Like many people, I have had to pray and work my way through to be able to be a pastor accessible to gay and lesbian Christians. I have counseled in relationships, buried church members and their friends, been present during long illnesses with families and friends. And I have learned Christ in them, and cannot deny Christ’s full blessing upon them. Please don’t make us choose which “us” we must be in communion with.
Finally, as far as the reference in Part One Observations regarding creedal errors, under the section on “Turmoil in the Episcopal Church”, I want to state as a bishop in the Episcopal Church in the USA that I firmly believe in the Virgin Birth, the physical resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, that He is my Savior and that I am saved only by the Grace of God as shown through the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ who forgives my sins, and that I believe Jesus to be the Way, the Truth and the Life. Thank you for your attention and this opportunity.
Read it all. Once again, it needs to be stated in the strongest possible terms that ministering among gay and lesbian people, and enabling the church to be accessible to such people, which is a good thing, is NOT the issue. Rowan Williams hit the nail on the head when he said:
Unless you think that social and legal considerations should be allowed to resolve religious disputes ”“ which is a highly risky assumption if you also believe in real freedom of opinion in a diverse society ”“ there has to be a recognition that religious bodies have to deal with the question in their own terms. Arguments have to be drawn up on the common basis of Bible and historic teaching. And, to make clear something that can get very much obscured in the rhetoric about ”˜inclusion’, this is not and should never be a question about the contribution of gay and lesbian people as such to the Church of God and its ministry, about the dignity and value of gay and lesbian people. Instead it is a question, agonisingly difficult for many, as to what kinds of behaviour a Church that seeks to be loyal to the Bible can bless, and what kinds of behaviour it must warn against ”“ and so it is a question about how we make decisions corporately with other Christians, looking together for the mind of Christ as we share the study of the Scriptures.
The question to Bishop Scarfe is by making the church accessible do you mean publically affirming in leadership behavior which Christians have always considered out of bounds? Which the Anglican Communion has said is not something which the Bible permits? Which the Church East and West has not understood the Scriptures to allow but calls them to forbid? Which even the Episcopal Church has never officially endorsed? In other words for too many Episcopal Church leaders inclusion, alas, has become a code word for inclusion of public immorality in Christian leadership which the Episcopal Church unilaterally and incoherently is making part of the common witness of Anglicans throughout the world, overturning the doctrine of marriage in the process. If that is what is meant then the theological argument has not been made for it, and the global church has not been convinced but has consistently rejected it–KSH.
The Susan Russells and the Iowan bishops of the world want to conflate ministering to homosexuals on the one hand and fostering and sanction their behavior on the other. If they can do that, then the denial of the latter becomes as well the refusal to undertake the former. This is now a commonplace gambit of all liberals on all fronts.
This has been a successful gambit, but it also becoming transparently clear that it is NOTHING more than a gambit. The queens take all the pieces and checkmate the King. Larry
I think a main misunderstanding is the fact of a separation of a person from their actions. I am surprised by the level of vehement denial of a separation of sinner and sin by the pro get-what-I-want crowd. (liberal is not the right term).
My actions may be a reflection of my being, but my actions are not my being. Is this really the Devil’s great 20th century achievement? The erasure of the line between spirit and body. Or is it the denial of an “other” heaven and replacing it with the notion that heaven my be self (worldly) created? Tricksy, tricksy.
“my be” should read “must be”
#1 Larry Morse:
Please provide links for me to learn more about reasserting churches that provide specific ministries, spiritual support groups, etc. for homosexual church members struggling to be faithful to orthodoxy. I am familiar with para-church ministries but I want to see all these examples of the supposed welcoming but not affirming ministries IN reasserter churches. Do this and demonstrate, through facts, that such ministry does and is occuring in a uniform way and you will have demonstrated the truth of your comment.
#4,
Not to be picky (and I would be interested to know the answer to your question also), but aren’t such ministries more the realm of the parachurch? I’m sure that many parishes contain people who have problems with alcohol, but does that mean every parish should have its own Al-Anon group? Of course, we’re all called to support those in our parish family who participate in such ministry, but we’re not all called to lead it (otherwise I wouldn’t be having any problem filling the volunteer slots for the outreach ministries that I – very imperfectly – coordinate).
Good points Archangelica and Jeremy (##4 & 5),
I would think posters of these parachurch groups displayed prominently enough on parish bulletin boards as well as links to these groups on parish websites would be a significant ministry in its own right. Even further might be hosting meetings, even national or international meetings if possible at a parish or under the auspices of a diocese. This alone would be enough to say that the reappraisers are not the only ones ministering to GLBT brothers and sisters.
Reasserters IMHO have a lot of work to do in this area. Watching the recent BBC documentary on Abp Akinola, I was impressed with him in many ways, but the clear (if unintended) message was that those struggling with same-sex attraction will be given a brusque and un-helpful “get over it” — assuming they would feel in the least encouraged to broach the subject with him in the first place.
This again points to the specious Church Times editorial with the misapplication of the wheat and tares parable. The Church, for the most part, should not attempt to separate the wheat and tares [i]in the laity[/i]. There shouldn’t be a sign on the door excluding certain sinners. Matt Kennedy+ has talked about the very few times that he felt compelled to withhold the Eucharist from parishioners. That is how it should be. But our good Lord (as well as Peter and Paul) were clear that there would be false teachers and that we do our best to exclude them from leadership positions in Church.
As far as blessing same sex “marriages.” I think that Bp Andrew Proud of Addis Adaba, recently named to the Reflections panel, put it best:
[blockquote]There is rather more at stake here than the issue of sexual politics. If the Church adopts such a radically politicised reading of the Scriptures, it will be in danger of losing its moorings entirely and all credibility in the global South. One also has to wonder to what extent, if any, such a Church would be regarded, here in Ethiopia, as part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ.[/blockquote]
the link to Rowan’s sermon is here: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/640
We have no distinct programs in our parish for dealing with distinct sins, nor posters pointing to related parachurch ministries. None for adultery, none for stealing, none for homosexual behavior, none for lying or slandering, none for disrespect, none for fornication, none for murder. I think you get the drift. Moreover, where there are parachurch ministries, such as for substance abuse (AA), it is hard to find a placard or poster advertising them. Now maybe there should be such ministries and maybe there should be such posters for one specific case or another, or maybe there shouldn’t, but I really don’t think the existence or use of these highly structured, highly programmatic ministries is by any means any kind of [i]sine qua non[/i] for the deep concern each of us in the parish has for another as we struggle with one particular sin or another.
Indeed, these techniques– and ultimately that’s all they are– are in the grand scheme of things recent, unsteady, and very limited in efficacy. Consider, as an example, homosexual behavior. What is a parish to do? Post a flyer? Announce from the pulpit? Insert in the parish newsletter or web site? [i]Each of these approaches requires fixing an idea into specific words in an environment where God’s gift of speech itself has been deliberately subverted by three generations of communicative activism and rhetorical terrorism[/i]:
“Struggling with same-sex attraction”?: What’s to struggle with? The real struggle is enlightening society that anal intercourse is categorically equivalent to God’s infinitely complex created way of begetting new human beings.
“Tempted by homosexual behavior”? How can one be tempted by one’s identity?
“Support group”? A ghetto for victims of false consciousness constructed by an oppresively homophobic dominant culture.
“Sexually confused?” How can one be confused in what, by its very definition, must be ‘natural’, and if ‘natural’ therefore good?
In the long run, all of our techniques and methods and programs and covenants and doings of new things and networks and companion dioceses and statements and fringe groups and indaba groups and blogs and marches and all are, it pains me to say, vanity. They are not sacraments, they are not caritas, and they are by no means Christ on the Cross. They are modest towers, and one of the MANY MANY Biblical understandings that we MUST have in common is that these modest towers cannot be built high enough to reach Heaven. Nor, indeed, can we through our own efforts ever synthesize a “Canon” or a “Church” or a “Communion” that will escalate us to Heaven. In His own time God will knock it down and scatter its builders in a thousand languages. Sometimes I wonder if that isn’t exactly what he is doing now.
Which is not to say that there is no hope.
Oh no, there is indeed Hope.
Marion R. (#9) has hit the nail on the head. All good churches recognize the brokenness of humanity in all the many forms that brokenness takes. They see in ALL those who come through their doors sinners seeking redemption through Jesus Christ, not validation in their brokenness. We ALL fall short of the mark and my sins are no more worthy or honorable than anyone else’s. I don’t expect to see posters identifying my sins and brokenness and telling me I’m included. I know I’m included in spite of my brokenness. However, no church worth it’s salt tells me I’m included and I can just go on in my sinfulness. What I really DON’T want to see in any church is posters telling me I wonderful just as I am and I don’t need redemption or change. That’s not inclusiveness, that’s lying and a horrible betrayal of the Gospel message.
Marion and Chris (##9 & 10),
I think we have a theological difference on whether same-sex attraction is a sin. I believe, along with Rome and most Anglicans (I think) that the attraction itself is not a sin. So listing same-sex attraction as one of the “sins” you won’t single out for mention is not apt in my view.
As for whether groups such as Exodus and Courage are “vanity” and are ineffective “technique”s, I simply haven’t the expertise to say. I’ve known of cases in which involvement in such groups has been transformative. These same transformations would not have happened but for the — I dare to use the word — support the individuals received from each other.
Whilst I agree with you that acting sexually upon same-sex attractions is sinful, the fact is that there are immensely strong forces in our culture that insist otherwise. There are also people of good will who (as Abp Williams has put it in the quote above) agonize over what is and isn’t loyal to Scripture and Tradition. In other words, whilst the answer to this question is self-evident to you and to me, there are many, these days, to whom it is anything but. Given this cultural reality, to suggest that this issue needs no focused effort on clear teaching combined with pastoral care is an attitude I wouldn’t want on my conscience.
If your rhetoric were to prevail everywhere, those w/ same-sex attraction who turn to Christianity at all will run into the arms of the Integrity crowd as a matter of course. Integrity offers a sympathetic ear w/ what you and I believe to be the wrong answer. Given the confusion and cultural forces at play, a sympathetic ear looks a lot more like Jesus’ “Come unto me all you that labour and are heavy burdened” than a ham-fisted form of “get over it.”
Monksgate, Acutally, I think we may have a difference of opinion on what sin is. I think that it is a symptom of the brokenness of the human condition, and it takes many many forms (lust of all sorts, anger, jealousy, hatred, etc.). Is anger not sinful, only if one acts upon it? Is hatred not sinful, only if one acts upon it? Is lust (of whatever form) not sinful, only if one acts upon it? No, I think the jealously, the anger, the hatred and the lust are all sinful whether or not we act upon them. When I read Matthew 5.21-24, for example, or Matthew 5.27-28 I understand Jesus to be telling us that sin exists even before we act upon it. I think that today we have lost our sense of what sin is and how pervasive it is, and, most importantly, why we need Christ to redeem us. I’m sorry, but I think that homosexual attraction (if it takes the form of lust) is every bit as sinful as heterosexual attraction (if it takes the form of lust). If I lust in my heart after a woman, I find nothing in that which is less sinful or better than my gay brothers or lesbian sisters who lust after someone of their own gender. The standard to which we are all called is very high indeed, and we ALL fall far short of the standard. There is a widespread sin among heterosexuals that their sins are somehow better than the sins of their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, which I think you are getting at, and about which I think you are right. However, I disagree that “same-sex attraction” is not in and of itself sinful. There are orders of sin, of course, and acting upon the desire is much worse than resisting it. When I feel anger in my heart, I know that I have already sinned. I am glad when I do not go further and act upon that anger, but I know in my heart that I have sinned and that sin is a reminder of my own brokenness and my own continuing need for Christ’s redemption.
Monksgate, please forgive me for being very frustrated with your opening comment. Of course there is a profound difference between attraction and behavior. If you are able to reply, could you please cite the exact words I used that suggested otherwise?
Marion,
It is my understanding that such parachurch programs as Exodus and Courage deal as much with how one addresses same-sex attraction (not sinful, pace Chris Taylor) as with the sinful acts that can flow from that attraction. I therefore have difficulty placing such programs in quite the same category — as your opening comments do — as hypothetical programs that would address adultery, anger, etc.
But you are forgetting that homosexual acts are not simply sins by scriptural standards, but the mind set as well. Jesus makes it very clear that if we think adulturous thoughts, we are sinning.
But the issue is broader than this, socially, and we must remember this. Homosexuality is a radical abnormality; it is not merely a difference, e.g., black skin and white skin, and our response to these different conditions should be quite different. WE may cover black and white under the same civil rights protections, but we do not treat radical abnormalities in the same way. We cannot forbid a black from being a bartender, as a matter of civil law, but as school can quite legally refuse to hire a sexual offender as a teacher. Few people are bold enough to admit to this distinction because it runs so counter to the present conditioning done by the homophile cultural elite. BUt the p[obelm is real and is there in the living room. Serious abnormalities carry with them limitations on their what they may and may not do.
The church has to remember this reality. The RC did not, and we hardly need to be reminded of the consequences. Larry
Monksgate,
Sorry, I have had a long day and am still not sure where we differ and where we agree. I am roughly sympathetic with Chris Taylor’s statements, which I would summarize as saying we are fallen creatures in a fallen world. I understand this to be both the Roman and Anglican teachings. We cannot expect, for example, for any husband and wife, parent and child, or any two Christians, to hold each other perfectly in the way God intended. There are ultimately distortions and dysfunctions in even our thoughts and feelings. Our hope is that God can and will bring all these back to perfection, but that will is being worked out through the course of lifetimes and history. Am I way off?
Marion,
Sure. Agreed. But my sense is that just as the Church has been called to develop certain issues of orthodoxy and orthopraxis over the centuries, it seems to be our turn to develop the question of same-sex attraction (of all things). And there seems to be too much confusion *even among those who agree that same-sex activity is sinful* (much less the disagreements w/ those who claim same-sex activity is fine). Some of the confusion has to do with terminology; some has to do with whether same-sex desire is a non-sinful “objective disorder” or is indistinguishable from homoerotic lust; some has to do with what the proper pastoral response is toward those who are same-sex attracted (which is where I think you and I disagree); some has to do with why some sinful desires are permitted in a priest and others aren’t; etc. I therefore believe this issue isn’t just like any other issue of faith or morals at the moment and that same-sex desire and/or activity call for a response sensitive to the moment in which we find ourselves. So yes, a poster on a parish bulletin board announcing the ministry of such groups as Courage and Exodus is called for in a way that a poster announcing a support group for adulterers or the occasional shoplifter or liar might not be. I continue to support the comment above that Abp Williams hits the nail on the head when he notes the sometimes “agonisingly difficult” questions we face in this area — even among the orthodox (among whom I’m afraid I cannot count KJS, VGR, etc.)
Monksgate, Just out of curiosity, how are we to respond to bi-sexuality? Sadism? Pedophilia? Beastiality? Do you have any sense that these other forms of disordered sexual desire are felt any less strongly in those who experience them than homosexual desire is experienced? Is there a particular reason we should privilege homosexuality over these other forms of disordered sexuality beyond the fact that homosexuals are better organized politically and institutionally? Is one class of sins inherently better than another? If so, how are we to determine this?
Monksgate,
I largely agree with what you’re saying. I think some things have been put on our plate and we need to work on them in the here and now. I especially agree with your comments regarding the disparity in thinking about sexual behavior. I submit that we will not make much progress until we once again take anthropology seriously. This is not original with me, of course. Indeed this is one of the areas where I am thankful for the Roman Catholics, who have (once again) safeguarded a continuous strand of deep thought on this matter. Here I mean things like John Paull II’s Theology of the Body. As unfashionable as it may sound, I happen to put some creedance in the reasoning that much of this is rooted in the change in teaching toward sex in general back in the 1930’s. Take, for example, today’s NYT article on Humane Vitae by John Allen: a pageful of analysis about whether HV is popular and whether it will endure, but not a word about whether it was [i]right[/i].
Chris (#18),
(And a note of thanks to the elves, btw, for allowing us to continue this thread.)
My impression is that the issue the “mainstream” (if I may use that term) gay movement is concerned about is GLTB, which would mean bisexuality is on a par in the current controversies w/ homosexuality. It is also my understanding that the members of Integrity, KJS, VGR, etc. would agree with us that bestiality, paedophilia, and sadism are not acceptable Christian behavior.
Why should certain issues deserve more attention at a give moment than other issues? I’m not sure. I doubt that Christians of the 16th and 17th centuries decided amongst themselves that grace was going to be their next topic for discussion. But it was. If we could have taken a vote 30 or 40 years ago on whether we should be roiled by controversies over GLBT issues in the opening of the 21st century, I suspect most Christians would have said no. But it’s what we have on our cultural and theological plate, so to speak. Certainly the question of authority is the deeper question (as it has been in every theological and ethical controversy). But I don’t believe we can wish GLBT issues away and that we’ll simply have to face them.
Marion (#19),
Agreed. And it does rather trouble me (as others on this blog have noted) that there’s all this controversy over homosexuality yet who in the Anglican communion presses the issues of divorce, birth control, extramarital sex, etc? On one level, it might be all of a piece (though, as I’ve posited earlier, there do seem to be other levels of inquiry called for where homosexual — and bixexual — orientation is concerned). But who knows whether addressing issues of homosexuality might also bring clarity in these other areas somehow?