What's wrong with the Rothesay Report: Part 1 of Many

The Faith, Worship and Ministry committee has released a paper entitled the Rothesay Report.  Good that this group has put some things down on paper and offered it up for consideration to the Anglican Church of Canada.  So let me pull up a chair and a latte, and have a bit of conversation with this Report and its authors.  Bravo for putting in the effort, honestly, I mean that.  Yet, having read through the report twice, there are numerous points in it which need to be addressed.  I might go so far as to say there are things which are at least a bit unclear, and some which are just plain wrong.  It will take some time to go through it all;  we'll do this with a few lattes and beers over the next little while...

First, let me begin with your footnotes.  You know, the place at the end where you tell us what sources you used for research, for informing interpretation, for exegesis, for theological reasoning.  Let me simply start by asking this:  is every author you reference pro same sex marriage?  I know you are hoping to "make a case" for the rationale of same sex marriage.  But making a case is not the same as making up a case.  Let me give one simple example: 

24:   Romans 1 refers either to a form of behaviour which Paul thought ought to be avoided because it was characteristic of the heathen Gentiles; [9] or to heterosexual individuals who engage in homosexual activity (since homosexuality is ‘unnatural’ for them; [10]); or to behaviour that amounts to little more than a Jewish taboo and needs therefore not to be regarded as ‘sin’ by those who don’t share the same cultural outlook [11].

[9]  John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality
[10]  Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality: contextual background for contemporary debate
[11]  William Countryman, Dirt, Greed, and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today

That's it?  I mean, let's have an honest conversation here.  These are the three options that you come up with for interpreting Romans 1?  James Dunn, Kasemann, Hengel, Ziesler, Sanders, Ridderbos, Keck, Donfried, Fitzmyer -- and that's just off the top of my head.  Let alone anything like what's his name - Robert Gagnon, but in case anyone thinks he's a red herring, leave him off the list.  If you are going to offer an honest theological rationale for same sex marriage, I think you need to address the flaws pointed out in the positions of the 3 authors you quote.  Making a case for something involves addressing the opposition to it; making a case involves addressing the exegesis of serious scholars who interpret Romans 1 quite differently, and for very sound reasons.

Faith Worship and Ministry first sought, and then received, clarification from CoGS that the subject is the marriage of same-sex couples, not all legally qualified persons. The church wants to reserve the right to define for itself who the proper subjects of marriage are, rather than leave this to the state.

Faith Worship and Ministry’s response is The Rothesay Report. This is a study paper, which was offered to the Council of General Synod in the course of their discernment. The Council has referred it back to Faith Worship and Ministry for further work, "to expand it to include a broader spectrum of theological thought on the question of the marriage of same-sex couples."

I am somewhat pleased that the paper got sent back for "further work", it certainly needs it.

Comments

[Peter]

Hmm, the problem is that you're coming from a worldview that prizes a level table, and trying to engage another worldview which sees nothing wrong with a tipped table, indeed values the gradient.

Or to put it another way, exegesis meets eisegesis!

[CPM]

Good on you for taking it seriously. I read through it and very cynically dismissed it.

[joseph]

Peter - I think at least part of this project by FWM was tipped from the beginnig of the mandate. It would be interesting to see (and I think it is needed at some point) a theological rationale for opposite gender marriage. I mean, shouldn't the church give equal time?...

CPM - I suggest that the way forward is to engage, and since I am a member of General Synod and this group derives from it; I will perhaps hold them to a bit of a higher standard with regards to the things they circulate for the church's consumption.

It is always good practice, and good manners, to take people's views seriously. :^)

[anthony]

Boswell isnt even a theologian, and i am not sure how good of a historian he is. In fact the three they qoute here are pretty poor as historians of the church and critics of theology.

[Malcolm+]

In fairness, the case against same sex marriage has been fairly well articulated for more than a few years. Hence the request was only to rationalize the case for. It was not intended to be a complete analysis of the entire question.

[joseph]

Malcolm - I noted that they were given a particular task, and grant that the were charged with providing a raionale for one side only; yet I still believe the rationale to be inadequate. I also think they should come up with a rationale for opposite gender marriage, rather than simply pull out arguments against SSM whenever the need arises. I see a large difference between making a case against SSM as opposed to articulating an Anglican understanding of opposite gender marriage as normative.

As Rowan Williams once said, it is up to those who are seeking innovative understandings to prove their case, and that case must be proven against the normative position of traditional opposite gender marrige. I see this rationale as falling short in the task of addressing the normative understanding of the wider church, and as it fails to address the traditional understanding of marriage, it fails to make its case.

anthony - I tend to agree

[Mario]

As a theologically untrained layperson that believes same-sex blessings are contrary to God's will, I was keen to read a compelling theological case for same-sex blessings. Instead, I am very alarmed to see the Rothesay Report (1) dismiss portions of the Bible as being “historically and culturally conditioned” (see para 25) and (2) read grand themes of the Bible (ie., loving God and others) as being in OPPOSITION to sections of the Bible prohibiting same-sex intimacy (see para 26).

Unless I mistaken, this is 100% contrary to Article XX of the Thirty-Nine Articles: “The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God's word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another”.[emphasis added]. As you know, the Articles have been declared in our Solemn Declaration of 1893 as being transmitted “unimpaired to our posterity”.

This type of biblical hermeneutic is also contrary to universal, historic Christianity. Applying ALL of Scriptures as a CONSISTENT whole has been foundational to Christianity since the ecumenical creeds were developed (in a way, that was the entire purpose of the creeds, as corrective, interpretive lenses of Scripture). I understand that Jehovan Witnesses started out as a well-meaning Bible study group that that soon misread Scriptures to deny the "same substance" of the Father and the Son.

Would the authors of the Rothesay Report have the courage to admit this is a seismic split from the universal Church?

[joseph]

Mario - thanks for your comments. The fuller round of papers from the PTC is now out, and I hope we all might have a look through these, with some more thoughts to follow.