|
Reflections of a Deeply Concerned Prieston The Proposed Resolution from the Council of General Synod By the Reverend Dennis Andrews (with the cooperation of Patricia Birkett)
Council of General Synod resolution: The blessing of same-sex unions is consistent with the core doctrine of the Anglican Church of Canada.
This Resolution is Against Everything that Anglicans Value: · Against Scripture· Against the Historic Tradition of the Church· Against Reason · Against Justice· Against Love· Against Conscience · Against Unity May
God Help Us All 22
June 2007
During his recent visit to Canada, the Archbishop of Canterbury raised the question: “What are the forms of behaviour the church has the freedom to bless, and be faithful to Scripture, tradition and reason?” In other words, the ABC was saying that the church cannot please itself on the question of sexuality, or any other subject, concerning what it can, or cannot bless, but must seek to “be faithful to Scripture, tradition and reason.” This was a most timely reminder at a time when we are hearing so much talk on seeking the Spirit’s leading largely through experience only—with little reference to the “Scripture, tradition and reason” that have been the reliable Anglican guides for centuries. The proposed resolution from the Council of General Synod (“The blessing of same-sex unions is consistent with the core doctrine of the Anglican Church of Canada”) goes completely against every one of these three proven guides and is a total betrayal of all that our Anglican Church has stood for. Against ScriptureThe Resolution is a plain denial of Bible truths, where every reference to homosexuality is a negative one; as far as the Bible is concerned, the acts of homosexuality are wrong, sinful and unholy. In the words of the Reverend Dr. John R.W. Stott, “homosexual practice must be regarded, in the whole biblical revelation, not as a variant within the wide range of accepted normality, but as a deviation from God’s norm, and we should call homosexually-oriented people to abstain from homosexual practices and partnerships.” Moreover, again in Stott’s words, “The negative prohibitions of homosexual practices in Scripture make sense only in the light of its positive teaching in Genesis I and II about human sexuality and heterosexual marriage.” Our Lord Jesus Himself endorsed the teaching of Genesis 2:24 and declared that a lifelong heterosexual union was God’s intention from the beginning (Mark 10:4-9). It is clear that He regarded no other type of sexual union as even worthy of consideration, and, for a Christian, the teaching of Christ has got to be decisive. Against the Historic Tradition of the ChurchThe Resolution is also a blatant denial of the consistent teaching of the Bishops, Elders, Councils and Constitutions of the Church from the first century to the nineteenth. Dr. Robert A.J. Gagnon explained that in his comprehensive study, The Bible and Homosexual Practice (Abingdon Press, Nashville, 2001. pp. 343/7), “the issue of church tradition in the last two millennia (2,000 years) is not treated … largely because it is well known that until the last few decades, the church has maintained a consistent stance against homosexual behaviour as sin.” This statement is true, for Church leaders all condemned homosexual acts. Some of their comments included, “a form of exploitation,” “contrary to nature condemned,” “satanic,” “wicked,” “monstrous insaneness,” “a traitor to both sexes,” “dreadful crime of unnatural lust,” “a filthy practice not to be named.” Punishments included “deserving to be driven out and stoned,” “clergy to be degraded, exiled and damned,” “beaten with rods,” “execution by burning,” “punished by God.” (Quotations used with the permission of Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron, Family Research Institute, Colorado Springs, 2003) Against ReasonThe Resolution is also obviously contrary to reason. As Dr. Gagnon also pointed out (p.156), “The straightforward declaration that God created male and female for sexual union and blessed that union, and no other, with the capacity to be fruitful and multiply leaves same-sex unions without place in the structure imbedded by God in creation.” Homosexual attempts to use the human body for sexual acts and relationships for which it was not designed by God has a number of distressing physical and psychological consequences. As a result, even apart from AIDS and the promiscuity to which homosexuals have been shown (by their own researchers as well as others) to be disproportionately inclined, their life expectancy is greatly less than that of heterosexuals. According to the statistics provided by Cameron, Playfair and Wellum (Cameron P., Playfair W. & Wellum S. The Longevity of Homosexuals: Before and After the AIDS Epidemic. Omega 1994 (in press). Dr. Paul Cameron, Chairman, “Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do”, Family Research Institute, Inc. 1992 educational pamphlet), “the typical lifespan of homosexuals suggests that their activities are more destructive than smoking and as dangerous as drugs”: Average Age at Death (in years)
Percentages of those living to be old (65 or older):
No one could regard it as rational to encourage the lifestyle of drug users, and it is equally irrational to do anything that would encourage a homosexual lifestyle that shortens the lives of those who practise it by anything from 15 to 36 years for men and 27 to 35 years for women. In addition, when one considers the social and economic costs to heterosexuals of supporting the effects of homosexual practices, there is even more reason to consider encouragement of those practices as irrational. The social costs are so wide reaching and so hard to quantify that it is impractical to attempt to discuss them here, but there are some estimates available of the horrendous economic costs. To take just the cost of caring for AIDS patients, this is estimated at $130,000 per person. The cost of caring for the 8,871 male homosexual AIDS patients who died between 1979 and 2002 has been estimated at $1,153,230,000. At the end of 1999, the cost of caring for the 34,860 living male homosexual patients until they died was estimated at $4,531,800,000. With the rising cost of drugs, increasing numbers of patients, and longer survival periods, that cost is bound to increase. While the first concern for those who are sick with HIV/AIDS should always be for their relief and personal well-being, we should also be aware that their deadly disease is usually the result of their sexual practices and that that result causes great grief to others besides themselves as well as placing very heavy financial burdens on the society at large. Against JusticeThe Resolution also goes against justice. In the light of the facts relating to health and economics mentioned above, it is astounding that our secular government has made same-sex “marriage” legal on the ground that it is just. How can it be just to do anything that encourages practices that have been shown to have such devastating effects on the health and well-being of people and that place such enormous financial burdens on everyone in order to support the desires of a small minority? Against LoveThe Resolution also goes against love. In the light of the same facts mentioned above, it is even more astounding that our Church is proposing to follow the lead of the secular government on the ground that it is loving! How can it be loving towards homosexuals to encourage a lifestyle that is known to spread serious disease and greatly shorten the lives of those who follow it? Such a misunderstanding of Christian love and compassion is clearly misguided and certain to prove detrimental to the very ones it is intended to help. It is, moreover, a misunderstanding that according to biblical teaching will almost certainly lead to their eternal as well as their untimely earthly deaths. How can it be loving towards God, since it violates His wise and loving prohibition? Our Lord Jesus said “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” and “Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them” (John 14:15, 23), yet this Resolution shows distrust of God’s Word, on which the Christian Faith is founded, by preferring the opinions and approval of the fallen world, which has always been hostile to God. Against ConscienceThe Resolution is also against conscience, and is therefore extremely unloving towards the many, both laity and clergy, heterosexual and celibate homosexual, who stand for the biblical and apostolic Christian Faith that has always previously been held by the Anglican Church. Romans 12:1-2 calls all Christians to be transformed by the renewing of our minds and to offer ourselves as living sacrifices holy and pleasing to God. 1 Peter 1:15 says, “But just as He who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do… ‘Be holy as I am holy.’” Holiness requires us to live above the standards of our culture, not to conform to our culture. The vows made at their ordination by all Anglican priests (which of course includes bishops) include: · Belief in the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the word of God and as containing all things necessary to salvation · Conformity to the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this Church has received them (including the Book of Common Prayer, and the Solemn Declaration of 1893) · Episcopal obedience – in all things lawful. Since acceptance of the Resolution will involve breaking faith with all these solemn undertakings, it will turn the Anglican Church of Canada into an officially faithless and corrupt institution, and create a crisis of conscience for all its faithful members, lay and (especially) clerical. Against UnityThe Resolution is therefore inherently against the unity of our Anglican Church. This will take two forms: The crisis of conscience mentioned above has already led to the departure of many of the members of the Anglican Church of Canada and contributed greatly to the approximately 50% decline in its membership over the last five decades. The passage of this Resolution would almost certainly lead to an increase in this haemorrhaging of members, and the possible disappearance of the Anglican Church of Canada during this century. For those who adhere to the traditional Faith, the strain on their consciences will be acutely painful. How can we support our unmarried brothers and sisters striving to live a life of chastity and holiness when the Church structures teach that that is not necessary for spiritual growth? How can we love our same gender-attracted brothers and sisters without holding out the transforming power of the whole gospel of Christ? How can we work alongside priests teaching scripture in a way that departs from the vast majority of the Communion and the historic teaching of the Christian faith? If a local option is allowed, how could one diocese or one parish approve of practising homosexual partnerships in another diocese or parish while forbidding them itself? Such a double standard is untenable and could only be temporary. As tensions increase, the haemorrhaging of members mentioned above could develop into a haemorrhaging of parishes and dioceses. The disunity within the church would lead to intolerable instability and probably to legal battles like those in the Episcopal Church in the U.S.A., which would not only cause much stress and grief, but disgrace Christians before the world, destroy their credibility, and profoundly damage the Kingdom of Christ.
(For an expanded form of this Paper, please see www.takebackcanada.com/dennis5.html)
Note Resolution A186 of the Anglican Church of Canada’s General Synod 2007, which this paper protested, was passed on 25 June 2007 in a modified form: That this General Synod resolves that the blessing of same-sex unions is not in conflict with the core doctrine (in the sense of being creedal) of the Anglican Church of Canada.
| |||||