It is with sadness and great
difficulty that we have reached the conclusion that we must separate ourselves
from the Episcopal Church –USA (TEC), and therefore the Diocese of the Central
Gulf Coast and St. Luke’s Episcopal Church in Marianna, FL. We joined ourselves to the local parish
several years ago and have enjoyed the fellowship there very much. As a cradle Episcopalian, Chris found a comfortable
church home, and as one who had chosen to “walk the Canterbury trail” and leave
my Baptist roots behind in search of a more orthodox resting place, I found the
Anglican tradition to be most suitable.
I was gladly confirmed into the church in the presence of the people of
St. Luke’s.
The local parish does not exist
in isolation, however, and recent events in the national church have created a
situation which is problematic for us.
Specifically, the actions taken at the recent General Convention (GC)
regarding same-gender “marriage” and the endorsement of them by the Bishop of
our diocese constitute “a bridge too far” in the direction of heterodox
theology. I had serious conversations
with both our former rector and the interim who served us afterwards about the
topic of same-gender “marriage” and had made clear that it was a bridge I could
not cross with TEC or with the congregation if it adopted such practices. It was obvious to me that the momentum was
clearly moving in the direction of acquiescing to the shifts in cultural mores,
but as long as the subject was still open for discussion I felt able to remain
a part of the community. General
Convention, however, has closed the period of discussion for all intents and
purposes. Barring the unlikely event
that the next GC turns down the proposed changes to canon and liturgy, this
appears to be a “done deal.”
We did not arrive at this point
without advance warning, though. As much
as we loved our former rector, he was quite openly trying to move the
congregation towards an acceptance of same-gender “marriage.” I did what I could to rebut the material he
was offering, but apparently I wasn’t able to change many minds. In the last couple of months the vestry approved
the use of what is called a “provisional rite for blessing a same-sex union” and
our priest-in-charge performed a service for a gay couple who attend our
church. This set of actions came as a
disappointing surprise to us, though alone they would not have caused us to
terminate our membership in the parish. Let
me be very clear about this. We have
nothing against the two whose union was “blessed", and in fact we like
them very much. They are “nice people”
as so many want to remind us. Nor is our
position one of judging or condemning them.
Judgement is, as I often remind myself and others, above my pay
grade. Ultimately what they do is
between them and God. When it comes to
the actions of the church and its teachings, however, it is appropriate for us
as individuals to judge whether or not those actions and teaching are in
keeping with historical orthodoxy or represent the introduction of heterodoxy. If the latter is in evidence, then decisions
must be made.
While I was in college I had to
write a book report for my Church History class. I read and reported on a biography of
Athanasius, one of the early Church Fathers.
Through that I was introduced to the Apostolic tradition and the roots
of orthodoxy. During my seminary years
we were encouraged to look beyond the narrow history of Baptists to that of the
greater Church, and in theology and especially Biblical Studies classes we
discovered the scholarship of the early church.
The more one sees the depth and quality of that scholarship the more one
grows to respect the roots and dependability of the orthodox faith. As Athanasius wrote, “What the apostles
received, they passed on without change, so that the doctrine of the mysteries
(the sacraments) and Christ would remain correct” (Festal Letter 2.7, cited by Thomas C. Oden, Classic Christianity, p.320).
Looking back over the past 40+ years I can see that my path has been one
in search of an ever deeper understanding of and commitment to classic
orthodoxy.
Through the actions of the recent
General Convention TEC has embarked on a path towards heterodoxy. That they have left room for those who wish
to remain committed to the traditional beliefs of the church is “gracious,” but
the accompanying language seems to carry a strong hint of tolerating dissenting
views primarily for the sake of financial interest. It is as if the forces pushing for the
changes are saying, “Well, you don’t have to actually do the things we say we
believe in; you can opt out. Just come along and, oh, be sure to bring your
money.” On the other side of the aisle,
there seems to be a number of bishops and other leaders who, though they
disagree with the actions of GC, are more interested in reaffirming “unity”
over “orthodoxy.” To do so,
unfortunately, is to elevate the concept of “unity” to the position of an idol,
and remaining in association with heterodoxy for the sake of a superficial
unity is therefore a form of idolatry.
Do we worship the Triune God revealed in the Scripture, or do we worship
the illusion of unity and the corporate structure of the Episcopal Church?
This brings me to the crux of the
issue, then. What is orthodoxy, or
orthodox faith and theology, and what is the orthodox position on same-gender
relationships? According to Thomas Oden
in his book The Rebirth of Orthodoxy, orthodoxy
is the “integrated biblical teaching as interpreted in its most consensual
classic period. More simply (it is)
ancient consensual scriptural teaching (p. 29).” He expands on the word “consensual,”
explaining that it means “the teaching that has been duly confirmed by a
process of general consent of the faithful over two millennia.” I take this to mean that unless one can find
support for a position within that historical tradition, one must tread very
lightly when suggesting new interpretations, especially when those
interpretations run counter to the understanding of the catholic church over
the centuries. Certainly the revisionist
interpretive methodologies (hermeneutics) which lead scholars to overlook or
reject the considered consensus of the church over two millennia must be
regarded with a great deal of skepticism.
Yet, this is exactly where the Episcopal Church stands today. Despite the concerns of the Archbishop of
Canterbury and bishops of the greater Anglican Communion, the leadership of TEC
has set itself against the orthodox tradition, choosing instead to draw its
core theological guidance not from the received scriptures or the teachings of
the early church fathers, but rather from the ever-shifting and rootless mores
of a culture cut adrift by the lingering effects of modernism and post-modern
relativism. It has yielded to the
demands for accommodation coming not just from those outside the orthodox
tradition but outside the church and the very faith itself. Through the actions of the General
Convention, TEC has embraced a radically new method of scriptural
interpretation and consequently a new theology and liturgical practice of
dubious heritage.
The orthodox position has, for
centuries, been that the texts recognized as canonical (Scripture) are inspired
and authoritative traditions regarding the interaction between the Creator and
the created, especially in regard to the calling out of a special people and
through that people to offer God’s grace and salvation to the peoples of the
world. Those texts are the touchstone
against which the Christian understanding about God must be measured. The great ecumenical councils of the early
centuries established creeds summarizing the core elements of the Christian
faith in order to ensure that the people could know and trust that the faith
which was communicated to them was the authentic Apostolic faith. Beginning with Paul and continuing through
the early fathers and the councils, there have been efforts to define and
protect that faith, including dire warnings about the possibility of error
creeping into the church. Consider Paul’s warning to the Galatians: “But even
if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we
preached to you, let him be anathema! As we had already said, so now I say
again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted,
let him be anathema!” Note that the
Greek word for “other than” is heteran,
from which we derive the word “heterodoxy.”
As I read this, I find Paul saying that anyone who teaches heterodoxy is
to be rejected at least, cursed and cast out at most. Orthodoxy, then, can be viewed as the
tradition of right or faithful remembrance and understanding of Scripture.
What, then, does the received
Scripture say about same-gender relationships?
I find three or four really significant texts. Beginning with the Genesis account of
creation we are faced with the concept of complementary genders. Male and Female are not just necessary for
biological reproduction, a not insignificant consideration, but also to
adequately express in human form the essential qualities of God, the imago dei. “Let us create man in our own image, in our
likeness…so God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created
him; male and female He created them (Gen 1:26-27, NIV).” Without the complementary genders, mankind is
incomplete as a reflection of God. The
early fathers and the orthodox tradition flowing from them also maintain that
both genders are necessary to the understanding of the incarnation. As Augustine commented, “The Lord Jesus
Christ, having come to liberate human beings, including both men and women
destined for salvation, was not ashamed of the male nature, for He took it upon
Himself; or of the female, for He was born of a woman.” Gregory of Nyssa was even more explicit. Those who criticize the concept of the
physical incarnation of God through the physical birth of Jesus do not
recognize that this is the proper and only valid means for God’s visitation. “They
fail to realize the whole anatomy of the body is uniformly to be valued…the
generative organs have the future in view, and it is by them that the
succession of the race is maintained.” In other words, without the presence of
those physical differences which distinguish between male and female, the
incarnation as is traditionally understood (and affirmed in the classic creeds
which we recite regularly) could not have taken place. Jesus Himself put His affirmation on the
understanding of male and female, husband and wife, complete with the
reproductive capacity as central to the purpose of created mankind when He
spoke of marriage in Matthew 19 and Mark 10.
Note that it is one thing to denigrate the statements of Paul on
same-gender relationships as being culturally bound, and yet another thing
entirely to make the received and accepted words (red-letter text) of Jesus to
be solely dependent on the culture of His historical time.
Paul includes same-gender sexual
relations in his listings of sinful behaviors found in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and
1 Timothy 1:9-10. In both passages he
uses a Greek word (transliterated arsenokoitees)
which is variously translated as sodomites, effeminate, or “abusers of
themselves with men.” It literally means
“man-bedders” in the same sense that one takes a woman to bed for sexual
purposes, that is taking men to bed to have sexual relations with them. There can be no mistaking the meaning and
usage of this term, and all attempts to cover it over by referring to ritual or
temple prostitution or pederasty are meaningless in the face of the clear and
literal meaning of the word. So Paul
clearly intends to say that homosexual activities fall in the category of
“sinful” or “unrighteous” behavior. It
is important to note that Paul is not singling homosexual activity out as a
special form of sin but is including it in lists of examples of unrighteous
behavior. It is a false hermeneutic
(method of Biblical interpretation) which would allow one item in a list of
examples of sin to be lifted out and reinterpreted so as to make it somehow
“not sin.” Yet this is exactly what the proponents of approving same-gender
“marriage” are advocating. Are we to
expect soon to see arguments that God has made murderers, liars, thieves,
drunkards, gluttons and gossips “as they are” and that it is therefore a good
thing? For this, in essence, is the
logical conclusion of any interpretation of these two passages which excuses
homosexual activities as being the result of the birth nature of those who so
behave.
Finally, Paul addresses the
causation of homosexuality. In the
extended passage of Romans 1:18-32 he makes it clear that as the members of
mankind move away from recognizing and acknowledging God their proclivity for sin
increased. Since our sexual nature is a
fundamental part of the imago dei in
which all are created, it is only natural that sexuality is one of the first
areas in which the distortion of our relationship with the Creator is
manifested. Paul is very specific in
describing the activities which result from unrestrained sin, and though
homosexual activity is not the only thing he lists and describes, it is clearly
a primary example of it. It is also
important to note that in the final verse of the passage, v 32, he writes that
even though they know that people who do the things he has mentioned, including
the homosexual behavior, deserve God’s punishment, the reprobate not only
continue to do those things but also “approve of those who practice them.” This verse alone should have caused those
present at the recent General Convention to take pause and reconsider.
It is important to observe that
in all three passages Paul moves beyond condemnation of those who act in the
ways he has listed and proclaims the redemptive power of God’s grace and mercy
through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. As classic writers
such as Justin Martyr and Augustine observed, God’s forgiveness of our sins
involves and requires His taking our sins upon Himself, bearing them on the
cross. Through His action we are
redeemed and transformed. Having described the manifestations of Sin in the
life of mankind, the outcome of the Fall of Man and Creation, Paul speaks to
his hearers to remind them that they, and he himself, were all in need of and
recipients of that grace. This continues
to be the case today, of course, and all of us, including me, stand in constant
need of a repentant heart and the graceful mercy of God. Understanding this it becomes clear that we
are called to be compassionate to the other sinners around us as we seek to
call them to that repentance that precedes salvation. This is a far cry from blessing the very
actions which reflect the inner brokenness of the people.
The orthodox tradition is very
clear on this matter. There has been an
essential harmony of understanding regarding the status of homosexual behavior
as one of the many ways in which the Fall has affected all of us. It is, like so many other things, something
to be repented of, not celebrated. It
requires absolution, not affirmation. To
move in the direction, then, of incorporating into the very meaning of the
sacrament of marriage an approval of that behavior is to move in a new and
different direction from that of the Apostolic Tradition. It is to embrace heterodoxy.
This we cannot do.
I do not know if we can find
another worshipping community nearby where we can continue to follow the
orthodox tradition, but we will be looking.
We may occasionally attend St. Luke’s for worship and to see those with
whom we have developed a friendship over the years, but we will do so as
visitors, not members. Taking this
action grieves us greatly, but we cannot walk a different path diverging from
the ancient and narrow way. In our
ongoing prayers we will continue to lift up the Episcopal Church, our diocese,
and the leadership of the local parish, hoping that they will repent of the
recent decisions and return to the orthodox teachings of the one holy, catholic
and apostolic church.
