Opinion

Go in Peace, Church Dividers

This Anglican says get lost to anti-gay wing.

By Rafe Mair, 3 Mar 2008, TheTyee.ca

henry.png

Henry VIII: Rocky start.

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

We might hardly call Henry VIII of England a role model for the sanctity of marriage, fair means of shedding unwanted wives or as a faithful Christian. He did, however, have a fine eye for legal niceties. When his older brother Arthur died, Henry, only 17 years old, married his brother's widow, Catherine of Aragon. That was on June 11, 1509. On June 24, 1509, the two were crowned at Westminster Abbey. This marriage was important to England since Catherine was Spanish and the marriages, Arthur's and Henry's, were seen as insurance against Anglo-Spanish squabbles becoming too severe.

In 1525, Henry got tired of Catherine. Whether this was because she didn't produce a son or because he got a young lady named Anne Boleyn in the family way is immaterial. What did matter is that Henry, after all this time, decided that his marriage should be annulled because Catherine and Arthur had been married, had consummated the marriage (evidently of some importance in such matters) and Henry had thus married within the "prohibited degrees of consanguinity" which is legalese for saying Catherine and he had, in the eyes of church law, committed incest.

The Pope was having no part of that so Henry had the head of his Lord Chancellor Thomas More chopped off, and caused his pliable parliament to make him head of the church. Thus was born the Church of England, which in Canada became known as the Anglican Church of Canada and in the United States the Episcopalian Church.

A rocky beginning one might say.

Deviants of doctrine

When I'm asked what my religion is, I borrow a line from the American wit Will Rogers and say, "I belong to no organized church, I'm an Anglican." This branch of the Mairs became Anglican when my Presbyterian great great grandfather, being one of the first white settlers in New Zealand around 1818, and finding no Presbyterian church, hooked up with an Anglican priest named Henry Williams, with whom he also became a business partner. The two of them brought the first two swarms of honey bees to New Zealand. But I digress.

Time and space don't permit a long discourse on how the new church fared under Catherine's daughter Mary I (otherwise known as "Bloody Mary"). Suffice it to say that the unpleasantness between Church of Englanders and Roman Catholics remains to this day and, indeed, no Catholic can be monarch.

The problems of the Church of England, and of the Anglican Church especially, are now internal and involve doctrine. Specifically, the proper interpretation of the Bible with respect to homosexuals.

The church is no stranger to doctrinal deviation as demonstrated by Hewlett Johnson, called the "Red Dean" because he enthusiastically embraced communism in the early 1930s, an enthusiasm which continued until he died in 1966 and included his support of the USSR when they brutally put down the Hungarian revolution in 1956. Quite apart from looking and acting like an oddball, Johnson caused considerable unrest in the church. Many members saw him as a heretic for supporting godless Soviet Communism. In all events, the church survived if it didn't prosper.

Fast forward to the 1960s and Bishop James Pike of California, a chain smoker and alcoholic and probably a woman chaser. Pike was an early supporter of woman as priests, racial desegregation, and the acceptance of gays as communicants.

He also questioned the Virgin Birth, the doctrine of hell and the Trinity. Four times heresy proceedings were started but in the end the church thought it best to leave things alone. He died a mysterious death in the Israeli desert.

More recently N.T. "Tom" Wright, Bishop of Durham and the fourth most senior cleric in the Church of England, has denied the existence of a soul and has denied heaven as most Christians envision it.

Are gays 'sinners'?

The legacy of Johnson, Pike, Wright and others (occasionally eccentric vicars even deny there is a God) is a church famous for its doctrinal looseness while at the same time containing within it very conservative folks who are a whisk away from being Roman Catholics. It survived, barely, the ordination of women priests in many churches in the World Anglican Community and is now self-immolating on the question of gay relationships and gay marriages.

I have little stomach left for the question, "Are homosexuals sinners?" The Ten Commandments make it a sin to covet your neighbour's wife but is silent on homosexuality. Leviticus, the principal biblical injunction against sodomy (not homosexuality per se), also supports selling daughters into slavery. Jesus had nothing to say on the matter, despite the fact that homosexuality was a widespread social custom of Greek and Roman societies of that time.

What I find strange is the response of the Anglican Church to the questions of gay unions even unto marriage. The opponents assume that their church is blessing these unions or at least wants to. The church hasn't the wit to make the obvious rejoinder: Neither the church nor its priests bless anything. They ask God to bless -- a very different thing indeed. From time immemorial Anglican priests have asked God's blessing on warships and all who sail in them, knowing that given any provocation those ships will kill people. In fact, Anglican priests have asked God's blessing on all manner of things including the marriages of divorced people.

This issue goes to the root of Protestantism caused, in part, by priests in the Middle Ages granting forgiveness of sins, called indulgences, for money. I've trawled through my old Book of Common Prayer looking in vain for places where the priest blesses. I have found innumerable places where he asks for God's blessing but none where he purports to usurp God's function. The Anglican Church does not marry gay couples and, I'm told on high authority, has no intention to.

It also goes to the nub of the matter. Anglican priests have the power to ask God to bless but no power to do it in their own name or that of the Church. Because of this, the church is splitting apart and in many cases going to court over parish holdings.

Sin of hypocrisy

I suppose I should be charitable to those who are splitting my church but that's too much to ask. There isn't, I daresay, a single one of them who is without sin -- many of whom, like divorced persons, are ongoing sinners. These defectors are hypocrites. Their sin is OK but the conduct of gays, which if sinful (a big "if") doesn't even rank in the top 10 sins, is cause for a schism.

Make no mistake about it -- this is homophobia in spite of tendentious pleas from the rebels that they simply want the church to return to "traditional" ways. Wavering Anglican though I am, I think I speak for a lot of members in saying that's a load of barnyard droppings and the rebels deserve our thanks for so dramatically lowering the level of hypocrisy in all our parishes.

And, oh yes . . . good riddance.

Related Tyee stories:

[Tyee]

Rafe Mair writes a Monday column for The Tyee. Read previous columns by Rafe Mair here.

26 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • guppy204

    4 years ago

    The Truth Of the Matter

    Unfortunately I have to clear up a few things.

    1) Priests do not ask God to bless things. Please don't take my word for it. You can attend a service, and listen to the blessing to confirm this. The priest won't say, "God, will you please bless these good people?". No, the priest say "The blessing of God Almighty, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, be among you, today and always". That is not a question, but a statement. So to bless a same-sex relationship is no different. It would be to make a very serious statement about God and what He blesses.

    2) You ask if gay people are sinners, or if their sin is in the top ten. The whole point of the Christian faith is that none of us is perfect, we are all sinners, and that there is no hierarchy of sins. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. God created us in love, and we refused to love him back, which left us in the situation we have today. We all need a Saviour, whether our sins are in the mind, sexual (straight or gay), or whatever. The good news is that God loves us enough to send his son to die for us, and that can lead to true transformation in our lives. But to say that God blesses our sin is to deny that good news and avoid any transformation...which isn't Christianity or Anglicanism at all.

  • Grumpy

    4 years ago

    Well said.

    Well said Rafe.

    It seems the Anglican church has lost its way.

  • Van Isle

    4 years ago

    Organized religion is just a

    Organized religion is just a bunch of bunk. To paraphrase the comedian George Carlin; "If you don't obey God's laws you well spend until the end of time in hell, but God loves you". Also "religion is wise and all knowing but they can't handle money because they are always asking for it". Hey Rafe, if you want to be a little more informed about religion watch the movie 'Zietgeist'.

  • Booker

    4 years ago

    Heart of the matter

    Quote:
    We all need a Saviour, whether our sins are in the mind, sexual (straight or gay), or whatever.[/quote

    Speak for thyself. Save thyself.

  • Stump

    4 years ago

    no thanks

    Quote:
    God loves us enough to send his son to die for us

    That's some holy Father you got there. Do as I say... not as I do clearly.

  • City Person

    4 years ago

    Sad

    What I saw on TV news reports was a bunch of very old and very angry people. I have never for the life of me understood that if we are all God's children and made in God's image, why doesn't this apply to gay people too?

    I applaud the higher ups of the Anglican Church for refusing to bend to these angry old people.

  • ammonra

    4 years ago

    Truth of the matter?

    I am always wary of those who say they have the truth as so often they do not.

    The expression "The blessing of God Almighty, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, be among you, today and always" is in the subjunctive, and I believe that the subjunctive is used for statements about which there may be some doubt. In other words, by expressing it that way the vicar is making a request. The request being that God do the blessing, not the vicar.

    Of course, if God should bless someone, gay or not, it would be a blessing of the person and not of any sin they may do.

    I would say that Rafe's last statement calls for some evaluation of the Christian quality of forgiveness.

  • Barb Harvey

    4 years ago

    N.T. Wright

    Mr. Mair, you are misinformed about Bp Wright. I offer the following quote:

    "Nor does Paul imply that this 'departing and being with Christ' is *the same thing* as the eventual resurrection of the body, which he describes vividly later in the same letter (3.20-21). No: all the Christian dead have 'departed' and are 'with Christ'. The only other idea Paul offers to explain where the Christian dead are now and what they are doing is that of 'sleeping in Christ'. He uses this idea frequently (1 Corinthians7.39; 11.30, 15.6, 18, 20, 51; 1 Thessalonians 4.13-15), and some have thought that by it he must mean an unconscious state, from which one would be brought back to consciousness at the resurrection -- so much so, perhaps, that it will seem as though we have passed straight from the one to the other. The probability is, though, that this is a strong metaphor, a way of reminding us about the 'waking up' which will be the resurrection. Had the post-mortem state been unconscious, would Paul have thought of it as 'far better' than what he had in the present?

    This picture is further confirmed by the language of Revelation. There we find the souls of the martyrs waiting, under the altar, for the final redemption to take place. They are at rest; they are conscious; they are able to ask how long it will be before justice is done (6.9-11); but they are not yet enjoying the final bliss which is to come in the New Jerusalem." (NTW, For All the Saints, pages 23-24)

    NTW affirms that the souls of the saints are with Christ in heaven, actively worshiping and asking for justice.

  • dolphin

    4 years ago

    Hypocrites?

    I would say that the hypocrites are those who claim to be Christian, yet deny the clear injunctions in scripture against same sex behavior. It's true that Jesus did not specifically mention homosexuality--he didn't specifically mention bestiality or cyber sex either. He did set the bar higher than anyone else for moral conduct, however, by saying than even looking with lust at someone you're not married to constituted adultery. He also clearly affirmed that marriage is between one man and one woman. Paul said a great deal about homosexuality and condemned it (unless one thinks that the author of the majority of the New Testament does not need to be heeded).
    Among worldwide Anglicanism, the North American church is in the minority. Those who are "splitting" are aligning themselves with the majority, who remain faithful to the high moral standards of scripture. If liberal Anglicans choose apostacy, that is tragic. Thank God for the faithful few.

  • woody

    4 years ago

    Come Forth Moses

    Apparently Moses was in a foot race ,to who Jesus said, BLESS YOU my son, come forth, but unfortunately just before the finish line Moses slipped , causing him to come in fifth, just goes to show that they had gambling there and then as we have here in B.C. today. Oh bless me, all to hell, Im on the wrong site, thought this was the Booming gambling site.

  • pegres

    4 years ago

    Grammatically Challenged

    I wish that commenters would learn English.

    If the blessing quoted by guppy204 were a statement, it would be:

    "The blessing of God Almighty, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, IS among you, today and always."

    Note the emphasized word "is", which is the present indicative of the verb "to be". Now look at the actual blessing:

    "The blessing of God Almighty, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, BE among you, today and always."

    The word "be" rather than "is" shows the use of the subjunctive mood, which is used to express wishes, desires, or possibilities. Think of it as if the priest had said,

    "I wish that God would bless you."

    The priest is therefore asking for blessings by expressing a desire for them. It is not a statement. Rafe is correct.

  • docleslie

    4 years ago

    Moot, at best.

    Hello? Isn't it time to say, once and for all, 'fuck the church and everything that has to do with it'? The best way to rid society of the various annoying albatrosses of christianity is to ignore them. Who cares what Anglicans or any other moronic christian sect think? It's all uninformed, unintelligent gobbledygook. If, in this day and age, you still believe in a guy in the sky with a clipboard you have forfeited your right to opine on anything that affects the evolution of society at large. I personally look forward to all christian churches methodically fissioning in the manner of the Anglicans, or better, exploding in a glorious fireball that leaves the moral ground scattered with nothing but their impossible-to-reassemble, small-minded bits.

  • stevebailey

    4 years ago

    Anglican Woes

    Rafe - I always admire your realism about the Anglican situation and am glad you 'R one!. Anglicanism, as you state, has always embraced widely divergent theological views and has been held together by the beauty of prayer book worship and the way of devotional life put forth in the prayer book. Anglicanism is not, nor should it be, heavily doctrinal in its ethos.

    "Dolphin's" comment above completely misses the point - not only concerning the Anglican outlook, but concerning the wisdom of Jesus in his teaching - which is much deeper and profound than "Dolphin" would have us believe-, and in wrenching St. Paul's comments out of context. Many gay Christians are among the bravest people I know because they must suffer the kind of general statements exemplied in "Dolphin's" point of view, although he/she is entitled to hold those views.

    Now that the expected 'breach' has now happened, perhaps we may all get on with doing the business of the followers of Jesus - leading people to discover the living water he talked about and serving the poor and marginalized. Perhaps both Anglican 'factions' need to do this in their own way, maintaining contact, I hope, and working together for the good of those around us: building the 'reign of God' as the Bible puts it.

    By the way, I'm glad "Barb Harvey" set things straight about NT Wright. He is arguably one of the finest Anglican thinkers in the world today -- but then again, so is Marcus Borg with whom Tom Wright regularly debates (they remain the best of friends), and J.I. Packer with whom I have personally worked. All are Anglicans of great intellectual and spiritual stature and as thinkers, help me to clarify and maintain my faith.

    Yes - Anglicanism is diverse and messy, inclusive and challenging, and at times fuzzy. May it always remain that way.

    As an Anglican clergy person who embraces the gamut from 'evangelical' to 'anglo-catholic', I celebrate the richness of my tradition and appreciate some of the 'greats': John Donne, George Herbert, T.S. Eliot, Dorothy Sayers, John Polkinghorne the particle physicist, and countless others from all walks of life.

    If its one thing Anglicanism has produced, it's great spiritual thinkers -- that, and wonderful music!

  • dsturdy

    4 years ago

    Hypocrites?

    Quote:
    - dolphin"Among worldwide Anglicanism, the North American church is in the minority. Those who are "splitting" are aligning themselves with the majority--"

    Since when does being in the majority mean that the minority(if indeed they are)lack credibility? History is replete with examples of minority views becoming the norm. (Interesting that dolphin ends the post with "Thank God for the faithful few.")

    It is always interesting to ask, when there is a choice of beliefs, some quite opposed to each other, why people take the positions they do. I infer from that, that the choice comes not necessarily from recognizing Truth, but from taking a position that is comfortable, reassuring.

  • NoLeftNutter

    4 years ago

    Your religion?

    ...the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

  • alive

    4 years ago

    Quote of the day!

    Quote:
    'fuck the church and everything that has to do with it'

    "Amen" to that!

  • snert

    4 years ago

    Fuzzy to say the least.

    Quote:
    Yes - Anglicanism is diverse and messy, inclusive and challenging, and at times fuzzy. May it always remain that way.

    OOPS! The fearmongering is a little heavy handed. Let's redefine Hell. Seems more like perfecting it.

    Give somebody a belief then tear it out from under them and further wonder why they get pissed off.

  • pender paul

    4 years ago

    what clap trap

    Who cares what Anglicans think about homosexuality--to paraphrase, 'the church does not belong in the bedrooms of the nation.' Additionally, if god (if there is a god)wants Anglicans to behave in a particular way why doesn't s/he just appear on earth and say so. I'm really tired of folks trying to justify one position or another on the strength of what "their secret friend" dictates.

  • G West

    4 years ago

    Errata

    ...folks who are a whisk away from being Roman Catholics

    Should be 'whisker' surely.

    whisk
    Pronunciation:
    \ˈhwisk, ˈwisk\
    Function:
    noun
    Etymology:
    Middle English wisk, probably of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse visk wisp; akin to Old English wiscian to plait
    Date:
    14th century

    1: a quick light brushing or whipping motion
    2 a: a usually wire kitchen utensil used for beating food by hand b: a flexible bunch (as of twigs, feathers, or straw) attached to a handle for use as a brush.

  • ME2

    4 years ago

    Puzzled

    How so many people can see the illogic in another's beliefs - yet fail to see the illogic in their own - has always been a wonderment to me.

  • Michael D

    4 years ago

    Anglican blessings

    (sigh) How odd to be debating the semantics of blessings on The Tyee. There is support in the Bible for people doing the blessing (e.g. Joshua 22:6) but Rafe is right that in the Prayer Book (at least in the marriage service) we ask God to do the blessing. So I guess Rafe is offering one more reason to not support the blessing of same-sex unions?

    And Rafe, we have already heard "good riddance" loud and clear from the liberal leaders. As far back as 2002, the Archbishop of BC said it clearly in a CBC radio interview. Don't worry, we know that we are not welcome and that's a big part of why we are leaving. Have you noticed the Anglican attendance stats? We've been leaving for many decades now.

    And speaking of attendance, Rafe, how regularly are you attending your liberal parish church? Find it perhaps a little intellectually unstimulating? This is my invitation to try one of the conservative churches for a change - St. John's Shaughnessy, for example. I think you'll find that's where the interesting stuff, the thoughtful stuff, the radical ideas, are to be found.

  • G West

    4 years ago

    Ironic and Naive.

    http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:dVjfz4RZ4moJ:www.marriageequalityny.org/2007/09/canadian-same-sex-marriages-growing-at.html+rates+of+marriage+fall+in+canada&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=ca

    Same sex marriage, as a practice, is growing at a much faster rate than opposite sex marriage.

    Kinda funny that 'any' church would want to discourage that and support what is obviously a failed and failing institution.

    The churches continue to demonstrate their irrelevance and bigotry

    So what! You expected 'better' from these institutions.

  • nuggetissues

    4 years ago

    christian spirit confusion

    I have to say, as a Christian myself, that it is discouraging that so many are against the ideas of gay marriage and love.

    I am a recent Christian, choosing to accept Jesus into my heart because of the love and fellowship I found within the church. Why is this relevant, you may ask.

    Because of the love part. The bible clearly states (and I have been to bible college, so I'm not just spouting off)that we are to love all of God's children as our brethren, and leave final judgment to Him alone.

    If God is merciful, and He is true to his children (which he is, in both cases), then what are some Christians thinking? Personal prejudice and interpretation of the greatest book ever published is getting in the way of their true Christian Spirits, which is disappointing.

    However, consider this. The bible also says that a physical act of cleaving flesh is a marriage. So, in religious terms, the two people in question (regardless of their sex or sexuality) are married. Christian marriage is often confused as something that is bound by laws and regulations- but the actual fact is that it is a blessing from God and God only. It can come at any time. It is the modern interpretation of marriage that has changed this. Do you think (honestly) that the original Christians, thousands of years ago, signed contracts of marriage? They'd be lucky if both could read and write!

    Marriage is of the spirit. Only God can decide if your marriage is true, anyway. And for the record- my church marries all people. Not ALL religious people are close-minded and bigoted. Keep that in mind.

  • rafe

    4 years ago

    truth of the matter

    Not so ...these phrases are precatory ... ie they are a pleading, not a statement, It's like God keep our land, glorioous & free ... or God bless America ... God save the queen etc.

    I checked this out with high authority

    You will notice sometimes there is a congregation response "and with you"

  • rafe

    4 years ago

    Anglican blessing

    Interestingly I have not attended church for some months but it has to do with the "conservatism" of the church since I cannot in all honesty recite the Creed. Since I can hardly ask a Christian Church to abandon its creed I'm left to my own devices.

    In fact I very much enjoy St Christophers because of the always stimulating "sermons" of Lou Rivers who is also a good personal friend.
    As a teenager I was a regular attender of Sunday evening sevices at St Johns but I regret to say mainly because of a girl in the choir I fancied

    R

  • McMicah

    4 years ago

    The snare of Cognitive Dissonance

    I've recently been recommending to everyone a book written by two social psychologists, "Mistakes were made, (but not by me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts." It's all about the powerful, universal human tendency to dream up all manner of rationalizing (i.e. irrational) baloney to hang onto a fundamental belief--especially related to oneself, or one's nation, or one's church--when faced with facts or information that clearly contradicts it. Science clearly shows that homosexuality is natural, and therefore created and blessed by God--leaving aside the question of whether there IS a creating God. Science also shows that sexuality is not a simple "black vs white" thing, but a complex combination of variables. Confronted by the cognitive dissonance produced by new knowledge, otherwise loving Christians to whom sexual orthodoxy is a fundamental tenet of their faith are retreating to "scripture" and "tradition" to reject the truth God reveals through science. Rather like many Americans--some of them my friends--who cannot accept what science, logic and testimonies reveal; 9/11 was an inside job.

    The way out of cognitive dissonance is simple. Psychology and the Bible agree: It is Confession. "Mistakes were made by me." Admit this, and the gates to heaven will open.

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.