Somehow we missed this until this morning, but Matt Kennedy has written an article for his parishoners in response to Donald Lane’s op-ed which Kendall published here on Monday. (Matt+ and his parishoners had special reason to note and respond to the article since it was in their local paper.)
Here’s the link to Matt’s response
I’m not going to try to excerpt it here as it is hard to find a “stand alone” section of Matt’s closely reasoned article. Perhaps the most helpful section is his distinction among the three types of Levitical laws: Ceremonial Laws, Civil (Theocratic) Laws, and Eternal Moral Laws.
Note, Matt’s article makes very good reading in conjunction with John Yates’ sermon which we published earlier this morning.
Grab a cup of coffee or some other favorite beverage and read them both. And share both Matt’s article and John Yates’ sermon widely. These are two excellent preachers and teachers offering very helpful clarification on issues that have become matters of confusion for many Episcopalians.
One of the clearest and most cogent explanations of the Levitical code and its relationship to the New Testament Church that I’ve seen. A favorite ploy of reappraisers is to point to various aspects of the the Levitical code without distinguishing between the purity laws, the civil laws and moral laws and, by lumping everything together, reappraisers frequently contend that since we don’t do things like kill people for wearing synthectic fibers anymore we should also just accept homosexual activity too. By obsuring the fact that the purity laws and the civil laws of ancient Israel no longer have authority for Christians, but that the moral laws most certainly DO continue to apply to Christians, reappraisers hope to render the Levitical texts irrelevant for the contemporary discussion. Clearly they are still very relevant.
Typical Matt Kennedy nonsense. The laws on homosexuality are “eternal moral laws” (his words, not the Bible’s) because he wants it to be so.
Jesus taught differently.
Christians are to discern right and wrong. Christians are to use reason and keep the spirit and intent of the law, not the letter. And here is Matt upholding the “eternal” letter of the law.
Even Romans 1, which we are told condemns homosexuality in most uncertain terms, does no such thing. It describes promiscuity and the negative results that has for the lives of the people involved. It shows that there are consequences for moral choices. Yet, we have seen and known faithful Christian gay men and women who possess the blessings of love. They share in the qualities of love described in 1st Corinthians. They discern that they are blessed by God in their faithful relationships.
And that’s what this is really about. Not sex but love and faithfulness.
#2
It’s not Matt who is writing the nonsense here.
#2 “Jesus taught differently”.
REALLY :question: Where did He teach differently?
(Something about jot & tittle of the law does not line up with you presumption).
I hope Matt will also cut this down to submit to the same newspaper that published the original Lane piece.
Gotta love ruidh. It’s “nonsense” because he wants it to be so.
Wonderful piece. Clearly written and logically laid out. I plan on saving it and sharing it with my DH and my older DD.
Thank you, Matt.
Susan
Matt has given an excellent summary of the relationship of the law to the Gospel. Zondervan in the Counterpoints series ” Five Views of the Law and Gospel” gives some further debate and dialogue between five evangelical scholars on the subject (A Reformed approach; A Theonomic Reformed approach; A Modified Luthern view, etc.) It is imperative that we examine and discover the proper relationship of the Mosaic law to the saint! I believe that in general Matt has captured it.
Matt, thank you for a clear and compelling article. I’d studied and thought about this issue before, and could have articulated some of what you wrote, but you put it together excellently.
For what it’s worth… here’s the link to another resource on this topic I’ve found helpful. It’s something Truro scanned and put online as a resource for one of its Adult Ed classes a few years ago:
[url]http://www.trurochurch.org/files/Dorsey hermeneutic of OT Law.pdf[/url]
It’s a theological journal article dating from 1991 by David Dorsey. The Law of Moses and the Christian: A Compromise.
It’s 14 pages and pretty heavy slogging in places. But nonetheless I found it a very helpful overview of how this question has been answered by different Christian groups (and some heretical sects) over the centuries, and the possible hermeneutical frameworks which have been applied. Definitely thought-provoking and will force one to consider your own opinion/understanding against these other hermeneutics. Definitely NOT for a beginner, but those who want to dig more deeply on this topic, and/or those who need to be able to reply in reference to a more comprehensive historical view.