Posted on 10/16/2003 11:38:59 PM PDT by ahadams2
A quick survey of headlines reporting the current crisis in the Anglican Communion reveals one word that appears over and over again:
“Anglican unity at threat around the world” (an editorial in The Australian)
“Homosexual debate threatens episcopal unity” (Washington Times, 29th July, 2003)
“Church unity is at risk” (Washington Post, 30th July, 2003)
The references are, of course, to a controversy that has come to the surface this year in the proposed, but abandoned, consecration of an openly homosexual man as Bishop of Reading in the Diocese of Oxford, and the consecration — not abandoned — of a practising homosexual man as Bishop of New Hampshire in the United States, as well as the approval of same sex unions in the Diocese of New Westminster, Canada.
There is a recognition, it seems, inside and outside the institutional church, of the value of “unity” and the scandal of “disunity” or division.
There is just enough truth in this recognition to make it persuasive, and enough error to make it dangerous. Certainly there is enough confusion to justify some careful thought and reflection.
Unity: a moral category?
In the current controversy unity has become a concept against which actions and proposals are measured. It has become, in effect, a moral category.
Let me illustrate with the course of events in the UK version of the controversy.
On what moral principle do you think the decision not to proceed with the proposed consecration is justified by those who believed it should have happened?
Was it that they were persuaded that the action contemplated was itself wrong? Has there been a change of mind on the question itself?
I have heard no report that suggests such a thing.
Every report — and of course we must recognise the unreliability of reports — but with that caveat, the evidence I have seen indicates that the decision not to proceed (at this time) was motivated by the commitment of certain leading persons to the unity of the Church of England, and of the Anglican Communion. The threat of serious division was just too real in this case, so that an action — still not considered wrong in itself by those who showed restraint — was not taken. It seems clear to me that the restraint was motivated by a higher value: unity.
But I want to suggest that is a very serious state of affairs.
Put yourself, for a moment, in the thinking of those in the hierarchy of the Church of England who wanted to see the ordination of an openly homosexual bishop. They believed — and believe, as far as I can gather from published comments — that this ordination was morally acceptable and that those who opposed it were morally wrong — at best ignorant or mistaken, but often reprehensible. Much of the opposition came from bigotry, unenlightened consciences, prejudice. It was morally akin to racism.
However, what they appear to have learned was that this prejudice was more deeply felt and more widely held than they had thought. They realised that to go ahead with the planned action at this time would threaten unity. And so the action was not taken.
Do you see what a high order moral principle unity must be? Can you imagine a situation in which blatant racism was permitted to win the day, and action taken, or not taken, in response to racist pressure was justified by appealing to unity? What kind of unity would that be?
I want to suggest that this situation is very serious indeed.
Leaders in the Anglican Communion are doing what they believe to be wrong —or at least refraining from doing what they believe to be right — for the sake of unity.
No. It is not just a matter of curbing your freedom for the sake of the weaker brother. That analogy will not work here. The closer analogy — as best I can see — to the conduct of those who showed restraint in the Church of England would be to exclude a Gentile because he was a Gentile, or a slave because he was a slave. And to justify your action by some concept of unity.
This gives us a new way of categorising actions and policies: those that threaten unity and those that don’t. There was once a risk that the ordination of women might have been in the first category — but it turned out to be not quite divisive enough. It now belongs to the second category. For the moment the two big issues in the first category — for many Anglicans (at least outside North America) — are the approval in one way or another of homosexual practice and lay administration of the Lord’s Supper.
The argument being advanced is that whether or not these things should be permitted in this denomination must be decided on whether they will cause an unacceptable degree of division.
Do not misunderstand me. I am glad that the proposed action in the Diocese of Oxford was stopped. But not because of unity. I am deeply persuaded that what was proposed was morally wrong. But what has happened is not right either. The man who declined appointment as a bishop continues as a recognised Anglican minister. Since that is less disruptive of unity it is acceptable. Unity has become the controlling moral category.
If this situation is allowed to prevail, there is no doubt in my mind that we will all be called on to play the game by the same rules. Indeed the call is in the air — loud and clear. For the sake of unity you must do or not do this or that. The clearest example at the moment is lay administration. Sometimes the call is presented with an insistence that this is not a matter of right and wrong. (“Personally I have no problems with it”!) But then the call is presented with a passion and such an appeal to the conscience that belies the insistence. Don’t do it until it will not disrupt our unity.
It follows — as night follows day — that if a right action must not be done for the sake of unity, a wrong action will soon be contemplated if it will maintain the unity.
This is a very confusing situation to be in. It calls for a careful re-examination of the concept of unity. I want to suggest four propositions that I put before you for consideration — recognising the need for much more to be said.
My first proposition is:
(1) The Bible values unity
It is even possible that, like so many aspects of our culture, the sense of the goodness of unity may in fact come from the historical influence of the Bible. Certainly the Bible gives powerful support for the concept of unity in its revelation of the fact that there is one — and only one — God. There is a unity to all things, because all things are creatures of the one God. More significantly there is a unity to humanity, because “in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them”.
Unity between men and women, and between all humans is clearly the good will of the Creator.
This human unity under God was devastated by the Fall.
However God’s work of redemption, climaxing in the death of Jesus Christ on the cross, has broken down all the dividing walls of hostility introduced because of sin. In Christ Jesus there is no longer male and female, Jew and Gentile, slave and free, for we are all one in Christ Jesus. We all have access to the Father by the one Spirit, on exactly the same basis of the atoning death of Christ, by the one faith in the one Lord. This unity is the brilliant gift of God, and we are to live out our lives with one another in the light of its reality. This is our unity in Christ, the unity of the Spirit.
Proposition 2:
(2) Humans seeks false forms of unity
Unity in Christ is not the only kind of unity to be found among human beings. Indeed since the Fall, the Bible shows us the human race seeking false forms of unity that are in fact an expression of our rebellion against God.
The city of Babel, or Babylon, is the epitome of this pursuit. The builders sought to make a name for themselves, to make themselves secure, and to make their mark, by a man-made unity, a unity not under God, but in defiance of him.
The story in Genesis 11 tells us that God would not allow such a unity to succeed. Attempts to establish such a unity have been made in every generation and every society since. And all have failed.
And so:
(3) There are two kinds of unity
The unity that matters is the unity of the new humanity God has created by the death of his Son, and that he is bringing into being by the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. This unity is unity in the gospel, unity in the Christ of the gospel.
This unity is, by the grace of God, a spiritual reality. “You are all one in Christ Jesus.” And it is lived out by patience, kindness, love and acceptance of one another in glad submission to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
The other unity is what humans in their pride and arrogance create. It is the unity of man-made institutions and structures. In itself it is worse than worthless. It is Babylonian unity, and will fall under God’s judgment.
We must be for the first kind of unity, but profoundly critical of the second. My simple question is, which kind of unity do you think the unity in the newspaper headlines has been?
Finally:
(4) There are two kinds of division
This follows from the two kinds of unity.
The unity God is creating through the power of the Spirit and the proclamation of Christ, itself creates a division. It is the division between those to whom the word of the cross is foolishness and those to whom it is the power of God.
That is one kind of division. It is the kind which Paul told the Corinthians was necessary. Not pleasant. Not desirable. But necessary wherever Christ is proclaimed.
But there is also division caused by human sin, human “boasting”. This is the kind of division caused by personalities, by personal preferences, by human pride.
This kind of division is a denial of Christ. “Is Christ divided?” Paul pointedly asked the same Corinthian Christians.
Faithfulness to Christ must be willing to accept and even cause the first kind of division.
But we must oppose and — where appropriate — repent for the second kind of division.
Do we find ourselves in a time when the Babylonian unity of the church is cherished and guarded, and the necessary divisions are condemned?
May the Lord give us wisdom to discern the differences.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.