In his final address to his diocesan synod, the Bishop of Durham discussed the boundaries of adiaphora: what the Church has decided is non-essential to Christian faith.
The Rt. Rev. N.T. Wright, speaking to the Diocese of Durham’s synod May 21, also referred to a new pastoral letter being prepared by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Wright emphasized repeatedly that determining adiaphora is a task for the whole Church, rather than for one province, one diocese or one congregation. He also stressed that determining adiaphora is important work.
“The doctrine that some things are adipahora and some aren’t is not itself adiaphora,” he said. “The decision as to which things make a difference and which do not is itself a decision which makes a huge difference. Some of the early English Reformers claimed explicitly that they were dying precisely for the principle of adiaphora itself, for the right to disagree on certain points (not on everything). That for which you will give your life is hardly something which doesn’t make a difference.”
Wright cited two examples of what the Anglican Communion has decided are adiaphora: children receiving Communion and women being consecrated to the episcopate. He then referred to a forthcoming letter from the archbishop and added that the Church has never designated the definition of marriage as adiaphora.
“The Archbishop of Canterbury is, I believe, in the process of writing a pastoral letter to all the churches, and I don’t want to pre-empt what he will say,” Wright said. “The point is that the Church as a whole has never declared these matters to be adiaphora. This isn’t something a bishop, a parish, a diocese, or a province can declare on its own authority. You can’t simply say that you have decided that this is something we can all agree to differ on. Nobody can just ‘declare’ that. The step from mandatory to optional can never itself be a local option, and the Church as a whole has declared that the case for that step has not been made. By all means let us have the debate. But, as before, it must be a proper theological debate, not a postmodern exchange of prejudices.”
4 Comments
Based on the definition of adiaphora as given at the beginning of this article, and taking into mind what we recite each week in the Nicene Creed as the basic statement of our faith, it seems that marriage, while important and sacramental, is not a foundational truth of our faith. We obviously believe in marriage and see it as an extension of grace from Christ, but to elevate it to a doctrinal statement with a descriptive statement of hetrosexual or homosexual union, thus obliging all believers to embrace this statement is far beyond what can be expected to be received or adhered to. My belief in marriage and my ideas of who is qualified to be married and who is not is my belief and should not be forced to march lock-step in accordance to the doctrine of the Church. Let us not forget, in essentials we have unity, in non-essentials we should extend liberty, but in all things, charity.
So what does one do with the very words of Jesus? Do they not constitute adiaphora?
"Marriage is not a fundamental truth of our faith"
Mr Childs, where did you get that understanding from? Scripture is clear:
Gen. 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. And they shall become one flesh." Jesus in Matt. 19:3-6 affirms and expands the Genisis law: "Therefore what God has joined together let not man put assunder." Marriage is a sacrament, declared as a doctrine by God.
The only sexual behavior blessed by God is one man, one woman under the covenant of Holy Matrimony. All other behavior is out of order.
When we accept Christ as Savior and Redeemer we choose to accept Christ's authority. We make a choice to walk in lock step under authority and not under our own feelings and ideas. The curse of the church has been the substitution of feelings over authority. That is the point of Bishop Wright's
commentary.
I think that the positions of both Mr. Childs and Mr. Grady highlight the need for a "middle way" when visioning Christian marriage in today's church both locally and globally.
The clear precedent of Scripture and tradition within Anglicanism (which, of course, is supported by reason and experience) portrays marriage as being the union of one man and one woman whose life and relationship together bears out the love that is present between Christ's love for the church.
At the same time, we, in our time, who have ears to listen to what the Spirit is doing in our local contexts, see in the the love that is shared between two persons of the same gender who live in committed and monogamous relationships also are able to bear out the same patters of love that we find in Christ.
While we do not seem to have a reasonable precedent in Scripture for extending an understanding of Christian marriage to include same-sex marriage, we most certainly do have precedent for recognizing, including, and blessing same sex unions whose life and participation are crucial for supporting and nourishing Christian community in our local contexts.
If there is any role for adiaphora in the current ongoing dialogue (I believe that Bishop Wright misses the mark when he calls for "ongoing debate" in matters pertaining to marriage and human sexuality), it should be on giving local churches the option of declaring and recognizing the validity of same sex unions in their respective Christian communities.
I would also add that it is a real shame that our current legal system in the United States does not allow for any understanding of patterns of distinction in relationships without resorting to both segregationism and discrimination. It is for this reason that many in the TEC today have thrown theology to the curbside and have sought to extend an understanding of Christian same sex marriage on grounds of justice, inclusion, or fairness. The latter principle of fairness, especially, has very little theological grounding, and is really a matter of legal principle which we all should strive for as best as possible in our dealings with others.
So, we ought to hold all of these matters in mind when approaching what will hopefully be a global dialogue and listening process on matters of human sexuality and on changing patterns of committed relationships in the developing world.