Dean Mercer and Catherine Sider-Hamilton write in a guest column for the Anglican Church of Canada’s Anglican Journal:

We suggest that the church, given its present practice with regard to same-sex blessings, cannot in good faith adopt or approve the Covenant.

Indeed, the Covenant offers the Anglican Church of Canada an opportunity to be honest before the world about its commitment to same-sex blessings and its willingness, in the name of its own standards of justice, to walk apart from the universal church.
Why can the church not adopt the Covenant? It cannot because the Covenant insists on a primary commitment to the universal and apostolic church, a commitment that the movement for same-sex blessings rejects as opposing its standards of justice.

The full column is here.
View the original post

This is both a brilliant piece of logic and a separation of the proverbial wood from the trees which should gain wide use in the US when we approach the next General Convention.

Although I find the argument persuasive, I disagree with the author’s on one point:

It has declared scripture and the church’s teaching on marriage to be oppressive and outdated.

I believe that the decision to approve same-sex blessings/marriage is not a rejection of scripture, but a rejection of one interpretation of scripture. We need to recognize that, wherever we come down on the issue, there are respected biblical scholars on both sides of the debate.

Daniel,

Can you share the interpretation of scripture that says the union of two men or two women is blessed and part of God’s design?  Since there are biblical scholars on both sides of the issue, it should be rather easy.  I’ve looked, but I can’t find anything in scripture that supports blessing same sex unions.

Likewise, I can’t find anything in the teaching of the Church that supports it.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Phil,

I will be brief because you have already read - and found unpersuasive - the arguments that others have made.

There are two issues. The first is the interpretation of those few passages in Scripture that condemn certain same-sex sexual activities. I join those who see those condemnations as not applicable to committed same-sex intimate relationships, but as applicable to the kind of sexual practices that were widespread in those periods. You and I disagree about this and I am willing to remain in communion with you and I am glad that TEC still has such diveristy.

The second issue is the nature of the Church’s blessing and what limits there might to what the Church can bless. Even if I am correct in my interpretation of the Scripture and that there is nothing wrong withy committed same-sex unions, the Church might decide that blessing them is inappropriate. There are plenty of moral acts and relationships that the Church doesn’t formally bless. I think, however, that these committed relationships should have the Church’s blessing. I recognize that opposite-sex intimacy is the norm and that the Church is right in blessing marriages. Given the life-long commitment that many same-sex couples are making, I believe is right for the Church to recognize that these relationships can be holy and to pray for God’s grace to make them holy.

Daniel

Daniel,

The reason that I have found the arguments unpersuasive is that they are not based in biblical exegesis.  They are based in an assumption of what they want to prove.  That is not sound logic nor is it a sound interpretive principle.  To put it simply, what part of “no” do you (plural) not understand?  Paul was aware of life long homosexual relationships - Aristotle was aware of them and Paul was well acquainted with the Roman world of his day.  To submit that live long mutually monogamous relationships are a relatively new thing is simply temporal arrogance.

When the entire church (except your small group) says you are wrong, don’t you think it may be time to reevaluate your position?  The group supporting SSB has put forth its reasoning to the Anglican Communion and the Anglican Communion is unpersuaded.  All four instruments of unity have said that the teaching of the Church on homosexual relationships is encapsulated in Lambeth 1.10 (1998).  TEC and ACoC and various dioceses around the communion refuse to listen to the shared discernment of the Communion - indeed the shared discernment of the Church Catholic on this issue.

If the Church (not me, but the Church) is right and homosexual sexual relationships are sinful, then the Chuch lacks the authority to bless them and raising people involved in them to ordained leadership makes absolutely no sense.  How can a person lead the Church when his or her very life contradicts what the Church teaches? 

This is not a matter of simple biblical interpretation.  It is a matter of the will.  The question is will TEC and ACoC listen to the Church at large or will they listen to their own desires.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Phil Snyder - 03 May 2010 09:48 AM

Daniel,

The reason that I have found the arguments unpersuasive is that they are not based in biblical exegesis. 

Phil,

I am not willing to be drawn into this argument again. Suffice it to say that you are free to reject the work of Union and Duke professors like Robin Scroggs, Walter Wink, and Dan O. Via as not based on biblical exegesis, but I won’t.

Daniel

Daniel said:

Suffice it to say that you are free to reject the work of Union and Duke professors like Robin Scroggs, Walter Wink, and Dan O. Via as not based on biblical exegesis, but I won’t.

And yet Wink himself said:

The Bible clearly considers homosexual behavior a sin, and whether it is stated three times or 3,000 is beside the point. Just as some of us grew up “knowing” that homosexual acts were the unutterable sin, though no one ever spoke about it, so the whole Bible “knows” it to be wrong.

I freely grant all that. The issue is precisely whether that Biblical judgment is correct.

Wink’s statement sounds an awful lot like:

It has declared scripture and the church’s teaching on marriage to be oppressive and outdated.

Daniel,

Titles do not impress me.  I am sure that both you and I have known people educated beyond their intelligence.  Heck we may even be among them! (grin).  I much prefer Luke Timothy Johnson’s take and honesty on the issue.  LTJ has said that he agrees that Holy Scripture is universally against homosexual practice, but that Holy Scripture is wrong on this issue.  That sounds a lot like what James Wirrel quoted Professor Wink as saying. 

I believe that the matter is not one of intellect - a difference of opinion about the meaning of an obscure Greek word or phrase - it is a matter of the will.  Are we, as ordained leaders in Christ’s One, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, willing to submit ourselves to the teaching of the Church and to the teaching of Holy Scripture or are we going to put ourselves in judgement of the Church’s and Holy Scripture’s teaching?

Now, I admit that it is possible to change the teaching of the Church.  The problem is that you (plural) have proceeded as if the teaching has been changed already when it manifestly has not been changed.  It is tatamount to driving 45 in a 35 zone because you have lobbied the city to change the speed limit to 45, but they still said “no.”  The only real difference is that the Anglican Communion has no enforcement mechanism (like a police force).  If you are caught going 45 in a 35 zone, the following will not get you out of a ticket:

“Officer, I believe that the sign’s message is outdated and does not apply to cars with today’s saftey standards.  The speed limit was 35 years ago, but that was before air bags and mandatory seatbelts and anti-lock breaks.  Our new cars are much more than capable of travelling at 45 and avoiding injury to people - even in a head on crash.”

“Officer, I have lobbied the City Council to change the speed limit here, but they find my arugments unpersuasive.  I still believe this is simply a matter of interpretation”

My biggest beef with the progressive side in this debate is their lack of basic honesty.  I would rather they admit that what they want to do is against Holy Scripture than try to torture an interpretation out of Holy Scripture that is simply not there.  If the interpretation is there, I would be glad to hear it, but you keep assuming that it is there and won’t share it with me.  Everything I have read from the progressive side on this simply assumes that homosexual sexual relationships are blessed by God so the church should bless them too.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Phil Snyder - 03 May 2010 07:40 PM

My biggest beef with the progressive side in this debate is their lack of basic honesty.  I would rather they admit that what they want to do is against Holy Scripture than try to torture an interpretation out of Holy Scripture that is simply not there.  If the interpretation is there, I would be glad to hear it, but you keep assuming that it is there and won’t share it with me.  Everything I have read from the progressive side on this simply assumes that homosexual sexual relationships are blessed by God so the church should bless them too.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

I have not provided Phil with the interprepation that he says would be glad to hear simply because he has told me that he has read the scholars’ arguments that I have cited and has remained unconvinced by them. Given the definition of insanity - doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome - I have not tried to repeat arguments that were unpersuasive.

I find Phil’s assertion of dishonesty a troubling example of the lack of respect that makes continued conversation so difficult.

Daniel,

I keep asking for the evidence you say exists because everything I have read on the progressive side (e.g. “To Set Our Hope on Christ”) has the blessedness of homosexual relationship as a basic assumption.  Assuming what you want to prove is no way to debate or discuss questions of the Faith. 

So, if there is evidence that doesn’t assume the blessedness of the relationships in question, then I would be most interested in reading it.  The Emory NT Scholar Luke Timothy Johnson, who supports blessing same sex unions, agrees that Holy Scripture is universally against same sex unions and that heterosexual marriage (what used to be called “marriage”) is the biblical norm, but he states that we should go beyond what Holy Scripture says.

So, can you please show me where Holy Scripture talks about blessing same sex unions or where it gives us a positive role model of same sex unions?  (NB, David is not a positive role model of sexual living and neither is a master/slave relationship).

It becomes very hard to have a dialogue about the rightness or wrongness of changing the Church’s teaching when the side proposing the change simply asserts that its change is good and proper and then acts on that assertion.

So, if there Scriptural or Traditional evidence that the current teaching of the Church on homosexual sex is wrong, please share it so that we can debate that evidence and either agree that the evidence is lacking or agree that we should move forward.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Phil,

I think that I am right in saying that you have read the scholars who interpret the verses in Leviticus and Paul as condemning some, but not all, same-sex intimacy and that you are not persuaded by their arguments. That being the case, nothing I could write about blessing committed same-sex couples would be persuasive. It would be like convincing me - an opponent of the death penalty - to approve of lethal injection as a better method than hanging. You might concede that committed same-sex relationships are better than promiscuity but still an abomination.

Finally, I find it difficult to continue a conversation with someone who accuses me of dishonesty and will not do so any longer.

Daniel

Daniel,

Here is one of the bigger issues.  All the arguments that are used to ignore the biblical injunctions against homosexual sex can also be used to support almost any other sin.  Gluttony, Greed, Anger, Pride, Envy, Sloth or other forms of Lust.  I’ve done that several times with greed - by explaining that in Biblical times money was based on precious metals that were also used to build idols, so the injunctions against greed was really an injunction against too much of a certain metal.  Today, wealth is a representation of the value of your work in society and we should all strive to be highly valued members of society, so the aquisition of wealth is a good thing.  Don’t you see the parallels? 
You are changing the teaching of the Church and you are pretending that you are just changing the interpretation of a few passages of Scripture.  That is the point of dishonesty.  This is about claiming that the teaching of the Church doesn’t apply at this point for this person or group and we should be free to do what we want.  We did not so learn Christ.  Prior to 2003, we even said that TEC should not make this decision unilaterally, but we did anyway.  We have become a Judges Church where everyone does what is right in his own mind.  Again, we did not promise to do what is right in our own minds, we promised to follow the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them.
Can you show me where blessing of same sex unions is found in the Teaching of the Church?  Can you show me where it is OK for one group of people to redefine “sin” for the whole Church?  That is what is occurring.  TEC and ACoC and a few others are attempting to redefine what is sinful for the Whole Church. 

There is more to redefining sin than saying these passages don’t apply in this case for this person.  You also have to say why what you are proposing is more in line with the received revelation.  That second part is what is missing.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

What is needed is a theology of human sexuality that shows that homosexuality is a proper expression of human sexuality.

For it to be a *Christian* theology, it will need to be founded on Scripture and Tradition.

If such a theology can be given, then the standard cultural arguments for setting aside the specific Scriptural prohibitions will have force. Without such a theology, such setting aside does nothing to build a case *for* homosexuality.

To be perfectly clear, what seems to be on offer are arguments for homosexuality based on a number of non-Biblical sources (often “science”). We could argue (and many have) about the merits of those arguments. The basic problem is they are not theology. They are psychology, sociology, anthropology, biology, etc.

“To Set Our Hope on Christ” makes much of Acts 10, and I think the point is valid to say that the Holy Spirit can bring new understanding. And in the case of the Gospel going out to the Gentiles, Peter’s experience with Cornelius is critical for that mission. But what is obvious from this distance is that that mission to the Gentiles is completely congruent with the whole of Scripture, as many (see especially Christopher Wright’s *The Mission of God*) has shown.

So I am open to accepting homosexuality as a proper expression of human sexuality if, likewise, it can be shown to be congruent with all of Scripture. But “To Set Our Hope on Christ” seems to assume that it is enough to point to Act 10 as a universal principle that allows anything we can claim as God given, without searching the Scripture as the Bereans did.

The case of gender egalitarianism is a good example. The setting aside of the troublesome verses (! Tim, etc) does not build a case for gender egalitarianism. Showing that scripture moves in that direction does. The fact that Paul’s “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28) is a direct refutation of:

Siman 46:4: A person must say the Blessings shelo asani goy (Who did not make me a non-Jew), shelo asani aved (Who did not make me a slave), and shelo asani isha (Who did not make me a woman) every day.

is a strong argument in favor of gender egalitarianism.

This is the kind of argument that must be presented if a theology of human sexuality that shows that homosexuality is a proper expression of human sexuality can be made.

I think that Tobias Haller’s Reasonable and Holy is an attempt at a theology of human sexuality that affirms committed same-sex relationships. Many will disagree with Haller, but it provides a good starting point for discussion.

Daniel:  And yet the example you give was reviewed by Dr. Radner with the following excerpts.  These basically provide evidence supporting Phil’s and Charlie’s points.

The book is a disappointment, however, on the level of a studied consideration of the topic in terms of Scripture and tradition. There are a number of reasons for this, some simply related to the genre of blogging from which these essays derive, others related to the form of argument Haller uses, and others related to the presuppositions applied to the arguments themselves. I will address each of these in turn.

In the first place, the book is thin on the logical side of things (it is thin in terms of size too). Haller has no interest in presenting a scholarly grappling with the issues he discusses: the bibliography is limited and spotty, there are no footnotes, and hence no means to track whose arguments are actually being addressed and where to find them (this is not uniform, to be sure; but just why one argument is located with a specific scholar and most are not is unclear), and there is no attempt to engage alternate and conflicting viewpoints in any thorough way.

Most readers who are not specialists will skim these long passages, perhaps assuming that the arguments must make sense because they are detailed and intricate. But they are not actually responsible arguments on these terms. And, unfortunately, the careful reader will have little help in placing Haller’s claims within any sort of scholarly context, will be offered no aid in pursuing alternative viewpoints or in making use of provided tools to evaluate his claims, and will simply read a series of assertions about technical matters without historical or literary touchstones. The less careful reader, furthermore, may believe that the argument has scholarly foundation, when in fact it does not.

In short, this is not a book designed to argue, let alone be capable of arguing a position seriously; it is instead a series of scattershot opinions, some of them sophisticated and often interestingly presented, but in generally quite unsubstantiated ways. Caveat lector.

In this sense, the volume acts as a kind of handbook for pro-gay advocates in the church, ready to have an answer for every discrete argument traditionalists might make in the course of a conversation or debate, as, say, on your typical blog or parish forum.

Based mainly on a string of vague possibilities (the Bible doesn’t say that David and Jonathan were not homosexual lovers, does it?), the final argument taken as a whole is a tissue of “maybe” rather than carefully constructed logic. The value of Haller’s individual points, however individually uncertain, lies in their status as ammunition in the ongoing sex debates of the church. Let me be clear: I believe most of Haller’s arguments can in fact be refuted (and have been); but that would require the kind of point-by-point scholarly tenacity, like a dog with a bone, that only someone like Gagnon has thus far exhibited (much to people’s discomfort). This approach to the topic, as we all know, is exhausting.

But that is, in part, due to the genre of this kind of apologetic. For what the book does not provide, precisely because of its debate-manual format, is an overarching vision of Christian marriage and sexuality itself. The book is premised on undercutting objections, not constructing a synthetic perspective.

But Haller reaches this point mainly through subtraction — subtracting this and that text from the Bible as historically or linguistically or morally irrelevant, this and that thematic inter-textual network as confused, this and that interwoven set of strands in the tradition as misled, figurally and practically — all to the end of dismissing the list of traditional “objections.”

The result is a “remainder theology” where the Scriptures have little to say comprehensively, and where the traditions of the Church exist as interesting but generally superfluous distractions from the main point of love and fidelity. No doubt, if Haller were to set about writing a more positive sexual theology, he would have something positive to say about husbands and wives, about children, about the agony of barrenness, about the character of suffering difference — even though he believes that none of this is essential to marriage itself (and the book, as a whole, is about “same-sexuality,” not about “mixed-sex” marriage). But there is nothing in this volume to point to such positive interests or even theological trajectories. Marriage ends up as a rather vague container, not terribly interesting frankly, for homosexuals or heterosexuals.

Phil and Charlie (and many others) have indicated that “scholarship” which follows the path of:
A) We assume that same-sex relationships are good; and
B) Let’s try to find ways to call into question the Church’s traditional and Scriptural teaching on this matter so that we can rationalize what we want to do under point A;
are woefully inadequate to what responsible liberals (i.e. those who value a catholic Christianity) must do to make their case.  As Radner devastatingly points out, Haller’s book falls squarely into this “let’s assume same-sex relationships are good and now try to rationalize why the Church shouldn’t object to them” approach.

Radner’s review suggests that Haller’s book is most certainly not an attempt “at a theology of human sexuality”, but rather, to quote Radner again, a “kind of apologetic” intended to undercut the Church’s tradition and catholic understanding of Scripture, in that “the book does not provide…an overarching vision of Christian marriage and sexuality itself.”

As Phil said earlier

There is more to redefining sin than saying these passages don’t apply in this case for this person.  You also have to say why what you are proposing is more in line with the received revelation.  That second part is what is missing.

Haller’s book doesn’t address what is missing.