CURRENT EDITORIAL .... Advent 1998
Lambeth Laurels
by The Rev'd Gavin Dunbar
The resolutions of the Lambeth Conference may have no legislative force in the Anglican Communion, but the psychological impact of the last Conference’s Resolution on Sexuality—which upheld the traditional doctrine of marriage and rejected “homosexual practice as contrary to Scripture”—seems to have been great. The liberal bishops of the mainly white provinces of the communion had gone to Lambeth hoping for some kind of minimal openness to homosexual practice, and (to judge from their reactions) came back feeling whipped.
Some have tried to downplay the result—relegating it to footnote status. Others have denounced it, and the process by which the resolution was passed. Such views have been expressed, for instance, in the Anglican Journal, which has talked darkly—without evidence —of conservative “dirty tricks” (a charge dismissed by the prestigious and moderately liberal Church Times), and complained of the“homophobia” expressed in the debate by conservatives. It would not be surprising if some bishops denounced the western liberal agenda with some violence. Indeed, only western liberals would be so myopic as to expect the Church to consider with equanimity the proposed abandonment of the Christian doctrine of marriage in favour of behaviours traditionally regarded as sinful. In general, however, the moderately liberal mainstream bishops seem to have taken a cautious “wait and see” approach to the resolution.
So for once—for the first time perhaps in forty years—it is not up to the liberals to decide what is to be done next. The initiative, for the present, has passed to the conservatives. The great question is, do the conservatives know what to do with it? Their answer will determine whether the Lambeth resolution is just a temporary reverse for the liberal agenda, or a decisive turning point in the restoration and renewal of the church’s tradition. It is one thing to defeat decisively liberal attempts to reconstruct the Church’s marriage discipline— quite another, to follow through on that victory by the renewal and restoration of the Church’s teaching and practice in the area of sexual morality. As others have pointed out (Peter Toon, among others) the homosexualist case only became plausible because heterosexual marriage had become so corrupt. The Church’s marriage discipline can only be open for reconstruction when it has already been undermined—and for the undermining, one does not have to look to the homosexual lobby, but to the sexual revolution of the 1960’s as this was tacitly adopted by the Church.
The optimistic analysis followed by that revolution was that the great problems of sex and family did not lie in sex and family—they lay rather in the doctrines and disciplines of church and society, which oppressed individuals, imprisoning families in loveless marriages, driving pregnant women to back-street butchers, bringing unwanted children into the world, and so on. Abolish—or at least, loosen—these disciplines, and the problems would disappear. So abortion was legalized, low reproduction rates encouraged, contraception made widely available, no-fault divorce permitted and widely practiced.
The effect of these changes was to redefine marriage as a contract between two individuals, entered into for their mutual convenience, profit, and gratification, and thus, inprinciple, dissoluble, if these ends were not being attained—or if they could be attained elsewhere. No longer was marriage to be defined by its openness (in principle) to the procreation and nurture of children. With availability of contraception and abortion, there was then no reason why sex might not be primarily recreational, either within or without marriage—and children themselves could then be seenas an essentially incidental consumer good, a cost and not abenefit. Once the place of marriage, sex, and children are thus understood, of course, there is no reason why consenting adults should be penalized or discouraged from pursuing alternative arrangements. The gays and lesbians were simply demanding what everyone had already—public acceptance and protection of the ways consenting adults manage their private freedom.
Thus did the liberal project of the 1960’s seek to solve the problems and dilemmas of the libido. In retrospect,however, it is becoming increasingly evident that this strategy is not a solution but an evasion. The dissolution of oppressive dogmas and disciplines did not bring about a paradise of sexual pleasure, harmony, and freedom. The“spectre of AIDS” is only the most dramatic symbol of the many ills—physical, psychological, social, economic, spiritual—which the sexual revolution has loosed upon the world. The feminists have discovered that “free love” meansthat women and children are exploited sexually by harassment, violence, and pornography. The sociologists now agree that divorce, single-parenting, and sex outside of marriage cause deep disruptions of the family with incalculable social and economic costs. As Barbara Defoe Whitehead put it (and Candace Bergen, in an unguarded moment, admitted), “Dan Quayle was right”.
The economic conservatives resent paying for unwed teenage mothers on welfare, and for the class of criminalized young males who prey upon them. The epidemic of AIDS has both exposed the dangers of sexual promiscuity, and concealed the manifold other physical and psychological problems associated with such practices. Bill Clinton, ever sensitive to the polls, has declared that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare”—a logically incoherent position (why should it be rare if it is legal?) but one that reflects the divided state of the American conscience. The evidence slowly mounts up: the sexual revolution has not solved the problems of sex, but compounded them.
Having made experience (immediate results) its only criterion for truth, general society has no other choice than to follow the cruel path of rediscovering the objective basis of morality by painful experiment. But the Church is not similarly condemned. In the Word of God, received by human reason within the tradition of the Church, she has (if she will but use them) the means of seeing far beyond the myopic obsessions of currently fashionable insights. The liberals proposed, essentially, that the Church abandon the Word of God and the Church’s tradition for the open-ended experimental morality of civil society. Thank God, this proposal has been decisively rejected by the Lambeth Conference. But, it must not be forgotten that the Lambeth decision simply brings us back to the original problem the liberals sought to evade—how to deal with problems and dilemmas of sexual morality, of the family and marriage.
To the credit of the Roman Catholic Church, its magisterium has been very clear about this. Although it has its fair share of liberal bureaucrats and bishops trying to muddy the waters, the papal teaching office has been heroically insistent, in the face of widespread refusal and rejection, at the cost of much opprobrium and unpopularity, on upholding the Christian doctrine of marriage, sex and family. Marriage is indissoluble. There is no remarriage permitted after divorce, and those who do suffer penalties of communion discipline. Moreover, those considering marriage in the Church are required (in many countries) to undergo extensive counselling programmes, the best of which,it is said, cause many couples to break their engagements voluntarily.
Admirable and even heroic as the Roman Catholic stance has been, it is far from clear that this is the best strategy. It has been questioned whether premarital preparation courses are as effective as their proponents have claimed. In confirmation of this, a recent news report quoted various marital experts who were astonished to find in a current study that the listening techniques that are the staple of conflict-resolution strategy (“what I hear yousaying…”) in fact make very little difference. Many happily married couples, it turns out, are very bad at “listening”to one another. This is not really that surprising. Only North Americans could have imagined that good marriages could be achieved by mastering certain psychological techniques.
Anglicans have had other problems with the Roman discipline. Strict discipline of the Roman model seems to involve pastoral cruelty, and to give inadequate expression to the legitimate freedom of Christians. In confirmation of their doubts about the Roman model, Anglicans point to the high rate of annulments in the Roman church in the USA, which despite all the claims made for it, looks very much like divorce under another name. In contrast, Anglicans, while upholding marriage as in principle indissoluble have recognized that in practice it can break down irretrievably,and that in such cases it is pastorally cruel to deny remarriage in the communion of the church.
Since the 1960’s various (though not all) Anglican provinces have developed a process, whereby standing episcopal matrimonial commissions review applications for remarriage of divorced persons and make recommendations to the bishop. Similarly, since the Lambeth Conference of 1930, Anglicans have adopted a moderate position on the use of artificial contraceptives, permitting their responsible use as a valid form of family planning. One may query, however, just how successful the Anglican approach has been. In this writer’s experience, most if not all Anglicans think they have an absolute right to divorce and remarriage, and resent submitting to the Church’s discipline. Similarly, the use of artificial contraceptives is taken as an absolute right, as if it is a purely subjective question for married couples whether they have children or not. Finally, AnglicanChristians—including the clergy, even “conservative”clergy—seem to have the same high rate of marriage breakdown as the rest of society.
The failure to teach the Church’s doctrine of marriage—as opposed to sentimental slip-slop about ‘lo-o-ove’—has led to the point where Lambeth has had to reject the challenge ofthe new sexual morality. Lest that challenge be brought again and again, the Church needs once more to teach clearly and kindly what it understands of God’s will for marriage.Though we permit remarriage after divorce, this is a concession to “the hardness of men’s hearts”, not an absolute right, for in principle marriage is an indissoluble union, an image of Christ’s unfailing love for his Church. Marriage is not a private contract for personal convenience and gratification, and is defined, in large part, by its openness (at least in principle) to the procreation of children to be raised in the fear and nurture of the Lord. Thus, though the Church permits her members the use of artificial contraceptives, they must be used responsibly, as an aid to orderly procreation, and not to undue restriction of it. Finally, the Church needs to state more clearly and unambiguously than it has that abortion is (at least) a clear contravention of the Bible’s teaching in ninety-nine per cent of all cases. Hard cases make bad law, and the tiny number of genuine “hard cases” where one may point to genuine “grey areas” cannot be allowed to obscure the moral reality of abortion as it is practised today.
Ultimately, however, the solution is not simply practical. As the old moralists would remind us, sexual sins cannot be dealt with in isolation from other sins, especially pride, envy, anger, and sloth. It requires a conversion of heart, a renewal of the mind. When President Clinton disgraces himself and his office, by abusing his marriage, his family, his subordinates, his peers, the administration of justice, and finally, the Christian doctrine of reconciliation (his “contrition offensive” lacks full confession or adequate satisfaction and thus amounts to a bid for cheap grace)—when priests come up on sexual assault charges— what is called for is not self-righteousness, but general repentance. There but for the grace of God go I, and indeed, to a lesser degree perhaps, go I—for whose sexual morality, in the court of heaven, is without reproach or shame? In our sexual dysfunctions are expressed all the follies and wickednesses of unregenerate human nature.
A note on our Editor:
The Rev'd Gavin Dunbar was Rector of the Parish of Ecum Secum, Nova Scotia, and now serves as an associate priest in the parish of St. John's, Savannah, Georgia.
He is the editor of the Anglican Free Press, and past Vice-President of the Nova Scotia / PEI branch of the Prayer Book Society of Canada, and a former instructor at the Atlantic St. Michael's Youth Conference. He has written and lectured extensively on a range of topics, and has many god-children.