Murray Henderson, Dean Mercer, Ephraim Radner and Catherine Sider-Hamilton have written an open letter to the Canadian House of Bishops. Although it’s a good letter, it is little more than yet another rearguard action in what is about to become not just a losing battle but a lost one.
The interesting question is: what will the four priests do when the motion to change the marriage canon passes in July?
An Open Letter to the House of Bishops
Tuesday in Holy Week
On March 29, The House of Bishops released a call to prayer which included their hope for the upcoming General Synod. From the bishops’ point of view, there will be two doctrines of marriage in the church, and for both there ought to be support and protection.
That said, the church is still rolling like a freight train toward a formal and canonical change and the declaration of a novel and single doctrine of marriage. This new doctrine changes marriage from a lifelong covenant between a man and a woman for procreation, to an erotic agreement between adults.
The purpose has changed, and so the boundaries of marriage become unclear and contestable. Everyone understands the boundaries for marriage and marital intimacy when marriage is defined as the union of sexual opposites in which procreation and the stable nurture of children and families is logically and ontologically implied. Remove that purpose from the nature of marriage, define it primarily as an erotic arrangement between consenting adults, and marriage becomes infinitely malleable. Why limit it to two partners, for instance? There are now articulate advocates for polyamory, and fidelity to more than one partner. Change the definition of marriage, and why should there be only one relationship of depth between one woman and one woman, or one man and one man?
Furthermore, given the magnitude of the proposed change, where is the rationale for it? Where, for a matter of this gravity, is its explanation and rooting in the Scriptures and the received tradition of the church?
Was the Primate’s “This Holy Estate” the rationale? When was it ever declared publicly to be so? Was the Communion ever asked for its opinion of “This Holy Estate”? Was it ever given, borrowing from the academy, a peer review? Were the criticisms ever answered, two of the most glaring being the flat-footed omission of the central scriptural texts on same-sex relations, and the complete absence of a representative conservative scholar on the rationale’s editorial committee – like a boxing match where you never let the received tradition enter the ring.
In other words, this is not an expansion of marriage but a fundamental change. The rationale for it is questionable and unclear and without anything approaching a consensus. Altogether, it is novel and untested.
If the bishops want two doctrines at work, we would urge the House of Bishops to say so. Leave the received doctrine as it is and bring forward a motion that describes the
alternative, its aims and its rationale. Add a term limit for the two to be tested against each other, say 25 – 30 years. We believe that a majority would shout for its approval.
The bishops are right to offer this prayer. There is more than one reason to let time be the judge, to let time clarify the divisions rather than letting rashness deepen them.
I commend these priests for the letter but the fact is that until the apostates are removed from leadership the ACoC will continue its worship of the ‘god of political expediency’ and thus make a mockery of the Eucharist and any claim that it is Christian. As Christians we are called to uphold the GOSPEL – not bow down to apostate clergy at any level.
The whole weight of Scripture, from the creation of man in Genesis to the bride of Christ consummation in Revelation, speaks against this.
CS Lewis wrote somewhere, as an political analogy regarding a cleric drifting (assumed sincerely) far away from Christian orthodoxy, that should the secretary of a local Conservative organization come to espouse communism then the logical and moral thing for that secretary to do is to resign from that Conservative organization. With regard to orthodox priests in a situation of their church embracing same-sex “marriage” (my personal view is that two men, or two women, cannot, in the Biblical sense affirmed by Christ, become “one flesh”) then we can invert that analogy as follows. Should the secretary of a local Conservative organization be faced with severe disagreement with that organization modifying its constitution as to allow Marxist activity within it, then the logical and moral thing for that secretary to do is to declare the organization is no longer actually Conservative but only so in name, to resign from it, and to seek membership of an authentic Conservative organization elsewhere.
As I have stated on previous occasions the use of the words “liberal” and “conservative” do not cover the situation. The problem within the ACoC and those loyal to the ABC is the proper term “apostasy” as they clearly reject the authority of Scripture and seem to believe that the word of so-called bishops supersedes the Gospel.
These faithful clergy make the case once again for the wisdom of holy Tradition mediated through the Magisterium of the Church. I urge Anglicans to once again consider the welcome issued by Pope Benedict to bring the treasures of Anglican patrimony back into communion with the centre of Christian Unity — the Holy See.
There is a wonderful bridge across the Tiber by the name of the Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter. Join us in witness to the timeless teaching on Marriage and the Christian unity for which Jesus prayed: “That they all may be one.”
In Toronto 12:30 every Sunday at the Parish of St. Thomas More, 263 Roncesvalles Avenue. Refreshment and discussion follows in the Evangelium Group. All inquirers are most welcome.
A kind offer but if I did as you suggest, we’d probably end up with a Catholic Samizdat and you wouldn’t want that.
Well, how many of these will be done?
If there are, will this help the persons requesting this?
We also have Political Correctness too to deal with
Some comments & replies such as, “This is inappropriate” or “I find this offensive”
When having a conversation is better though for both sides to hear each other out instead
Unfortunately these clergy are about a quarter of a century too late. We laity trying to sustain marriages and bring up children never enjoyed any support when it mattered.