January 08, 2006
Considering the Question of Same Sex Marriage
An Address given by Rev. J. Raymond Corbett, Nov. 6, 2005, at a Workshop at Edgewood United Church Halifax, NS
Perhaps I should begin by saying something about the organization I am representing, the Maritime Regional Alliance of Covenanting Congregations (MAAC), a member of the National Alliance of Covenanting Congregations within the United Church of Canada (NACC). We are part of a small group of congregations, just over a hundred strong, which is about 2 - 3% of the national total. Some Alliance congregations, such as Breadalbane in P.E.I. are not large; others are large, such as Metropolitan United Church in London, one of the biggest in our denomination.
We also have close ties with two other Reform groups within the United Church: 'Church Alive' and the 'Community of Concern'. Perhaps just a brief word about them might be in order as we are all theologically similar. The earliest was 'Church Alive', a clergy group, which came into being in the early 1970s. I was an early member and at that time we numbered perhaps no more than 30. Today Church Alive has grown considerably and has about 2000 members, which now includes lay participation.
The principal reason it came into being was the firm belief, shared now by all the Reform groups, in the need of reformation and for the preservation of the historic faith within our denomination. In addition, Church Alive sought to uphold our Presbyterian or Reformed tradition, especially in regard to ministry, which at that period, the 1970s, was being severely challenged. The threat to our Presbyterian heritage, I believe, is still very real, but that consideration must be left to another time.
As we passed into the 1980s, that decade brought to the fore new issues and challenges seriously affecting the life and work of our church, such as: the 'The Authority of Scripture' report with its rejection of Scripture as the authority for our faith and life; inclusive language for God; and thirdly, homosexuality and in particular homosexual practice. In many ways they are inter-related, but it is the latter I wish to look at this afternoon and, of course, its extension which leads into the issue of same sex marriage.
Perhaps it is worthwhile to note the homosexual issue arose in the early 1980s, in the B.C. Conference, when a divinity student declared himself homosexual, which posed the question whether or not he should be ordained. I believe there was general consensus throughout the church that homosexual orientation by itself should not be a barrier to ordination. The problem arose, however, when the question became, especially in the light of scripture, whether those involved in homosexual practice and acts be ordained. It became clear that the General Council staff and committees wished the church to say 'yes' to such an ordination.
It was at this point, in protest that the National Alliance of Covenanting Congregations came into being as did the Community of Concern. Both come from an identical faith base, the difference being, however, that the Community of Concern consists of individual church members, while the Alliance is made up of churches or congregations which have covenanted together, principally around the Articles of Faith in the United Church’s Basis of Union. As I mentioned earlier, they are about 100 in number. And, of course, Church Alive also opposed such an ordination.
I believe it is worthwhile saying that, at this point in the church's history, the Reform groups had the support of the vast majority of church members on this issue. When petitions were sent from our churches to General Council in opposition to the ordination of practising homosexuals, they were so numerous, in the hundreds, that no one could doubt where the United Church stood on this issue. The General Council, however, rather than bring the Petitions before the Council declared they were historical documents and placed them in the archives for future reference.
This did reveal to General Council, however, the hard road they would have to travel to convince Church members to adopt their policy on homosexuality. And I must admit, as a sort of backhanded compliment, that by the careful selection of teachers in our Theological Colleges, Moderators, General Council staff, and by scrutiny to silence opposition voices, they have been eminently successful in promoting their homosexual platform. Homosexuality, therefore, is now declared to be a gift of God and the ordination of practising homosexuals is no longer an issue.
But all this has been at great cost to the church. Indeed we cannot look at the homosexual question, and now same sex marriage, without considering the effect it has had upon our church over the years. I have counted as many as 30 ministers I have know personally that have resigned from the United Church, so the total number must be very high. And the laity who have left our church on this same issue, which is so intimately bound up with our understanding of the Scriptures, can be numbered in their tens of thousands. And of those who remain many have become disillusioned.
I do believe that General Council cannot be happy to see such an exodus. Nevertheless there must be satisfaction in the higher courts of our church, the staff, and the colleges, that after 25 years there is now just one more hurdle to overcome to complete the course, and that is the general acceptance throughout the Church of same sex marriage.
And may I point out the significance of the fact that you as a congregation have reached the stage of considering whether or not to approve same sex marriage, and that Bedford United Church is, I believe, about to become an Affirming congregation, a situation which would have been utterly unbelievable from the prospective of the year I was ordained 45 years ago. I must admit again that this reveals the success General Council has achieved.
I feel my presentation, therefore, may not carry much weight in encouraging you to reject same sex marriage, given the influence General Council and the other courts of the church have placed on you and other congregations over the past 25 years. Nevertheless, I am willing to try.
In this regard I have two short readings that I would like to share with you. They are written by the Rev. Prof Thomas Torrance. Prof. Torrance is a minister of the Church of Scotland. He taught Systematic Theology in New College in the University of Edinburgh. His theology is strongly Barthian and he was in fact invited to take the Theological Chair Barth vacated on his retirement. As Chairman of the Montreal Presbytery I met him when he came to give a lecture to the Dept. of Philosophy at McGill University. He is widely recognized as both an outstanding Theologian and Philosopher. I say this because none should take his writings lightly. The first reading is taken from a book he wrote on the Doctrine of Marriage. And the second from a sermon he delivered while he was Moderator of the Church of Scotland.
Before looking at these readings, however, I would like to make clear that the Alliance, as all the other Reform groups, is strongly Trinitarian; that is, we confess (without variants): "One God - Father , Son and Holy Spirit." The Alliance pin I am wearing shows three ovals linked together which is for us a symbol of the Holy Trinity. All Alliance stationary has the same Trinitarian logo. When the MACC had its Annual Meeting two weeks ago it was no accident that it opened with a hymn to the Holy Trinity, number 145 in the Red Hymn Book:
Laud and honour to the Father,
Laud and honour to the Son,
Laud and honour to the Spirit,
ever three and ever one,
one in might, and one in glory,
while eternal ages run.
We believe that only God can reveal God. Thus the Holy Trinity is a revealed name; it would never have been discovered by any amount of human searching, if God had not told us. But He has told us - One God - Father, Son and Holy. This then is the self-revealed name of God. Thus, ‘I believe in one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit’ is the fundamental theological base of the NACC, and it is so because we also believe it is the first and foundational basis, the starting point of Christianity itself. It, of course, follows that the second person of the Trinity - Jesus Christ - is fully divine. As the Nicene Creed declares: "I believe in Jesus Christ - God of God, very God of very God."
And as John Calvin puts it: 'Faith in Christ and in God is identical." Listen, also, to the words of John Wesley: "Amazing love! How can it be that Thou, God, shouldst die for me.” And to the words of Isaac Watts: "When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of glory died . . . Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast, save in the death of Christ, my God."
The full divinity of Jesus Christ, the second person in the Holy Trinity, is the beating heart of Christianity itself, without which Christianity does not exist, and it is in that light of who Christ is - 'God of God, very God of very God' - I would have you consider Jesus’ statement on marriage and the readings I have distributed (see Appendix).
Let us now look for a moment at the two readings. The first is an exposition by Prof Torrance on Jesus’ statement on Marriage. To begin with he points out that marriage is a divine ordinance between a man and a woman, whom “God has joined together". If, however, we take away this doctrinal basis of marriage then all notions of marriage, all our ideas of sex, and all the ethics they involve, become only a matter of human evolution and change, of social custom, a pattern of life of man's own devising. All of which is deeply opposed to the teaching of the Christian Gospel.
Torrance goes on to say that in Jesus Christ "we do not have just the image of God, but God himself revealing and communicating to us . . . . Jesus Christ is not just a window through which we look at God but is himself the very Being of God." And if this be so we have the eternal and unchangeable Will of God embodied in Jesus, and therefore in Jesus’ statement on marriage (exclusively between a man and a woman) an enduring and permanent ethic [see Matt 19:4-5]. For the Christian Church, therefore, Torrance concludes, "the teaching of the Lord Jesus about marriage always has been and always will be unalterable." (See reference Note I)*
In the second reading Torrance again emphasizes the full divinity of Christ when he speaks of the one Lord Jesus Christ "before all worlds, very God of very God . . . being of one substance (essence) with the Father, by whom all things were made." Now if this line of identity between Jesus and God is cut, Torrance adds, everything in the Gospel disintegrates and crumbles away. And, of course, the pre-eminence of Jesus Christ in all things is also taken away.
Interestingly C.S. Lewis points out, in a conclusion almost identical with Torrance’s, that in regard to the doctrine of Christ's full divinity one would have to unravel the whole web of the Christian Gospel to get rid of it. Indeed for Lewis the full divinity of Christ "can't be eliminated without destroying the Christian faith.” It might be worthwhile at this point to contrast the above statements by Torrance, Lewis, and indeed the theological position of the Alliance, regarding Christ, with the following statements from several prominent United Church leaders -
Rev. Wm. Close (Principal of Atlantic School of Theology): "Jesus Christ at the centre of life cannot be our answer today . . . it is time for Jesus Christ to return to the boundaries of theology and religious life."(St. Stephan College Magazine)
Rev. Garth Mundle (Principal of St. Stephen United Church College): "We must do all we can to remove Jesus Christ from the centre of United Church theology so the church can move forward into the modem age. "(From 'The Church needs to develop a viable faith for the end of the era') (2)*
Dr. Paul Newman (Chair of the National Division United Church Division of Interfaith Dialogue): "There will have to be repudiation of some tradition theories and beliefs, such as the Trinity and the eternal deity of Jesus Christ. Jesus is a human being, and should be understood as other than God
to be worshiped." (U.C. Observer, 1993)
In consequence, therefore, the rejection of the Holy Trinity, the denial of the full divinity of Christ, and moving Him to the boundaries of the Church's life and work all witness to this crumbling and unravelling process at work within our denomination. There is, for example, the unravelling and crumbling of the belief in the bodily resurrection of our Lord (3)*; the unravelling and crumbling of the doctrine of the Atonement with the denial that Christ died as a sin offering upon the Cross (4)*; the unravelling and crumbling and repudiation that Christ is the Saviour of the world (5)*; and the unravelling and crumbling of the Christian doctrine of marriage as seen in the endorsement of homosexual partnerships which clearly violates Jesus’ statement on marriage that 'a man' shall be joined to his wife. Are we not seeing, in our denomination, the changing of Christianity into something else - a movement towards a Unitarian or Arian Church?
Conclusion: I believe, therefore, the support in our denomination for same sex marriage is, in the main, a symptom and result of the neglect or repudiation of the Holy Trinity as " Father, Son and Holy Spirit' (6) * and of the full divinity of Jesus Christ. To express the latter in the words of Prof. Torrance: "Cut the line of identity between Jesus and God, and everything in the Gospel (including Jesus’ statement on marriage) disintegrates and crumbles away."
Reference Notes
(I)* Perhaps it should be noted that the word 'marriage' is used in other contexts. For example in describing Christ's relation to the Church and the secular use of 'marriage' to describe the coalition between political parties. But such usage in no way gives us the right to alter or redefine the original and essential meaning any more than the word 'crucifixion' which similarly is used in many different contexts gives us the right to redefine the crucifixion of our Lord.
(2)* In sharp contrast to Wm. Close and Garth Mundle, I believe the following words of Karl Barth are worth quoting: "The Christian message (in all its contents) means Jesus Christ. The Christian message cannot be distinguished, let alone separated from Him. Everything that is said about it is measured by whether it faithfully reflects Him, whether indirectly but distinctly refers to Him, declares Him, portrays Him, magnifies and exalts Him. Everything moves towards and everything stands and falls by the fact that it is the message about Jesus Christ." (Church Dogmatics. vol. 4. 1)
(3)* "If we cannot speak of the bodily resurrection of Christ we cannot speak of the resurrection at all." (Prof James Demey)
(4)* "Jesus did not die for our sins" - from a General Council critique on the film "The Passion of the Christ".
(5)* There is a large body in our denomination that believes Jesus is just a Saviour - one along with others. Perhaps he is most clearly a saviour, but nonetheless not uniquely so, just one testifier to the truth. In fact, a denial that, according to the Scriptures, Jesus is the only Son of God.
(6)* In Voices United the Holy Trinity as 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit" has all but been eliminated. In over 700 hymns it is mentioned only twice! In the Baptismal section it is not mentioned at all! The 'Gloria Patri' usually sung after the Psalm reading you cannot find. The Trinitarian name, 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit" has also been removed from the Doxology. As well, over I00 references to the first person in the Holy Trinity, that is, God as 'Father" have been replaced.
Appendix
Quoted in J. Ray Corbett’s Book: Underlinings
1. From The Very Rev. Thomas F. Torrance, 'The Christian Doctrine of Marriage':
MARRIAGE: Jesus answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them mate and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one'? So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder. " Mt. 19:4-6
'What God has Joined together' - here is the fundamental fact we have to remember. The basic unit of creation is not man or woman, but man-woman, man and woman in a divinely ordained unity, Marriage Involves two people in a way of life that is sanctioned beyond itself in the truth of God. Take away this doctrinal basis, and at once all notions of marriage, or man-woman relations, all our ideas of sex, and all the ethics they involve, become merely relative. They are then only aspects of human evolution and change, only matters of social custom; the pattern of life they involve is of man's own devising.
All this is deeply opposed to the teaching of the Christian Gospel. In Jesus Christ we do not have just the image of God, but God himself revealing and communicating to us. Jesus Christ is not just a window through which we took at God but is himself the very Being of God.
Hence when we encounter Jesus Christ we have to do with the eternal and unchangeable Will of God embodied in him, and therefore with an enduring and permanent ethic. Thus for the Christian Church the teaching of the Lord Jesus about marriage always has been and always will be unalterable.
2. The Very Rev. T. F. Torrance, 'Expository Times’ (Nov. 1977):
Cut the line of identity between Jesus and God, and everything in the Gospel disintegrates and crumbles away - but with that Identity, 'One Lord Jesus Christ . . . before all worlds, very God of very God . . . being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made', we cannot but let Jesus Christ have pre-eminence in all things.
Every time I think of this, not least in the light of our astonishing scientific knowledge of the universe, my breath catches in my throat - it is a colossal fact, greater than the universe itself: but that is JESUS - that is our beloved Saviour.
Posted at January 8, 2006 06:51 PM