Posted on 10/26/2003 11:48:49 AM PST by ahadams2
Gay Lifestyle Bishops - It's no big deal ... ?
by Peter Moore
Anyone who has picked up a newspaper recently knows that the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church has confirmed the election of the Rev. V. Gene Robinson as a bishop by the Diocese of New Hampshire. Robinson is an "openly gay" man who left his wife and now lives in a sexual relationship with a male partner.
As the furor over his election became an international incident, Canon Robinson justified his decision not to step down saying, "The Church has been ordaining gay bishops and clergy for years. It's just that one finally has had the honesty to say that he is gay. Why shouldn't this be something the Church celebrates?"
Well, Bishop Robinson, I don't believe this is something for the church to celebrate, and here's why:
"The Church has been ordaining gay bishops and clergy for years." Okay. But it has also been ordaining sinners of every type for years. It's been ordaining sinners because no other type of human being is available or, I should add, suitable. The Church has never thought that sexual orientation toward one's own sex should automatically prevent the ordination of people who are clearly called and gifted – if they are celibate.
The issue before us is not one of sexual orientation. Rather, it's a matter of practice. Even more, it is about what bishops teach, preach, and practice. Robinson, by focusing on sexual orientation, wants us to think that, as long as he is honest about his practice, it should be accepted. But a lot more than honesty is at stake. The majority of bishops of the Episcopal Church have made a decision that radically changes the church's relationship to Scripture, the universal church, and the global Anglican Church. It enshrines the assumptions of secular culture, siding with a small liberal elite against the majority of the faithful.
First and foremost, they have decided to act against the clear teaching of Holy Scripture. Article XX of the Thirty-Nine Articles says that the Church "ought not to decree any thing against (the Scripture)," nor can the Church "expound one place of Scripture (in a way that is) repugnant to another." The bishops have done just that. Many would like us to think that they are merely doing what the Church has already done in the matters of divorce, women's ordination, and slavery – that is, that they have simply amended earlier misunderstandings of Scripture. But there is no comparison. On these issues, as many have shown, the overall witness of Scripture moves in the direction in which the Church has moved. However, the witness of Scripture on homosexuality is straightforward condemnation. Homosexual behavior is wrong; plain and simple. It violates the order of creation and conflicts with the biblical teaching that sex belongs within the covenant of marriage. Nor can Jesus' silence on homosexual sin be taken as a reason to believe that He would accept it. His teaching was shaped by the Old Testament, and by a conviction that marriage between a man and a woman was God's plan from the beginning.
Second, they have decided to ignore the teaching of the universal church. Ever since the Jews brought the unruly sex drive of fallen humanity into the framework of marriage, the "church" of the Old Testament and the church of the New Testament, as well as the church of subsequent history, has believed that homosexual behavior is a sin. The bishops of the Anglican Communion declared as recently as 1998, in a vote of 526 to 70, that "homosexuality is contrary to Scripture." The Primates of all the Anglican Churches met this past spring in Brazil and reaffirmed that same-sex blessings were not acceptable. However, in a stunning reversal, the bishops of the American Episcopal Church have decided to go their own way. In doing so, the bishops have acted more like a sect or a cult than the representatives of the church catholic that they claim to be.
**Third, they have shown their contempt for the most vibrant part of the Anglican Communion – the Global South.** Diocese after diocese, Province after Province around the world, but especially in the Global South where the Church is growing at a furious pace, has now declared itself "out of communion" with New Hampshire and with those dioceses that voted to affirm Robinson. More will undoubtedly do so in the coming months. Is this no big deal? These are the missionary-minded parts of our Communion who live out their discipleship in often hostile surroundings. For them, and for those of us who are in communion and in sympathy with them, this is a very big deal. Vast sections of our Communion now find our Episcopal Church to be a profound embarrassment. Is a fractured, divided Communion worth the price of one "openly gay" bishop? Fortunately, the Archbishop of Canterbury thought not. Last month he asked the Rev. Jeffrey John, another openly gay advocate of homosexual partnerships, to step down from election as suffragan bishop in Oxford. But the American Episcopal bishops thought they knew better than Canterbury.
Fourth, they have enshrined the dubious assumptions of a secularized and sensualized culture. Contrary to all the evidence, many of these bishops believe that homosexuality is an innate, natural, manageable, and healthy alternative to heterosexual marriage. It is important to state some truths here, at the risk of offending sensitive parties.
Not one study has confirmed a genetic source for homosexuality. Even studies done by homosexuals seeking support from science for this view have not confirmed it. This is not surprising; modern human genetics no longer even looks for a single gene that controls a complex behavior pattern.
The natural arrangement of human sex organs makes it clear that neither the anus nor the mouth were made for penetration.
The duration of homosexual liaisons – contrary to the myth of "long-term" relationships – is much shorter than advocates would like us to believe.
At any time 75% of all practicing homosexuals carry a sexually transmitted disease, and 40% get sick in a given year.
The bishops have chosen to believe that the unruly sex drive that, in one way or another, both blesses and besets us all can be domesticated without lifelong commitment, procreation, and the responsibilities of family. They hope that the gay lifestyle can somehow be finessed into the suburban world of private schools, Volvo station wagons, and champagne cocktails over brunch at the club.
Fifth, they have chosen to side with a small liberal element in their dioceses against the vast majority of lay people who pay the bills through parochial assessments. To understand why they would make such a choice, we must consider the fear in which they live. The wrath of an aroused liberal can be devastating. Imagine newspaper articles decrying the homophobia, fundamentalism, exclusivity, and oppressiveness of their local Episcopal bishop, if he is faithful to Scriptures and the universal church. Episcopal bishops are not used to negative publicity. Roman Catholic bishops, by contrast, are used to it. This is not just because of the recent bad press they have received over their poor handling of sexual abuse by clergy, but also because they have consistently affirmed a "pro-life" stance against the liberal cultural consensus for abortion and euthanasia.
Most Episcopal bishops want to be welcome at the Christmas parties of their affluent members. They want the approval of the local university president. And they fear an angry, aroused media. So, rather than take the moral high road and stand with Holy Scripture and their fellow Christians throughout the centuries, they have sided with those who have the power to make their lives miserable. I have seen what the media can do to a bishop who dares to stand against the homosexual lobby. It was not pretty, and in the case I have in mind, the bishop succumbed.
Clearly, in the Episcopal Church we have "two churches under one roof." These two churches think differently, feel differently, believe differently, and come to very different conclusions. Is it time to face these facts, and find a way to walk separately, rather than prolong an ugly family fight?
As we consider our alternatives, our special concern should be the homosexuals caught in the middle. Many have lived quiet, mostly celibate lives, but are now identified and pressured to "come out." Some have sought counseling, only to be told by liberal clerics that they should "accept the inevitable" and find a same-sex partner. Others have been mistreated by promoters of rigorous self-discipline, or even exorcism, as a quick fix. Who will love these people with the love of Christ, and walk with them in hope for a future in Christ, as fellow sinners redeemed by grace?
For those clergy and laity in dioceses where opposition to the homosexual agenda means social ostracism, there can be only one response: courage. Consider the implications the homosexual agenda will have for the teaching of your children at the hands of youth leaders, clergy, diocesan officials, and bishops. Future clergy must now pledge obedience to bishops whose views are at variance with the Bible and the entire Christian tradition. Can they in good conscience do so? We must all find a way to be Christian that does not compromise our witness to the truths of salvation, and that will allow us to bring our children up to be disciples of Jesus Christ. Let us pray for one another.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.