From
The Rev. James I. Packer, D.Phil. P. D. M. Turner, D.Phil. Donald M. Lewis, D.Phil.
6017 Holland Street 1307 Devonshire Crescent 4537 West 14th Avenue
Vancouver, B. C., V6N 2B3 Vancouver, B. C., V6H 2G3 Vancouver, B. C., V6R 2Y5
10 September 1998
An Open Letter to the Bishop of New Westminster, The Rt. Rev. Michael Ingham and the members of his Council of Advice.
On May 9, 1998, under the Bishop’s chairmanship, the Synod of the Diocese of New Westminster passed a motion that “asks the Bishop to authorise clergy in this diocese to bless covenanted same-sex unions, subject to such conditions as the Bishop deems appropriate.” The voting was 179 (approximately 52%) in favour and 170 (approximately 48%) against: a very narrow margin of approval.
Since then, the Lambeth Conference has affirmed, by a vote of 526 to 70, with 45 abstentions, that the homosexual life style is incompatible with biblical teaching. In the light of this, were the New Westminster Synod to vote again on this motion, the result could be expected to be different.
In introducing the Synod’s discussion, Bishop Ingham appeared to say that in his opinion what was being voted on was a proposed gesture of goodwill in which no doctrinal issue was directly involved. It appeared that the only doctrinal issue that the Bishop thought might have been involved was the doctrine of marriage.
We believe that this estimate was mistaken and misleading, and the purpose of this letter is to lay before you our reasons for thinking so.
To clarify our point, three matters must be raised at the outset.
First, what are the “covenanted same-sex unions” that the clergy would bless? They are more than committed lifelong friendships as such; they are relationships that are expected to involve arousing and gratifying sexual desire by physical action, as in Christian marriage.
Second, what would it mean to “bless” such a relationship? It would mean declaring it good and right in itself, and asking God to enable the partners to get the best out of it – that is, to manage it in a way that enables them to realise all the values inherent in it, for their own good, for the good of others, and ultimately for the glory, honour, and praise of God the Creator.
Third, what is a “doctrinal issue”? “Doctrine” means “teaching” – affirmation and instruction, viewed from the standpoint of its content. A doctrinal issue in the church is thus a question about what the church should teach as God’s health-giving truth.
The synodical motion involved several major doctrinal issues.
First and fundamentally, it raised a general question about biblical authority. Should the church be subject to, and bound by, the Bible’s explicit teaching? The catholic Christian answer, only ever challenged in the church by an academic minority, is yes. Our Bible consists of the scriptures Christ knew, honoured, and fulfilled (the Old Testament), plus the apostolic witness to Christ (the New Testament). The two collections dovetail as a unity: demonstrably, they tell one story, announce one salvation, and teach one set of behavioural ideals – of which, as the church has always acknowledged, same-sex unions form no part. (The physical element in such unions is explicitly ruled out in Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:27, I Corinthians 6:9, I Timothy 1:10.) The Bible is the book of the church, and the church must ever be the people of the book.
The idea that the church should not be bound in this matter by biblical teaching was formulated in an interview by Frank Griswold, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the USA, as follows: “Broadly speaking, the Episcopal Church is in conflict with scripture (on sexual morality). The only way to justify this is to say that Jesus talks about the Spirit guiding the church and guiding believers and bringing to their awareness things they cannot deal with yet. So one would have to say that the mind of Christ operative over time has led the church to, in effect, contradict the words of the Gospel (on sexual matters).” Whatever be thought of this view, it is undoubtedly doctrine – Griswold’s doctrine – and as such serves to highlight the fact that biblical authority is a doctrinal issue.
The truer doctrine here is that for the church to sit loose to the authority of scripture – that is, to the authority of God in the teaching of scripture – must mean a forfeiting of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit through whose agency the Bible was given and was and is discerned to be canonical, and who now gives Christian people understanding of it as they reverently study it. That is the catholic Christian contention on this basic doctrinal issue. For any part of the Anglican church to bless same-sex unions would be to fly in the face of the historic Christian consensus on biblical authority, and to tell the world that that is what we choose to do.
Also, the motion raised particular doctrinal questions. Creation and sin are doctrines directly involved. May we claim, as some do, that God has created same-sex physical tendencies in the same way as he has created heterosexual mating instincts, so that acting out both sets of desires within a covenanted relationship will equally please God? Or should we say, as the church has historically done, that our sexual powers are to be kept within the limits God specifies, and that the homosexual orientation, however derived and wherever found, is one aspect of the racial disorder that stems from sin as a racial fact, and that acting it out can only displease God? The question here is inescapably doctrinal.
Redemption and sanctification are doctrines also involved. Both belong to the gospel of salvation from sin, through the combined action of our triune God. Through Christ’s life, death, resurrection and heavenly ministry we are saved from sin’s condemnation, and through the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit we are saved from sin’s power. In light of God’s explicit negativity about homosexual connections, it would seem that God’s redemptive purpose must be to empower those inclined to them to refrain from them, as one dimension of their life of holiness. This, too, is a doctrinal matter.
The unavoidable conclusion is that it was a real, if unwitting, mistake to treat the motion as not involving doctrine.
A letter that the Bishop wrote on December 15, 1994 states: “I do not believe weekend conferences have the competence or authority to define orthodoxy in Christian faith.” Exactly so; and the same is true of diocesan synods. But the effect of this vote, if made a basis for action, would be, really if inadvertently, to change the contours of orthodoxy on all the matters mentioned.
It is right that the church should reach out in loving and accepting ministry to all who, like ourselves, need God’s grace, gay people included. For any part of the church to express approval of active homosexual behaviour would, however, be something quite different, and totally wrong. We ask that in your deliberations and in any future diocesan discussions of homosexuality this distinction be frankly faced and not obscured. We also ask that, in view of the considerations set out above, the synodical vote of May 9, 1998 not be regarded as in any way decisive.
Signed,
The Rev. James I. Packer, D.Phil.
P. D. M. Turner, D.Phil.
Donald M. Lewis, D.Phil.
Copies: The Primate, the Most Reverend Michael Peers
The House of Bishops
Topic
The Anglican Journal
The Internet
Christian Week
B.C. Christian Info
B.C. Report