As it was in the beginningWhy sexual issues matter enough to cause a schism in the Anglican communion.
At no time among any Christians at any stage since Christ himself walked this earth – or at any stage in the long years before that, of preparation and teaching by God to his chosen people – has it ever been regarded as possible or right for two people of the same sex to go through any form of marriage ceremony, or to engage on any form of sexual relationship. Down all the centuries of Christian life, through so many different eras with great massive changes in laws and politics and dress and food and human customs, through wars and dynasties and famines and explorations, through the building and re-building of cathedrals and hospitals and schools and universities, through debates and arguments and massive splits and heresies and mutual antagonisms and fights and persecutions…through all that, and through more, through the passage of the years and the discoveries in science and medicine and engineering and technology, through changes in transport and travel and art and writing and language and means of communication, through great writings of music and drama and literature and great mapping of the stars and planets and explorations of the human mind and its possibilities…through all of that there has never, absolutely never, at any time, been any sort of recognition by the Christian Church that it was anything other than repugnant to the law of God and contrary to His plan for the human race for two people of the same sex to attempt matrimony. Until the last five minutes, that is.
Now, with the Lambeth Conference imminent, the actions of the clergy involved in the St Bartholomew’s debacle (there were many senior clergy among the 300 guests) make it more likely that the church will split over homosexuality and other issues, including the consecration of women bishops. A breakaway group has already held an alternative “Lambeth” in Jerusalem, declaring, among other things: “We acknowledge God’s creation of humankind as male and female and the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family.” This isn’t a tiny obscure niggling aspect of our Christian faith. This is connected to human begetting – to the essence of how we are made, to God’s creation ordinances. Matrimony is a sacrament instituted by God, not something of our making, and done on his terms, not ours. Just as bread and wine are the “matter” at the heart of the Eucharist, so one man and one woman, united for life, are the essential “matter” of matrimony. Why do some in today’s Anglican Church think differently? Chiefly, it seems, because it is regarded as cruel and unjust to make anyone feel uncomfortable simply because of a desire to engage in same-sex relationships. And no one wants to be regarded as cruel or unjust. So, instead, there must be a decision that, somehow, God got things wrong from the beginning, or…no, perhaps it is simply his Church which has been wrong from the very start, and the Jewish tradition in all the epochs beforehand. This understanding brings in the idea that a new revelation came to people in America and much of Western Europe in the late 1970s, and thus now we must rewrite things and make a claim for the Anglican Church which sets it irrevocably apart from all the Christians belief of centuries. In this understanding, God’s plan for the human race is not essentially based on man and woman, there is no uniting of the two that reflects the great reality of Christ and Church, there is no mystery of marriage which draws us ultimately to the marriage feast in heaven. Christ’s miracle at Cana is reversed – no long water into wine at a wedding, but water splashed everywhere, on any sexual relationship that humans seek to honour. And the Eucharist no longer contains within its heart a nuptial mystery, but is merely a decorative feast that we can use to honour what we will. A mess? Of course it’s a mess. And heartbreaking. The Church of England has been for many a thing of great goodness: an introduction to God, a place where the Ten Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer and the beauty of Christ’s message could be learned and loved, an institution through which the name of Christ was held high in public places. It has been custodian of some of the world’s most glorious churches. Their walls have echoed to exquisite music, and seen enchanting displays of flowers created by loving hands for God’s glory. For many, many families – and schools, and colleges, and regiments, and institutions the Anglican Church has provided a framework for the honouring of birth and death, of life’s landmarks and memories. Soldiers have been sent to God with Anglican prayers, and battle-worn flags have been hung in peaceful parish churches to honour courage and valour. Dying patients in hospitals, the lonely and the sick at home, people in prison, the bereaved, have met with kindness from Anglican clergy who spoke to them of God and led them in prayer. This is a terrific heritage. It is something good. It is cherished and valued by many who are not themselves members of the Church of England. And what happens now? Ordaining women was a break with the solemn tradition of the Church and has closed the door to any possible unity with the See of Peter and the Church centred in Rome. But there remained much goodwill and a common understanding of Christ and of God’s plans for human flourishing. There remained faithfulness to God’s word, and common endeavours to spread it among people everywhere. But now this is going too.
For the immediate future, things will muddle along. Compromises will be made. A structure of sorts will remain intact. Some bishops will formally break communion, and there will be wrangles over property. Those who adhere to the traditional and orthodox teachings will be deemed the rebels. There will be factions. Meanwhile, quite apart from the debates about homosexuality, other issues will continue to cause splits. Some provision – inadequate, muddled, slightly illogical – will be made if and when women are consecrated as bishops. Probably, various forms of Anglicanism will continue for quite a while yet. Some will be very good, and much will be compromised and pointless. Decent men and women will be confused, and the great mass of people in Britain – unchurched, untaught, in a culture dominated by a celebrity-obsessed media and much vulgarity – will drift further and further away from even the folk-memories of Christ that they have at present. Can one same-sex wedding ceremony in a London church cause all this? Of course not. The problem is a much larger one. It wasn’t just one iceberg that caused this shipwreck. This is about church authority and whether it exists or not. It is about how true doctrine is preserved and safeguarded. It is about our understanding of God, and how much authority he has and how we can discern what is his will and what isn’t, and whether it matters. The people within the Church of England who love the scriptures and are convinced that there are deep unchanging teachings, are on the right path. The Anglicans who simply love their church and ache for the days when things seemed simpler and issues such as same-sex marriage didn’t seem to arise, have a right to a spiritual home and good guidance. The sincerely confused, who went along with women priests and will accept women bishops too and vaguely feel that endless changes are somehow creative, need a vision which is larger and stronger and points to ultimate truth. How will God provide for all these people? We don’t know, but he won’t let them struggle without aid in the stormy seas of the 21st century. He seeks out his own. Keep members of the Church of England in your prayers. The story isn’t over yet. Joanna Bogle writes from London. |
related articlesmorebythisauthorfree updates |
Home | SiteMap | 
RSS | Atom | 
del.icio.us | Privacy Policy |
MercatorNet - New Media Foundation Ltd © 2004 - 2008 All rights reserved
Comment (24)
Email
Print
Technorati
digg
It has become a cliché to say that the Church of England is in a mess. But a new chapter of messiness began just recently with the
Comments (24)
Nwachukwu Egbunike said...My sincere prayers for the Church of England. History will certainly recount the courage of people who stood against the ‘politically correct’ but most times morally wrong decisions. I read the full address of Nigeria’s Anglican Bishop Peter Akionla (one of the most vocal voices against the conceration of gay bishops/marriage, etc)to the Anglican Confrence in Jordan.
It takes a lot of guts to maintain to a principled stand, for this i doff my hat for Akionla and co. Although, I have been described in many adjectives ranging from being straight-laced, ‘dwelling on a forlorn-hope’, ‘smoking a past-pipe or forever trying to recapture a puritan idyllic past’, etc. The issue remains that gay marraige is an aberration, to go futher to concecrate gay priest is an abomination because it goes against the moral norm. Period!
For all, one will always love as Christ commands, however, to conclude that opposition to gay means a lack of love is just turning Scriptures upside down. Down here people go at long length to have children, to therefore enter into a relationship that naturally excludes kids is selfish.
“As it was in the begining...”. This may well define what Anglicanism is and is not.
Nigeria | Tuesday, 1 July 2008 at 9:57 pm
Brian said...Please allow me to play Devil’s Advocate--that is, someone who presents arguments against someone’s canonization in the Catholic Church--for a moment. Ankola has allegedly called homosexual persons “unfit to live”. From where does that quote come and how accurately does it reflect traditionalist Anglicanism? Moreover, some have said and still say that different races were meant to be segregated. How can we be sure that those people are wrong?
-- | Wednesday, 2 July 2008 at 12:16 pm
Nwachukwu Egbunike said...Thanks Brian for playing Devil’s Advocate. I do not hold a brief for Akinola, because I am sure that he is quite able to defend himself. Nonetheless, I would like to have the full text of his address, where you claim he called gays “unfit to live.”
Until then it remains a ‘claim.’ Having been quoted out of context myself on various occasions, I am usually reluctant to jump into conclusions. If he said that, it will be a shame. However, having followed his arguments on this issue, i find it rather hard to believe that he would make such a comment. Akinola, for all he stands for will certainly not forget the injunction to “love the sinner but not the sin.” Since you are a Devil’s Advocate, I hope you will not find the above quote hateful or unacceptable.
Racism? Please. Don’t try to muddle up things.
-- | Thursday, 3 July 2008 at 4:18 am
Darren Hall said...This situation is part of what I call “political Christianity”
being “wordly”. Two men or two women CANNOT become one flesh.
There is NO WAY they can have a natural, physical union and obviously cannot produce offspring.
The Song of Soloman is a beautiful discription of the physical love between a (yes!!) MAN and a WOMAN; MALE and FEMALE. This description also is used as a representation of the love of Christ and his church.
How can any church or individual who claim to be Christian
believe God blessess homosexuality? The Bible tells us God
“loved us when we were yet sinners”; obviously this means God`s love does not automatically mean approval.
United States | Thursday, 3 July 2008 at 6:35 am
Neil said...If anyone has made the comment that people who engage in homosexual acts are “unfit to live” (and I cannot comment on this since I do not know if it is true) it is scarcely something I regard as Christian. The Church teaches such acts are sinful, which is something quite different. We all sin, many of us sin gravely, and often. We do not forfeit our right to live as a consequence. What we need to do is confess our sins, make a firm purpose of amendment and pray that God will give his His grace that we may unite our will with His. It may be very difficult for those deeply involved in a practising homosexual lifestyle to renounce this, if they wish to, and I am sure that God and faithful Christians have great respect for anyone that seeks to do so. They deserve our practical support, love and prayers. What they do not need is to be told that it is alright. It isn’t. If they disagree in all conscience (and who are we to judge their consciences?) they plainly need to leave the Church. No one will ever bully me into accepting homosexual practice is something to be celebrated mock-sacramentally. It does hurt people’s feelings to realise that not everyone agrees with them, but it is not the primary call of the Gospel not to offend anybody.
United Kingdom | Thursday, 3 July 2008 at 7:21 am
J.N. said...It always amuses me to hear the anglicans speak of the authority of the Church, and even more so when they start preaching about the independence of the church from the state since they were among the first to ignore authority (Henry VIII, remember?), and turn their “church” into a political party. Back then it was also something to do with the institution of marriage, if I recall correctly. So, since the time of king Henry VIII. everything from authority, independence of the Church from the state, to the true source of the teachings of that paricular “church” is kinda beside the point.
In short: the authority of the anglican church and it’s teachings are the same as the authority and the views of the british state (king/queen), and it has nothing to do with God.
Croatia | Thursday, 3 July 2008 at 11:05 pm
Francis Phillips said...Thank you, Joanna, for an excellent article: clear, charitable and truthful.
-- | Saturday, 5 July 2008 at 5:27 pm
charles nixon said...Readers may want to see the Toronto GLOBE AND MAIL for Wednesday,July 25, 2008 : an editorial comment on the address given by Canadian Primate, Fred Hiltz on this subject which seems to vex so many people. Father Hiltz addressed a public meeting at the Cathedral Church in Vancouver on the evening of July 24th, 2008.
Charles+
Canada | Sunday, 6 July 2008 at 2:01 pm
joannab150 said...I think we will see more coming home to the Catholic Church as they find the truth. And not a watered down, pick and mix version. At the moment it seems anyone can start a church and make up their own rules but it wouldn’t be ‘God’s Church’ it would be ‘man’s’. I hope more people would use their intellect and discover the history of the church for themselves.
United Kingdom | Monday, 7 July 2008 at 12:30 am
Nike Ramos said...“God created man and then woman blah blah...” “go forth multiply and subdue the earth..etc.” If something went haywired with one’s sexual orientation then it is just it...haywired. It needs to be understood first before it can be repaired. However 2 clergymen getting married? They can still admit their mistakes.
Philippines | Monday, 7 July 2008 at 5:33 pm
John F. Kennedy said...If someone mentioned “unfit to live”, in regards to a homosexual relationship, perhaps he was referring to eternal life. That they would be unfit for eternal life and would be dead to God.
Can you see the point?
Cincinnati, Ohio
United States | Tuesday, 8 July 2008 at 1:11 pm
John Thomas said...Surely all informed people (I’m not talking about those non-Christians who get all their information from the “Liberal” press, BBC etc.) realise that the homosexuality thing is just a symptom or side-effect or product of a much more crucial, and larger, error - the total abandonment of real Christianity in much (but not all) of Western society (apparently in America’s TEC sin, the incarnation and resurrection, the uniqueness of Christ and his saving acts, are all renounced - by the leadership - and reciting the creed itself is soon to cease being part of regular worship). This zeitgeist-led product of secular materialism is simply post-Christian, and not to be confused with Christianity at all - one thing to remember about it is that the very last thing it is, in reality, is liberal, or liberating (only adherence to God’s word and wishes does that). Those who remain real Christians must never fear (though they will surely encounter) attempts to put the blame (for the break-up) on them.
-- | Wednesday, 9 July 2008 at 12:45 am
Neil said...JFK,
I can see that point, and it is one that people struggling with habits of grave sin of any kind (not just sexual sin), would take, if they understand the Christian message. However, anyone in a position of leadership or authority needs to be aware that many do not understand the Christian message, and that their words and actions are interpreted by others to indicate that Christians wish sinners dead, not repentant. Thus it is incumbent on Christians, especially those who presume to teach, to choose their words carefully, even knowing that they may be manipulated by forces at least unconsciously hostile. There is a limit to this - and I do not know the particular circumstances in this Anglican bishop made the comment he did.
I believe an open and courageous preaching of the true Gospel - if you are weighed down by a sense of sin, come and be forgiven, and invite God to give you the grace to sin no more - is the way forward. In other words, the true context should be given for condemnation of homosexual acts.
United Kingdom | Wednesday, 9 July 2008 at 12:48 am
Ronk said...Excellent article except for falling into the mainstream media’s depiction of those Anglicans who remain committed to marriage as “a breakaway group”. The bishops who met in Jerusalem represent THREE-QUARTERS of the world’s Anglicans. It is the pro-sodomy group which is breaking away both in doctrine and in numbers, although they do have the lion’s share of the church’s wealth and media access.
Australia | Thursday, 10 July 2008 at 10:41 am
Francis Phillips said...Having now read the full opening address by Bishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria at the Gafcon Conference in Jerusalem this year, I find it hard if not impossible to think he could ever have used the inflammable phrase that Brian quotes above. The address is sober, clear, measured,charitable and very Christian. It is in no way an ‘anti-gay’ rant such as the alleged remark presupposes. To introduce ‘alleged’ remarks of such an insulting kind is irresponsible without first checking their veracity and source. When such remarks get bandied round, the mud sticks and emotions rise, making any proper debate about homosexuality and Christianity very difficult.
-- | Thursday, 10 July 2008 at 5:32 pm
Page 1 of 2 : 1 2 >