To Set Our Hope on Christ

ECUSA has recently released its response to the Windsor Report’s invitation to explain “from within the sources of authority that we as Anglicans have received in scripture, the apostolic tradition and reasoned reflection, how a person living in a same gender union may be considered eligible to lead the flock of Christ.” It is masterfully slippery. At the heart of its case, the ECUSA report (entitled, clumsily, To Set Our Hope On Christ ; hereinafter, “The Report”) claims that members of ECUSA have increasingly “discerned holiness in same-sex relationship” [2.0], and has taken this as a sign that the Spirit has already accepted “Christians of same-sex affection.” Drawing an analogy with Acts 10-11, the Report then argues that just as the Spirit broke down the barrier between Jew/Gentile in the first century, so He is breaking down the boundaries between homosexual and heterosexual in the 21st. It’s time for the church to get in step with the Spirit.

The Report makes some important rhetorical moves from the outset. Urging that all Anglicans must be humble, the Report acknowledges that humility is particularly necessary of Anglicans “who speak from Western contexts.” ECUSA is all ears, ready to “hear and learn the theological wisdom of Anglicans from around the globe” while also hoping “to participate with all our brothers and sisters in sharing what we have received” [1.3]. This show of humility sits uneasily with ECUSA’s claim to be out ahead of other Anglican bodies in discerning the Spirit’s work. Further, the Report spends a lot of

energy insisting that it is not dismissing Scripture or pretending that “we know better” than the Biblical writers [2.18]. And, by grounding its case in the “holiness” of homosexual Christians, it takes important high ground.

What follows is in no way a full analysis of the Report, but only a few notes, particular on Part I, which discusses the biblical case for honoring same-sex unions.

1) First, obviously, the claim that ECUSA has discerns holiness in homosexual Christians assumes a definition of holiness significantly at odds with traditional Christian understandings.

2) To its credit, the Report claims that certain sexual acts are “inherently contrary to the Christian way and are sinful,” and provides the following list: “promiscuity, prostitution, incest, pornography, pedophilia, predatory sexual behavior, and sadomasochism (all of which may be heterosexual or homosexual), adultery, violence against women and in families, rape and female circumcision” [2.1]. An interesting list, that. It’s curious that bestiality is missing, as is fornication (though “promiscuity” makes the grade). The biblical argument against bestiality, after all, would turn on Leviticus in particular, and elsewhere the Report skirts around the witness of Leviticus as best it can. The other interesting thing is the question of the basis for this list. On what basis have they determined that promiscuity and adultery are inherently sinful while homosexual acts are not?

3) As expected, the authority of Scripture is a basic question throughout. The Report claims that “Scripture itself corrected and amended earlier versions of scripture in some cases” [2.4]. From this, the Report draws the conclusion that “there is usually not just one biblical point of view.” Thus, “when someone says, ‘The Bible says this!’ our faithful response is to ask, ‘In what book? When was it written and in what circumstances?’ What are the reasons given and do those same reasons apply in the same way in our own situation” [2.16]. In short, “not every biblical norm is directly relevant to every situation in our own time. Discernment is required, through the direction of the Holy Spirit, in order to ascertain the Lord’s will for us in every time and to follow in faith where Christ has led the way” [2.18]. The examples provided are pretty weak, but it’s undeniable that, for instance, the regulations in Deuteronomy are different at certain points from those of Leviticus (eg, regarding slaughtering animals away from the sanctuary). Interesting and challenging as these issues are in themselves, they are irrelevant to the point, since even the Report does not attempt to show that any portion of Scripture approves homosexual desire or action.

4) Several pages of the report are devoted to retelling the story of the inclusion of Gentiles as reported by Acts 10-15. They use this narrative to make several points: a) Peter had Scripture on his side, but the Spirit overrode Scripture; b) one part of the church was with the Spirit’s new work, while another part was not, and the latter portion of the church had to get on board; c) the issue of Jews and Gentiles was not indifferent but potentially divisive [2.10]. The Report glosses over the fact that the Jerusalem council did lay certain requirements on Gentile converts. It states only that “The Jewish church was not requiring Gentiles to become like themselves, or to live in some cramped way so as not to offend. They decided not to add any yoke that they themselves would not be willing to bear” [2.10]. But the Council did require Gentiles to refrain from blood, from idolatry, and from fornication. The latter restriction is arguably a general term for sexual sin, and also (so Gordon Wenham suggests) referring specifically to the holiness code of Leviticus 18 and 20.

5) On Sodom and Gomorrah, the Report states that Jude 7 is the only place where the Bible condemns the cities for anything but greed and inhospitality [2.20]. Suppose that’s true; why is Jude 7 being dismissed?

6) The Report cites 1 COrinthians 6:9-11 and other passages that contain “vice lists.” It admits that “among these words are two that have been interpreted to describe same-sex relations.” They dismiss one because it “is so uncertain in its meaning that no solid argument can be based on it one way or the other.” The other they explain as “probably a shorthand expression for the prohibition of a man lying with a man as with a woman in Leviticus 18:22.” OK. If this term is included in a list of vices, then a man lying with a man is a vice, right? No. Immediately after mentioning Leviticus 18:22, the Report concludes that “These vice lists do not contribute substantially to the debate” [2.20].

7) Predictably, the Report treats Leviticus 18 and 20 as part of a holiness code that prohibits “boundary-crossing” activities such as “cross-breeding cattle, sowing hybrids or sowing different crops in the same field, eating amphibians, or wearing clothes made out of wool blended with other materials” [2.21.a]. Leviticus “makes no distinction between ritual and moral regulations,” so that the “the rights of the poor and the duty to the neighbor are listed side by side with the prohibitions about not breeding two different kinds of cattled or wearing clothes made of different kinds of cloth” [2.21.a]. Though the text itself makes no distinction, “no interpretive community – including orthodox Jews – treat all the commandments with the same weight” [2.21.a]. The commandments to love God and neighbor are the key commandments that “help us sift out and interpret the others” [2.21.a]. This is all that the Report says about Leviticus 18 and 20, and this comes after acknowledging that Leviticus is substantive to the debate [2.20]. Apparently, it simply goes without saying that the two love commandments will show that the prohibition of homosexual acts is among the parts of the law that must be “sifted out.” Further, the Report seems to be unaware that

the fact that every “interpretive community” distinguishes weightier and lesser laws in Leviticus tells as much against the ECUSA position as for it. Every interpretive community has historically treated the prohibition of homosexual conduct as a moral prohibition on the same level as the prohibition of incest and adultery.

8) The Report’s treatment of Romans 1 is the most appalling section of Part I. The Report is honest enough to admit that “St. Paul, as a first century Jewish male steeped in the tradition that includes Leviticus, was strongly opposed to same-sex relations even though he had reversed his position with respect to the issue of Gentile holiness” [2.21.b]. Clearly, Paul was making distinctions between food and mixed-clothing laws and homosexuality, a distinction not unlike the one that the church has made for 2000 years. Yet, just as “the members of his churches who received [his letters] probably felt free to argue with him,” so we, even though Paul’s letters are now canonical, can “engage Paul as if he were a living conversation partner” [2.21.b]. The Report sets Paul against Paul, arguing that his logic “as a whole” is in tension with the logic of Romans 1. They explain Romans 1 as teaching that “idolatry leads to many other kinds of sinful acts,” and of these “sexual immorality is an easy example.” They note that “Paul’s vice list at the end of the chapter includes a wide range of equally serious sins, some much more serious than sexual activity between those of the same gender” [2.21.b]. This of course tells against their position, because it means that Paul is treating homosexual activity as a sin. No matter. They have already decided that they can argue and disagree with Paul, and that this disagreement is a “faithful” response to an apostle.