Tuesday, 21 February 2023

Jesus and the Law

Rodney A. Whitacre reflects on the story of the woman caught in adultery and brought to Jesus (now mostly at John 7:53–8:11):

‘We see Jesus upholding the law’s teaching that adultery is sin while also setting aside the specific regulations concerning the community’s enforcement of that law. The implication is that the law contains revelation of right and wrong, which is true throughout history, as well as commandments for embodying that revelation in the community of God’s people, which are not true for all times and places. To understand this distinction we must understand that the law as revelation of right and wrong is not an arbitrary set of rules that God made up to test our obedience. Rather, the law is the transposition into human society of patterns of relationship that reflect God’s won character. Adultery is wrong because it violates relationships of faithfulness, and such violation is wrong, ultimately, because God himself is characterized by faithfulness. The morality of Scripture is a pattern of life that reflects God’s own life. This aspect of the law is unchanging, but the law’s prescription for how the community is to embody and enforce the revealed vision of relationships may vary.’

Sunday, 12 February 2023

What happened?

The Church of England press release proclaimed Prayers for God’s blessing for same-sex couples take step forward after Synod debate.

The Church of England’s General Synod has welcomed proposals which would enable same-sex couples to come to church after a civil marriage or civil partnership to give thanks, dedicate their relationship to God and receive God’s blessing.

The Anglican Communion News Service reported the event under the headline Church of England Synod endorses bishop’s decision not to change doctrine of marriage. The article points out

During the Synod debate, only one of the tabled amendments to the bishops’ proposal was passed: that the synod endorsed “the decision of the College and House of Bishops not to propose any change to the doctrine of marriage, and their intention that the final version of the Prayers of Love and Faith should not be contrary to or indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England”.

It also points out that the two amendments urging the Synod to move towards acceptance of same-sex marriage had both been rejected in all three houses.

All true as far as it goes, but perhaps neither is telling the true story. I was hoping for generous orthodoxy to prevail and it might still do but things are not looking hopeful. It would require greater transparency and integrity from the House of Bishops than has been on display thus far.

The Church of England appears to be split three ways. There are those who urge a change to our doctrine of sex and marriage on the grounds that the received teaching is unloving and harmful. There are those who feel compelled to resist such a move towards (what they perceive to be) heterodoxy. And there are those who are torn in between and just wish for the whole debate to go away.

And then there are those who wield power, who hope they can hold everyone together by offering prayers that can (a) be said not to be indicative of a departure from the church’s doctrine of marriage, and (b) nevertheless be used to bless same-sex couples in sexually active relationships and without regard for whether the couple is in a civil partnership, in a civil marriage, or in a covenanted friendship.

Those who feel compelled to resist such a change are told that they do not have to use these prayers. They only have to accept that those who do use them are faithful, orthodox Christians too.

The first group above is not altogether happy because it is clear that the Church of England is still a long way from endorsing same-sex marriage.

The second group could be happy if it could be convinced that what is on offer is not indicative of a departure from the church’s doctrine. Alas, most in this group think it is and that saying otherwise is merely adding insult to injury or lack of integrity to lack of faithfulness. What is asked of them is nothing short of a redefinition of what constitutes orthodoxy. This is why it’s a big deal.

The third group has no reason to be happy. The one thing that seems certain in all the confusion is that this debate will not go away and that the divisions within the Church of England will deepen and solidify.

The Archbishops urge that it is our Christian duty to stick together and show the world that disagreements do not need to lead to walking apart. But you cannot walk together in different directions. There are disagreements with which one can live and others which must divide us. Tolerating injustice is not loving, neither is tolerating heterodoxy. For as long as the Bishops do not succeed in convincing the one group that refusing same-sex marriage is not unjust and the other that the prayers of blessing on offer are not heterodox, the appeal to unity is just so much whitewash. Painting over harmless hairline cracks in the wall is one thing, covering up structural damage with a bit of paint is another.


For Ian Paul's take on what happened see What exactly happened at Synod on the Prayers for Love and Faith? This also includes links to comments on the legality of what the Bishops offered by Philip Jones and by a group of lawyers who are mostly members of General Synod.

UPDATE: Christopher Cocksworth, who led the LLF process, offers his reflections here.

Wednesday, 8 February 2023

Development of Doctrine

How does one distinguish between a faithful development of doctrine and a change that is corruption? John Henry Newman suggests “seven Notes of varying cogency, independence and applicability, to discriminate healthy developments of an idea from its state of corruption and decay.” These serve as his litmus tests that may be applied to any doctrine.

In a genuine development of doctrine we find

  • preservation of one and the same type
  • continuity of the same principles
  • power of assimilation into the same organization
  • logical consequence of an earlier sequence
  • anticipation of subsequent phases in its beginnings
  • preservation of that which came before
  • vigour to endure

John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Doctrine (1845, 1878) 

Sunday, 5 February 2023

Generous Orthodoxy

I do not know the origins of the phrase “generous orthodoxy” but it seems to fit the Church of England as it was designed rather well. The Roman Catholic Church was not broad enough in the sixteenth century to include those who held Reformed views. But among Reformed Catholics there was also disagreement which by and large could not be lived with (“good disagreement”) so that Lutherans ended up forming one denomination, while those who followed Calvin and Zwingli formed separate churches. Perhaps only in England did the Reformed Catholic consensus hold so that both those holding Lutheran views and those looking to Geneva (or Scotland) were held together in the one established church. Roman Catholics were of course excluded, as were Baptists, and in the end even Presbyterians (the Great Ejection). So there were clear limits not only to orthodoxy but perhaps also to generosity. The Thirty-Nine Articles circumscribed the parameters, while the Homilies filled it with more content and clearer definition.

The Tractarian movement pushed the boundaries, declaring the Church of England a via media not between Wittenberg and Geneva but between Rome and the Reformation. The English Church moved from seeking and finding doctrinal agreement among the disagreements on details to accommodating strikingly different readings of the same words. But it is arguably liberal revisionism since the 20th century that is killing off generous orthodoxy, making people forget that “generous orthodoxy” requires both generosity and orthodoxy, tolerance and discipline.

The proposed Prayers of Love and Faith were presumably meant and agreed upon as an expression of “generous orthodoxy.” The Christian doctrine of marriage and the Christian ethics around sexual intimacy were left intact, or so it is alleged, and a new freedom was found within this consensus which would allow some to celebrate the good and healthy aspects of same-sex relationships with couples who form a household, and others to refrain from endorsing patterns of relationships that might invite sexual temptation.

Alas, even before the proposals were presented to the public it became clear that this “generous orthodox” line could not hold. A number of bishops argued that the doctrine should in fact change and the claim made by campaigners that the doctrine of the Church of England discriminates against LGBTI+ people remained largely unaddressed.

An analogy may help to explain what might have happened: Imagine the Bishops, in view of concerns about the gendered language of the traditional formula, had allowed for “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” to be regularly replaced by “In the name of the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sustainer.” Imagine that some Bishops were very uncomfortable with this because the triune God is then no longer spoken of as who He is in Himself from before the creation of the world (the gendered “He” seems unavoidable, even if God is of course not male) but defined in relation to us. But, being generous, they allowed for this provision on the understanding that it does not as such mark a departure from orthodoxy.

Now imagine further that there are people complaining about the discrimination against Unitarians and Jehovah’s Witness and others in the selection process for ordination in the Church of England and there being no official explanation forthcoming why such “discrimination” is in the nature of the thing. Add to this Bishops who argue that the insights of modern philosophy lead us away from a Trinitarian understanding of God. Even without them also adding that “In the name of the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sustainer” could be used by those who believe that God is one person who has revealed himself in three modes, it is clear that this is not about being more generous within the existing  orthodoxy  but about re-defining what constitutes orthodoxy, given that we all take the Scriptures seriously. Whatever the Bishops think, for those who hold to the received understanding of orthodoxy and have seen no reason to change this, Unitarians and Jehovah’s Witnesses are without question outside the bounds, even if it may be granted that subjectively they hold a high view of Scripture and “merely” read it differently and even if one affirms gladly that they have all the civil rights of other people.

The question whether we can be more generous within our received orthodoxy is one and it relates to attitudes and behaviour and pastoral practice; the question whether in order to be truly “generous” we need to redefine what constitutes orthodoxy is another. Let us distinguish between the two.

Friday, 27 January 2023

A Letter to my Bishops

I have now let the House of Bishops’ proposals for ‘Prayers of Love and Faith’ and the legal advice sink in and reflected on them. This has refined but not fundamentally altered my initial response which was one of deep dismay.

Since Cranmer our patrimony includes a beautiful use of the English language and an ability to find words on which people of somewhat different persuasions can agree. This has perhaps on occasion degenerated into a studied ambiguity which made us settle on words which people of different convictions are able to use because they read them differently rather than because they have found a consensus. Now we are at risk of playing with words instead of seeking genuine accord.

I delight in the generous orthodoxy of our Reformed Catholicism but it grieves me that the Church of England also includes clergy who scoff at parts of the Scriptures, even declaring them toxic, or who might laud Paul and the writers of the Gospels as people who made magnificent attempts in their time while urging us to move on from their failures, as we discern a gospel beyond the Gospels.

My comfort has been that clergy who care little for the Thirty-nine Articles or the Book of Common Prayer are usurpers and that the Church of England does not truly belong to them. I feel that this comfort is in the process of being taken away from me.

The ‘Prayers of Love and Faith’ may have been carefully crafted not to fall foul of the Church’s doctrine in the eyes of canon lawyers but they were not presented with a sufficiently clear, transparent and honest explanation of how they apply the Church’s teaching to various pastoral situations. No theological rationale was offered for continuing to uphold Church teaching. The morality of extra-marital sex appears to have been moved to the adiaphora. Several bishops, while welcoming the new resources, expressed their desire for a change to our doctrine and ethics. Phrases like ‘at the present time’ in the accompanying document clearly suggest that far from drawing our various listening exercises to a conclusion the debates are set to continue. And given that pronouncements like the booklet published by Steve Croft show little awareness of the discussions and research of the last few decades, we must assume that the debates will continue without making progress. Unlike our Archbishop I find no joy in this kind of diversity.

Doctrinal differences of the kind that relate to our formularies should be a source of grief for us. We must continue to make every effort to re-establish sufficient common doctrinal ground rather than make ourselves believe that we can still walk together, as if these differences did not directly impact on how we exercise Christian discipleship and pastoral care and how we proclaim afresh the good news of Christ in our generation. We cannot walk together if we seek the deeper unity for which Christ prayed in different directions. In words from the Book of Common Prayer we must long for ‘the spirit of truth, unity and concord’ and therefore petition God to ‘grant that all they that do confess thy holy Name, may agree in the truth of thy holy Word, and live in unity and godly love.’

I want to put it to you that while there are these divisions among you, you can be certain that you are not led by the Holy Spirit. Compromise is not a dirty word. But true Christian unity is not found in the attempt to appease different factions while sidestepping proper theological reasoning. We are at grave risk of becoming an ecclesial community whose participation, as a body, in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church is suspect. I urge you to reconsider the wisdom of the current proposals and to strive for greater clarity and integrity.

Yours in Christ,

Thomas

 


Thursday, 26 January 2023

"Prayers of Love and Faith"

This is my understanding of the story so far:

In what is presented as a significant move the Bishops of the Church of England will offer its clergy a variety of flexible ways to affirm and celebrate same-sex couples in church. The resource is intended as a loving and celebratory response to same-sex couples and will include prayers of dedication, thanksgiving and for God’s blessing.

The prayers will be entirely discretionary and have been formulated with legal advice to ensure that the formal teaching of the Church of England as set out in the canons and authorised liturgies – that Holy Matrimony is between one man and one woman for life – is not compromised.

In some (*) of our Church of England parish churches you will be able to have your same-sex (**) civil partnership or “marriage” (***) blessed (****). This offer is also open to couples in covenanted, non-registered friendships (*****).

(*) the prayers are offered in the knowledge that not all clergy will be able to use them in good conscience

(**) sexual relations between persons of the same sex cannot be condoned by the Church because the Scriptures declare extra-marital sex to be incompatible with being in God’s kingdom but clergy need not tell you that

(***) the marriage of two persons of the same sex is not capable of constituting a marriage for the purposes of ecclesiastical law, i.e., a civil marriage between members of the same sex is not a marriage in the eyes of the church

(****) your relationship cannot be blessed as such but we can ask God to bless you as a couple

(*****) these prayers are not intended for couples who are not of the same sex


There have been angry responses from those who consider the apology offered by the Bishops to LGBTQI+ people to be meaningless, while same-sex couples are not allowed to get married in Church.  

There have been angry responses also from those who believe that the resources to all intents and purposes change the Church's teaching on marriage and sexual morality.

Some are relieved that the Church has found a way to leave "holy matrimony" (marriage as understood by the Church) unchanged while affirming same-sex covenanted relationships, others are concerned that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in relation to sexual intimacy outside marriage might make a return.

For some it is a time for celebrating our doctrinal diversity, for others it is a time of mourning our loss of integrity.

Sunday, 1 January 2023

Jesus Named and Circumcised

A sermon for the eight day of Christmas, 2023

After eight days had passed, it was time to circumcise the child; and he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

We are given an identity long before we shape and refashion it by our own decisions and habits.

We are born at a particular time and space which we did not choose, with a body we did not form.

We are born into families or households which we did not choose, into a particular culture that will shape us more than we will ever shape it.

Identity is something all of us are given.

This is true even in a culture like ours which puts so much emphasis on individual choice.

We may have greater freedom to choose a career and lifestyle than previous generations.

We even have a legal right to choose our gender – whatever it is that we mean by that.

But the fact is that in all the decisions we make, we are still at best sculptors of our identities,

sculptors who work with the material given to them.

What is given to us is like a massive granite block, already shaped by culture and circumstances before we put our chisel to it.

We can work with or against the grain of the material but not without it.

 

After eight days had passed, it was time to circumcise the child.

Why?

Because Jesus was born a Jew and Jewish males are circumcised on the eighth day, long before they have any idea of what it might mean to be a boy or a girl, to be Jewish or non-Jewish.

Being born a Jew means, as the apostle Paul put it, being born under the law.

As the boy grows up, there will be decisions to be made whether to live under the law,

whether to receive God’s law joyfully or to accept it grudgingly or to disregard it altogether,

but the man cannot undo the fact that as a boy he was born under the law.

…and he was called Jesus.

Long before we make a conscious decision about the name (and nowadays pronoun) to which we will answer, others will have called us by a name not chosen by us.

For Jesus the name encapsulated the mission entrusted to him: God-to-the-rescue, God-saves.

Baby Jesus was circumcised and was given the name Jesus without being asked what he thought about it – just like we were all given a name soon after we were born and were incorporated into a culture or subculture which we did not choose.

 

And yet it was all very different for the Son of God.

Before the first human children were born, God the Son had already  volunteered to come to the rescue of humanity.

Before the first human children were born, God the Son had already decided to be born to Mary and to be given the name of Jesus.

For many generations God the Son had shaped the culture into which He was going to be born.

Before Abraham was, I am, he once said.[1]

He was behind the call of Abraham out of Ur in Chaldea.

He determined and promised that in Abraham’s family all the earth should find blessing.

He met Moses in a fiery bush and called him to prefigure God’s great rescue operation.

He accompanied the Israelites on their journey out of Egypt through the wilderness to Mount Sinai.

While God’s promise is for all peoples and nations, God’s law was given to shape a particular nation.

Some of the commandments, e.g. about circumcision but also about what could and could not be eaten, were specifically given to separate between Jews as God’s covenant people, and non-Jews.

Jesus was born under the law, into a culture shaped by God’s law.

 

But he was born also into a culture shaped by alienation from God and disobedience to His will.

In fact, Paul wrote earlier in this letter to the Galatians that the law was added because of transgressions, namely to show us up as law-breakers and to put us under condemnation.

Because the law had been given to Israel, it was in Israel that sin was identified for what it is.

This does not mean that God’s people necessarily behaved worse than others.

But it was worse for bad things to have been committed by those who had God’s law.

What’s more Paul may be suggesting here that the Law, with the accumulation of sin, had itself become a malignant force, from which oppressed people needed rescuing.

But God’s law cannot undo God’s promise.

The law was a temporary measure until the offspring would come through whom the promise would be realised and who would form one people of God, consisting of both Jews and non-Jews.[2]

 

By being circumcised, Jesus received the mark of God’s covenant with Abraham, the seal of God’s promise. – He came into our world to bring the fulfilment of this promise for all nations.

By being circumcised, Jesus was identified with his people, Israel. – But he came into this world to break down the barrier between Jews and non-Jews.

This was done in accordance with the law so that now, when the fullness of time had come, the one born under the law would redeem those who were under the law.

This may sound a bit like someone being born in a collapsed building so that he could rescue those who were trapped in this building.

In what sense had the law become a trap for us from which we needed rescuing?

Probably in more than one way.

God is one and therefore God’s people should be one – from every tribe and language and nation.

God’s promise to Abraham implies as much but it also designates one family, one nation as the special carrier of God’s blessing.

The law given to Israel shaped Israel as a distinct nation. The trap was that the distinctiveness and separation fed an ethnic pride which drove a wedge between Jews and non-Jews.

The law also makes known God’s character and so reveals to us how to live as those who were created in the image of God, as those who bear God’s name.

But in pointing the way the law did not actually give the strength to live in God’s ways and even incited people to sin.

So we have all become trapped.

All of us who were created in the image of God but failed to live in God’s ways.

All of us who were meant to be children of God but lived as slaves to other forces.

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children.

God-to-the-rescue, God-saves.

Some people use New Year’s Eve as an opportunity to look back and take stock.

  • What have I achieved?
  • Where have I fallen short?

These can be good questions to ask but above them all stands this:

He was born to rescue those who were under the law.

The redeemed are no longer under the law of reward and punishment,

no longer under any law that measures worth in accomplishments,

no longer under the law that condemns those who fall short of it.

We can be relaxed and therefore address the question of our failure quite honestly.

This is one aspect of our rescue: we can admit to have fallen short

and we can do so without being condemned for it

because he was born to rescue those who were under the law.

 

Some people, as they enter a new year, make new Year’s resolutions

or choose a word of the year as a motto, e.g., ‘persist’.

This can also be a useful practice to help us sculpt our identity further.

But above our plans and schemes let the name of Christ stand: Jesus, God-to-the-rescue, God-saves.

Jesus has rescued us from the slavery to sin and death, from the bondage to the elements of this world, from being under the authority of the law

so that we might receive adoption as children.

This is the new identity he gives us: children of God.

By His Spirit we can now cry out to God, ‘Abba! Father!’

We do not read God’s law with the anxiety of those who will be punished if they do not obey

but as children who want to learn about their Father’s priorities and agendas.

He was born under the law so that we would no longer be captive under the law.

He shed his blood, for the first time at his circumcision, so that we would not need to pay for our sins with our own blood.

His name is Jesus, God-to-the-rescue, God-saves.



[1] John 8:58.

[2] Gal 3:19.