The Scriptural argument against same-sex marriage is based on seven references in the Old and New Testaments that condemn homosexual activity. Each one of those passages, however, condemns exploitative sexual activity that is the antithesis of loving, committed relationships. The Bible is silent on the subject of same-gender monogamous relationships.
In contrast, the Bible has strong teachings against divorce. Jesus himself is quite clear on the subject. Yet over the ages, most Christian churches have come to recognize that God forgives the human sin and frailty that precipitate divorce. We now take a more compassionate approach to this issue than our biblical forebears would have condoned. If the teaching on divorce can change in the light of further theological reflection, I believe that the teaching on same-sex relationships can change as well.
However you interpret the seven texts used to argue against marriage equality, they pale in comparison to the over-arching biblical imperatives to love one another, work for justice, and recognize that each of us is created in the image and likeness of God….
Seems fairly standard fare for a liberal Episcopal Bishop. In a nutshell the Bible is wrong, trumped by our experience, which is like scripture, and in any event, the part of scripture that we like is about love and inclusion. Thus if two homosexuals love each other and want to get married who is in a position to deny that.
[blockquote] Each one of those passages, however, condemns exploitative sexual activity that is the antithesis of loving, committed relationships. The Bible is silent on the subject of same-gender monogamous relationships. [/blockquote]
Fascinating. I must be using an older edition of the Bible and commentaries on it; I’ll have to hurry out and buy the newer, improved ones. I wish God would stop changing, but I’m glad the bishop is annoucing the effort He’s making trying to keep up with our culture.
1. The notion that the clear message of God about homosexual practice, revealed in Holy Scripture, only refers to “exploitative sexual activity” is a false and absurd teaching. Perhaps this new bishop might undertake a close reading of the passages in Hebrew and Greek. Perhaps she could cite a single positive example of homosexual practice anywhere in Scripture. That is, if she ever studied those languages, or bothers to read the Bible.
2. The Bible is not “silent on the subject of same-gender monogamous relations.” One excellent example is the loving friendship of David and Jonathan. There’s no evidence at all, in Scripture or the early history of interpretation, that their relationship was ever sexual.
3. Introducing the topic of divorce is irrelevant in the context of same-sex marriage. Merely a distractor.
4. Perhaps our understanding of homosexual practice could change. The traditional way to do that is to convene a world-wide general council of Christianity, argue the pros and cons, and have the Patriarchs make a doctrinal proclamation. Bp. Budde is hardly a patriarch.
5. The rhetoric about “imperatives to love one another, work for justice, and recognize that each of us is created in the image and likeness of God” is irrelevant to God’s teaching about homosexual practice, and homosexual marriage. Another distractor.
6. She writes, “If God is at work in the world, then our experience is a kind of scripture, and we must pay careful attention to what it is teaching us.” She seems to forget (or not realize) that the devil, an expert at distraction and deception, is also at work in the world.
1. What this DC bishop is putting out is the TEC line. It is not the position of the Church of England or the Anglican Communion.
2. If this is the sort of thing you like and agree with, then TEC is the denomination for you. If not, there are hundreds of alternatives to consider in the American religious marketplace.
I am delighted that this TEC bishop has “come out,” as it were. Perhaps *this* will wake up a few of the ostriches left in TEC pews, who are misguidedly assuring themselves that “it can’t happen here”, whether in regard to TEC’s twisted revision of Biblical teaching, theology, or its relativistic morality.
I guess my question is – when is Washington National Cathedral going to get involved in the new rites?
One of the wonderful mysteries of TEC is that it can talk about, and take action on, things like this when it has written doctrine to the contrary.
For example, the TEC Doctrine of Marriage as found in the BCP:
1. (p. 349). Marriage. Because in the love of wife and husband, thou hast given us an image of the heavenly Jerusalem, adorned as a bride for her bridegroom, thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord; who loveth her and gave himself for her, that he might make the whole creation new. [One might argue that the terms “wife” and “husband” are not specific to one sex or the other. However, the use of masculine and feminine pronouns makes that a difficult argument.]
2. (p. 422). Christian marriage is a solemn and public covenant between a man and a woman in the presence of God.
3. (p. 423). We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony…The union of husband and wife in heart, body, and mind is intended by God for their mutual joy…
4. (p. 430). By the power of your Holy Spirit, pour out the abundance of your blessing upon this man and this woman.
5. (p. 435). The intention of the man and the woman to enter the state of matrimony, and their free consent, is publicly ascertained…The vows of the man and woman are exchanged…
6. (p. 861, the Catechism). Holy Matrimony is Christian marriage, in which the woman and man enter into a life-long union, make their vows before God and the Church, and receive the grace and blessing of God to help them fulfill their vows.
I don’t know how the BCP could be any clearer. As for homosexual practice, TEC has no written doctrine whatsoever stating that homosexual practice isn’t sinful.
I also don’t know how I could be part of the diocese of DC. There are those in the Anglican Communion who would not recognize that Bp. Budde is even in Holy Orders. Her ordination to the episcopacy was a liturgical fiasco (with the new bishop dancing a salsa at the altar), and she seems unaware of or unconcerned about the doctrine of the Church.
I thank God that there are still TEC dioceses with faithful bishops.
Ralph–Re: your final paragraph–To quote a line from “The Longest Day” : The problem with being one of the few is how we keep getting fewer.
Ralph,
Item 2 in your comment #3 points to one of the many things at stake in this struggle: if the Gay Agenda were ever allowed to succeed, non-sexual intimacy between men would become [i]literally[/i] unthinkable. That is, as examples of such intimacy (David and Jonathan, Jesus and John, John Henry Newman and Ambrose St. John, even Sam and Frodo, for crying out loud) were over time ‘corrected” with newthought re-interpretations, the very category of such relationships would be purged from human thought. That is chilling.
The Divorce point is, to my mind, an interesting one. It does seem that , for whatever reason, the Biblical teachings on divorce are not “worried over” as much as the ones on homosexuality. In the parishes I have been a part of, I have never heard a peep about correcting divorce issues within the church. What would happen if we approached divorced Christians they way we (orthodox/traditionalist/conservative/etc.) believe partnered, non-monogamous homosexual Christians should be approached? My guess is it would go over like a lead balloon. It is, perhaps, one of several elephants in our living room.
Her argument is that because the church is failing to follow the Lord’s word on divorce, it should give up following the clear word of Scripture on homosexual practice as well. It’s a failing argument.
And of course it’s based on a lot more than the seven references, but we’ve been through all that.
JBallard, what are you referring to? Divorce is taken seriously.
#11, You nailed it. Her reasoning is that two wrongs make a right. It seems a copout and an attempt to co-opt heterosexuals and try and make it our fault. Typical argument when you have nothing to stand on and no moral authority either. This woman is a false prohetess who is a pretender to the office she holds and as I have described others, a spokesman for the father of lies and evil.
[blockquote] “Forty-four percent of Marylanders oppose same-sex marriage , and three quarters of them say they do so for religious reasons.
Fifty percent of the state’s voters support same-sex marriage, but only 5 percent of them say that religion informs that stance.” [/blockquote]
So it seems the non-Christian world understands the point very well: true religion is not consistent with support for same-sex marriage. If even the pagans understand this, you would think Ms Budde could also…
Mrs. Budde:
“Many of us in the Episcopal Church, which I serve as a bishop, know same-sex couples whose relationships can only be described as holy, and thus we have come to support the blessing of such unions.”
Washington Post:
“DC Council approves bill allowing gay couples to get divorced without living in district”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-council-approves-bill-allowing-gay-couples-to-get-divorced-without-living-in-district/2012/02/07/gIQAp6vIxQ_story.html
MichaelA,
I didn’t say divorce isn’t taken seriously. I think it probably is taken seriously in some sense (“I am so sorry this happened to you… How can I help?).
I guess what I am talking about is that I know many priests and bishops who would not and could not bless or perform a same-sex marriage because of what they believe is the clear teaching of Scripture. However, I have yet to meet the priest or bishop who would refuse to remarry a divorced person because of the clear teaching of Scripture (I’m thinking of Matthew 5:31-32, Mark 10:1-12 among others). I have seen Orthodox Episcopalians leave in droves over the prospect of same-sex ordinations, unions, etc., but I have never heard of a group of the Orthodox leaving because of the churches teaching about divorce not lining up with the Scriptures. And refusing commmunion to divorced Christians… forget about it.
I am not, by the way, suggesting these things should be done. I simply note that it is an interesting question, and potentially a valid point. Why do we (Orthodox Anglicans) want to stand by the “clear” teaching of Scripture in some places, and not in others? What do we mean by the “clear teaching of Scripture”? Who decides? If the divorce teachings of the New Testament can be interpreted culturally, or overlooked, or reworked in some manner as to allow for regular divorce and remarriage in the church, then why not with homosexuality as well? I certainly do not agree with Budde or any other revisionist on these issues, but it is a fair question.
JBallard,
I note what you claim to have personally observed, and since I am not you, I can’t comment on it and nor can anyone else. My own experience in Diocese of Sydney is that both divorce and homosexuality are dealt with according to Scripture.
Scripture permits remarriage of divorced persons in certain circumstances. If you think that the church or some of its functionaries are going beyond what is permitted, then you should be taking it up with the relevant authorities.
This is a different situation: TEC as a church, is officially promoting doctrine contrary to scripture, which is apostasy. It has forfeited its authority as a church, and its claim to the allegiance of Christians.
[blockquote] “What do we mean by the “clear teaching of Scriptureâ€? Who decides?” [/blockquote]
That is something “we orthodox” understand. Its very simple really. Like understanding what the morning papers say, or a passage from Charles Dickens.
MichaelA, the incidence of acceptance of “no-fault” divorce is very high in TEC. Since the ACNA is a new experience we don’t know yet how that will go. I believe, as a beginning, that the policy is that no divorced and remarried men will be made bishops, unlike TEC.
Just as Bp. Budde uses divorce to deflect attention away from the issue of homosexual practice, note how a discussion of divorce does the same thing here.
Scripture has multiple teachings about divorce.
Scripture has only one teaching about homosexual practice: don’t do it.
#19, my understanding is that we’re supposed to lean most heavily on the words of Jesus when reading Scripture.
So:
In Luke 16:18
Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.
Mark 10:9-12:
9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” 10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
That’s about as direct as you can get. Jesus plainly says that a remarried person such as myself is committing adultery. I’m actively sinning, and yet I am given communion and could serve on the vestry. I’m openly living in a way contrary to Jesus’ teachings. Where’s my condemnation? Why is my presence in church not causing people to whisper behind my back or try to send me to a retreat to learn how to not be remarried?
I’ve never heard a good explanation about why homosexuality is such a big, communion-rendering problem for the church when it’s the only sin that most of us know we won’t be committing.
[blockquote] “#19, my understanding is that we’re supposed to lean most heavily on the words of Jesus when reading Scripture.” [/blockquote]
Your premise is incorrect. Jesus gave his Apostles authority to speak in His name and establish the church. Thus, no part of the Bible should be “leaned on” more heavily than any other.
[blockquote] “That’s about as direct as you can get. Jesus plainly says that a remarried person such as myself is committing adultery.”
[/blockquote]
No he doesn’t. Persons whose unbelieving spouse left them despite all attempts to get them to stay (1 Cor 7:15), or who divorced because of their spouse’s sexual immorality (Matt 5:32, Matt 19:9) do not commit adultery if they remarry.
[blockquote] ” I’m actively sinning, and yet I am given communion and could serve on the vestry. I’m openly living in a way contrary to Jesus’ teachings. Where’s my condemnation?” [/blockquote]
You appear to be more interested in extracting the mote from the eye of others, rather than looking at yourself. What I mean is this: If you believe you are actively sinning, then why are you *taking* communion? And if you are openly living in a way contrary to Jesus’teachings, why are you concerned with the condemnation of others, rather than with how your own heart stands before God?
Either you don’t really think you are sinning at all (in which case why dissemble?), or you don’t take any command in Scripture seriously anyway. In either case, this is yet another example of the issue of divorce being used as a distraction from the issue of homosexuality, rather than as a serious argument.