Commission on the Marriage Canon Anglican Church of Canada 80 Hayden Street Toronto, ON M4Y 3G2 Dear Canon Falby and colleagues, Attached is a report for your commission. I have taken seriously as my theme the reference to the Solemn Declaration of 1893 in the amended Resolution C003. I believe that the Solemn Declaration is the best reference we have to Anglican norms for considerations of doctrine and order in our Church, and that a careful consideration of various parts of the Declaration may help us in this process. My paper is long, tedious and the worst kind of scholarship – historical. History was added only in the last 150 years to the theological curriculum, although theologians have forever talked about a past of their own choice. Theological historians, like other academic historians, deal with histories, books about histories, and discussions about books about histories. We are the bane of the systematic theologians. Perhaps we can be of some use to those who must consider the precedents of order. I offer you this in all humility and, I hope, charity. This is my own personal statement, although it represents input from many students, faculty colleagues and parishioners over some years. When we began to talk about some of these matters, we did not dream that our country would alter the laws on marriage. The changes is statute law have made things clearer, but also more difficult, since our Church law is always tied so closely to the law of the land, and we take more care about our church law than about our teachings. I congratulate our Church that is has undertaken this careful consideration, as I know it will be difficult for you and for all of us to deal with the conflicting emotions and thoughts, and the grief and hurt that will come whatever we do. But if we are serious in the declaration and undertaking of the Solemn Declaration to transmit the Doctrine, Sacraments and Discipline of Christ to posterity then it is better to engage in a real and inclusive discussion earlier rather than later. Sincerely yours, David Neelands September 30, 2014 The bearing of the Anglican formularies on decisions about same‐gender marriage in the Anglican Church of Canada1 0. The Solemn Declaration of 1893 In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. We, the Bishops, together with the Delegates from the Clergy and Laity of the Church of England in the Dominion of Canada, now assembled in the first General Synod, hereby make the following Solemn Declaration: We declare this Church to be, and desire that it shall continue, in full communion with the Church of England throughout the world, as an integral portion of the One Body of Christ composed of Churches which, o united under the One Divine Head o and in the fellowship of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, o hold the One Faith revealed in Holy Writ, o and defined in the Creeds as maintained . by the undivided primitive Church . in the undisputed Ecumenical Councils; o receive the same Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, . as containing all things necessary to salvation; o teach the same Word of God; o partake of the same Divinely ordained Sacraments, o through the ministry of the same Apostolic Orders; o and worship One God and Father through the same Lord Jesus Christ, o by the same Holy and Divine Spirit . who is given to them that believe to guide them into all truth. And we are determined by the help of God to hold and maintain the Doctrine, Sacraments, and Discipline of Christ o as the Lord hath commanded in his Holy Word, o and as the Church of England hath received and set forth the same . in ‘The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the Church of England; together with the Psalter or Psalms of David, pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches; and the Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons’; . and in the Thirty‐nine Articles of Religion; o and to transmit the same unimpaired to our posterity. 1 A report prepared for submission to the Commission on the Marriage Canon “on the matter of amending Canon XXI (“On Marriage in the Church”) so as to provide for same-sex marriage in the Anglican Church of Canada”, September 30, 2014, by David Neelands, Trinity College, Toronto. PAGE 1 OF 19 1. The Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testament (compare Article 6). Discussion of doctrine, sacraments and discipline in the church must begin with texts from the Bible, which as the Solemn Declaration notes, is the common inheritance of the universal church, not only Anglican churches. As William Bright observed, 150 years ago, the Anglican appeal to history is not the appeal to Anglican history. Christian Theology does and should begin with texts from the Bible. A number of Biblical passages are frequently cited in theological discussions of same‐ sex matters: Genesis 19: The apprehended male rape2 of Lot’s visitors in Sodom Leviticus 18.22; 20.13: legal prohibitions against certain male‐male sexual behaviour 1 Kings 14.23‐24; 15.12‐13; 2 Kings 23.5‐7, cf. Deuteronomy 23.17, 18: the removal of the male prostitutes from the first Temple in Jerusalem Romans 1.26‐27: Paul’s reference to some pagan same‐sex sexual behaviour as an illustration of the sinfulness of (idolatrous) pagans o Romans 1.26‐27 also appears to raise the principle of natural law with respect to the natural purposes of sex. This principle of reason appears to be one of those principles apparent to pagans as derivable from human reason (19‐21). It seems that the male‐male sexual activity that is condemned derives from an excess of lust. 1 Corinthians 6.9‐11: Paul’s inclusion of some male‐only sexual behaviour as typical of Christians’ earlier behaviour and behaviour incompatible with inheritance of God’s promises I Timothy 1.8‐11: the Pastoral Epistles’ identification of the proper as opposed to the improper use of the law 1.1 What do these passages refer to? At first sight none of these passages refer to persons in same‐gender committed relationships, and most or all of them use the reference to same‐gender activity as illustrative of another point; these are “by‐speeches” as Richard Hooker would call them. 3 As has long been recognized, in the interpretation of scripture, the study of the context of the writing and the writer should precede judgment of its meaning.4 2 Note that there are many forms of male-male sexual activity other than the activity which might arise in a committed same-sex relationship, including rape, male prostitution, and religious ritual. It is not clear that the Bible ever refers to sex within committed same-sex relationships. 3 Richard Hooker, Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity III.5.1. Hooker noted the tendency of Puritan critics of the Church of England to rely on incidental observations rather than direct commands in their arguments for the Presbyterian system. 4 Augustine, De doctrina christiana III.2.4 & 5. PAGE 2 OF 19 Some clearly refer to alien cultic practice, derived from the surrounding nations. This clearly applies to the removal of male prostitutes from the Temple in Jerusalem by the reforming kings Asa and Josiah. The existence of male cult prostitutes in both Canaanite and Babylonian religion is well established from the Ugaritic texts found at Ras Shamra5, and various tablets excavated in Babylon6. The introduction to the various prohibitions in Leviticus 18 refers to the customs of both Egyptians and Canaanites, although it does not link the various activities directly to cultic practice. The fact that the “passive” participant, like an abused animal in the parallel injunction against bestiality (Leviticus 20.15), was to be killed as well as the person who broke the commandment, also suggests to us that there was a ritual impurity in the defiled man or animal, rather than the injury that would be involved in a sexual crime of violence or lust.7 Leviticus 18.22, as well as Leviticus 18.7 (a man’s sexual relations with one’s father), 18.14 (with one’s father’s brother), were included among the 613 mitzvot of Rabbinical Judaism, generally interpreted as forbidding all male‐male intercourse, but subject to a variety of interpretations.8 Nevertheless, violent male‐male sexual activity is explicitly contemplated in the incident at Sodom. Not unknown in our world, male rape is clearly a terrible crime, deserving a harsh punishment, but has no obvious bearing on the question of committed same‐sex relations. As is well known, subsequent references in the Bible to the crimes of Sodom, when they do not suggest general evil‐doing deserving destruction, tend to associate those crimes with severe inhospitality, (Matthew 10‐ 14‐15), or lustful activity (Jude 7), not same‐sex activity itself. Paul’s famous characterization of gentile vice in Romans 1 undoubtedly refers, among many other things, to same‐sex behaviour between men, which common human reason shows to be wrong; it is less clear that the “unnatural” acts of Roman women are with other women (contemporary Roman writers found many sexual excesses to accuse upper class women of that were not same‐sex activity).9 This behaviour is characterized as lustful excess (“the desires of the heart” (v.