Greetings in Christ,
I still get the Lutheran magazine. I have received the Lutheran and its predecessor magazines for over 30 years. It has not always been a bad experience, but then it hasn't always been a positive one either. The January, 2008 edition arrived in my study over the Christmas holiday and I did not get a chance to read it until this morning. Among the articles is the one entitled: "We try to learn from each other". It is a story of a father-daughter relationship that has been shaped by religious belief. The father is B. Penrose Hoover, newly elected bishop of the Lower Susquehanna Synod in Pennsylvania and the daughter is Heidi Hoover, a recent convert to Judaism studying to become a rabbi. The article details the daughter's struggle with faith and eventual conversion to Judaism.
While as a father I can understand the struggle a parent undergoes as their children work through the faith questions that come into everyone's life, there is something about the tenor of the article that troubles me. Do we as Lutherans still believe that Jesus is the True Son of God and that salvation can be had by no other Name or do we believe that the Christian faith is one of many equally valid paths to God? Do we believe that salvation is even necessary? I hear a great deal of talk about inclusivity, tolerance, justice, ecology, and such, but when was the last time we heard anything about salvation? Is it such a given in our faith that we no longer need to say anything? Or has it become a minor issue in a church more interested in being relevant to the current age?
If we no longer see the death and resurrection of Jesus as the central event, not merely of Christian history, but of the universe, then it makes perfect sense to see all faiths as equally valid paths to God. If we take Jesus at his word when he says, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14.6, then there is only one way and all others, no matter how attractive, how compelling they may be do not lead to salvation.
The illness afflicting the ELCA, and many other denominations, is not sexuality. That is a symptom of the deeper, more dangerous condition. The core illness appears that we no longer believe Jesus to be the Savior who by his death and resurrection redeems the whole of creation and that salvation comes only through him.
What then will it matter if we do endless justice? Of what account will be complete inclusivity if Jesus is of no more importance than Abraham? What will it matter if we save the planet from ecological disaster only to forget the Creator and Redeemer?
We really do need to go back to the fundamentals of the faith. We need to return whole heartedly to the basic confessions of our Church. We need to ask the apparently only embarrassing question one could ask, "Is Jesus the Savior by whom all must be saved and that there is salvation in no other name?" If we cannot begin here, then why not convert to Judaism? Why not become Hindu? Why not follow Buddha or Mohammed? Yes, we will offend adherents of these religions by confessing and holding to our confession. But if we are more afraid of offending humans than we are of denying the Savior, then we are already no longer a Church.
It is our responsibility to boldly, unashamedly and consistently confess Jesus to be the Savior and to conform our lives to him and him alone.
In Christ,
Pr. Gary Hatcher
General Convention Reflection
The Rev Robin Jennings
Rev. Robin Jennings, an Episcopal priest, delivered this address to over four hundred parishioners on the evening of September 7, 2003 at the parish he serves, St. Francis in the Fields, Louisville, KY.
"Let the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart always be acceptable to you dear Lord, our strength and our redeemer."
The present issue that brings us together is the recent American Episcopal Convention in Minneapolis that meets every three years. This year [2003], within the context of the 10-day meeting the convention approved the election of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire an openly gay man living with another man. In addition, a proposed liturgy for same sex blessings was given to local dioceses to give some sort of liturgical expression to that relationship.
In fact, I would call [this] not a pastoral response, but a pastoral crisis. Some will caution me and say don't use the word "crisis" that the word crisis is too inflammatory. I use the word crisis intentionally and within the context of the Chinese symbol of yin and yang. A crisis presents us both with danger and opportunity. Tonight, I would like to focus less on the danger and grab hold of the opportunity of this crisis and use it as a teaching opportunity.
I want to unpack the decisions made in Minneapolis from a theological, biblical, and sacramental viewpoint and from our understanding of church structure. This is more than simply a "conservative" or "liberal" issue, which is the way the media has portrayed this crisis. And it is not just the media.
To set this Minneapolis Convention in context I would identify three cultural trends that came together simultaneously in Minneapolis like a perfect storm. The three cultural trends that permeated the convention and the decision are (1) individual rights, (2) modern psychology, and (3) tolerance. Let's look at each one for a moment.
The individual rights argument says that this matter is no different than the struggle blacks and women have had with their rights. In fact, I have been called "bigoted" and "racist" for the stance I have taken. Now, I do not pretend to be a student of the law. I haven't read verbatim the Supreme Court decision in Texas. I'm not all that clear about the courthouse drama that has taken place in Alabama with the Ten Commandments. I will say that the founding framers of the Constitution knew from experience that politics and religion are like a match to a powder-keg, and the separation of church and state is a principle that protects us all. It is a safeguard for both the church and the state. It draws a clear boundary. It is seemingly clean and precise.
But the problem comes not when you separate church from state, but when you separate religion from life. "Thou shalt not commit adultery." That is a moral commandment. It has to do with our moral behavior. Most of us can keep our pants up and obey that Commandment and feel pretty good and self-righteous until Jesus comes along and says, "whoever looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery in his heart." (Mt. 5:28) Now we are talking about sin and all that separates us from God and our neighbor. You see, pornography may be legal and it may be an acceptable form of my rights and freedom of speech. But simply because it is legal, and simply because it is my right, does that mean it is then moral? Jesus calls us to an ethical standard of morality that finds us all in need of salvation. So when people tell me that Gene Robinson has a right to be a bishop and that by opposing him, I am somehow denying his rights, I say Jesus didn't die for our individual rights. Jesus died for our sins. When we turn Minneapolis into simply a matter of individual rights then 1 John pegs it in the first chapter: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." (I John 1:8)
So, let's look at the second cultural trend, modern psychology. Modern psychology no longer treats the homosexual orientation as an illness. In fact, the church is the sick one, especially if we transfer all of our illnesses and project all of our sins and all of our phobias on to the homosexual scapegoat and victim. I am not a lawyer, nor am I a psychologist. I know that Sigmund Freud had issues with God. I also know that psychology has freed up a lot of our inhibitions and our compulsions and our libidos. We are no longer Puritan! Mild understatement, wouldn't you say? Modern psychology has brought us the sexual revolution and we have come a long way from the birth control pill to viagra. But realize the sexual revolution has also brought us the largest number of unwed mothers, unprecedented statistics of divorce, obviously since Roe vs. Wade the greatest number of abortions, and of course, tragically, AIDS – not only here in America, but throughout the worldwide church. I would like to introduce the word "sin" again at this point in the discussion, even though it probably makes us feel guilty and it is not very affirming towards our behavior. But you [have] to admit, within the last forty years we have had sex on the brain. I'm offended and rather than accepting this sexual freedom, it is now becoming for me more and more unacceptable. I've had it. To those who say to me sex outside of marriage is OK, I say, "no it is not." Jesus did not die for our sexual liberation. He died for our sins.
The third trend that collided with individual rights and with modern psychology at Minneapolis is tolerance. People who are tolerant are nice people and they say nice things like, "let New Hampshire do what New Hampshire wants to do." It is a laissez-faire approach to life. By the way, among other things, I have been called "intolerant." But that is okay, because the problem with tolerance, as I see it, is that tolerance is not just passive but tolerance is very permissive. Being "inclusive" is the mantra of this permissive culture. So if I am eating dinner at a restaurant with my family and the guy next to me starts smoking even though there are signs around that say "no smoking" you will find that I will not be very tolerant nor will I be very inclusive. Tolerance is a very cheap virtue because all things are acceptable when you practice tolerance. If I do not say "no" and establish boundaries then I am in effect saying "yes" and giving approval not by my actions, but my inaction. We are called by Jesus to love our neighbors as ourselves. Nowhere does the Bible say we are to tolerate our neighbor.
These three cultural trends then, tolerance, modern psychology, and individual rights, have really teamed-up and done a number on Minneapolis and usurped biblical authority, sacramental theology, and church polity or governance. In ten days this convention attempted to dismantle not just a 2000-year tradition – because we are part of the Judeo-Christian tradition which includes the Old Testament and the New – but on CNN, right before your eyes, we saw an entire belief system revised. For some it was simply breathtaking. For others, it was the height of hubris, pride, or arrogance. Some were quick to claim the Holy Spirit. I would say it is more like the spirit of our times.
There is a theological movement afoot that began back in the 1960's that many of you will recall was the theology of the death of God. Some of you have shared with me an editorial written by Harvey Cox, who wrote eloquently about how the Episcopal Church has avoided schism. Harvey Cox is a revisionist theologian. Jack Spong who is familiar to some of you comes out of this same camp as well. Revisionist see Holy Scripture as essentially human documents that were written a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. In fact, one Episcopal bishop said, "well, we wrote the Bible the first time, we will write it again." Gene Robinson echoes this sentiment when he was quoted as saying, "scripture is still being written."
A revisionist begins his or her task by deconstructing scripture and then reconstructing scripture with one's own experience. For example, how do you explain the Virgin Birth? Well, a revisionist might say the Virgin Mary was not really a virgin. She was raped. Women were oppressed and victims then as they are today. God works through oppressed women like Mary so they can give birth to something new and be liberated from all that oppresses. See how that works? Read the DaVinci Codes. It is a runaway bestseller. I read it on the beach this summer and loved it. It is, however, fiction! It is a novel. It is a revision. A revisionist, by trade, sets the weight of scripture aside and is then free to develop a new ethic for a new day. A revisionist is not accountable then to tradition or to scripture. A revisionist is accountable to reason and experience. Listen carefully to Gene Robinson. He agrees that his opponents are right that his election (and I quote) "was contrary to the church's tradition"... but he added, (and now listen carefully) "just simply to say that it goes against tradition and that it goes against the teaching of the church and that it goes against scripture does not necessarily make it wrong." That is a revisionist at work.
Reformed theology of which the Anglican Church was born, comes out of a reformed theological background that was shaped by the Reformation. Theologians I read – albeit back in the Stone Age – were Rheinhold Neihbur, Paul Tillich, and Karl Barth. All three of these men were German. All three were horrified and indelibly marked by their experience of World War II Germany and by the Jewish holocaust. They turned, however, to scripture for meaning not to experience. All were clear about sin and salvation because of Scripture. Karl Barth, when asked to sum up his several volume set of church dogmatics said simply: "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so." Hear that accountability to Scripture? Jesus loves me not because I think He loves me. Jesus loves me because the Bible tells me He gave His life for me.
Look at the differences then between the reformed and the revisionist theologians and you will see how this debate swirls around Gene Robinson. Traditional Christianity professes that a sexual relationship is limited to marriage – and believe it or not I will have to define marriage in a minute. The revisionist assumes that all persons are entitled to sexual gratification whether they are married are not. (Why? Because modern psychology says so, sexual expression is an individual right, and for Pete's sake let's all be tolerant.)
Reformed Christianity holds up as a model for sexual intimacy as that between a husband and a wife. Revisionist, remember, want to be free of models, definitions, and biblical standards for sexual intimacy. Traditionalist would say, "control yourself." Revisionist would say, "express yourself."
Why am I taking you through all of this? Because either our morality is a biblical morality or it is not. Either our morality is justified by scripture or it is not. I do premarital counseling. A young couple comes to me and they want to get married in six months. They fill out a form. I look at the form and it shows they are living at the same address. I ask the question: "Are you living together?" Usually, the girl looks down and the guy looks up and is ready to square off with me. So, I'll ask the prospective groom "why are you living together?" Inevitably I am either told "it is convenient", or "they are saving on six months rent." You all, when did our morals come down to a matter of convenience, and since when were our morals not worth much more than six months rent? Revisionist theology links itself to a situational ethic. Reformed theology says sexual intimacy is limited to marriage. Jesus didn't die for our convenience. He didn't give His life for six months rent.
Let's start with the sacrament of marriage. "Dearly beloved: 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 bond and covenant of marriage was established by God in creation, and our Lord Jesus Christ adorned this manner of life by his first miracle at a wedding of Cana in Galilee."
The traditional view of marriage is that God the creator blessed the joining together of man and woman, Adam and Eve. This bringing together of opposites, male and female and uniting them so that two became one was symbolic not of simply a sexual ethic, but it was a symbolic way of describing the very image of God. The Book of Genesis has two creation stories. Both stories reinforce this point that the male and female bear the image of God. If you follow the Genesis narrative carefully, you'll see that each new stage of creation is more advanced than the one before. First, all is formless, empty and dark. Like an artist working with clay, God forms light and dark, land and sea, earth and sky. Fish and foul are created in a poetic description and in one creation story Adam appears first and yet Adam by himself was not good enough for God! God wanted something better. Man is incomplete without woman. So God the creator puts his finishing touch on creation with Eve and for this reason Genesis tells us, "a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and they will become one flesh."
In the Gospels you will find Jesus reinforces this teaching by saying, "Have you not read that God who made them from the beginning made them male and female and said, "for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh they are no longer two but one flesh. And then Jesus adds: "what God has joined together let no man put asunder." Our bishop and other revisionist will say that Jesus never spoke on the matter of same sex marriages. What the tradition of the church teaches, however, is that Jesus fulfills both the Law and the Prophets, which embraces this very basic doctrine of creation and understanding of marriage. Nowhere does the Bible permit, much less, bless same-sex marriages.
A sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. Sacraments are designed by their very nature to literally help make sacred God's creation. At the heart of a sacrament is love. The love we refer to as Christians is sacrificial love or agape love. Sacrificial love makes sacred the sacrament. As Jesus gives of himself so we give of our lives. That sacramental pattern is given to us for the betterment of society so that our life is not self-centered, but centered upon God. What did the Minneapolis Convention do? The Minneapolis Convention tried to revise the sacrament of marriage-not based on scripture, or the tradition of the church, or biblical morality-but on individual rights, the sexual revolution, and tolerance.
The bishop-elect is charged in the following way: "You are called to guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church; to celebrate and to provide for the administration of the sacraments of the New Covenant; to ordain priests and deacons and to join in ordaining bishops; and to be in all things a faithful pastor and a wholesome example for the entire flock of Christ." (BCP p. 517)
The word "Episcopal" comes from the Greek "episcopas" meaning bishop. An Episcopal Church then is literally the bishop's church. The bishop is an important symbol for Episcopalians. Don't get me wrong. We don't worship bishops nor do we idolize them as in false idols but we do look to them as leaders. Do I hold a bishop to a different standard than other public figures? You bet I do! Do we have gay congressmen? Sure. Do we have gay leaders of banks and industry? No doubt. But when a person is ordained they are given a Bible not just to set on a coffee table. The ordained person is given a Bible with these words: "Receive this Bible as a sign of your authority." I'm sorry, but without the Bible the ordained person has no authority. Based on the Examination of a bishop and from our understanding of the sacrament is that unlike a politician or a business leader there is no separation between one's private life and public life. Granted, it may be a double standard, but it is a double standard that Jesus established long ago reminding us that what takes place outside reflects what is within.
So the bishop is called to provide a wholesome example. The biblical tradition for this wholesome example is found in I Timothy 3:1ff. A bishop was thought of highly as a leader of the early church. By his wholesome lifestyle he modeled the Christian life for others. As this pertains to Gene Robinson, a traditionalist would say he is not providing a wholesome example. Divorced and living with another man, of course, does not rank high. Nor does any sexual expression outside of marriage provide a wholesome example. This matter of wholesome again is not just about being a nice guy. Wholesome is derived from the same word as whole or complete. The story of creation again reminds us that the union of man and woman is a sign of completeness.
My last point: discipline. A true story: A friend of mine, Ci Jones was rector in Trinity Church in Russelville, Kentucky. He was young and he was handsome. He played the guitar. He was cool. He was a pilot and had his own little plane. He also had a young woman in his parish who could not pledge money to the church but would instead clean the church. She began as well to clean the rectory. This was in 1982. The ways of the flesh and the devil took over and Ci and this young woman had an affair. Ci was married. He called the affair off and he and his wife underwent years of counseling. In 1986, Ci was called as bishop of Montana. The people loved him because he understood small parishes and he had a plane. The happy story did not last as there was conflict within the diocese in 1998 that would be considered mild by today's standard. It got personal, however, when the young woman who Ci had an affair with in 1982 revealed this indiscretion to the leadership in the diocese. In no time at all, Ci was presented to the House Bishops for discipline – this being only three years ago mind you – and the bishops ruled that Ci Jones had committed offenses unbecoming and immoral and he was deposed. The message of discipline the bishops were sending was clear. Sex outside of marriage was cause for dismissal. Fast-forward three years and Gene Robinson who is living with another man has now been made bishop. Church discipline, I guess, like beauty is now in the eyes of the beholder. You ask me what I think about Minneapolis? It simply does not add up.
It is important that we speak not only with our lips but also with our lives. I will not permit a same-sex blessing to take place at St. Francis in the Fields. But in saying that, I hope you hear it does not mean we are anti-gay at St. Francis. It does mean that we hold up the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. Now if the state passes same-sex unions that is the states business. We are separate. Our business is to love everyone who walks through these doors – it doesn't mean we have to marry everyone. Yet, everyone will hear the proclamation of the Good News, and everyone will hear the forgiveness of sins, and everyone will hear the promise of New Life.
A final word of encouragement: it comes from the writer to the Hebrews, from the thirteenth chapter of the eighth verse: “Jesus Christ who is the same yesterday and today and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8) And again, from Hebrews, chapter four verse 12: “For the Word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword.” (Hebrews 4:12)
The Word of God is living and active right here and right now. And for that I thank God for your presence here tonight. Thank you!
Gay row at summit, December 14, 2007
Posted by in Church of England Newspaper, Church of the Province of Uganda, Human Sexuality --- The gay issue.
Gay activists and bishops of the Church of Uganda came to verbal blows last month at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Kampala (CHGMK).
Gay activists from Europe and North America shouted down a Ugandan bishop during a press conference on November 22, at the Commonwealth People’s Space – a venue for NGO’s, civic groups and churches to hold forums and workshops during the meeting – while police broke up a presentation by Ugandan gay rights activists at the People’s Space the following day.
According to an account given by the Kampala Monitor, the Assistant Bishop of Kampala, the Rt. Rev. Zac Niringiye was responding to questions from journalists about the Church of Uganda’s stance on the issue of human sexuality when he was interrupted by a Canadian.
Taking offense at the bishop’s statement that Commonwealth countries should not promote homosexuality or permit gay marriage, the Canadian shouted that in his country he was allowed to marry another man and his church supported this view.
Answering that this view was not shared by the Church of Uganda, Bishop Niringiye stated homosexual conduct was immoral. A crowd of Western gay rights activists then formed around the bishop, chanting slogans and pointing their fingers at him.
Bishop Niringiye was led away from the confrontation by fellow Ugandan bishops, and later told the Monitor that while the Church did not wish to silence their voices, it did not agree that legislation should be enacted that promoted the gay lifestyle.
At a press conference later that day, bishops from the Church of Uganda called upon the Commonwealth countries to follow the path of virtue. “The Commonwealth should not legislate for human wrongs. Homosexuality is an evil, which should never be discussed during CHOGM. In CHOGM meetings, we should advocate for them to change because the act is unnatural,” Bishop Niringiye said.
LGBT activists from Uganda were also the victims of abuse at CHOGM, Changing Attitude reported. Representatives from Integrity Uganda and other East African gay rights groups were blocked by the police from entering the People’s Space on Nov 23 and forcibly removed from the venue.