Dishonest Brokers
This is highly favorable for revisionist parishes in orthodox diocese and
highly unfavorable for orthodox parishes in revisionist diocese.
Think of it this way.
1. A revisionist parish appeals the to the PB who then calls in a fellow
revisionist bishop and another "conservative" bishop. The four bishops, the
two revisionist (the pb and his an appointed revisionist) and two orthodox
(the diocesan and the "orthodox bishop appointed by the pb...of course
Frank could stack the deck by calling in an "orthodox" bishop like Bp.
Wimberly)get together and decide the fate of the parish. 2 on 2 with a
strong edge going to the revisionist parish which likely will benefit from
the sympathy of the corporatist "orthodox" bishop appointed by the PB.
vs.
2. An orthodox parish appeals to the PB who then calls in a fellow
revisionist bishop and another "conservative" bishop. The four bishops,
three revisionist (The pb, the diocesan, and the appointed revisionist bp)
and one orthodox (The bp called by Griswold) get together and decide the
fate of the parish. 3 on 1 with a strong edge going to the revisionist
bishop which likely will benefit from the sympathy of the
corporatist "orthodox" bishop appointed by the PB.
Matt Kennedy+
THE (WHOLLY UNACCEPTABLE) HOB STATEMENT
Caring For All The Churches
A Response of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church to an expressed need of the Church
Episcopal News Service
Issue:
Section:
ENS 032304-1
Posted: Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Corrected: (view corrections)
[ENS] In response to the different points of view that exist in the dioceses and congregations of the Episcopal Church concerning issues of human sexuality, the House of Bishops, meeting March 19-25 in Camp Allen, Texas, have issued a document entitled “Caring for all the Churches.” The full text follows:
Caring For All The Churches
A Response of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church
to an expressed need of the Church
The church is the Body of Christ. Our life in this Body is a continuing action of God’s grace among us, by whose power alone we are “joined together” in Christ and grow “into a holy temple in the Lord” (Eph. 2:21). Through the church’s common life in Christ, God intends to signify to the world the beginning of a new and reconciled creation.
We know the unity with God that Christ has won for humanity, he won through the victory of his passion. We are mindful of the suffering of Jesus who, on the Cross and through his resurrection, reaches into every corner of alienated human life, reconciling and restoring to the household of God all who come to him in faith. By God’s grace the church is continually called, in repentance and hope, to be a trustworthy sign to the world of this costly reconciling power of God. We understand that, in obedience to Christ and putting our whole trust in him, we may share in his unity with the Father through the Holy Spirit. Communion in the Trinity is the salvation of the world. The church, thus, exists for the sake of the world. Therefore, for the sake of the world, we have been called “to serve before God day and night in the ministry of reconciliation”, (BCP, p.521) which is to be carried out “with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” (Eph. 4:2-3)
We as bishops are not of a common mind about issues concerning human sexuality. Different points of view on these matters also exist within our dioceses and congregations. In some instances there are significant differences between congregation(s) and the bishop and few of our congregations are themselves of one mind. As we exercise pastoral leadership in our dioceses, we pledge ourselves to work always towards the fullest relationship, seeking, as the Archbishop of Canterbury has said, “the highest degree of communion.” We are grateful for his leadership and share the pastoral concerns expressed by the Primates of the Anglican Communion in their statement of October 2003, “for those who in all conscience feel bound to dissent from the teaching and practice of their province in such matters.” We have committed ourselves to living through this time of disagreement in love and charity and with sensitivity to the pastoral needs of all members of our church.
In the circumstance of disagreement regarding the actions of the 74th General Convention on issues of human sexuality, we commit ourselves to providing and to making provision for pastoral care for dissenting congregations, and we recognize that there may be a need for a bishop to delegate some pastoral oversight. Oversight means the episcopal acts performed as part of a diocesan bishop’s ministry either by the diocesan bishop or by another bishop to whom such responsibility has been delegated by the diocesan bishop. In other Anglican Provinces, the term “pastoral oversight” signifies what we mean by “pastoral care.” In our Episcopal Church polity, “oversight” does not confer “jurisdiction.” We are aware of current examples of the delegation of pastoral oversight in the gracious accommodations which have occurred in some dioceses.
As we together commit to a process for Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight, we also recognize the constitutional and canonical authority of bishops and the integrity of diocesan boundaries. We are in accord with the statement of the primates: “Whilst we affirm the teaching of successive Lambeth Conferences that bishops must respect the autonomy and territorial integrity of dioceses and provinces other than their own, we call on the provinces concerned to make adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates.”
Sensitive pastoral care does not presuppose like-mindedness. Bishops and congregations have frequently disagreed about particular articulations and interpretations of scripture and the Creeds while being able to transcend their differences through common prayer and celebration of the sacraments of the new covenant. The notion that the bishop’s views must be in accord with those of a particular rector or congregation for the bishop to be received as chief pastor opens the way to undermining the bishop’s pastoral ministry, which must embrace all and “support all baptized people in their gifts and ministries.” Our theology and practice hold that ordination and consecration provide the gifts and grace necessary for the sacramental acts of a bishop to be effectual. (See article XXVI of the Articles of Religion: Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments.)
As bishops we share a ministry of episcopé as stewards of the mystery of faith that none of us possesses alone. We believe it is our particular charge to nourish, guard and represent in the church this “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” We understand this to be for the sake of the world and in fidelity to our Lord who gave his life to restore all to unity with God. We recognize and repent of our failures of charity towards one another in this shared ministry of episcopé, and we pledge ourselves to a sacrificial ministry with one another, valuing in each the presence of the Crucified and Risen Christ. While our unity may be strained, we continue to strive for godly union and concord. Our task requires humility, charity, mutual respect and a willingness to make every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
In March of 2002 the House of Bishops adopted the following covenant:
"We believe that the present Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church are sufficient for dealing with questions of episcopal oversight, supplemental episcopal pastoral care, and disputes that may arise between the bishop and a congregation. We encourage that their provisions be used wisely and in the spirit of charity.
"The provision of supplemental episcopal pastoral care shall be under the direction of the bishop of the diocese, who shall invite the visitor and remain in pastoral contact with the congregation. This is to be understood as a temporary arrangement, the ultimate goal of which is the full restoration of the relationship between the congregation and their bishop."
Expanding on this previous agreement, and working always towards “the highest degree of communion,” we offer the following recommendations in order to provide Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight. We expect that the first priority in a relationship between a diocesan bishop and congregation is a striving for unity. As such, it is incumbent upon both the bishop and the rector/congregation to meet together, with a consultant, if needed, to find ways to work together. If for serious cause in the light of our current disagreements on issues of human sexuality, the bishop and rector/congregation cannot work together, we propose the following process for Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight.
1) In the spirit of openness, the rector and vestry, or the canonically designated lay leadership shall meet with the bishop to seek reconciliation. After such a meeting, it is our hope that in most instances a mutually agreeable way forward will be found.
2) If reconciliation does not occur, then the rector and two-thirds of the vestry, or in the absence of a rector, two-thirds of the canonically designated lay leadership, after fully engaging the congregation, may seek from their diocesan bishop, (or the diocesan bishop may suggest) a conference regarding the appropriateness and conditions for Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight.
3) After such a conference the bishop may appoint another bishop to provide pastoral oversight.
4) If no reconciliation is achieved, there may then be an appeal to the bishop who is president or vice-president of the ECUSA province in which the congregation is geographically located, for help in seeking a resolution. Those making such an appeal must inform the other party of their decision to appeal.
5) When such an appeal has been made, the provincial bishop may request two other bishops, representative of the divergent views in this church, to join with the provincial bishop to review the situation, to consider the appeal, and to make recommendations to all parties. If an episcopal visitor is to be invited, that bishop shall be a member in good standing in this Church.
6) When an agreement is reached with respect to a plan, it shall be for the purpose of reconciliation. The plan shall include expectations of all parties, especially mutual accountability. The plan shall be for a stated period of time with regular reviews.
The provincial bishop shall periodically inform the Presiding Bishop, the Presiding Bishop’s Council of Advice, and the House of Bishops at its regular meetings of the progress and results of this process.
As bishops of this church, we pledge ourselves to pray and work for patience and the generosity of spirit that can enable a pastoral resolution as we live with our differences. As well, we will strive for Godly union and concord as together we seek to be led by the Spirit of truth who, as Jesus tells us, “will guide us into all the truth.” (John 16:13)
The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church
23 March 2004
My talk on human sexuality given at Zion Episcopal Church in Windsor NY
The debate currently raging in the national Church, and indeed in the Anglican Communion world-wide, is not about whether or not we should love people who are homosexual. Every Christian is called to love everyone regardless of who they are or how they live precisely because God came to save us in Jesus Christ while the whole world was living in darkness and sin. For that reason no matter what you think about homosexuality, there is never any justification for cruelty, bigotry, or unkindness. We owe all human beings dignity, respect, and love and that is something that is not and never will be up for debate. The question is not whether or not we should love homosexual people. The debate is over how we are to love them. As Christians we are called to love sinners (ourselves and everyone else) and hate the sin (our own and the sin of others) in the same way that we might love the sick person and hate his or her sickness. We hate sin because it is harmful to people and ultimately, if not dealt with, can lead to spiritual death. The debate over homosexuality is whether or not the homosexual act is one of those sins which we must work to be rid of or whether it is an act of love approved by God. Does loving people who feel they have been born with a homosexual orientation mean helping them to recognize the sinfulness of homosexual behavior and repent or does it mean accepting, embracing, and even celebrating the homosexual expression of love?
The core issue here is the authority of Scripture in the Church. Some argue that the Bible is a primarily human book (some passages indeed inspired by God) that held authority for the Church in the past but that ought not to bind the Church at all times and in all places. Those who adhere to this argument presume that the Holy Spirit can and will lead the Church beyond the first century limitations of the New Testament in order to make the gospel of Jesus Christ relevant to the people of this age. Others say that the Bible is a fully human book fully inspired--its truth superintended--by God the Holy Spirit and therefore its teachings are timeless and eternal. Those who adhere to this argument presume that the Church never has the authority to stand in judgment over the Bible, but rather the Church must always humbly submit itself to the written revelation of God’s will. I hold the second view, the classic view of scriptural authority, and I do so for two reasons. First, when the Church begins to assume that its decisions are consistent with God’s will without any objective means to test that assumption, the Church ultimately usurps God’s throne. Theology and doctrine becomes subject to human perception and preference and inevitably devolves into anthropology. In other words when God’s revealed word ceases to be our final authority, we set ourselves up as the final arbiters of truth--we set ourselves up as gods. Such a thing should never be done.
Second, I hold the classical view of scripture because God himself in Jesus held such a view. Every time Jesus referred to the "law and the prophets"—which was the 1st century rabbinical shorthand for the Tanahk or Torah (our Old Testament)--as "God's Word," something he did quite often (if you are interested, I can pass along the passages where he does this), he affirmed that the Old Testament was and is to be taken and understood not just as the word of Isaiah, Moses, Jeremiah etc., but also the very Word of God. Jesus himself in other words used and applied the Bible as if it were the direct revelation of God.
What about the New Testament? At the last supper Jesus promised his disciples that following his ascension into heaven God the Father would send his Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit Jesus said would guide the disciples into all truth and recall to their minds the things that he taught and said (see John 14:25-26; 15:26; 16:7-16). All of the Books of the New Testament were written either by the disciples present in that room, those whose work had been seen and approved by them, or those independently commissioned by the Risen Lord himself (Mark was Peter's disciple, Paul was commissioned by Christ himself after the resurrection, Jude was probably Jesus' brother, Luke was Paul's disciple etc.). They were all written and circulated separately in the Church and approved by the disciples before they died. Their authenticity, truth, and authority then is validated by the promise of Christ himself to reveal through the Holy Spirit all truth and to bring to light all of his teachings so that they could be recorded without error and provide guidance and light to the world and to the Church. You may have heard people say that the Church created the Bible in the fourth century? But the truth of the matter is that the Church merely recognized the books already written that had been ordained and inspired by God.
Our own Anglican Communion recognizes the authority of scripture in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, specifically articles 6 and 20 which you can read in the back of the Book of Common Prayer (pp. 867-876) and the Church throughout the world--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant--has for two thousand years considered the Bible the infallible word of God. Only in the last 200 years have some mainline Protestants in Western nations challenged the doctrine of scriptural authority. One contemporary result of this doctrinally schismatic move has been this great debate over homosexuality. Homosexuality, then, is not the real issue--the real issue boils down to the authority of Scripture in the Church.
“But surely,” some might say, “a book completed so long ago can’t have much to say to modern people living in a modern world.” Well, if you think about it there are many, many ancient books that have had a huge and lasting impact on the modern world. Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics just to name two have virtually shaped the Western world politically, philosophically, and morally. Even if you are not aware of it, many of the ideas and ways of thinking that we take for granted come directly from Plato and Aristotle, both of whom wrote and lived before the New Testament was completed. If human beings, philosophers, writing and thinking thousands of years ago still have such a tremendous impact on our lives today, then surely the Bible, written by human beings and inspired by an eternal God still has something to say? Indeed there are some passages in the Bible that we can point to and say, “Well that was the rule then, but now times have changed.”
For example, St. Peter in 1st Peter tells women not to wear jewelry or to braid their hair. He said this because to do so in the context of his culture was to show off wealth, attract attention, and possibly, depending upon the context, ply the trade of a prostitute. So, essentially, St. Peter’s beef was not with earrings or braided hair but with self-aggrandizing pretension and sexual immorality. To apply that today would be to say "Don’t dress to show off your wealth and don't dress in order to sell your body." Women have the freedom to wear jewelry and braid their hair today because generally speaking in the context of contemporary American culture such things no longer have anything to do with pretension or prostitution. The principles at stake in St. Peter’s proscription, humility and modesty in dress, still bind us. The principle behind St. Peter's command has not changed, but the way we live it out has because the culture around us has changed. The truth is always the same although its cultural application may change over time.
However, the passages in the Bible that deal with homosexuality are not at all subject to this shifting cultural interpretation. As you will see: 1. Paul draws a firm link between homosexuality and the fallen nature of humanity. In a key passage, Romans 1:18-32, he argues that the homosexual impulse is an inclination that derives from humanity's original falling away from God. What this means is that St. Paul does not offer us a culturally bound description of a behavior that may have been wrong long ago but is perfectly okay now, but rather he is offering an ageless identification of homosexuality with a fallen nature that people of every age share in common--an identification that therefore applies to all cultures and times. He was in this passage, as Dr. Paul Gagnon notes, “referring to collective entities, not individuals and to widespread effect, not origin.” (The Bible and Homosexual Practice, Dr. Robert Gagnon). For an example. of the significance of this point, let’s take the debate over the existence of a gay gene. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the discovery of a so-called “gay” gene predisposing men and women toward homosexuality would not upset the identification of homosexuality with humanity’s fallen nature but rather such a find would affirm it. Moreover, such a find would be totally consistent with the classic orthodox Christian assertion that the Fall effects every aspect of our being. 2. The proscriptions against homosexuality found in the OT are renewed and carried forward across time into the NT and therefore not bound to the OT sacrificial system, but transcultural. Aside from St. Paul, Both Jesus in the gospels of Mark and Matthew and the NT Church in the book of Acts implicitly refer to and condemn homosexual behavior along with the entire category of sexual behaviors listed in Leviticus 18 and by this they establish the timeless baseline for sexual ethics in the Church.
To demonstrate the truth of these two points we will discuss the most important OT and NT passages in which the subject of homosexuality is discussed directly or indirectly. These passages make it absolutely clear that in the context of the whole of scripture homosexuality is recognized to be contrary to the will of God and that any argument which puts forward the idea that homosexuality is a valid life-style cuts directly against the grain of God’s Word written.
Romans 1:18-32 (This passage covers the Fall of Humanity as well as the results of that Fall)
1st Corinthians 6:9-10
1 Timothy 1:10
Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
Mark 7: 21-22; Matthew 15:19 (sexual immorality)
Acts 15:20 (sexual immorality)
In Romans 1:18-32 Paul describes homosexual behavior as one of the twists of human nature resulting from the first human decision to turn away from God. Whereas Genesis 1:27 clearly indicates that human beings were originally created to be joined together as male and female in procreative unions, when sin entered the world, when human beings turned from the God of created things to the created things in themselves, God gave humanity over to its own devices. As a result all human beings are born with fallen natures, meaning our souls, our bodies, our desires have become disordered and twisted. One result of this twist was that our sexual natures were perverted. Natural, or created, sexual desires were exchanged for unnatural (or fallen) ones. Let me quote here again from Dr. Gagnon.
In terms of Paul’s understanding of nature, Paul distinguished between innate passions perverted by the Fall and exacerbated by idol worship on the one hand—and, by the way, one does not have to create statues to worship idols—and material creation that was left relatively intact despite human sin on the other hand. There is a whole series of behaviors and passions listed in Romans 1:29-31, following the reference to same-sex intercourse in 1:24-27, that certainly have some innate basis. People do not choose to be covetous or envious, for example. They are simply born with an innate proclivity to feel bad when others have attractive things or persons that they do not have. That does not mean that covetousness and envy are natural or in accordance with nature in the Pauline sense. So the innateness of homosexual passions would not subvert Paul’s view of them as contrary to nature since by nature Paul meant God’s intended design for creation untouched by the introduction of sin into the world (i.e., the anatomical, procreative, and interpersonal complementarity of male-female sexual bonds as more secure heuristic clues than innate passions)….Current theories of homosexual development [therefore] are essentially compatible with Paul’s own view of sin. In Romans 5 and 7 Paul speaks of sin as an innate impulse operating in the human body, transmitted by an ancestor human, and never entirely within the control of the human will. This is precisely how homosex-affirming advocates describe homosexual orientation. And Romans 1:24-27 itself talks about God, “giving over” people to pre-existing passions for members of the same sex, passions which, apart from God’s help, are beyond control. If Paul could be transported into the 21st century and told that homoerotic desires have (at most) a partial and indirect connection to innate causation factors, he doubtless would have said either “I could have told you that” or at the very least, “That fits well into my own understanding of sin.” (The Bible and Homosexual Practice, Dr. Robert Gagnon)
In light of all this, care should of course be taken when reading Romans 1:24-27 not to focus too neglect Romans 1:27-32. St. Paul uses homosexuality as an example of the shameful results of the Fall, but he also lists the following ramifications: envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, gossip, slander, blasphemy, insolence, arrogance, pride, disrespect, faithlessness, heartlessness and ruthlessness. In other words, yes, according to Romans 1:18-32, the homosexual orientation derives directly from the Fall, but so do all other orientations that turn humanity away from God.
In 1st Corinthians 6:9-11, St. Paul again turns to the subject of homosexuality and includes homosexual behaviors in a list of behaviors considered characteristic of people who “do not inherit the Kingdom of God” (see above). Some revisionist scholars have questioned whether the Greek words Paul uses here are intended to indicate all homosexual activity or whether St. Paul is addressing specifically male prostitution in which case, they argue, this passage cannot apply to the monogamous homosexual relationships today. Given Paul’s very clear and strong condemnation of homosexual behavior in general in Romans 1, the argument over 1 Cor 6:9 is not all that crucial because we know that Paul condemned the homosexual act in general whether paid for or not. But just to play along with the argument, let me note that the most common way the two Greek words in question here, “Malakoi” and “Arsenokoitai,” were used demonstrate that Paul almost beyond a doubt was referring to male on male homosexual relations. “Malakos” refers most often to a male who is “soft” or effeminate, or passive. In the context of sexuality it was used most commonly to refer to the passive partner in a male homosexual erotic relationship. Some have argued that it refers specifically to young male prostitutes who take on the role of the female in bed, but there is another much more common word for these people, “kinaidos.” It is then more likely, given the plain sense of the word and the fact that there was a more common word availible that Paul was simply referring to the passive sexual partner in male homosexual intercourse and the identification of these people as male prostitutes is incorrect. “Arsenokoites” the second word, means “one who lies with a male in a male homosexual erotic relationship.” This word as it was most commonly used in the context of sexual relations refers “in general” to any male who plays the role of the male in bed be it with a prostitute or with a lover. The interesting thing about this word, as Richard Hays argues in his “Moral Vision of the NT” is that coming from a learned Jew like Paul, “arsenokoites” would likely represent an allusion to the Greek text of Leviticus 20:13 “meta arsenos koiten gynaikos,” "arsenokoites" being a compound of arsen (male) and koiten (intercourse). The compound word, “arsenokoites” is in fact not known in Greek literature prior to the NT. For that reason Hays believes Paul likely created it in reference to leviticus 20. The significance of this of course is that Paul understood the levitical prohibitions against homosexuality to be morally binding on the church beyond the context of ritual purity. Most likely these two words taken together represent a blanket condemnation of both the passive and assertive forms of male homosexual behavior. This passage, therefore, represents another explicit NT condemnation of homosexual behavior without regard to cultural or relational context.
Now lets turn briefly to the Old Testament. I have saved this part of my discussion until now because the material we find in Romans and 1st Corinthians establish that the NT writers and Paul especially not only carried forward the OT prohibition against homosexual behavior but added much too it, providing the reason behind its prohibition, namely that it is perversion of the created order stemming from the Fall. It is helpful to have this NT context before turning to the OT because the OT passages which condemn homosexuality as an “abomination” or “detestable” (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13) have been mischaracterized as part 1. of the temple/tabernacle purity code, which was abolished in the NT when through his sacrifice Jesus became the new Temple and 2: Part of a zenophobic attempt to retain Hebrew identity over and against surrounding peoples. Since that particular social need is no longer extant, the law created to meet it is no longer necessary…so goes the argument.
Paul as we have already seen and, Jesus and the NT Church as we will see, inspired by the Holy Spirit understood the prohibitions found in Leviticus 18 including Leviticus 18:22 to be primarily moral in nature. Though there were most definitely ritual ramifications to transgressing the laws, that are spelled out in Leviticus 20:13, namely that one became unclean, the laws in themselves were understood to be primarily moral in nature. Thus, the either/or character of the most recent revisionist polemic must be corrected by a both/and point of view.
There are three categories of Levitical law: 1. Purity/ritual 2. Theocratic 3. Moral. Only category 3 was intended to stand eternally. 1. The purity/ritual laws have to do with tabernacle and Temple. They were introduced by God to reinforce the concepts of holiness and bodily purity. The rules and regulations associated with the temple no longer apply to Christians for the very good reason that Jesus Christ, in his body and through his blood, has fulfilled and replaced the temple as the writer of Hebrews makes clear in chapter’s 9-10 as does Peter's vision in Acts 10:9-23. Christ is our purity and our sacrifice. 2. The Theocratic laws had to do with governing the people of Israel during time of the judges and kings. There were intended to reinforce the concept of Israel being set apart as a holy nation and people. Because of rebellion and idolatry those kingdoms were taken away. The new Kingdom of God introduced in and through Jesus Christ has superceded the old theocratic covenant and therefore the laws regarding governance in the Promised Land no longer apply. Jesus did not come to change these laws, but rather, as he put it, to fulfill them. As the representative Israelite, he fulfilled the mission in and through the law, that Israel as a nation failed to fulfill and in obedience even unto death became the light to the nations and the glory of God's people Israel. With his death and resurrection the people of God have been given an eternal purity in his blood and have been ushered into a new sort of theocracy, the Kingdom of God, that includes all who call Jesus Lord. The old has passed away, God is making all things new. Notice however that this fulfillment, this new creation, was initiated and begun by the sovereign Lord and verified and authenticated not apart from the law and the prophets, but through and according to them. This new covenant in blood was not voted on or dictated by the Sanhedrin or by popular demand, but it was handed down and authenticated by God himself at the resurrection and ascension. Moreover, the NT writers themselves, inspired by the Holy Spirit attest to all of these things.
Now we come to the third category, the moral law. These have not been superceded or changed. In this category you will find the Ten Commandments, the laws regarding sexual morality, and the laws regarding the poor and the foreigners. These laws are consciously alluded to and purposely mentioned by Jesus and the NT writers as absolutely binding in the new Kingdom. The present debate has centered upon whether or not the sexual regulations listed in Leviticus 18 are to be categorized as purity/ritual laws or moral laws. It is clear, however, from the fact that the prohibitions against all forms of sexual behavior outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage are consistently and clearly condemned in the NT including implicitly and explicitly homosexual conduct, that Jesus and the apostles considered these laws to be moral laws established at creation and in force until the end. That the NT writers considered them to be moral in nature should be clear from our discussion of Romans 1 and 1st Corinthians 6:9 above. That Jesus understood these laws to be moral rather than ritual/purity is clear from his discourse in Mark 7:9-23. That the early church held and enforced the same understanding is clear from the instructions to Gentile believers found in Acts 15:20
Jesus does not address homosexual behavior as distinct from other illicit sexual behaviors, but he condemns it all the same by his negative application of the word “pornia” in Mark 7:21-22 and Matthew 15:19. The Greek word “pornia” in the context of 1st century Judaism referred specifically to the levitical laws found in Leviticus 18, (homosexuality is specifically mentioned in 18:22). The rabbis of the first century often used shorthand phrases to refer to the law as we saw with the phrase “the law and the prophets” which refers to the Tanahk. “Pornia” was another which again was used to refer to all the acts and behaviors listed in Leviticus 18 from incest to bestiality, from adultery to homosexuality. Therefore, when Jesus says “But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man unclean. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander….”(Matt 15:18-19), he indicates very clearly that all the acts considered sexually immoral in the levitical law code, from heterosexual promiscuity to homosexual partnerships, are to be considered immoral by his disciples as well. They are, in other words, moral in nature and thus eternal.
The very same word, “pornia” is used in Acts 15:20 by the church council in Jerusalem. They command Gentile believers to abstain from “pornia” again, a direct reference to and a clear endorsement of the levitical sexual code.
In sum, throughout scripture you will find not one positive or even neutral word relating to homosexual activity. When referenced, the homosexual drive and the homosexual act are always and everywhere referenced as sins consistent with and arising out of the fallen-ness of humanity. To paraphrase Dr. Gagnon once again, “Homosexual behavior is a behavior that is proscribed by both testaments implicitly and explicitly, pervasively, severely, absolutely and without shadow or shade. “
I have no doubt that there are many people who have been born with an orientation toward those of the same-sex just as there are many people who are born with orientations toward promiscuity, strife, deceit etc. In fact, we are all, every one of us born sinners with orientations away from God. Sin has marred God’s original creation. The whole point of Christianity is that God in his love has acted to redeem what has fallen, to restore what has been broken, and to do away with the sin that has driven a wedge between him and the people he created and loves. Through faith in Jesus Christ all human beings of whatever orientation are offered forgiveness, holiness, and eternal reconciliation with God and with one another. Those who come to Jesus Christ are forgiven for every sin they have ever committed in the past and every sin they will ever commit in the future. God himself in the person of Jesus has taken upon himself the just penalty for all of our sins. And he has committed himself to live within us, to fill us with his love and peace, and to cleanse us, his adopted children, from all of our unrighteousness through his Holy Spirit. As Christians it is our role to recognize and identify sin and to fight through God’s grace eradicate it from our own lives and from the life of the entire Church. Sin is like a deadly disease. It must be rooted out and destroyed. The worst thing you can do with cancer is to deny that it’s there and do nothing about it. In the same way, the worst thing you can when confronted with sin, your own or the sin of the Church is to deny it or hide from it. That means that we must be clear with ourselves individually and as the Church and with the world as to what constitutes sin and what does not. On homosexuality, the Scriptures are clear: homosexuality is a sin. It must be dealt with in the same way all sin is dealt with, it must be confessed and repented of and then it must, by God’s help be overcome.
I have heard many say that this is too divisive an issue to address. Sometimes debates which seem superficial and even petty to the casual onlooker actually cut to the heart of very serious, even essential, principles and doctrines. This is just such a time. The movement to bless same-sex unions and to ordain unrepentant and practicing homosexuals is a direct challenge to the validity of and authority of the Biblical witness and therefore worth the fight. But whatever happens, we can trust in the love of Jesus Christ for his Church and remember his promise that the Gates of Hell will never prevail against it. Periodically, the Church falls into serious sin and commits grave errors but at all times God brings his Church through, cleanses it, and restores it to health. I believe that God is using this issue to force the Church to come to terms with the authority of the Bible and rampant sexual immorality within its leadership.
I wish it had been another issue—one not so political—at another time—one not so rent by discord. But this is where God has placed us and this is where we will stand. It is unfortunate that the current political climate has so clouded this issue that instead of debating the validity of the scriptural witness most of what you hear tends rather to focus upon whether or not homosexuals are to be “accepted” or “rejected” or whether or not the Church will be “inclusive” or “bigoted.” I say unfortunately because the gospel is kind, loving and forgiving to sinners. We as sinners know that better to anyone. The Church is not the home of the righteous but a hospital for people who know they are not perfect. The forgiveness of Christ is the most profound message of the gospel and it is the message I would love to concentrate on most. But no one can come forward to be healed by Christ unless they first recognize that they are sick. That is why it is so important to defend the truth of scripture. It does not help, it is not loving, it is not compassionate to tell someone who is sick that they are well. In fact it is a cruel thing. Truth brings freedom not bondage and the Bible’s identification of homosexual behavior with sin is truth.
In sum, it must be remembered that homosexuality is a sin like any other sin. Lust, covetousness, lying, false witness--all these are sins as well. There is absolutely no reason to single out homosexual people for special stigmatization. Show everyone the same love and compassion that Jesus shows to us in remembrance that it is only by the grace of God that we are saved--and not through our own goodness. All sinners of every stripe are to be welcomed with open arms into the Church because we are all sinners and there are things, both big and small, in all of our lives that are in need of transformation. At the same time, we are responsible for preaching, teaching, and remaining faithful to God's word knowing that it would be cruel to have the truth and to withhold it. Hopefully, as Christian people we will be at least as as vigilant in applying God's word to ourselves as individuals as we are to the Church.
Well, now you know where I stand on the issue. I do not know the future. I do not know what will happen to the Episcopal Church in the future. I do not know what will happen to the Anglican Communion. There is at present an international commission meeting at Lambeth, the ABC’s palace in London, to determine a way forward. I am not confident. This issue is unfortunately not one that can have a both/and solution. Either homosexuality is sin or it is not. There is no middle ground. Anglican Primates representing over half of the world’s 75 million Anglicans have already declared themselves either out of communion or in a state of impaired communion with the Episcopal Church. A Network of orthodox parishes and diocese within the Episcopal Church that oppose the heterodox innovations of the 74th General Convention has been created and recognized by those same primates to be the legitimate Anglican presence, the only Anglican Church in America. There is then already a very significant division that will most likely grow even wider. In the end, I have no idea what the future holds for the Church world-wide. What I do know is that by God’s grace so long as I am Rector the Church of the Good Shepherd will stand firm on the foundation of the Word of God remain faithful to God’s Truth, come what may.
In Christ,
Fr. Matt
