I am really pushed for time this week so this post is mostly a series of links (H/T to various correspondents or blogs I follow).
In the last couple of weeks material has been published ahead of the forthcoming General Convention charting proposed changes to the canon on marriage. The first link is the official church based set of material. The next two links are responses to this material.
If TEC makes its marriage canon gender-free (or gender-neutral) then it will be the final nail in the coffin of its relationship with the wider Communion. I can only see Canada possibly following TEC in such a direction. I cannot think of any other member church going that far anytime this century. Can you?
The fourth and fifth links take you to some CofE material about shared conversations on sexuality. Responses?
The sixth link takes you to a review of an interesting book. Thoughts?
Finally, below, I cite information in a Latimer Fellowship (NZ) newsletter re a legal challenge being mounted against a clause in Motion 30.
As time permits in the next few pressured weeks I may come back to any or all of the matters below. I welcome your comments. I remind you to publish at least your first name. I may not have time to respond to your comment no matter how inviting you make it to take discussion further ...
TEC files re proposed changes to canon on marriage
Anglican Communion Institute (Ephraim Radner)
The Living Church
Church of England Resources for Shared Conversations
Grace and Disagreement resource booklet links
Scripture and the plausibility of teaching on sexuality
Here in ACANZP, news of the legal challenge being mounted against clause 4 of Motion 30:
(From Latimer Online newsletter)
"Dear all,
Since the last General Synod a group of people have been working quietly on a
legal challenge to the constitutionality of Clause 4 of Motion 30 which allowed
for the recognition of formalised same sex relationships. The applicants to the
Judicial Committee are aware of the high level of distress Motion 30 clause 4
caused and the likely level of interest in this case.
Information Regarding a
Submission to the Judicial Committee Regarding the Constitutionality of Clause
4 of Motion 30.
At the 62nd assembly of General Synod Motion 30 was passed establishing a
working group. Its' purpose is to bring to the next General Synod
recommendations about process and structure whereby those who hold contrasting
views on the voice of scripture, doctrine and the church formularies on the
validity of the blessing of same gender relationships may be able to maintain
their position with integrity within the church. It did not propose or set in
train any change in the Constitution or the parameters in which General Synod
is required to work. The motion in its preamble states clearly that the church
upholds the traditional understanding of marriage and further notes the
potential of the working group’s task to impact on the Church’s theology of
marriage and ordination thereby acknowledging that the status quo does not
allow for the blessing of same gender relationships nor the ordination of those
in such relationships.
The motion, however, also included a fourth clause which allowed for
clerical discretion in the recognition in public worship of a same-gender civil
union or state marriage of members of their faith community but only with the
permission of their licensing Bishop and vestry.
The passing of motion 30 and in particular clause 4 has caused widespread
distress across the Province including two priests leaving the church. While
many would acknowledge there is value in discussing processes and structures
whereby people can maintain their integrity there is deep concern that this
fourth clause is not only unconstitutional but it also pre-empts the work of
the working group and potentially signals the direction the working group may
head in. According to the Merriam Webster dictionary to recognise something is
to “accept that something is true or important” and that it has “legal or
official authority.” The New Oxford Dictionary of English has the following
meanings : “acknowledge the existence, validity or legality of..”,
“officially regard as valid or proper” or “show official appreciation of,
reward formally.”
Given the meaning of “recognise” and that same gender marriages and civil
unions are not recognised by our formularies as they stand any recognition of
such unions in any manner is unconstitutional and no Bishop, Priest or vestry
having signed an allegiance to General Synod may sanction such a recognition,
(CONSTITUTION OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH IN AOTEAROA, NEW ZEALAND AND POLYNESIA
Part C, Clause 14. “No doctrines which are repugnant to the Doctrines and
Sacraments of Christ as held and maintained by this Church shall be advocated
or inculcated by any person acknowledging the authority of General Synod / te
Hinota Whanui...”)
Given the above line of reasoning an application has been made to the
Provincial Judicial Committee submitting that General Synod was also in error
in passing clause 4 as it proposes unconstitutional action. On that basis the
applicants are asking the Judicial Committee to rule accordingly on clause 4,
noting also that the clause is secondary to the main task of motion 30 anyway.
The applicants are the Ven. Tim Mora, Rev. Chris Tims and Chris Barfoot, with
legal assistance from Don Mathieson and others, and the Submission will be
presented to the Judicial Committee on the 2nd of March for consideration.
The applicants acknowledging the importance of this matter for the future of
the church sincerely request your prayer support.
If you wish to read the submission being made to the committee you can email
Don Mathieson at dlmsbm@hotmail.com and request a copy."
"If TEC makes its marriage canon gender-free (or gender-neutral) then it will be the final nail in the coffin of its relationship with the wider Communion. I can only see Canada possibly following TEC in such a direction. I cannot think of any other member church going that far anytime this century. Can you?" - P.C. -
ReplyDeleteThis sounds like another panic stations S.O.S. call to the conservative kaffe-clatch, Peter (IMHO).
No-ne will lose their life is the marriage canon is changed. In fact, some lives may actually be enhanced!
It is time the Anglican Communion accepted the fact that it exists in some very different cultural contexts. And the sooner this is recognised, the better. We range from T.E.C. which affirms the LGBT community in the Church; to GAFCON Provinces, which want them sent to the gallows. If there is to be a split on such issues, then, so be it. I know which place I will occupy ofr the sake of my understanding of the Gospel of OLJC.
Hi Ron
ReplyDeleteMy simple point here has nothing to do with differing cultural contexts and everything to do with whether common theology of marriage is or is not a common feature across the life of the Communion.
But I will leave it there and we will see if others join the discussion!
"I cannot think of any other member church going that far anytime this century. Can you?"
ReplyDelete85 years is an awfully time over which to make such predictions - think of someone in 1930 making such predictions about today.
The cultures of the other Anglo countries don't seem so different than those of the US and Canada that, absent the preserving intervention of the Holy Spirit, it seems to wise to think things will stay so much different in NZ/Ireland/Australia/UK for any very prolonged period.
When you put it like that, Michael, then 85 years is a long time.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, marriage being between a man and a woman has been the case for thousands of years ... so I am predicting the status quo to continue for a tad longer :)
I certainly hope, and pray, that you are right Peter, but I struggle to share your optimism. I fear that we could go through a phase - not this decade, or even next - where it becomes illegal for churches to maintain the integrity of marriage as something between one man and one woman. At very least, I could envisage a world in which, for example, the tax-deductibility of donations/offerings etc is made conditional on conforming to the new worldview and its practices. Perhaps faithful churches will just have to get out of the business of conducting weddings that create marriages recognised under legislation, and instead restrict themselves to solemnising the vows of couples committed to the gospel and the traditional teaching.
ReplyDeleteIt might depend, Michael, on what demands SkyCity places on the government of the day ... :)
ReplyDeleteA very pragmatic statement, Michael:
ReplyDelete" Perhaps faithful churches will just have to get out of the business of conducting weddings that create marriages recognised under legislation, and instead restrict themselves to solemnising the vows of couples committed to the gospel and the traditional teaching."
It will be very interesting to see who, in the circumstances you propose, will bother to get married in Church - except for those who continue to agree to the solemnities (with attendant costs) offered by the Church. There will probably be far less marriages than those undertaken at present in the Church - a figure which has been very diminished from former times.
I don't really know what all the panic is about. 50% of ALL marriages end up in divorce at this point in time. So how will allowing same-sex partnerships or marriage make any difference to the number of people who actually want to get married in the Church.
Extending the facility of marriage can only increase the number of people who choose to be together in caring, legal partnership. Otherwise people just would not bother. The alternative - promiscuity - is not limited to same-sex couples. Surely, to encourage stable relationships is preferable to promiscuity in anyone's culture.
Now that the etiology of homosexuality is better understood; the Church needs to encourage faithful, and stable relationships that are legally binding.
Don’t be ridiculous, Peter. Thirty-seven American states, plus the District of Columbia now recognize gay marriage. The Supreme Court is likely to strike down all anti-gay marriage prohibitions soon. The American Episcopal Church is simply adjusting our canons to reflect reality. Other provinces are likely to follow suit—including Canterbury and York. History is on TEC’s side.
ReplyDeleteKurt Hill
In cold (-9.44C) and snowy
Brooklyn, NY
Hi Kurt
ReplyDeleteSo when civil law heads in one direction the church should follow suit?
How do we know when not to do that? On the basis of popularity of change of custom or civil law being a driver for canonical change, the church in Uganda is justified in supporting draconian punishments for gay citizens.
No, wait, that doesn't sound right!
Perhaps there is a criterion other than popularity of civil law for what the church decides?
Regardless of what side of the fence you are (excuse the pun)...
ReplyDeleteLets just say if one puts one toes into a puddle, one must be careful not to be pushhed and end up sitting in it.
Translation:
Although many kiwi's due to the now differing interpretations on the 'cause' of homosexuality (re Ron's statements) claim they do not see the issue in a moral light, is our society really ready for such a change itself let alone within the church?
It appears most people claim acceptance until decisions get to close to home. Such as parents deciding whether or not to send kids to a youth group run by an openly gay man? Or the ramifications for the children involved were gay couples to receive artificial insemination or use surrogate parenting in order to have children?
We saw the same with the prostitution bill. Our society thought it was ready but when the bill was passed suddenly people were apalled at having brothels in the suburbs or their teachers moonlighting as prostitutes. I am not saying homosexuals and prostitutes are the same but to be forward looking at the ramification of decisions being based on legality and equality, and ignoring any mention of morality because it raises too many red herrings.
Obviously as Peter alludes the church has it's own plumbline for making decisions independent of society alone and at present this topic is getting a lot of plumbing done on it...
So .... the UK?
It seems to me the current Archbishop of the UK has been pretty straightforward - 'out there' sorry pun again - with his stance. As far as the church is concerned he is sticking to the canons and is prepared to enforce them as they currently stand. However, he openly advocates for treating all people respectfully including supporting anti-gay bullying campaigns. He encourages dialogue around the issue of homosexuality and theology. He does not see having a standpoint on a topic and being associated with others who hold different standpoints as mutually exclusive.
TEC?
Will their decision influence churches in other regions or not? A million dollar question.
Cheers
Jean
"50% of ALL marriages end up in divorce at this point in time."
ReplyDeleteThis isn't actually true. It never has been, and divorce rates are dropping.
" On the basis of popularity of change of custom or civil law being a driver for canonical change, the church in Uganda is justified in supporting draconian punishments for gay citizens." - Dr.Peter Carrell -
ReplyDeleteYou may be comparing apples with guns in this argument, Peter. Do you not think that the Church in Uganda is merely following the endemic culture of the country? Where justice is found in this situation needs to be clarified.
And as for Jean's mention of the U.K. Archbishop; does she not realise there is no such entity. There are two distinctive Provinces in the U.K. - York and Canterbury - each with their own archbishop. Also, in reply to Jean's question about whether, or not, TEC's decisions will affect other Provinces of the Communion - they already have. As a prophetic community of Anglicans, TEC has blazed the trail with many justice initiatives - one of which was the recognition of women as equal candidates for sacerdotal ministry in our Churches. Just look how long it took for the C. of E. to follow suit. That is the measure of TEC's goodly influence in the Communion.
"The passing of motion 30 and in particular clause 4 has caused widespread distress across the Province including two priests leaving the church." - P.C. -
ReplyDeletePeter. This statement seems to somewhat exaggerate the negative response in our Church to the passage of Motion 30. The fact that 2 priests left our Church because of it's passage may merely be an indication of their conservative viewpoint. In making statements like you do here, you are avoiding the fact that the majority of Synod members of our Church - who represent the overall membership of our Church - have voted for openness to the possibility of a change in the marriage canon.
That this is the will of Synod is an important indicator of how our Church views the legislation. Also, the fact that some will object to what Synod has decided, may just reflect the reality of their immovable opposition to our Church's desire to treat gay people with the respect and dignity they deserve - in the specific context of recognising their right to the Blessing of their faithful monogamous relationships.
General Synod is still the governing body of our Church's discipline and polity. And those who will not assent to its rulings may have to live with the consequences of their conscience. That does not mean that new policies are inimical to the call of the gospel to seek justice and equality for ALL.
http://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/can-the-traditional-view-of-sexuality-ever-be-plausible
ReplyDeleteLink on this website. A MUST read.
Rosemary Behan
85 years!
ReplyDelete85 years ago Anglicans still condemned contraception as sinful (along with every other significant Protestant denomination) as had been the case for thousands of years. You might like to celebrate the anniversary this year of when Anglicans announced that contraception would be allowed in only some circumstances. That slippery slope dragged all other Protestants with us, until all allowed contraception across the board.
85 years ago, giving communion to unconfirmed Anglicans was forbidden – that is still in the unalterable clauses of our NZ church formularies.
85 years ago divorcees could not receive communion, let alone be married again by the church; as had been the case for thousands of years.
85 years ago there were no women priests or bishops; as had been the case for thousands of years.
85 years…
85 years!
The best that can be said about this prediction is the thought that in 85 years there still might be Anglicanism! Some will say that’s way past Jesus’ return time; others find such optimism veering wildly from recent other posts here…
Blessings
Bosco
Ps. I’m not sure what Chris Nimmo’s point is? If you include marriages that end in separation, pretty standard statistics would have 48% end within 20 years. His point about "divorce rates are dropping" tends to be because marriage is now seen as optional for couples, living together without benefit of matrimony is now very common (even for church-goers), those that marry tend to marry later - are these the things that Chris Nimmo is promoting?
re Rosemary Behan's link to Ian Paul's article on his web-site. I noted this
ReplyDeleteaddendum:
"Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, would you consider donating £1.20 a month to support the production of this blog"
I'm afraid I do not pay much attention to bloggers who solicit donations for their moralising on the Internet.
In any event, most people know what Ian Paul thinks about homosexuality. It simply is not news! Certainly not the Gospel for those who happen to be Gay.
Good gracious Father Ron, I should imagine that everyone here knows that you don't pay attention to much that doesn't happen to agree with you point of view. May I point out that this article is a review of a book written by someone else, so that it is not Ian Paul's views that are being spoken about. Sheesh!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteRosemary Behan
If Father Ron Smith is going to correct Jean on her mistake (archbishop of the UK), he should refrain from confusing the two English provinces with other provinces in the United Kingdom, for example Scotland. If you correct people it is unhelpful to make it worse.
ReplyDeleteNick
Hi Rosemary
ReplyDeleteThat is an interesting blog post I had seen the link but not got around to reading it.
-------
Apologies to all UK people, rest assured in my mind I was only thinking England, a little fruedian slip.
And yes you are correct Ron, I believe the Archbishop of York's viewpoints are along the same lines.
I would have thought though you would have been interested in the book Ian Paul reviewed since it is authored by a christian who acknowledges same sex attraction; I found the article on your own blog about a celibate homosexual interesting.
Blessings
Jean
Nick; criticise other people and watch your back!. Even you left out the Church in Wales - that too, is a U.K. Province.
ReplyDeleteWhat I really was talking about in my comment on Jean's mention of the non-existent 'UK Archbishop'; was the provenance of the Church of England. I should have made that clear. There are 2 Provinces in the Church of England.
I did not limit the United Kingdom to Scotland; I said "for example". My objection is that correcting people on matters which are beside the point does not make the person correcting another any more persuasive and, in fact, can have the unintended consequence of scaring contributors off. When Jesus divides the sheep from the goats in Matt 25, I am very confident that Jean's trivial error will not get a mention.
ReplyDeleteNick
"Ps. I’m not sure what Chris Nimmo’s point is? If you include marriages that end in separation, pretty standard statistics would have 48% end within 20 years. His point about "divorce rates are dropping" tends to be because marriage is now seen as optional for couples, living together without benefit of matrimony is now very common (even for church-goers), those that marry tend to marry later - are these the things that Chris Nimmo is promoting?"
ReplyDeleteNew Zealand measures the divorce rate by divorces per 1,000 marriages. This rate is dropping. Moreover, Stats NZ estimates lifetime divorce rates at around 33%.
And of course Christians should not be cohabiting outside marriage. Any thinking that the church does on marriage should be concentrating on this issue.
Other than a desire to correct Fr Ron by a couple of percentage point, I'm still not sure what Chris Nimmo's point is.
ReplyDeleteStatistics New Zealand has that
those who married in 1971 - 29% had divorced before their silver wedding anniversary
married in 1976 - 30% had divorced before their silver wedding anniversary
married 1981 - 34%
married 1986 - 35%
That doesn't look like a dropping rate in my books.
Our divorce:marriage ratio stands at 42% about the same as Aus & Europe, and some points behind USA which stands at 53%
Statistics are notoriously amenable to a variety of interpretations. I continue to hold that Chris Nimmo's contention that the rate is dropping may not at all be something to celebrate - there may be complex dynamics at work in the stats that he prefers as I suggested.
I am also wary of having one morality for Christians and another for non-Christians.
Blessings
Bosco
"I am also wary of having one morality for Christians and another for non-Christians."
ReplyDeleteI wasn't aware of having suggested anything else.
"And of course Christians should not be cohabiting outside marriage. Any thinking that the church does on marriage should be concentrating on this issue."
ReplyDelete- Chris Nemmo -
Until the Church took over what had been the natural construction of marriage - for its own religious purposes - there was no compulsion for anyone to go through a religious ceremony. There always have been marriages where two people live together in unity and faithfulness - without the benefit of religious institutions.Some people, with no religious affiliation still do this, even today.
When you mention the fact that divorce is becoming less popular, that may only reflects the popularity of marriage, which many couples - on account of not wanting to commit perjury - are not willing to undergo.
"There are 2 Provinces in the Church of England."
ReplyDeleteFr Ron, you appear to be extremely picky, and I am not sure why - I understood immediately what Jean meant. No, she did not use entirely *complete* language but then neither did you. Yes it is true that the Archbishop of Canterbury is "Metropolitan Archbishop of the Province of Canterbury", and there is another Metropolitan Archbishop of the Province of York. But Justin Welby also has other titles and one of them is the more important one: "Primate of All England".
That is what most people mean when they use colloquial expressions such as "the archbishop of the CofE" or whatever. In certain circumstances he speaks for the whole of the CofE - the Archbishop of York never does.
"Other than a desire to correct Fr Ron by a couple of percentage point, I'm still not sure what Chris Nimmo's point is."
ReplyDeleteIts pretty simple to follow Bosco, and I am not sure why you are being picky on this one: Fr Ron said "about 50% of ALL marriages end in divorce". As you yourself admit, the figure for your country is 42%. It is entirely reasonable of Chris to correct that, because it is a significant difference.
"I continue to hold that Chris Nimmo's contention that the rate is dropping may not at all be something to celebrate"
I didn't read him or anyone else as suggesting that it was, so I don't know why you write this.
As for "there may be complex dynamics at work in the stats", well of course - that applies to every single statistic of that magnitude.
Mind you, I am not sure what the relevance of this is to the "gay marriage" debate. The number of people of homosexual orientation in society is probably around 2%, and presumably not all of them want to get married in any shape or form, so we are talking about a very small percentage of the population. As for whether they will have any different divorce rates to anyone else, who knows? The only indications are anecdotal, e.g. Bishop V G Robinson of TEC who recently separated from his male partner.
Why does it matter anyway? The issue for evangelical Christians is that the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman, so its irrelevant what divorce rates might be. So governments can pass laws legalizing gay "marriage" and it means no more than the Roman Empire declaring laws requiring Christians to worship the Emperor(which it actually very rarely did, but my point remains the same!).
"If TEC makes its marriage canon gender-free (or gender-neutral) then it will be the final nail in the coffin of its relationship with the wider Communion. I can only see Canada possibly following TEC in such a direction. I cannot think of any other member church going that far anytime this century. Can you?"
ReplyDeleteRe your last question, the Bishop of Salisbury publicly called for homosexual marriage in 2012, and on several occasions since. No bishop of the Church of England has publicly opposed his call, to my knowledge. That includes his own suffragan +Graham Kings who styles himself a leader of the evangelical centre.
More to the point, the Archbishop of Canterbury stated in Parliament on 3 June 2013: "It is clearly essential that stable and faithful same-sex relationships should, where those involved want it, be recognised and supported with as much dignity and the same legal effect as marriage." He called the Archbishop of Salisbury's public calls "a strong and welcome contribution" so I don't think there is much doubt about where he stands. [Ref. Hansard column 953]
In view of these clear indications of the beliefs of the CofE leadership, I am surprised that TEC is going to get there before CofE!
As for TEC's relationship with the Anglican Communion, I don't know if anything will change. Many provinces are already in a state of impaired communion with TEC, meaning that they won't have communion with its bishops or other clergy, but they make exceptions for clergy and members of TEC who maintain orthodoxy. Those provinces may not feel that their position should change merely because the leadership of TEC walks further into the liberal morass.
The concept of "impaired communion" is flexible and allows for the fact that not everyone in a province holds to the same doctrine. So for example, "Communion Partner" bishops from within TEC have been invited to Global South meetings, but last October when a group of TEC bishops tried to attend the consecration of a new bishop in West Malaysia they were told:
"“You are welcome—to our country. You cannot participate in the service however, because of the actions you have taken to tear the fabric of the communion and you remain unrepentant. We are not in Communion with you, so you cannot participate in the service.”
The Malaysian Anglicans then invited a bishop from ACNA to attend the service, no doubt to emphasise the point.
"As for TEC's relationship with the Anglican Communion, I don't know if anything will change. Many provinces are already in a state of impaired communion with TEC, meaning that they won't have communion with its bishops or other clergy, but they make exceptions for clergy and members of TEC who maintain orthodoxy" - MichaelA -
ReplyDeleteThis and other assertions in MichaelA's comment merely remarks on the fact of the existing division apparent in the Anglican Communion: GAFCON v The Rest.
The word 'orthodox' is bandied around carelessly - depending on one's view of Gafcon's 'Jerusalem Statement'. This is not necessarily this 'orthodoxy' of others in the A.C. Nor is it the view of the official 'Orthodox Churches of the East.
TEC is still in communion with the Provinces of Canterbury and, as far as I know, with all non-Gafcon Provinces (Including that occupied by ACNA). This may prove the real fulcrUm of Anglican relationship.
Hi Ron
ReplyDeleteIs it any part of Christian orthodoxy that marriage can be determined to be other than between a man and a woman?
If it can be part of Christian orthodoxy, on the say of which church authority (papal? conciliar? what all Christians everywhere believe? Scripture? Scripture and tradition? other?) is this so?
You overshoot, MichaelA, when you patronise that “its pretty simple to follow“ and then use the divorce:marriage ratio as if it directly measures the percentage of all marriages which end in divorce. You then state that this is what I admit. I understand what the divorce:marriage ratio measures and, hence, would not make the admission that you put into my mouth.
ReplyDeleteYou are inconsistent to have that “it is entirely reasonable of Chris to correct” a statistic, but for me to do so is “being picky”.
A similar inconsistency appears when you respond to my wondering what the point of the statistical argument is with “Its pretty simple to follow”, but soon thereafter yourself contend, “I am not sure what the relevance of this is”, and, after presenting further disputed statistics conclude, “Why does it matter anyway?”
If we are going to use statistics in a discussion, let’s at least be clear what they measure, and how they were arrived at. And I repeat - Statistics are notoriously amenable to a variety of interpretations.
Blessings
Bosco
"Hi Ron
ReplyDeleteIs it any part of Christian orthodoxy that marriage can be determined to be other than between a man and a woman?
- Dr. Peter Carrell -
In the same way as the doctrine of the priesthood can be changed (in the Anglican Communion) to allow women to be part of the priestly class.
Christian 'orthodoxy', it seems, only in 'certain cases', can be changed to meet existential reality.
As the male patriarchs once thought that men only were suitable to act as clergy; so now the term marriage might realistically be thought to cover the faithful monogamous relationship of two people - of whatever gender - provided there is no legal obstruction.
n.b. the 'Marriage Feast of the Lamb' is not restricted to heterosexually-related partnerships.