I sent this essay full of reasons as to why it's a bad idea to bless sex outside traditional marriage to all thirty six bishops who voted for this radical departure from orthodoxy. Not one of them has sent a reply engaging with any of the reasons presented here.
Archbishop Justin Welby and his
colleagues have got an army of unbelieving parliamentarians on their back
insisting the Church of England recognises sexual relationships outside
traditional marriage, the union of one man and one woman; in their own ranks
there are loud voices demanding the same, but across the UK and the world there
is a traditionalist sea of millions who will separate from the mother church if
lines are crossed. It’s impossible not to feel sympathy for Archbishop Welby
and his fellow bishops.
And all of us, whatever our leanings,
have struggled with the church’s historic teaching that sexual intimacy is only
for a man and a woman within the covenant of marriage. That is a vast subject
and the clergy who seek to give pastoral care need much wisdom. This though is
not the focus of this essay.
Here the focus is the statement from the
bishops trying to deal with the conundrum they find themselves in. The have
opted for a compromise, with Archbishop Welby himself epitomising this. He
supports the idea of blessing sexual activity outside traditional marriage, but
he himself will not give those blessings.
Sometimes compromise is necessary. But
not always, especially if that compromise lacks acumen, sensitivity, clarity,
fidelity, and, seemingly, respect for Anglicans of a different colour.
Lacking in Acumen
Tearing Apart the Worldwide Anglican
Communion
It is not shrewd to tear apart the
world-wide Anglican Church. The writing was on the wall. The Episcopal Church
in the USA have promoted sexual activity outside traditional marriage and
100,000 members have left. GAFCON (Global Anglican Future Conference) with
plenty of arch-bishops and over 300 bishops, has been set up in opposition to
the US stance.
The bishops knew it would happen, but
they went ahead. Technically they could argue their responsibility was for
Anglicanism in England where there was a thin majority in the House of Clergy
and Laity However
it is surely not wise to push through a controversial decision when there is vigorous
opposition. And that is just in England. The rest of the Anglican Church,
especially in Africa and Asia are appalled, and while not under Canterbury in
any administrative sense, Canterbury is the mother church. There are
international obligations.
The statement came out and the
explosions of the Anglican Church breaking up were immediately heard.
The Bishop of Nigeria, leader of about
ten million Christians, denounced it; GAFCON, denounced it; the Church Society
denounced it; polite All Souls Langham Place, speaking for many of the orthodox
in the UK, have denounced it:
“As drafted, the prayers of Love and Faith now teach every sexually
active unmarried couple that repentance is not needed. If believed, this
denies people the joy of stepping away from those things God has called sinful
and into new life with him. We cannot participate in such a departure from
biblical Christianity."
All Souls
has also withdrawn their financial support for their diocese. Many other
churches will follow suit.
A voice is raised, ‘But if nothing was
done to placate those wanting to bless sexual activity outside traditional
marriage, then this group might have left’
That objection is less than convincing
for two reasons. First of all it is unlikely this group would have left. They
have been arguing for more sexual freedom in the church for years, and no
serious concessions were made. They did not leave.
Secondly, if there has to be a split it
should be fair. This means that the ones who want to change the rules of the
church are the one who should leave; the ones who do not have the obvious
support of the Scriptures, they should leave; the ones who are in a minority
should leave; and the ones whose cause has done untold damage to Anglicanism in
other countries, like the USA,
they should leave. The statement does not just cause a split, it causes an
unfair split.
Executing Ecumenism
Christians need each other, and across
the world there are millions of other Christians whose help can be sought,
especially during times of persecution.
The three largest denominations, the Roman Catholics (over a billion), the
Pentecostal groupings (280 million) and the Eastern Orthodox (270 million), all
stand against sexual activity outside traditional marriage. This decision smashes
up the ecumenical cause. Blessing sexual activity outside traditional marriage
will be a red line for these denominations and other smaller ones, like the
Baptists (40 million), It is very hard to see this as having acumen.
A policy with a track record for decline
Research shows that Western Churches
that have altered their policies surrounding sexual activity and traditional
marriage have declined. The Church of Sweden has lost two million members; the
Church of Scotland 300,000 members; the Anglican Church of Canada a million
members; the United Church of Christ (US) 600,000; the Episcopal Church in the
US, 700,000; and the Lutheran Church in the US, two million. The
General Synod wants the Church of England in England to grow, so it seems peculiar
to move towards a policy that has such a dismal record.
Internal logic is lacking
The statement lacks internal logic. In
clauses E and F the statement welcomes the prayer of blessings for couples
engaged in sexual activity outside traditional marriage, and then in clause G
it says there is going to be no change to the doctrine of marriage. The
Christian doctrine of marriage is that God made mankind male and female and
that a man should leave his parents, and become one flesh with his wife. Sexual
relations are for a husband and a wife within the covenant of marriage. There
is where God’s blessing is. And yet, as the statement from All Souls makes
plain, the thirty-six bishops want to draw up prayers that will bless sexual
activity outside marriage. Logic asks for consistency, not contradictory
statements.
Woolly words
The prayers of blessing are for those in
‘stable, committed relationships.’ There is no definition of ‘stable’, or of
‘committed’ (one week, one month, till death us do part?), and no definition
even of ‘relationship’. The word implies sexual activity, but the word sexual
is not there. As it stands any one with any sort of relationship can ask for a
blessing. There is nothing here to stop people who are a part of a threesome
and in a stable relationship with each other coming to the church to ask for a
blessing. Concrete definitions are important. They are not here.
A competitor for traditional marriage
The church is now denying that sexual
activity outside a traditional marriage is sinful. This is difficult to square
with the Bible, but the point to question is the wisdom of supporting a
quasi-type of marriage if you want to support proper marriage. Till now the
church has brought blessing for untold millions because she has urged people to
move on from ‘boyfriend and girlfriend’ and commit themselves to each other in
marriage. When you have something precious, it is not wise to bring in a
substitute that undermines it.
Lacking in sensitivity
To Christians who are same sex attracted
The statement is trying to make room for
non-celibate same sex couples in the church. However this is insensitive to the
Anglican Christians who are same sex attracted but have determined to stay
celibate to honour Christ. Some, like Rev. Vaughn Roberts, serve in the Church
of England. Roberts and others have tied themselves to the mast to resist the
Sirens, and now the bishops sail past and say there is nothing wrong with sex -
in a ‘stable relationship’. Rev. Roberts has responded very graciously,
but firmly, to the Bishop of Oxford, a keen advocate for sex outside
traditional marriage. There is something unsettling seeing those who have
sacrificed so much being undermined by their own leaders.
To those who have repented of sexual sin
Millions have become Christians in
Anglican Churches and repented of all sexual sin, whatever its exact nature.
For some that might have been very costly, perhaps they lost the one person
they really loved because of this. But they denied themselves to follow Christ.
And now the church tells them that this self-denial was not necessary. That is
insensitive.
To those who want to be free from sexual
addictions
Many people want to be free from
unwanted sexual urges and addictions. Before there was clarity: Christ can
bring freedom. Yes, there will be the disciplines of accountability and
fasting, perhaps the casting out of unclean demons,
but there will be victory. All of the holy aggression necessary for living on
the narrow path is now punctured by this statement wanting to bless sexual
activity outside traditional marriage.
For the persecuted
When it comes to Anglican Christians who
live under the cloud of persecution, this document is unbearably insensitive.
Anglican Christians in countries like Nigeria, Pakistan, Iran, India, and Yemen
face murderous opposition.
These Anglicans are persecuted because
they refuse to deny Christ and all He stands for, which includes sexual purity.
For them the Christ who frees them from sin is the Christ who is worth dying
for. But now they look to Canterbury and learn that sexual activity outside
marriage is not sin.
And they look to the cathedral where
Becket was murdered, hoping for Canterbury’s support to ease their suffering.
But instead they find that for the last six years Canterbury has given a lot of
time to a small minority who, apart from disliking the church’s boundaries, are
safe and healthy. Can one imagine the look on the face of a man like Richard
Wumbrandt, who was imprisoned and tortured in a communist jail for fourteen
years, entering the last Synod to find out what the bishops were talking about?
For missionaries
All over African and Asia Anglican
missionaries by word and deed have brought blessing. The Synod have ripped up
the message that caused this impact. Imagine you are an Anglican seeking to
share the Christian faith with a devout Muslim. He or she will listen, and then
ask, ‘But I have heard that Christianity supports sex outside traditional marriage’.
The missionary can either lie, or lose his audience. It seems the General Synod
never considered the implications of what they were doing for the great mission
of the church.
To millions of ordinary people
The document is very sensitive to the
slither of people (compared to the world’s population) who are concerned about
different sexual identities; it is completely insensitive to the billions in
the world who live in traditional societies where marriage and the family is
honoured and other types of sexuality is barely talked about.
And that includes huge swathes of England where traditional family values are
important. Consider the world of football, inhabited by millions. It is
stolidly traditional. Here there is respect for the normal family, and not much
enthusiasm for those pushing alternatives. In 1945 Hugh Dalton told a friend
that, ‘Labour will only win power with the votes of the football crowd’. The
General Synod’s decision has not been sensitive to the football crowd.
Lacking in Clarity
Very polite
Harriet Beecher Stowe, the author of
‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’, once wrote, ‘Better, a thousand times better, open, manly,
energetic war, than a cowardly, treacherous, peace’. As with slavery in her
day, so with sex outside traditional marriage in ours, in the church (not the
world) the issue needs open and energetic war.
There is a declaration of war in this
document against the traditionalists, but it does not seem very open. Consider the
opening paragraph.
That this Synod, recognising the
commitment to learning and deep listening to God and to each other of the
Living in Love and Faith process, and desiring with God’s help to journey
together while acknowledging the different deeply held convictions within the
Church:
Under the politeness there is a phrase that
is not true: ‘journeying together’. Churches like All Souls, London, or St
Ebbes, Oxford and their clergy do not want to journey with people like the
Bishop of Oxford. For a traditionalist there is no journey to make. The
statement shies away from that. The politeness seems disingenuous.
Meaningless apology
The next paragraph is superficially
clear, but in substance it is anything but.
The bishops:
(a) lament and repent of the
failure of the Church to be welcoming to LGBTQI+ people and the harm that
LGBTQI+ people have experienced and continue to experience in the life of the
Church;
A proper apology is about specifics.
Here it’s not very clear about what the apology is for. Is the Synod suggesting
that all their 16,000 plus congregations in England have not welcomed gay
people? How do they know this? Especially since most people do not walk into
churches advertising their sexuality. And what is the harm that has been
inflicted? Has there been a torrent of harsh words spoken against people who
identify themselves by their sexuality? The paragraph has fine sounding words,
but little substance.
Someone might say, no, but the teaching
is not welcoming. Of course. This is Christianity. It was started by Jesus
Christ whose first public word was – ‘Repent’. (a little softer than John’s
‘You brood of vipers’) When we hear the Gospel we should feel uncomfortable,
especially when we hear Christ talk about sexual matters: ‘If any man looks at
a woman lustfully he has committed adultery’ A good church, like her founder,
will divide people. If everyone feels comfortable then here we have a social
club, not a proper church.
Lacking in fidelity
A difficult acronym
The use of the acronym LGBTQI+ is very
problematic for those called to uphold the authority of Scripture.
First of all the bishops are agreeing to
define people by a sexual orientation. That is not in the Bible. We are created
in the image of God.
Secondly, they are surrendering to an
unproven, secular narrative, that believes that people have a fluid sexual
identity. In the Bible God created mankind male and female.
And thirdly and worst of all, the
bishops have signed off on the plus sign. This stands for all of the gender identities and sexual
orientations not covered by the other five initials. There are many. One is
Polyamory, which is ‘loving non-monogamy’, i.e. threesomes, foursomes. It is
surely tragic that in print we have thirty-six bishops apologizing in theory to
people who are in a polyamorous relationship. Surely faithfulness calls
Christian leaders to teach the plain meaning of Scripture: ‘flee sexual
immorality’.
In the Bible God does not accept
everyone
The next paragraph contains a
theological error which reflects a popular myth in Western society that God
accepts everyone.
The
bishops - recommit to our shared witness to God’s love for and acceptance of
every person by continuing to embed the Pastoral Principles in our life
together locally and nationally
God’s love for every person, that’s in
the Bible; God’s acceptance of every person, that’s not in the Bible, nor is it
in the teaching of the church. We are sinful creatures under the wrath of God.
We are only accepted in Christ.
How this basic theological error got
past all the bishops is a mystery. God’s acceptance of some and rejection of
others runs from Genesis to Revelation. Inside and outside; the broad and narrow way; sheep and goats; wheat and
tares; the found and the lost; the saved and the damned; the accepted and the
rejected, that’s the paradigm of the Bible and the church. And yet in this
paragraph from the bishops we read that God accepts everyone.
Not focused on what the church is called
to
Surely the emphasis of the Bible and
Christian tradition is to preach the Gospel, live holy lives, and serve the
poor. That is where fidelity must lie. This is not the focus of the next
paragraph.
We
commend the continued learning together enabled by the Living in Love and Faith
process and resources in relation to identity, sexuality, relationships and
marriage;
The UK is in tatters, the public square
filled with lies and lewdness, cronyism and corruption, exploitation and
manipulation, and it is the weakest who are suffering. Preaching Christ
crucified the church can rescue people from their personal pits of sin. It is
not that English people are antagonistic to the Christian message, the problem
is the church does not preach Christ in the streets.
This is what makes the emphasis of this
paragraph so out of focus. Instead of shutting down all this endless talk about
sexuality and engaging in robust evangelism like a John Wesley, or a Charles
Simeon, or a David Watson, or a Michael Green, or a J. John, all we get is this
paragraph about ‘learning together’ about ‘identity, sexuality, relationships,
and marriage.’ It’s impossible not to think of violins and a city on fire.
The compromise
The next three clauses take us to the meat
of the matter, which is that the bishops want to have prayers of blessing for
people engaged in sexual activity outside traditional marriage. Then in the
final clause it is bewildering to read there is going to be no change to the
doctrine of marriage. As already pointed out this is contradictory. It is a
compromise too far, for it means the bishops are neither being faithful to the
new creed whereby traditional marriage and other sexual relationships should be
treated in exactly the same way; nor of course are they being faithful to Bible
and the historic position of the church.
Lacking in respect for Anglicans of a
different colour
The English bishops knew that their
support for sexual activity outside traditional marriage is vehemently opposed
by many bishops in Africa
and Asia. Indeed the leading lights of GAFCON are African archbishops
For years these African bishops have been saying there is no need to question
the traditional teaching on marriage and sexuality, but their voices,
especially this year, have been ignored. Knowing full well that the Africans
would be outraged, the English went ahead with their provocative statement.
And, ironically, the process was called
‘Living in Love and Faith’.
It’s very hard to see what love these
English bishops have shown their African colleagues, but it’s very easy to see
how they have shown love to their white colleagues in the USA and Canada. That
is why it feels like there is a severe lack of respect for Anglicans of a
different colour.
A less obvious undertone of this lack of
respect comes as a part of the ‘liberal progressive’ package, the idea that
with education and a more open mind we can always move things forward for the
better. So here we have ‘progressive’ Anglicans, wanting to move sexual
relationships beyond marriage, and the implication is that the African bishops
are less educated, more closed minded, more primitive and that is why they want
to hold things back. That translates as ‘The whites know better.’
Put bluntly, there are racist overtones.
Probably Too Late
It is probably too late. The release
button for the nuclear bomb has been pressed.
But the bomb has not quite left this B29
Synod. There can be an about turn. Brave bishops can tear up this statement and
stand up for the ancient boundaries ,
boundaries which have brought blessing to millions around the world.
And this can happen suddenly, as in 2
Chronicles 29.
Hezekiah ordered that all defilement be
removed from the temple; he restored worship, and, later, celebrated the
Passover. The result was: ‘all the people rejoiced…for the thing had come about
suddenly’.
Instead of organising committees to
discuss what most people already know, could not our bishops follow the example
of Hezekiah? Organise services of confession for us Christians to remove all defilement
from our hearts, (including sexual sins), followed by worship. And then bold
evangelism whereby the arrogant are brought down, the humble raised high, and
the churches filled up.
This will bring joy to our church, not this
exceedingly problematic statement.
Tom Hawksley
An ordinary Anglican
March 2023
No comments:
Post a Comment