Over the Edge

In all honesty, I have had a hard time knowing exactly what to think after the whirlwind events of the last couple of weeks in both the PCUSA and ECUSA conventions. I had expected the revisionists in the ECUSA to hold their ground. I did not expect them to stake out new territory. (Much reporting on the convention can be found at David Virtue's news site here.)

In the ECUSA, now simply “The Episcopal Church” or TEC for short, delegates were somewhat stunned at the election of Katharine Jefferts Schori, 52, bishop of Nevada, to the post of Presiding Bishop. Since most Anglican provinces do not ordain women as deacons or priests, much less bishops, this was hardly a conciliatory move to engender trust from other provinces – this was a defiant act of autonomy. On top of this, Schiori is on record as supportive of the consecration of Gene Robinson, the openly Gay Bishop of New Hampshire.

Incredibly, in the Episcopal convention, the House of Deputies voted down a resolution that affirmed Jesus Christ as the "only name by which any person may be saved” by a vote of 675 to 242. Apparently such exclusive language was politically incorrect.



In response to a resolution to get the ECUSA to "refrain from the nomination, consent to, and consecration of bishops whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church” and "not proceed to develop or authorize" gay blessing rites "at this time", the convention first took a defiant stance, then passed a compromise statement expressing regret for hurt caused but offering no repentance or change of course.

Gay activists were not pleased with the last minute compromise: "…Dr. Louie Crew, a delegate from the Diocese of Newark and the founder of the homosexual church lobby Integrity, stated 'This would be like trying to cut the tone from out under the Holy Spirit,'"

Amazing how a bishop of a major denomination can insist that a view directly contradictory to scripture and 2000 years of the understanding of virtually all Christians until recently can be described as the "work of the Holy Spirit". He would have us believe that the New Covenant is not new enough.

The revisionists signed a "Statement of Conscience which said: “Our conversation has been framed in a flawed paradigm, forcing us to choose between two goods-the full inclusion in the life of the Church of our brother and sister Christians who happen to be gay or lesbian and our full inclusion in the life of our beloved Communion.” In other words, those who say "hold to Biblical teaching or get out" are in a flawed paradigm.

The end result in all this for the Anglican Church is that many global south provinces affirmed a direction of offering oversight to churches who wish to distance themselves from ECUSA and numerous churches and some diocese are ready to sever all ties with ECUSA/TEC.

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, suggested a plan which would likely push the ECUSA to “affiliate” status, not in “full communion” with the rest of Anglican provinces. Conservatives wonder why those who no longer affirm either Christian morality or theology should remain affiliated at all.

Sydney's Archbishop Peter Jensen thought little of the proposal and correctly identified the seriousness of the situation "...it's not just the Anglican church, this (argument) is going to affect other churches as well. It's really a struggle for the soul of world Christianity, particularly I'd say in the west."

How right he is.

Not to be outdone, Presbyterian revisionists introduced potential
new descriptions of the Trinity such as:

· Rainbow, Ark and Dove
· Compassionate Mother, Beloved Child and Life-Giving Womb
· Lover, Beloved and Love
· Fire that Consumes, Sword that Divides and Storm that Melts Mountains

Presbyterian sentiments regarding gay unions and ordinations echoed that of Episcopal statements, although PCUSA is not as far down the line. In response to conservative efforts to insist on traditional views of man-woman marriage… As reported by the Washington Times:

"A measure approved 298-221 by a Presbyterian national assembly keeps in place a 1997 church law that says clergy and lay elders and deacons must limit sexual relations to marriage.

"But the new legislation says local congregations and regional presbyteries can exercise some flexibility when choosing clergy and lay officers of local congregations if sexual orientation or other issues arise.

"The Presbyterian establishment, including all seminary presidents and many officials, promoted the local autonomy plan, which was devised by a special task force. The idea is to grant modest change to liberals but mollify conservatives by keeping the sexual law on the books. It's not clear whether that will work."

One "overture" to water down any non-inclusive direction from the Presbyterian convention said in part:

“If Jesus taught us anything, it is that we must love our neighbor as we love ourselves. Like the Samaritan, our neighbor may be quite different from us and unpopular. Because mainline Christianity has not always felt the inclusive love of Jesus, it has lived to regret every one of its exclusionary practices.

"These statements will embarrass us more and more as time goes on because they are so alien to the example of Jesus, who taught that we are defiled only by what comes out of our heart.

"We ask the General Assembly to yield to the Spirit of God and delete from the Policy Statement of 1978 those statements of longstanding insult to our gay and lesbian members. "

I note, once again, that resistance to calling sin sin is attributed to the Holy Spirit. There was a conservative response signed by nearly 2000 Presbyterians:

"The so-called 'Peace, Unity and Purity' proposal is outrageous. It calls on Presbyterians to abandon the Scriptural standards of right and wrong. It would presumably keep the Biblical standard in our Constitution, yet allow any Presbyterian body to set it aside.

"In short, it amends our Constitution without amending the Constitution, since amendments must be ratified by the people, but interpretations can be approved merely by a majority of the General Assembly. If each individual can supply our Constitution with his or her own meaning, the document is not worth the paper on which it is written. It means everything to everyone, and therefore it has no meaning at all."

It appears to me that the PUP document takes a disingenuous tack similar to the tactic long used in the ECUSA, insisting that there are many things about which Christians disagree, and that different perspectives should not be a cause for sacrificing unity. So disagreements about minor theological points are subtly equated in the minds of the unwary with radical departures from essential doctrine or moral standards.

In the end, all this is predictable. The issue is not primarily morality, it is biblical authority. In rejecting scripture as an objective standard, scripture has become something to be reinterpreted according to modern and postmodern assumptions. Scripture means what the interpreter(s) say(s) it means. It doesn’t matter whether the interpreter is an individual sitting at a desk in a local church building or a council of elected and consecrated church leaders. If the assumption is that “new” knowledge sheds light on theological and moral perspectives that no one had in the seventh, fourth or first century, then whatever standards once existed will eventually be eroded. Whether the grid for the latest greatest hermeneutic is based in modern or postmodern assumptions makes little difference. Either way, the old boundary markers will be moved and will be justified under the banner of expanding knowledge.

Liberals tend to make much of reading scripture in “communion”, emphasizing unity as a path to truth (as long as they are in the majority). But they steadfastly refuse to include voices from the past as part of that communion. If they get enough votes in a convention, truth can be redefined to mean the opposite of what it once meant. If they don't have the votes, they stall, agitate and manipulate until they do.

Church discipline in these situations is rather difficult when even some of those who disagree with the conclusions of the revisionists have adopted some of their assumptions. Believing that the scripture has to be "interpreted" in light of the thinking of current cultural perspectives leaves one in a difficult position. If one disagrees with radical conclusions, one still has to ask what makes one view right and another wrong? Who's "interpretation" is the correct one.

Which is one reason why I have had to acknowledge the wisdom of "catholicity", a general sense of holding to what has been believed "always, everywhere and by all". We need the voices of the whole church to help overrule the bellowing of the agitating progressives.

One thing is clear. The gay rights lobby has no intention of seeking merely to be left alone. They will continue to demand full inclusion and full acceptance of their viewpoint as long as they are allowed to remain - as long as they are not removed from the midst of the assembly. Rowan William's two-tiered approach to Anglicanism is a bit like moving a plague filled carcass from the living room to the porch. Sooner or later it will infect the whole house again.

And as I have been saying for quite some time on this blog, it is not just the mainline that is struggling with the incursion of the gay rights agenda.

This week in World Magazine, there is a report by Joel Belz regarding a class on "gender and sexuality" at Fuller in which a guest lecturer stated that "heterosexism" is a "social construct" and not the biblical norm. The teacher of the course, Jack Balswick, has written a book, published by Intervarsity, which does not say that homosexuality is not a sin, but according to quotations cited by Belz, allows for gays to commit to a lifelong, monogamous homosexual union, "believing this is God's best for them". Dr Balswick goes on to say such people may believe this is an "authentic sexuality that is congruent for them and their view of scripture." Balswick states in essence homosexuality is wrong in his view, but others can hold a different view. Moral absolutes do not exist.

So I look at the official direction of some mainline churches and I am outraged and combative. And I look at the landscape of evangelicalism and I am apprehensive for the future.

Thankfully there are still those in each tradition who are battling for orthodoxy.