1) A view of the Bible which uses the word "authority" but
which deprives the Bible of any authority;
2) The elevation of an ideology which denatures the gospel and which
denies the shape and direction which God wills to impart to human existence. The abstract
category "justice" is clearly the controlling principle of the report, although
the report nowhere defines "justice";
3) An insistence that the quality of a relationship is sufficient to
legitimize sexual (genital) intimacy;
4) A devaluation of the Fall so thoroughgoing as virtually to deny the
Fall. (This theological tenet, which speaks of that distortion of the entire creation
which rendered God's incursion in Jesus Christ necessary, is startlingly underused in view
of the place the doctrine has occupied at all times in the history of Christian thought.)
With the devaluation of the Fall, there is a corresponding devaluation of redemption,
there really being nothing which needs redeeming;
5) The absence of any discussion of the holiness of God and what God's
holiness requires of covenant people who are themselves called to be holy. It is
incomprehensible that so central a Biblical category is overlooked when the Report claims
to be "in substantive agreement with our Biblical understanding of responsible human
relationships" (p. 6);
6) An unawareness of the malleability of human sexuality. (The report
mentions only three "orientations");
7) The defamation by definition of those who are still persuaded that a
Biblical view of the place and purpose of sexual intimacy reflects the intention of the
Creator.
Perhaps the last-mentioned point will prove to be the occasion of greatest sadness and
pain for most readers of the Report. Bullying is always offensive, no less so when the
bullying is verbal. It occurs, for in stance, when a word or expression used to describe
the position held by someone who disagrees with the Report is defined in such a way as to
slander the person of whom it is used. A lamentable case of this occurs when the Report
speaks of "heterosexism" as "a systemic form of oppression in which the
beliefs and actions of society reinforce the assumed inherent superiority of the
heterosexual pattern of loving, and thereby its right to dominance. . . ." (17) But
the issue at hand has not primarily to do with "dominance" (i.e., a
heterosexual relationship which is marred by exploitation) but of obedience to the
will and way of God. The category confusion is glaring. Its pejorative twist is
unmistakable. "Assumed inherent superiority" ascribes haughtiness to anyone who
questions the Report's assumption that same-sex genital intimacy is righteous. In other
words, the assertion here slanders by definition all who maintain that their
faithfulness to Jesus Christ constrains them to uphold marriage as the God-ordained
context for sexual intimacy. The vocabulary ("assumed inherent superiority . . .
dominance") equates theological disagreement with what is commonly regarded as
humanly vicious and socially retarded. Readers should recognize the ad hominem approach
here and shed any false guilt concerning it.
The same tactic is evident in the glossary at the end of the Report. There heterosexism
is defined as "a systemic form of oppression supporting the belief that
heterosexuality is the only [emphasis theirs] legitimate form of sexuality; linked
to homophobia."(66) Herein anyone who deems the Biblical understanding of sexual
intimacy to reflect God's purpose is defined as oppressive and labelled as
homophobic. Homophobia, as the Report makes clear, is irrational fear, i.e., a
neurosis. Accordingly, all traditional Christians who regard marriage as the God-ordained
setting for genital intimacy are looked upon as neurotic.
The Report begins well enough. "Following the example and teaching of Jesus, all
persons, without exception, are to be welcomed, cared for, and loved as our
neighbour."(3) The second assertion similarly cannot be faulted. "All people who
profess Jesus Christ and obedience to him are eligible to be full members of the United
Church of Canada."(3) Alas, it is the only time, "obedience" appears in the
entire Report. Christ's word, "If you love me you will keep my commandments"
(John 14:15) is never adduced; indeed, the Biblical conviction that there is no love for
God without obedience to God, where obedience aims at conformity to God's will and
way, is entirely lost to sight.
Wesley's quadrilateral -- Scripture, tradition, reason, experience -- while not
identified as his, is referred to again and again throughout the Report and even regarded
as a framework which comprehends the ethos of the United Church. Wesley, however, would
have repudiated utterly the use made of it in the Report: the four items are looked upon
as equally normative. For Wesley, Scripture was the authority, the unnormed norm;
tradition (chiefly Patristics, Reformation theology and Church of England formularies)
were a distinctly subordinate norm, with reason and experience less authoritative
again. The Report assumes that each of the four is co-equal in authority, and then
incorporates this assumption into its deliberations.
Needless to say, the crux of the Report is its approach to Scripture. The note on
Scripture is prefaced by a presentation of three approaches to truth:
"absolutist," "relativist," and "pluralist." In every case
it is assumed that there is insight (like gold nuggets) to be found in Scripture (amidst
much gravel, presumably), the distinction among the three approaches being the proportion
and relation of gold to gravel. Disagreement among proponents of the three approaches
arises over what is insight and what is only impediment to the full flowering of one's
humanity. The deleterious assumption is that one or another of these approaches yields not
only insight about the creation but even a knowledge of God. No one, however, in the
Reformed tradition can agree with this, convinced as we are that only God's self-disclosure
in Jesus Christ yields knowledge of God.
Confusion is evident when we are told that "... both pluralist and absolutist
approaches will agree on the importance of what is at stake in any discussion about what
is true."(30) But surely what is at stake does not determine what is
true. Of ourselves, are we reliable guides as to "what is at stake"? Surely what
is at stake for the salvation of humankind and concomitant holy living which glorifies God
has to be revealed to us fallen creatures; otherwise how could we ever distinguish
what is true from socially useful or personally convenient fictions? The Report is sound
when it insists that a knowledge of the context is essential to gaining the fullest sense
of the text. Nonetheless, this admission should not be used to posit an ambiguity in the
text whenever the text does not support the view one wishes to espouse. Ultimately, all
of Scripture is the contextual key to any part of Scripture. This Reformation
conviction is entirely absent.
The Report's nontheological approach to Scripture is again evident in the assertion,
"The Bible, in dialogue with our contemporary experience, helps us envision ourselves
and the world in new ways that will heal, liberate, and empower us."(12) No doubt the
Bible does do this. And so does a textbook on psychology, a good novel, a
penetrating poem, a profound film. All of these do the same thing in exactly the same way.
The capacity to do this is not unique to Scripture, this capacity being found in any
product of culture which facilitates human reflection and promotes self-understanding. The
next sentence in the Report confirms the misunderstanding: "The authority of the
Bible is its ability to inspire."(12) Shakespeare and Milton inspire! The authority
of Scripture lies elsewhere.
The same outlook is apparent when the Bible is spoken of as ". . a resource for
our identity as religious people. We are related to it intimately."(32) This
psychological statement concerning our identity yet falls far short of a theological
affirmation. Different groups acquire their religious identity through different documents
to which they are intimately related: Methodists, through Wesley's hymnbook, Anglicans
through the Book of Common Prayer, Lutherans through the Augsburg Confession. Still, none
of the above groups affirms these documents to have the same force as Scripture, nor to
function in the same way.
The same devaluation is apparent in "The Bible, in dialogue with our modem
experience, gives new ways to imagine ourselves and the world that heal, liberate and
empower us."(32) But this is precisely what psychotherapy does! And when there is
added, "Here is the Bible's inspiration, and thus its authority," the reader can
only conclude that the prophetic/apostolic testimony to Jesus Christ (i.e.,
Scripture) has neither more nor less authority than the psychotherapist.
Missing completely from the treatment of Scripture is any understanding that the Bible
is normative for Christian faith and conduct, why it is this and how
it functions in the church. In other words, there is no discussion of how Scripture
subserves the unique authority of Him who is head of the church and Lord of the cosmos.
Surely Christians read and heed Scripture because the prophetic/apostolic testimony to
Jesus Christ, vivified by that Spirit power which Jesus Himself bears and bestows, brings
disciple and Lord together. In this encounter worship is elicited, obedience is
constrained, and service is enjoined. In a word, the Bible functions not primarily by
providing insight (although this is provided) but by being the occasion of the
transformation of fallen creatures into the likeness of Him who is the pledge
of a renewed creation and the agent of humankind's renewal.
Once again the theological undervaluation of Scripture is apparent in the Report's
contention that "The Bible is the basic document for our communal and
self-understanding. In it we find witness to God's faithful love for Creation."(12)
The Reformed church, however, has always known the primary witness to Jesus Christ to be
not merely the "basic" document, ie., not merely constitutive of the church, but
determinative for the church. To be sure, in Scripture we do find witness to God's
faithful love. God is love. (1 John 4:8) When this love meets a fallen creation,
this love "burns hot," that is, love takes the form first of judgment and then
of mercy. "Judgment" and "mercy" imply something which
"love", in its dictionary definitions, does not: God's love for the creation
contradicts us with God's "No!" to us even as it summons us with an inviting
"Yes." "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my
ways, says the Lord." (Isaiah 55:8)
While the Bible is certainly witness to God's saving act (John the Baptist and
Paul point to Jesus), as the Bible is read in faith and the Spirit is bestowed it
ceases to be merely a witness to the Christ-event and becomes part of that event itself.
For instance, the apostles are witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus only as they
are made part of the event of the resurrection of Jesus. The event of the resurrection is
the raising of Jesus to life, the vindication of Him and His way thereby, together with
the transformation of the apostles in such a way that they now cannot but speak and act
and suffer in His name. To affirm that the apostles are part of the Christ-event is only
to affirm what Jesus himself stated during his earthly ministry when he commissioned his
followers to speak in his name: "Whoever hears you hears me." (Luke 10:16) This
must not be weakened to, "whoever hears you also hears me" or "may hear
me." Obviously Jesus Christ cannot be collapsed into the apostles and prophets,
cannot be reduced to those whom He calls and equips to testify to Him. At the same time,
He is not heard and obeyed apart from them. To say the same thing: while Jesus Christ
cannot be reduced to Peter, James, and the women who greeted him on Easter morning,
neither is He known except insofar as their testimony is known. Our coming to hear, heed,
love and obey the living One Himself always takes the form of hearing, heeding, loving and
obeying the testimony of His witnesses. They are not to be equated with Him. Nonetheless,
unless their testimony is acknowledged as authoritative, His lordship (i.e., His
unique authority) is simply denied. The Report maintains that "The United Church has
always located itself within 'mainstream' Reformed understandings about the authority of
the Bible."(33) Yet nowhere does the Report's use of Scripture reflect a Reformed
understanding. The Report fails right here.
Not surprisingly, the Report's overall mishandling of Scripture is reflected in its
approach to specific passages. For instance, it states that we are created sexual
beings.(18) (Implicit in this statement and dealt with explicitly throughout the Report is
the notion that to be a sexual being necessitates being sexually active, or at
least provides divine sanction for sexual activity regardless of one's being unmarried or
the gender of one's partner.) The point Scripture makes so very tellingly, however, is not
that we are created sexual beings, but rather that we are created sexually differentiated.
The difference between these two assertions must not be minimized. All of the
distinctions in the creation which differentiate people -- poverty and wealth, learning
and ignorance, deprivation and privilege -- can in principle be overcome and even should
be overcome. Yet there is one difference which we are not to try to overcome since it has
come from the hand of the Creator (and for this reason is magnified in the text): sexual
differentiation. The implications of this notion, when considered alongside the
implications of, "We are created sexual beings," point up a crucial divergence
which the Report nowhere probes or even acknowledges.
In the same way the Report says in several places that the Bible assumes everyone to be
heterosexual. (e.g., 47) The Bible, however, everywhere understands people to be what they
do. The very fact that Scripture is unbending concerning same-sex genital intimacy attests
its awareness of the proclivity for this very thing to occur. When Paul speaks of such an
occurrence as a sign of a disordered creation (although, of course, not the only sign) we
are told that he was acquainted only with heterosexual men who "perverted"
themselves by going "against their God-given heterosexual nature."(36) In the
first place the Report exaggerates unconscionably in prefacing this statement with,
"according to current scholars," implying that there is scholarly unanimity on
this point. A few scholars have suggested this (R. Scroggs and V.P. Furnish come to my
mind) However, anyone who is acquainted with the literature on Romans and I Corinthians
knows that the categorical "according to current scholars" is unsupportable. In
the second place it cannot be assumed that Paul was unaware of the supposed distinction
between perversion (heterosexuals who engage in homosexual practices) and inversion
(homosexuals who engage in homosexual practices). In the third place it is most likely
that Paul knew his environment so thoroughly, given the sexual practices of Greece and
Rome (whose citizen he was), that he was acquainted with the variety of genital practices
in the ancient world.
Readers of the Report will be puzzled at the arbitrary restriction of
"orientation" to three: heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual (the lattermost
being new to the Report, earlier discussions in the United Church having mentioned only
the first two.) Yet any pastor or family physician knows that human sexuality is extremely
plastic; that is, it can be molded into any shape very readily. There are heterosexuality,
homosexuality, bisexuality, pedophilia, fetishism – and several others listed in the
textbooks. There is no end to the number of ways in which people are sexually aroused.
Despite the arbitrary restriction, the fact that even three are brought forward as
three whose practice is equally acceptable dovetails with the Report's repeated insistence
that marriage and the family are "human-shaped institutions" (e.g., 9),
and that these institutions "have evolved over time." No one will question that
many of the customs surrounding marriage and the family are "human -shaped" and
vary from culture to culture. Nonetheless, to admit this is not to concede that holy
matrimony (and the support of children which it provides) are merely human-shaped products
of an evolutionary process. In light of Scripture as a whole and Ephesians 5 in
particular, Roman Catholics speak of marriage as a sacrament. Protestants do not speak of
it as a sacrament; at the same time, Protestants do recognize marriage to be no mere
convention. Since marriage is the metaphor for the relationship between Jesus Christ and
his people, to speak of marriage as only human-shaped implies that we are the creator and
the measure of the bond between Jesus Christ and his people. To say this is but to say
that there is no bond at all between disciple and Lord which can be trusted to endure
amidst turbulence, treachery and death.
Time and again the Report cites the prevalence of exploitative marriages as sufficient
reason for denying that marriage is divinely sanctioned. Yet there is evident logical
confusion in citing the tragedy of women shackled to abusive husbands as a ground for
repudiating marriage itself with its aspiration to lifelong fidelity. The fact of
exploitative relationships anywhere in life cannot settle the theological issue of what
God wills for our good and can redeem for our blessing. In the same way the fact of
heterosexual tyranny cannot settle the theological assessment of same-sex genital
intimacy. Admittedly, "the emergence of feminist consciousness and the questions that
have accompanied it" (17) will properly stimulate renewed theological probing of
husband/wife relationships and the manner in which marriage too is subtly marred by sin.
But to say that the emergence of feminist consciousness denatures or even can denature
marriage as divinely ordained is to commit a category error: sociological developments do
not determine theological truth. At the very least, the fact that marriage is the
description of the bond between Jesus Christ and his people means, given the election of
the church from all eternity (Ephesians 1:4), that Christians do not project the nature of
Christ's bond with his people from their experience of their own (sin-riddled) marriage;
rather, they repent of and reform their marriage as they look away from themselves to
their Lord and recognize that unions which are meant to last forever are forged by
unspeakably costly love. In sum, the election of the church means that the nature of
Christ's union with his people becomes the redemptive model for the nature and nurture of
marriage. This point escaped the Report entirely in its devaluation of marriage and
family. Once again, the Report has stood the truth of God on its head.
The ideological basis of the Report appears in many places, not least in its insistence
that "the faithfulness, compassion and justice which characterize God's desire for
our relationship to the world undergirds our understanding of our sexuality and our sexual
behaviour."(34) Repeatedly the Report states or implies that it is the quality of a
relationship -- e.g., caring, committed, tender -- which legitimizes sexual
activity. It is argued that since love is the highest Christian virtue (which it is)
therefore love is an adequate criterion by which to judge every relationship (which it is
not). The presupposition here is that love is the sole guide in the Christian life; that
alongside love the claim and command of God is abolished; that whatever seems to be
compatible with love is by that fact good, irrespective of all other considerations. Yet
there has always been Christian consensus that love continues to need the command of God
to guide it. In stating that love for God and neighbor are the two great commandments,
Jesus never suggested that the others had been set aside; rather, love for God and
neighbor are the proper fulfillment of the others. God is loved only as God is
obeyed. The notion permeating the Report, however, is that the concrete command of God
concerning sexual relationships has been abrogated by the quality which we think we
perceive in the relationship; this quality legitimizes sexual activity. The Report is
aware of the implications of this inasmuch as it endorses sexual activity between
unmarried persons, perhaps aware that the same argument legitimizes extramarital affairs,
and certainly unaware that it also legitimizes polygamy.
Never mentioned in the report is a Biblical understanding of the place and purpose of
sexual intercourse. Intercourse between husband and wife seals and cements marriage,
marriage being the richest expression of human intimacy. Into this unique context of
intimacy and self-giving and support children are born. These two functions -- deepening
the bond of marriage and generating children -- exhaust God's purpose for intercourse. We
should note that Jesus himself endorses this. Genital intimacy for any other reason is
sin. The question can be asked, "If nonprocreative sex within marriage is good in
itself, then why is nonprocreative sex between adults of the same gender also not good in
itself?"(82) only if it is first denied that God has a purpose for sexual activity in
creatures who are sexually differentiated by God's ordination. The absence of this
understanding is glaring in the Report's special pleading (which yet remains unconvincing)
that Scripture's prohibition of same-sex genital intimacy can be reduced to Israel's need
for children to ensure the survival of the nation.(35) Scripture also prohibits bestiality
- in order to ensure the birth of children?
In the same vein had the Report had a rigorous discussion of how the holy God wills to
shape the holiness of the covenant people it would have avoided its unconvincing
convolutions in speaking of "sexual expression." "If there are no
appropriate, accepted ways for me to express my sexuality, then I will distort myself and
attempt to deceive others, and we will both be living a lie."(40) If "sexual
expression" is meant to be genital expression," then all people who are not
sexually active are living a lie! If "sexual" and "genital" expression
are not identical, then what is "appropriate" must be specified if the statement
is to have any weight. Jesus, Elijah and John the Baptist (not to mention many others in
the Christian tradition) were unmarried. How did they express their sexuality? If
genitally, then Jesus was a fraud. If nongenitally, there must be appropriate, accepted
ways which are nongenital. If there are no such ways, then all of the above-named persons
were living a lie. This argument is absurd.
The slant of the Report is obvious when we are told of ". . the longing for a
church that is just and faithful."(11) The order is crucial. At the same time we are
not told what "just" means in this context. And "faithful"? Faithful
to what? to whom? No mention is made of that faithfulness to God which is characterized by
obedience. (Romans 1:5) On the same page we are reminded that "the church must have a
moral centre." But of course that church does not have a "moral" center. To
seek one is to oust Jesus Christ and replace him with an ethical construct fashioned after
our own predilections. The church's center can only he the church's Lord, who always comes
to us "clothed with his gospel." (Calvin) And one form in which the gospel (good
news) comes to us is his claim upon our obedience in concrete, specific situations.
Logical problems abound in the section on "Theological Assumptions."(12) It
is maintained that "truth is evolving; our understanding of truth is provisional and
contextual." But is truth evolving? Our perception of truth may be evolving. It may
also be shrivelling. What constitutes evolution of truth and what criteria allow us to
recognize it are never mentioned. Moreover, there is much ambiguity surrounding
"truth." Truth is normally predicated of a statement which corresponds to fact (e.g.,
it is true that the sun is 92 million miles from the earth.) Yet "truth" is also
used in English to mean reality (In fact this is how the word is used in John's
gospel.) Reality is certainly not evolving, even though our grasp of it may be. (And
again, may not be. Not every item of modernity is an advance on the riches of the
Renaissance or classical antiquity. In many areas there has been a lamentable decline.)
"Truth is evolving" is clearly a major presupposition of the Report. It is an
assertion which cannot be substantiated; it has nothing to commend it; and it betrays
imprecise use of language.
The same imprecise use of language is found when the Report discusses Christian understanding
of truth. Our understanding of truth (not truth itself this time) is said to be
"provisional, conditional and contextual."(3) Admittedly, theological
formulations are provisional inasmuch as the verities of the faith must be rethought and
rearticulated in every generation in view of world occurrences; provisional as well, to
the extent that our articulation of the gospel never fully enshrines the glory of the
gospel itself. Nonetheless, if the above statement were to be helpful it would have to be
expanded or qualified greatly. Is the elemental and essential Christian confession that
Jesus is Lord provisional? that righteousness comes by faith? that the mercy which God
pours unreservedly upon undeserving people grounds God's claim upon their obedience
unconditionally? Are these provisional? It is as though it were said that all
theological statements are relative. The only appropriate response would be,
"relative to what?" The "what" is precisely what is never enunciated
in the Report.
Similar ambiguity is present - and exploited - in the statement, "We affirm the
acceptance of all human beings as persons made in the image of God regardless of their
sexual orientation."(3) To say that all human beings are the beneficiaries of
Christ's cross and the recipients of God's mercy should not be allowed to prejudge or skew
the issue of what sexual conduct is acceptable to God. The fact that God embraces everyone
does not mean that God endorses everything. This is but an instance of many theological
assertions in the Report which are too vague or too confused to be helpful.
The Report's urging upon the church a greater cultural captivity than that which
handicaps the church already is apparent. The Report cites the fact that by the 1980s it
was apparent that many single adults were sexually active and couples were living together
before they were married.(16) It refers to an earlier General Council which was
constrained to make a theological pronouncement on this phenomenon. The presupposition is
that the church reflects society, must reflect society, in order to be faithful to
God. Who, or what, then, is God? Is God simply a projection of cultural trends? Lost to
sight in the early church's conviction that faithfulness to the living God required the
church to be a counter-culture movement -- and to pay the price for such faithfulness. The
fact that the Report wants the world to set the church's agenda is attested by its
insisting that "sexually transmitted diseases including AIDS demand that in the
interest of health and survival we become knowledgeable about sexuality, and about how and
with whom to engage in sexual activity."(18) The Christian's sexual conduct is now to
be controlled by epidemiology!
The National Coordinating Group, in an apparent oversight, permitted the publication of
a sentence that should have been the touchstone for the entire document: by faith and
God's saving grace, there is no aspect of our being that is immutable and immune from
transformation."(40) Alas, it was not the touchstone; everywhere the Report denies
this very thing.
The question facing the United Church of Canada is the question which a puzzled
Nicodemus put to Jesus about being born when one is old. Can a denomination be born again,
born from above? (John 3:3) At another time, in another context, Jesus replied to
skeptical disciples, "With God, all things are possible." (Mark 10:27)
