Sin, Redemption, and Same-Sex Blessings
Recently, an opinion poll was published in the Summerville Patch noting that the 77th General Convention of The Episcopal Church, gathering in Indianapolis, authorized a liturgy for the blessing of same-sex couples. While this report is true, it must be made abundantly clear that the Diocese of South Carolina in no way supports this action and her deputation to Convention (except for two symbolic representatives), including Bishop Lawrence, has left Indianapolis in an effort of differentiation from the larger Episcopal Church.
With that said, it is probably helpful to consider the “why” of South Carolina’s departure. As it will be developed below, the Diocese of South Carolina and The Episcopal Church agree that the doors of the church should be open to all people, regardless of anything they are, claim to be, or have done in the past. This is unequivocally true. However, our Diocesan theologian, the Rev. Dr. Kendall Harmon, has rightly described the actions of The Episcopal Church as “unbiblical, unchristian, unanglican and unseemly.” The concern has little to do with who is welcome in the church, but what the church should affirm and bless. The bottom line is that same-sex unions reject the clear, Biblical revelation of God, two-thousand years of church history, and the theological understanding of ninety percent of Christians around the world. Quite simply, The Episcopal Church has elected to bless activity that almost all Christians, everywhere, at every time have understood to be outside of Biblically ordered sexuality and the redemptive plan of God.
Of course, the deeper issue has less to do with sexuality and more to do with redemption. Blessings of same-sex unions are simply a symptom of a larger theological bankruptcy that has, among other things, essentially denied the reality of sin at an individual level. Sure, The Episcopal Church is quick to recognize institutional and social sin, passing endless resolutions that “seek to transform the unjust structures of society.” There is, however, no acknowledgement that humanity needs redemption from anything other than perceived socially constructed institutions such as gender-identity and heterosexual marriage. In such a theological paradigm, one need simply plea that “God made me this way” and any structure (God given-such as gender or marriage between one man and one woman-or otherwise) that inhibits this self-understanding must be removed. Thus, while our current debate presents itself as a sexuality discussion, the implications are easily and quickly brought to bear on other moral behavior. Never mind that the whole point of the Bible, including Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, is to reveal to us God’s glory and His offering of redemption from evil and sin for all people. It is this sin in our lives that so often comes to us quite naturally and easily, as if we were created for it.
To the contrary, orthodox Christian belief recognizes that Jesus offers us redemption, not only from unjust social structures such as slavery, but from personal, individual sin. Behaviors that we claim we were created for are actually distortions of the image of God and, thus, bind us to sin rather than free us to new life. The message of Jesus, however, is that we are redeemed through faith in His death and resurrection. Thus the church, including The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina, remains a place where sinners of all stripes are not only welcome, but longed for. However, my prayer and hope is that our sin is not affirmed and blessed in the church, but challenged, and that by the power of Jesus Christ we are transformed and redeemed into the image of God for which we were actually created.
Tyler Prescott is Assistant Rector at St. Paul's Summerville, a church in the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina.
Robert Kelly
8:59 am on Monday, July 16, 2012
“unbiblical, unchristian, unanglican and unseemly.”
Unbiblical in the orthodoxy of Judaism, that is true. Unchristian? Why? Unseemly? No! Christ preached inclusion and love, and never condemned same-sex love. History shows homosexuality was common in that era (maybe not among practicing Jews, but certainly in the wider community, including the Roman army of occupation), yet Jesus never mentioned it. Unseemly? The church is blessing committed unions of a couple, not promiscuity. Why are so many Christians adamant about a sin of Orthodox Judaism when we clearly do not follow the rest of the rules? It was not a big enough issue for Jesus to comment on it; why is it so important to you now?
Tyler Prescott
9:38 am on Monday, July 16, 2012
Robert,
Thanks for your thoughts! The issue you are commenting on, the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament, is complicated for sure, but the simple fact of the matter is that the Jewish Scriptures at the time of Jesus (what Christians call the Old Testament) are just as authoritative a revelation from God as the New Testament (including the Gospels). Now, you are correct, I don't follow or even feel required to follow all of the rules (I'm wearing mixed fabrics even as I type and I'd love a plate of shrimp for lunch!), but we cannot deny that the Old Testament has no authority for us at Christians. Every New Testament writer and Jesus himself quotes Scripture as authoritative. This Scripture that they refer to is not the New Testament (the concept didn't exist), but the Hebrew Scriptures. That alone is enough to commend these works as authoritative in our lives, but even more important is our understanding of Jesus as the fulfillment of the redemptive purposes of God begun in the people of Israel, the Jews.
Tyler Prescott
9:47 am on Monday, July 16, 2012
That, really, is a far greater concern than a verse in Leviticus about homosexuality or a similar verse in Romans (though, properly understood, these too are very important). This idea of redemption, however, is grounded in creation, made necessary by the Fall, and completed by Jesus. Marriage, between one man and one woman, was ordained by God from the beginning of time and is a foreshadow of Jesus' redemption of all believers. An excellent article on this has been written by Ross Douthat here, please be sure to read it.
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_book_club/features/2012/ross_douthat_s_bad_religion/bad_religion_book_gay_relationships_and_christianity_.html
Anyhow, you asked why it was so important to me. I guess I don't find it that important at all, other than the fact that it is rooted in far greater issues such as the reliability of Scripture and Sin and the Uniqueness of Jesus. These are issues far too big to take up in a comment. We all have our own sin that we bring to the table, many of which is likely far more egregious than our homosexuality. The question is, "Are we willing to let Holy Scripture speak to that and transform our lives?" Like I said in my article, the church is the place for sinners (if you're not one, you don't need what we're offering!) but it should not be in the business of blessing that which is contrary to what God has ordained.
Robert Kelly
9:26 pm on Monday, July 16, 2012
Rev Prescott, Thank you for taking my questions seriously. Although I follow your thoughts, I still have serious reservations about the assumptions that same-sex commitments are inherently anti-biblical. It is my understanding that Jesus taught through parables, and the protagonists in His parables were not necessarily actual people. The concept is that He did this to explain the big picture to people with limited education, and to put the belief system into terms they would understand. If I understand that part correctly, then isn't it possible, or likely, that the Book of Genesis and the story of creation was also told in parable format? In my 12 years of Catholic school we were NOT taught that evolution was wrong, but in fact evolution was a tool of the Creator. If the creation story is taken as a parable to simplify and explain to the early Jews, then why would we assume that just because there was "Adam and Eve" rather than two persons of undetermined gender, that we should therefore assume that is the only way for two people to commit to each other? Clearly the propagation of the species required a heterosexual couple, but not all love is intended to reproduce. We older people have no expectation of more children, but we can still share sexual love and be consistent with church teachings. In fact, other than the Catholics, I believe all religions accept birth control to manage family size. Considering how we exclude so much of Leviticus, why hang onto this prohibition?
Robert Kelly
9:51 pm on Monday, July 16, 2012
Rev Prescott, I did read the article you recommended. I still can't shake the comparison to the man who asked what he should do to be more perfect, and Jesus told him to sell what he had, give the money to the poor, and to follow Jesus. The man did not do so and was "sad" if I remember. He was not condemned. There may be ways that are more nearly perfect, in Christian teaching, but that does not mean to condemn those of us who are simply not nearly perfect. Is abstinence for life more nearly perfect (as taught in the Catholic teaching for priests and nuns)? Where does that leave married laity and clergy of other religions? Surely not condemned, just maybe a lower level of heaven? Is a heterosexual marriage the more nearly perfect? Where does that leave other versions of love and commitment? Condemned? Where is the support from the Christian teaching for that?
Gynger Hunter
5:34 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Please read 1 Corinthians 6:9, and Romans 2:26 - 27. The NIV reads the clearer on this subject. Even though these were written by Paul, his words were inspired by Jesus. Both passages clearly teach against homosexuality, and this is New Testament.
Robert Kelly
9:40 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Gynger, How can you be so sure Paul was inspired by Jesus? Who told you this? Saul was a persecutor of the new Christian sect of Judaism, he was not a follower of Jesus at all! He claims to have had an epiphany, and then claimed to be an arbiter of Christian morality. I'm sorry, his words do not sway me. Jesus condemned very few people in his life, and I fail to see how any of His actions and leadership were directed against loving people who commit to each other. Someone told you what to believe, and I don't think you were sufficiently critical of what they told you. You cannot justify Paul's rulings by references to Paul. The religion is not "Paulism"; it is "Christianity". I understand the orthodox Judaism references to Leviticus, and certainly Jesus was an observant Jew. He was circumcised, was presented at the Temple when he was about 12 years of age, and discussed religion intelligently with the rabbis at that time. Still, he led his followers in a different direction, and acknowledged the transformation, for example, when the Pharisees challenged him about healing the sick on the Sabbath. I respect the Jews who follow the Torah and the Talmud, but I have a problem with the Christians who preach exclusion, and justify it with Leviticus and Paul.
SDR
11:34 am on Monday, July 16, 2012
Let me chirp in with this:
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. 1Cor 1:24-25
Discussing church policy in a secular forum brings nothing to the argument. Each person must understand that the longing they harbor for whatever earthly thing can only be satisfied through the sacrifice of Christ Jesus. The South Carolina Diocese has rightly stood against actions to surplant the sacrifices of Christ with earthly pleasures.
For Jesus spoke to all sexual immorality when he told the woman to "go and sin no more"
Robert Kelly
9:38 pm on Monday, July 16, 2012
SDR, "Discussing church policy in a secular forum brings nothing to the argument"? Yet you start with a lengthy quote from Paul, in a secular forum? This story was started in a secular forum, so why would one assume this is not the place to discuss it? If so, the article should never have been published. By the way, using Paul's own words to defend the legitimacy of his teaching does not bring much to the argument, unless you consider your religion to be "Paulist". And the woman was told to sin no more, but her activity had nothing to do with the topic we are discussing! I think most religious people have a problem with prostitution as a degradation of something special, but the Episcopal Church was not debating prostitution, they were debating commitment between same-sex couples, and decided the church would bless the commitment. For you to insist this is foolishness is to condemn the Episcopal church, and the Episcopal theologians; and for you to assume you understand this better than they seems a little arrogant. I should be able to ask questions and ask for clarification from a more educated person than myself in this forum without you questioning the legitimacy of the dialogue.
Charles R Alford
5:08 pm on Monday, July 16, 2012
Well said, Fr. Tyler.
Robert Kelly
8:59 am on Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Reverend Prescott, I checked out the reference you suggested, the discussion of "Bad Religion". Thank you. Additionally, did you hear the interview on Interfaith Voices (NPR, host Maureen Fiedler, available in podcast) with Ross Douthat, the author of "Bad Religion"? It did not touch on this topic, but was an interesting discussion about the drift away from organized church attendance and the "spiritual but not religious" attitude. The author makes a reasonable case for why organized religion matters.
SDR
11:59 am on Tuesday, July 17, 2012
You make my point by attempting to mash spiritual guidance into a secular box. Paul was merely pointing out that the secular world can not understand things of a spiritual nature.
Those not guided by the Holy Spirit bring nothing of value to the discussion. As you have repeatedly posted, you do not understand spiritual things. The rich ruler was seeking the same "perfection" that you seek. The perfection is laid out in Micah 6:8. It is not a destination but a journey.
I, too, wrestled with God. He won.
Tyler Prescott
8:57 pm on Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Robert, thanks for following up with the suggested links. There is other information out there I can recommend if you would like to do some more reading, just message me through this site. In any case, I respect your compassion and desire to find the voice of God in the middle of a difficult mess. Blessings to you!
heather
7:40 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
well said
Robert Kelly
9:40 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
SDR, I wholeheartedly agree with "It is not a destination but a journey" in trying to figure out what is real, important, and what is simply the product of human prejudice and ego. I have no intention of wrestling with what Paul had to say about whether we people in the secular world can understand spirituality, because in my own opinion, Paul was one of those products of too much self-importance and just because the Catholic bishops in the 4th century decided he was to be elevated into the new testament does not persuade me that he speaks for Christ. I do not assume the Catholic bishops at the Council of Necea were infallible.
william clark
6:05 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Paul was made an apostle by God Himself and was converted by God. the words of Paul in the books of the New Testament were not his words but the Inspired Words of God Himself. like the other apostles who pen the Words of the one True God. 2 Tim. 3:16 teaches us that very truth. "ALL Scripture is inspired of God". The Moral Law Christ did not do away with from the old Testament. Christ placed Grace and mercy in [place of the punishment of death on the spot for sins of His people. Now there is time for all men to Repent of their sins and change before a Just and Holy God,while they yet live in this life, but after ones life here and there is no repentance and change . one is lost.. We also must remember . God gives Grace to whom He pleases and according to His Will and good Pleasure, not all men will be saved , nor will they receive the Gift of belief and Faith . God will condemn some . Man can do nothing to save himself from his sins , he is condemned unless The Holy Spirit gives him that faith and salvation as a gift.Do not be deceived, Christ did in fact speak against the idea of two men or two women conducting themselves in that wicked and evil conduct of perverted sexual conduct, these will not see the kingdom of God , along with those others which are listed in 1 Cor. 6:9 . Many religions today have bought into this worldly Gospel of tolerance and acceptance of the worldly, into the church, this New Gospel called . "Progressive & Siocial Justice" destroy's churches.
Robert Kelly
7:23 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Well, according to Paul and you, that is.