Here is one letter:
October 23, 2007
Dear Dr. Keenan,
Thank you for your letter, and the concerns you raise. Let me recommend that, as a veterinarian, you might wish to begin with Bruce Bagemihl’s exhaustive study Biological Exuberance. I cannot respond in detail to studies which are not cited.
Science is not the only basis by which many people in this church are coming to the conclusion that homosexual orientation is a given (a matter of creation) and that it may be possible to bless it as a reflection of God’s image in creation. Many, many faithful people (of both homosexual and heterosexual orientation) have the direct experience of seeing the fruits of the faithful, committed, monogamous, life-long and life-giving relationships of persons of the same sex. That mode is in fact the way in which many if not most Christians experience the reality of God at work in their lives – they see Christ-like lives in those around them.
You claim that those who come to such conclusions are taking an unbiblical stance. Many said the same of those who advocated for a more generous pastoral response to those whose marriages had ended in divorce. Even though Jesus had very direct words on the subject, the church as a whole changed its teaching and pastoral practice in regard to remarriage following divorce. The change had more to do with personal experience, and a broader understanding of the whole of the biblical tradition, than it did with one or two verses of the Bible. When we have, within the tradition, clear summaries of the teaching of that tradition as “love God and love your neighbor as yourself,” many would find it possible to take a broader reading than what appears to be the plain sense of one or two verses.
May your ministry be a blessing. I remain
Your servant in Christ,
Katharine Jefferts Schori
Her claim that science confirms homosexuality as natural is based on what evidence ?
Without even getting into the relative merits of either author, this is as about a clear an example of two people talking past each other as I have ever seen. Both seem to be going out of their way to deliver slighting comments to the other without directly addressing the “points” in each others’ argument.
BIG SIGH!
Ms Schori said,
“Science is not the only basis by which many people in this church are coming to the conclusion that homosexual orientation is a given (a matter of creation)…”
Apparently Ms Schori doesn’t know that within “creation” there is ‘brokeness’ or ‘original sin.’
“Science is not the only basis” for TEC’s support of same-sex behavior, Schori says. But in fact this exchange makes clear that, for her, where adequate scientific support cannot be found (and it can’t), then experience trumps science.
I agree that this was a barbed exchange on both sides. However, if one is changing 2,000+ years of traditional moral teaching, more evidence than feelings based on anecdotal experiences is called for.
Schori is replacing God with Nature in her theology. This begs the question of whether Nature IS God, so that this substitution is insubstantial. But as 3 points out, such a theology ignores any Fall, or implications of original sin. Schori ought to scientifically look at whether her theology also encompasses the concept that her Man has made her Nature-God in Man’s image.
[blockquote]Many, many faithful people (of both homosexual and heterosexual orientation) have the direct experience of seeing the fruits of the faithful, committed, monogamous, life-long and life-giving relationships of persons of the same sex.[/blockquote]
In prison, I have seen the fruits of the Holy Spirit among murderers, rapists, and child molesters. That does not mean that the sins these men committed are “a reflection of God’s image in creation.”
What we have in Bishop Shori’s letter (and among many reappraisers) is a form of Donatism. I call it “Reverse Donatism.” Donatism states that only the sinless can be effective ministers of God’s gifts – particularly in the priesthood. Reverse Donatism has a logic that is similar. RD reasons that, since we can see evidence of God’s grace and gifts among people who do or believe “X”, doing or believing “X” must not be sinful.
Using the experience of people whose minds and reasoning are twisted by sin to determine the will of God and what actions He blesses is like asking a 5 year old what fiscal and monetary policies would have the best long term effects for the economy.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
It appears some readers are missing the value of this letter. It reveals one of the most valuable and winning strategies employed by Mrs. Schori and the like. Step 1. Get the church to approve one unbiblical compormise: inconsequential divorce. Step 2. Promote the compromise as “God doing a new thing.” Step 3: Flood the organization with divorce. Step 4. Demand another compromise: homosexual agenda. Step 5. When people object, bury them under the weight of their former compromises.
In Mrs. Schori’s mind, if people do not object to the obvious fact that divorce (or abortion, or women’s ordination, etc) is unbiblical, untraditional, and unreasonable then they have no basis for objecting to homosexualism. The irony is that she may have Scripture on her side – Romans 2:1. IOW, whenever a polyamourous priest, a congregation with a female priest, or a doctor who performs abortions in his clinic condemns Schori for being unbiblical that accusing person also condemns himself. Dr. Schori knows this and uses it to her advantage.
What are we going to do in order to deny her this winning argument?
[i] Many said the same of those who advocated for a more generous pastoral response to those whose marriages had ended in divorce. Even though Jesus had very direct words on the subject, the church as a whole changed its teaching and pastoral practice in regard to remarriage following divorce. [/i]
Once again, the Most Reverend is conflating the Episcopal Church with “the Church.” For the record, the largest Christian body on the planet *has not* changed its teaching in regard to divorce and remarriage. Jesus’ prohibition of divorce is still very much in effect.
Science is not the basis for Truth. Schori and TEC are not the basis for Truth. Experience is not the basis for Truth. Oh, Truth, why is it so impossible to take hold of you?
The Church’s discipline in the matter of divorce and remarriage is sufficiently ambiguous for lay persons (though not clergy) to allow for various pastoral responses. However, on the matter of sodomy, the Church’s doctrine and discipline are unambiguous.
No. 7 the only thing you can do is join a church that advocates for the sanctity of life, does not ordain women, and at least makes one go through a process (needs to be more rigorous) to be remarried in the church.
It’s TOO LATE for TEC it seems to me. And it breaks my heart.
There has always been plenty of evidence that homosexual behavior is circumstantial. Some may indeed have a genetic basis, but we know that we do not know in this case. Homosexual behavior is common enough in prisons, and it used to be common in the navy. Some cultures have made it a continuing practice – as in Afghanistan – we are all familiar with it in Socrates’ Greece, and there is now evidence that boys raised by homosexuals are more likely to engage in homosexual acts. In short, there is plenty of evidence that homosexual behavior can be learned.
But the issue is not homosexuality itself, whether learned or genetic. It is the sexual acts that follow. The pairing of men (or women) not only violates biblical standards, it is at patent odds with evolutionary standards. Both agree on this, that fertility is fundamental, quintessential, normative. Homosexual acts are deviant therefore in every sense. For a Christian church to align itself with such deviance is to violate natural and divine law. Schori’s response above is therefore merely the advocacy of an agenda, and it is quite disconnected from the real world. LM
Let us accept, temporarily and for sake of discussion, that there is indeed a [i]biological[/i] predisposition towards homosexuality in some people. Yeah? So what?
There is an indisputable biological orientation towards promiscuity in the males of a great many species, our own included. Should that let us off our marital vows of faithfulness? Should regular ‘stepping out’ on our wives be promoted as just another example of ‘God’s good gift of sexuality’ or some other such piffle?
Should routinely promiscuous men be ordained and elevated to other positions of leadership, because it’s all biological, you know, they can’t help it and we have to love them. Besides it’s really not a sin anyway.
Sorry. [b]No free pass on biological predeterminism.[/b] The entire focus of our Christian journey is that we are called, repeatedly, to overcome our base animalistic orientations — greed, gluttony, deception, promiscuity, violence, and so on — to become more Christ-like in our lives.
This can be accomplished only by the transforming power of Christ, acting through the Holy Spirit, and to say “I can’t change” or “I don’t need to change” is really to blaspheme the Holy Spirit by denying his power. “Go and sin no more.”
The difference between a repentant heart and a rebellious one is in the response to our sin. The repentant heart grieves sin and actively seeks Christ’s transformative power. The rebellious heart denies its own sinfulness, and denies the need for change.
ECUSA, institutionally, has a profoundly rebellious heart, in plain view of the world. Os Guiness called it “the most corrupt church in America.” God said:
[blockquote][i]My people would not listen to me, …would not submit to me, so I gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices.”[/i] Ps 81:11-12[/blockquote]
When you have an entire church, from the top on down, calling “evil good and good evil,” and telling postmodernists “what their itching ears want to hear” it’s well past time to shake the dust off our sandals and leave them both to their own devices and their own ultimate fate.
Thre is one very glaring omission both on this thread and in the author’s response to the PB’s letter i.e. absolutely no mention of the specific scientific work that the PB cites for her science: “Biological Exuberance”.
As a seminarian at a very conservative (non-Anglican) Evangelical Seminary I can tell you for a fact that the moral and pastoral comparison between same sex attraction and divorce, treatment of women in the bible (Jesus made it better but most of the tone, tenor and actual versus view women in a way that even the most conservative here no longer do) and slavery are all treated together in moral theology. The homosexual argument really stands or falls depending on your corresponding views on divorce, remarriage, women and slavery. Evangelical Protestants know this and teach it and most of them are squirming. In places where one might think of this issue as being certainly settled and as being utterly over and against same sex relationships…you would be wrong.
#6 I strongly disagree with your comparison. I suspect if we asked a 5 year old for advice on fiscal policy we would be surprised and humbled by the child’s commitment to spending in two areas: giving to the church/charity, and entertainment. Everything else he/she needs is provided for. It’s us, the adults, who are missing this kind of Christian attitude/approach today.
#13 … it should not be a question of debating the quality (or weakness) or assorted scientific works examining biological determinism of homosexuality –and I say that as one with multiple degrees in the sciences– or of whether homosexual orientation is or is not biologically, psychologically, or culturally determined.
Once you agree to debate the science regarding biological determinism you have accepted the initial premise that such determinism is the key factor militating for acceptance of the behavior. If good science demonstrates determinism you have lost the debate. Full Stop.
It, however, matters not one whit whether homosexuality is or is not biologically determined. Many other sins are biologically determined to greater or lesser degrees. [b]The point of Christ and the Holy Spirit is that through them we can overcome such things.[/b]
People will either accept that premise, or they reject it, and it is on that basis (nearly alone) that we can define the essence of Christian faith. A belief system that claims Christ for lifting the guilt of sin without also turning to him to remove the [i]power[/i] of sin may feel all warm and lovey, but it is not Christian, other than in name.
This really strikes at the heart of what’s wrong with Christian acceptance of homosexual activity as good: it’s the importation of (philosophical) Naturalism into Christian moral philosophy. If we accept the “natural” as being morally good by virtue of its being natural, we’re indulging in what I call “functional solipsism,” since the only moral authority we accept is ourselves. The implications of that are far more broad than the question of sexual morality.
Will someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?
There is something of the ‘Adam and Eve’ in this response…if we taste of the fruit we will have knowledge and be like gods…
“Science. Science! … We don’t need no stinkin’ science.” – dynamic translation of Schori statement (with apologies to Mel Brooks and his sources for Blazing Saddles).
DW…
the source is Treasure of the Sierra Madre…”Badges?”
“Badges? We don’t got to show no stinkin’ badges!”…
#13, I have read “Biological Exuberance”.
It is an interesting (in a boring, biology textbook way) exploration of all sorts of sexual systems found in the animal kingdom, from honeybees to baboons and everything in between. Although I’m not sure what PB Schori managed to glean from it.
We do know that in a great many cases animals do some horrific things — eating their young, killing their parents, rolling in feces etc etc etc — and we know that these things are NOT “sinful”.
So what does this book tell us about human sexuality? Not a single thing, apparently. Anyone who would argue that this book presents evidence that aligns itself to the claim that “homosex is not sinful” would also have to then admit that “cannibalism is not sinful” or “killing your neighbors children is not sinful”.
Thanks be to God we humans are ruled by more than our ravenous animal nature….
#19 … yes, we [i]do[/i] need science. If God is Truth, ultimate Truth, and science is the search for Truth, then good science and good theology will reinforce each other, not contradict.
Whether it is the generally remarkable concordance of the Genesis account of Creation with what we now understand scientifically –my first two degrees are in geology– or the whole question of biology determining animalistic behaviours, it all make sense.
What Schori and the others are attempting to do is to say that Science trumps Scripture. Only if your science is bad or your exegesis is bad. In God’s economy, they [i]agree[/i] for Christ’s sake, which is what it’s all about.
A few years back the Provost of UCLA lamented that “When I need an atheist for a debate I have to go to the Department of Philosophy. Physics is now a lost cause.” Many of us in the sciences do Romans 1:20 on steroids. The Universe and Life and the study thereof point us to God. We have no excuse.
Ms. Schori, a credible oceanographer and specialist in cephalopods, has, on the other hand, spent way too much time with her octopus friends. They change colour to suit their situation. They can squiggle through the smallest crack, because they have no spine. They hide in clouds of purple ink. And if you get caught in their tentacles they’ll try to eat you alive.
23 – Bart,
Science is not the search for Truth, it is the search for What, When, and How. Science answers What and When rather well. How is usually a theory, but the search for Truth concerns the questions of Who and Why. Science cannot answer these questions.
Of course, neither science nor law are on Shori’s side. This reminds me of the old litigators adage: “When the law is on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When neither the law nor the facts are on your side, pound the table.”
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Thanks, Phil.
Scientific truth is the activity of framing and testing hypotheses.
Scientifically it is imnpossible to test the hypothesis of life after death. You kill someone. Does the person still exist? If so, where? An hypothesis which is untestable does not belong to the realm of science. We know of One Who returned from the dead. I listen to Him.
Scientifically it is impossible to test the hypothesis that God exists. Can one summon God to appear on the dissecting table? Since this hypothesis is untestable it also does not belong to science.
When it comes to the hypothesis that we are created, science may indeed have a role to play. But it is not the role of evolution. The numbers are against the hypothesis of creation by random combination of molecules. Entropy intervenes; closed systems always tend toward disorder; the arguments adduced to explain how the diffuse amorphous plasma resulting from the hypothetical big bang condensed into galaxies, stars and planets, flatly contradicts all of the laws of thermodynamics. What caused particles which were moving away from each other to turn around and move towards one another? Really, folks. What put the brakes on?
The spontaneous generation of life is the biggest waste of time since the days of counting angels dancing on the head of a pin.
Life did not spontaneously come into existence because of the tendency of systems to become more disorganized over time.
And the Most Reverend Doctor Schori would be making her living studying cephalopods if she were really good at it.
Marty, when I read about “Biological Exuberance” the score of “Dueling Banjos” comes to mind.
My, Nature suggests all *sorts* of interesting things to me. Many times a day. Most of the 2000 years of Christianity would suggest that a fair number of those things will not do me or those around me any good. However, the Episcopalians will honor just about any of them with a celebratory rite. The PB explains it all for you. It’s SCIENCE, OK?
I certainly hope that of lot of you out there, both liberal and conservative, but especially the liberal element, follow these links and read the article that Dr. Keenan wrote. It is available here:
http://anglicancommunioninstitute.com/content/view/108/1/
and it points out what I have known for 20 years, that the whole promotion and acceptance of the gay lifestyle is based on a lie.
May God have mercy on us.
In common with most men (I suspect), I have a natural biological predisposition to cheating on my wife if the opportunity presents itself.
However, I don’t do it because God has some very direct words that it’s wrong.
Then again, PB Schori says I shouldn’t be governing my behavior on “one or two verses” in the Bible. Maybe I need to re-examine the situation in the light of the modern revelation of TEC that I just have to “love my neighbor as myself,” and determine whether I should be more affirming and inclusive in my relationships with my “neighbors.”
And certainly there’s nothing wrong with expecting my wife to be more Christ-like and accepting of this, is there? Certainly she should know I’m experiencing the reality of God in my life and thus it’s okay so long as I’m in an authentic loving relationship with other persons? Isn’t my personal experience sufficient?
Jim, I affirm ya, bro. We gotta act our way into new ways of thinking, like bro Spong says.
The key problem with what KJS has written is that demonstrates her Fall-less theology. KJS makes it clear that her meta-narrative is that of:
1) Creation as Good
2) Rise of Oppressors
3) Jesus came to show us how to live our “authentic lives” and died doing so, thereby demonstrating to us his integrity
4) Oppressors continue
5) Church is supposed to suppress the oppressors and affirm everybody’s innate goodness
Thus, if it can be shown that something is “authentic” or “natural” therefore it must be something that the Church should affirm. (Now I realize that liberals here are very inconsistent and hypocritical, but that doesn’t stop them).
This is in direct contradiction to the Christian meta-narrative of:
1) Creation as good
2) Fall of humanity and creation into sin
3) Jesus Christ comes and dies to redeem us from our sin
4) Holy Spirit comes to help us live transformed lives.
5) Church is supposed to assist us in living transformed lives and to call us out of sin.
Thus it really doesn’t matter if something is shown to be “authentic” or “natural”, because creation suffers from the effects of the Fall. The quest is to transform what we find to be the thing that God intended it to be – and our only source for knowing that is God’s word to us.
I have to agree with #12, “Bart Hall (Kansas, USA),” that whether homosexuality is genetic or environmental or some of both is not really the point; the question is whether it is sinful or not. (I think “not,” which I imagine is where I part ways with Mr. Hall; but I agree with him about the place of biological determinism.)
But I must disagree with #11, Larry Morse, when he says:
The argument against homosexuality on the grounds of “fertility” is also, and with equal validity, an argument against celibacy — few lifestyles are less fertile in purely biological terms. And yet, the church has consistently held celibacy to be a perfectly acceptable and Godly alternative to marriage and children (in some times and places, the church has held it to be superior) so long as not everybody does it. And, in practice, voluntary celibacy has rarely been so widespread as to pose any plausible threat to the viability of the next generation.
So one cannot argue that the church must forbid homosexuality on the basis of “fertility,” unless you’re prepared to overturn the church’s position on celibacy as well. (This doesn’t mean that you can’t argue that the church must forbig homosexuality on other grounds; I’m just saying that the fertility argument is a non-starter.) People inclined to homosexuality (whether by nature or nurture) are not a sufficient portion of the population to significantly affect the birth rate.
No, Ross – fertility is the point of sex and marriage in the Kingdom – even Episcopalians should know that, as it’s in the prayer book, so they can’t miss it even if they don’t read the Bible. You are thinking of fertility in pagan terms, not Kingdom terms. Celibacy is not the opposite of fertility – it simply has it’s own Kingdome ends.
For a wonderful essay on the meaning of marriage and sex in the Kingdom, read Bill Gnade.
http://contratimes.blogspot.com/2006/07/theses-on-door-episcopal-church-of_11.html
In fact, read all the parts of the essay.
The science is clear – we are multi-sexual creatures by nature, a nature that is both wonderfully created and hideously fallen. In the Kingdom, we give ourselves up to the Lord to have the fallen partts remade.
Unless your do not worship science or God, but culture and self.
As they do in Schori’s Episcopalianism.
#32. As you may suppose, I do not favor celibacy as a religious practice although there are some for whom the practice is not harmful. The celibate have not violated neither natural law nor Christian law. They could marry and have children if they chose in the normal course of even ts. And I use normal here literally. Sodomy is different in an essential way, for it is the contradiction of fertility. Of course, it will not effect the birth rate in any significant way under present conditions. Rather, it effects something more fundamental: It is anti-life in a most literal sense, and this distinguishes it from celibacy. It is, in short, sterility, the polar opposite of fertility. In our inmost being, we are repelled by sterility; we revolt against it, as all life must. Larry