Dr. Moheb Ghali
Moheb@ghali.org
When I studied the earlier document “TO SET OUR HOPE ON CHRIST”( the document presented at Nottingham, England at the Anglican Consultative Council last June) I was disappointed by its lack of intellectual and theological rigor and expressed my hope that “the offices that commissioned this document may produce an argument better founded, more intellectually rigorous and consistent with what their Articles of Religion proclaim”. Now that I read this second document my hope is gone. I am outlining below my reasons for reaching the conclusion that if the document is used as the basis for discussions at the General Convention in Columbus it would be naïve to expect any useful outcome.
I do not discuss section III: Interdependence: Unity and Mission. The reason for this is that I wanted to maintain the thread of the discussion from section II: History to section IV: Expressing Regret and Repentance. I also do not discuss sections V: Invitations to Deeper Communion or section VI Covenant for reasons that will become obvious.
I. Introduction: Unity of the Body
The document devotes the introductory section to establishing the primacy of the unity of the Body of Christ - it is Jesus’ last prayer for the Church, and it is message that St. Paul emphasized in his letters to the church in Corinth, and the church in Ephesus. As parts of one body, each needs the others – no part can say to another “I have no need of you.” No Christian can argue with the statement that unity in the Body is God’s will for the Church. Nor would any Christian disagree with the view that divisions are devices the enemy uses to divert the Church from pursuing the Commission her Lord charged her.
However, unity is not the only objective, and it is not the only thing Jesus prayed for. He also prayed that we may be sanctified by the truth: “I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world….Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.” [John 17:14, 17-19]. Thus, there are limits to what can be sacrificed to maintain the unity of the Body: we should not become “of the world”, nor can we give up being sanctified “by the truth, your word is truth” in order to maintain unity. It is more important for the Body to be holy than to be whole. If one member of the body is leading to the destruction of the whole, Jesus tells us to discard that member and the body will be the better for it: “If your hand or your foot causes you to sin cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.” [Matthew 18:8-9].
Jesus has not called us to unity at any price. He expects us to separate ourselves from those whom we love most if that is the price we have to pay to follow him: “I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." [Luke 12:49-53].
Even Paul, in the same letter in which he calls for the unity of the body, advises against unity at any cost. “I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.” [1 Corinthians 5:9 - 11]. There are standards to be maintained, Paul says, and faithfulness to the standards comes before the unity.
Of course, if acknowledging the lordship of Jesus is common to all members of the Body, and if all accept that His “word is truth”, then unity must be maintained, for that is the will of God.
II. History: Relationship or Union?
A fundamental issue is the distinction between “same-sex relationship” and a “union”. In moving from the second to the third sentence of paragraph 13, the authors made a switch in vocabulary from "committed same-sex relationship" to ""such a union". The term "union" is then used exclusively in the rest of the document.
A union is, of course, the “joining together” or the result of “uniting” two into one “So they are no longer two, but one.” [Matthew 19:6]. By characterizing the “committed same sex relationship” as "union" the authors have essentially accepted the premise that the "two shall become one flesh", that such a relationship is functionally equivalent to a marriage. If the equivalence between same-sex relationship and union is asserted at the beginning of the analysis and then taken for granted for the rest of the discussion (not once reverting to the use of “sexual relationship”) what, then, is it that the Episcopal Church is regretting in section IV “Expressing Regret and Repentance”? One can be saddened that others do not agree with what one strongly believes, but one cannot be repentant of something she/he still believes to be true: that the committed same-sex relationships are indeed ”unions”
The authors then state the questions that such “unions” raise in other churches of the Anglican Communion, as well as for some members of the Episcopal Church. Six questions are posed as “foundational to our understanding of the nature of the communion and interdependence in Anglicanism.” None of these questions addresses the issue about which, I believe, the “repentance” was asked for. That is: Can one establish from Scripture and Tradition that a “committed same-sex relationship” is a “union”? If the answer is : Yes, the six questions presented as “foundational” are irrelevant. If the answer is: No, the six questions are irrelevant.
In addressing the six foundational questions the authors posed, they first review the history that led to the Windsor Report and the Episcopal Church response to it “on how a person living in a same gender union may be considered eligible to lead the flock of Christ.” Throughout, the authors use the word “union” as if the equivalency between same-sex relationship and marriage has been settled. To my mind, this is the crux of the issue: Does, in the eyes of God, in the Scripture and in the teachings of the Church, a same sex relationship constitute a union? Both the discussion of history as well as section III of the Report (devoted to Interdependence: Unity and Mission) are irrelevant as background to the Regret and Repentance of section IV, for they avoid addressing the basic issue and focusing, instead, on subsidiary questions.
IV. Regret and Repentance:
The regret expressed in this section is only a regret regarding the timing. The authors believe that the Episcopal Church should have proceeded at a slower pace. They quote the House of Bishops Theology Committee’s paper “the Gift of Sexuality” that “affirmed the need to let such questions sink in slowly and prayerfully…”[paragraph 37]. The direction is not in question. The “Regret” is for only the speed.
And the “Repentance” offered is not repenting of an action but of an attitude of arrogance: “we do note the potentially helpful nature of a developing call to repentance by churches of the west for the arrogance of our relationships with the younger churches of the communion.” [paragraph 40]. By focusing on the attitude of arrogance the authors side-step the main issue: Did the Episcopal Church offend the “younger churches of the communion” by ignoring the clear teachings of the Church and developing a “new understanding” that is not shared by others in the communion? Should the repentance be of an act of disobedience to the common teachings of the communion, or just for being arrogant but right?
V. Invitations to Deeper Communion
Because the authors believe that the same-sex relationships are “unions”, and that the Episcopal Church is right is viewing them as such, and thus the regret and repentance are limited to the process and not the theological principal, the references to “moratoria” throughout this section of the document gives the impression that the authors are talking about the “when” [we should wait until sufficient consensus agree with our position”] rather than “if” [we should stop unless a consensus is reached that this is right]. This impression is supported by the fact that the Commission chose the words “exercise very considerable caution” instead of the Commission’s minority’s preference for the words “refrain from.” [fn 75 p. 18] Again, this supports the view that the authors believe “we are right but should be careful not to offend the slower ones.’ Could this be another example of arrogance that calls for repentance?
Conclusion
The report ONE BAPTISM, ONE HOPE IN GOD’S CALL is not “first and foremost a theological document” [cover letter from Griswold and Werner]. It avoided discussing the theology underlying the actions of the Episcopal Church. Nor can the report serve as a “beginning point for a conversation that will take place in Columbus under the aegis of the Holy Spirit” [cover letter by Griswold and Werner], if such a conversation were to address honestly the Windsor Report. This report will serve as a beginning point of a conversation on how to maintain the course that the Episcopal Church as chosen yet remain in communion with the Anglican Communion. But such conversation may not be very useful.
