An example of this softly softly approach can be seen in this article.
"We're not asking that he be defrocked. We're just saying that there should not be any more [consecrations]. We're aware that he was elected according to the policies of the Episcopal Church, whatever we may think about that.""Whatever we may think about that." I cannot work out why he isn't saying, the bible says its wrong, it is wrong, he should be defrocked and the church should repent.
I liked this article from Mark Driscoll who talks about his meeting with J.I. Packer and how Packer thinks the issue of homosexuality in the church is one of heresy! Well worth the read.
"In keeping with Packer’s line of reasoning, I asked him if those who are “heretical” in promoting homosexual activity while declaring themselves to be Christian are in effect promoting a new religion based upon a false gospel, like Mormonism and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. He said, “You could describe it that way and it’s what they are doing."Thank goodness someone has the guts to say what needs to be said!
Sometimes I get SO angry at the complete disregard for the authority of scripture..!
ReplyDeleteEvery time we go soft on such social issues we run the risk of going soft on the Gospel, or in this case going anti-Gospel (That Driscoll/Packer article is a brilliant article)
Is homosexuality wrong? Yes, the Bible says it's a sin to be in such relationships. Is it a worse sin than any other, no, but can any pastor/preacher/elder/overseer/priest live in unrepentant sin and still hold office? no.
Can ANY Christian openly live in unrepentant sin and remain in the church, after proper treatment, no.
How can pastors be trusted with church discipline, when they have no discipline themselves, and what reflection does that have upon a diocese or archdiocese not addressing such issues of discipline..
It's about time the church started being much more clear, and much less PC.
I appreciated this post, thanks Chris.
It's a bigger issue than just not being 'soft' or having the guts to say something or defrocking people isn't it?
ReplyDeleteYou're talking about sin! People are always scared to point the finger at sin.
I think the biggest problem is we pick and choose what sin to not 'be soft' on and go nut's about homosexuality or whatever and ignore the rest of it.
I think the idea of constantly repenting against sin nails it.
So if we're going to point the finger at someone. Lets be consistent.
I would encourage you to think about the reconciling power of the Gospel. Is our call for peace and reconciliation somehow less important than or call to holiness? I would submit that holiness is not even ours to work towards but something that God does in us when we seek him. Holding out one Christian, who sins, above another, who also sins but in a different way, is just another way that we try to pretend we, in some way, have the ability to transform apart from Christ and it isn't true. Our Gospel is one of reconciliation - first to God and then to others. Holiness is a result of seeking God and not the other way around.
ReplyDeleteI also submit that "heresy" is a DANGEROUS word to throw around. It angers me that people are so quick to use it because none of us are good enough to know God perfectly and are therefor all heretics. The fruits of the spirit are not judgment condemnation and name calling they are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control. I find it interesting that Paul (Galatians 5) references these after telling people to abstain from sexual immorality. I think we are called to deal with homosexuality, amongst other sins, in light of the fruits. When somebody is in a sexual sin our call is to practice the fruits of the spirit first and foremost. Our tendency, and one that Driscoll over and over again encourages, is to be divisive first - to judge and hate (even though he would never use that word) - when we are called to gentleness and patience and ultimately love (an action) for our brothers who aren't perfect.
Chris, I encourage you to seek those fruits in your attitude towards this issue, while I seek those fruits in my attitude towards Driscoll, because Lord knows I need to find some way to love that guy despite my disagreements with him.
Joey, should bishops (or elders) be held to any kind of standard at all?
ReplyDeleteGreat post Chris.
ReplyDeleteChurch discipline was a pillar of Puritan ecclesiology along with preaching and the sacraments. Today discipline has been completely sidelined in favour of blind tolerance.
This attitude is encapsulated in joey's comment:
"Is our call for peace and reconciliation somehow less important than or call to holiness?"
Its not a question of peace being less important than holiness. The fact is that bishops, pastors, elders, etc. are called to live a life of holiness and will be judged more harshly than Christians who aren't shepherds.
Consider 1 Tim 5:17-20.
Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” 19 Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.
There is room there for reconciliation, but only if the elder does not "persist in [their] sin".
Bible honouring Christians will all agree that indulging homosexual appetites is sinful - and Christian leaders who persist in unrepentant sin need to be rebuked strongly. If they continue in unrepentant sin then they need to be removed from their (privileged) position of leadership.
End of story.
To anonymous... 1. - please leave your name so I know who you are... i don't like people not owning what they say!
ReplyDelete2. I agree the idea of repentance does nail it. And that is exactly the problem. These gay bishops aren't repenting, worse than that, they are teaching, contrary to scripture, that being gay is fine for a person who is a Christian. They are wrong. If we don't stand up against that, people will stumble.
3. I am happy to consistently point the finger at people who are involved in church leadership and are involved in public unrepentant sin. Whether they are gay or look at porn, or tell lies to get their church to do what they want. I also want people to point the finger at me, tell me where my life doesn't measure up and confront me to make sure I'm in a constant state of repentance.
To Joey
Whilst I might be happy to agree in principle that in some way we are all heretics, in that we can all misinterpret scripture, I would submit the word 'heresy' is not used enough. If you're teaching something that is clearly contrary to scripture, like Jesus doesn't care if you're having gay sex, or Jesus doesn't care if you have sex with your girlfriend, or Jesus doesn't care what you do with your money. Or that Jesus doesn't require your complete devotion... You are probably on the way to teaching a heresy!
I also agree we should be practising the fruits of the spirit (Gal 5). But how does one practice the fruit of 'love' for example? I suspect that loving people doesn't mean just letting them do whatever they want. As a parent loves a child by making rules and enforcing them, I think that we can love others by holding them to God's high standard.
In all of this I'm keenly aware that as a sinful person in church leadership that I could easily end up needing to be rebuked. My prayer is when that happens, I will repent and throw myself on the mercy of God, seeking His forgiveness and a work of His Spirit to change and restore me. I hope that all the readers of my blog will pray that God will help me to become more like Jesus and value trusting in him more than being a church leader.
Jonathan, absolutely Bishops or anybody in Church leadership should be held to standards that are high. I hope that what I wrote was more a call to reflect on the situation facing the Anglican church and their decisions.
ReplyDeleteChris, I love your heart and your response was great. I would still hold out that 'heresy' is a word that is dangerous to throw around simply because of it's nature. You know my stance on gospels that are false but 'heresy' usually is in reference to false teachings about the Persons of the Trinity, specifically Christ and what he came to do in the world. This would make things like denying the resurrection heresy but not bad teachings on sexuality. The word heresy has so much baggage with it that I just don't think it is an appropriate word to use.
Though teaching that God doesn't care about our sexuality is wrong and, I might venture to say, stupid it isn't heresy, not in the historical sense anyway. A lot of reformers have taken to calling anything they disagree with heresy and I think that is just plain irresponsible.
At one point in uni, for the sake of argument, I had to defend homosexual Christians in a debate. I learned a few interesting things I wasn't prepared to learn. One, it's that God cares deeply about our sexuality. Two, the teachings in scripture aren't quite as clear on homosexuality as we would like them to be (although it is unabashedly clear that the act of homosexual sex is wrong, though you might hear an argument from a sociological standpoint that those inferences were largely cultural - I disagree with that notion but it is worth thinking about). There actually isn't even a word in Greek or Hebrew for the sexual orientation of homosexual and the word often translated as that could just as easily mean male prostitute. And three, our response to homosexuality needs to be approached with a measure of grace and patience most of us are not use to. Brian McLaren get's lambasted for saying we need to have a ten year discussion about homosexuality before we say anything definitive but I think he is right. This doesn't mean we don't have personal, biblical convictions about whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong but that until we see our liberation and freedom bound up in the liberation and freedom of homosexuals we are in no position to make judgment calls on how to deal with it corporately. I just think we need patience and that our priority, in the way of Jesus, is grace and transformation both for us and for those we find in sin.
Chris, again I really respect your response to my first post and sorry I keep writing novels.....I'm bored!
Joey,
ReplyDeleteThe clear teaching of Scripture is that homosexuality is a sin:
Romans 1:24-27
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
The passage continues with a solemn warning for those who would side with McLaren and refuse to pass judgement:
32 Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
(refusing to pass judgement is akin to giving approval).
The wonderful truth of the Gospel is that Jesus died to save sinners. Whether you're a thief, a adulterer, or a homosexual (see 1 Corinthians 6:9 - and yes, "homosexual" actually DOES mean homosexual = The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts.)
Anyway, no matter what you've done, Jesus died to pardon your sin and usher you into the Kingdom of God.
BUT! The only way someone can come to a place of repentance and faith is if they are (under God) called to REPENT and receive FORGIVENESS.
How can they repent if Christian leaders keep telling them that the Bible is actually pretty confused about homosexuality? How can they receive forgiveness if they don't see their need?
Anglicans aren't the only ones who need to nut-up and make some tough calls. Hell-bound sinners need us to tell them the Truth, not show them the lesser-love of blind-tolerance.
Well Jono, you're a bit misinformed about the word arsenokoites if you think it is "clear" that it means homosexual. It doesn't clearly mean homosexual. The word parts are man (plural) and sex - two partners but not necessarily "homosexual." It could, as I've said already, mean male prostitute. Tyndale actually translated it (in a very early English translation) "the abusers of mankind." Other early translations have said "liers with mankind" and similar things. I think both of those translations are week but they speak to the idea that it is a confusing word no matter who is translating. The act of homosexual sex is explicitly condemned, as I've already said so I don't know why the dead horse needs to be hit any more. I am merely saying that there is NO talk about sexual orientation. The fact of the matter is that you and I and gays and straights all have a broken sexuality and we all need to seek God despite our orientation or habits because that is the ONLY way we'll find righteousness in our sexuality.
ReplyDeleteEither way, you've done a disservice to some fellow Christians by equating McLaren's stance with the warning from Romans, especially since he is in no way participating or even condoning it but is merely saying that neither he, nor you, nor I are good enough to know how to handle this issue easily or quickly. The language you are using, specifically regarding other Christians, is exactly the sort of language that puts unnecessary division between brothers in Christ. McLaren is simply saying that the approaches we have found so far have not been God honoring and it is a deep enough issue that we need to invest more time in our thoughts and approach.
"the clear reading of scripture" is probably the most ridiculous phrase you could use here. Not that we can't understand what God is saying to us through scripture but the thousands and thousands and thousands of divisions and church splits because of interpretations make it overly "clear" that neither you nor I can approach scripture with such confidence to say that we somehow "clearly" understand it when other faithful believers think something else about the passage. I am humbled by the need to rely on God for guidance when I read scripture because Lord knows I am unable to come up with a "clear" reading on my own! I completely believe that we need to seek God in humility and with patience regarding this issue and that could take a long time. We have scripture and I am so thankful for what it says on the topic but I think Christianity needs a patient and graceful approach on what exactly to do. It unfortunately isn't as black and white as would make us comfortable but I am OK with that. God is God whether or not I understand everything "clearly" or not.
Joey,
ReplyDeleteWe obviously don't see eye-to-eye on this issue.
I maintain that the best translation of arsenokoites (& malakos) is "homosexual(s)".
As Gary F. Zeolla (translator for the ALT Bible) says:
Whatever the translation, the Greek text for 1Corinthians 6:9 is clear. Paul in no uncertain terms is condemning all forms of male-male sex. If he had only used malakos then those who are generally the active partner might say, "That does not include me." If he had just used arsenokoites the passive partners would try to say the same. So the reason Paul uses two different Greek words for male-male sex in this one verse is so as not to leave an "out" for either partner.
Moreover, the Greek words are rather general. They are not restricted to male prostitution or man-boy sex as some try to claim about this passage. These concepts are included in the words but the words are not restricted to them. Both words include all forms of male-male sex behaviors.
Whatever your translation, or views about sexual orientation (a red-herring in my view) - Chris' original post was about the Anglican church refusing to condemn a bishop who is an actively practicing homosexual (aka - a man who has sex with another man). Surely we don't need 10 years of 'conversation' and introspection in order to be in a place where we can condemn that!
I'm sure we could debate these issues all day. Personally I just don't have the time to devote to it, and it doesn't sound like either of us is going to move very far from our current positions.
Having just preached a sermon on Sunday on 1 Corinthians 1:1-17, I'm happy to call you a Brother in Christ, and look forward to the day when we'll worship Jesus together in His eternal Kingdom.
God bless mate.
I may give you concession on what the Anglican Church is to do. I guess I was speaking more to the overall conversation within Christianity. I too look forward to worshiping the King with you some day!
ReplyDeleteUnbelievable. The church should be welcoming of sinners. Who is to say that he does not repent for his lifestyle everyday of his life? He probably repents more than some priests who have adulterous affairs with other women.
ReplyDeleteYou evangelicals make me laugh.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteIt's one thing to repent of occasional sin in a particular area (ie. if the Bishop is occasionally lusting after men, BUT asking for God's forgiveness, and his grace to stop sinning in that way). But that's not the case...
Instead, he's wantonly, habitually, unrepentantly, proudly advocating and participating in a homosexual lifestyle.
It's not 'evangelicals' that you need to contend with... It's King Jesus Christ.
Please don't vilify Bible-believing Christians for seeking to obey the words of the Living God.
Anonymous... please if you are going to leave comments such as "you evangelicals make me laugh" please at least have the guts to own your comments (i.e put your name on them!)
ReplyDeleteAside from that, my church is welcoming of sinners. But my church is not accepting of sin, or accepting of church leaders living in deliberate disobedience. This gay bishop says it's ok to be gay. The bible says he is wrong. He doesn't repent and so he forfeits his right to be in church leadership.
It's really not that hard or funny!