeopardise our sacramental
fellowship with each other. We have a particular concern for those who in
all conscience feel bound to dissent from the teaching and practice of their
province in such matters. Whilst we reaffirm the teaching of successive
Lambeth Conferences that bishops must respect the autonomy and territorial
integrity of dioceses and provinces other than their own, we call on the
provinces concerned to make adequate provision for episcopal oversight of
dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care in consultation
with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates.
The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (USA) has explained to us the
constitutional framework within which the election and confirmation of a new
bishop in the Episcopal Church (USA) takes place. As Primates, it is not for
us to pass judgement on the constitutional processes of another province. We
recognise the sensitive balance between provincial autonomy and the
expression of critical opinion by others on the internal actions of a
province. Nevertheless, many Primates have pointed to the grave difficulties
that this election has raised and will continue to raise. In most of our
provinces the election of Canon Gene Robinson would not have been possible
since his chosen lifestyle would give rise to a canonical impediment to his
consecration as a bishop.
If his consecration proceeds, we recognise that we have reached a crucial
and critical point in the life of the Anglican Communion and we have had to
conclude that the future of the Communion itself will be put in jeopardy. In
this case, the ministry of this one bishop will not be recognised by most of
the Anglican world, and many provinces are likely to consider themselves to
be out of Communion with the Episcopal Church (USA). This will tear the
fabric of our Communion at its deepest level, and may lead to further
division on this and further issues as provinces have to decide in
consequence whether they can remain in communion with provinces that choose
not to break communion with the Episcopal Church (USA).
Similar considerations apply to the situation pertaining in the Diocese of
New Westminster.
We have noted that the Lambeth Conference 1998 requested the Archbishop of
Canterbury to establish a commission to consider his own role in maintaining
communion within and between provinces when grave difficulties arise . We
ask him now to establish such a commission, but that its remit be extended
to include urgent and deep theological and legal reflection on the way in
which the dangers we have identified at this meeting will have to be
addressed. We request that such a commission complete its work, at least in
relation to the issues raised at this meeting, within twelve months.
We urge our provinces not to act precipitately on these wider questions, but
take time to share in this process of reflection and to consider their own
constitutional requirements as individual provinces face up to potential
realignments.
Questions of the parity of our canon law, and the nature of the relationship
between the laws of our provinces with one another have also been raised. We
encourage the Network of Legal Advisers established by the Anglican
Consultative Council, meeting in Hong Kong in 2002, to bring to completion
the work which they have already begun on this question.
It is clear that recent controversies have opened debates within the life of
our Communion which will not be resolved until there has been a lengthy
process of prayer, reflection and substantial work in and alongside the
Commission which we have recommended. We pray that God will equip our
Communion to be equal to the task and challenges which lie before it.
"Now I appeal to the elders of your community, as a fellow elder and a
witness to Christ's sufferings, and as one who has shared in the glory to be
revealed: look after the flock of God whose shepherd you are." (1 Peter
5.1,2a)
[4]Extract from Statement
of Primates of Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa, Nairobi, April 14, 2004 In regard to the sexuality
issues:
We continue to affirm Lambeth resolution 1.10 of 1998 and our statement
of the last CAPA meeting as well as the Primates statement of October
2003.
We are committed to prayerful support for the Archbishop of Canterbury
the Most Revd Dr Rowan Williams and his leadership to the Communion in
this very difficult time. We also pray and support the Lambeth
Commission set by him to study the appropriate actions towards those in
ECUSA who ignored the Primates' warnings and violated the historical
faith and order of the Church by consecrating a non-celibate openly
homosexual priest as Bishop.
We appeal to the Commission to consider the serious implications of not
taking strong disciplinary action against ECUSA, which will definitely
tear the Communion apart and will badly affect our ecumenical and
interfaith relations as a Communion.
The Primates of CAPA reaffirm the statement that was issued in September
last year.
We note that some Provinces have already taken action in declaring
broken Communion with ECUSA as an institution, while maintaining
communion with individuals who have stayed away from the official
position of ECUSA.
Some Provinces have impaired communion with ECUSA.
The Commission is requested to call ECUSA to repentance giving it a
three-month period to show signs of such repentance. Failing that,
discipline should be applied.
As CAPA Primates we stand firm to what we have decided that if there is
no sign of repentance on the part of ECUSA, the consequences will
determine the next line of action.