More Talking Points

From a pastor in Metro NY:

"This question about granting exceptions to non-celibate clergy is a church dividing issue. Simply saying that it isn't is not an answer, and appealing to unity is not an acceptible strategy. A case is decided on its merits. What was once a theological argument about "doing the right thing" is now, most definitely, a legal issue, and legal issues have to be argued on merit.

The revisionists give responses to our questions which do not satisfy which lead us to the conclusion that they have convinced people who wanted to be convinced. The ELCA is going to go ahead on the basis of “Because I said so” or “Because I can.” We watched the Task Force, the Council of Bishops; the joint meeting of Division for Congregational Ministry and Church in Society, the Presiding Bishop, and then finally, the Church fail to safeguard this Church. The Task Force, whose conclusions was foretold by the appointment of a liberal majority, by which witnesses they heard, by the works cited in the footnotes, by their refusal to deal with the real expert in the field Prof. Robert Gagnon. A quick story to show how preconceived was the mindset of the majority. A friend of mine of 20 years told me last fall that he had his bishop ask if the task force had received any testimony from ex-gays. He suspected they had not because they are dismissed out of hand by people who want to believe that people are born homosexual rather than it being a conditioned response. He flew to Chicago and gave his testimony that he had practiced homosexuality from his teens but was miserable until he found a counselor who recommended him to the right program. He is now married with four children. He told me that at the end of his testimony the committee members looked at one another with “Oh No!” on their faces because they had never bothered to even consider that people like him existed. That only happens because of pre-conceived notions, which of course, can make you as good as blind.

Why are we acting in such a blind manner? Through Scholarly Engagement with Anglican Doctrine we have gained first-hand knowledge of the decline and dissent that is leading to schism in the ECUSA. We have spoken to Lutherans who say this is all adiaphora and it is us traditionalists who will be guilty of schism. Such an answer is breathtaking in its blindness.

Adiaphora? We have a question here that could not be more fundamental. Why do we know what we know? All the questions have been laid out, all the answers given by both sides. The traditionalists have serious questions which have yet to be answered. They are questions legal, scientific, theological, and epistemological. How do we know what we know? What is our basis?

Argument one: Legal. “What are the legal ramifications for congregations should this go through?”

Argument two: Scientific. This appears to me to entail a conviction that a number of empirical questions concerning homosexuality have been settled including the question of the developmental origins of homosexuality. You seem to be teaching that it is a settled matter that homosexuality is biologically innate and therefore irremediable. If this is so can you tell me the scientific authorities that you find persuasive? I cannot find a single credible scientific authority who believes that such a complex human behavior as homosexuality can be explained by a model of simple biological determinism.

There was a recent news story about research in Sweden It shouldn’t take more than an introduction to logic class to know that there is a difference between knowing that an event occurs and establishing the cause of the event. This experiment has shown conclusively that homosexual men are turned on sexually by smells associated with other men. One hopes it did not cost too much to find this out.
Argument three: Biblical If you dismiss the prohibition against homosexual acts in Leviticus as part of code of ritual purity which is not binding on Christians. In Leviticus there are also prohibitions against adultery and incest. Are these to be dismissed as well? If not why?

With regard to the text in Romans 1, some teach that Paul is not condemning homosexual acts by homosexually oriented persons but homosexual acts by heterosexually oriented persons. I feel that engaging in debate on particular texts is pointless if you are asking me to be bound by an innovative and exegetically weak interpretation of a text. The wisdom of Scripture and the weight of tradition cannot be seen as carved in stone, but neither can be summarily dismissed as irrelevant or outdated. The onus is upon those who propose change, not those entrusted with preservation. The revisionists must bring forth a clear winning argument, not a proposal or complaint or even a standstill, and I can tell you that has not happened in any of the Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed/Presbyterian, or Wesleyan traditions. The church is obligated out of concern for the well-being of society to refuse to ordain practicing homosexual persons to public ministry and to refuse to endorse homosexual practice as a legitimate expression of one's sexuality.

Argument four: Theological, Lutheran, law includes natural law. God works through his Word to redeem creation. He also works to preserve it. If the gospel is the means by which God redeems and liberates, the law is the means by which God preserves life. Both Old Testament and New Testament deal with matters of sexual relations in terms of law, not gospel.

Let me say a bit about the purpose of law. As children of God, justified by faith in Christ, our relationship to God is defined by the gospel. But because we still remain members of a fallen creation in bondage to sin, our relationship to one another is defined by law. There is need for some structuring of our relationship to one another. The weak need protection against the strong; all of us need protection from the effects of our "evil lust and inclinations," as the Augsburg Confession puts it. We mean by "law" the order by which the creation is preserved from destruction and chaos. Our tradition has chosen to speak of a "natural law" rather than a "divine law" to characterize the structures by which evil is restrained and life ordered for the good of all. We do not believe there is a single heavenly code which religious people know better than others. "Natural law,' through which God ordains order, is embodied in human codes- some better, some worse.

In the realm of the law, reason and not revelation is primary. God wills order for our well-being, and we are given the gift of reason and common sense to derive laws to that end. The question to ask is if there are good reasons to make rules limiting the right to sexual expression. If so, given the public character of pastoral ministry and the exemplary nature of that office, we would be obliged to insist that pastors abide by such rules and that the church do nothing to undermine them for the rest of society. Our specific question has to do with homosexual practice.
It is not accidental that every society has been careful to regulate matters dealing with sexuality, making them matters of law or taboo. The bearing and training of children is essential to the survival of our species. At least as basic is our relationship to one another as males and females. The last decades have witnessed revolutions in our view of gender roles, but even for us moderns there are differences between males and females that must be regulated for the sake of our survival and well-being. In speaking of regulating matters of sexuality, we are dealing with society's rights and not individual rights. When sexual relations go wrong the harm inflicted on society is considerable. And when we speak of such regulations, we are taking seriously the insistence of our tradition that what is native to us as sexual beings is corrupted by sin. Laws are the way society protects itself and its members against the effects of sin and evil. God, as creator, has a stake in that protection as well.

The way we think about homosexuality has first to do with the law. Rules about homosexual practice arise from the need for order in the area of sexual expression, just as do the host of rules about marriage. We define, to some degree, what is "natural' to provide boundaries for our protection and to encourage actions beneficial to society. It is 'unnatural' for brothers and sisters to marry. The Old Testament offers few reasons to support such rules. We have enacted such rules into law, not simply because they are in the Bible, but because we can offer good reasons for them: it is genetically unwise to foster such unions. The law protects all of us by ruling out marriages between blood relatives.

IN THE OT CODES, IN THE TABLE OF DUTIES IN EPH AND COL AND I PETER, THE STRUCTURING OF THE WORLD TAKES SPECIAL PAINS TO PROTECT FAMILY. IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE WORLD MUST BE ORDERED, AND THAT AT THE CENTER OF THE STRUCTURES ARE PARENTS AND CHILDREN. HUSBANDS, WIVES, AND CHILDREN ARE ASSIGNED ROLES.
WIVES AND CHILDREN IN PARTICULAR ARE ACCORDED PROTECTION FROM FAITHLESS FATHERS AND HUSBANDS (THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE OF THE PROHIBITION OF DIVORCE IN MARK 10). GENDER ROLES ARE ORDERED TO FOSTER THE RAISING OF CHILDREN - A MATTER IN WHICH SOCIETY HAS EVERYTHING AT STAKE. AND THEY ARE DISCUSSED IN A WAY THAT SEEKS TO MAKE ORDERED LIFE POSSIBLE.

Argument five: epistemological We hear contemporary society has an understanding of homosexual orientation that the original biblical authors did not have. Are there sources for this “new understanding” in addition to the self-reporting of homosexual experience? It appears to me that you are setting up experience in this sense as a sort of theological trump card which trumps the Bible, the moral tradition of the church and even appeal to the natural and social sciences. This looks to me like a contemporary form of Gnosticism, a claim by an elite to a privileged form of knowledge not available to the uninitiated. Do I misunderstand your reliance on experience?

Many kinds of experience with regard to homosexuality are reported including the experience of those, including priests of this church, who have experienced the healing of homosexuality. On what basis do we decide how much authority to give to self reported experience? Such “testimony” has never been thought a basis for overturning the moral tradition of the church before in Anglicanism. Why do you think it should be given such an authoritative role now? Why do you privilege Gay “experience” over ex-Gay experience”?
Argument six: theological. Is this not leading us into a different religion? Is this not a form of Gnosticism? Revisionists say “the Holy Spirit is teaching the church a new thing.” Again this sounds like a contemporary form of Gnosticism, like the claim of Joseph Smith or Rev Moon that the church has misunderstood its scriptures until now and that a new key has been given (in this case contemporary Gay theory) which unlocks the hitherto hidden meaning of scriptures which is unavailable to the ordinary reader. How do the principles of interpretation you propose avoid becoming the latest false religion?

In practical terms, it means that discussions within the church cannot begin with particular instances and individual experience. That may work in law courts, where lawyers and judges presumably know the law and seek to understand a particular case within that framework. Within the church, ‘the law' (understood in scriptural and traditional terms as the structures by which God preserves the created order from destruction and orders human life) is what is least clear. We would do a great service to the church by providing an example of how to think about individual behavior within the realm of the law. We may expect difficulty here in a society that is committed to individual rights and often seems powerless to think productively and creatively about the well-being of the neighbor.
This denomination needs to come up with satisfactory answers to all the above six questions before changing any policy. Emotional appeals to love, tolerance and inclusivity coupled with weak theological arguments do not approach what is necessary."