Rite & Reason: To sanction gay priests or the blessing of same-sex unions represents an alteration of Christian teaching and a crossing of a line in the sand, writes Susan Philips
Recent media reports have been filled with Jeffrey John's proposed ordination as Bishop of Reading, a liturgy to bless same-sex relationships approved by an Anglican diocese in Vancouver and now the election of a self-affirming homosexual bishop, the Rev Gene Robinson, to the American Episcopal Church of New Hampshire.
This particular appointment was ratified yesterday despite a recent warning from 37 Anglican primates that "the future of the communion itself will be put in jeopardy if this goes ahead". It is unlikely that such a warning will bear much fruit. Since the War of Independence in 1776, the United States has taken poorly to outside criticism.
So where exactly does the Church of Ireland, a member of the Anglican Community, fit into this dilemma? Can it simply fudge the issue of gay bishops under the old cliché of "strength amidst diversity". The contribution to this debate surfaced in the October Synod when the discussion turned to the Hard Gospel, a recently published report dealing with difference.
This report by Gareth Higgins infers that education, tolerance, and acceptance is key to the healing of differences like Drumcree. As he put it at synod, "the truth of the gospel is constantly being renewed". But will this philosophy prove successful in healing the current differences or is a split inevitable as the Archbishop of Dublin was warned by at least one speaker?
Amid cries that Scripture was being misinterpreted, the Anglican Church has survived intact after controversies such as the ordination of female clergy, abortion and divorce. Can it regroup once again under the umbrella of inclusiveness?
Some see the present gulf too wide to bridge since it involves what many perceive to be an attack upon absolute truth.
Post-modernism may well explain that truth is the prerogative of the individual, but this is not about sex and sin but about the authority of Scripture upon which the Anglican Church has based its reason for being. Logic states that no interpretation, however radical or accommodating of cultural realities, can make a text, least of all a consistent galaxy of texts, stand on its head and deny what it clearly affirms.
However, if people do posture that the church has changed its mind on so many issues so why not on this, surely we only have to look at 20 centuries of moral theology, the manifest and obvious divine plan in creation and natural law to remind ourselves that here liberals are confusing progress with transformation.
To sanction gay priests or the blessing of same-sex unions represents a public alteration of traditional Christian teaching, raising fundamental issues for the identity and unity of the Church and a crossing of a line in the sand. Here we are not talking about conscience but control.
Modernity rightly opens the door to debate and change, but if it rewrites the basic truths upon which a constitution is based, dissenters may choose to break away in the same way that liberals can choose to stay.
In athletics, 21st-century runners now wear different shoes, run on different tracks and will soon be permitted to receive radio messages from their coaches. Yet within this modernising framework, the winner of the world 100- metres is still universally acclaimed as the fastest runner on earth.
But is he? Modern drugs could make a runner go even faster, so why don't we just get on and allow speed-enhancing substances to be dispensed. The problem is that as with the Anglican Church, such profound change might represent for some not simply a modernising of format but a violation of the integrity of the truth.
Ultimately the Anglican Church in the West, and that includes the Church of Ireland, will find reasons to accommodate homosexual bishops.
Western liberals love to fight for what they term human rights and, in a post-Christian era, they usually win. Conservatives will turn to the increasing Christian community of the Third World for support and such support will not be slow in coming. Already the Nigerian church has said that the consecration of Gene Robinson will represent a schismatic action.
The church cannot let a liberal interpretation of Scripture pragmatically reshape her identity and understanding of the gospel, any more than she can naively assume that her identity is already perfectly shaped by the gospel and therefore new issues are unable to shed new light on the calling of the church.
The problem here is to decide into which of these two categories the current debate falls. If the majority consider it is the latter and therefore up for change, it is inevitable that a split will occur. And it will not be too long in coming.
Susan Philips MA is a member of the Church of Ireland and recently attended the Dublin and East Glendalough Synod.