Theological Digest & Outlook

Selections from the August 2000 issue (Vol. XV, No. 2)

NOTE: THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN THE SIGNED ARTICLES ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHORS AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT ENDORSEMENT BY CHURCH ALIVE.

• Editorial (Paul Miller)
• Thoughts on Homeschooling (Graeme Hunter)
• Why the Church Should Not Bless Same-Sex Unions (Paul Miller)
• The Residential School for Scandal (Ian W. Outerbridge, QC)

This is my first edition as Editor of Theological Digest and Outlook. It is with trepidation that I attempt to fill the shoes of Graham Scott who faithfully guided the Digest through a decade of publications.

Theological Digest and Outlook is an organ of Church Alive, one of three so-called "renewal" groups in the United Church of Canada. I have pondered a great deal what it is that makes the church "alive." Surely it is the living Christ and the presence of the Holy Spirit.

But, historically, the Church has always been at its most lively when its people have cared passionately about their faith and have entered into vigorous dialogue with one another on life-and-death questions.

One of the symptoms of deadness in our church today is that this energetic dialogue is happening less and less. We seem to be retreating into self-contained enclaves, seeking out those with whom we agree and avoiding those with whom we don’t. Furthermore, we have a habit of reducing people with whom we disagree to the level of a slogan, a party name, a label – "fundamentalist," "apostate," "homophobe," "neo-pagan," "sexist," "postmodern." The thing about these names, though, is that they not only fail to do justice to the people we apply them to, but usually we don’t even understand what they mean. They are rocks hurled at someone else’s window. They are blunt instruments used to intimidate and discount.

Theological Digest and Church Alive stand on a very specific piece of theological ground. We are unabashedly committed to belief in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, the Lord and Savior of the world, and to the historic witness of the Church who has witnessed to the truth of Christ across the ages.

But it is so easy to take this commitment and turn it into a fortress behind which we hide. We often fail to see how much we need to be in contact with our adversaries. We need to be in honest and respectful debate with those we believe, in our heart of hearts, to be wrong. Such encounters with "the other" are indispensable in correcting our own blind spots, muddled thinking and uninformed prejudices. Even more, though, they remind us to be humble because the best any of us can do is to see through a glass darkly. None of us, not even the most committed, has a monopoly on the truth.

Last year I attended the preachers’ conference at Regent College in Vancouver. One of the presenters, Rev. David Short, told of being at a neighborhood barbeque one fine summer night. He struck up a conversation with a man who lived down the street. "What do you do?" the man asked. "I’m a minister," David replied. "Gee, it must be difficult having to be moralistic and self-righteous all the time," his neighbor responded.

I’ll never forget what David said at that point. "This was a very great gift because it showed me how the outside world views us." A very great gift! He had just been insulted, but accepted it as a gift from God, able to teach him something of importance.

My dream fro TDO is that we will continue to provide a voice for theologically orthodox members of the United Church. But I pray that we will be more than a partisan rag promoting a particular line, but will be a forum for the lively exchange of theological ideas.

One aspect of this lively exchange is controversy. It isn’t necessary to politely pull our punches all the time. We are big enough to take one another’s strong views. And so we have included Ian Outerbridge’s provocative reflections on the residential schools issue. Ian states his forceful case for taking a different approach to the litigation facing the church. Whether or not you agree with Ian, I hope you will ask yourself: "Is there something in what he says that helps me to clarify these difficult issues in my own mind?" If so, then the article is a success.

Another aspect of vigorous debate is to bring orthodox Christianity into conversation with other traditions; and so we have included Rabbi Telushkin’s article.

Just because we publish something does not mean that I, the editor, agree with it or that the Church Alive Board of Directors agrees with it, or that it somehow expresses the opinion of an amorphous "conservative Christianity." Even more, our publication doesn’t imply that we are insisting that you agree with it.

We want to overcome the sterile and banal polarizations that have fragmented the church into hostile camps, when the church ought to be the place where we can meet in Jesus Christ who transcends all our differences. From time to time, people who have been sent a free copy of TDO will write an angry letter: "Don’t send me another one," they say. "I disagree with you profoundly." My dream is that people will write and say, "I disagree with you profoundly – but keep it coming!"

TDO has served a valuable purpose by giving voice to the orthodox theological tradition within the United Church of Canada. My hope is that it will continue to play that role, but will also evolve into a a place of serious theological engagement from many different perspectives.

We survive on submissions sent to us by contributors and on worthwhile reprints from other publications. If you, or someone you know, has a viewpoint whose expression will contribute to a greater understanding of the Christian faith, please send it in.

In the March 2000 issue of THEOLOGICAL DIGEST & OUTLOOK, the editors kindly gave a "Palm" to an article of mine in the National Post concerning education (p. 27). Though they approved of my critique of the public system, they received my proposed alternative of homeschooling with more scepticism. Not wishing to seem ungrateful for the favourable press, I would nevertheless like to urge the homeschooling issue a little further.

The editors say, "we are not that enthusiastic about home- schooling, since we have heard from teachers in the public system how patchy the schooling can be and how socially awkward the children can be". Homeschoolers have heard such objections so frequently that we have looked hard to find the grain of truth in them. Let me present some of the fruits of our search.

First, we are more than a little wary of the source. Some teachers in the public system may be neutral observers of the educational scene, of course, but most surely have a tendency (and all have a vested interest) to see public education as setting an appropriate standard. And the fact that homeschoolers deliberately reject that standard might therefore account for their impression that what we do is 'patchy'. Admittedly, however, their judgement of us is more favourable than ours of them. We sometimes wonder if there are any patches in the public system left intact. None spring to mind.

However, since each side will suspect bias on the other, it would be fairer to examine the question of 'patchiness' in homeschooling without regard to its source. And here it will help to remember the useful distinction between 'homeschoolers' and 'deschoolers'.

'Deschoolers' are a group called after Ivan Illich's justly famous book, DESCHOOLING SOCIETY. They believe that their children will fare better if they are merely withdrawn from the public system, whether or not they receive any formal instruction at home. In my own experience the young people whose backgrounds would be deemed 'patchy', when compared with average graduates of the public system, are almost invariably deschoolers. In their favour, however, it appears that, if deschooled children have stable and intelligent home environments, the end result is not patchier or in any other way inferior to the average product of the public system. One of the most remarkable students to breeze through U. of T's Erindale College in the years when I taught there was a deschooler.

Homeschoolers, however, are more methodical. At homeschooling conferences most talks and workshops are concerned with curriculum, and the accompanying book fairs testify in their size and quality to the abundance of fine curricular material now available for use at home. Homeschoolers' preoccupation with instructional materials is directly connected to their faith, over 90% being Christian. Many will repeat from memory the call for diligent instruction in Deuteronomy 6:7, or the exhortation to orthodox training in Proverbs 22:6 as their reason for wanting only the best in instructional materials. As a result of trying to be obedient to the Lord's words, we turn out also to observe more fully the spirit of the School Act which calls for children not in school to be receiving adequate instruction elsewhere.

In absolute terms, of course, a certain patchiness is still possible. Parents will not be equally good guides in all areas and even the best of curricula cannot always supplement parental deficiencies. But in relative terms, that is, in comparison to the graduates of the public schools, there can be little question of the superiority of home education. If I may immodestly take my own child as an example, he has graduated from homeschooling this year at the age of 16, reading at a university graduate's level in French, English, German and Latin and with first year university-level Greek also under his belt. In mathematics he has finished the Calculus book in the SAXON series. He has also audited numerous university courses in Classics and history, maintaining a first class average in all of them. Though he did not receive the intensive training in political correctness the school would have provided, we have seen no reason to regret what he got in exchange.

The other objection reported by the editors is that homeschooled children are 'socially awkward'. It requires much imagination to make this objection square with my own experience. However I can see how it might be true occasionally, for the simple reason that socially awkward children would be more likely to find school intolerable, and so to be homeschooled, than would the socially well-adjusted.

But let me return to speaking from experience. As members of a relatively large homeschooling organization (around 300 families) we take part in a good number of group activities. Public institutions (such as museums, galleries, theatres) that we attend hurry to ask us back. They are amazed to find groups of children who use facilities in the way they were intended, who respect the officers of the institution, who are articulate in their questions and generous in their thanks. If homeschooled children stand out in society, we have not found it to be due to awkwardness.

To conclude, permit me to consider the alternatives which the editors propose. They are not in favour of "Ontario's 'neutral' system of education" either, they say. Instead they recommend that the Province fund religiously oriented schools, in order that a truly "pluralistic system of public education" may come about. This is what they believe would better satisfy whatever reasonable grounds of discontent today's homeschoolers have. With respect, I would make two critical remarks concerning their proposal. First, it is naive; second, it is disingenuous.

It is naive, because government funding means government control. Why should the public fund a theory of education in which it does not believe? For example, it might be very important to a Pentecostal school to teach creationism. But why should the public, the majority of whom no doubt believes otherwise, pay for that? And if the public will not fund such instruction, why should that hypothetical school sell its birthright for a mess of funding. The same goes for a host of other issues in education affecting most, if not all, denominations.

But my more serious charge against the editors' proposal is that it is disingenuous. Some Christians pretend to welcome the idea of a pluralistic society because they think that within it at least the Christian voice has a chance of being heard. But this attitude chooses not to see the way in which the premise of pluralism is hostile to orthodox Christianity. Pluralism is based on the view that there are no over-riding principles, no indisputable truths. By contrast, orthodox Christians believe that we represent not just a position, not just a voice, not just one approach among others. We believe that we follow One who is the Way the Truth and the Life. Christians therefore cannot be content in any society that in principle repudiates the very existence of any single way, truth and life. Thus Christians cannot be pluralists.

Homeschoolers, unlike public schoolers and charter schoolers, have drawn the right moral about our times. They know that public life is pluralistic and they therefore turn their backs on it. In the often-quoted words of Alistair MacIntyre, they strive to build 'alternative communities of civility and light', as the surrounding RES PUBLICA slips into ever-deepening darkness.

Many within The United Church of Canada have remained true to the vision of the founding fathers of public education in Canada, including Methodists like Egerton Ryerson. Education is not the only issue, however, nor is the United Church the only denomination, in which Christian allegiances are beginning to pull in the opposite direction from denominational traditions. We have entered a great moment of ecumenical realignment, opening the way to what Pope John-Paul II has called a spring-time of orthodox Christianity. It is my conviction that homeschooling remains the best choice that Christians can make in view of the bright prospects of our faith and the dismal future of public education.

Graeme Hunter teaches philosophy and literature at Augustine College in Ottawa and philosophy at the University of Ottawa.

I have been asked to address the question whether the church should perform covenanting services for gay and lesbian couples. Specifically, I have been asked to argue that the church should not do so.

Owing to time constraints, I will not deal in detail with the general question of whether sexual relations between persons of the same gender are right or wrong. I have opinions about this question. For what it’s worth, my view is that it is difficult to take the Bible seriously on the one hand and on the other hand to argue that sexual acts between two men or two women are God’s will and desire. Please note that this is not the same as homophobia. It does not mean that we ought to act out of fear or prejudice. We owe gays and lesbians both in the church and outside respect and dignity. They are children of God, created in God’s image. But Scripture, no matter how you slice it, compels us to stop short of saying that a homosexual orientation is a gift of God or that homosexual acts should be celebrated and blessed. It is possible to treat people with charity while not endorsing their choices and actions.

Having said that, I have always found that the "gay question" is much bigger and more complex than we like to make it. We do not know what "causes" some people to be gay; how much has to do with genetics and how much with upbringing and early childhood influences. Nor do we understand the continuum of emotions and drives that makes it difficult to say in many cases that "this person is gay." Nor do we know for sure whether it’s possible for a given person to "overcome" his or her homosexual orientation. Nor can we address whether there is a meaningful moral distinction to be made between a so-called homosexual orientation and specific sexual acts; in other words, whether it’s OK to be gay as long as you don’t engage in homosexual behavior.. These are all important questions but I have only thirty minutes and thirty hours would not be enough time to deal with all of them.

So I will confine my comments to the particular question of whether your church should offer to perform liturgies of blessing for same-sex unions. I would like to discourage you from doing so. I do so without prejudice towards any gay or lesbian individuals you might have in your congregation and towards their participation in the life of the church. I do not want anything I say to be taken to imply that you should not welcome gays and lesbians or minister to and through them. That’s for you to decide. I want to focus narrowly on this issue of the church blessing gay relationships publicly and liturgically.

Recent court decisions and government policies have given same-sex couples many of the same rights and responsibilities long accorded married couples. In fact, in the eyes of the law, there is very little difference any more between a gay couple, a married couple or a heterosexual cohabiting couple. Gay couples can now often claim equality with straight couples in matters of employee and spousal benefits and even the adoption of children. Increasingly, homosexual couples are being treated "spouses" in virtually every respect. Even though marriage still applies only to a man and a woman, the speed with which things are changing allows us to predict a future in which gay and lesbian couples will be legally married.

As it often does, the church is now scrambling to catch up with social change. Many argue that the church must join in the trend in society to recognize same-sex relationships. The church, they say, must embrace gay relationships and publicly bless them as we bless heterosexual marriages or we are discriminating against one group.

My view is that while it may be socially fashionable for the church to offer services of blessing for same-sex "marriages," it would betray a basic misunderstanding of the theology of Christian marriage.

What makes marriage different from other relationships? There is a widespread assumption that the essence of a marriage, that which really and truly makes it a marriage, is the private, personal commitment and the emotional bond between the individuals involved. According to this view, a gay relationship that is based on love and mutuality and commitment is as worthy of respect as a heterosexual marriage.

But this is the very point that we need to explore with greater discernment. In fact, the emotional commitment of the two persons involved in a marriage is only a part of what a marriage is, and, from a biblical point of view, it is not even the most important part. This is difficult for us to grasp because we live in a time when feelings are considered to be the ultimate criterion of truth. Above all, we tend to believe, we must obey our feelings. That is why so many people simply abandon commitments with a clear conscience, even if they leave a trail of emotional destruction in their wake. "I have to go where my feelings lead me," they say, believing that this provides a self-evident justification for their actions.

The emotional commitment between two individuals is only one aspect of the biblical vision of marriage. Marriage is much bigger than that. When people get married they are participating in a reality greater than themselves.

Marriage is no less than an embodiment of God’s design for creation. This means a number of things. First, we are told that maleness and femaleness are an essential aspect of creation.

We all know the story of creation in Genesis 1. Even if we don’t interpret it literally, this story communicates something deeply and abidingly true. It says that humankind was created in the image of God, male and female. This is tremendously important. In the first place, far from providing a warrant for sexism and patriarchy, Genesis 1 contains the antidote to all forms of oppression directed towards women.The image of God comprises both maleness and femaleness. Human beings were made of two kinds, male and female, and it is together, equally, that they constitute the image of God.

Secondly, we were created as sexual beings, and through our sexuality, God gives us the opportunity to explore what it means that we are created in God’s image. But clearly, God’s intention is that we express our sexuality within certain parameters.

To me, the fact that we were created male and female says on a very deep level that we were created to live in relationship. That even though we are essentially different from one another, we need each other. We can’t get along without each other. Marriage testifies to the essentially relational nature of human existence. Of course, there are many other ways of being in relationship other than marriage. But marriage is a unique form of human relationship because in a marriage two human beings who are fundamentally unalike find union and communion in one another.

Think of it. I cannot know what it is to be female and my wife cannot know what it is to be male. If you are a man you can’t really understand on your own what it is to be a woman. If you are a woman you can’t really understand on your own what it is to be a man. And yet God has created humankind to encompass both maleness and femaleness. What this means is that there is something about the image of God that will always be hidden from us. We discover that hidden aspect of humanity through the covenant of marriage, the uniting of a male and a female.

Now, please understand. This is not to make the married a special class of human being, or to say that the lives of the unmarried or the widowed are in some way deficient. But marriage is the way God has made us so that our sexuality can become the means of exploring more fully what it means to be human. This goes beyond the emotional commitment of two individuals.

Secondly, through marriage, God has provided for the replenishment of the earth and the continuation of human society. This is a much-neglected aspect of contemporary thinking about marriage. But it is an essential feature of the Christian understanding. Through marriage, we are connected not just to our partner, but to past and future generations. Through marriage, God has provided a means by which the human race can perpetuate itself, can, in effect, secure the future.

It is for these reasons, and not just because of the commitment between any two individuals, that the church has regarded marriage as a uniquely holy estate. Marriage both testifies to and embodies God’s faithfulness to creation in ways that other relationships do not.

When we discuss whether sexual relationships outside of marriage are right or wrong, we emphasize the wrong thing. We focus too exclusively on the needs and desires of the individual couple. Marriage includes these needs and desires, but also transcends them. Marriage is a way of participating in the divine plan for creation. It is a covenant reflecting the covenant of God with the earth. A sexual relationship between two men or two women, granted, may be based on love and commitment. But it cannot reflect the order of creation because men and women are not physically made to make it so. Sexual acts between men or between women use the human body in ways they were not created to be used.

This is not to say that other relationships are inferior to marriage. Goodness no! Where would we be without the blessing of friendship, of relationships between brothers and sisters in Christ, and with our neighbors, especially those in need. As important as these are, though, they cannot play the role that marriage. None of these relationships is a "mystery" in the sense that marriage is. Roman Catholics and Anglicans call marriage a sacrament. We do not do so formally or officially. But clearly marriage has an element of sacramentality to it because it permits us, through our bodies, to participate in the life of God.

You might be thinking that this is all beside the point because you don’t intend to confuse marriage with same-sex unions. I believe that in practice you will not be able to avoid confusion. The blessing of a marriage is, let’s face it, the hallowing of sexual union. Through marriage, men and women are invited to order their sexuality according to God’s design. Same sex covenants will not be the blessing of the virtues of love and commitment but the blessing of sexual acts between persons of the same gender which, in my view, fall outside God’s intention for us.

Furthermore, whether we like it or not, a majority of people in the church and in the community will see same-sex covenants as the functional equivalent of marriage. Indeed, this is the whole point of the drive to have same-sex unions recognized in law, to get rid of any distinction or special status for marriage. It is only a matter of a short time before marriage commissioners will be directed to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. In my opinion, this will only further undermine the stability of marriage and the family. The church ought to be offering an alternative vision of sexuality and not simply falling into line with the prevailing values and mores of the larger culture. Secular society is rushing to redefine marriage and the family. That fact alone should give us pause. We should move with greater care rather than greater haste lest we become culturally captive.

If the United Church begins to bless such unions, it will put us at odds with most of our ecumenical partners, not to mention with Christian tradition. Now I understand that for many, that’s not a bad thing. They believe that the sooner we can put the Christian tradition behind us the better, because for them, Christian tradition is nothing but the sorry tale of patriarchy, racism and heterosexism. I cannot agree with this. The tradition that has been handed down to us is the spring from which we draw our life. I believe it would be very damaging for any church to become so radically alienated from the Body of Christ.

In summary, if the church embraces same-sex covenanting liturgies, it will further erode our already confused theology of marriage. Indeed, the church will be contributing to the confusion. So, I pray you will decide to not embark on this perilous journey.