Episcopal Church and the Gay Debate
Sunday, August 29, 2004
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:11:27 -0500
To:
From: "Howard Anderson"
Subject: [HoB/D] Hooray for Civil Discourse
Message-ID: <003401c489f5$05a10cd0$2164000a@Howard>
------=_NextPart_000_0035_01C489CB.1CCB04D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I was delighted to read the debate between Tobias and Kendall. It was of
substance. It was also clear that they will never agree on how scripture
ought to be read. But even if we get to a more literal translation
embraced by more conservative folk, the condemnation of homosexual acts
(note, not persons) are not unambiguous, especially in the light of New
Testament revelations. One of the rabbis in our town and I had a
discussion about the issue of homosexuality, and we spoke of the
difference between the categories of unclean and sinful. Few can argue
on the base of the texts in Hebrew scripture that homosexual acts were
categorized not as unclean, an abomnation. These acts are prohibited in
the holiness codes along with having intercourse with menstruating
women, or making child sacrifice to the god Molech and other Canaanite
practices. And the word was used to categorize the violating of the
dietary laws as well. We could certainly, using the tools of the
historical-critical method contexualize this and explain its origins in
mysogony or any number of other good hypothetical explanations, but lets
stick with the literal. The unclean act is toevah, but not sin proper,
and is applied to ritual and the entire list of dietary and purity
codes. Much of what is toevah is intended, so scholars say, to
differentiate the Jews from their neighbors, to maintain their unique
montheistic identity that their worship of God might remain more pure.
And in Acts 10, where God sends the vision to Peter opening the doors of
"The Way" to the gentiles, allowing Cornelius, a good man who committed
abomnations, (purity codes, circumcision among other abomnations) to
become a part of the emeging Body of Christ. And if all God has cleansed
of that which was toevah..then those who are homosexual, those who are
not circumsized, those who have been made abomnations by violating the
blood taboos, those who menstruate, those who did not keep "kosher"
kitchens are included...for as Peter realized, "God shows no
partiality."
So yes, I understand why traditionalists are upset. So too, were the
Judaizers who had so faithfully followed the laws and avoided those
things and people who were toevah (hmmm...Good Samaritan any one?). But
to claim that scripture unambiguously condemns homosexuality, and that
the "plain sense of scripture" makes this whole question clear, is
simply to not take the texts themselves, as a whole, as seriously as
they deserve to be taken as the living and lively and challenging Word
of God.
The most wrong headed charge against us "liberals" is that we are simply
conforming to society, forgetting about scripture in accecpting gays and
lesbians into the leadership of the church. But all the national polls
show that the vast majority of the public are not for such acceptance,
not for gay "marriage." So a case surely can be made that it is the
traditionalists who have conformed to society, taken the road most
travelled in rejecting what we liberals see as the radical inclusiveness
modelled by Jesus in scripture (witnesst the parables- good Samaritan,
prodigal son, his dining practices with those who were unclean). It is
far easier to take the "traditionalist stance in South Carolina, for
instance, than it is to take the stand for radical hospitality. Far from
the claim that traditionalists are being punished for taking this stand,
it is those who stand for inclusion of those who were, in Hebrew
scripture, unclean who are losing pledges, jobs and livilihoods for
trying to faithfully follow the promptings of Jesus in scripture that
God shows not partiality. Perhaps we liberals who are losing
conservative members citing the actions of convention ought to ask for
protection rather than those traditionalists who are asking for
protection for liberal colleagues and bishops from outside ECUSA. I
certainly don't condemn those in conservative dioceses for conforming to
their society and culture on this matter, or even say that they aren't
acting on their conscience and belief. But to contend that it is they
at risk for being faithful to scripture isn't the actual picture nation
wide. And to say, as Tobias points out so well that liberals, or those
who do not read scripture literally are not trying as best they can to
be faithful to the authority of scripture is simply not true in my
experience. To live with a living Word that reaches up and shakes me
often, challenging my biases and strongly held beliefs isn't easy. But
I, like most liberals, try to live with scripture knowing it will often
take us where we fear to tread.
Thank you Kendall and Tobias for what you are doing. This is the "good
fight" that Anglicans have fought better than anyone else. And I sense
deeply in you both the rock solid realization that what you know what
unites us is ever so much more powerful than what divides us...so
despite the pain of the present time, I believe we will learn to
forebear with one anothe in love.
Howard Anderson C 1 Minnesota
