Unity really matters – rooted in Truth. Rev Dr Ian Paul
Martyn Snow argued ‘Unity Matters—it really matters’(7 July 2024, CEN). The article, and comments hemakes insupport of it, set out some remarkable and revealing claims.
Martyn’s central use of Phil 2.2 ‘being in full accord and of one mind’ is fascinating. He deploys a classic rhetorical strategy by bundling together something we would obviously reject with the thing he wants to challenge: “this verse does not imply sameness or agreement”. We would naturally reject the idea that we should all be “the same” – but why does this verse suggest we should not agree on core Christian teaching?
Indeed, he immediately notes how both Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria draw on this passage to prove points of Christian doctrine. The first of Paul’s two terms, sumpsychos, occurs only here in the New Testament, but is a compound ofawell-known term psyche, sometimes translated ‘soul’ but really referring to a person’s whole life. The compound term Paul uses here has the sense of being in harmony, a deep unity of life. It is a striking contrast to the effect of the direction of travel some bishops are pushing the Church, causing deep division and anxiety.
There is not a denomination anywhere in the world where pushing for a change in the historic understanding of marriage has not led to division and decline.
One English bishop even told their evangelical clergy that, if they did not like the direction of travel “you can leave the Church”. This is not a picture of harmony. If “unity really matters”, we might ask why so many of the English bishops are pushing us down such a provocative and divisive path.
If “unity really matters”, why has Justin Welby gone down a route which has split the Anglican Communion?
The second of Paul’s terms is clearly important to him, since he repeats it: “being of the same mind” [literally “thinking the same”]…and of one mind [literally, “thinking the one (thing)”]. The verb phroneo refers widely to our thinking; of course this includes our attitude to and regard for one another, but this cannot be separated from our understanding of faith.
The related noun phronesis refers to the faculty of thinking and planning, the ability to understand, have insight, and be intelligent. It is a term Paul uses often in Philippians, in Phil 3.15 associating it with maturity of faith. Paul was clear that there are some things about the Christian faith which are disputed, and about which we can “agree to disagree.” In Romans 14, he includes issues about obedience to the food laws and observations of festivals; it is fine to have two views on these, so long as one group does not impose its views on the other. But sexual ethics and the understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman is never one of these ‘indifferent’ issues.
The reason is that Paul believes this teaching is rooted in our understanding of God as creator, making humanity male and female in his own image. This reflects Jesus’ own teaching in Matt 19 when asked about marriage, and both Paul and Jesus express the Jewish consensus which set all Jews apart from gentile attitudes to sex and sexuality.The creation of humanity, male and female, in God’s image, is a core creedal question and thus male-female marriage has always been a core ethical distinctive of the people of God. Thus, for Paul, turning from sin and entering the new creation of the kingdom (2 Cor 5.17) means rejecting same-sex sexual intimacy (1 Cor 6.9)—along with other patterns of sinful behaviour which are incompatible with the kingdom life of holiness Jesus calls us to.
Paul does not make a big deal of this—but assumes the Christians in Corinth understand it. It is part of their ‘one mind’. Diaspora Jews had made sexual immorality and especially homosexual activity a major distinction between themselves and gentiles, and Paul repeated Diaspora Jewish vice lists. But Martyn appears to take a very different view on how we should approach this question.
He posted his article on Facebook, and in response one observer asked: “Can you explain how unity can exist, unless the Church of England collectively decides whether same-sex sex is either a) sin or b) not sin? If it is sin, how can any Christian leader accept the blasphemy of asking God to bless it? If it is not sin, how can any Christian leader accept the bigotry of continuing to discriminate against those who want same-sex marriage in a church?”
Martyn replied: “But what if we can’t decide? Some say one thing, and others (equally genuine) say another. What then do we do?”
This gets to the heart of the issue. Let’s put aside for the moment the consistency, clarity, and coherence of the biblical texts on this question. Let’s also put aside the uniformity and consistency of the reception of these texts in churches of every tradition, culture and place, so that malefemale marriage has been the consensus view of the church catholic. Let’s also put aside the overwhelming consensus of critical scholarship on what scripture says and how consistently it rejects same-sex sexual relationships (see a list of quotations here). Let’s just focus on the Church of England’s own doctrine, liturgy, and canons.
These are completely clear and consistent that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that sexual intimacy outside of male female marriage is sin. All clergy have taken public vows at ordination that they believe the doctrine of the Church of England, that they will uphold it, and that they will teach and expound it. How, then, can we be ‘undecided’? How can some believe one thing, and others another? It can only be that we have, amongst our bishops and other clergy, people who simply do not understand the doctrine of their own Church or, understanding it, think it is wrong. That is the problem we have. What is the solution to this? Martyn’s solution is “a spirit of generosity and pragmatism.” In other words, to preserve institutional unity, we must pragmatically give up on the idea that we actually share common beliefs, that we expect clergy to be faithful to their ordination vows, and that we expect our bishops to believe the doctrine of the Church they lead.
What kind of institution will that be?Ahusk, a hollow shell of a ‘church’, retaining its outward form, but having lost its heart. This is very clearly the opposite of what Paul is saying to the Christians in Philippi. Paul’s call to ‘being in full accord and of one mind’ surely means that we need tomeanwhatwesayatordination, and say what we mean. Unless and until those who lead the Church actually believe and own the teaching of their own Church on marriage and sexuality, we will not have the unity which Martyn rightly says matters so much.
Dr Ian Paul is a member of the Archbishops’ Council
Church of England Newspaper June 21 2024
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
