After reading the report of the Primate’s Theological Commission on the Blessing of Same-Sex Unions (the St. Michael Report) with attention and interest I would like to make the following contribution to the ongoing discussion.
The conclusion of the Primate’s Commission on the Blessing of Same-Sex Unions is stated in the opening sentence of the report, “The blessing of same-sex unions is a matter of doctrine.” The definition of doctrine on which this judgement is based is associated with the thought of Richard Hooker. The report paraphrases him as follows: “Doctrine is taken to refer generally to that teaching of the Church which is founded on Scripture, interpreted in the context of tradition, with the use of reason.” The Commission then distinguishes between “core doctrine” and adiaphora, described as matters upon which disagreement can be tolerated without endangering unity.
Is there a constantly recognizable deposit of core doctrine? Disagreement on the definition of core doctrine is a major factor in the disunity of Christian denominations. The infallibility of the Pope and the bodily assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary are matters of core doctrine for Roman Catholics, but Anglicans and many Protestants do not recognize them as such. Similarly, the definition of essential doctrine for Anglicans as that which can be proved from Holy Scripture may not be accepted by other Christians whose understanding of Scripture is more literal and legislated than we require. Anglicans are not required to dissent from an evolutionary understanding of the development of the natural order and human life while some other denominations of Christians may make that requirement. Anglicans themselves have differed on the content of core doctrine, on such subjects as the necessity of apostolic succession and the mode of Christ’s presence in the sacrament of the eucharist.
The Lambeth Quadrilateral (the Bible as containing all things necessary to salvation and constituting the rule of faith, the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds, the sacraments of baptism and the eucharist, and the historic episcopate) arguably is an Anglican statement of core doctrine It was adopted as the minimum standard for unity with other churches. But like the creeds which it includes it leaves much unsaid. Some might suggest that the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds in themselves constitute a definition of core doctrine, but it would be hard to prove that they do. Neither is earlier than the fourth century, at least in their present forms. Both make a giant leap from the birth of Jesus to his suffering and death. Neither has a word to say about the teaching and compassionate ministry of Jesus, or his announcement and demonstration of the reign of God. The compilers of the Apostles’ creed were concerned to anchor the ministry of Jesus not in the events, content, style, and implications of his ministry but to an identifiable point in history, “under Pontius Pilate,” presumably securing the symbol of faith against the threat of docetism with its dictum, “he only seemed to be human.” The Nicene creed, taking the same framework, is much more an attempt to describe the inner reality of the Christ in terms of the metaphysics of the day.
Doctrine is thus as much a matter of active process as of rigid content, as noted above in the reference to the interaction of Scripture, tradition, and reason. It is a conversation rather than a code. The Commission’s report begins with a quotation from Titus 2.1, “But as for you, teach what is consistent with sound doctrine.” The Greek word translated as “doctrine” is didaskalia, which may be a Greek substantive, i.e., a verbal participle being used as a noun. Liddell and Scott define didaskalia as “teaching” or “instruction.” “Teaching” has a verb quality. It is something that is done (I am teaching a class; she is teaching me) rather than the reduction of propositions to a formula that may be memorized. It is precisely because doctrine is a matter of process that there is bound to be disagreement. The question is whether disagreement is to be expressed creatively with respect and openness or with suspicion, anger, and vituperation.
I return to the proposed distinction between two strata of doctrine, core doctrine and adiaphora. Some of the principal meanings of the word adiaphora and its related forms, as it is translated in Liddell and Scott’s Greek Lexicon, are “showing no difference,” “not different,” “indifference,” and “no logical difference.” Use of the word in Christian theology seems to have risen in German Protestantism in the 16th century to identify certain traditional practices, for example confirmation, unction, and the veneration of saints, as matters of indifference which might or might not be continued without prejudice to Protestant doctrine. In the following century German pietists judged worldly pleasures, like theatres and dancing, to be sinful in themselves while others considered them to be “indifferent,” and therefore permitted. The great theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher entered this debate rejecting the concept of matters of indifference and affirming ordinary pleasures as part of the whole fabric of human life and therefore not only permissible but even obligatory.
In the spirit of Schleiermacher I wish to contest the Commission’s distinction between core doctrine and matters of indifference. In the world-affirming, holistic view of Christian theology nothing is a matter of indifference, although some matters may be more pressing at one point in history than another. The liberation of slaves in the 19th century was not a matter of indifference and disagreement on that subject led to the division of churches. Christians had treated it as an indifferent matter for centuries, but the time came when they realized it was wrong. The ordination of women in the Anglican Communion in the 20th century was not and is not a matter of indifference, although it has caused disunity among Anglicans, especially in some other parts of the Communion. Yet neither of these issues is recognizably part of the deposit of what may be perceived to be core doctrine. They are not mentioned in the creeds and they are subjects of such ambivalence in the Bible that it would be difficult to argue it may be proved from Holy Scripture that they are or are not necessary for salvation. If there is an over-arching principle at stake it is the commands, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself,” and “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” Once the issues were raised under these headings it became a matter of pressing urgency to choose where one stood.
In this context I affirm that the blessing of committed, loving, responsible, supportive relationships of persons of the same gender is not a matter of indifference. The question is whether or not homosexual people will be treated as human beings. This is not a matter of second-grade, so-so, take-it-or-leave-it doctrine. The compilers of the Windsor Report provide an example of what they mean by “indifferent.” Section A.38 of WR says, “It does not take an Ecumenical Council to decide what colour flowers might be displayed in church.” There is an enormous gulf between choosing between red or yellow flowers and deciding that the time has come to treat homosexual people with dignity and justice.
The Commission’s problem may stem in part from its definition of blessing. Section 3 in the report suggests that in a liturgy of blessing, “the Church declares the activity of God towards the object of that blessing.” I suggest that this is a typically western and dualistic notion of blessing which is based on the premise that everything is spiritually neutral or even negative until something is done to bring it to new and holy status. Rabbi Lawrence Hoffman, in a lecture to the North American Academy of Liturgy some years ago, argued that this understanding of blessing is almost diametrically opposed to Jewish tradition and theology which view everything that comes from the hand of the Creator as good. God is blessed (“Blessed are you, Lord our God, ruler of the universe”) and it is in that action that the object (bread, wine, etc.) or the relationship is released for human nurture and enjoyment. Perhaps we should not claim to bless things or people but should bless God for the gift. The proposal to bless same-sex unions is based on the principle that when two people have found love and mutual support in each other, the Christian community to which they belong may join them in blessing God for what is given.
I am delighted by the Commission’s recognition that doctrines have developed and changed over time (Section 13). Unfortunately, I do not believe that the Commission’s example (Section 14) is entirely accurate. Although some Christian leaders have suggested that there is no remedy for grave post-baptismal sin (e.g., Hebrews 6.4, “For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit”) others have taken a more flexible and tolerant position. The author of the letter of James tells his readers that those who are sick should send for the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them, and that anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven (5.15). He urges them to confess their sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that they may be healed (5.16). His position seems to imply the forgiveness of post-baptismal sin. A very early Christian text, The Shepherd of Hermas, similarly holds out the possibility of the restoration of those who repent (see Visions 2.2, 3.5, 3.13).
In the course of time the church adopted a more consistently rigorous position, often allowing one restoration to the second-class status of penitents. It was this tough and humiliating public discipline which encouraged catechumens to delay their baptism, possibly until the fire of the passions had abated and perhaps to their deathbed as well. It was not until the 7th century that Irish monks introduced the notion of sinners going privately to a priest to accuse themselves of the sins for which they would have been publicly disciplined if their behaviour had been known. The practice of private confession to a priest is clearly not part of the core doctrine of the church; nor, however, is it a secondary doctrine or adiaphora. It is a discipline enforced in some Christian communities and made more optional in others. The doctrine involved is that those who sin should repent (“Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us”). The form of repentance is a matter of discipline.
The Commission seems to have invented a new category of doctrine which is more than indifference and less than the core. This arrangement avoids saying that it is a matter of indifference whether practice varies from one part of the Communion to another, and is presumably what is meant in Section 9, “many teachings appear to occupy a place on a scale between core doctrines and adiaphora.” I would like to avoid this method of approach. I believe the blessing of same-sex relationships is a matter of discipline under the core doctrine that you shall love your neighbour as yourself in the style of Jesus, who received social outcasts and ate and drank with them. If the Primate’s Theological Commission didn’t mean “indifferent” they should not have drawn attention to WR’s use of the word adiaphora, where it is given this interpretation. (WR Section 38).
It is this distinction between doctrine and discipline that may be helpful in the current conversation about the blessing of same-sex unions. There is nothing in the doctrine of the church that forbids blessing God for the mutual love of two people. It is not mentioned in the creeds. It is true that references to same-sex activity, which may have been casual, appear in the New Testament and must therefore be considered in the light of tradition and reason. There are, however, other apparent regulations in the Bible which are equally forthright which we do not regard as adiaphora let alone as core doctrine. Examples include the prohibition of usury (Exodus 22.25 inter alia), matters relating to the status and role of women in the church (Exodus 11.1-16, 14.34f), and to the relationships of men and women in marriage (Ephesians 5.22-24). Relaxation of these regulations is not governed by the creeds or the deposit of doctrine. In fact, in England the abandonment of the prohibition of usury was effected in 1571 by an alteration in civil rather than canon law.
The question arises whether discipline has to be uniform throughout the church. Clearly it does not. It does, however, have to be subject to the over-arching doctrinal principles that govern the behaviour of Christians. The discipline of the church may vary in response to different cultural situations. Same-sex unions may be blessed in Canada, while the church in parts of the world where fierce hostility to homosexuality is the norm and those who might be publicly advertised as a same-sex couple might face imprisonment or even death experience an opposite cultural pressure.. The important point is not that African churches (for instance) should bless same-sex unions but that in response to Jesus’ definition of the commandments that should govern the behaviour of his followers, homosexual people must be treated with respect, dignity, and justice to the fullest extent possible in a particular time and place.
To review: the blessing of same-sex unions is not a matter of doctrine, nor is it a matter of indifference. It is a matter of discipline that seeks to find the fullest possible expression of a fundamental Christian doctrine in each particular context. The principle of distinguishing between doctrine and discipline should be applied to the relationships of people of the same gender. The false distinction between core doctrine and indifferent doctrine should be abandoned. The distinction should be between doctrine as a living process and discipline as the means to discipleship. It took Christians centuries to recognize the evil of slavery and to address it. However, once the challenge was engaged there was no going back: I believe there are in the world today few Christians who would try to justify a return to the slave trade on which the economies of so-called Christian countries depended for so long. The same may happen to the recognition of committed same-sex unions and to thanksgiving—blessing God—for all that is good and loving in them.
I note that Resolution A134 of the General Synod of 2004 was amended to defer consideration of the affirmation of the authority and jurisdiction of any diocesan synod, with the concurrence of its bishop, to authorize the blessing of committed same sex unions. If the 2007 General Synod decided that a revision of canons was necessary to make this affirmation, it would be 2010 before the matter could be brought to a conclusion. “The mills of the gods grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine.” I trust there are none who hope five years of grinding will produce a grist so powdery that it will blow away so the matter can be forgotten. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Sincerely
Paul Gibson
2 June 2005
