"THE GATHERING STORM" BY ROBIN GUINNESS

REFLECTIONS ON THE SAME SEX BLESSING CONTROVERSY

by Robin Guinness

A work in progress.

2nd March 2004 Commemoration Day of John Wesley, Preacher. 1791. Charles Wesley, Poet 1788

THE NATURE OF THE CONTROVERSY

At heart the same sex blessing controversy is a theological issue, not an issue of life-style. It is an issue of belief before it is an issue of behaviour.

The doctrine at issue is the doctrine of creation. In particular what is at issue is who and what God has created man / woman to be. In Genesis 1:26 God said "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." In Genesis 1:27 scripture states "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply."

Man / Woman has been created in the image and likeness of God the creator. We bear the image of God in a variety of ways, as spiritual beings, rational beings, moral beings, aesthetic beings, etc. However the only elaboration in the creation narrative as to what "image of God" means is in terms of our sexuality. "Male and female created he them." And in terms of the expression of that sexuality "Be fruitful and multiply"

There are two things about the nature of God that are suggested in the creation narrative. The first is that he creates, and the second is that within his being there is unity and diversity. "Let us make man in our image and after our likeness" "Image" and "likeness" are in the singular, "us" and "our" are in the plural. In the fullness of the Biblical revelation the clue that we are given here in the creation narrative is able to be seen as a reference to God's triune nature. The triune nature speaks of the unity and diversity, the complementarity, correspondence and completeness within the three persons of the Trinity.

This understanding of two aspects of the nature of God as revealed in the creation narrative becomes the foundation for our understanding of human sexuality as created in the image of God. The fulfillment of our sexuality is in terms of the complementarity between male and female. This is reiterated in the command "Be fruitful and multiply" This command also confirms that God has made man / woman to be like him in terms of his ability to create. Male and Female together reflect the image of God. It is in the complementarity of male and female that God is reflected. Dr Glen Taylor calls this "A participation in the relationality of the triune God" Taylor also notes the essential connection between "the economies of difference and mutual dependence" and the blessing: heterosexuality is "the vehicle through which the blessing will come."

The creation narrative thus gives us absolutely no foundation whatsoever to formulate any understanding of the fulfillment of our sexuality in terms of same sex unions. Such a suggestion runs directly counter to the complementarity and the the blessing of creativity at the heart of our sexual identity which is in the likeness of our triune creator God..

Genesis 2 builds on the foundation laid in Genesis 1. Genesis 2 introduces the institution of marriage, and thereby endorses the understanding of human sexuality quarried from Genesis 1.. John Stott has a very clear exposition of Genesis 2 in his book, "Same Sex Partnerships ? A Christian Perspective" Stott draws attention to three realities identified in Genesis 2: first the human need for companionship, secondly the divine provision to meet that need, and thirdly the resulting institution of marriage. Stott draws attention to the fact that Jesus endorsed the Old Testament definition of marriage (Matthew 19:6) By way of summary Stott identifies three truths that Jesus affirmed. 1) Heterosexual gender is a divine creation. 2) Heterosexual marriage is a divine institution 3) Heterosexual fidelity is the divine intention.

In these two chapters of Genesis we have set forth with absolute clarity the Magna Charta of human sexuality. There is no suggestion that a man or a woman's ontological need for "the other"can in fact be fulfilled by sexual intimacy or union with another of his or her kind. Not only is such a suggestion never entertained, it is categorically ruled out by virtue of our created nature as beings made in the image of God. In the mystery of the Holy Trinity we do not have two fathers and a son, or two sons and a Holy Spirit, we have Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and therein lies the DNA of human sexuality.

Into this Imago Dei framework fit all other Biblical references to human sexuality, and without it they can not be understood. Only in this context can the Biblical prohibition of homosexual activity as being contrary to man / woman's nature (Romans 1:26,27) be understood.

A church that teaches that the fulfillment of our sexuality is to be found in same sex unions has either to deny the triune nature of God, or it has to deny that we are created in the image of God. It is difficult to imagine how any dialogue on this issue could be fruitful unless it grapples with this theological and doctrinal issue.

To make such a forthright statement is not in any way to deny the struggle and agony of our homosexually oriented brothers and sisters. Their suffering is real and calls for continual compassionate sensitivity. It is however impossible to build a theology of sexuality on their or anyone else's experience. Theology, by definition, is the Word of God. It is with this that we have to start, and understand and interpret our experience in its light.

A PRIMARY OR A SECONDARY ISSUE?

Primary issues are to do with the person of Jesus Christ and His work of salvation. Secondary issues are all other issues.

However, can we really separate sin and salvation? How can we either understand or enjoy the fullness of God's salvation in Jesus Christ if we do not know what the sin is for which Christ has died and from which he is able to set us free?

Can we really separate salvation from sanctification? If we do not know what the life is to which God calls us to live, how can we seek his sanctifying power to live that life?

Can we really separate salvation from creation, for if Christ died to restore us to what God has originally created us to be, how can we enter into that new creation if we do not understand who we are by virtue of that original creation?

The same sex blessing issue might appear initially to be a secondary issue, but upon closer examination it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that by being tied so inextricably to primary issues it is in fact a primary issue.

A FEW OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF BECOMING A SAME SEX BLESSING CHURCH.

A church that teaches that the fulfillment of our sexuality is to be found in same sex unions has a lot of work to do. It will need to re-write large sections of its Christian education curriculum.

Such a church would need to introduce to children before they enter their teen years the teaching that our sexuality can be fulfilled either through same sex or opposite sex life long unions, so as to help our children avoid growing up "prejudiced".

Such a church would need to give some guidelines on same sex dating and to provide teaching to help young people discover whether they should be heading for a same sex or an opposite sex life long union.

Funds would be needed at a national church level and at the diocesan level to provide for the creation of these new Christian education audio visual resources. There would be funds needed for the salaries of appropriately qualified children and youth program co-ordinators, and doubtless there would be travelling expenses. Of course funds from our parish apportionment are already being used to re-educate us into being a Same Sex Blessing Church, not least in financing a diocesan synod where the Archbishop makes it very clear in which direction he wants the church to be moving.

When writing to the Church in Ephesus the Apostle Paul instructed "Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them." (Ephesians 5:11) It is hard to avoid the conclusion that by paying our full diocesan apportionment, under the present circumstances, we are in fact taking a very significant part in the unfruitful works of darkness. Even if provision were made for Alternate Episcopal Oversight, churches that opted to take advantage of that provision would still have to grapple with how to be obedient to the injunction of Ephesians 5:11.

THE SEARCH FOR BIBLICAL PRECEDENTS IN DETERMINING OUR FUTURE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DIOCESE AND THE NATIONAL CHURCH.

As soon as we begin to search the scriptures for guidance and precedents that might give us instruction as to how to respond to contemporary issues, we are face to face with two tasks. The first is the task of exegesis and the second is the task of hermeneutics. Exegesis comes from a Greek word and means "to lead out". It has to do with discovering the original intended meaning of a passage of scripture for the original recipients. Hermeneutics is a Greek word and means "to interpret." It has to do with "seeking contemporary relevance of ancient texts" (Fee and Stuart "How To Read the Bible for All Its Worth" published by Scripture Union 1994. p.25.) Fee and Stuart continue (p.26) "A text cannot mean what it never meant (to the original readers). Or to put it in a positive way, the true meaning of the biblical text for us is what God originally intended it to mean when it was first spoken." In understanding the meaning of a text of scripture we have to understand its historical and literary context. In seeking to apply the text to our own situation today we have to ask the question "In what ways is our situation like, and in what ways is our situation unlike the situation of the original recipients?" Another important hermenutical principle is that we can never so interpret a passage of Scripture as to answer the kind of questions that it had never occurred to the people of the original context to ask.

Whatever passages of scripture are deemed to have a bearing on any aspect of the Same Sex Blessing controversy, these passages have to be examined using the exegetical and hermeneutical tools and questions that have been referred to above. We do this in conjunction with prayer that the Holy Spirit will show us what bearing (if any) they have on our situation today.

One passage that might have a bearing on the issue of "splitting the church" is 1 Kings chapters 11 and 12, (and chapter 9:1-9) the account of how God divided the united kingdom of Solomon after Rehaboam had succeeded him as king, and split it between Rehaboam who was left with two tribes, and Jeroboam who was given ten tribes. This was essentially a judgement on Soloman "who did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, and did not wholly follow the Lord, as David his father had done" (1 Kings 11:6) It was the arrogant and foolish response of the newly enthroned king Rehaboam to the people, that precipitated the revolt that led to the division of the kingdom. Scripture states at this point "It was a turn of affairs brought about by the Lord that he might fulfill his word." (12:15) It is interesting that God promised to bless Jeroboam who had instigated the rebellion against the lawful king and seized the ten tribes, on condition that he walk in the ways of the Lord. "If you will harken to all that I command you, and will walk in my ways, and do what is right in my eyes by keeping my statutes and my commandments, as David my servant did, I will be with you and I will build you a sure house, as I built for David, and I will give Israel to you." (11:38) The tragedy was that Jeroboam did not thereafter walk in the ways of the Lord. It would seem at the very least, from this passage, that organisational unity among the people of God is not a particularly high priority on God's agenda.

An Old Testament passage that may or may not have a bearing on the issue of continuing to pay our full diocesan apportionment is the book of Malachi, particularly the statement in chapter three verse ten "bring the full tithes into the storehouse." The issue here was the fear and lack of trust by the people of God in a time of poor harvests and scarcity of food, that if they gave away a tenth of their food supplies to the temple priests and Levites as the law required, they would not have enough left for themselves. In response to this fear God commanded "bring the full tithe into my storehouse, that there may be food in my house." God added His promise "I will ... open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you an overwhelming blessing. I will rebuke the devourer for you, so that it will not destroy the fruits of your soil." (v. 11) At that time God in his graciousness did not want the priests and Levites to starve even though they were acting corruptly. Incidentally, the issue at stake never was "We should not give our tithe because the priests and Levites are corrupt." The issue was rather "If we give our tithe we won't have enough for ourselves." The issue before us is "If the time comes when the money that we give to the diocese for the maintenance of ministry and mission in our churches is used to spread false teaching and to promote false practice, should we with hold a portion of that funding?" The hermeneutical question that arises is "Is there sufficient congruence between our situation and the situation addressed by the prophet Malachi for us to apply the injunction of Malachi 3:10 to ourselves today?" I am not convinced that there is. There are of course questions relating to the consequences of our withholding funds, and to the alternate use to which those funds might be put that may have to be addressed.

The prayer of Jesus recorded in John 17, particularly verses 20-23, addresses the issue of unity among the disciples of Jesus with him in his earthly ministry and among those disciples "who believe in me through their word". This prayer included the petition " that they may all be one, even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." It is difficult to find anything to do with the organisational unity of the church in this passage. The nature of the unity that Jesus has in and with the Father is a relational unity of truth and love. It could even be argued that three or four smaller churches that did not have organisational unity, but which did have a unity of truth and love with each other and with the Lord, would be closer to Jesus' ideal than one large church that did have organisational unity but did not have a unity of truth and love. It is also salutary to ask the question as to whether the world is more likely to come to believe that the Father has sent the Son into the world when faced by the organisational unity of the church or by a unity of truth and love.

Another New Testament passage that warrants the most careful study is 1 Corinthians 5:9-13.with special reference to verse 11, "I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber – not even to eat with such a one." This is one of the passages on which the argument advocating separation because of "broken communion", is based. This argument affirms that we are forbidden to break the bread of Communion with one who has put himself out of fellowship with the Lord, until there is repentance. If this "one" is a bishop then the consequences for those "under his authority" are very serious. This passage has added pertinence to us as we reflect that the Same Sex Union Blessing controversy is essentially an issue of idolatry. It is an instance of the Church falling down before the contemporary idols of political correctness, the privatization of values, and undifferentiated tolerance.

In the letters to the seven churches in Revelation there are words of warning and judgement. Ephesus (2:5) "I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place unless you repent". Pergamum (2:16) "Repent then. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth.". Thyatira (2:21) "I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her immorality. Behold, I will throw her on a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her doings; and I will strike her children dead.." Sardis (3:3) "Repent. If you will not awake, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come to you." Philadelphia (3:9) "Behold, I will make those of the Synagogue of Satan who say they are Jews and are not, but lie – behold I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and learn that I have loved you." Laodicea (3:16) "Because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth."

Lot was warned to flee from Sodom as it came under God's judgement (Genesis 19:12-29), God warned Noah and his family to flee from the judgement that he was bringing on the world (Genesis 6), Jesus warned his disciples to flee from Jerusalem as it came under God's judgement (Luke 21:20-24) Could the time come when God will call his people to flee from an institution that may have ceased to be a church, whose lamp stand God has removed from its place, and which has come under the judgement of God?

THE SEARCH FOR HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS IN DETERMINING OUR FUTURE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DIOCESE AND THE NATIONAL CHURCH.

In the Reformation the emergence of the Protestant church took place in different ways in different countries. In Germany Martin Luther was expelled from the Church of Rome. In England Thomas Cranmer found himself independent of the Church of Rome in large part because of a political decision by King Henry VIII. With John Calvin it was different again. "His final break with the Roman Catholic Church appears to have taken place in 1533 after a religious experience in which he believed he had received a mission to restore the Church to its original purity." (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church: Calvin, John.)

On May 19th 1662 a Parliament of Charles II in England passed the Act of Uniformity. This Act required all ministers of religion to use only the Book of Common Prayer in worship, to be ordained by a bishop, and to subscribe to the thirty-nine articles. One fifth of all the Christian Ministers in the country declined to conform. . On August 24th Bartholomew's Day two thousand men left their churches their livelihood and their homes "going forth on a high enterprise of faith rather than violate conscience by denying their conviction as to the true nature of the Church and the ministry." (Dr G Campbell Morgan : The Westminster Pulpit 1912) This was the beginning of the Non-Conformist movement and Non-Conformist churches in England from which came such an abundant harvest in the centuries that followed.

In 1668 in England eight bishops and 400 clergy declined to take the Oath of Allegiance to William and Mary. They were all deprived of their livings. Within a hundred years their separate identity had all but vanished.

John and Charles Wesley remained members of the Church of England until their lives end. However in 1768 a Methodist Chapel was opened in New York. The needs of this new field induced John Wesley to ordain Dr Thomas Coke a Welshman as Superintendent or Bishop, and also instructed Coke to ordain Francis Asbury in the Americas as his colleague. Within five years of the death of John Wesley The Conference authorized Methodist preachers in their Preaching Houses (later "chapels") to administer the sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion. The subsequent mission and ministry of the Methodist Church throughout the world has had an enormous influence for good throughout the ensuing centuries.

The call of Dr Martin Lloyd Jones from Westminster Chapel in 1966 to evangelicals within the Church of England to join him and other evangelicals in forming a separate evangelical Church in England needs to be studied. This call was graciously declined by Dr John Stott, Dr J.I. Packer, and others. In the approximately 40 years since this historic decision the evangelical movement in the Church of England has had a transforming influence within that church.

The above examples are only a very small sampling of historical research that needs to be done as we continue to seek God's wisdom through the way that he has led his people in past centuries. .

Three observations could be made in the light of these historical precedents. The first is that God, in his infinite mercy and grace continued working, albeit gradually, slowly and partially in the corrupt institutions that groups and individuals felt compelled to leave. The second observation is that the new life that was birthed in the new institutions that came into existence through the costly obedience of those who followed the leading of God's Spirit in the historical circumstances of their own day, could not have come forth within the old institutions. This new life can be seen in terms of holy living, reaching the lost, and the transformation of society. In the third place it is salutary to recognize that in time the new institutions wrestled with some of the same and similar challenges to Biblical faithfulness and vibrant Spirit filled life that had plagued the institutions from which they had come.

One of the principal differences between the more distant historical precedents and the situation that pertains today is the existence now of a self conscious, vocal, active, global Anglican Communion with an increasingly influential leadership from the global south. This was in part anticipated by those who framed the foundation document of the Anglican Church of Canada, the Solemn Declaration of 1893. This declaration, found in the front of the Book of Common Prayer, affirms:

"We declare this church to be, and desire that it shall continue, in full communion with the Church of England throughout the world, as an integral portion of the One Body of Christ composed of Churches which, united under the One Divine Head and in the fellowship of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, hold the One Faith revealed in Holy Writ, and defined in the Creeds as maintained in the undivided primitive Church and in the undisputed Ecumenical Councils". "And we are determined by the help of God to hold and maintain the Doctrine, Sacraments, and Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded in his Holy Word, and as the Church of England hath received and set forth the same in The Book of Common Prayer."

The founding fathers of the Anglican Church of Canada affirmed first and foremost "We declare this church to be, and desire it to continue, in full communion with the Church of England throughout the world." Little did the bishops, clergy and laity realize, gathered at Trinity College, Toronto in September1893 for the first national synod, what massive significance these words would have for orthodox Canadian Anglicans nearly one and a quarter centuries later. How immensely reassuring to know that God the Holy Spirit, by so guiding our founding fathers, has built into the very definition of what the Anglican Church of Canada is, a commitment to remain in "full communion" with the world-wide Anglican Communion.

Would this not mean that any parish or diocese that chooses to step out of fellowship with the global Anglican Communion, has forfeited its right to be a part of the Anglican Church of Canada.?

Parishes and dioceses, as vessels of the church of God, must chose their direction and determine how to set their sails, as we head across uncharted waters into the gathering storm. Our compass is surely the glorious and Solemn Declaration, pointing as it does to "Christ as the Lord" and to the "Word of God" " As containing all things necessary to salvation." Our continued faithfulness to it is therefore our highest priority and our greatest safeguard in the Anglican Church of Canada today.

DEDICATION

This article is dedicated to Paul Carter, Simon Chin, Dan Gifford, Ed Hird, Stephen Leung, Neil Mancor, Barclay Mayo, Dawn McDonald, Silas Ng, Felix Orji, Jim Packer, David Short, James Wagner, Trevor Walters, Mike Stewart, and others in recognition of their costly and courageous witness. .

The Rev. Robin Guinness is Associate Pastor of Little Trinity Church in Toronto, Ontario.