In case anyone happens to be wondering whether there were any Anglicans in the 2011 Toronto Pride parade, here’s one:
At least he’s wearing clothes – even a tiara and pearls. They probably have some liturgical significance.
Anglican Samizdat
In case anyone happens to be wondering whether there were any Anglicans in the 2011 Toronto Pride parade, here’s one:
At least he’s wearing clothes – even a tiara and pearls. They probably have some liturgical significance.
There are more pictures of “Proud Anglicans” on the Diocese of Toronto facebook page. Very depressing, isn’t it?
He may not appeal to everyone, but he’s not hiding in a closet. At least he’s not someone’s bishop. When it comes to dressing up, the Anglican Network is not without those, especially a bishop or two, who love to don their gay apparel.
Would you care to be specific or will you content yourself with a meaningless generalisation?
Derek, if any of us made a comment like that, implying that you could tell if a man was homosexual by the way that he dresses, you’d be screaming “homophobia” to the rooftops.
I know Chris Ambidge, the gentleman pictured above, and he is a thoughtful and faithful Anglican with a quite marvellous sense of humour. I think one of the things that’s been lacking in the Canadian church’s discernment about “how then shall we live?” has been a sense of playfulness or even laughter. Sexuality is a serious matter, but not so huge and menacing that we can’t relax and poke fun!
In peace,
Rob
rob.daywalker@gmail.com
Jesus met the people of his day with kindness and love He also spoke into their lives and told them to go and sin no more. If homosexuality isn’t a sin that needs forgiveness and God’s love to heal their brokeness and make them whole then I guess adultery and stealing and other sins mentioned in I Corinth. 6:9 are just fine as well. Someone in the Anglican Church needs to read Romans chap. 1:24-28 . It has nothing to do with Chris Ambidge being a nice person either we believe the scripture and take it literally or we should go join a club but don’t call yourself a Christian because the Bible is the Christians guide and it speaks strongly against that type of lifestyle it calls it sin. We are all sinners but we are redeemed by the Cross of Jesus Christ and then we follow His teaching and when we fail we repent but we don’t live in rebellion in a lifestyle that the Bible condems.
With deep respect, there are many, many Anglicans who read Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 and come to different conclusions about what those texts mean. Personally, arsenekoitai and malakos, the two words in 1 Corinthians 6:9, refer as far as we can tell to downright abusive and sexually exploitative behaviours. I don’t know a single gay Christian who would approve of rape or the sort of sex work in 1 Cor 6. So no, being a persistent adulterer or thief is not part of God’s plan, either. Romans 1 is the same way. St. Paul uses quite specific language that implies cultic prostitution of various sorts that was highly degrading to both men (who usually mutilated their genitals to “honour the goddess”) and women (who became representatives of fertility magic).
The question that some Anglicans have is this: does this look like Christian homosexuals’ relationships in today’s world? If Paul meant to unequivocally condemn homosexual relationships of every kind, why does the more limited cultural reading seem to make so much sense?
I realise that it takes a lot of thought and prayer to change one’s mind about something that one was taught was a sin! (I used to think that ordaining women was a sin, too.) But it seems to me that if I put the passages about homosexuality in their contexts, and listen to for what God is doing in the lives of gay and lesbian Christians, that I can, and should, reach a different conclusion.
Of course, I fully respect that many people who read this page will disagree thoroughly with me, even though both of us want to love people–including our favourite Jewish rabbi–very well indeed. So, my brothers and sisters: how then shall we live together, if we are both trying to be faithful to Jesus but we think the other is probably wrong? If anyone would like to have a dialogue “across the divide” one Christian to another, I would certainly be open to it. rob dot daywalker at gmail dot com.
In the (difficult but beautiful) peace of Christ,
Rob
Rob,
I don’t think so: malakoi means “soft men” and arsenokoitai means “men lying with males”.
Robert Gagnon, Associate Professor of New Testament, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary has written on this extensively and he’s pretty convincing.
Gagnon is the strongest “conservative” argument I’ve seen, but I think he misses the point completely. He often admits in his work that the texts have a specific cultural context, but then still uses them to apply across all of history.
Malakos usually (when checked against literature of the time) were ‘heterosexual’ men who were deemed morally soft because they liked luxury. Some of them might have had anal sex, it’s true, but I don’t think that’s Paul’s point here. Jesus uses “malakos” to implicitly mock Herod while describing the ministry of John the Baptist.
Some people say that there is a violent connotation that “men lying with males” misses in English. A better translation would be “men who lie with men forcefully” or “by force.” Other scholars believe we have no idea what the word means, and project our own biases into the translations. (Dale B Martin, Sex and the Single Savior)
The second major problem with Gagnon is that he passes himself off as an expert in gay male sexual practice while supposing that “a visceral disgust” is normal and natural rather than culturally conditioned. (Some scholars call this reaction the “yuck factor” having to do with a mental image of what gay and lesbian people allegedly do in bed.) I’m not saying that you or anyone else here have this reaction. What confuses me is why Prof. Gagnon’s tone is so immoderate and forceful, even fearful. (At least, I hear it that way.)
Once again, we are reading different scholars, who help us reach different conclusions about biblical texts. But both of us are trying to be faithful. How than shall we live together? Don’t we have more in common, in Christ, than this one (important) conversation about sex?
That’s an interesting question and one that I’m inclined to answer in the affirmative.
Lest anyone think I have gone wobbly, I am not prepared to be equally cosy with church leaders who hold your view. It is one thing to be wrong on one’s own behalf; it is quite another to attempt to entice an entire church into waywardness.
Thank you for your respectful tone (it’s pretty rare on the internet). The problem is, it’s not just about sex. That’s the (forgive me) sexy issue that the press has picked up on. It’s about the creeping universalism that has infected the Anglican Church of Canada at the highest levels. The dean of the Cathedral in New West has publically said that the Bible is outmoded (that’s not his exact words, I forget them them exactly) and we should ignore it. The bishop of New West has written a book that says all religions lead to God. The house of bishops has done nothing to discipline him. The same sex blessing issue was the straw that made many of us realize that the universalism was here to stay, and that the ACoC leadership was not going to repent of it.
I just found out, about five minutes after posting my comment above, that Romans 14:1-12 is a reading this coming Sunday, 11 Sept 11. I think this text is very relevant to how the Church handles a debate like this one about how we discern godly sexuality.
Considering what Paul wrote about homosexuality elsewhere – and, as you’ve probably gathered, I remain unconvinced by the contemporary malakos/arsenokoitai view – I think that is more than a little stretch.
The only other place that Paul wrote about homosexuality is Romans 1 – 1 Timothy 1 uses the same words as 1 Cor 6, and though someone in Paul’s “school of thought” probably wrote it, it is most likely not St. Paul’s own writing.
I want to tell you why I don’t think it is a stretch. You’re probably aware that eating meat had to do with offering meat in the marketplaces to pagan gods as part of public liturgies that opposed the Gospel and supported Empire. My view of Romans 1 supports this as well – any time Gentiles were around, it seems to me that second-temple Jews were often suspicious that there was degraded sex going on! Paul re-orients the conversation so that Christians with various convictions can live together (even though it’s clear from many texts that Paul was a “liberal” on the issue of meat-eating). Paul also says elsewhere in the book of Romans that “whatever does not come from faith is a sin.” For me, I have reached the place where I do not believe that a faithful same-sex relationship is a sin. Others may not reach the same place, ever, despite my best attempts at persuasion. I wonder if we’ll have to live with the apparent contradiction. Not in a lazy way (I’m OK, you’re OK, who gives a …) but in genuine respect that people can disagree.
For me, an analogous issue is Anglican support of the armed forces in previous eras versus what I would call biblical non-violence. My personal conviction based on what I see in the Gospels is that non-violence is central to how we live the Gospel, and that Christians shooting people intentionally under any circumstances is a grave sin. But I go to school with faithful Anglican people who disagree with me, and some of whom have served in the armed forces or are most decidedly not pacifists! Am I right? I really think so–and logically there is a contradiction between our views. But I need to live with the fact that faithful followers of Jesus disagree with me. We still love each other, we still come to the same table, and we still sing about the same Lord. But my friends would recommend to some Christians that it is appropriate to join the armed forces (and use guns) or to use violence, which I think would be disastrous pastoral care!
I think this is similar to where the Church is about gay sexual relationships, as well. What do you think? (I am not trying to ask you to give up your convictions. I am asking you to have space in your heart and life for Christians who believe as I do on this one issue [and even if they are leaders in the Church]. We need to start reducing this issue to its own size and not automatically associating it with other issues.
Rob,
If you were to visit my church, the vigour with which I oppose your viewpoint would be undiminished by the warmth of the welcome I would give you.
Or we might just believe that Paul did not quite understand what being a homosexual was and we do not look to him as an authority on the subject.
The Bible I believe and Anglicans to begin with believed that the Bible was the inspired word of God. The Holy Spirit is an authority on all subjects and He is the author behind the scriptures. If you do not believe that you are wasting your time being a Christian
If you believe that, then you don’t believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. I believe that what is in the Bible is exactly what God wanted to be there. If having sex outside of heterosexual marriage was ok, then I am sure that the God who raised Jesus from the dead would have arranged to have the Bible say so.
Equally so, if you believe it to be exactly as written then women would not be priests nor bishops, divorce would be limited to a very narrow range, slavery would be condoned, we would defer to all authority without scrutiny, women would cover their face during worship, and on and on and on.
That’s a red herring, and you know it. Proper humble exegisis of the text enables us to begin to understand what is culturally specific and what is not. You just have to begin with the attitude of “What does God’s word have to teach me today?” rather than “This is what I want God’s word to say, how can I interpret it to mean that?”
Exactly Kate Jesus did not speak against the culture of the day but He did speak against sin. I Corinth 6:9 does not say that Women Priests or Bishops will not inherit the Kindgom of God. We are dealing with a moral issue. I find it disgusting that people try to justify homosexuality by saying women should not teach in the church and they should wear a hat. Moral issues destroy our communites and teach our young wrong values. If I decided as a faithful wife and Mother of 49 years to have an adultrous relationship would that be okay I guess if the Bible doesn’t mean what it says it would be just fine. I think that would be a little different then whether or not I decide to become a lady priest or wear a hat to church.
I know all about tolerance. I am part of a congregation of about 300 that just had to leave their building that they bought and paid for over the years. So that about a dozen people who refuse to believe the scriptures as they are written can continue to preach and encourage people that the bible is not relavant today it is just a historical book that can not be taken literally. The battle is not against people it is Spiritual Warfare we are living in the last days. Michael Ingham was not very tolerant of people who didn’t adhere to his heresy when he changed the locks on churchs and requested that Priests who preach the Gospel and repentance for sin must leave their buildings. Oh he was generous in saying the congreations could stay while he assigns a Priest who agrees with him no thank you.
Ya know what Edith, you’re playing games. Adultery is adultery, we all know what it is. Homosexuality is a different kettle of fish. Christ’s followers thought it was an abomination because they knew nothing about it. It was so taboo that it had to be sinful. They could not comprehend as we know today that God made men who love men and women who love women. To the early church members, is was unnatural so of course they would look down on it. We have the benefit of reason and science today that tells us that this is how gay people are oriented. There is no sin to act according to how God made you. In the culture of 2000 years there is no way they could comprehand this.
Homosexuality is the same kettle of fish that adultery, stealing, and other sins are Even if as you say Paul knew nothing about homosexuality do you think God knew nothing about it when He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. I am surprised how far people will go to try and justify sin. If I like to steal and I am prone to steal does that mean God made me that way and it is okay. Some people are promiscuous it can be caused by different things often in young women because of sexual abuse when they were young but that still doesn’t make it okay it is still sin in God’s eyes and needs to be repented of and the person needs to feel God’s love and acceptance and forgiveness and then choose to make right choices. The sad thing about this whole issue is that by accepting a sexual orientation that is forbidden in the Word of God you are leading people astray and it may in the end cause them to die in their sins never knowing the peace and joy and freedom and love that they can have in Christ. Christ hung on the Christ and died for our sins I am not playing a game as you put it I love women and I am a woman and have ministered to hurting women for many years. I love them in the natural way that God intended as sisters in the Lord. I also love my lesbian sisters and desire to point them to the cross where all of us need to bow and ask forgiveness for all our sins so that we may spend eternity with Christ. Sometimes your greatest enemy is reason and science accept the Bible for what it says and don’t try and twist it to accomodate a society that is far from God.
Hi Edith! Glad to engage with you.
There are two broad things that I would like to say in response to your comments.
First, as someone who has changed his opinion about the sinfulness of homosexuality because on close study, reflection, prayer and discussion with many people (including those with views like the ones you express), I have lived the concern and even the fear that you express. I have no way of express to you that I understand, but I want you to know that I hear you and that I respect your Gospel-centred concern not to lead people astray and to love them well.
I question the use of Sodom and Gomorrah as applicable to this conversation (as most Evangelical scholars acknowledge). Using S and G to condemn homosexuality is a bit like using the story of Tamar and Amnon in Samuel to condemn hetersexuality – rape is always, always, always wrong, but Lot offered his daughters to the mob! Thanks be to God that the angels struck everyone blind.
I need to go to school for the day now, and I will return to listen more closely later on. Thanks for joining the conversation.
In peace,
Rob
How do we know that? You are presuming that everything that God made is uncontaminated by the Fall. That isn’t the case, though: if it were, evil would not exist. The Fall has corrupted man’s sexuality just as it has everything else; the inclination to be attracted to a member of the same sex is an example of that corruption.
David, the argument you just used is a logical fallacy: after this, therefore because of this.
Do you believe that people who are homosexuals are more damaged/less human than heterosexuals?
If you’ll tolerate a tangent for a moment (so that I understand how you read Scripture): How old is the universe, and were a human named Adam and a human named Eve our first parents?
(Please understand these questions as a genuine attempt to hear and understand your perspective, OK?)
In peace, Rob
Very well said David
I agree David
I think everyone is inclined to sin and so every person is what you are calling “damaged”. The temptation to sexual sin is just as present in heterosexuals as it is in homosexuals.
Neither question particularly interests me. What does interest me is that the account of the Fall tells us that mankind is in a state of rebellion against God.
Not really, I was challenging his presumption and suggesting another that seems to me to fit a Christian viewpoint better.
If you would like a logical statement:
Marriage is between a man and a woman. All sex outside of marriage is wrong. Sex between a man and a man is wrong.
Certainly. I understand your viewpoint. I still think the issues I mentioned are relevant.
I believe that just as God created the day and the night (and all shades between), God also has created a great deal of sexual diversity in creation. Our biology and culture intersect in myriad ways; gender and sexual orientation emerge from this matrix. If there are multiple biological configurations, and not just male and female, then literally only God knows how many healthy genders and sexual orientations there are.
As for the age of the universe and the historicity of Adam and Eve – though I affirm that all of creation is in a state of rebellion against God, it appears that the universe has been in rebellion ever since nano-seconds after creation, or at least since there has been death in the animal kingdom! I think Genesis is absolutely correct that humankind is in rebellion against God–the issue for me is that we don’t an absolutely certain view of what belongs to creation in the first place (or to the eschaton, for that matter). We can only look at the life of Jesus, in whom we have access to the new creation.
Thank you for a syllogism! 🙂 I definitely disagree with the first, and I don’t see any firm biblical support for the second at the moment (which, believe me, shocks me about as much as revising my opinion about homosexuality did). Therefore, I think your conclusion is wrong, even though the argument is valid.
Two cases: first (as you know) I don’t think sex between men is always wrong (and sex between women might not even be in Scripture, despite the common reading of Rom. 1:26).
I don’t believe that all sex outside of marriage is wrong, since the ACoC doesn’t “do” marriage for same-gender couples! I do affirm, however, that any sort of assault (whether inside or outside marriage) is wrong, that abuse of children is wrong, and that cheating on one’s partner is wrong.
Would plural marriages such as those in Africa be excluded from your definition of marriage?
(I realise that most people would say, after comments like these: “You’re not an evangelical, you can’t even affirm that all sex outside of marriage is wrong!” I hope you don’t do that, but I would understand if you did.)
Always in peace (and I’m enjoying the conversation),
Rob
There are some fairly obvious reasons for thinking that homosexuality belongs in the category of design corruption rather than design intent:
The natural purpose of sex is children.
Marriage between man and woman brings about what the Bible calls “one flesh”.
The mechanics are designed for opposite sexes.
You seem to be implying that African polygamy is qualitatively different to North American polygamy. The Biblical ideal has always been one man, one woman.
Oh, sorry! I meant rather to imply that the vast majority of Anglican voices on this continent insist that a true marriage is between one man and one woman. Which technically would exclude plural heterosexual relationships of any sort from being marriages. Your answer is clear, thanks.
So, my next question is: where in the Bible is marriage defined as ideally monogamous? (Again, this is a serious question, I’m not trying to be stupid about biblical interpretation.)
1 Timothy 3:2
Deuteronomy 17:17
1 Corinthians 7:2
Leviticus 18:18
I wanted to leave a further comment about your comments about corruption of design.
I used to buy those arguments, when I was younger, hook, line, and sinker. But it seems to me that they are not without problems.
I’m always nervous about people when they use the words “natural” and “obvious” in the same sentence. It seems to me that often we pour into those words whatever we want them to mean, “liberals” and “conservatives” both. I absolutely agree that Genesis 1 says that the ability to procreate is a blessing from God. Genesis 2, by an earlier author as you may know, does not mention procreation at all, but appositional partnership for the purpose of mutual companionship.
I also have a problem with marriage being about reproducing new humans for the following reason. Jesus thoroughly displaced the family as the locus of the Kingdom repeatedly throughout the Gospels. In most passages, Paul also does the same thing. (There has been for the last hundred years a serious debate about whether Paul wrote Ephesians). In the second temple period, Jewish leadership would bless each woman who brought a male child for dedication like this: May your son be the Messiah. Christians affirm that Jesus is the Messiah. The world has been saved on a fundamental level already–in the new covenant, God adopts his sons and daughters, he does not gain children by reproduction. (It is significant, I think, that the last genealogy in the Scriptures are the two in the Gospels for Jesus Christ.) Humankind has also filled the earth and subdued it–not only subdued it, beat it violently into submission! I am not saying it is wrong to decide to have children; I am saying that one can make a solid theological argument for why reproduction by sex is not a Christian task. (Preaching the name of Jesus so that he potentially gains friends, on the other hand, never stops until the eschaton!) Most human beings, though, thrive on the profound companionship of a committed sexual relationship.
This is something that I’ve never heard a good answer to, from anyone: what exactly is one-fleshedness and how is it accomplished? Does it happen because of sex, marriage, forming another household, the gender mix, duration of the sexual relationship, what? I don’t think one-fleshedness is limited to heterosexuals who are officially considered married. It makes sense that the Bible would focus on male/female relationships, since the vast majority of human beings throughout the history of the world (some anthropologists submit as high as 97 percent) have their affections directed “heterosexually.”
The mechanics…*sigh* This is the part of the conversation that confuses me most, when we start to say that certain parts are designed for other parts. Please, please don’t be offended, I hope you can hear me with a smile on my face, because I think there’s already been enough deadly earnest about sex and not enough smirking in a respectful way. Human beings, given the wonder of their embodiment, do many strange things with our bodies that give us joy. We ride bicycles at high speeds, jump from towers attached to bungee cords, watch horror movies (not me, but…) just for the thrill of feeling goosebumps. We honour competitive athletes who launch their bodies (or solid objects) at each other at incredible rates of speed. Human beings are not *designed* to do any of these things.
I once had a roommate in college who regularly refused healing prayer when he injured himself playing sports because “I am abusing my body beyond what God intends for it.” He actually thought he was a sinner for that reason! So I said, “OK then, repent!” And he said, “But I enjoy it too much, it brings me joy.” (Of course, he wasn’t sinning – he was being injured in spite of padding and other good precautions.)
Sexual pleasure is much the same. Loosely speaking, certain parts may not, in our view of things, fit in certain places or function certain ways. But with respectful precautions and communication, it seems that “design” has as much to do with culture and individual creativity as strict biological function. 🙂 A philosopher who happens to be Catholic, John Corvino, often reponds when people protest to him, “Gay sex doesn’t work!” – Yes, it does. There are biological and psychological reasons for this, and it reduces to the same reason why heterosexuals try certain things: it brings them joy to have that intimacy and intensity with their partners.
I’m sorry that my responses are often long. I rarely get the chance for such a respectful hearing, and I appreciate it! I think if more conversations like this one were to happen in the Churches, many, many different issues would assume their proper weight and proportion.
In peace,
Rob
He can’t very well adopt sons and daughters who have never been born.
I can’t improve on C. S. Lewis:
Analogies are never perfect but, since you used some, I will too. If I were sitting eating dinner with someone and he, because he thought doing a strange thing with his body gave him joy was ingesting food by thrusting it up his nostrils, I would, without hesitation, inform him that it would work better if he put the food in his mouth.
I don’t know how to do the funky blockquote thing, I wish I did. My point is not how we got here, my point is about the necessity of reproducing the human race as Christians. Christians are responsible for preaching the Gospel, not for making new babies. 🙂 Besides, even if you wanted to make the argument that it *was* a Christian task, if the number of gay and lesbian people in the Church mirrors the general population, approximately 90-97% of the Church will have the capacity to reproduce, and most of those people will be directed into marriage by the people around them. 🙂
CS Lewis actually said exactly what most gay and lesbian Christians I know *expect* to experience in marriage. The only think CS would not concede is that marriage can be between two persons. How would you reliably determine that gay people do not experience one-fleshedness?
Sex is not only about babies in Christian tradition, it’s also about unity of persons and mutual pleasure/support. The choice or inability to have children is not intrinsically immoral. And to use your food analogy, it may indeed “work better” from your perspective. But it is not immoral to eat through one’s nostrils, only eccentric (or in some cases medically necessary). That is the point of my analogy. Human beings do all sorts of things that are not “natural” but they do not thereby necessarily become immoral.
In peace,
Rob
My sister Kate,
(I don’t know why, but my browser is having issues with replying to your post.)
For the record, I agree with you about Bishop New West. The frustration for me is that until I started going to theological school, I thought that I was the only “responsible liberal” or “pro-gay evangelical” in the ACoC! I kid, a little, but not much.
I know that for a lot of people, reassessing views on homosexuality opens Pandora’s Box about all sorts of other issues (and it certainly did for me). But I have to say that Jesus Christ is even more beautiful to me now than before, if only because I am much less afraid and much more gracious with folks. I affirm the Nicene Creed without flinching and, quite honestly, cannot understand why a great many lay people and priests cannot do so!
Theologically, there are two kinds of universalism. One, as you note, says that “all ethical paths lead equally to God.” This is the view famously associated with John Hick. There is another, which is much more ancient, that says: “Every single person will be saved solely on the basis of the ministry of Jesus Christ.” I am able to hear that argument, but I confess my doubts. I think the New Testament teaches the very real possibility of eternal loss, and that human beings are probably wrong-headed enough to refuse God’s ridiculous love and mercy offered us in/as/by Jesus! I also am convinced that God is working consistently and graciously to bring all people to himself.
My position is that of CS Lewis: All people whom Christ recognizes as his friends at the Last Day are in the Kingdom. So my job as a Christian is to offer the story of the life, ministry, death and resurrection (which was bodily, thanks be to God!!!) of Jesus, and invite all who can and will to become apprentices of this wonderful Lord, Godself made flesh. Every time I say something like this, something inside me thrills. I mean, the infinite God became a tiny human being in order to save the universe! It boggles my mind.
I think orthodoxy of the ancient sort might be at risk in the ACoC. But despite the perception to the contrary, I don’t think homosexuality is necessarily the leading edge of heresy! 😛
Perhaps not, but it was the straw for ANiC. Only the straw, not the main issue.
If every single person will be saved by Jesus, there’s no free will. I don’t think the biblical record supports that. I wish it did.
Thing is, though, both kinds of universalism are very very dangerous. If the first is true, Jesus’ sacrifice is meaningless. If the second is true, we aren’t free – we don’t have the choice to say “I love Jesus” or I don’t – which then calls into question whether or not God really is love, because love cannot be forced.
Orthodoxy of the ancient sort is on the endangered species list in the ACoC, if for no other reason that orthodox people are no longer being ordained (that is the case in the Diocese of Ottawa, anyway).
I must say, it is very refreshing to “talk” to someone who is polite and respectful. I have not encountered much of that from, for lack of a better term, ‘your side’ of this issue.
Kate,
Just to be clear, I’m not a universalist. I believe that my position is often called “salvific inclusivism” – everyone who comes to God comes because of the person and ministry of Jesus Christ, and we don’t always know how or why that happens. But I absolutely agree with you that being “forced” to be saved means there is no free will, and if there is no free will, there is no capacity to love.
I am curious – what in your mind was “the main issue(s)” for ANiC or related Anglicans?
To be candid, I grew up in very conservative evangelical churches, and I am often appalled by the unwise and hurtful things that people on “my side” say to people on “your side” of the sexuality and marriage debates. I realise that you don’t know me well (yet?) but I hope you will take my deep apology for any pain my folks have caused you.
I often encounter abusive language from both sides – on the one hand, from lay people in ANiC or Essentials who give me absolutely frosty welcome because I can’t agree with them about sex and marriage. On the other hand, I get weird looks for liberal lay people and clergy who say, “You’re weird – you actually think Jesus rose bodily from the dead? You actually believe that Jesus cast out demons? You actually believe that he’s going to return bodily to the visible created order?” And when I answer, “YES!” I sort of get this polite brush off from the sorts of Anglicans who like to read John Dominic Crossan and Jack Spong.
*sigh* Damned if I do, damned if I don’t. But I do find many people who want to sing with me about the goodness of that Jesus guy I love so much. And that helps, a lot!
In peace,
Rob
Well, I don’t speak for the whole movement, obviously, but it is the authority of scripture.
That’s it, in a nutshell. People who don’t believe those things are not Christians, whatever they choose to call themselves. We could not continue to be under the spiritual authority of nonChristians.
Kate, hi!
To be clear, I should make the point that most of the “liberal” clergy I know affirm the Creeds. It’s mostly the lay people who give me problems, but I have encountered some odd priests in my life.
I would not go so far as to say that these people are not Christians, because Jesus Christ is the one who chooses is friends. Some of the people I meet are not “orthodox” in their beliefs because they honestly believe the creeds are metaphors, not literal.
(For example, I know some would say that the virgin birth story is meant to make a political comment about how important Jesus was, and to undermine the authority of the Roman Empire. That’s absolutely true, it’s clear from the text. But I happen to also believe that the story is literally true. Those who cannot usually care about science and about things making sense; they’ve also never seen a miracle.)
They love Jesus and express his joy. (I’m trying hard to be fair to these people. A lot of them come from backgrounds where they see nothing but hate and fear coming from evangelicals and fundamentalists.)
BUT…I would *not* want the sort of liberal lay person I’m speaking of to ever become a priest.
Kate, you’re right, it’s useful to speak only for ourselves and not to try to speak for entire movements. My opinions are also my own. So my question is, what does the authority of Scripture mean to you?
There are people who think they “affirm” the creeds but think they are all metaphor.
Scripture is God’s word to us. It is the only concrete verifable communication we have from Him to us – therefore, all leadings we think are from Him and the Holy Spirit must conform to scripture. To say that Scripture has authority is to say that we must approach it with humility, and seek to have it form us, rather than seek to make it mean what we want it to mean.
I would indeed say that the people we are talking about are in that most dangerous place – thinking that they are Christians when they are not (a place I used to be). Let me put it this way; If you met a man who claimed to be a Marxist, and yet said that private property was a good thing, you would know instantly that the man was not a Marxist. If you met a woman who claimed to be a Muslim, but said that Mohammed wasn’t Allah’s prophet, you would know instantly that she wasn’t really a Muslim. It is the same thing here. People who don’t affirm the basic historical beliefs of Christianity are not Christians.
Brother David,
You said,
“If you were to visit my church, the vigour with which I oppose your viewpoint would be undiminished by the warmth of the welcome I would give you.”
Thank you. I hope you will hear the sadness when I say I wish you would invert your statement: “The warmth of the welcome I would give you would be undiminished by the vigour with which I oppose your viewpoint.” If you meant what I just said, than please forgive me for misunderstanding you at first.
A Trappist monastery had this on its guest-house wall when I was on retreat there: “Let every guest be welcomed as Christ.” I hope that if I were to come to your church, we could go to the table to meet our Lord together–before any theological debate. In spite of our sin, He is such a gracious Host!
Where is your church, if you don’t mind my asking? Are you a lay-person, or a priest?
Peace to you, in Jesus.
Rob
I’m pretty confident that is what he meant.
I think either way around would do but I prefer my order because the welcome is easy and a given, whereas maintaining intellectual vigilance in the exuberance of koinonia takes effort.
I attend St. Hilda’s Anglican Church in Oakville and I am a lay person.
Edith,
I am very much enjoying your posts. You go girl!
Well thank you I have a shepherds heart and I love people. I take the Bible to mean what it says. When the Clergy of the Anglican Church of Canada endorse and approve of a life style that is condemed in Scripture I believe it is a very serious matter. It also puts the souls of those involved in a very dangerous place. If I have a child who is breaking the law of the land and I say oh it is okay we are educated now and have decided it is just fine for you to steal that bike you want. I am not only breaking the law I am hurting the child for he will grow up believing what he is doing is just fine that is not love and tolerence that is just plan dumb and I am sure most people would agree with that. When we changed scripture to go along with the morals of society we are damaging that generation.
My sister Edith,
I’m trying to understand your perspective. If I hear you right, allowing a child to steal is on the same moral level as allowing an adult to be in a faithful same-sex relationship, because both break the law and harm the people involved.
What “law” are you referring to in reference to homosexuality? Legal law? The Torah? The New Testament?
And another serious question; again, please don’t hear me as mocking you, I really do want to understand why we disagree. I agree with you that “causing harm” is a very good reason to disallow a behaviour. What harm comes to a child who steals? (Do you know any children who have been harmed in this way?) In a similar way, can you explain to me what harm comes to an adult Christian in a faithful same-sex relationship?
In peace,
Rob
My sister Kate:
Still haven’t managed to figure out how to quote you. So two things, one about the creeds and the other about the authority of Scripture.
I would like to be clear that I affirm the historicity of the statements about Jesus in the Creeds. What I mean by this is, “I believe in the literal virginal conception, life, death, bodily resurrection, bodily ascension, and bodily return to visible creation of Jesus.” But I would still take some issue with the idea that there are no metaphors in the Creed, and sometimes the misunderstanding between “con” and “lib” is, “Which statements did the early Christian churches consider metaphors?” For example, I can visualize “and sits on the right hand of the Father.” Does God have a literal right hand? Is it historically reasonable to say, “That’s a metaphor that says: “Jesus has the same authority as God the Father Almighty.” I would say, yes, that seems like a faithful interpretation.
Some Christians approach the Virginal Conception the same way, not because they deny the authority of Scripture, but because they argue that in the original context in which Scripture was written, people who became important later in life (like Roman emperors) often were said to have virgin mothers. It wasn’t a statement about the woman, but about the important man that had such an earth-shattering effect. Personally, I do believe that Mary did not have sex with anyone before the birth of Jesus. But certainly I can hear the other argument, because it has a sound and respectful historical basis.
The same is true of “ascension.” The process of a demi-god or political figure “being taken to be with the gods” was common-place, and often verified by high-profile observers! Again, it had to do with the importance of the person who underwent “apotheosis.” The Gospels, some Christians argue, use the same cultural metaphor to say, “Christ is not with us bodily anymore, but God has taken him into God’s presence.” I can hear the argument, *and* I personally think that Jesus “disappeared” in front of the disciples and that he will “reappear” again in a similar way when God thinks it’s the right time. But again, Anglicans who believe the “metaphor” of ascension – at least if they’ve read their history! – are on solid ground.
It’s when we get to language about resurrection that I think we have to be really careful, because resurrection was clearly NOT a metaphor in the ancient context (despite Borg, Crossan, and Spong to the contrary). But even when people say to me, “It’s a metaphor,” my first question to them is, “Were Jesus’ physical remains still in the tomb?/Was the tomb empty?” If the “liberal” answers, “Yes,” then to be honest I don’t really worry too much, since they affirm the historical crux of the story! (God has a way of bringing people around.)
So my sister, when people believe the creeds are mostly metaphor, perhaps as more literal-minded Christians, you and I need to believe very strongly that Jesus saves those who trust in him, even if the way they articulate their doctrine sets our teeth on edge. My goodness, if we were excluded because of the way we frame our doctrines, “who could stand?” Good doctrine is essential, don’t get me wrong – but Jesus Christ himself is the one who saves us, and not mental affirmation of the Creeds. I know lots of liberals, “metaphorical interpreters,” who love Jesus very well and say, Isn’t this a great story? I want to live inside this story. Jesus himself said, “The Kingdom of God is like…” and invited his hearers to re-frame their worlds. I really do wish that more Anglicans agreed on how to do history with the Bible and the Creeds. But just because someone doesn’t frame the story the same way or at the same rate doesn’t mean they are not saved.
The authority of Scripture functions much the same way – it sets the parameters of God’s story in Christ. When we encounter Christ in Scripture, reason and the community of the faithful, he coaxes us into obedience and makes us citizens of the new creation–the rules of how we interpret the world change, because we realize that the one who calls us is running this show! So yes, we absolutely approach Scripture with humility.
I want to note, however, that for me, I think it is ridiculous to think that Christians the world over don’t somehow make Scripture say what we want it to say. This is why it’s important to double-check with other Christians, with our best understandings of science, and even with our own experiences. If we’re honest, we say that things are “universal” or “cultural” based on how we are taught to read texts, and not necessarily by clues within the texts themselves. Scripture is God’s word to us, and yet God has set up a paradox: his word comes to us in a community library, a disparate collection of materials that are formed the same way as other pieces of literature; and at the same time, Christians seek to hear the voice of Christ every time they read.
I gotta say, it’s a rough battle! Not because I deny the inspiration and authority of Scripture, but because there are strange and brutal things that I don’t understand. So this is the way I look at Scripture. I’m like Jacob wrestling with the Angel: “I will not let you go until you bless me!” And God cheats, changes my name, and I limp away, because I have prevailed with God.
I have two other rules of thumb, one very Anglican and one very St. Augustine. I interpret anything I don’t understand by comparing it to how Jesus acted, since we only know the Father by seeing Jesus. Second, if I get to a passage that seems to make loving my neighbour impossible, I have to fight with it until I reach an interpretation that I and the community as a whole can live with. (Classic example: the “smashing babies” bit of Psalm 97. I will not approve of or do anything like this, because Jesus would call me to forgive, and not to curse. And killing my neighbour isn’t loving her. So, in a sense, I disagree with the text. Why? Because Jesus has taught me a better way.)
So, authority of Scripture and homosexuality. I acknowledge that the community has nearly always said, “Bad, nasty, don’t do!” But we have more ancient documents than we ever have before, a growing scientific consensus that four percent of the human population finds healthy relationship with their own gender-sex, and friends whom we love and want to see God’s best for. We see the majority of people who try to change being severely traumatized despite their desire to live Godly lives, people who live completely alone without any physical touch, fully one third of teenage suicides being related to issues of sexual orientation…
I had to be convinced that there were other ways to read Scripture well before I could relax, but I came back to the issue again and again and again because of how much pain I saw in people around me and in my own heart! “Lord, seriously! What do I do with Romans 1? What do I do with 1 Cor. 6:9? I will not let you go until you bless me!” In the process, my views of Scripture did change–no doubt about it. But I also learned (and am still learning) that the Gospel is much bigger than my opinion about homosexuality. 1 John 4 says that God’s perfect love given to us in Christ drives out fear (the same verb that the Gospels use to describe him expelling demons). I live with a lot less fear about Scripture or homosexuality than I did when I believed the “traditional” interpretation–and that gracious relaxedness has allowed me to surrender a great deal more of my life to Jesus than my previous doctrinal hangups ever did. (You shoulda seen me at 16–I wuz a nasty piece o’ work, wuz I.)
What do you think? Does anything I have to say give you some peace that at least this “liberal” wants to give Scripture the role that it deserves?
Until we meet again–and apologies for my absence!
Rob
Rob,
To enclose text in quotes (it appears shaded on this blog), start the text with <blockquote> and end it with </blockquote>.
You can also use the Preview button to check that it appears correctly.
On metaphor: A very basic understanding of literature enables us to understand what is metaphor and what isn’t. The existence of virgin birth stories pre Jesus aren’t very relevant. Perhaps God allowed them in order to soften pagan hearts to the eventual real virgin birth.
Psalm 97 is poetry, not command.
You wrote:
I want to note, however, that for me, I think it is ridiculous to think that Christians the world over don’t somehow make Scripture say what we want it to say. This is why it’s important to double-check with other Christians, with our best understandings of science, and even with our own experiences.
Absolutely not – We double check our experiences with scripture, not the other way around. Science is the same. I am not a scientist, but I have read books by scientists who are Christians (Francis Collins especially, but I forget the name of his book), and I am confident that there are no real conflicts; that what seem to be conflicts today only reflect the limits of human science.
Rob, what I think is,(and you did ask – I would not be offering this opinion otherwise), that you are a long way down a wrong path. I think that you want to both give scripture the role it deserves, and hang on to believing that it is ok to act out on same sex attraction. The two are mutually exclusive, and I pray that you see that someday.
Hi Kate,
Speaking as a someone with a degree in English literature, how I wish it were so that it is easy to identify metaphor! (I agree that it is in English, but this has to do with long practice in our own culture and native languages, yes?) It isn’t quite that simple with Scripture–we have quite a significant distance historically and culturally from the texts.
To be clear, I have absolutely no issues with believing in the Virgin Birth. I affirm it because 1) two different traditions in Scripture affirm it; 2) I still don’t understand why practicing Jews would want to introduce something that would be understood as pagan if they did not believe it to be historically factual; and 3) because I’ve seen miracles the likes of which are in the Gospels. I agree with you – I think God did indeed soften the hearts of pagans by means of the virginity of Mary. How do you, personally, attempt to persuade people who disagree with you to adopt your own position? It seems to me to be an understandable matter of worldviews and apologetics.
Re: Ps. 97. My point about Ps. 97 was not it’s genre, but rather it’s content. We affirm the inspiration of all Scripture. The author of the Psalm expresses a murderous desire, even if it is indirect. Perhaps one could say that God inspired the words of Scripture in order to let us know that expressing something sinful in prayer is a human thing to do. But certainly I hope that no one would say that God inspired the emotion that gave rise to the text, as though it is proper to suspend the commandment against murder!
I sense we’re misunderstanding each other, because I agree with you. I was referring to the process we go through *after* attempting to submit to Scripture. We read in community and in our own context. I absolutely agree with you about science and Christian faith not being in conflict. My point is that often enough in history, certainty about what the Bible says *without* checking these lesser sources has resulted in devastation for a lot of people.
The Church ignored mathematics and science for years, and condemned Galileo on the basis of Scripture (and Aristotle’s science, which became “necessary” for the coherence of the Gospel). We were wrong, Scripture is not.
The Church did not decisively end slavery for most of the Church’s history, and taking things literally in their original context, one can construct quite a strong argument for it. But it was Bible-reading evangelicals who said, “Hold on, never mind the letter, your interpretation is against the Spirit of the whole book!” You and I might both look at Philemon as one example of a trend against slavery, or Galatians 3:28 for that matter!, but our reading was not self-evident at the time. There were other considerations outside the Bible that influenced our interpretations.
The same sort of process regarding the equality of women. You and I both “know” (and I’d say we’re correct) that women are allowed in ministry because that trend is consistent with the whole of Scripture (and the individual texts are explainable in terms of cultural context). Science and our experience also confirms that our interpretation of Scripture fits our contemporary proclamation of the Gospel well.
I am trying to offer, though I obviously haven’t convinced you and that’s OK, a reading of Scripture about gender and homosexuality that handles the text in a nearly identical way to the “issue” of women.
So here’s my next question: how do you, personally, know when to change your interpretation of Scripture? Is there some “hitch” in your life-experience that prompts to “re-check”?
Another question. Let’s say, for the purposes of this discussion, that I am “far down a wrong path” regarding the moral status of homosexual behaviours in all circumstances, including faithful adult relationships that look like marriages. Let’s also say (if we can, because I’m not sure you’re convinced yet) that you and I are trying to say very similar things about the authority of Scripture.) What are the practical consequences of my affirmation? Am I not a Christian? Am I not an Anglican? Should I be denied Communion, baptism, ordination? Should I be barred from teaching Sunday school or from pursuing ordination?
Again, these are honest questions, and I do not have any pre-conceived answers. It seems to me that we’re having a very good conversation about the authority of Scripture using homosexual behaviour as a test case.
In peace,
Rob
I will answer, it may take a few days, life is busy here.
One way that we could all come together, I feel, is if ACoC and ANiC bishops would advise us all to abstain from certain things during the week and year. For instance, on Fridays, we could abstain from meat eating, and sweets as well as any sort of sexual activity. Likewise in Advent, Lent and Holy Week. This is a personal practice of mine (I am married and raise sheep as part of my living) and I have found it to be a wonderful teacher. I would also like to see all Anglicans praying the Office everyday, then despite our differences we would at least be praying and fasting together. I have really enjoyed reading this discussion. I am on the liberal Anglo-Catholic end of things, and I accept Scripture and the Creeds as being beyond both literalism and metaphor!
I would be very interested to read what everyone has to say about interest and usury. This is something that is often condemned in Scripture, but is not provoking much debate. I would argue that financial evil causes a great deal of harm in this world.
God Bless
Ian
Ian,
Does your reference to usury relate to the oft quoted liberal argument that goes:
The Old Testament forbids usury, yet conservative Christians ignore the prohibition since they have no problem with banks charging interest, therefore the prohibition against homosexual activity can also be ignored?
The argument doesn’t hold water since Jesus himself referred to the earning of interest as a good thing: “Finally the master said to him ‘Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’” Luke 19:23.
I’m not sure what you mean when you say: “financial evil causes a great deal of harm in this world”. From a Christian perspective “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil” 1 Tim 6:10. Money itself isn’t evil, nor is possessing money – even a lot of it.
No that is not what I am arguing. I feel that it is worth discussing. Is our money invested in companies that perform immoral actions in order gain profits? Obviously the money is not evil, it is what we do with it. Money is necessary and I would say beneficial to society. It can also very quickly become an idol that we worship, even without realizing it! “Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.” Luke 18:22
“And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” Matthew 19:24
I’m not sure that I agree that it is not evil to possess a lot of money in light of the latter passage. Is it possible that fellow Christians are suffering in the world due to our financial involvement in their situation? I believe that these verses require us to re examine our relationship to money both personally and corporately! What do you think of the idea of periods of abstinence?
I think that’s not a bad idea, although even if the ACoC and ANiC were together in that, it would not bring us together on the things that drove us apart in the first place.
Yes, I agree money can become an idol and Matthew 19:24 is certainly a salutary warning to those who have wealth.
I would argue, though, that the idols that have taken up residence in Western Anglicanism are: wealth redistribution; indiscriminate inclusion; equality; Luddite ecology and leftist social justice. These are worshipped, are proclaimed as a false gospel and are what is destroying the church from within.
Brother David,
I think all of the things you mentioned can *become* idols depending on how they are configured. What I mean is this. Jesus said, “Blessed are the destitute, for theirs is the Kingdom of God” in the Gospel of Luke. One scholar paraphrased it is, “Blessed are those who are squeezed out of/by the System.” The implication of Jesus’ teaching on wealth and poverty was firmly in line with the Hebrew prophets, who saw faithfulness to Yahweh firmly tied up in how wealth was distributed, how the land was treated, and how orphans, widows, and aliens were included in the community. All of these concepts were intrinsic to language of “righteousness” and “shalom”. Some scholars suggest that one way to hear “righteousnes” in Scripture is to gloss it with the phrase “liberating justice.” There is a strong sense in the OT that if the people is rebellious, the land will not respond in healthy ways–this is part of the theological point when the prophets “call the mountains as witnesses against you” and other like phrases.
Now, you and I both know that there can be notions of “equality,” “inclusion” and “social justice” that look more like a secular attempt to secure autonomous egos and “rights” than anything reflecting the Biblical sense of these terms. Even though you and I disagree clearly and strongly about “inclusion” of sexually active glbt folks in the Church (especially as clergy), I suspect we would both agree that language of “rights” should probably drop out of the current Anglican debate (and believe me, most of my liberal friends want to shoot me just for saying so).
All of these things, taken outside of the framework of God’s faithfulness to us and his reconciliation of all things in Christ (in other words, the sweep and debate that is the biblical Story), can become idols and a false Gospel. But I think a much larger discussion needs to happen about “what is destroying the Church from within.” Would you like to say more about that?
(I also wish Kate would have responded to my post, above – I have wanted to read her response for many months!)
In the peace of Christ,
Rob
Rob,
Well, I think the things I mentioned have to a large extent displaced the Gospel, the good news that Christ died on the cross, taking the punishment for our sins, reconciling us to God.
For a concrete example, Fred Hiltz could waffle interminably about social justice – as, indeed could any ACoC bishop – but is unable to articulate what the Gospel is. Take a listen to the audio clip here.
Hiltz and his bishops have settled for the temporal when they are called to the transcendent, they think they are building the kingdom of God on earth – immanentising the eschaton – but they really aren’t because no-one is listening or interested. Which is just as well, since every other attempt in that direction has been a hellish disaster.
The church has been destroyed from within by its own clergy.
What other constituency does the Anglican church have in North America but gays? Seriously-if your ex-catholic divorcees left and the ex-Baptists with a college education left, there’d be nothing but gays. What other church offers so many vestments-you tell people to dress in silk robes week after week and you’re surprised at all the drag queens who get ordained?