NT Wright is very much the CS Lewis of today- I'm glad people living concurrently with him recognize much of his wisdom. I have a feeling in future years, his stature and influence will only continue to grow...
Of course, matters didn’t begin with the consecration of Gene Robinson. The floodgates opened several years before, particularly in 1996 when a church court acquitted a bishop who had ordained active homosexuals. Many in TEC have long embraced a theology in which chastity, as universally understood by the wider Christian tradition, has been optional.
That wider tradition always was counter-cultural as well as counter-intuitive. Our supposedly selfish genes crave a variety of sexual possibilities. But Jewish, Christian and Muslim teachers have always insisted that lifelong man-plus-woman marriage is the proper context for sexual intercourse. This is not (as is frequently suggested) an arbitrary rule, dualistic in overtone and killjoy in intention. It is a deep structural reflection of the belief in a creator God who has entered into covenant both with his creation and with his people (who carry forward his purposes for that creation).
Paganism ancient and modern has always found this ethic, and this belief, ridiculous and incredible. But the biblical witness is scarcely confined, as the shrill leader in yesterday’s Times suggests, to a few verses in St Paul. Jesus’s own stern denunciation of sexual immorality would certainly have carried, to his hearers, a clear implied rejection of all sexual behaviour outside heterosexual monogamy. This isn’t a matter of “private response to Scripture” but of the uniform teaching of the whole Bible, of Jesus himself, and of the entire Christian tradition.
The appeal to justice as a way of cutting the ethical knot in favour of including active homosexuals in Christian ministry simply begs the question. Nobody has a right to be ordained: it is always a gift of sheer and unmerited grace. The appeal also seriously misrepresents the notion of justice itself, not just in the Christian tradition of Augustine, Aquinas and others, but in the wider philosophical discussion from Aristotle to John Rawls. Justice never means “treating everybody the same way”, but “treating people appropriately”, which involves making distinctions between different people and situations. Justice has never meant “the right to give active expression to any and every sexual desire”.
Such a novel usage would also raise the further question of identity. It is a very recent innovation to consider sexual preferences as a marker of “identity” parallel to, say, being male or female, English or African, rich or poor. Within the “gay community” much postmodern reflection has turned away from “identity” as a modernist fiction. We simply “construct” ourselves from day to day.
We must insist, too, on the distinction between inclination and desire on the one hand and activity on the other — a distinction regularly obscured by references to “homosexual clergy” and so on. We all have all kinds of deep-rooted inclinations and desires. The question is, what shall we do with them? One of the great Prayer Book collects asks God that we may “love the thing which thou commandest, and desire that which thou dost promise”. That is always tough, for all of us. Much easier to ask God to command what we already love, and promise what we already desire. But much less like the challenge of the Gospel.
Not trying to stir the pot here Bob but I am curious why you think the state should step outside the marriage arena altogether, when there is a pretty practical reason why they are involved that does not have to do with religion.
Governments originally got involved in certifying marriage because it has a vital, vested interest in procuring healthy, productive, future generations of citizens; not what kind of sexual relationships it would recognize.
The state by sanctioning marriage between a man and a woman has historically done because all evidence tells us this is the absolute optimal environment for raising future generations. From a state perspective it was never an issue of sex, but of survival and thriving.
We have already begun to see some of the effects of dismantling, and devaluing the state sanctioning of marriage in secular progressive nations in Europe.
Though a Christian, I make no religious argument for maintaining the historical definition of marriage, when the case can be made by simply looking at how marriage has historically, throughout human history, been the best environment for the rearing of children and future generations. I am not saying that two men or woman can't raise a child, they obviously can. Heck a child can be raised by an entire village. By social science is pretty conclusive that children receive the best upbringing when they have a stable home with both a mom and a dad.
Posted by: Ryan K. | July 15, 2009 at 11:54 AM
I don't disagree with you on a single point.
However, in terms of public policy, it's just not a winning argument. The tide is moving the other direction- and rather than back the horse that gets crushed (marriage=1 man+ 1 woman), I'd rather do the greatest good possible which I believe to be the side-step/judo move of taking marriage out of the hands of government and letting them speak only to civil unions.
Posted by: bobhyatt | July 15, 2009 at 12:33 PM
I get what your saying Bob and can respect your desire to not get bogged down on an issue that can sidetrack us (and our hearers) from our mission of getting to the Gospel.
Posted by: Ryan K. | July 15, 2009 at 03:57 PM
Great link Bob... Thank you for it... I had never put together the fact that NT Wright was our generations, CS Lewis... though he is not the "author of fiction" that Lewis is, and he is more of a theologian than Lewis the parallels are there... It might be that he is the Francis Schaeffer of our day too...
Posted by: Stephen Grant | July 15, 2009 at 08:20 PM
Historically, gov't intervention by marriage licensing was not about social engineering, but about control of populations. From Valentine's martyrdom for performing Christian marriages when the state (Rome) desired unattached men for the army, to European state churches attempting to maintain their tax base by using marriage registration rolls, state recognition of marriages was all about maintaining (and increasing) that control.
I've signed my share of petitions in a knee-jerk type of response to the stench-in-my-nostrils moves to recognize and normalize homosexual trysts, so-called "marriage", and I may sign more, but mainly because it is evil and must be opposed. This opposition is not to add condemnation upon the homosexual. Like me outside of Christ, they are already condemned, and like me stand in the need of salvation and deliverance. The legalization and celebration of the homosexual lifestyle is NOT liberating. It imprisons, and adds weight to the chains of sin.
My opposition is based on the cause and effect relationship of national sin and God's judgement. As RG Lee said it,there'll be a "Payday Someday", and them not wanting to hear that warning does not negate our responsibility to give it.
Will marriage as we knew it survive? "As it was in the days of Noah..."Matt. 24:37-39
The real, burning question should be, "...when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8
Posted by: Rick | July 18, 2009 at 01:37 PM
I really appreciate this blog. I'm on staff with a church in Laramie, WY which obviously has a lot of stigma associated with the gay community. What I'd love to see (and might even be out there already) is a book that would discus Biblical views on sexuality in its entirety, including same sex. Even people with pretty solid biblical foundations working in a church could probably use something like that. Thanks for your honesty and sincerity. Grace and Peace
Posted by: Jon Kelly | July 18, 2009 at 07:19 PM
Hey guys, just tuned into the conversation.
Jon K, you need to read the work of Mark Yarhouse and Stanton Jones, probably the two best evangelical voices on the issue. Bob reflected some of their thinking when he distinguished between gays/lesbians and "practicing homosexuality." Yarhouse observes three distinct categories that we need to view the issue in terms of: (1) homosexual inclinations/attractions, (2) homosexual orientation, and (3) homosexual identity (including active homosexual behavior). Many people, he says, experience (1) at some point in their lives. Several are consistently attracted exclusively to members of the same sex, but are uneasy or even frustrated with it. Others have accepted it as the way they were intended to be and have gone headlong into the lifestyle.
The way we minister to each person is very different, and the difference is critical. Yarhouse contends--and is justified in doing so, IMO--that Christians can experience up to level (2) without sinning, and ought not be stigmatized or marginalized because of it.
The jury's still out on the relation of genetic/biological factors to environmental/sociological factors, and the degree to which H.O. is reversible/treatable. At the very least, the Christian community must be educated and open to talking civilly about the issue if we are to be a safe haven for those caught in the crossfires of this struggle.
Posted by: Matt Stephens | July 20, 2009 at 08:46 PM
Have you seen this?
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-walter-wink
Posted by: Rick Bennett | July 22, 2009 at 07:56 AM
There is one significant problem with Walter Wink's interpretation. It assumes that Paul's writing is only human intelligence and not inspired by the Holy Spirit. He argues he is reviewing Leviticus in light of the NT, but ignores the consistency. God new how humans were created when he made the law in Leviticus and Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, extended the behavioral standard to Christians.
Posted by: Tim L | July 22, 2009 at 08:11 AM
I hadn't- but that is Wink doing what everyone who makes an apology for same sex sexual behavior does:
1. ignoring how Scripture interprets Scriptures (ie, reinterpreting the story of Sodom and Gom., while simultaneously ignoring the comments about it from the book of Jude
and
2. Claiming "Paul knew nothing of the modern psychosexual understanding of homosexuals as persons whose orientation is fixed early in life, or perhaps even genetically in some cases. For such persons, having heterosexual relations would be acting contrary to nature, "leaving," "giving up" or "exchanging" their natural sexual orientation for one that was unnatural to them."
That argument has been debunked in numerous ways by better scholars than I- I'd suggest James DeYoung's book on homosexuality which examines every single reference to homosexuality in ancient greek. Paul (and his contemporaries) weren't rubes who couldn't imagine two men living together and loving each other because they felt they were naturally oriented that way. They saw it all the time- and yet the NT still says: That's not the way- not for followers of Jesus, anyway.
To say "He (Paul) had no concept of homosexual orientation" is a red herring. Whether he did or didn't is unknown to us, and really, irrelevant. Paul had no idea about a genetic predisposition to alcoholism. And yet he still warned us that drunkenness is out of bounds for Christ followers.
The reality is this: we are ALL born crooked. None of us are straight. But God's plan through the Gospel and the work of the Holy Spirit in making us like Jesus who died for us is that we be changed- that we become more and more like Him. We *all* have a long way to go on that- and It breaks my heart that some of us want to own the pieces of our struggle and call them our identity.
I appreciate all that are working hard to soften our stance towards those who struggle with certain things- I don't appreciate those (in this case SoulForce and Wink) who want us to stop struggling.
Posted by: bobhyatt | July 22, 2009 at 08:18 AM
Jon, in addition to the suggestions by Matt and others below, I believe that you might find Lewis B. Smedes' book, "Sex for Christians: The Limits and Liberties of Sexual Living" (the revised edition), helpful.
Smedes is one of the most humble yet insightful writers of the 20th century. I have long regarded him as the American C.S. Lewis. His books show him to be a person who struggled to live honestly and transparently among humanity and the Trinity.
His revised edition, 20 years after the original publication, includes a final chapter called "Second Thoughts" where he addresses homosexuality at length. His insight is very helpful. And after addressing what he believes the Bible does not tell us about homosexuality, he offers a summary of what what he has personally come to think about it. This one statement is huge:
"I think that homosexuality is not the sexual orientation that God intended in creation. It is a genetic lapse. It is nature gone awry. There is tragedy in it. And homosexual people are called to live as morally within their tragedy as the rest of us are called to live within whatever tragedy may be ours."
This kind of insight is, I believe, in line with the kind of thoughtful struggle Bob is calling us to enter.
Posted by: Peggy | July 23, 2009 at 12:28 PM