wfn.org | ACNS3648 Reclaiming Christian Orthodoxy: Address by Bishop

["Anglican Communion News Service" <acnslist@anglicancommunion.org>]

ACNS 3648     |     ENGLAND	|     25 OCTOBER 2003 

Reclaiming Christian Orthodoxy: Address by Bishop Michael Ingham at
Halfway to Lambeth conference

In the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew's Gospel Jesus asks, "Is there any
one among you who, if your child asks for bread, will give them a stone?
Or if the child asks for a fish will give them a snake?" [Matthew 7:
9-10] Jesus was speaking of the love of God for the needs of all the
human family. He was in particular challenging the notion that the love
of God is reserved for the pious and the pure, the ritually kosher and
the institutionally orthodox. Just as human parents will not refuse
their own children food, or love, he says, so the Lord God will not
refuse those who ask for bread in the name of His Son Jesus Christ.

This, simply put, is the reason why the church is re-thinking its
traditional stance on homosexuality. We have become aware in the last
several years that gay and lesbian Christians have been starved and
denied the spiritual food of acceptance and love they have a right to
expect as baptised members of the Body of Christ. We have become aware
of the suffering, hardship and rejection that is experienced by many gay
and lesbian Christians throughout the world. Some are denied admission
to the Holy Communion. Most are refused permission to serve in lay and
ordained office. Many are persecuted by civil and ecclesiastical laws.
Some are forced to become refugees. Some are tortured and murdered.
[See, for example, the experience of Ugandan Christians, forced to flee
rape and imprisonment as documented by Amnesty International. Look on
www.changingattitude.org/news_i_c_uganda_vancouver_refugees.html]

This summer at least two dioceses in the Anglican Communion - both
beginning with the word "new" - decided to do something about it. They,
and we here today, believe that God is calling the church to end
discrimination and prejudice based on sexual orientation. We believe
that the continued exclusion of people through the misuse of Scripture,
and the repetition of inherited and unexamined prejudices against
minorities, is a sin against the love of God.

Our actions in Canada and in the United States have been guided by the
Holy Spirit, which is the Spirit of freedom and of truth. They were
taken in response to changes in the sciences and social sciences that
affect our understanding of human sexuality. They were taken not in
rebellion against Scripture, but in faithfulness to its constant and
greater witness that God does not deny his own children the bread of
compassion and justice.

Still, our actions have been denounced in some quarters as
"unilateralist" and "unorthodox." My own reading of the history of
Anglicanism suggests that the first criticism is rather weak. The
Anglican tradition, as a distinctive branch within the Christian family,
came into existence through the unilateral actions of the Church in
England in the 16th century. 

Some of the solutions being proposed today by proponents of so-called
"orthodoxy" - solutions which would impose for the first time the
necessity of a universal consensus on the church - are the same
arguments that were made by the opponents of the very English
Reformation they claim to represent. (As I asked former Archbishop Carey
informally one day, "If England had not acted unilaterally at the
Reformation would you be here to argue for a new universalism today?" He
declined to answer.)

Just as England in the 16th century proposed no new doctrine for the
church, but instead claimed the right to oversee its own affairs with a
degree of local autonomy, so other provinces and dioceses in the
Anglican Communion today are claiming that same right to make pastoral
provision for the people of God within their boundaries. This is
entirely within the tradition of Anglicanism.

The reaction this has provoked in many parts of the world is of course
to be expected, and it must also be respected. Most of us do understand
that a change in the understanding of human sexuality and especially
homosexuality is culturally and theologically difficult for some. Just
as we ourselves argue for a new respect for gay and lesbian Christians,
so we must ourselves show respect for those of a traditional conscience
in these questions. No one here, I believe, is trying to kick anyone out
of the church. That, rather, seems to be the position of some of our
"orthodox" critics.

And for this reason we must challenge the claim that Christian orthodoxy
is the sole property of one segment of the Christian church. We must
examine the assumption that orthodoxy is dogmatically uniform and
unambiguous in these matters. We are bold to say before God and the
church that we too are members of the orthodox Christian faith, and that
our witness is to the Triune God in whose image we too have been
created.

The proponents of a narrow orthodoxy claim that God condemns
homosexuality, that the witness of Scripture is unambiguously contrary
to same-sex relationships, that the authority of Scripture itself is at
stake in this debate, and that the church cannot have different moral
standards in different parts of the world. 

But we, from a broader orthodoxy, reply that God condemns no one who has
been made in God's image, that Jesus Christ has taken upon himself the
condemnation of us all, homosexual and heterosexual alike, that
homophobia [The Lambeth Conference of 1998 spoke of homophobia as "an
irrational fear of homosexuals." No one explained what a rational fear
of homosexuals would be. I use the term to denote prejudice against and
denial of the dignity of homosexual people] is one of the unexamined
sins of the church today, and that no doctrine of creation which ignores
homosexual persons is an adequate doctrine of creation. We reply that
moral standards do in fact vary in different parts of the Christian
world, and that this is a cause for deeper discussion rather than
separation. 

A couple of years ago we had a conference in New Westminster that
brought together all the people interested in social justice in our
diocese with all the people interested in evangelism. I had come back
from Lambeth in 1998 deeply impressed by the way African bishops hold
firmly together the twin imperatives of evangelising and social
transformation, and I knew that we in the western world tend too often
to separate them into different activities. Our conference speaker was
an American Baptist, and he began by saying this:

You Anglicans are a mystery to us Baptists. You have bishops in your
church who deny the resurrection of Jesus, and you say "hey, we're a
broad church. There's room for everybody here." And you have theologians
who question the Virgin Birth and the gospel miracles, and you say "hey,
we're a broad church. Everybody can have their say." And then along come
gay and lesbian people asking for a blessing and you say "hey, we gotta
draw the line somewhere!" At least [he said] if you're going to break up
your church, do it over something important.

This raises the question of how we distinguish primary and secondary
issues in the church. To gay and lesbian Christians, of course, the
experience of exclusion is a primary issue. But theologically we must
treat the question more dispassionately. What are first order issues in
the church? And what are second order issues?

Anglicanism's best and most enduring effort to answer these questions is
the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1888. It defines four things as
first order issues for the Anglican church. They are: the Scriptures of
the Old and New Testaments, the ecumenical creeds, the divinely ordained
Sacraments, and the historic episcopate. 

It's important to understand that these four pillars were originally
conceived within the Anglican Communion as a framework to define
membership. They arose in the late 19th century in response to the
growth of the church throughout the world and the requests by autonomous
churches in foreign parts for recognition as Anglican churches. They
remain the only defining criteria for membership in the Communion. As
the Primates said in Portugal in 2000, only "formal repudiation of the
Lambeth Quadrilateral" could count as a cause for the departure of a
province from the Communion. [Statement of the Primates of the Anglican
Communion, Oporto, Portugal, March 28th, 2000] And no part of the church
has yet done this.

No particular doctrine of human nature is contained in the
Quadrilateral, neither expressly or implied. No fixed and immutable
conception of human sexuality or Christian sexual ethics are named here.
This is not to say that Christian ethics and behaviour are not central
to Christian belief itself, for they clearly are, but it is to say that
first order issues for Anglicans are higher order issues, and nothing in
our tradition restricts ethical or doctrinal development where the
Gospel itself comes into contact with new social conditions or changing
human knowledge.

Theologically, to say that one believes in God, in the divinity of Jesus
Christ, and in his sacrifice on the Cross for our salvation, is of a
different order than saying one believes in restricting sexual activity
to heterosexual marriage or in the blessing of same-sex unions. The
existence of God is a foundational belief. Christian social ethics is
derivative. And while we must not separate them - and we should never
claim that moral law is merely a human construct independent of the will
of God - neither should we confuse the eternal and timeless truths of
the Christian faith with the historic and temporal working out of those
truths in the changing conditions of human life. To do so is a
fundamental category mistake. 

Yet those today claiming to be "orthodox" wish to dissolve the
distinction altogether. They hold that same-sex relationships is a first
order issue on the same level as the very existence of God. Some bishops
meeting in Kuala Lumpur announced they would be in communion only with
those who subscribe to their understanding of human sexuality. Other
bishops have thrown out the historic episcopate altogether by asserting
powers they do not have, and are busy planting churches and licensing
clergy in dioceses where they have neither authority nor jurisdiction.
In the name of "orthodoxy" they create disorder and anarchy. 

When asked how these actions are consistent with the church's tradition
and understanding of the episcopate, they blame homosexual Christians
and their supporters, arguing that the rejection of homosexuality and
the rigorous prosecution of a strict heterosexuality for everyone
without exception is the litmus test for the entire edifice of Christian
and biblical truth. They present us with an "orthodoxy" that is not
merely contingently homophobic but necessarily homophobic, with a gospel
that has become law, and with a newly structured church that is more
committed to expulsion than inclusion.

One of the tragic developments in the church today is the intellectual
theft of the word "orthodoxy" by conservative modernists. In fact,
historic Christian orthodoxy has accommodated a variety of
spiritualities, theological schools, doctrinal convictions and pastoral
practices. Genuine orthodoxy includes people like Julian of Norwich, who
called God "mother;" Francis of Assisi, who protested the church's
submission to money; and Desmond Tutu, who defied the
fundamentalist-backed system of apartheid. Historic orthodoxy has seen
centuries when marriages were never performed in the church and, if
Boswell is right, periods when same-sex relationships were celebrated.
[John Boswell, "Same Sex Unions In Pre-Modern Europe," New York, Villard
Books, 1994]

We have seen the demise of cherished and fiercely held doctrines like
the divine right of kings and the institution of slavery, the
prohibition against usury and the strictures against divorce. And we
have maintained unchanged the church's universal moral commitment to
love and compassion for the despised and the rejected, to justice for
the suffering and the poor, to bread for the hungry. We have continued
to challenge the principalities and powers of this world that corrupt
and destroy the creatures of God, for these imperatives are not subject
to time and decay.

Orthodoxy is a broad river, not a narrow stream. Yes, every river has
its banks, but river banks also change over time. Authentic Christian
faith is anchored in the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth, and
the living tradition of faith under the guidance of the Spirit is always
open to a new word from God. 

There was a time, for example, when Christian orthodoxy seemed
necessarily anti-semitic, when Jews were openly held in contempt by
frequent New Testament passages that condemn them. The 1662 Book of
Common Prayer prayed for the conversion of what it called "the faithless
Jews, that our Lord and God would take away the veil from their
hearts...graciously hear our prayers which we offer for the blindness of
this people, that they, acknowledging the light of thy truth, may be
delivered from their darkness."

In a post-Holocaust world these sentiments are now understood not only
to have been a misreading of Scripture, but to have led to a human
catastrophe of obscene proportions. Yet in this same world, homophobia
has replaced anti-semitism as the last acceptable prejudice in some
parts of the church. Now, as then, authorities remain silent or actively
justify discrimination and oppression in the name of their religious
beliefs. Official statements and declarations - even the ones making an
attempt at balance and fairness - go to great lengths to reassure
traditionalists, while offering at most a sentence or two of
acknowledgment to homosexual people.

Gregory Baum, a Roman catholic theologian, draws a parallel between
anti-homosexual prejudice and anti-semitism. He cites the rejection of
anti-semitism by the modern church as an example of authentic Christian
tradition that is capable of deep renewal and change. He writes this:

When tens of thousands of homosexuals were put into concentration camps
in Nazi Germany, the world did not cry out against this brutality. As
the Christian church remained silent in regard to the elimination of the
Jews, so it uttered no word to protect homosexuals from a similar fate.
Why this indifference to murder? What is it in our culture that makes us
so hardhearted in the face of the suffering of certain groups? In this
case, it is undoubtedly due to the church's teaching that homosexuality
is a perversion, a sin against nature, a manifestation of evil. Even
though Jesus summons us to be in solidarity with the despised, the
vulnerable and the "least of them," we are ashamed to be seen in public
as friends and supporters of gays and lesbians and to defend their
dignity and human rights. The murders of homosexuals on our streets
accuse us of a certain complicity, just as the violent manifestations of
anti-semitism do. An increasing number of Christians see here a
contradiction between doctrine and love. [See "Faithfulness And Change:
Moments Of Discontinuity In The Church's Teaching;" in "The Challenge Of
Tradition" John Simons, ed, Anglican Book Centre, Toronto, 1997]

Baum says that when the church perceives a contradiction between
doctrine and love, a contradiction it cannot perceive until certain
conditions are present in history, then it is plunged into a
re-examination of truth. This process has five steps, he argues, the
first being the sense of contradiction that arises us when something in
the tradition strikes us as incompatible with what we know of God's love
and justice through Jesus Christ. The second step is a search for the
root of the contradiction in Scripture. The third is a re-reading of
Scripture and tradition to find hints for resolving the contradiction.
Fourth is turning to Christian experience - in this case, the experience
of gay and lesbian Christians in their life in Christ - as verification
of a new perspective. And fifth is the development of a systematic
theology capable of overcoming the contradiction.

Over the years, the church has done this with respect to usury,
monarchy, slavery, capital punishment, the equality of women, and the
termination of marriage. In each case, the Holy Spirit has guided the
church through a period of difficult change and brought us to a fresh
appreciation of Christian responsibility and freedom. In each case,
orthodoxy has proven itself both flexible and durable, both unchanging
and yet ever self-renewing in its power and faithfulness.

None of this involves rejection of the authority of Scripture. On the
contrary, the same Spirit that inspired the writers of the Bible
inspires the church in its reading of the Bible. The Holy Spirit that
breathes through the text, breathes through the church. Charles Hefling
writes:

To perceive the Spirit's work, the work of the Spirit is needed, and
while every biblical word may become a sacrament of the Word, no
biblical word always or automatically does convey the Word to every
reader or every worshipping community. Prayer and study, the exercise of
discernment and reason, play their part as interpreters, in weighing the
scripture, are themselves weighed. The process is reciprocal,
unavoidable, and unending. [See "The Authority of the Bible in Today's
Church," Seabury Western, 1993]

To place ourselves under the authority of Scripture, therefore, is to
enter a dialogical circle in which both church and text encounter each
other with new questions and new insights in a continuous and
never-ending circle of interrogation and revelation. In this process we
learn new things both about ourselves and about the sacred text. 

So, for example, we have learned from liberation theologians and base
communities of the poor that God speaks a particular word of freedom and
empowerment in Scripture to the marginalized and oppressed peoples of
the earth. And we have learned from women that certain texts in
Scripture have been used by men to control and dominate, to justify male
superiority and give it the appearance of divine sanction. Phyllis
Trible has called these "texts of terror" in which humiliation,
subjugation, rape and murder seem to be justified by biblical authority.
These texts of terror, these oppressive texts, have been used against
gay and lesbian people too, and we must confidently say to the church
and to the world today that they are not the word of God.

In a statement of interpretive principles prepared for the Diocese of
New York last year a group of biblical scholars said this:

Faithful interpretation requires the Church to use the gifts of "memory,
reason and skill" to find the sense of the scriptural text and to locate
it in its time and place. The Church must then seek the text's present
significance in light of the whole economy of salvation. Chief among the
guiding principles by which the Church interprets the sacred texts is
the congruence of its interpretation with Christ's Summary of the Law
and the New Commandment, and the creeds. [See "Let The Reader Understand
. . . A Statement Of Interpretative Principles By Which We Understand
The Holy Scriptures," Diocese of New York, 2002]

The New Commandment they speak of is that text in John's Gospel. "A new
commandment I give you," says Jesus, "that you love one another. Just as
I have loved you, so you also should love one another." [John 13:34]
Love, according to these scholars, is to be the guiding principle by
which we interpret Scripture. Not the sentimental love of modern
society, but the costly love of Jesus, the sacrificial love that is
lifted up on the cross for the life of the whole world. 

The authority of Scripture lies in Christ himself. This is the orthodox
position. For he is the love of God made flesh. "He is the reflection of
God's glory and imprint of God's very being". [Hebrews 1:3] Whatever
reveals Christ in Scripture is authoritative for the church. Whatever is
not of Christ, not consistent with the love of God shown in the
crucified and risen Lord, is not authoritative and cannot be made into
doctrine necessary for salvation. 

The hatred, contempt and vilification of God's gay and lesbian children
that claims the name of orthodoxy today is not condoned nor blessed by
Jesus Christ. It has more to do with those forces of religious
fearfulness that crucified Jesus than with the love for which he gave up
his life. The problem faced by gay and lesbian Christians, and those who
stand with you, is not that we are victims of tradition, but rather
casualties of those who have not grasped tradition deeply enough. 

One of the elements of our tradition, of course, is sexual abstinence.
There has always been a recognition in Christianity of those specially
called to the single or celibate life. The voluntary renunciation of
sexual activity is a particular gift of self-offering and service that
some individuals are called to make, and it can be a deep expression of
love and faithfulness. There is also a place for periods of voluntary
sexual abstention in marriage itself. These things are rightly honoured
in Christian tradition. 

Unfortunately, celibacy has not always been voluntary. It has been
imposed on people who have no calling to it, and required of people who
cannot bear it. Far from being a blessing, in these situations it
becomes a curse which denies normal, healthy human intimacy to people
who are in every other way faithful servants of God. When people fail in
it, as they often do, the response of the Church has been to blame the
individual, when it would have been better to question the teaching.
Imposed celibacy is a contradiction in terms.

Anglicanism, to its credit has never imposed celibacy on its clergy. Our
clergy are free to marry and enjoy all the freedoms and responsibilities
of human intimacy. This is enshrined in the 39 Articles, no less!
[Article XXXII] It's as if we have recognised from the beginning that
ordination does not require renunciation of sexual life. Some
individuals may have such a calling, it is true, but they are few in
number. Anglicans have instinctively recognised that human beings are
sexual beings and so we have accorded the clergy the same marital
privileges as the laity. 

Except, that is, for gay and lesbian clergy. Here we meet the cruel
double standard. Homosexual people alone must accept imposed celibacy.
Homosexual Christians alone are denied the full expression of intimacy
with their partners because only for them does the church now insist on
the pro-creative theory of sex. Only for them does the church still
require renunciation of the sexual life. 

This double standard denies and diminishes the humanity of gay and
lesbian people. It is an aspect of homophobia. The fact is, both
homosexuals and heterosexuals alike are people with the same legitimate
yearnings, desires, hopes and dreams for stable, faithful and lifelong
intimacy; we are different only in the object of our attraction; we
share the same fundamental humanity, the same sinfulness, the same image
of God given to us all in creation; we have the same Saviour and Lord
who accepts us and loves us unconditionally. 

Archbishop Desmond Tutu asks:

Why should we not want homosexual persons to give expression to their
sexuality in loving acts? Why don't we use the same criteria to judge
same-sex relationships that we use to judge whether heterosexual
relationships are wholesome or not? I am left deeply disturbed by these
inconsistencies, and I know the Lord of the Church would not be where
his Church is in this matter. [See his Foreword in "We Were Baptized
Too: Claiming God's Grace For Lesbians And Gays," Marilyn Bennett
Alexander and James Preston, Westminster John Knox Press, 1996]

Where, then, is the courage of the church? Where is our tradition of
reasoned faithfulness, our ancient compassion mandated by Christ himself
and bequeathed to the church by the Spirit? Will the church continue to
call for costly sacrifice by its gay and lesbian members through the
renunciation of their full humanity, but not take upon itself the costly
sacrifice of witnessing to God's love in homophobic societies or to
other world religions? Why are Christians willing to live or die for the
uniqueness of Jesus Christ but unwilling to proclaim the true depth of
his uniquely unconditional love to people of other faiths? Why are we
accused of conformity with secular trends in western society, while
conformity with inherited prejudice and the standards of other religions
goes unchallenged? It is time, as the Bishop of Oxford has so forcefully
argued, to turn the argument back on those who are raising the voices of
panic.

In their book "We Were Baptized Too" Marilyn Alexander and James Preston
speak words of encouragement to the church. Three words, first to gay
and lesbian Christians, second to the faithful hardworking clergy of the
church, and third to the ordinary members:

Gay and lesbian Christians, we can walk through the storm. Though the
walk may be long and rocky, and our burdens heavy, we can walk together.
We can be a sign to the Church that has forgotten what it means to
trust, what it means to love, and what it means to do justice.

Pastor, you may think that the storms of homophobia brewing out there in
your congregation may be too threatening to enter. You hear the thunder
and you see the lightning, but can you stand in the doorway and watch
the opportunity to walk with the liberating Christ pass you by? Yes,
your walk will not be easy nor your burden light, but you are not alone.
Come out into the rain; remember your trust in God; remember Christ's
embodied stand for justice.

Church member, have you been silent about your loved one who has been
turned away, rejected, despised in the name of Christ? Forget your
umbrella, it won't do you any good in this storm, but come on out where
you can see the rainbow in the distance. The winds are blowing, the hail
is beating, and it is a long way to the car, but can you do any less
than to go to the House of Unconditional Love? Tell the stories, cast
out the shame, love God's children, and seek justice. [Ibid, p. 88-89]

We are asking for bread, not for a stone. We are asking to be heard as a
voice of hope and a voice of love. Let us give thanks that the Lord
Jesus Christ in his mercy has accepted us, and pray that one day we may
be accepted by the church that bears his name.

___________________________________________________________________
ACNSlist, published by Anglican Communion News Service, London, is
distributed to more than 7,000 journalists and other readers around
the world.  For subscription information please go to:
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/acnslist.html