By the Rev. Keith Emerson, St. Paul's, Suffolk
Because
the bible is so central and dear to those who oppose the blessing of
same-gender unions, it is well worth noting that there is a situation in
Scripture very similar to what we find in the Episcopal Church today. This passage is taken from the fourteenth
chapter of Paul’s letter to the Church in Rome:
1Welcome those who are weak in faith, but not
for the purpose of quarrelling over opinions. 2Some believe in eating
anything, while the weak eat only vegetables. 3Those who eat must not
despise those who abstain, and those who abstain must not pass judgment on
those who eat; for God has welcomed them. 4Who are you to pass judgment on servants of
another? It is before their own lord that they stand or fall. And they will be upheld, for the Lord is able
to make them stand.
5 Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge
all days to be alike. Let all be fully
convinced in their own minds. 6Those who observe the day, observe it in honor
of the Lord. Also those who eat, eat in
honor of the Lord, since they give thanks to God; while those who abstain,
abstain in honor of the Lord and give thanks to God.
7 We do not live to ourselves, and we do not die to ourselves. 8If we live, we live to
the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord; so then, whether we live or
whether we die, we are the Lord’s. 9For to this end Christ died and lived again,
so that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.
10 Why do you pass judgment on your brother or sister? Or you, why do you despise your brother or
sister? For we will all stand before the
judgment seat of God. 11For it is written, ‘As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall
bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.’ 12So then, each of us
will be accountable to God.
Here
we find Paul addressing two incredibly difficult and divisive issues in his
day. Jewish-Christians in Rome believed
strongly in following the dietary laws of the original covenant. They had been raised with this practice from
childhood. It was central both to their
faith and to their identity. They ate
only vegetables in Rome perhaps because no kosher meat was available or because
it was impossible to know whether or not the meat had been used first in a
pagan ritual. Gentile-Christians, not
being raised in the original covenant, had no reservations about eating
non-kosher food. The two groups also
differed on the proper day or days to gather for worship. One group chose Saturday (the traditional day
of Sabbath) while the other worshiped on Sunday (the day of the Resurrection). One group observed Jewish festivals and
fasts, the other group did not. We live
in an era when these disputes have long been resolved, but it is still possible
to imagine the level of discord they created in the early church.
Paul
says that no matter which group you are in, you are to welcome the other, just
as God has welcomed
you into the church.[1] He then goes on to make
the following points:
- The common life of the church in Rome is not to be defined by their disagreements (14:1).
- The two groups are not to despise or pass judgment on one another (14:3,10).
- It is possible for each group to do something the other group will not and in the process have both practices honor the Lord (14:5-7).
- One group can allow the other group to have a different practice because both groups are accountable to God, not to each other (14:4,12).
Paul
continues with his thinking on this matter through 15:13. Among other thoughts, he develops a rationale
for how each group must posture itself in consideration of the needs of the
other.
As
the Episcopal Church moves toward considering for trial use a liturgy for the
blessing of same-gender relationships, I contend that Paul’s writing in Romans
14:1-15:13 provides the best biblical model to guide us at this time in our
differences. Are there other biblical
models? Certainly. There are several models that, in one form or
another, entreat the faithful to distance themselves from the faithless. I believe these models not to be appropriate
at this time because both traditionalists and reformers are manifesting the
fruit of the Spirit[2] in
the midst of our differences. Each,
through a different practice, is honoring the Lord.
[1]
The only
instances of Paul using the word “welcome” are here, in 15:7 (“Welcome one another,
therefore, just as Christ has welcomed you”), and in Philemon 17. This limited use underscores the importance
of the directive.
[2]
In Galatians 5:22-23 Paul writes
this: “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace,
patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and
self-control. There is no law against
such things.”
Conor Alexander+ St. Francis Virginia Beach
ReplyDeleteVery nice post - thank you. I would think that along with not despising or passing judgement, we need to be intentional about protecting theological differences. Its always tempting to move a canon through mandating a certain position, but to do this damages our Church rather than help it move forward. I love this model of welcoming each other in our differences, knowing that ultimately we're accountable to God.
Gary Barker, Christ Church, Smithfield
ReplyDeleteThanks, Keith. Paul's words do cut through here, don't they? There is such a spirit (very small 's') among us these days to simply walk away and condemn when we disagree. Where does that come from? It is one thing to dust off your sandals and leave town when no one will listen for the Good News (you offer the gift and then move on to find those who will celebrate it with you); but it is something radically different for members of the Body of Christ to break apart from one another in disdain. I do not see any faithful precedent for that in our New Testament.
Thank you, Keith, for your wonderful post. It brings up the following huge question in my mind: Is is possible, do you suppose, for us to see our diversity of theological understanding as a strength to be celebrated instead of a problem to be solved?
ReplyDeleteCelebrating that diversity points to the truth that we all worship a God who is greater, wiser, and more powerful than our differences, and that as Paul is so fond of pointing out, we are all members of the one body of Christ who need each other just as much as the physical body parts need each other. It is simply a part of the wholeness (shalom) of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church to acknowledge that our unity does not depend on our complete agreement with each other. That is our utter dependence on the love of Christ conquering our sad divisions.
Ed, I thought Tony Robinson's post from last week did an excellent job of raising up your very point here. I hope folks who see this week's blog, but missed last week's will go back and read Tony's post. Thanks for your comments and insights.
DeleteJesse Pruden Grace Bible Church Virginia Beach
ReplyDeleteThanks for pointing out the spot in the the Bible that says "Live & Let Live" this has been a subject that I have wondered about for some time. I hear some Christians speak of those who have chosen alternative life styles as if they need to be lynched or stoned. I know a lot of subjects in the Bible have changed as society has changed, to eat pork or not to eat pork etc. This subject I think will pass as mixed marriages has, no longer a big deal for most of us.
Jesse Pruden again
DeleteI thought of a question today. I understand the "Live & Let Live", but a question came to mind.
There are quite a few references to sexual immorality and its problems with being a Christian in the New Testament.
I have begun to wonder how the "immorality" of the alternative life styles is to be dealt with.
Are we redefining immorality?
Are we tossing sexual immorality out the window for everyone?
Just wondering.
Jesse, thanks for your voice here & your continued consideration of the issues on this blog.
Delete#1 Since we are talking fundamentally about relationships between people of the same-sex, I would invite you to ask your questions again... but this time imagine a straight couple in the question. IE) If a man & woman are dating and they choose to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage (resulting in pregnancy), would you consider that to be sexual immorality? If so, then when they come to your church & ask to be married... what do you think would be an appropriate, loving response?
Is it redefining immorality if a Church agrees to marry a man & a woman who have engaged in sexually immoral behavior with one another?
#2 Your last question misses the point a bit, I fear. The Episcopal Church is discussing the possibility of one very specific thing---blessing the relationships of same-sex couples. Our General Convention has affirmed that we would expect same-sex relationships to be characterized by "fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God."
That is a very different thing than simply tossing sexual immorality out the window. As a Church we have already acknowledged that same-sex couples exist in our midst and do in fact have relationships as describe above. But that doesn't mean that all sexual behavior is now acceptable. Sexual behaviors that are abusive, exploitative, nonconsensual, or seek to harm another person are very much in the category of "sexual immorality."
As the Church listens for the voice of the Holy Spirit in our current day & age, we are looking at same-sex couples and asking "Do we see the fruits of the Spirit in their relationships?" If we recognize love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, or self-control in the lives of gay & lesbian couples together, then these are declared by Scripture to be the fruits of the Holy Spirit. And it is the privilege & joy of God's people to bless those gardens in which the Holy Spirit's fruit grows.
Heterosexuals are not denied the rite of marriage simply because they have sinned. Nor do we expect heterosexual married couples to remain free of sin during their marriages! Rather... we acknowledge that the relationship between two people is itself an arena where God can work to sanctify us. And so we bless that relationship.... with its possibly-checkered past & and its certainly-checkered future.
By looking to respond generously & pastorally to same-sex couples with a rite of blessing, we are not simply throwing out the entire category of sexual immorality. Rather, we are acknowledging that perhaps God's prodigal Love has wider things in store for us than our limited understandings of the past. And we pray that our present limitations will be guided into the future by the Spirit who is even now leading us into all truth.
-Ben Hines
Grace Church, Yorktown
Dear Ben:
DeleteSince you seem to be advocating the acceptance by the Church of homosexual relationships, why stop there? Why can't we include polygamy, bigamy, group marriage, marriages with finite time limits, etc.? In other words, once we depart from historic, traditonal, scriptural norms, who is to say what is proper? There may even be a man who wants to have the church bless his relationship with his sixty-year-old aunt. Why should the Church not bless any non-traditional bond if the participants claim that it is a loving and non-exploitative bond?
James, Christ the King
While I agree that I am not to judege others, I must admit that sin is sin. I agree that we are to love one another, and I love those who choose to live their lives in a manner that is biblically sinful, yet aren't Christians supposed to witness to the lost? For instance, I don't judge my alcoholic father or love him any less because of his decision to live his life the way he pleases. The same is true of homosexual couples. While I feel they are living in sin, my only job is to love them as Christ would. I agree that the holy spirit will prick the heart of the sinner; this is not my job, but it is my job to live a life before the sinner that is Godly. Just my two cents.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment. Please note that anonymous comments are not permitted. Please post your name and church. Anonymous posts will be deleted. Please see our guidelines.
DeleteI must respectfully disagree with Keith's interpretation of Romans 14. In this passage, Paul is clearly talking about peripheral cultural and religious issues and not basic Christian morality. Jewish dietary and ceremonial laws clearly do not have the same import as far more fundamental behavioral precepts. Romans 14 must be read within the context of all of Paul's teaching and especially his teaching on sexual morality. Please see I Cor. 5:9-11, I Cor. 6:9-11, I Thess. 4:3-5, Col. 3:5,6, Eph. 5:3-5, I Tim. 1:10, etc.
ReplyDeleteUsing the logic that Romans 14 gives a Christian liberty to behave in just about any manner does not hold up. After all, should the Church condone consentual wife-beating, polygamy, bestiality, incest, adultery, fornication, pedophilia, heterosexual promiscuity? I hardly think so and I think that most Chritians would agree with me on that. Likewise, it is clear from the Pauline context as well as the remainder of the the New Testament that Romans 14 is not talking about fundamental Christian morality but rather secondary and tertiary practices.
James Deviese
Christ the King
James,
DeleteI have recently come back from vacation and am catching up on comments on the blog site. I really appreciate the way you have entered into the conversation because 1) you clearly articulate your thoughts, beliefs, and questions, 2) you do so in a way that is not condemning of those with whom you differ, and 3) your comments have generated a lot of responses. Thank you for adding to the richness of this electronic conversation.
Let me defend my understanding of Roman’s 14. The concerns Paul addresses here go to the heart of the seminal issue before the early church throughout the Book of Acts and much of Paul’s writing; namely can the Good News of God in Christ can be shared with Gentiles and if so what then must Gentiles do to receive it faithfully. Put more succinctly, just how Jewish did converts need to be in order to be a Christian. In our day and age this may seem like a peripheral cultural and religious issue, but that was by no means the case in Paul’s time. It was the divisive issue in the church for decades; requiring a gathering of Apostles in council at Jerusalem and resulting in more than a few fractured relationships. I contend that the model Paul puts forward in Romans 14 provided a method for the early church to bridge a significant divide and thus offers guidance for the church in our own times.
Though not the focus of my post, let me also respond to something your raise in your comment. I contend that the church is not trying to do away with “traditional” marriage between and man and a woman, but rather is engaged in discernment to see if it is God’s will that our understanding of marriage be broadened to include the blessing of same-gendered couples whose relationship is marked by “fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God.” That there are such people in the church is beyond question. What is at question is how such people can bear the fruit of the Spirit in and through their lives when, according to the traditional understanding of the faith, their lives are an abomination before God. When what we know does not match what we see either we can scream louder and louder what we know or we can come together in prayer and discernment to determine the meaning of what we see. That, at least, is how I see it.
Keith Emerson
St. Paul’s, Suffolk
Good Morning Fr. Keith!
DeleteAnd thanks for the response to my posting. Please allow me to comment on your remarks.
1. Certainly issue of Jewish dietary and cultural norms was a major issue facing the early Church. But in Romans 14 Paul addresses these issues and by extention related non-core issues. But again, these are not issues of basic Christian sexual morality, which are not optional or discretionary. There are none of his other writings which allow for sexual misconduct such as adultery, fornication, bestiality, homosexuality, incest, etc. These sexual issues are on a wholly different plane than the observance of dietary and ceremonial practices. After all, did Paul think that going to church on Saturday was in the same league as "living in sin?" His writings speak otherwise. Fortunately we have 2000 years of perspective which allow us to see that.
2. I am sorry if I created the impression that I believe this current move to legitimize same-gender relationships is an overt attempt to destroy traditional marraige. Our secular society is already doing enough to undermine most forms of traditional, Christian sexual behavior. I just don't think the Church should act as a faint echo of our media-controlled secular culture; rather the Christianity is properly a countercultural force. If society in general adopts unchristian norms, we need not join in the parade.
3. The issue of the "fruit of the Spirit" in a person's life is, of course, a valid point of discussion. But historic Christianity has long held that the Spirit is the Author of scripture and will accordingly not move a person into a lifestyle wholly contrary to scripture. Homosexuality is clearly condemned throughout the Bible.
Thanks for your comments. I hope will be able to continue them in on-line or in person.
James, Christ the King
James,
DeleteThank you for your thoughtful response. On your second point, I apologize if I put words in your mouth. That was not my intent. As to your first point, I concede that the specific issue Paul addressed in Romans 14 is not the specific issue before the church today. Still, I see in it a viable biblical model for our current situation. It provides a rational from Scripture for staying in a faith community as it works through a disputed question.
Your comment raises a couple of important questions:
1. What is core doctrine on which there can be no compromise in the church? Do issues of sexual ethics and morality rise to this level?
2. Clearly there are ways of being homosexual that are sinful. In addition, Christian tradition has affirmed that a same-gender orientation is not in and of itself a sin. Is there a way for two people of the same gender to live in a covenanted relationship that is healthy, wholesome, and pleasing in the eyes of God?
3. Which gets at a third question: Does the bible actually condemn a same-gender relationship that is marked by “fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God”?
About this third question I contend that the answer is no. There are several articles and links on the resource page of this blog site that go into varying levels of scholarly depth to examine the seven passages in the bible that directly address homosexuality. “Same-Sex Relationships in the Life of the Church” is a very thorough theological treatment of the issue. “Clobbering Biblical Gay Bashing” is an easier read. My own article – “A Rector Writes to a Parish…” – is so well done that, in addition to answering all your questions, it will also prevent cavities, keep your shoes from needing to be shined ever again, and protect vegetables from rotting in your refrigerator. That being said, if you have a chance to read any of these I will be interested in your thoughts.
Blessings,
Keith Emerson
St. Paul’s, Suffolk
Fr. Keith,
DeleteBy the way, I took a look at the resource page you suggested. None of the material advocating homosexual blessings is compelling Biblically. I am not trying to be contentious here but it is sophomoric at best. If you want to discuss any one of the resource points in detail, please let me know.
Furthermore the simple title "Clobbering Biblical Gay Bashing" is polemical and puerile. No one in the traditonal camp is out to "bash" anyone. We are simply standing for a position the universal Church has always held and which the scriptures affirm. If you, however, want to go into the actual passages individually, please let me know and we can do so.
Thanks,
James D. Christ the King
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDear Keith:
DeleteSorry for some of the typos and awkward wordings in my previous posting to you. I was in a hurry to get to the gym and did not proof-read it.
Allow me at this time to comment further on the fruit of the Spirit matter. "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance..." Gal. 522,23. As I see it, the practice of homosexuality violates several of these fruits. Temperance (or self-control in your translation) obviously is not in effect if someone gives in to sinful passions. Furthermore, love of God or of one's fellow man is not being followed since God's clear standards are being openly and willingly violated. Think of the many impressionable young people who will see an ecclesiatical imprimatur upon immoral acts and lifestyles. "...strait is the gate,and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life..." as the Lord Jesus warned us in the Sermon on the Mount.
James D., Christ the King
James,
DeleteOne of the remarkable blessings of being a priest in the church and being asked by the Bishop to serve on the Leading a Holy Life Task Force is that I get to meet a lot of different people – people whose ideas and experiences of the world are both different from mine and similar to it. This blessing has challenged many of my assumptions and expanded my perspective.
I suppose there was a time when I thought of homosexuality as nothing more than (as you put it) “giving in to sinful passions.” Over time I have learned that people in same-gender relationship approach that relationship in much the same way that I am drawn into a relationship with a person of the opposite sex. Passion is just a small part of a much broader, fuller expression of commitment; a commitment marked by the desire to give one self to another in mind, soul, spirit, and body.
Surely there are homosexuals whose pursuit of their sexuality is marked by little more than a giving in to passion just as surely as there are heterosexuals who do the same. The bible correctly identifies this type of lifestyle as sinful and the church rightly holds up the brokenness it creates.
That being said, I cannot agree with you that two people of the same gender living in a committed relationship do not exhibit temperance (or self-control) any more than I would say that about a married couple whose relationship is marked by fidelity. The homosexuals I have met in the church are people or remarkable self-control who consistently respond to criticism of the “lifestyle” with a remarkable and admirable sense of patience and Christian charity. Your description of them as being people who give in to sinful passions simply does not ring true with my experience, although I must be honest and admit that years ago I could have said much the same thing as you have.
Furthermore, it is no longer my experience of homosexuals in the church that they are “openly and willing violating” God’s “clear standards.” They seek to live faithful lives in and through a partnered relationship just as I sought to do in and through my marriage. This faithfulness seeks to adhere to God’s clear standards of mutuality, self-giving, fidelity, and witness, along with other standards inherent in the Christian understanding of marriage. And while both homosexuals and heterosexuals can stray from these clear standards, it is not at all “clear” to me that a same-gender relationship which exhibits these clear standards is a violation of God’s law simply because it is shared between two people of the same gender.
I have been ordained now for twenty-five years. Over that time I have moved from a very traditional understanding of this issue to one now that is decidedly reforming. I love the bible no less now than before. In fact, I cherish the bible even more as I have come to see in it God’s generous love for all people and desire to guide all people, regardless of gender orientation, into healthy, life-giving relationships.
I sense that you are a person open to God’s leading as evidenced by your participation in this conversation. Please continue to articulate your thoughts, ask questions, pray for the church, and participate fully in the life of your congregation as God challenges both you and me to grow into the full stature of Christ.
Keith
Hello Again, Keith:
DeleteThanks for the long and thoughtful note.
When I stated that homosexuals were people who could not control their passions, I did not intend to imply that uncontrolled heterosexual passion is acceptable. But there is a big differenc. ALL homosexual activities are outside the scope of God's plan for mankind. Normal heterosexual practice is not. Please note that I did not say that same-gender attraction necessarily is sin. We all have monkies of various sorts on our backs. But it is the actual realization of these passions which is sinful. Scripture is clear on that as is 2000 years of ecclesiastical traditon.
Your statement that your views have changed in the past twenty or twenty-five years only proves my point that the Church is now being influenced more by secular society than by the Bible or its moral traditon. I find this to be a very sad occurance. The Church should be a countercultural force and not simply a "me too" voice to the prevailing norms of society.
Keith, you (as well as other pro-homosexual writers) seemed to be very much influenced by anecdotal evidence. While this may appeal to our sentiments, it is far from compelling scripturally. Like you I know homosexuals. Many of them are far more to my personal liking than certain heterosexuals I know. But my personal friendships and associations do not countermand God's basic moral rules regarding sexual behavior.
The background material posted on this blog is hermeneutially very unsophisticated and even strangely most inventive. Prior to the homosexual rights movement of the past thirty or forty years, it would have been well nigh impossible to have even found a novice exegete making some of the interpretations which now appear on this blog and in other venues. In other words, certain religious voices are now scrambling to find scriptural justification for homosexual practice; but it simply is not possible. Again, if you would like to discuss any of the salient passages in the Bible, I would be happy to do so.
Keith, again, I would enjoy continuing our dialogue but I have to say at the outset that orthodox Christians are never going to accept homosexual behavior as moral or proper within a Christian context. Celibacy for those with a homosexual proclivity is something far more virtuous.
James Deviese, Christ the King
Fr. Keith,
DeleteAgain, I appreciate the fact that you have responded to me. Since you are one of the few voices willing to actually dialogue on this matter, may I ask you another practical question?
We all know that many disaffected members have departed from ecclesial communions which have voiced support for homosexual practice. How long will people continue "voting with their feet?"
Do you not think that it would be more proper for practioners of homosexuality to join a communion like the Metropolitan Community Church rather than trying to stamp non-traditonal, counterscriptural morality upon the historically orthodox denominations? Speaking for myself, if I were a homosexual, I would not want to tamper with the legitimate and stated beliefs of an organization whose standards I could not accept.
James D. Christ the King
James,
DeleteThanks for continuing to comment. With regards to your question about who should walk away from the church and who should stay, this strikes me as an approach rooted in the ways of our secular culture. In the world there are winners and losers. Winners stay and losers leave and the fighting to figure out which is which is very intense. The biblical model put forward by Jesus emphasizes unity above all else – even and especially in the midst of diversity. So in answer to your question, I believe no one should leave the Episcopal Church over this issue but rather we should diligently search for those ways we can express our commonality in Christ. The whole aim of my initial post was to provide for people of faith a biblical model for staying in communion when you feel like voicing your disapproval by voting with your feet.
Please consider giving me a call at St. Paul’s Church in Suffolk (757-539-2478). Perhaps we can figure out a time and place to meet for lunch and further our conversation one on one.
Blessings,
Keith Emerson
Thank you for your warm offer, Keith. I will indeed contact you if you allow lunch to be on my ticket. Please give me a couple of days to attend to some other matters first.
DeleteAs far as the substance of our discussion, I am not sure I(or more importantly Christ) would emphasize unity at all costs. After all, there is virtue in heartfelt conviction which stands upon principle. I personally could not remain in a parish which officially indorsed a sexual sin like homosexuality. To do so would give my implicit indorsement of wrongdoing.
If doctrinal, theological, and moral values become too watered-down, so as to achieve a least common denominator, a church is no longer offering the bread of life to its congregants but only a few stale crumbs. Jesus was incarnate love yet he offended people everywhere he went. Truth will do that.
In any case, will be sincerely looking forward to our get together.
James, Christ the King