Rev. Dr. Stephen Andrews

Presentation to the Anglican Consultative Council

Your Grace, Mr Chair and Members of the Anglican Consultative Council,

My task this afternoon is to describe some of the biblical and theological conversations that have brought us to the present moment in the Anglican Church of Canada. However, first of all, let me tell you briefly a bit about myself. My name is Stephen Andrews, and tomorrow, on the Feast of St Alban, I celebrate the 18th anniversary of my ordination to the priesthood. I am a citizen of the United States by birth but when I came to Canada in 1979 in order to study theology as a candidate for ordination in the Presbyterian Church, I was introduced to the Book of Common Prayer. What happened to me in that encounter was a conversion of sorts. Of course, I am firstly a Christian by the grace of God through the sacramental sign of baptism, but in the Anglican spiritual tradition of the Prayer Book I found a well-furnished library of thought, piety and polity that was capable of comprehending my personal questions, struggles and vocation. This church and its liturgy nurtured and sustained me through the period of my doctoral work in Cambridge where I studied ancient Jewish biblical interpretation, and through the subsequent ten years while serving the Church in pastoral and academic contexts. Although our Primate has asked me to take part in this presentation because of the roles I have played on our national Faith, Worship and Ministry Committee, the Primate’s Theological Commission, and because, as he explained to our group, I am ‘inclined toward conservative’, I have accepted his invitation to participate because I love this church and believe that its reformed and catholic heritage is a rich and enriching expression of what it means to be ‘in Christ’ (Rom 12.5; 1 Cor 1.4ff.). And it troubles me deeply to see the ‘unhappy divisions’ we are in because it seems to me that the gospel message of redemption and reconciliation is compromised by our preoccupation with power over faith.

A wise pastor once told me, ‘Stephen, if you ever find the perfect church you must never join it; for if you do, you will spoil it!’ So let me preface my contribution to the conversation by stating that if the restoration of our communion must begin with expressions of regret, and I believe that it must, I acknowledge that I am a sinner, and I regret my part in contributing to our church’s present dysfunction. I regret my passivity and prayerlessness, as well as the alternating dispositions of triumphalism and despair that betray my own lack of faith. And it is my hope that, in spite of my sinfulness, and through the forgiving generosity of the Church, what I have to say will be used in some small way by God both to reform and reunite our communion. And I should add that while I also hope that some of what I say will resonate with others, I do not here speak for any committee or community in the Canadian Church.

Evolution of the conversation

Changing attitudes towards sexuality in North America in the 1960s and 70s presented a challenge to Christians to explain how homosexual behaviour could continue to be regarded as incompatible with Christian discipleship. The challenge was acute enough that in 1976 our House of Bishops struck a task force to assist them in developing an appropriate pastoral response to the presence of gay and lesbian Christians in the Church. The statements they made in 1978 and 1979 affirmed that ‘homosexual persons [are] children of God [and] have a full and equal claim, with all other persons, upon the love, acceptance, concern and pastoral care of the Church’, while refusing to bless homosexual unions or to allow homosexual clergy to engage in ‘sexual acts with members of the same sex’.

It took another ten years before the subject of sexuality would become a matter of formal discussion in the councils of the national church, but in the meantime the matter was being debated informally and at the diocesan level. In 1988 it was the subject of a major report in the United Church of Canada entitled, ‘Toward a Christian Understanding of Sexual Orientations, Lifestyles and Ministry’ . This report was debated in the United Church’s General Council the following year, and among the various motions which were passed, one stated the position that sexual orientation should not be a barrier to ordination within the church. Within three years (1992) the Anglican Church in Canada had passed a General Synod motion ‘to commission an immediate study of homosexuality and homosexual relationships’; within two more years (1994) the bishops had undertaken a review and evaluation of their 1979 guidelines, and in 1995, our national church’s Faith, Worship and Ministry Committee was given a standing mandate ‘to provide information and resources to the Church that promote discussion and reflection on the elements of healthy human sexuality; and to monitor the ongoing dialogue around homosexuality and blessing of same sex unions within the Anglican Communion’.

The church undertook some major initiatives designed to explore this subject during the decade spanning 1995-2005. Dean Peter Elliot will give you his perspective on the significant events in the Diocese of New Westminster before and during this period, but at the national level the Faith, Worship and Ministry Committee devoted considerable time and energy in discharging its mandate. As a former Chair of that Committee, I can tell you that our meetings were often difficult and occasionally acrimonious, especially in the wake of New Westminster’s action in 2002 authorising the blessing of same-sex unions. Before the matter was debated in our last General Synod, the Committee produced two video resources, sponsored a national conference on human sexuality, and hired a consulting firm to assist us in framing the synod motions. At that synod, we also asked The Rev. Canon Gregory Cameron, who was at the time Chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury and Secretary to the Lambeth Commission, to observe our process and to speak to us about the Communion’s interest in our resolutions.

Canon Cameron said that many Anglican provinces in Asia, Africa and South America, vehemently oppose the blessing of same sex unions, that some have declared themselves no longer in communion with the Diocese of New Westminster and the Episcopal Church of the United States of America, and that some primates had attempted to interfere in the administration of the Canadian church by claiming to offer episcopal oversight to dissenters. He said that no matter what the Anglican Church of Canada decides, there will be negative fallout. ‘If you say no, there is a danger that you will be letting down thousands of gay and lesbian people who are part of your Canadian church family, as well as others who are looking to you to set a new standard,’ he said. ‘If you say yes, then the work of the Lambeth Commission becomes horribly complicated because the reaction of many other provinces will be that the Anglican Church of Canada refuses to hear their voices or concerns.’

Discussions in synod table groups revealed that members were themselves divided on the issue. In the debate, a number of questions were raised regarding where jurisdiction truly lies; what terms like ‘committed union’ actually mean; and the place of the church’s discussion in the larger social context of Canada. There appeared to be a consensus that if this is a doctrinal issue, it should be dealt with at the level of the General Synod. In a few moments, Maria Jane Highway will speak to us about the way this matter is being treated in the aboriginal community, but at the Synod the concern was expressed that the native people feel that there is still a lot of healing and reconciliation that needs to take place following the abuse of children in church-run residential schools and that this is being overshadowed by the same-sex issue.

In the end, the synod proposed removing the clause giving dioceses the right to decide the matter for themselves and referred the question of whether or not the blessing of same-sex relationships is a matter of doctrine to the Primate’s Theological Commission, and asked them to report back in time for the next General Synod in 2007. The motion passed with 142 clergy and lay votes for and 118 against; 22 bishops voted for and 12 against and 16 people still at the microphones. The vote in the house was not far off the 50-50 split our consulting firm had discovered in their national focus group survey.

Following this an amendment was proposed to add that the General Synod ‘affirm the integrity and sanctity of committed adult same-sex relationships.’ In the debate that ensued, the youth delegates were given priority at the microphones in addressing this amendment. At least half of the 10 young people who spoke were in favour of the motion while two moved unsuccessful amendments that would have substituted other phrases for the words ‘integrity and sanctity’. The word ‘sanctity’ caused difficulty for a number of speakers, since it is employed in our liturgies as a description of marriage, but it was maintained by those who brought the motion that the word was not being used in any theological sense. With a number of people still at the microphones, some of whom had further amendments addressing the problematic term, a vote was taken to close debate, and it narrowly passed. The synod then moved quickly to endorse the affirmation.

That evening following night prayers, nine bishops assembled on the stage and read a statement censuring the action. They stated that ‘General Synod’s opinion is in error and contrary to the teaching of Scripture and the tradition of the undivided Church, the clearly expressed conviction of the Anglican Communion at the Lambeth Conference of 1998, the overwhelming ecumenical consensus of the Church inside Canada and abroad, and the 1997 Guidelines of our own House of Bishops.’ They went on, however, to ‘urge Anglicans across Canada distressed by this expression of opinion not to despair’ and appealed to them ‘to take their full part in the diocesan and provincial synods which will contribute to a decision of whether this is a doctrinal matter.’ The next day some members said publicly that they found these bishops’ actions contemptuous of the synod’s fellowship and procedures.

The synod’s actions and manner of debate indicated a number of things. Among them, it was clear that while our church was very deeply divided on this issue, members shared a mutual concern about the threat to unity within Canada and in the Communion. It also considered the question of the doctrinal status of this matter to be sufficiently confusing and important to postpone a decision until some clarity was achieved. The motion regarding the ‘sanctity’ of committed adult same-sex relationships I take as a concessionary sentiment designed to comfort those who would have to wait for this clarity, since I find it impossible to define the word without recourse to theological language.

People will often say as a consequence of these events that we have not made up our mind on this matter. It is true that we are still seeking clarity, but it would be more accurate to say that we have not changed our mind – as a national body our church still adheres to the doctrine and discipline of its constitutions, canons and official liturgies, and these affirm heterosexual committed, adult, monogamous, intended lifelong relationships as the only appropriate context for sexual intimacy.

Theological and biblical considerations

As I have said, the theological question of whether or not the blessing of same-sex unions is a matter of doctrine was referred by the General Synod to the Primate’s Theological Commission. This Commission is a body of twelve individuals under the leadership of Bishop Victoria Matthews of Edmonton. The Commission was selected by our last Primate, Archbishop Michael Peers, before this matter came to the General Synod table. The Commission’s composition is broadly representative of our church with respect to geography and theological perspective. The Commission felt that its task was urgent, and by doubling up on the frequency of its meetings and through hours of conference calls was able to produce its unanimous opinion in the form of the ‘St Michael’s Report’ a year in advance of its deadline. The fact of its unanimity should not deceive anyone into thinking that the process was easy; in fact, our agreement in the end was very fragile since we were aware that there is enough latitude in interpreting the document’s statements that it could be used to say things that, as individual members, we did not mean.

The Commission’s answer to the question put to it is detailed in the report which has been included in your kits. In essence, the Commission concluded that the blessing of same sex unions is a matter of doctrine because of its relationship to the Church’s fundamental teaching on salvation, incarnation, the work of the Holy Spirit, our creation in the image of God, sanctification, and because of its analogy to holy matrimony. We went on to say, however, that since the integrity of core (creedal) doctrines of the church was not threatened by this new teaching, the issue should not be church dividing.

Both of these conclusions have been criticised. ‘How can an issue of fundamental justice be regarded as a matter indifferent?’ we are asked on one side, while from another quarter we hear, ‘How can a matter that affects a person’s salvation be regarded as indifferent?’ Part of our difficulty is that we lack the categories of doctrine that one finds in other church traditions, so that the term ‘matters indifferent’ could apply to everything from the appropriate colour of flowers in church (to use an example from the Windsor Report) to gravely serious matters of heterodoxy or false teaching.

While the members of the Commission disagreed on precisely how the issue should be understood doctrinally, our conclusion that it is a matter of doctrine seems inevitable. Even those who were inclined to describe it primarily as a matter of pastoral responsibility agreed that appeals to concepts like justice and dignity are impossible to sustain without reference to our identity as beings created in the image of a God who is good and loving. Similarly, it has been said that any act of the Church that violates the clear teaching of Scripture or the demands of justice is schismatic. But the Commission reasoned that as long as parties are committed to the just treatment of gays and lesbians within the framework of the teaching of Scripture (and the members of the Commission indicated that they were committed to this), there should be no compelling reason to pursue different paths. Rather, there should be ongoing dialogue on what Scripture teaches regarding human sexuality in order to discern whether ‘just treatment’ should be permissive or restrictive.

This brings me finally to a brief comment on biblical interpretation. It is always fascinating, if unsettling, to debate the meaning of biblical texts with people who, like I, are willing to change their minds on this matter if they could be convinced that their understanding of the teaching of the Bible is erroneous. As the report acknowledges, there are those who hold that the biblical passages usually cited as prohibiting same-sex relationships do not contemplate the contemporary ideal of lifelong committed same-sex unions . There are also those who maintain that there is within the Bible itself a discernable trajectory of doctrinal development that enshrines grace and love of neighbour as the pre-eminent guiding biblical principle (some might even say ‘core doctrine’).

Clearly there is a need for further discussion, but in my opinion the burden still rests with those who would revise the Church’s teaching to make their case. With respect to the former argument, I am not aware of any sustained scholarly critique of the traditional stance that the Bible regards as sinful all sexual acts that do not honour God’s design in the physical complementarity and procreative potential of male and female (and here, Robert Gagnon’s 2001 book, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, is widely regarded as the definitive study). As Bishop Spong himself has candidly written, ‘With the context explained and the words analyzed, it still appears to me that Paul would not approve of homosexual behaviour.’ With respect to the latter argument, what is required is a deeper analysis of the teaching of St Paul and Jesus in their Jewish contexts. For it is clear that Jesus’ inclusiveness did not mean that he had no standards in the matter of sexual ethics, just as it is clear that for St Paul the law describing holiness of life is itself an expression of divine grace.

Since the example of the inclusion of the Gentiles has been referred to in support of changing the Church’s teaching on sexual ethics, I feel obliged to point out that the analogy is not as obvious as many make it out to be. For while it was agreed by the Jerusalem apostles that in many respects the application of the Torah to Gentile converts should be relaxed, the compromise reached by the Council stipulated that Christian Gentiles should abstain from ‘fornication’, porneia, a term that certainly included same-sex intercourse (Acts 15.20; Lev 17-18 provides the framework for the Apostolic Decree; also cf. Noahide Commands as codified in b. Sanh 58a, Jub 7.20f, etc).

The Church’s traditional teaching is difficult for many of us either to accept or defend. We in the West have undergone such a huge cultural shift in our understanding of the nature of sexuality that we find it hard to conceive why physical complementarity and procreation should be so important for properly ordered sexual relationships, especially when many gay and lesbian relationships approach – or even surpass – heterosexual relationships in their ability to foster love and support. But in the Christian life there are times when we ‘we see in a mirror, dimly’ (I Cor 13.12) and where understanding is not a necessary prerequisite for faith or obedience.

I well remember the first set of vaccinations our elder daughter received when she was just an infant. Her usually placid face took on a look of surprise and then anguish when the needle pierced her skin. As she howled, her mother and I tried to comfort her. How I wished to be able to explain our apparent betrayal of trust, and to tell her that what she was undergoing was because of our love and care for her. Perhaps we are as infants when it comes to our understanding of why God’s will for us requires certain ethical ideals. And perhaps the path that lies before us, the path to maturity in Christ (Eph 4.13), requires that we walk together confident that through the work of the Spirit and in our study of ‘God’s Word written’ our faith will be met with understanding.

One of the difficult paths we in Canada have trod that has led us to a deeper faith and greater understanding is the path of the post-residential school experience with our aboriginal people. At this point, I would like to invite my friend and sister, Maria Jane Highway, to speak about same-sex relationships in her experience as an aboriginal person. Maria has been a valued member of the Faith, Worship and Ministry Committee. A member of Opaskwayak Cree Nation in Manitoba, she is also a diocesan delegate to our national Anglican Council of Indigenous People.

The Rev. Stephen G.W. Andrews, PhD
E-mail

Links:

This document in PDF format

	Presentation to the Anglican Consultative Council our address / staff directory \| site map \| search