 |
|
|
| |
A Matter of Doctrine by David Curry
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
[originally published at www.anglicanfederation.com]
Introduction:
The St. Michael Report is the response of the Primate's Theological Commission to the question of the 2004 General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada about whether the blessing of same-sex relationships is a matter of doctrine. Both the question itself and the response are instructive about the current struggles within the Canadian Anglican Church.
In raising the question about doctrine, the Anglican Church of Canada recognizes that the National Synod does not constitute the magisterium or teaching authority of the Anglican Church of Canada. While historically and constitutionally true, this has often been overlooked by the General Synod itself over the past thirty years. In raising the question, the Synod and the Bishops of the Canadian Anglican Church are obliged to consider the principles governing their own authority and that of the diocesan synods. Consequently, The Solemn Declaration of 1893, for instance, with its clear sense of the limiting powers of Synods and Bishops in the Canadian Church, refers specifically to The Book of Common Prayer, The Ordinal and The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion as constituting the magisterial authority by which the Canadian Church is and “shall continue, in full communion with the Church of England throughout the world” and “as an integral portion of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”
The St. Michael Report, too, represents an important moment in Canada because the report recognizes the importance of doctrine as having authority with respect to the policies of the Anglican Church of Canada, at least acknowledging The Book of Common Prayer, The Ordinal and The Thirty-nine Articles, The Solemn Declaration and The Lambeth Quadrilateral. It mentions them, however, mostly with respect to credal and conciliar explications of Scripture on matters of essential doctrine, specifically the Trinity and the Incarnation, overlooking how these doctrinal formularies constitute a clear and unambiguous body of teaching on primary and secondary matters of doctrine and polity, and ignoring the different status and role of these authorities.
The purpose of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, for instance, was to establish the doctrinal principles by which the Anglican Churches of the Communion would undertake to relate ecumenically with other non-Anglican Churches, not to justify the autonomy of the Anglican Churches within the Communion, and not to establish another doctrinal formulary equal to The Book of Common Prayer, The Ordinal, and The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion. The Solemn Declaration, too, has a different status, committing the Bishops and the General Synod of Canada to the magisterium of The Book of Common Prayer, The Ordinal and The Thirty-nine Articles and intentionally precluding doctrinal innovation or change of doctrine by the Bishops and the General Synod.
The importance and the priority of doctrine have long been recognized and signaled as significant by other bodies, such as the Prayer Book Society of Canada, most notably in its 1991 Submission on the BAS, and by Essentials Canada in its 1994 Montreal Declaration of Essentials. But such groups have not had any official standing in the Canadian Church. Part of what makes the St. Michael Report significant is its tacit acknowledgment of the importance of doctrine for the direction and government of the Anglican Church of Canada. It remains to be seen whether this will contribute to the recovery of the doctrinal mind of the Canadian Church and to its place within the Anglican Communion now in such grievous disarray, in part because of the unilateral actions of the Bishop and Synod of New Westminster, British Columbia, and in part, because of the ambiguous statements of the House of Bishops and the General Synod to the issue of same-sex blessings: on the one hand, asking the question about the doctrinal status of such relationships; on the other hand, affirming the integrity and the sanctity of such relationships. The latter statement would seem to qualify if not pre-empt the theological inquiry into the matter of doctrine. It is to the credit of the Primate's Theological Commission that it has stuck to its mandate and to the question that has been set
before it.
But the Report itself does not provide the answer. In its own view, it simply seeks to establish the doctrinal groundwork for a deeper and more dispassionate consideration of the question of same-sex blessings, concluding that “it is now for the Church to decide whether or not the blessing of same-sex unions is a faithful, Spirit-led development of Christian doctrine.” By “Church” here, it would seem that the Report means the Anglican Church of Canada. It remains to be seen how adequately that groundwork of doctrine has been established.
Thus the Report, for all of its attention to the primacy of Doctrine allows for and assumes the development of doctrine to be determined at the level of the National Churches. That is, it must be said, a highly questionable and eminently challengeable assumption, but to the credit of the Report and, perhaps, to the dismay of some, it requires that any determination of the question by “the Church” can only be considered as a matter of doctrine. This is the great virtue of the Report and the point at which it must be respectfully and critically engaged.
In arguing that the blessing of same-sex couples is not a credal matter, the Report assumes that it is therefore not a Communion-breaking matter. This implies that only credal matters constitute the basis for being or not being in communion and overlooks the hierarchy of doctrine, the interplay of primary and secondary doctrines and the doctrinal principles that govern an ecclesiastical polity, internally as well as in relation to other churches. There is credal agreement, for instance, with many Christians of other ecclesial bodies but not necessarily communion or inter-communion. Once again, the purpose of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral was to provide a principled basis upon which to begin to think about the matter of inter-communion between different churches within the spectrum of global Christianity; it recognized not only matters of credal doctrine but other subsidiary doctrines as critical for considering inter-communion, for instance, episcopacy. Clearly, credal doctrine alone cannot constitute the basis for the unity of an ecclesiastical body. Other doctrinal matters enter into the consideration of communion, both within and between various Christian churches.
The Report itself is not consistent on this point of Communion-breaking since it calls into question (para. 16) the actions of “one member church of the communion” which have led to the destruction of the unity of the communion as well as recognizing the idea that “unity as a value” needs to be seen in relation to what is “an urgent gospel mandate.” This implies that what is Communion-breaking is at once de facto and as a matter of principle more than what is simply and clearly credal doctrine. This point cannot be ignored in the light of the Archbishop of Canterbury's statements about the divisiveness of the decisions of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America; there are non-credal things, too, which cannot be negotiated.
What the St. Michael Report overlooks is the formative nature of credal or essential doctrine which shapes other doctrines in an hierarchy of understanding and which consequently bears upon the matter of communion.
The Idea of Doctrine
It is much to the credit of the St. Michael Report that it recognizes the importance of doctrine and that it acknowledges that the issue of the blessing of same-sex unions is a doctrinal matter. But the idea of doctrine and the order and structure of doctrine in the Report are not clearly and cogently articulated. The Report argues that the issue of the blessing of same-sex unions touches upon a loose cluster of doctrines: soteriology, incarnation, pneumatology, theological anthropology, sanctification, and holy matrimony (para. 2). Such a list is neither exhaustive nor comprehensive and obscures as much as it clarifies about the doctrinal ramifications of the question. As a list, it obscures, in particular, the interplay of various doctrines through the hierarchy of doctrine. The doctrine of holy matrimony, which the Report, again to its credit, rightly recognizes as a doctrine, is not equivalent to the other above-mentioned doctrines. There is a necessary hierarchy of doctrines.
The term doctrine is variously invoked in the St. Michael Report and “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”(para. 8). While this has the virtue of identifying the constituent elements in the determination of doctrine, it does not distinguish the relative weight and scope of each authority. Scripture, Tradition and Reason do not all have the same weight and scope of authority in the determination of doctrine. A certain primacy is granted to the authority of Scripture in all matters of doctrine to which the respective authorities of tradition and reason both testify. Importantly, the Church stands under the authority of Scripture doctrinally understood, understood that is to say in terms of the consensus fidelium which embraces not only the creeds and the conciliar determinations of classical orthodoxy formally considered but also the formative ways in which the essential doctrines of the Christian Faith shape the moral, sacramental and political life of the Church.
The consensus fidelium, the consensus of the faithful, centers on the sensus fidei - the understanding of the Faith objectively proclaimed in the Scriptures and the Creeds. That consensus fidelium embraces not only the credal essentials of the Faith but the essential principles of moral doctrine, sacramental doctrine and polity as those have been received by the churches.
The doctrine of marriage, while not a credal essential is nonetheless part of the consensus fidelium of the Church, part of the doctrine which the Church has received and to which the Church is committed and obliged to uphold and pass on unimpaired. A secondary doctrine (marriage, after all, is not essential to salvation), it is nonetheless shaped by the primary doctrines of the Faith and is measured by them even as it participates in them.
The Order of Doctrine
In matters of doctrine, it is crucial to observe an order of precedence; there is a hierarchy of doctrines. Some are more essential, others less so. The essential doctrines are those which are necessary to be believed for salvation. That is to say, they are essential to the truth of ourselves in the truth of God. They belong to what is rightly believed (orthodoxy) from what has been essentially revealed.
The essential dogmas of the Trinity, the Incarnation and Redemption are revealed doctrines which embrace the doctrines of God, Man, Creation, and Providence. From a reflection upon ourselves and our world, we may discover a knowledge of God; but that God is Trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, is revealed to us in the Holy Scriptures and derived from them. From a knowledge of God and man we may reflect upon this relation; but that Jesus Christ is true God and true Man, God Incarnate, is revealed to us in the Holy Scriptures and derived from them. From a reflection upon human actions and human sufferings, world events and natural catastrophes, we may long for things to be otherwise; but to know ourselves as sinners and ourselves and our world in need of God's Redemption belongs to Revelation. Yet something has first to be there to be redeemed and restored. To speak of Redemption presupposes the revealed doctrines of Creation and Fall; that is to say, a relation of ourselves and the world to the Creator and the disordering of that relation by our wills set against God's will and purpose.
To know, moreover, that Christ is our Redeemer who makes us at one with God through his death and resurrection is revealed in the witness of the Scriptures. Our life in all its moments is lived under the mercy of God's Providence for he cares for us even beyond his gentle care for the fowls of the air and the lilies of the field.
These essential doctrines, derived from the Scriptures and expressed in the Creeds, guide the understanding and development of the secondary doctrines in the life of the Church. The doctrine of the Trinity proclaims the revealed identity of God and embraces the forms of God's relation to the world and to humanity as the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier within which are located the consideration of matters of moral doctrine.
The doctrine of Creation cannot be overlooked in the understanding of the doctrine of marriage since marriage reflects on the ordering of the fundamental elements of our humanity as male and female. Marriage is the only state of life that has its origins “before the Fall” which gives it a special prominence and a heightened dignity. The Canadian Book of Common Prayer signals that beautifully in saying that marriage is “instituted of God in the time of man's innocency”, recalling Paradise itself. In such a view, marriage is considered not merely as a social arrangement but as divinely instituted and as reflecting the created order of our humanity as male and female.
Human sexuality cannot be considered without recourse to the doctrine of Creation and to the place of marriage within that understanding. The biblical categories of the understanding of our humanity are that we are male and female; that in marriage a man and a woman become one flesh; and that children are the potential fruit of that union. Those categories remain fundamental for the doctrine of marriage as it has been received in the Church.
The doctrine of Redemption cannot be overlooked in the understanding of the doctrine of marriage since “the devices and desires” of all our hearts are in such disarray. Marriage in the order of Redemption is one way in which our loves are “set in order” through Christ's redemptive work on the cross. The first miracle which Jesus wrought according to the Gospel of St. John was in Cana of Galilee where he turned the water into wine, “this beginning of signs”, which has an explicit reference to the hour of his passion, “mine hour has not yet come”(John 2.1-11). The symbolic significance of that cannot be ignored. The traditional marriage vows are impossible words made possible only in and through the sacrifice of Christ. He has died for us and only so can we even imagine to die to ourselves and to live for one another in the covenant of marriage.
The St. Michael Report recognizes that “the blessing of committed same-sex unions is tied to the question of how all sexuality, as a feature of our bodily existence, participates in our redemption” (para. 2) but does not deal explicitly with the basic and fundamental categories of human creation without which we cannot begin to think about redemption. “All sexuality” is ambiguous since it does not acknowledge the fallen nature of all of us that affects “our sexuality and sexual acts of intimacy”. This ambiguity allows for the view that there is no difference between the various forms of “sexual intimacy”. This assumes a contemporary tendency that is reluctant to discriminate between sexual acts and treats them as matters indifferent; as if anal and oral intercourse were no different in principle than vaginal intercourse, for example, and as if all that matters is the consensual committed relationship between two individuals. The consideration of the blessing of same-sex unions by the Church as entailing the issue of sexuality cannot ignore the doctrines of Creation and Redemption.
The doctrine of Sanctification, too, cannot be overlooked in the understanding of the doctrine of marriage since marriage in the Christian view is very much “an holy estate”, “holy Matrimony” as distinct from a merely legal and sociological arrangement. As something holy, it bears upon the moral qualities of Christian life as a vocation to holiness and subject to the Scriptural counsels about holiness of life. The doctrine of Sanctification governs the forms of Christian friendship whether within or without marriage as well. It is unfortunate that the Report makes no reference to the sanctified forms of Christian friendship in the Christian tradition such as the Greek rite adelphopoiesis or the Latin (Catholic) rite Ordo ad fratres faciendum, both of which distinguish these forms of covenanted friendship from the covenant of Christian marriage and bear witness to the voice of tradition in this vexed area.
The Report argues that “every discovery in human learning, scientific research and socio-cultural development must be understood in the context of the fundamental reality that all we do and are, including our sexuality and sexual acts of intimacy, is a response in faith to the person of Jesus Christ.” This should mean that such “discoveries” are subject to the measure of the doctrines of creation and redemption and sanctification and not the other way around. The Report unfortunately conflates “human learning” and “scientific research” with “socio-cultural development”, allowing for the view that there are things known now that fundamentally alter the understanding of our humanity in ways that contradict the biblical understanding. The Report overlooks that the vexed and ambiguous term “homosexuality” is very much a social construct, a point that is very clearly made by the more thoughtful proponents of gay marriage who oppose the idea of any kind of biological determinism which, of course, remains unproven. Once again, though, the discoveries in “human learning” and “scientific research” as well as “socio-cultural developments” would have to be measured doctrinally, including the much maligned and often ignored doctrine of original sin. The biblical and doctrinal tradition recognizes the vast array of the disorders of our souls and the misdirections of our loves, distinguishing between our desires in their truth and falsity and the incomplete forms of their expression.
The St. Michael Report seems to suggest where the theological and doctrinal question truly lies. It really has all together to do with the standing and meaning of the various kinds of social constructs belonging to the sociological, political, cultural and economical forms of the human community. In this regard, the question about the blessing of same-sex unions needs to be considered not simply in terms of the Scriptures themselves, in all of the complexity of their expression but, more importantly, in terms of the theological in its own right and as the measure of the sociological, political, cultural and the economical.
There are many, many different forms of social constructs some of which are consistent with the principles of the Gospel and some of which are not. To reduce all forms of human association to social constructs is the logic of secular atheism. That follows logically enough but it is entirely at the expense of the doctrinal understanding of the Scriptures, particularly with respect to the doctrine of Creation, the doctrine of Redemption, and the doctrine of Sanctification which derive from and participate in the doctrine of the Trinity. What is at issue in the present controversy is precisely the question about the place of so-called homosexuality, a social and political construct, from the consideration of theology.
This, of course, raises the larger question about what the Church teaches. With respect to Christian marriage, the overwhelming consensus, historically and institutionally, is that it entails the union of this man and this woman. Without prejudice to the interest in friendship and loyalty which are so important with regard to the glue of any body politic, the question about the blessing of same-sex unions, willingly or unwillingly, comes into conflict with the fundamental teaching of the Christian Church, which in despite of its many, many failings, nonetheless upholds an ideal and a principle which cannot be sacrificed on the altar of social and political expediency nor can it be hijacked by an agenda hostile to the principles of theology itself, whether that agenda appears within or without the instruments of the institutional church.
The singular virtue of the St. Michael's report is that it more than amply demonstrates how uncertain and unclear are the principles of doctrinal understanding upon which the determination of this question properly depends.
The Study Guide, produced subsequent to the release of the St. Michael Report, undermines the positive features of the Report which attempts to deal with the theological principles that shape and inform the moral and political life of the Church. The premise underlying the Study Guide is a set of questions which imply that the issue is to be decided on the basis of the societal and political consensus, not theological. In so doing, it seeks to circumvent the very points which the Report is at pains to emphasise and betrays the primacy of the theological which the Report, for the first time in the Anglican Church of Canada, has valiantly tried to argue.
The burden of the Report at the end of the day is that we are only at the beginning of a more mature consideration of the principles which govern the moral teachings and the polity of the Anglican Church.
Far from being a matter of resting in the comfortable certainties of the past, the Report challenges Anglicans to think, in a vibrant and vital way, the principles which constitutionally govern our polity as an orthodox and integral part of the Church Catholic in and through our commitment to the Canterbury Connection so eloquently expressed in The Solemn Declaration of 1893.
The St. Michael Report, despite its understandable limitations, has taken a courageous and important step forwards towards the possibility of the renewal and the restoration of the Anglican Church of Canada as a vibrant and orthodox Christian Church and as a full member of the Anglican Communion. It is, however, just a beginning.
(Rev'd) David Curry
... back to "St. Michael materials" main page |
|
|
 |
