View From The Pew
by Gerry Hunter
(Posted May 7th, 2001).
Narrowing
the Wide Path
An examination of the report of the Legal and
Canonical Commission,
Diocese of New Westminster, Dialogue on Same Sex
Unions.
As promised, the report of the Legal and Canonical Commission has been
submitted and released. Unlike the fourth set of papers from the Theology and
Doctrine commission of the dialogue on same-sex unions in the Diocese of New
Westminster, it has been published on the diocesan website. It is, of course,
very one-sided, so the report is completely in regimented lock step with what
has happened in every other phase of this process. (The missing papers
presented both sides; I wonder is that a clue to their absence?) In spite of a
letter sent to parishes on Saturday April 21, which speaks of the clear way for
a vote, it is important to remember that this is indeed only one side of the
case. With that in mind, let's examine the case to identify what's missing.
The report is organized into a preliminary matters section, dealing with four
matters, and a section dealing with three questions. On the way, it manages to
work in the recommendation that the proposed "rite" (which Integrity
Vancouver didn't much like, anyway,) be scrapped. For ease of handling, we will
consider the sections by question, and the recommendation.
Some "preliminary matters" were identified as needing consideration
by the commission. The first was, "what action would flow from implementation
of motion 9 [the motion to allow the "blessing."]"? The answer
the commission came up with was that it would "authorize use of a liturgy
to bless covenanted same-sex unions." Hard to disagree; yes it would. But
just as Newton noted that "for every action, there is an equal and
opposite reaction," in forces applied to bodies, so there would be here.
These reactions are never discussed, and not even acknowledged to exist. To
move from A to B is to draw closer to some things, and leave others behind.
A more comprehensive treatment of the question would deal with some of these
items, such as the uniqueness and sanctity of marriage, the purposes of God in
creating our sexuality, and the thousands of the years of Christian teachings
and tradition predicated on these first two items. There are other items, but
these will do to make the point that, by intention, the writers of the
commission report took a very restricted view of the questions. One cannot give
good insight into the dynamics of a magnet by considering only its south pole.
The insight into the "action that would flow" from motion 9's passage
is similarly deficient.
The second preliminary consideration or asks whether we're dealing with a rite
or a sacrament. The seems to be major concern for the writers of the report,
who conclude that the proposed blessing is a rite, not a sacrament.
The church has, and for centuries has had, rites and sacraments. The
sacraments, the two in the 39 articles, or the two gospel and five others
sometimes alluded to by Anglo Catholics, have unquestioned legitimacy. A rite
also must have legitimacy, and the legitimacy of the proposed rite is clearly
taken as a given. No detectable effort is made to establish the legitimacy of
the proposed rite. The assumption, it appears, is that if a bishop defines a
rite, it is legitimate simply for that reason.
The third preliminary question is whether or not to the proposed blessing is a
doctrinal matter, under the purview of General Synod, with the answer given it
as "no." In other words, nothing has been written down by the
corporate bodies of the church which restricts the consideration of this matter
to General Synod.
Two considerations come quickly to mind. Can General Synod (or anybody else)
write-down absolutely anything and declare it to be Christian doctrine? What if
they were to write, "There is no God."? What if they were to write,
"Jesus Christ was just a man."? Either could be promulgated as a
religious doctrine, but whether either would be Christian doctrine is,
obviously, quite another question. It takes somewhat more than a simple work of
legislative fiat to make something Christian doctrine. That, in the report, is
understated, unacknowledged, and unexplored.
The next consideration is whether General Synod needs to act at all for
Christian doctrine to come into being. Suppose the general Synod does go
bankrupt and fold. Does Christian doctrine cease to exist? The emphasis placed
on General Synod as the agent of doctrine, to the apparent exclusion of all else,
is a striking feature of the report. And of course, the issue of doctrine and
General Synod's role in defining or defending it is unexplored.
The final preliminary matter is the question of whether a diocesan bishop has
authority. No explicit answer is given, with the matter being rolled into the
first question. However, neither in raising the matter, nor in dealing with it
in the question, is the existence of any limit to the extent of that authority,
such as the concentration vows to defend the Christian faith, acknowledged.
The most important evident function of these preliminary considerations appears
to be to drastically limit the scope within which the subsequent questions are
to be considered. In effect, only the equivalent of the bylaws of a corporation
are set out as being pertinent. Now in the secular arena, we have the concept
of "public policy." In brief, no matter what a corporate body may
enact or contract, it can be set aside if it be contrary to public policy.
Historic Christian beliefs, creeds, and theology have the same function here,
but are carefully carved away before the questions are considered. In effect,
we turn to the three questions by examining the law, without reference to the
spirit of the law. This approach to the three questions may well be legally
valid, but it is spiritually bankrupt.
Not surprisingly, then, when we move to the three questions before the
commission, the answers are all favourable to the intended course of action. No
canon precludes it; no approval is required; no civil or common law impediment
exists. Can a believer take comfort in this? Of course not! The most important
considerations have been excluded from the scope of the formulation of the
opinion. If we only slightly broaden the scope, some very disturbing questions
arise.
The canons, we are told are not an impediment. Can we then conclude that there
are no impediments? Not on the basis of this report. Its scope is, by design,
to narrow to admit them, but there is nothing to lead to the conclusion that
they do not exist. Let us take, for example, the assertion that the move would
not be schismatic. In a 1996 article, Christian theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg
concluded:
Those who urge the church to change the norm of its teaching on this matter
must know that they are promoting schism. If a church were to let itself be
pushed to the point where it ceased to treat homosexual activity as a departure
from the biblical norm, and recognized homosexual unions as a personal
partnership of love equivalent to marriage, such a church would stand no longer
on biblical ground but against the unequivocal witness of Scripture. A church
that took this step would cease to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic
church.
But, by design, theological considerations - the spirit of the law - have been
excluded from consideration.
No approval of the action would be requires within the restricted area of
consideration. It is, though, well known that historic and biblical
prohibitions are being set aside in even considering this question. They, too,
are excluded from consideration.
Civil and common law, we are told, pose no impediment. Perhaps they do not.
More pertinently, though, that is quite irrelevant to the wider question. St.
Paul observed:
"All things are lawful for me," but not all things are helpful.
"All things are lawful for me," but I will not be enslaved by
anything. 1 Cor 6:12
St. Paul was discussing sexual morality here, and took care to point out the
limitations of "lawfulness" as a factor. In a manner which is
diametrically opposite, the report ignores these limitations, presumably in the
hope of lending the cachet of legitimacy to the proposed action.
No doubt, those who have campaigned long and hard to bring about this
repetition of an overt act of apostasy on the part of the Synod of the Diocese
of New Westminster - the passing of Motion 9 - will take comfort from the
findings of the report. Believing Christians will not. The gulf between those
who favour Motion 9 and believing Christians is illustrated in the rationale
for setting aside the proposed "rite" which emerged from the imposed
dialogue process. It is argued that the "rite" should be set aside
because it tends to blur the lines between marriage and union blessing.
Proponents tacitly assume that a rite exists which will not blur that line.
Believing Christians know that no such rite exists at all.
Ultimately, the only impediment to apostasy is faith. To say that this report
clears the way for a vote on the issue of blessing same sex unions is to acknowledge
having set aside that faith. The report, though treated as if it were a
judgment, is but an opinion formulated in a purposely-narrowed scope of
consideration. Its promulgation adds nothing to the overall legitimacy of the
steps that led to it, or the steps it foresees. It is a strong signal, however,
from those who could stop this process in its tracks if they foresaw its
failure, have decided that there is no need to do so. For this signal,
believers should be most grateful, and they should not ignore it.