Pastor Harry G. Vibe
- Posted with Author's Permission -
PREFACE
At the Synod Convention held in Ottawa in July of '02 the following motion was passed. "That the Eastern Synod in Convention 2004 vote on adopting the Lutherans Concerned North America Reconciling in Christ statement entitled 'The Affirmation of Welcome'."
On the surface those four words look positive and encouraging. However, upon a closer look at the six panel brochure promoted by the LC/NAr and entitled 'Reconciling in Christ', which concludes with the Affirmation of Welcome, one definitely has cause to raise a number of questions relative to the implementation of such a motion within our Synod.
Those questions, along with many others relative to the question of homosexual lifestyles we will seek to address in this essay as indicated by the chapter titles listed on the previous page. We submit them to you in the hope that you the reader will give our comments and conclusions a fair and honest hearing.
I take you back a few years ago when a young woman in her late twenties sat across from me in my office fighting back tears. "My name is Nellie and Bill Barclay suggested that I talk with you." Bill Barclay, I recalled, was young homosexual I had earlier counseled. "How can I help you?" I gently asked: After a short pause, out poured the words almost effortlessly; "I've been a lesbo for over ten years and I'm sick and tired of it.., I want to get out.., I'd like to get married and have kids.., there, what can you do?"
Suffice to say that Nellie was/is not alone. There have been and will continue to be other Nellies* and other Bills** Add to that the conflicting thoughts and emotions that in turn raise a host of questions in the minds of not only the gay or lesbian, but also in his/her family and friends. Add to those the people who seek to meet them at their various points of need, be they therapists or simply listening and concerned friends. As a Christian pastor, I have to regularly ask myself, how can I be compassionate without condoning, how can I accept the person without approving the conduct, how can I (paraphrasing the Psalmist) sing the Lord's song in this at times very foreign land?
To the 'Nellies and the Bills' [* & ** (Names changed)] of this world I would like to dedicate this effort, people loved by God, a God who offers to redeem and to renew via a positive message that folk within the Christian community have come to know as the Gospel; the Gospel of forgiveness, healing and renewal. A Gospel made possible through the merits of Jesus Christ and the ministry of the Holy Spirit.
Let me not be remiss in acknowledging with thanks the many contributions I have received from colleagues and friends via meaningful conversations and correspondence. Thank you Doug, John, Kira, Norm and Steve for your candid critiques and suggestions.
Merci. Special thanks I offer to Phil Gagnon, Pastor of St. Albert Lutheran, Edmonton, who has written the chapter that is entitled, THE NEED FOR PASTORAL INTEGRITY AND COMPASSION. A title that speaks for itself to a most relevant aspect of this whole topic. Pastor Gagnon is a co-author of the brochure entitled 'Communities of Grace', and is committed to this model as an alternative to the model entitled, 'Reconciling in Christ'.
INTRODUCTION
There are a number of purposes that I will address in this paper, with some overlap in topics at times. They are six in number.
1) To offer a credible reply to Lutherans Concerned, with specific reference to their brochure entitled, 'Reconciling in Christ'.
2) To affirm that in the midst of many competing authorities in our society, that in matters of saving faith and ethical lifestyles that for the Christian community the authority of Scripture is the final authority.
3) In part, to expose the fallacy of many of the claims by the gay activist agenda, one that is often built on faulty science and questionable theology.
4) Again in part (the reason being to keep this particular essay as brief as possible), to share the witness of the Church in the past as well as the voices heard in the present from many quarters within the Church catholic, and our need to seriously consider re-capturing those convictions.
5) Once again in part, we seek to affirm the traditional view of marriage and family because this concept is today being attacked on many fronts, but in particular by the agenda of the gay activists.
6) Lastly, the need to clearly offer the hope of the Gospel to gays and lesbians who wish, and who seek deliverance from their lifestyle. And also to give encouragement to the 'Nellies and the Bills' who have left the gay lifestyle, who now need affirmation and fellowship.
Admittedly, I would sooner by writing on topics such as world missions, affirming traditional marriage and family values, evangelism, or health and poverty issues. However, reality is that the topic of homosexuality has and continues to claim a priority position on our overall church agenda with the result being that other causes or concerns, important though they be, tend to fall in somewhere behind. Though it may be painful and difficult, our Church needs to come to a right decision on this topic that threatens to divide us.
I believe that the reason that the homosexual question has not, and is not being resolved is that the key issue here is more than the question of homosexual lifestyles. It is how we in our Church today (our constitutions not withstanding) read and interpret the Holy Scriptures in terms of saving faith - in terms of lifestyle ethics. In other words, the homosexual question has also become the focal symptom of the erosion of Scriptural authority within the Church and its teaching ministry.
The times are not unlike the days of Luther when the questionable practice of indulgences also became the focal symptom of the erosion of Scriptural authority and teaching within the Church. Luther's response to that question still echoes in our day: "Unless you can prove from Scripture, I cannot, I will not recant. My conscience is captive to the Word of God. God help me. Amen" *1.
I would not put it past Lucifer himself to do his best to side-track us onto a topic that would take away our focus from our marching orders as spelled out in the Gospels in general, and in particular, the Great Commandment and the Great Commission. (Matthew 22:37-40 and Matthew 28:19-20)
The topic of homosexuality has become the explosive issue of our day and the least settled within the Christian community as we move into the 21st century. At the centre of the storm is the question concerning the validity or otherwise of homosexual partnerships. This question has been further focused within the Christian community by the efforts of the gay activists encouraging the Church to bless same-sex unions and ordaining seminary graduates who are active homosexuals. Would such a practice square with the witness of Scripture? That question we will address shortly.
Almost countless books, essay and articles written over the past decade or more bear witness to the current debate on this topic. A variety of people have challenged almost two millenia or more of Judeo-Christian beliefs and traditions. Among them is a book entitled, "Is the Homosexual My Neighbour?", wherein we read, ".., that for those who have exclusive homosexual drives and cannot change, the most Christian solution is often a committed, responsible and permanent relationship." * 2.
Many other books are quoted regularly by gay activists including Robin Scroggs, Peter Coleman, and perhaps most often John Boswell. He has written an exhaustive history of homosexuality, focusing primarily on the world out side of the Judeo-Christian pale, in support of the homosexual lifestyle. His revisionist interpretations of biblical passages are open to question, and will be further addressed in the chapter entitled THE WITNESS OF SCRIPTURE.
On the basis of these disputed interpretations the gay activists have pressed for full acceptance of homosexuality, demanding affirmation that it is part of God's intended diversity of His creation, maintaining that homosexuality is natural and therefore the expressions of the same are not sinful. The time has come, they say, for the Church to also say that gay is good. Enter the question of the relation of belief to behaviour, or more to the point, "Does our behaviour inform our beliefs, or do our beliefs inform our behaviour?" This question merits a reply, especially in the light of our present day when so much of morality is shaped by what is politically correct or by popular vote. As the book of Judges reads, "Everyone did what was right in his own eyes."(Judges 21:25b)
In any study that regards the practice homosexuality as a sin, as does this essay, it is then especially incumbent upon the writer to acknowledge that it is only one of a whole pantheon of sexual and sexually related practices that the Scriptures brands as sin. They include in no particular order: adultery, fornication, divorce, bestiality and incest. If we add the thought life sins of which Jesus spoke in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5 and 6), then we have an even nastier picture.
However, in the midst of that whole nasty picture, at no time is homosexuality singled out as the numero uno sexual sin. The whole sexual scene today is sadly skewed, and certainly one of the reasons is that the hedonist philosophy is both prevalent and persuasive in today's society. The Rev. Philip Johnson, writing in Canada Lutheran writes: ".., there can be no honest study of this matter without acknowledging how far we have strayed from biblical ethics across the broad spectrum of sexual matters. Personal happiness and selfish fulfillment prevail regardless of right and wrong. As western Protestants we have already gone a long way toward reducing our values regarding sex and building policies to fit our failures. We don't need to go further." *3.
Before moving on for a closer look at the content of the Reconciling in Christ (R.I.C.) brochure a brief word about attitude, or more to the point that in many cases our attitude adjustment is imperative. The overall history of the Christian Church, past and present, in terms of negative attitudes toward homosexuals has for the most part been very sad. It is therefore important to remedy that situation as soon as possible.
We who call ourselves followers of Jesus may very well have to confess our lovelessness toward gays, and if condemnation has been a part of that lovelessness, to also seek forgiveness as well as a renewed attitude, "with an absence of either a holier than thou attitude, or an unholier than thou attitude."
From time to time those who oppose homosexual practice have been told that they are homophobic or hateful, bigoted or judgmental. Well meaning people may well say, "Did Jesus not tell us not to judge?" "Yes!", we must reply, but then ask clearly and kindly, was Jesus referring to ethical discernment or to proclaiming condemnation? In the context (Matthew 7:1) of the statement by Jesus, He is obviously referring to the act of condemning, not practicing moral discernment. A casual reading of the Sermon on the Mount from which this statement is taken, shows repeatedly that one must practice moral discernment.
The Apostle Paul in Ephesians 4:15 commands us to speak the truth in love. Love that is genuine, needs truth as its mentor and protector against easy indulgence. Truth needs love to avoid creeping legalism and wrong attitudes. In other words, be careful, lest in fighting the dragon, you become the dragon.
A RESP0NSE T0 LUTHERANS C0NCERNED
Gay and lesbian people across North America within the various denominations of the Church have organized themselves and taken names such as Affirm, Dignity, Integrity and Spirit. Within the Lutheran community they have formed a strong and vocal movement called Lutherans Concerned. They have prepared a carefully worded 6 panel brochure entitled "Reconciling in Christ" (R.I.C.), in which they share their mission statement, their goals, and an invitation to Lutheran congregations to become R.I.C. congregations. They close their brochure with their "Affirmation of Welcome" statements that congregations are invited to openly endorse. I have reservations with at least six of the statements in this document. I begin with what appears to be their mission statement, namely: "Lutherans Concerned/North America has the simultaneous goals of affirming the God given nature of sexual orientation, proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ through inclusive worship and promoting positive changes in all expressions of the Lutheran Church.' *4.
I would suggest that a clarification of the phrase "God given nature of sexual orientation" is needed. Is it other than the Genesis 1 and 2 model? If so, an explanation seems in order. Also, it would be good to hear what positive changes they wish to promote in all expressions of the church. A third statement that could benefit from some clarification is the one that on panel # 2 reads; "the R.I.C. programs seeks to make clearer the policy of churches where all people are welcome as full members, regardless of their sexual orientation or their children’s.”* 5.
It would be helpful to know whether the words "sexual orientation" are used in the strict sense of orientation only, or if it also includes homosexual practice? Perhaps the meaning of welcome needs clarification also. In 40 years of pastoral ministry I have always welcomed anyone and everyone to worship, and have regularly encouraged members to do the same. We usually begin the worship service, not with affirming that "we are created in the image of God", as true as that statement is, but that we have shattered that image and therefore approach God with the General Confession of Sin, not specifying any one or more sins. In this instance, the Church indeed is a 'hospital for sick souls in need of healing'.
Under the "Affirmation of Welcome" there are two further statements that are a cause for concern. First, "We acknowledge this reconciliation extends also to those whose affectional orientation is toward a person of the same gender." And… "You may substitute the more inclusive phrase, 'people of all sexual orientations' for 'gay and lesbian' people, it you desire."
The euphemistic sounding language, i.e. 'affectional orientation' and 'people of all sexual orientations' very definitely requires clarification to a degree that leaves no one in doubt as to its scope. Again, is this referring strictly to orientation or perceived orientation in both cases, or does it include lifestyle practice? If it refers to the former only, then their exegesis of Galatians 3:28 poses no problem. But if it includes the latter, then we are back to square one. Galations 3:28 reads, "In Christ there is no longer Jew or Greek, no longer slave or free, no longer male or female, for you are all one." (N.R.S.V.)
My concern is that we have clear and plain language so that no one will have any doubt whether they agree or disagree. The phrase 'people of all sexual orientations' could well be understood by some to include bi-sexuals, trans-sexuals, those who claim they are sexually attracted to children, or even to animals.
I would suggest that it is fair to say that at the present time there are two main views or understandings as to what the term 'Welcome' implies. They can roughly be defined as follows:
1) Those who accept and welcome those individuals who believe their orientation to be homosexual, but see little or no conflict in also accepting the sexual lifestyle that may result from that orientation, as long as it is loving and devoted, or words to that effect. (Note that the R.I.C. brochure says nothing about the nature of the partnership.)
2) Those who accept and welcome those individuals who believe their orientation to be homosexual, but hold that any sexual expression that may result from that understanding is contrary to the Word and will of God. As a prime example, the present practice of ordaining only homosexuals who are celibate as per the 1993 ELCIC National Convention decision that "Affirmed that the practice of this church is as follows: A self-declared homosexual is not to be approved for ordination, and if already ordained, is not to be recommended for Call."
Question? If we vote in the affirmative at the 2004 Convention on the motion before us, would it not them be interpreted by the lesbian and gay community as affirming the homosexual lifestyle as a valid and acceptable lifestyle alternative? Perhaps even stronger, in words such as "Yes, part of God's diversity of creation", as has been voiced from time to time.
If the motion is passed in 2004, we will become a R.I.C. synod. In doing so, we will ally ourselves with Lutherans Concerned. As such, we will also adopt the Lutherans Concerned goal of affirming all orientations as God-given. At the very least, the motion will in effect create an impression that homosexual practice is not sinful, without discussion. It follows that, in the name of being consistent, the Church cannot refuse to either bless same sex-unions or ordain practicing gays or lesbians when so requested. Is it not fair to say that this ramification needs to be made abundantly clear by all in leadership positions especially, but also to all involved and concerned members of our Synod. And that includes studies and discussions leading up to the Convention.
The experience of the Anglican Church in B.C. on this issue should give us cause to make sure we say what we mean and mean what we say when we collie to vote. In so doing we can go a long way in eliminating any "I thought this..,” or "I thought that..,” following the decision, which ever view prevails.
I would wish to share that I prefer the 'Communities of Grace' model to that of the ‘R.I.C.’ model. The wording is clear and unambiguous. The reader will soon agree to disagree. In its favor, it is inclusive of all sexual misbehaviour or sins, not singling out any one, and then underscores the healing power of the Word to any and all. The message and the ministry of the 'Communities of Grace' will be shared in more detail under the section entitled, THE NEED FOR PASTORAL INTEGRITY AND COMPASSION.
We now turn to our next section, THE WITNESS OF SCRIPTURE, in the confidence that we can demonstrate the basis for what has already been shared, but also to re-affirm the statements in our Confessions with regard to the Scriptures.
THE WITNESS OF SCRIPTURE
I have chosen the term 'Witness of Scripture' to indicate that I accept at face value the written witness of the Bible as God's written Word to us in matters of faith and ethics unless, in Luther's words, "the context clearly forbids". Admittedly, that occurs somewhat regularly, at which times we draw on principles of interpretation such as 'Let Scripture interpret Scripture'.
And so we turn to the Scriptures in the confidence of experiencing clarification on not only the question of homosexual lifestyle, but perhaps of greater importance, the gift and intent of human sexuality. The references on this topic are nine or more in number, addressed as follows:
1. Genesis 19:1ff................. 4. Romans 1:18ff.... 7.I Tim. 1:18ff
2. Judges 19:16ff................. 5. I Cor. 6:19ff....... 8. Jude 1:7
3. Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13.. 6. II Peter 2:6ff....... 9.The Gospels
The first three of these passages for close to 3500 years and the latter for close to 2000 years have been viewed as disapproving and even condemning of homosexual behaviour. However, over the past three decades or more a new school of thought has emerged that has taken a decidedly different approach to these passages. This school of interpretation is led primarily by S. Bailey, J. Boswell, P. Coleman, V. Mollenkott, L. Scanzoni and R. Scroggs.
Beginning with the account as found in Genesis 19, the story of the visits by the angels to the home of Lot, we read as follows from verse 4: But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house, and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you to night? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them". Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof." (N.R.S.V.)
A comparison of the K.J.V., T.E.V., and the N.I.V. yields little of significance from the N.R.S.V. At face value, there can be little doubt that in all four versions that all the men in the town were familiar with homosexual practice. However, the expressed view of most of the aforementioned scholars is that the primary sin in this instance is not overt homosexuality. Rather, it is inhospitality. Lot, they say, is an alien and is entertaining guests who are not local and the men of Sodom wish to check out their references, so to speak, and requests of Lot "to know" them, to get acquainted with them. Boswell for example, shares that of various views, the more obvious one is: "The city was destroyed for their inhospitable treatment of the visitors sent from the Lord." *6.
The interpretation in question revolves around the Hebrew verb 'Yadah' which literally means 'to know', as in to become acquainted, However, it is also used euphemistically to mean sexual intercourse, as in "Adam knew his wife and she conceived" (Genesis 4:1) Here, as in a few other places, the verb 'Yadah' is used. This passage also illustrates what Luther meant when he used the phrase, "unless the context clearly forbids". Scholars since the early Church and until recently have maintained that the euphemistic use of the verb 'Yadah' is the case here simply because the context so indicates.
As one reads the efforts of scholars of both views of this issue, one is tempted to follow the most articulate, tolerant and caring. However, as important as it is to be tolerant and caring, and I dismiss neither, it is even more important that we carefully listen to the witness of Scripture. Have we these nineteen centuries been all wrong? Have acknowledged scholars such as Augustine, Eusebius, Josephus, Philo, Calvin and Luther (to name only six, and toall but ignore Jewish O.T. scholars) been all wrong? Luther for example, comments as follows on this passage: "The heinous conduct of the people of Sodom is extra-ordinary, inasmuch as they departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which was implanted into nature by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversity? Undoubtedly from Satan, who after people have turned away from God so behaved." *8.
Why would Lot commit himself to such an irrational offer, to such a blatant and unfeeling proposal as to offer his two daughters, virgins no less to these men? Can there be any reason other than these men were seeking sexual gratification, and Lot well knew it? So, unwilling to provide for their primary desire (i.e. homosexual gratification) he stupidly offers them heterosexual gratification via his daughters? Poor Lot. Fortunately the men of Sodom did not take him up on his offer. A reference of note in this regard from the Letter from Jude reads as follows: "Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities which in like manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment by fire." 1:7 (N.R.S V.)
We now turn to Judges 19 where we read an account similar in many respects to the Sodom event, though several generations later. It is not a a pretty story. This time a Levite, along with his concubine and servant are guests of a resident of Gibeah. As night falls the men of the city make the same appeal as did the men of Sodom. The host offers them his daughter along with the concubine. They accept the concubine and proceed to sexually abuse her to the death.
Once again we hear the same arguments from our new wave scholars that the primary sin here is inhospitality. Not to minimize the importance of hospitality (we are so encouraged in Hebrews 13:1), but a judgment of the severity of Sodom for inhospitality? Where in Scripture is inhospitality specifically singled out for censure. Does not the offering and the acceptance of the concubine in lieu of the Levite by the men of Gibeah settle the question of the meaning of 'Yadah' in this instance also?
Turning to the Levitical texts, if taken a face value, are the strongest denunciation of homosexual behaviour in all of the Old Testament. "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death." 18:22 and 20:13 (N.R.S.V.)
However, the New Testament differentiates between ceremonial and the dietary laws' and the moral law. One example is the passage in Acts 10: 13-15 where God says to Peter, "Get up Peter, kill and eat", but Peter said, "By no means Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean." The voice came to him again, a second time, "What God has made clean, you must not call profane."
The very clear words of Jesus at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill " (Matt. 5:17). This statement is then exemplified in various ways and situations throughout chapters 5, 6 & 7 and leaves little doubt that although the ceremonial laws have been set aside, the moral law has not been set aside. Later on in the same gospel we have both the Golden Rule as well as the Great Commandment that in both cases address very clearly the questions of ethical behaviour. However, the gay lobby continues to maintain that the entire text in question is ceremonial in nature, and therefore not applicable today.
In regards to this text, Erwin Buck in his essay writes as follows; "The clearest and most detailed Old Testament evidence for the rejection of homosexual behaviour is found in Leviticus 18:19-23 and 20:10-16 *8. then continues by listing the various prohibitions found in these verse, including homosexual relationships, and concludes by saying, "All in all, it appears to conclude that in the above contexts homosexual behaviour is forbidden for both religious and moral reasons, if indeed the biblical writers would have distinguished between religion and morality." *9.
Interestingly, a further reading of three passages, namely Rom 10:8-10, I Peter 2:11-17 and James 2:8-13 give evidence that the Apostles Paul, Peter and James draw from these non-ceremonial chapters to confirm ethical guidelines within the Christian community.
Turning to the New Testament we now come to the passage that traditionally has been viewed as voicing the strongest repudiation of the lifestyle of homosexuals; a repudiation held valid until this past generation when arguments put forth by Boswell, Mollenkott, Scroggs and others have challenged the traditional views. But first, read Corinthians 1:26-27 (NRSV): "For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."
The arguments from the gay activists revolve around variations of four claims, One that this passage is essentially an echo of the Levitical texts, namely that same sex relations are culticly impure, but not necessarily sinful, Two, that what Paul is talking about is Pederasty (recruiting or enslaving a boy for sexual purposes by an older man), a practice in vogue in Greece and Rome at this time. Thirdly, that Paul is referring to heterosexuals experimenting with homosexuality, that being unnatural. Fourth and final is that if homosexual activity is set in the motivating context of love, then it is not sinful.
As for the first claim (the echoing of the Levitical texts) I'd refer you back to the previous page. If this is only a Hebrew cultic law of impurity, why then such a sweeping condemnation? Would God condemn Gentiles for breaking a Jewish purity rule? Concerning the claim that Paul is talking about pederasty rather than mutual homosexual behaviour appears upon closer examination seriously flawed. It reads, "men committed shameless acts with men," (v 27). It does not read "men with boys". The strong ring of mutuality here is strengthened by the statement, "they were consumed with passion for one another", not a normal assumption of pederasty, a practice not usually reciprocal by nature. A seminary professor from Vancouver notes that, "the inclusion of same-sex relations between women in Paul's indictment would indicate that he had more than the contemporary practice of pederast in view." *10.
Another scholar, trained in the classical languages observed; "The terms, 'toward one another' (involving a reciprocal pronoun), 'men with men', in themselves, and their error, all argue for reciprocal adult mutual culpability that would not characterize pederasty. As the error is mutual, so is the recompense." *11.
The third argument is that what is condemned is that heterosexuals are going against what is natural for them by experimenting with homosexuality. If that were the case, why then would the unsuspecting homosexuals also be punished? The noun is plural. I would further note the observation by one pastor that when we read that these men were "burning in lust for each other" makes it highly unlikely that they were heterosexuals experimenting with homosexuality. *12.
Concerning their final claim, namely that if the gay and lesbian behaviour is the result of committed love between the partners, then it is not sinful. Variations include words such as caring, tender, and devoted to denote validity. We are asked to focus, not on the act per se, but on the motive. One exponent of this kind of thinking flatly stated that; "Homosexual acts between persons who intend a permanent union in love are not sinful, nor should the church consider them as such."*13.
An Anglican writes at some length on this topic concluding with a question, "Whatever seems to be compatible with love is not, ipso facto, good, irrespective of all other considerations. Love needs law to guide it. Did not Jesus say, "If you love me, keep my commandments?" *14.
"It is argued that since love is the highest Christian virtue (which it is) therefore love is an adequate criterion by which to judge every relationship (which it is not). The presupposition here is that love is the sole guide in the Christian life; that alongside love the claim and command of God is abolished; that whatever seems to be compatible with love is by that fact good, irrespective of all other considerations." *15.
One must note with interest that most wedding liturgies say much more about loyalty than they do about love.
We continue with I Corinthians 6:9-11 and I Timothy 1:9-11, and although the message of these two selections are very similar there are important points to note. First, however, the passages in question. "Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers - none of these will inherit the kingdom of God." (I Corinthians) "Understanding that the law is laid down, not for the innocent, but for the lawless and the disobedient, for the godless and the and the sinful, for the unholy and the profane, for those who kill their mother or father, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching." (I Timothy)
At face value both texts certainly appear to condemn homosexual behaviour (sodomites), along with other sexual sins. New translations over the past 50 years yield little difference. The T.E.V. translates 'sodomites' as homosexuals. At issue is an accurate meaning for the Greek words, 'nralakoi' and 'arsenokotai'. Both terms are used in both passages. The various arguments offered in opposition to traditional interpretations in these instances are basically no different than those offered with regards to the Romans passage. We are asked to believe that in the midst of several other sexual sins that Paul narrows these two terms to a point of only indicting one type of homosexual behaviour, namely pederasty.
James DeYoung, a professor in classical languages suggests that the term 'arsenokotai' was deliberately coined by Paul based on the Septuagant rendition of the Levitical texts spoken of earlier, are very plausible. This he explains over a five page effort and concludes with this summary: "The Greeks were adept at forming new compounds, Therefore Paul coined a word which he knew would bring quick recognition. The meaning of 'arsenokotai' is also aided by its place in both lists. It is closely tied to adultery - a concern of moral principle, and not just purity codes limited to Israel, Paul's use of 'malakoi' and 'arsenokotai' leaves no room for doubt that all forms of homosexual behaviour is wrong.” *16.
One last point concerning these texts that I believe is noteworthy, namely I Corinthians 9:11 where we read "such were some of you". Can this mean anything other than that certain people known by Paul had been set free from those sins listed, including homosexual behaviour? These passages were not written in isolation. They are part of a larger picture - God's indictment on pagan society. Humankind had distorted even the basic sexual identity which had been given by God in His created order.
From the Gospels we quote but one verse, but it is foundational. In reply to the question posed by the Pharisees to Jesus in regard to divorce, Jesus replied: "From the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and so be joined to his wife, and two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." Mark 10:6-9 (N,R.S.V )
In giving this reply, Jesus not only accented the positive, but deliberately made no references to any other alternatives, because there were none. It is my increasing conviction as I seek to study the broad spectrum of sexuality that it is necessary to begin with chapters one and two of Genesis, the very basis upon which Jesus responded to the question from the Pharisees, by going back as it were, to square one.
Here we meet, as one person put it, God's interesting equation, 'One plus one equals one’. The union of opposites opens the gates to the paths of completeness for both. Opposites not only in the genital sense, but also in terms of personality, socialness, aspirations, etc. This is the divine intent, and as such sets aside any other partnerships as a distortion of that intent. Bishop Sims puts it even more strongly when he shares that, "Homosexuality is not a valid model for sexuality for it affirms incompleteness - sex is not humanity's gift to itself. Rather, it is God's gift, and it comes with conditions." *17.
"We are taught that we are human beings. We are also taught that we are sexual beings. We are further taught that we are sinful beings. Our sinful nature extends into our sexuality, gay or straight." *18.
Apart from Jesus, not one of us can lay claim to being sexually sinless. This fact prompts one to be as humble as possible in addressing any and all aspects of sexuality. Is not the great truth of Genesis two the institution of marriage? Adam's love poem in v. 23 is followed by the "for this reason", and "cleave to his wife" indicates that marriage is to be a loving as well as a cleaving commitment which is not only heterosexual, but also permanent And "they shall become one flesh" indicates that marriage is consummated in sexual intercourse, which is a sign and seal of the marriage covenant. I would further quote from John Stott who articulates this truth: "In Genesis I God affirms the equality of the sexes, since both share in the image of God and the stewardship of the earth. In Genesis 2 God affirms the complementary quality of the sexes, which constitutes the basis for heterosexual marriage, such as our need for companionship (it is not good for man to be alone). Thus Scripture defines the marriage God instituted in terms of heterosexual monogamy. It is the union of one man with one woman. And Scripture provided no other kind of marriage or sexual intercourse, for God provided no alternative." *19.
Lutheran scholar Daniel Pul carries this thought a step further in writing; "God celebrates, blesses and takes delights in our persons as male and female, and has made a very specific way that His image is expressed through the union of a man and a woman " *20.
The foregoing passages of Scripture are the same passages that the Christian Church as well as individual believers within the Church have studied in seeking to understand the will of God concerning the gift of sexuality. As earlier shared, often the study of Scripture involves interpretation. Luther's two principles he offered to beginning students, namely to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture - and - to accept Scripture at face value unless the context forbids has basically been the approach this essay has adopted. What Luther wrote in his day in response to trends that were occurring, not unlike our day, is worth reaffirming. "No violence is to be done to the words of God, whether by man or by an angel; but (the Scriptures) are to be retained in their simplest meaning whenever possible, and to be understood in their grammatical and literal sense unless the context plainly forbids." *21.
Any conversation or study concerning the 'Witness of Scripture' must of necessity include addressing that part of the Scriptures that we refer to as the Gospel. Traditionally, the term gospel has been defined as 'those portions of Scripture that share what God has done for us and our salvation through Jesus Christ, and what He offers to do for us today in terms of forgiveness, healing and renewing, or words to that effect.
If one accepts the contention that homosexuality as an orientation, is a diversity of God's creation, and that the practice of homosexuality is therefore not a sin, then the gospel as just defined does not really enter the picture, is not needed. The gay community, generally speaking rejects the need for confession, repentance and forgiveness in terms of their lifestyle.
However, if one accepts the contention that homosexual behavior is a sin, then the traditional understanding of the gospel has a purpose and a message for the homosexual lifestyle. From a biblical perspective, confession, repentance and forgiveness lays the foundation for all real and lasting change. Bishop Jacobson, commenting on his reservations with the demands of Lutherans Concerned, writes as follows; "As their demands now stands, this is what we have: quite properly, they want to join the whole church at the cross of Christ and be cleansed along with all by His redeeming blood. But, unlike the whole rest of the church, they want to place one condition on their willingness to join us at the foot of the cross, namely that under no circumstances may either our redeeming Lord or we regard their homosexuality in need of redemption." *22.
Assuming that homosexual behaviour is sinful, then to offer the gospel of forgiveness, healing and renewal is not discrimination, but a reaching out in caring love. Testimonials by many recovered gays and lesbians bear witness to the power of the gospel to forgive and to change. This reality will be further addressed later. Another Bishop comments on this topic as follows: "The most important witness of Scripture concerning homosexual behaviour is not condemnation, but the promise of liberation. *23.
And so we turn to our next section and will seek to address the fallacy of many of the claims by the gay agenda that unfortunately appears to be believed by many people in both society and church.
A RESPONSE TO THE GAY CLAIMS
In the interests of brevity this section will be limited to addressing the four main claims by the gay activists and un-masking some of their methods of intimidating the public at large and those who voice opposition. Usually, their agendas revolve around four or more disputed propositions concerning homosexuality, and consequently homosexual behaviour. They are:
That homosexuality is normal and part of creation's diversity.
That 10% or better of the population is homosexual.
That homosexuality is innate, that is, inherited from birth.
That homosexuality is irreversible and unchangeable.
The argument that homosexuality is part of God's diversity of creation is in various ways put forth by church related groups including Lutherans Concerned, who have repeatedly stated that the one non-negotiable demand in any dialog is that homosexuality be regarded as God-given and therefore good. To ask one to say that 'gay is good' prior to any conversation is hardly playing on a level field. In one fell swoop one is asked to set aside centuries of understanding by the Church in this regard. Retired bishop of Alberta and the Territories words this even stronger when he writes: "It's not very promising to be told in a 'Call to Dialog' that the one non-negotiable demand of Lutherans Concerned is that the Church join them in rejecting the 'pre-scientific' view of human sexuality embodied in Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. We are asked as a starting point for discussion to allow what they regard as 'empirical evidence' to supercede one of the most basic revelations of Holy Scripture relative to God's intention in creating us male and female. We are asked to begin by regarding homosexuality as God-given, despite the clear witness of Scripture," *24
The argument that 10% of the population is gay is patently inaccurate. Perhaps the reasoning is that if the overall population buys into this statistic it will project the conclusion that homosexuality is normal. However, a variety of recent and reputable studies from both sides of the Atlantic indicate otherwise. The University of Chicago's recognized National Opinion Research Center (N.O.R.C.) in an intensive study distinguished between four categories that could add up to 10% or more. First, those who remain in a monogamous relationship for a period of a year or more, are less than 1%. Secondly, those who frequent gay bars, bath houses, etc, on a somewhat regular basis, ca. 2%. Three, those who are primarily bi-sexual and occasionally engage in homosexual behaviour, ca. 2 to 3%. Fourthly, those who have once or twice experimented with homosexual behaviour and then quit, 4 to 5%. Studies conducted in Germany, France, Scandinavia and England were within less than 1% difference overall. *24
Closer to home and based on the 10% figure, the Ontario's elementary teachers voted overwhelmingly (96%) to ask school boards to fund lesbian, gay and bi-sexual materials for students as young as four years of age. *26 So far, the request has not been approved. A gay leader admitted via Newsweek as follows: "We used that figure (10%) when most gay people were entirely hidden to try and create an impression of our numerousness." *27
Responding to the third claim, namely that homosexuality is inherited from birth, and that is only a matter of time until the gay gene is found, is strongly refuted. Sheldon is a researcher who writes that there is no biological, hormonal or genetically conclusive evidence to substantiate this claim. He continues: "Increasingly, studies from universities such as the John Hopkins Schools of Medicine, the Albert Einstein School of Medicine, and Master and Johnson point to environmental factors as the major causes. Specifically, a child's perception of family dynamics, a traumatized condition, rape, abuse or other traumatic events may cause gender identity conflict." *28
If homosexuality is genetic in origin, and being aware that it cannot be reproductive of either self or race, does it not therefore represent in its very condition a deviation from genetic norms? Although rephrased or condensed, this argument has been advanced by others, but has yet to receive a reply. Whenever the genetic/hormonal question is raised, recognized researchers such as Bailey and Pillard and Simon LeVay are often quoted since they have done extensive laboratorial studies in this regard in the hope of finding a gay gene. To date they have not. Much of the findings by Bailey and Pillard have recently been discredited because they didn’t use random sampling. The men used in the study were recruited through ads placed in gay periodicals. Simon LeVay categorically stated that "Time and time again I have been described as someone who proved that homosexuality is genetic. I did not.” *29
The fourth claim, namely that homosexuality is irreversible despite evidence to the contrary seems to expose their Achilles heel - their ongoing denunciation of any forms of therapy to gays and lesbians, who of their own free will request such help. For example, in May of 1994 members of the American Psychiatric Association were gathering for a meeting. They were met by a large number of people who were protesting. The difference this time was that they were ex-gays who were furious at the attempts of the gay lobby to prevent psychiatrists from helping homosexuals change their lifestyle. *30
Gay activists have gone on record by saying that it is a violation of professional ethics for any therapist to help a gay or lesbian become a heterosexual. Others have claimed that these so-call converts were never gay to begin with. Is there a touch of homophobia present here? Sinclair Rogers, a therapist who works primarily with the gay community, and only with those who clearly indicate that they wish to reverse their lifestyle writes: "As for the argument that 'those who changed were never really true gays'.., I can imagine most of my clients would find this rationale laughable, and would ask, "What does one have to do to qualify?" I've heard the argument before, and it goes on to imply that those who changed were really meant to go straight, but they were just confused. Well, if is so, then the gay underworld must be filled with many confused pseudo gays, who should be straight and just don't know it. Therefore (along that thinking) rather than criticize our efforts, should not the gay advocates encourage us to weed out the pseudo gays from the 'real’ ones?" *31
Exodus International, an umbrella organization, represents some 90 separate ministries who foster a religious or spiritual approach toward the healing of self-confessed gay and lesbians, who in their own words seek deliverance from the homosexual lifestyle. One of those groups, patterned after Alcoholic Anonymous and called Homosexual Anonymous regularly report that 30 to 50% of their clients experience change from homosexual behavior and desire to that of a heterosexual orientation. A psychologist wrote: "It is paradoxical that even though the politically active homosexual groups deny the possibility of change, all studies from Schrenk-Noltzing and on have found positive effects. This misinformation spread by certain circles that 'homosexuality is untreatable by therapy' does incalculable harm to thousands of men and women." *32
That homosexuality is irreversible is not the case. Testimonials from a mounting number of ex-gays and lesbians can no longer be dismissed as overheated wishful thinking. These are real individuals who have been touched by the grace of God.
I return to 'Nellie and Bill' (see preface) for a moment. There was no doubt in my mind that both of them wanted out of their lifestyle. For me to affirm either of them in their lifestyle was not an option. It would not have been an act of grace. To encourage them to take ownership of their wrong choices (repentance), and to encourage them to place their trust in the Great Physician who would forgive, heal and renew their lives was the winning option, and still is, trophies of unsullied grace.
Turning to the matter of un-masking some of the methods by gay activists use in seeking to intimidate, I turn to Dr. J.R. Mcleod who has been a family physician in both rural and urban Canada for close to 30 years. In an interview he declared that "the statistics put forth by gay activists have been inaccurate and have misused science". He went on to share eight principles adapted by the activist community (that one would almost think was classified) that he termed 'gay politics'. We share only a few, and in brief. If you wish the full text, see the footnote. *33
Our primary objective regarding homo-haters is to cow and silence them.
Portray Gays as victims of circumstance and prejudice,
Make Gays look good, as virtual pillars of society,
Make victimizers look bad on T.V., or in print, as vengeful,
I readily admit that the foregoing is the voice of only one segment of the gay community, but it is the voice that is heard by the overall population when their political agenda is carried out. What is missing is the voice of disapproval from the larger gay community to this kind of promotion.
One of the oft heard terms used in response to those who either disagree or challenge claims made by gay activists are the terms 'homophobic' of 'homophobia'. Its purpose, it seems, is to hopefully silence opposition, let alone intimidate. As the saying goes, "If you cannot knock the message, then knock the messenger". I quote a self-acknowledged gay individual who writes: "Homophobia is the number one buzzword in the gay and lesbian lexicon - totally meaningless and contrived, but very effective in creating guilt and intimidation, and in implying intolerance and oppression." *34
At the risk of repetition, we would underscore that one of the major concerns of this essay is to expose the ongoing move to re-structure the marriage and family paradigm as it presently exists. This is a move that appears on several fronts, but especially by the efforts of the activist agenda of the gay community. Our need it to mobilize in a manner that is definitely nonviolent, but caringly assertive in terms of the family unit that has been the model for several millennia, and especially in the Judeo-Christian world. We continue as we address the Witness of the Church in our day to the question before us.
THE WITNESS OF THE CHURCH
For 3500 years or more the Jewish Faith has held homosexual behaviour to be contrary to God's will. For almost 2000 years the Christian Faith has held the same position, witnessed in particular by the writings of the Church Fathers, and much later by the Reformers, some of whom have been quoted. This part of the essay will focus primarily on the Witness of the Church over the past decade or two. First, a few thoughts by some of the new wave of Church leaders who are quoted somewhat regularly by both the church and secular press.
Among them is Bishop John Spong from the US. for his ongoing advocacy of same-sex blessing where love and commitment are in evidence. On this side of the border, Bishop Michael Ingham from B.C. has recently drawn the attention of the media for statements similar to that of Spong. The diocese where he is bishop in June of 2002 voted in favor of blessing same-sex unions. This in turn has drawn strong objections from both outside and within the world-wide Anglican Communion. This has resulted in any implementation of this motion to having been put on hold. The media reported comments by Third World Bishops who were not in support as well as from former Archbishop George Carey. The Religion Editor of the Ottawa Citizen wrote as follows: "Archbishop George Carey warned yesterday that dioceses such as Vancouver's risk fracturing the Church by blessing same-sex unions. He deeply regretted that North American bishops such as Bishop Ingham seemed to be making decisions without regard to their fellow bishops, most of whom disapprove same-sex unions." *35
Question. What can other denominations, including Lutherans at this point in their history, learn from these events? An article, a decade ago by the same writer entitled, 'A Revolution in Progress' went on to say that to day the Christian Church finds itself in the midst of a revolution. He went on to highlight the rapidly growing Metropolitan Community Church, founded by for homosexuals, citing the Ottawa congregation, pastored by the Rev. V„ Reinbecker, who in turn shared the following; "The gospel is a message of love for all people, and not just for heterosexuals; there is not a single passage in Scripture, that rightly has interpreted, has anything to say about homosexuality in the 20th century." *36
A retired President of L.T.S. in Saskatoon when asked, commented as follows: "Where we have a same sex couple who want to live together in love and worship their God, the Church should accept them. Accepting means the church would not try to change their orientation." *37
In response to some of these developments I would turn your attention to the testimony of translations and their translators before sharing some significant observations and quotations from the more traditional scholars from various backgrounds. In the early fifties the then revered K.J.V. received its first serious challenge since the A.S.V, of 1901 when the R.S.V. arrived on the scene The accompanying advertising was anchored in the reality that a team of some 40 recognized experts in the various disciplines of linguistics, including etymologists, historians and theologians had worked untiringly to produce this effort.
The translation horse was out of the barn. In short order over the next 30 or so years many new translations appeared on the scene. Most notably, because of the extensive scholarship involved in each case, came the N.E.B, the T.E.V, the N.I.V, and most recently, the N.R.S.V. The latter three were top sellers on the North American market. All three laying claim to able scholarship of the genre of the world recognized Eugene Nida, without doubt the top linguist of the century.
The question I raise is this? How could upwards of 200 scholars of various disciplines, including experts in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, as well as etymology, history and theology miss what Boswell, Scroggs and company claim to be near self-evident? Who are the competent scholars? Is it possible that these four or five primary writers are in essence revisionists? Revisionists known primarily for their support of the homosexual lifestyle? I confess that I lean strongly in favor of Eugene Nida and his brand of colleagues. Scholarship for scholarship, I rest my case. In further response, I would quote in turn, Karl Barth, the present Pope, a Jewish psychiatrist, a Mennonite layman, and a Lutheran theologian… "The command of God shows him (man) irrefutably in clear contradiction to his own theories - that as a man he can only genuinely be human with a woman, or as a woman with a man. In proportion as he accepts this insight, homosexuality can have no place in his life whether in its more refined or cruder forms." *38
Following the World Pride Roma 2000 festival to which an estimated 70,000 gays and lesbians gathered, demanding an end to prejudice and discrimination, at which time Pope Paul II denounced homosexuality "as an objective disorder, an offence to Christian values, and against natural law." *39
A Jewish psychiatrist and an outspoken critic of the gay lifestyle maintains that the entire debate about homosexuality is inextricably rooted in the Judeo-Christian concept of sin because the idea that homosexuality is wrong has entered our culture from the Jewish and Christian faiths. Doug Koop, in an editorial wrote as follows; “…precisely because society's moral and ethical standards are forever evolving, Christians must rely on Scripture to supply the plumb line, the enduring standard against which human behaviour is to be measured, And it takes what one person called 'hermeneutical gymnastics' to get Scripture to approve - extramarital sex in any form." *40
Leonard Klein, a Lutheran parish pastor addresses the question of the Church's witness in our day in language that leaves no one guessing: "The Church's witness involves a call to faithfulness, to repentance to discipleship, and to bearing the cross. It is the announcement of real forgiveness for real sins, We minister to human beings, not to categories, By capitulating to the modern political tendency to identify people by category we subordinate Christian ministry to political correctness, Such inadequate thinking does homosexual persons no favor.," *41
Almost every denomination within Christendom in North America and in Europe are wrestling with-this question. I would hesitate to question the motives of any who seek to address this topic. Dr Merton Strommen from our sister Church south of the border and author of 'The Church and Homosexuality' merits admiration and credit in staying throughout his 90 pages with his subtitle, 'Searching for Middle Ground'. A quality bibliography of over 200 bears witness to excellent research even as his sense of fairness to both views is evident. He quotes for example, Bishop Paul Egertson, whose stated desire is that the Lutheran Church provide: "Liturgical blessings for gay/lesbian unions and permit congregations to choose openly gay ordained and lay ministers who are either single and celibate or coupled in a permanent, committed, monogamous, and blessed covenant." *43
One last quote from Strommen's study, a summary statement that reflects the content of a position paper by the Evangelical Church in Germany (Lutheran) and entitled, "Living With Tensions"… “Even the majority view of the phenomenon of homosexuality in the human sciences today cannot be considered to have normative significance for a theological assessment.” *44
R. Benne shares a further thought provoking statement worthy of reflection: "With regard to these sexuality issues, the Church cannot tolerate significant 'cultures of dissent' that publicly impugn the teaching of the Church by contrary teaching and behaviour. Permissiveness toward such dissenters makes the Church appear hypocritical, ineffectual or unwilling to hold dissenters accountable to its moral teaching." *45
Unfortunately, the Witness of the Church today is fractured, and the forces of secularism thrive as the two views are played off against each other. Earlier we raised the question, 'Does our behavior shape our beliefs or do our beliefs shape our behavior?' Before we turn to our closing section, WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?, we will focus briefly on an alternative model to the R,.I.C, that has grown out of Confessional Lutheran theology and is entitled 'Communities of Grace'. Co-authored by pastors Phil Gagnon and Karl Johnsen, it offers a message and a ministry that provides a needed and valid option to those who observe specific weaknesses in the R.I.C. model.
WHY ADOPT “COMMUNITIES OF GRACE” and THE NEED FOR PASTORAL COMPASSION
Today in the Lutheran Church across Canada there are two models that seek to address the question of homosexual behavior. The one is called Reconciling in Christ, and the other is called Communities of Grace. The former began in the U.S. and has been in existence for a generation or more. The latter began in Canada and has a much briefer history.
The Communities of Grace is an intentional ministry offering to help people who not only struggle, but desire help with any sexual sins, whether it is adultery, fornication, pedophilia or homosexuality. It strives to echo in words and actions the example of Jesus in not condoning a particular sexual sin, but in loving the sinner, eg. The woman taken in adultery, "Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more." (John 8:11)
In contrast to Reconciling in Christ (R.I,C.), Communities of Grace (C.O.G.) believes it is not an act of grace to affirm gay and lesbian folk in that lifestyle; who struggle in that lifestyle and wish to change, rather to meet them at their acknowledged point of need and offer in word and action the Gospel of forgiveness, healing and renewal. C.O.G. believes that R.I.C. errs in calling gay good, or more specifically, a diversity of God's creation.
Communities of Grace seeks to offer a model in harmony with the traditional biblical and confessional understanding of our Lutheran heritage, but also in a spirit of pastoral care and concern in harmony with our stated attitudes and practice as outlined in our Book of Occasional Services, 1992.
The pro-gay lobby in North America and Europe has steadfastly petitioned the Church of Jesus Christ to accept and normalize homosexual behaviour and gay theology. This has been done despite the clear witness of Scripture and the teachings of the Church catholic, and in accord with the Judeo-Christian tradition since the beginning.
The Communities of Grace Statement is an unequivocal response to the R.I.C. Worshipping Communities theology and practice of accepting and promoting homosexual behaviour as pleasing and acceptable to God, though contrary to the doctrines of creation and the testimony of medical science that declares the practice of homosexual behaviour and heterosexual promiscuity to be unsafe.
As one of our Church's Social Statement declares: "Scientific research has not been able to provide conclusive evidence regarding the causes of homosexuality. Nevertheless, homosexuality is viewed biblically as a departure from the heterosexual structure of God's creation. Persons who engage in homosexual behavior are sinners only as are all other persons - alienated from God and neighbor." *46
Furthermore, it is important to underscore the need to stand fast upon the biblical norm of marriage and family that is threatened by gay theological definition. And also to declare clearly to Lutherans Concerned that R.I.C. worshipping communities do not speak from the Holy Scriptures, the tradition of the Church catholic, or from contemporary scientific investigation, and is not a program in congruence with the teaching of the ELCIC.
In terms of the need for pastoral care and compassion, we read from the Service of Ordination the following; "Care for God's people, bear their burdens and do not betray their confidence, So discipline yourself in life and teaching that you preserve the truth, giving no occasion for false security and illusory hope. Witness faithfully in word and deed to all people. Give and receive comfort as you serve within the Church. And be of good courage, for God has called you, and your labor in the Lord is not in vain.” *47
When the people of the Church struggle, as all people do with sinful desires, words and deeds, pastors are called to be compassionate, knowing their own struggles. It is in this arena of struggle, grace and submission to the will of God that pastors are also admonished to be disciplined in their personal life and understanding of the gospel and the Confessions.
It is enough to be accountable for one's own sins; but to be called to preach, teach and give pastoral care for others is indeed an extraordinary responsibility that can only be given and equipped by the Holy Spirit. For the ordained are called not simply to be counselors, but to give pastoral care of the soul in light of the gospel of Jesus Christ, It is thus necessary for pastors to walk beside those who struggle in their sin, and lovingly, gently exhort those who willingly live in impenitence. Prayer, pastoral care and gentleness are the tools by which the Word of God is to be conveyed to those who believe, despite the perspicuity of Scripture, that their particular sinful behaviour is not sin, but a blessing.
As such, being accountable to the Call of God and to the teaching-of the Scriptures as handed down by the Church, pastors are exhorted to give "no occasions for false security and illusory hope" (O.S. p. 197). Therefore, as difficult as it may be, pastors are to hold fast to the voice of the Shepherd and not yield to the voices of culture and society but to remember the exhortation given by the Church in their ordination rite: "The Church in which you are to be ordained confesses the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God and are the norm of its faith and life. We accept, teach and confess the Apostles', the Nicene, and, the Athanasian Creeds, We also acknowledge the Lutheran Confessions as the true witnesses and faithful expositions of the Holy Scriptures. Will you therefore preach and teach in accordance with the Holy Scriptures and these creeds and confessions?" (O.S., p.194)
I conclude this section with a comment on the phrase from the Service of Ordination (from the previous page) namely, "And be of good courage, for God has called you, and your labor in the Lord is not in vain." Being children of light in the kingdom of God we are reminded that there is a conflict of cosmic proportions surrounding us. Standing firm upon the Word of God, equipped by the Spirit of Christ, the believer is assailed by the kingdom of darkness and the father of lies. Living in the reality of these dark days the pastor and all believers can be tempted by the illusion of evil overshadowing the work of God in our society and culture.
Nonetheless, the Word of God encourages us to remember that "we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken (therefore) let us be thankful, and so worship God with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire." (Hebrews 12:28).
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE ?
It is not only a valid question, it is a good question. It motivates us to evaluate both the past and the present as we seek to chart the future, and especially as we prepare to vote in 2004 on the motion before us.
As shared earlier, the primary motivations for this essay are two in number. One, is my concern over the erosion of the traditional Christian values concerning marriage and family that have stood the test of time. Values that include among others, the sacredness of life from conception and onward, the privilege and responsibility of nurturing children toward responsible maturity. And, within the overall gift of sexuality, the special and exclusive gift of sexual intimacy between a husband and a wife.
On June 8, 1999, our Parliament passed a motion by a vote of 218 to 55 that "all necessary steps be taken by the government to preserve the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others." That was four short years ago. Today that motion is in serious danger of being replaced. Retired pastor, Bert Warden writes; "This is an hour when the stability of families is increasingly under attack due to loose divorce laws and shameless selfishness of many parents, the harvest of broken marriages, broken homes, poverty, alienated children and juvenile delinquency. We must not further 'water down' the institution of marriage by broadening it to include other sexual liaisons." *48
Along this same vein I commend for your reflection this thought from Prof. Prager, who specializes in cultural trends; "Man's nature, undisciplined by values, will allow sex to dominate his life and the life of society. It is not overstated to say that the Torah's prohibition of non-marital sex made the western civilization possible. Societies that did not place limitations around sexuality were stymied in their development. The subsequent dominance of the Western world, can to a significant extent be attributed to the sexual revolution, initiated by Judaism and later carried forth by Christianity." *49
The bottom line in the debate over the ethics of homosexual behaviour for Church and Society can only be determined on moral grounds, and that involves spiritual principles.
My second concern is what appears to be a growing erosion of the traditional authority ascribed to Scripture as per our Confessions. Some 450 years ago the Christian Church experienced something of a revolution in terms of the question of authority. A number of men Knox, Hus, Simons, Calvin and Luther (to name only five) began a movement that came to be known as the Reformation. The one principle these men had in common was 'Sola Scriptura', referring to their conviction that in all matters of faith and ethics that the Scriptures alone were the final authority. Reason, tradition, experience, etc., were regarded as secondary voices.
Is it not time perhaps that the Church, and especially its leaders pause to re-assess what influence revisionist thinking is having on our confessional understanding of the integrity and authority of Scripture today. And then to clarify to the Church at large with a 21st century rendition of 'Here I stand!' Our Constitution is clear. In art, II, Section 3 we read: "This Church confesses the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the inspired Word of God, through which God still speaks, and as the only source of the Church's doctrine and the authoritative standard for the faith and life of the Church." *50
Either the Scriptures are inspired (God breathed to use Luther's words), or they are not. Either we regard that quality of inspiration sufficient to give it the ultimate authority over tradition, experience, science, politics or reason, or we do not. I close this essay with four selected quotes that are pregnant with content and challenge to our views on the issues before us, first from a Presbyterian, the former president of Princeton Seminary; "We have to find a way to come together confessionally in this Church of ours, to develop a consensus about biblical authority and biblical interpretation, because the Bible's authority only functions in the act of interpretation. It is merely a formal authority when it is open on the desk. It is when it is read, studied and proclaimed that it becomes in the ear of the hearer - authoritative." *51 and next we hear from a Lutheran Seminary professor who shares a simply yet profound observation: "If something other or in addition to Scripture is needed to persuade us to the authority of Scripture, do we not then need something else to convince us of that as well, and in so doing, we travel the road of 'ad infinitum'?" *52
And in a lighter yet pungent vein, from a retired Anglican priest and Church Historian, we read: "The authority of the Bible rests upon the belief that it contains the revealed word of God and is not the product of human invention as modern sociology would have us believe. Had the Bible been invented, the ancient Hebrews would have re-written it, for it consigned them to a mission of service and suffering that only fools would have tolerated." *53
Our final quote is from a Lutheran theologian from Germany whose writings have been read and studied in not only Lutheran seminaries. He writes: "Here stands the boundary for any Christian Church which knows itself bound by Scripture. Those who would press tire Church to change the norm of her teaching in this question must understand that they press the Church toward schism. For a Church which allows itself to be pushed to regard homosexual activity as no longer a departure from the biblical norm as to recognize homosexual partnerships as a form of personal relationship equivalent to marriage would no longer stand on the foundation of Scripture, but rather in opposition to its unanimous witness: A Church that takes such a step has thereby ceased to be an evangelical church in the tradition of the Lutheran Reformation." *54
Is there a better way to conclude this effort than by suggesting that we get on our knees and earnestly pray the toughest prayer in all of Scripture, "LORD, NOT MY WILL, BUT YOURS BE DONE."
REFERENCES
*1. BAINTON, Roland, The Church of our Fathers, Scribners & Sons, p. 135
*2. SCANZONI, L, Is The Homosexual My Neighbor? Harper & Row, p. 77-78
*3. JOHNSON, Philip, Canada Lutheran, July/August 2001, p.27
*4. & *6. From RECONCILING IN CHRIST, brochure from Lutherans Concerned
*6. BOSWELL, John, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality p.93
*7. LUTHER, Martin, (As quoted by Jaraslav Pelikan) Luther's''Works /& 97 Concordia, 1961, 3:255
*8. & *10. BUCK, Irwin, Homosexuality: A Subject that Needs Re-thinking, p.18-19
*10. GRENZ, Stan, Welcoming, but not Affriming, Knox. p. 206
*11. DeYOUNG, James Homosexuality, Kregel, 2000, p. 158
*12. GAGNON, Philip, Essay, The Homosexual Question, 2000, p.6
*13. PITTINGER, N., Time for Consent, p. 100
*14. STOTT, John; Decisive Issues Facing Christianity Today, Revell, p. 350
*15. O’LEARY, Denyse; A Crisis of Understanding, Welch, 188, p.46
*16. DeYOUNG, James, Homosexuality, Kregel, 2000, p 199
*17. SIMS, B., 'Sex & Sexuality', Christianity Today, 2/24/88 p. 27-28
*18. STOTT, John, Decisive Issues Facing Christians Today, Revell, p. 336-7
*19. STOTT, John, Decisive Issues Facing Christians Today, pgs. 344-46
*20. PUL, Daniel, Homosexuality; A Christian Perspective p, 37
*21. LUTHER, Martin, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, (1909)
*22. JACOBSON, Robert, Bishop's Lecture 'C', 1989, p. 10
*23. SIMS, Bennett, 'Sex and Sexuality' Christianity Today, 2/24/88 p. 27
*24. JACOBSON, Robert, 'Essay' In Response to Lutherans Concerned p. 6
*25. SCHMIDT, Thos., Lecture, Univ. of North Carolina, Oct. '98
*26. SMYTH, Julie National Post, Aug. 16 'Ol
*27. STODDARD, Tom 'Gay Statistics' Newsweek, p. 33 2/5/93
*28. SHELDON, Louis, Essay, Gay Agenda is Based on Myths, not Facts, p.l
*29. LeVAY, Simon, The Sexual Brain, p. 122
*30. JONES, So, and YARHOUSE, M.A., Homosexuality, I.V.P, p. 97
*31. ROGERS, S. Questions Im Asked Most About Homosexuality, Re-generation Books, , p, 13
*32. FINE, Reuben, Essay, Homosexuals Can Change, The Interim, p.20
*33. McLOED, J.R. 'Stats, Science & Risk' Focus, Sept. 2000, p. 6-7
*34. McKELLAR, John, Ottawa Citizen, July 9/98 A-17
*35. HARVEY, Bob 'Anglican Primate Fears Rift' Ottawa Citizen 9/27/02
*36. HARVEY, Bob, 'A Revolution in Progress' Faith Today, Jan/Feb '93 p.20
*37. HORDERN, Wm,, as quoted in the Canada Lutheran, July/Aug, 'O1
*38. BARTH, Karl, Church Dogmatics, Vol. # 3, part 4, p. 164
*39. POPE JOHN PAUL II, quoted by Peter Mikelic, Globe & Mail, July, 2000
*40. SATINOVER, J., Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, p. 146-7
*41. KOOP, D., "Upholding Standards Earns Credibility' Christian Week Apr.'97
*42. KLEIN, L., 'Question of Homosexuality' Lutheran Forum, Summer '00, p,,27
*43. EGERTSON, Paul (As quoted by Dr. Strommen) p, 65
*44. POSITION PAPER, The Evangelical Church of Germany (Strommen p. 76)
*45. BENNE, Robert, `Essay' The Limits of Tolerance, p. 13
*46. A STATEMENT ON SEX, MARRIAGE AND FAMILY, Luth. Church of America, 1970
*47. SERVICE OF ORDINATION, Book of Occasional Services, 1992
*48. WARDEN, Bert, 'Guest Column' Christian Week, Sept. 3 '02
*49. PRAGER, Dennis, Judaism, Homosexuality and Civilization, 1990, p.2
*50. CONSTITUTION OF THE ELCIC, July '89 p. 2
*51. GILLESPIE, Thos. W., Address-:_- Trust in Biblical Authority, July 3/96
*52. PREUS, Robert, The Inspiration of Scripture, Concordia, p. 19
*53. CUNNINGNAM, James 'Sexism', Globe and Mail, Mar. 11. '02
*54. PANNENBERG, W., 'You Shall Not Lie With A Male', Luth. Forum,eb,'9G |
|
