A Rhetorical Contribution to the Problem of Defining Sexuality in Contemporary Anglicanism: Arguments over the Use of Biblical Materials in Recent Discussions on Sexuality within the Anglican Church of Canada

 

L. Greg Bloomquist (Saint Paul University)

 

In recent years, discussions of "sexuality" in the worldwide Anglican communion (those Anglican churches in different nations that share a loose definition of what it means to be "Anglican") have taken centre stage, not only within the church and its discussions, but also in the media. They have revealed and/or created serious rifts among the members of the communion. For example, within the three-fold perspective of Anglicanism, in which Scripture, Tradition, and Reason are to be kept in harmony -- even if it is a tensive harmony -- these recent discussions have pitted "conservatives", who base their position on definitions of sexuality provided by Scripture and Tradition, against "liberals", who base their arguments on Reason as the lens through which Scripture and Tradition need to be read. The discussions have also pitted the rich but increasingly less populous Anglican churches of the Northern hemisphere and Australia, against the poor but now demographically preponderant Anglican churches of the Southern hemisphere. The recent Windsor Report suggests that the situation will lead to the eventual split of the Anglican communion into at least two groups -- each defining its standards differently -- unless very significant changes take place within the next decade in one quarter or another.

Edward Schiappa’s recent work Defining Reality: Definitions and the Politics of Meaning (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2003) suggests that definitional disputes, such as the one now confronting the Anglican communion, should be treated less as philosophical questions of "is" and more as sociopolitical questions of "ought." Schiappa argues that definitions constitute less logical assertions concerning subjects of interest and more proposals for shared knowledge and institutional norms. He suggests that a definition should therefore be more flexible, as in "What should count as X in context Y, given our needs and interests?" As such, definitions are not so much pre-determined as negotiated, appropriated, and learned; not only are they flexible, but they can also be studied and improved.

I propose to examine the value of Schiappa’s suggestion by exploring the implications of his suggestion for the present discussions within the Anglican communion. I will focus on the implications for the Anglican Church of Canada of the debate. In particular, this focus will entail following not only the recent discussions in the Anglican communion, but also recent moves particularly within Canada to defining "sexuality" less on the basis of a conjugal model of relationships and more along the lines of "open relationships", including same-sex relationships. Specifically, I will focus on how different groups within the ACC propose to and have begun to use biblical and traditional texts, which have been to date understood to be "definitive", in that context. I will conclude with an assessment of the value of Schiappa’s suggestion for debates such as the one facing the Anglican communion.

 

Article Currently Unavailable