[This article originated as a Statement sent to the Vestry of the author’s home parish. Although it contains a few local references, the issues discussed are the same ones being faced all across the Episcopal Church in the United States of America.]
Since early August the state of the Episcopal Church, and most especially of my beloved parish home for almost two decades, St. Mark’s of Glen Ellyn, Illinois, has been in my thoughts day and night. Although the Vestry has scheduled a number of meetings to provide members of the parish with a forum for their views, I decided that the most effective way to communicate my thoughts about this momentous event is through a written statement to the Vestry. This document is the result.
I must confess that when I first began grappling, more than twenty years ago, with the issue of what view the Christian ought to hold regarding homosexuality, I approached the question of scriptural interpretation hoping that I could find a way of understanding scripture so that it could still be seen as the foundational authority for Christian faith and doctrine, while allowing for a new understanding of homosexuality as a practice that, at least in some situations, was not contrary to the will of God. I was motivated to find a positive outcome for several reasons. First, like most Episcopalians, I place a high value on relations with Christians whose views differ from my own. One of the appeals I found in the Anglican way was its comprehensive and catholic nature. Like many converts from other branches of Christianity, one of the things that attracted me to Anglicanism, in addition to its rich worship tradition and theological heritage, was its ability to include a broad-ranging, respectful theological conversation within its bounds. I liked being within this circle whose perimeter was drawn broadly enough to permit views that could be found in many other Christian denominations ranging from Roman Catholic to Pentecostal. That is true Christian ecumenism. There is a legitimate Christian charity that is not only tolerant, but also cordial toward other views that, while at variance with one’s own, still are within the spectrum of Christianity. Secondly, during graduate school I had established friendships with a number of homosexuals, some of whom were Christians, and I wanted to find a way for them to gain acceptance. I mention this because I want you to know that I am not speaking from mere abstractions that have had no contact with the realities of life.
As one trained through graduate studies in theology and biblical scholarship, I read the scholarly and popular literature of theology, biblical studies and ethics, hoping to find a new understanding of homosexuality that had not been seen by earlier generations of Christian thinkers. As I pondered this, a number of things became very clear. First, the entire biblical tradition as it pertains to the subject of homosexuality is uniformly negative towards it. There is not a single positive statement about homosexuality anywhere in all of scripture. Scripture does not speak often on the subject, but whenever it does refer to the practice of homosexuality, it views it in decidedly negative, even hostile, language, using terms and phrases like "abomination" and "against nature" to describe the divine attitude concerning it.
The second thing that became obvious was that arguments put forward by some biblical scholars and theologians in an attempt to reinterpret scripture as being supportive or allowing for at least some forms of homosexuality were thoroughly unconvincing and exhibited all kinds of exegetical and interpretive gymnastics that were only believable by those who had already made a prior commitment to the acceptability of homosexuality within Christianity. It was interesting to see not only mainstream biblical scholars dismiss these new readings of scripture, but even some homosexuals who were too honest intellectually to buy into what were obviously strained interpretations. It was clear to me that it would be more honest intellectually to admit that the Bible is inimical to homosexuality and deal with that fact however one may. However, many theological and ethical writings latched onto the revisionist readings of scripture as support for their own conclusions calling for a positive evaluation of homosexuality and an affirmation of homosexual relationships as falling within the will of God and worthy of blessing.
It seemed to me that for those of us convinced that scripture cannot be read as allowing for homosexual practice within the church, there were only two valid and honest alternatives, both of which arise from one’s view of authority in the church. The Christian religion and the Judaism from which it sprang have always been a religion based on divine revelation, the belief that God has communicated his will to us. The writer of the New Testament Epistle to the Hebrews puts this view succinctly: "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son . . ." God is viewed as having communicated through a variety of means: dreams and visions, divine appearances to individuals such as Abraham or Moses, through the Law given to Moses by God, through the prophets, and, supremely, through his Son, Jesus the Messiah. These channels of divine revelation were to be tested, for it was possible for a false prophet to arise and even to perform signs and wonders and make predictions that actually come to pass. The test of a true prophet was not his ability to predict the future or perform signs, but his faithfulness to the deposit of revelation that had preceded him (Deut. 13). A prophet who counseled the faithful to serve other gods was to be utterly rejected (and worse). Later generations were the beneficiaries of the revelation mediated by the true vehicles of revelation because scripture preserved and transmitted it to them. Christianity has always affirmed that true religion is that which conforms to God’s will as revealed to us in Holy Scripture. The Nicene Creed, representing the consensus of the universal church, affirms that Jesus rose again "in accordance with the Scriptures" and that the Holy Spirit "has spoken through the prophets." Arising from this conviction, the church’s approach to practices that are at variance with scriptural teaching is to declare that they are outside the will of God, sinful, and that they alienate their practitioners from God and place them in spiritual jeopardy. They are urged to repent, that is, to change their minds about the matter at hand, to submit themselves to the divine will, and to receive that which God is so willing to grant: forgiveness and the spiritual power of the indwelling Spirit of God that enables them to live a new life.
The other honest alternative that is open to the one who recognizes that the teaching of scripture is not compatible with an acceptance of homosexual practice is frankly, deliberately, and formally to reject scripture as a guide in matters of Christian faith and behaviour and opt for a view that is incompatible with scripture. That is, one can reject the authority of scripture. One can affirm that St. Paul, for example, was simply incorrect when he described homosexuality as "unnatural," or when he affirmed that unrepentant homosexuals (along with many other types of unrepentant sinners) will not inherit the kingdom of God. Likewise, if Leviticus tells us within the space of a few verses that adultery between a man and his neighbor’s wife, incest, sex between two men, and bestiality are all equally abhorrent to God, we can decide that we know better. To take this approach is forthright and honest, but it also changes the entire nature of religion, since it can no longer be claimed that the faith of the church is based on divine revelation as reflected by Holy Scripture. This is the basis for the charge, valid in my view, that in our day there are two religions co-existing within the Episcopal Church (and in most other Christian denominations). One is a religion that looks for its ultimate authority to the will of God as preserved and transmitted to us in scripture. The other is a religion that bases its teaching and practice on the general consensus of philosophy, sociology, psychology, and other fields of human knowledge as it currently exists (and which changes rapidly over time with the arrival of each new trend or fad in the academy, the media, or society). So these are the two honest positions. What is not honest is to adopt this revisionist approach to religion while continuing to claim scripture as one’s own, yet this untenable via media is in fact the approach that has been taken by the recent General Convention of the Episcopal Church.
It is somewhat ironic that "inclusiveness" has become the watchword of the new church. In fact, biblical religion has always been inclusive, but its inclusiveness is of a different nature than what is being promoted today. The great German theologian and Old Testament scholar Walther Eichrodt, writing about the revolutionary character of the covenant community of faith that God first formed around the descendants of Abraham, stated:> "It is striking that this association draws no clear line to exclude the stranger, but is continually absorbing outsiders into itself. Moreover, the decisive requirement for admission is not natural kinship but readiness to submit oneself to the will of the divine Lord of the Covenant and to vow oneself to this particular God." (Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 1, p. 39.) That is, the inclusiveness of the community of faith founded by God is an acceptance of all who are willing to submit to the revealed will of God. This inclusiveness is exemplified by the story of Ruth, the Moabite woman who forsook the gods worshiped by her own people and embraced the true God worshiped by Israel. This foreigner was fully accepted into the covenant community and became the great-grandmother of Israel’s greatest king and ancestor of Jesus, the descendant of David. For Ruth, inclusiveness did not mean that she got to bring along all of her old pagan practices from the religion of Moab. She turned away from those ways and submitted her will to the ways of the Lord, and I think Ruth’s story is typical of what is expected of us. If God has truly spoken through the prophets and climactically, supremely, through his Son, then we are not called to change this revealed religion. We are called to repentance, to submission to the will of God, and to humble service. We are called to change our opinions and behaviour to conform to God’s Word, not the other way around.
These reflections bear on the current crisis in the church, because the majority leadership of the Episcopal Church is seeking to bring about the fundamental change in religion that I have described. The plain teaching of Holy Scripture about sexual morality is to be ignored, and human wisdom, which is both fallible and ever changing, is to be elevated in its place. This is being done in the name of "inclusiveness," the new kind of inclusiveness that was described above. But it is a false inclusiveness, because at the same time that it is bringing in a new group of people, it is excluding another. It admits those who practice behaviour that is unequivocally condemned by Holy Scripture, and by changing the nature of the religion it excludes those of us who are committed to the faith "once delivered to all the saints," the faith that consists of trust in God’s Word and obedience to his revelation, rather than trust in our own fallible wisdom. It is as though the majority leadership has drawn a new circle including some who were formerly outside, and excluding some who were formerly inside the circle.
The actions of the 2003 General Convention of the Episcopal Church have wounded and are rending the Church at the national, diocesan and parish level, and will in some cases divide families. They threaten to divide the worldwide Anglican communion as well. Bishops Persell and Scantlebury of the Diocese of Chicago are on record as "rejoicing in that action." Parishes that are largely comfortable with the violations of faith and order evidenced by the election of Gene Robinson as bishop and the approval of local-option on the blessing of same-sex unions are least likely to feel the negative effects. But parishes like St. Mark's Church of Glen Ellyn that have many members who are on the more conservative end of the Episcopalian spectrum, who cling to the traditional Christian belief in revealed religion and the authority of scripture, will experience deep and heart-rending disruption and division among people who love one another. The Vestry is deeply divided on the question of how to respond to General Convention and is in a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation. No matter how the Vestry reacts to General Convention, and no matter what future direction the parish takes, people are going to be upset and many may leave St. Mark's. If that is the case, the question then becomes: What does the Vestry hope that St. Mark's will be like in the future?
If the Vestry fails to take serious, concrete steps aimed at actually nullifying the actions of General Convention, it will in reality be acquiescing to General Convention and to the new religion that it seeks to promote. It will, by its inaction, be ratifying the departures from the faith that were perpetrated at General Convention. If this happens, those members who feel that they cannot remain in communion with Gene Robinson and the majority who elected him (and will undoubtedly continue to elect others like him in the future) will take actions ranging from revoking their pledges to leaving altogether. On the other hand, if the Vestry does take actions, such as cutting off funding to the diocese and national church, that please those who want strong action, it will offend parish members who are comfortable with the results of General Convention or who, while unhappy about them, are not willing to do anything that would risk a confrontation with our diocesan bishop and denomination.
As a practical matter, I submit that the Vestry needs to realize that the fracturing of the church has already happened. It was accomplished through the actions of General Convention. It is sheer folly to pretend otherwise, and it is naïve to think that anyone can prevent it from having an impact at St. Mark’s. It has already impacted and left a huge crater. That is why we are all in tears.
Although we Anglicans are famous for finding the via media, no such path is available in this situation. Two religions are in conflict with each other, and many people are going to be uncomfortable with the resulting situation no matter what it is. Failure to act against General Convention will, inevitably, bring about a future parish membership that is more comfortable with the liberal direction of the Episcopal Church, a membership that is more docile and acquiescent to the liberal leadership of the denomination. They will be even less likely to complain about the next doctrinal or moral innovation that is promulgated. On the other hand, taking tough action in opposition to General Convention will result in a future membership that is more antagonistic to the denomination’s liberal leadership and more open to possible reaffiliation, perhaps with other parts of the Anglican Communion that remain faithful to biblical morality and doctrine. The bottom line is that the actions (or inaction) of the Vestry carry grave consequences for the future of St. Mark’s. Those who are asking you to do nothing, who beg you not to make yet another division within the body of Christ, are failing to recognize that the division, the fracturing of the body, has already happened, and their counsel to do nothing is, in reality, asking you to lead St. Mark’s further down the road toward the new religion based on human authority, the ultimate end of which may not be clearly discernable to them, but which will be the loss of any distinctiveness to the Christian faith. Those asking you to oppose that direction are, whether they know it or not, asking you to lead St. Mark’s into greater conflict with our bishop, our diocese, and our denomination, conflict that could very well result in two parishes where formerly there was one.
I would like to address the view held by some that exalts inclusiveness as the cardinal Christian virtue and, in essence, says that to take a stand for a particular truth and label other points of view as false is an uncharitable and un-Christian thing to do, and that Christians are not supposed to "judge" the views of others. Anglicans in general and Episcopalians in particular have been taught to confuse charity with what they think of as inclusiveness. It is widely thought that one must be open to entertaining any point of view, no matter how at variance it is with traditional Christian teachings on any subject, and it is felt by many that having charity and respect for others requires that one admit any and all to that circle of beliefs, practices, and behaviour that legitimately can be labeled "Christian."
I do not know how to respond to such assertions without sounding uncharitable, but I do not believe it is unloving to tell the truth. And the truth is that the views outlined in the preceding paragraph are mindless, sentimental nonsense, and are intellectually incoherent. The logical result of such thinking is that we should not affirm anything to be absolutely true, because it would exclude someone from our circle. If such views had guided the earliest generations of Christians, there would be no Christian religion today, at least not one that could be recognized as anything like the one that we know. The people who are proclaiming inclusiveness and charity toward all views deny their own proclamation every Sunday, for every time they attend the Eucharist they recite, whether they are aware of it or not, a harsh, exclusionary, exclusivist creed – the Nicene creed – that is picky about fine points of theology, that insists that the Son is homoousias (“of one substance”) with the Father and not homoiousios (“of similar substance”) with the Father. Every time we recite the Nicene Creed we exclude, disenfranchise, and label as non-Christian all those who cannot affirm it: Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Jews, Christian Scientists, and their ancient counter-parts – Gnostics, Docetists, Arians, etc. It is ridiculous, ignorant, and non-sensical to recite the Nicene Creed on the one hand and then to turn around and say that we need to engage in respectful dialogue with anything that claims to belong under the Christian “tent.” We recite the Nicene Creed every Sunday because we believe that the Church Fathers got it right: they proclaimed what all Christians believe, and they condemned as heretics the Gnostics, Arians, and others who differed from their views. In doing so, they were not departing from, but following, the example of the Apostles and of our Lord himself, who themselves were continuing the traditions of revealed religion as outlined above.
Many people quote the verse “Judge not, that you be not judged” (Matt. 7:1) out of context and overlook the fact that the New Testament frequently calls on the followers of Christ to distinguish between true and false teaching, between good and evil, that is, to make judgments. Jesus said that the gospel will divide people and bring a sword. And in his own dealings with people, he frequently violated the modern canons of openness that are being urged on us as the correct model for Christian behaviour. For example, in his conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4), Jesus showed his “inclusiveness” by violating Jewish custom of his day and associating with a Samaritan, a member of a group of people ostracized and despised by the Jews. (And he went on to spend time teaching the entire Samaritan populace of her town, an act that broke down the racial/cultural barrier separating them.) Thus he continued the tradition of inclusiveness that we encountered in the Old Testament story of Ruth. However, during his conversation with this woman, there came a point when Jesus had to raise the issue of her immoral behaviour. When he had piqued her interest so that she asked for some of his “living” water, he said: “Go and get your husband,” knowing full well that she had had five husbands, and that the man she was currently with was not her husband. This abrupt change in the conversation is an embarrassing violation of modern canons of inclusiveness, not to mention good manners! And it was not a momentary lapse, but a habitual pattern in Jesus’ dealings with others. Whether it was the Rich Young Ruler, the Pharisees, or the woman caught in adultery, Jesus never failed to confront people regarding aspects of their lives that were contrary to God’s will.
The apostles followed the example of Jesus. St. Paul verbally attacked those in the early Christian movement who wanted to add the requirements of circumcision and observance of the Law to the pure gospel of salvation by grace through faith (Galatians). He also ordered the excommunication of those who went astray morally and refused to repent (1 Cor. 5). John’s epistles, which contain some of the most sublime and pastoral teachings about the need to love one another, also counsel Christians to “test the spirits,” to be wary of “false prophets” who were teaching theological error by denying that God was incarnate in Jesus. John even results to what moderns might call “name calling”, labeling these opponents as “antichrists.” Likewise, St. Peter warns his readers about “false prophets” who teach “destructive heresies” and speaks of their destruction.
In summary, Apostolic Christianity made distinctions, declared some things true and others false, some things right and other things wrong. It made judgments and rejected some people as false teachers and heretics, sometimes for theological reasons and sometimes for moral ones. If the founders of our faith believed that boundaries existed and needed to be enforced by excluding certain beliefs or behaviour, basing this on scripture and the teaching of Jesus, why should we who follow in their footsteps abandon their example? It is, after all, not that we are holding ourselves up as being better than anyone else; this is not about moral superiority. No, we are all alike sinners before a holy God; all alike are in need of repentance, faith, grace, and forgiveness. Rather, this is a matter of faithfulness. St. Paul counseled his young protégé Timothy to “follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 1:13). We are called in our day to the same standard of fidelity to the Christian tradition that was handed down to us. To do otherwise would be doubly wrong, because we would not only be guilty of apostasy, but we would also be obscuring the only real hope of help, acceptance and deliverance that homosexuals have – the gospel message that has always given hope to those mired in human weakness and sin, the message that God is able to do what is humanly impossible, calling all sorts of sinners to repentance and giving them his Spirit to enable them to live new lives. I have nothing but compassion for homosexuals who are in the clutches of an addiction from which there seems to be no hope of deliverance. They are no different from the rest of us in that struggle. We all engage in sinful behaviour, and many among us struggle with particular besetting sins that are neither better or worse than homosexuality on some imagined measure of sin’s severity. But it is not a compassionate act to change Christian teaching so that the only real hope that was ever available to any sinners is no longer available. It is no more compassionate to tell a homosexual that his behaviour is “ok” after all than it is to give a glass of his favorite liquor to an alcoholic. No, deliverance lies in the long, hard road of God’s grace and involves repentance, prayer, and discipleship.
St. Mark’s is, then, at a fork in the road. No matter what course is decided on, the parish is going to lose members and money at the worst time possible, when it is faced with the need to launch a new capital campaign to finance the new education facilities that are being completed this fall. Those of us who believe that a new religion is springing up in the Episcopal Church, a religion based on human wisdom rather than acceptance of the revealed will of God as mediated to us in Holy Scripture, find ourselves in a serious quandary. How can we in good conscience continue to contribute money if we know that any portion of it will go to support the Diocese of Chicago or the national church, the institutions that are firmly in the control of the majority leadership in the church? Obviously there are many good ministries, otherwise worthy of support, that will suffer if giving declines. But our diocese and the national church are controlled by a leadership that is responsible for the loss of over a million members, one-third of the Episcopal Church’s membership, in the last few decades, and they are the ones who are responsible for harming these ministries because of their actions that are rending the church. I do not see any spiritual virtue in continuing to finance the agenda of a leadership that is destroying the church that I love, or of financing the mortgage on a facility that will one day be utilized for purposes of which I do not approve.
Bishop Fitzsimmons Allison (retired) of South Carolina has recently pointed out that historically the financial purse has been the sole means that the laity has available to counter a church leadership that is out of touch with the wishes of the people. John Booty, formerly professor of Church History at Episcopal Divinity School, describes the evolution of the church’s governmental organization from the decentralized church of the eighteenth century characterized by local control to the highly organized, bureaucratic organization of our time characterized by centralization of power. He concludes: “The great power of General Convention was and remains its control of the budget of the Presiding Bishop and Council. Dioceses and parishes can indicate their approval or disapproval of its policies and activities by giving or withholding the money necessary for its work. At crucial moments ordinary people in parishes are able to exert their power in telling ways, indicating that they of the holy community provide the basis upon which all else exists.” (The Church in History, p. 72. From The Church’s Teaching Series.) The liberal leadership of the church will attempt to convince Episcopalians that it would be the height of unchristian behaviour to cut off their funding, but this is in fact the only means available to speak forcefully to them and get their attention.
It is my prayer that the leadership of St. Mark’s will find the spiritual and moral certainty that is required to address this crisis in our common life. Further, I pray that the Vestry’s actions will lead St. Mark’s to reaffirm the historic Christian understanding of true religion as revealed by God in Holy Scripture, and to rebuke the majority leadership of the church by forcing it to deal with the reality of being in control of a national and diocesan organization that is no longer being financed by the giving of faithful people of God who do not approve of what they are doing to the church. I strongly urge you to take steps to insure that no portion of our financial contributions fall into their hands. Your failure to do so would force upon many members the necessity of taking steps individually rather than acting as a united community of faith, steps ranging from the withholding of pledges to leaving St. Mark’s altogether. None of us wants this to happen.
I do not want to leave St. Mark’s or Anglicanism. I do feel that the Episcopal Church is in the process of leaving me, and I don’t want St. Mark’s to do the same. However, if we roll over and acquiesce to the innovations perpetrated at General Convention, we should start preparing for the next step, and the one after that, because there is much more to the liberal agenda that has not yet been accomplished. It will be implemented incrementally, and with each new innovation the leadership will seek to cloak itself with God’s authority by talking about “the cost of being a prophetic church” and being lead by “the Spirit,” as Bishop Persell did in his recent letter to the diocese, and there will be less and less objection on the part of the parish membership because the Vestry’s inaction will have led those most likely to object to leave St. Mark’s, weeping as they walk out the door. Those remaining will be rendered impotent, voiceless, and pathetic. I beg you not to lead St. Mark’s there, because I won’t be able to go along for the ride.
© 2003 by Stephen E. Westfall