The Rt. Rev’d Tom Wright (above right) offered a helpful interpretation of the ABC’s (above left) statement. It follows below:
Written by: Dr NT Wright (in collaboration with ACI and Fulcrum)
Thursday, July 30th, 2009Introduction
1. In the two days since the Archbishop released his ‘Reflections’ on TEC’s General Convention, they have already generated widely differing responses. We always knew, say some conservatives, that the ABC was a hopeless liberal, and this has confirmed it. Not so, declare many horrified radicals: he has obviously sold out to the conservatives. Some have warmly welcomed the statement and hailed it as paving the way forward. Cautious voices in between are trying to discern strengths and weaknesses. In my view, there is much to welcome, and much whose implications need further unpacking. The two main sections of this paper deal with these two aspects.
2. I have tried to bear in mind that the Archbishop is himself not only an Instrument of Unity but the one which has to hold on to everything at this moment. Lambeth 2008 didn’t say much (apart from what the ABC himself said); the status of ACC and Primates are under question in various quarters; it is up to him. He therefore has an obligation to maintain as broad a conversation as possible, and that is continually to be seen in his statement. As often (for instance in his poems, and in his recent book on Dostoevsky) the Archbishop’s writing challenges its readers to pause, to ponder, to think things through. One commentator has suggested that he employs a characteristically British habit of inviting the reader to draw the really important conclusions and giving them the space to do so. This piece is an attempt to take up that challenge and invitation.
![The World Is Flat [Updated and Expanded]: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century](http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B002N2XI02.01.THUMBZZZ.jpg)
Related Articles
4 users responded in this post
It is always difficult when there is division of any kind within the Church (not just the Episcopalian church, but the Church as a whole), and it saddens me to see such a willingness to depart from the scriptures in the name of inclusivity; however, NT Wright raised a point that I would like to hear addressed from the pulpit in the not so distant future.
This was not expressly said in the synopsis Steve posted, but it’s not hard to imagine to see how this situation developed in the first place. Sexual immorality, and by that I mean any expressions of sexuality outside of marriage, is rarely ever preached about in church, and if it is, it’s not usually done with love or sensitivity–you know, it’s more like a fire and brimstone thing. Maybe it goes without saying not to commit these kinds of sins, but we are sheep! We wander without much, if any provocation at all, and we need our shepherds to bring us back into the fold all the time! This matter is certainly no exception.
My question therefore is: How can we say we are surprised by this recent turn of events? While I do not condone or endorse the practice of homosexuality and am against the ordination of gay or lesbian ministers, to me, it is remarkably easy to make scapegoats out of these people who we know commit sexual sin because they choose to be open about their sexuality. It’s just they choose to be open because they do not see anything sinful about it. Which is how we see the problem. Or it’s our problem with them. I get that and understand it’s the reason for all of this discord.
Except, (and this is my problem) we are called to love everyone, but I don’t think we are aware of that calling, and if we are, I think we think we already know how to love. We don’t. At least I don’t. And it’s times like this that make me aware of that fact. I don’t love the choices gay people make; I am opposed to building a whole religion around a person’s sexuality, and that’s mainly the problem I’ve had in attempting to relate to gays and lesbians–I’m not interested in what they do in their bedrooms any more than I want to know what happens in a straight person’s bedroom, yet I find that’s mostly what their conversations revolve around (that’s been my experience anyway–but I don’t want to make a sweeping judgment here). But I’m equally opposed to marginalizing a group of people if for some reason that is all they are able to talk about for the time being.
When we hate other people because of their sin, there is nothing left for them to do other than to search for and maintain a defense, no matter how illogical it is in order to stand by their convictions (for lack of a better word), even if it means twisting the scriptures around to make that defense. If we find a way to love people in the Name of Christ, that is our defense, yet it tears defenses down. I was struck the other day when I read about Jesus talking to the wise young ruler who was sad when the Lord told Him to sell everything he owned so he could give to the poor. He was in the Lord’s face, sinning, and yet the Bible says in response to that ruler’s recation, “Jesus loved him” (And some people think that ruler was Lazarus, so not only did Jesus love Him, He raised him from the dead. How’s that for grace?!).
So my point is twofold. Sexual immorality is not just a sin committed by gay people. All sin of this nature should be addressed lovingly and openly by responsible clergy. If that happens, and people are convicted rather than condemned, then we might do a better job of loving homosexuals, and that might bring them the healing they need, and it might help them to want to repent of their sin. And if it doesn’t, we love them anyway. And we stop making scapegoats of people when we have our own stuff to deal with, and when that happens, we have peace and the Holy Spirit can work through us more and more.
It’s God’s kindness that leads to repentance.
Thank you, Kelly, for articulating several points I agree with.
Personally, I have childhood friends who are homosexual, and at the end of every conversation with them or message I send them, I tell them I love them because I want to follow Jesus’ 2nd most important commandment: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Gay people are still people with real, human emotions. One of my gay friends is very worried about his mother, who became a widow this Spring, and who is suffering from dementia because her husband is no longer around to keep her medicated.
As for homosexuals in the pulpit, at least they are trying to spread the Word of God. Perhaps God is using homosexuals to challenge us to love them — not judge them. There are worse things gay people could be doing than sharing the Gospel, right?
Thanks for your thoughtful post Kelly. I am in genral agreement. I did, though, want to check our preaching themes of the past year as I was fairly confident the issue of human sexuality, both healthy and broken expressions (including hetero and homosexual behavior/practice), had been addressed failry regularly. A quick glance showed that on at least 14 occassions the matter was addressed from the pulpit, either as the primary topic or major illustrative point of the redemptive work of Christ and/or transformative work of the Spirit. Personally, the last time I preached at SAMP (21 June) I explicitly spoke about sexual brokeness and we went right to a time of public prayer ministry for those seeking healing and restoration. Additionally, our summer sermon series, “Crunchy Christianity” has addressed this – and other topics of holiness/Christian living/biblical challenge for the past 4 weeks.
You also touch on a matter very close to my heart: how the Church has often singled out homosexuality as sin set apart. This is both tragic and unfortunate. I actually preached on this matter last year, noting that all too often Christians reduce discussion of sin to sexual sin and particularly sexual sins they themselves do not struggle with. Bibilically, homosexual prohibitions are on the same list as gossip, greed, drunkeness, lying and not taking a sabbath day, etc.
Having said this, please don’t reduce the problems in the Episcopal Church to simply the issue of homosexuality. That is a very small matter, though it is what receives the majority of ink and air time. The heart of the matter is the Gospel itself: God’s self revelation as Father, Son and Holy Spirit; the authority of Scripture; the nature of Christ’s work on the cross; and as a consequence of confused theology and no doctrine, a confused understanding of human sexuality is the “sacramental” sign. The press, both church and secular, speak endlessly about homosexuality. You know what drew more discussion prior to passage of legislation addressing it? Bi-sexuality and transgendered lifestyle and expression. Not what the average person thinks about when the topic of homosexuality comes up, but which the Apostle Paul warns of in Romans 1 when he speaks of our exchange of Truth for lie.
Penultimately, I would also want to note one other significant difference between homosexual sin and other sins which the Church has been less vocal about: it is the sexual revisionist lobby which is demanding that alternative lifestyles be declared godly and blessed by the Church. Gossips, liars, thieves, divorcees, and other “sinners” recognize their sin as sin and, therefore, a matter for repentance – not demanded affirmation and blessing.
Now, finally, while I don’t wish to personally monitor or legislate what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms, the suggestion in your comment that this is off limits is flawed. God is concerned with and addresses every dimension of our lives – so much so that the Bible repeatedly speaks of the blessing and joy of the gift of sex within the construct of God’s intended purpose. And, equally, the destructive, enslaving and degrading nature of sexual expression outside of His prescribed boundaries. And, while I am not in the bedroom, nor do I wish to be, God is very much in the bedroom and He desires to be.
Thanks, Steve. I know you put time and energy into that response, and I’m very much appreciative about that.
Let’s see. Well, I have to admit that I haven’t been to church for more than a month now because my car died. So, I’ve missed a lot in that respect. My fault. And as for the other times, I really can’t account for where my mind was then!
Sometimes I think people could be on fire behind the pulpit, and I’d miss it. So, my fault again. Autism and ADD are on the same spectrum, only the inattentiveness is like a million times worse. Guess I need to listen to the sermons online again when I get home!
But I was sort of thinking globally when I wrote, anyway. As for your preaching, I think you address all kinds of things I rarely hear about elsewhere. It’s the thing I love the most about St. A’s. But what was on my mind (in part) was a conversation I recently had with a woman (not from St. Andrew’s, and not from S.C., either for that matter) who thought loneliness was an acceptable reason to have a physical relationship with a man outside of marriage. She knows the Bible well and is more committed to the Lord than most people I know but was shocked when I didn’t agree with her opinion. Now, I can empathize with the loneliness–there’s no condemnation there, but what I struggled with was just the cavalier attitude she had about sex outside of marriage, and it sort of puzzled me as to why she felt no conviction about this issue whatsoever. Given the statistics on divorce, premarital sex, and extramarital sex, a lot of people feel the same way this woman did, but I don’t really understand that, although I have to say that my perspective on this matter is somewhat childlike and is limited due to autism. That’s why I want to be careful to say there is no condemnation with regards to the conversation I had with my friend.
That said, I didn’t mean to reduce the issues with the Episcopal Church down to just homosexuality. Really, I was just responding to NT Wright’s commentary, and he could have written about other things, or meant something else entirely but I did read it at 4 a.m. and you are also talking to someone who took a half an hour to figure out that ABC stood for the Archbishop of Canterbury. But you are right–the issue of homosexuality does get a lot of ink and airtime given that the overall population of gays and lesbians in this country is comparitely small when compared to the general population.
But it’s odd you should mention the issue of transgendered people and bisexuals, though, because I had a dream about that the night before last! It was very disconcerting to be honest because it was about a transgendered priest living out the very thing you said–he/she had exchanged the truth for a lie and was preaching about the virtue of being yourself in this world, and the congregation was falling for it. But I didn’t know this was on the plate as far as the legislature you talked about was concerned, so it’s weird to have dreamt about it.
I also agree with you about the difference between homosexual sin and other sins–which I was trying to be careful to note yet was playing devil’s advocate at the same time when I was writing. I just think when anyone is confronted about their sin in a non-loving way, they will defend it come hell or high water when they feel they are under attack. And for whatever reason, when it comes to how Christians deal with homosexuality, it can be rather shameful on our part. But you said that already, and I think we are on the same page about all of that.
And finally, no, what people do in their bedrooms is not off-limits in the context that you mentioned. I was just referring to a good ten year period of my life where the majority of my coworkers and friends were young unmarried mothers or gay people. Between those two groups, I literally heard nothing about their lives except what went on behind closed doors. They spoke of nothing else, and it was considered normal, but I found it troubling and also boring after awhile. So, that’s what I mean when I say I’m not interested–I’m being literal here, and I’m not interested in listening to conversations that I think should be private if they even have to exist at all. I still wanted to be friends with these people, though. I just wanted to find other things to talk about, too.
That’s not to say that I didn’t care about the pain they lived in, though (except they didn’t see it that way). And it certainly isn’t to say that God isn’t interested either. And where did you get the idea that I thought sex INSIDE the boundaries of marriage shouldn’t be enjoyed?! Heh. I know I’m naive, but not that naive. Hello! I mean, I want to be married, too. It’s just I have to be healed in about a million areas of my life before that can be a reality.
Anyway, I have a bigger issue on my plate than this. In this last month, I was told/was reprimanded for being judgmental and unloving and quite a few other things. I’d like to say it wasn’t true and I’m innocent, but I’d be lying. Totally lying. So, I am entering into another season of repentance, which I actually think is going to be long. And when I think back in my mind about the commonality behind all of my sin–it’s the absense of love. And even with what you said, about the heart of the matter being the gospel itself–it’s true what you wrote, but the heart of the matter of the gospel–well, it’s still love.
It’s just, we are called to heal as well as to love. And we were given the chance to be reconciled with God and with each other. But it seems like the hurts and grievances people have with each other get so big that it seems impossible to work through them. And this saddens me greatly. Makes me wonder how we can walk out our calling when it all seems so hopeless sometimes. Makes me wonder how I personally can walk it out if I’ve walked around blind to the hurt I brought to others. I thought I was RIGHT. But it seems that a lot of people these days also think they are right. How do you deal with that?
So, I think my whole diatribe probably got started with these thoughts. Homosexuals do think they are right based on their belief they are born the way they are, and thus God made them that way. And they may have been born that way. I was born with autism, but unlike most people–whether gay or autistic–I do not believe that my brain, or the chemicals it does or does not produce, supercedes God’s word. In other words, I feel an obligation to repent and to turn from the behaviors my brain says I should exhibit. The Holy Spirit inside of me says God’s ways are better and higher. But parents of autistic children have criticized me for my desire and choice to repent–many feel God gave their children autism and so I am being judgmental of their kids. So, this idea that we are born a certain way and it is unchangeable is deeply rooted in many people. It’s sort of an end all/be all kind of thing. Except I can tell you it’s not. I am changing. My brain and how it functions–is changing and has done so radically over the last four years.
Anyway, I guess in this respect–knowing how deeply fired up people can get over biology, it doesn’t surprise me to see how things got to this point with homosexuals in the EC getting ordained, but on the other hand, I guess I was just convicted or concerned about how the church was going to deal with the news. I just wanted to find a way to respond with a more loving attitude than what I have shown in the past, and I guess I wanted to go on record as saying I’d like to try to learn how to love the sinner while still hating the sin because there has to be a better way of dealing with others than, well, the way we typically deal with them. I haven’t loved well, and I want to change that. That’s all.
Leave A Reply