Posted on 08/08/2003 9:57:59 AM PDT by Ed Straker
Posted on Fri, Aug. 08, 2003
My response to the gay bishop story: no comment
As I sit down to write this week's column, one of the biggest and most compelling stories in the news is the election of the first openly gay bishop by the Episcopal Church of the USA. Minutes after the decision became final, the airwaves were choked with "experts" praising or decrying the controversial appointment and forecasting its effect on the Episcopal Church and society in general.
It wasn't hard to predict what opinions these commentators would hold or what arguments they would present to support their caseÐyou simply needed to know which ideological camp the commentator pitched his tent in.
Conservative, traditionalist thinkers predictably railed against the decision, citing biblical passages that condemn homosexual behavior to ridicule the appointment of an openly gay man to such a lofty position of responsibility within a Christian church. They lumped this decision in with the recent Supreme Court ruling that struck down anti-sodomy laws in Texas as evidence that the homosexual agenda is gradually turning America into a latter day Sodom and Gomorrah. One could almost smell the brimstone.
Progressive, liberal types countered by making the point that there are a number of restrictions in the Bible that even most conservative Christians selectively ignore.
Most Christians don't worship on the Sabbath day specified in the Old Testament (Saturday) for example, and they don't follow the dietary and clothing restrictions laid out there either. These liberal thinkers contend that everyone interprets scripture through a certain prism, and some of those prisms allow gay people to be good Christians and, perhaps, officers in a church.
So go the arguments and counter arguments, and they will go on for some time. At least one social critic has refused to join the fray however, despite the seductiveness of this juicy topic. That would be me.
I've been writing this column for a long time and I've covered many subjects. I've learned that religion is the third rail when it comes to opinion columns. If you touch it, you should be prepared for a very uncomfortable response.
It seems like every time I express an opinion that is critical of some religious viewpoint, I find that quite a few people who read this column are armchair theologians, and the ones who disagree with me often feel the need to offer stern correction.
A few weeks ago, for example, I suggested that Pat Robertson was being a little presumptuous in expecting God to help him with his plan to remake the Supreme Court to be more to his political liking, and I got the predictable responses. A number of people had messages from God specifically for me, and God apparently wasn't in a very good mood that week. In some cases the messages were nearly incomprehensible, but I got the impression that the man upstairs was not at all pleased.
So I am bowing out of this one. I have an opinion, and I think it is a strong and well thought out one, but I'm keeping it to myself. The sad truth is that, for now, I've lost my nerve when it comes to religious topics. The Episcopalians and their many advisers can sort this one out without my help. I'm going to watch the merry-go-round spin this time, but I'm not going to get on it. I'm still a little woozy from my last ride.
Bill Ferguson lives in Centerville. He can be reached by e-mail at ferg column@hotmail.com
Wether one sin is worse than another is irrelevent. The bishop contends that homosexuality is NOT a sin. Clearly the Bible contends it is.
Take a look at the Old Testament punishments for one transgression vs. another. That should give you a clue that there are some sins more abhorrent to God than others.
Touching the carcass of a forbidden food animal-- wash your clothes and be considered unclean until that evening.
Having sex with a woman during her menses-- you are unclean for seven days, and so is your bed.
Adultery-- death.
Homosexual acts-- death.
Man marrying mother and daughter-- all three burned with fire.
Bestiality-- death to both human and animal participants.
Exactly. And I don't see the Episcopal Church twisting itself into a pretzel trying to invent a blessing to invoke over MY sins.
So basically, there are no contradictions except for the ones actually there in the text. That changes things... not.
This is an area that causes many in the faith to stumble. Jesus Himself is referred to in the OT as a stumbling stone. He is the corner stone of the faith, yet those who will not accept the veracity of His words and Person will stumble over them rather than taking them up to build their faith.
Jesus didn't do away with the Old Law or contradict His Heavenly Father in any way. He explained and fulfilled the Law. Here's an example of Jesus's instruction; Moses was allowed some leeway with the law as evidenced...
Matt 19:3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?"
4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?
6 "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
7 They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?"
8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.
It's not saying that Moses has authority over God's Law but that God allowed him some leeway where it pertains to behavior. Jesus restated the Law of God as it was meant to be. This doesn't have a bearing on what God approves or doesn't approve, that is unchanging.
Reading many of the prohibitions in the laws shown in Leviticus and Deuteronomy you find that many are safety issues. We know the physical costs of immorality... look at all of the sexually transmitted diseases today and the destruction of the nuclear family. Also, the Israelites were not to partake of pig products... these were dangerous to them in that environment (lack of refrigeration, et al). Jesus brought the reasoning behind the law. What God dislikes, He dislikes and He made those areas clear. What we eat doesn't make us unclean spiritually--but it can make us sick. Jesus Himself said that what we eat doesn't make us ritually unclean before God... those are matters of the spirit. God preserved His people in the desert by giving them laws of governance for their protection.
Also in the OT, you find that animal sacrifices were necessary for the atonment of sin. Jesus fulfilled this command on His own body in atoning for the sins of the world. In the mass, we celebrate our freedom from our blood guilt in the sacrifice we offer in remembrance of Him. We are no longer required to offer the blood of an animal in sacrifice not because God doesn't require it but because we offer Him the blood of His sacrificed body to fulfill His requirement. The old law was upheld and fulfilled in Him. God is still unchanging.
Looking at the Bible from the macro level what you see is a relationship between a loving father and his children. When they are young, he reinforces his commands with swift punishment... "Don't cross the street without holding my hand! [smack!] "Why?" "Because I said so and that's enough." The OT is all about "Thou shalt not..." and the reason is because God said so.
Jesus came and brought us our adolescence in the faith. We are still not allowed to cross the street without holding God's Hand but we are now supposed to understand why it is a bad thing to do. Rather than fire and brimstone, we now have the Holy Spirit within us to convict us in shame of our wrong doing. We serve God because we want to do what pleases Him not because (necessarily) we fear His wrath if we don't. It's a mature relationship now where we are expected to police our own behavior.
Jesus boiled the Ten Commandments down to two; that we love God with all of our being and love our neighbor as ourselves...
35 One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him,
36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?"
37 And He said to him, " 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.'
38 "This is the great and foremost commandment.
39 "The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.'
40 "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."
If we follow these two commandments, we will be following all ten of the OT commandments. It isn't a change in the Law, it's a fulfillment of its purpose.
There are many such "thou shalts..." and "thou shalt nots..." in the OT. They are commands of behavior that are summed in the two commandments of Christ. There are others that have been posted on nearly every other homosexual discussion thread on FR that deal with God Himself and how He sees things. These things are immutable. Although we are not expected to stone the adulterer anymore, God still does not approve. He gave no clearer language in the Bible of His disapproval of homosexuality than this: Leviticus 18: 22 'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination'. That a church purporting to follow Christ would seek to officially sanction something that is an abomination before God is incredible!
God doesn't invite us to find our own way. He sent us the prophets, saints and even Himself to show us His way. Religion is about learning the immutable truths of God. To do otherwise is to make God in your own image... that is the worst sin of Pride (the sin of the Devil himself).
God is consistent... what the Apostles bound on Earth is bound in Heaven and what they loosed on Earth is loosed in Heaven [Matt 16:19]. Once again, His "bringers of the Law" have authority over our behavior and this has been passed through the Magisterium of the Catholic Church by Apostolic Succession. Just as Jesus invited the men to stone the prostitute if they were without sin, we are invited to condemn our neighbor if we are also above reproach. We are not without sin ourselves so we pray for the sinner that we may all repent and sin no more.
Last comment on this issue. Israel was a theocratic state. They enacted the Law of Moses as the law of their land. This law carried the command to kill adulterers. We are not a theocratic state. Check this out:
Romans 13:1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
God says that the state is an instrument of His purpose. Whereas an individual who kills another person is guilty of murder, the state who kills one deserving of death is carrying out justice. Although America is founded on Judeo-Christian principles, it isn't a theocratic state therefore we don't stone adulterers, as you pointed out.
Since Christians are to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's", we owe our temporal allegiance to a country that hasn't instituted the Law of Moses. We are not free to carry out justice ourselves.
Why don't you read it, instead of assuming?
The passage I cited referred to marriage, not rape.
How is this "just" or any basis for modern law?You are the only one here making that argument, and it's completely off-topic. This thread is about CHURCH law.
I'm not saying there aren't good points in these "laws"... but how much of it should be taken literally? That's all I'm asking.
All of it. You really need to read both testaments. Even the boring parts.
Then you'd see that:
There aren't any contradictions.
Jesus died, so we don't have to.
No her point is that some things at first glance appear contradictory but upon closer inspection have rational explinations.
If you're talking about Deuteronomy 23, that refers to entering the congregation, not Heaven.
The reference to "broken stones" in Leviticus 21 is applied to the descendants of Aaron, and is part of a list of blemishes that would disqualify that person from the offering of offerings. The blemishes don't keep them out of heaven though. Just away from the altar in a priestly capacity.
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.