Integrity / South Central Kansas

Baptism Means Inclusion

In the debate over what to do about homosexuals in the church, the arguments of The American Anglican Council and the schismatic Anglican Mission in America seem to have a rather time worn quality to them. Where have we heard these arguments before? They appeared first in the controversies over segregation in the fifties, then in the Prayer Book revision debates, then about divorce, then in the seventies regarding the ordination of women, and now about our treatment of homosexual persons.

The major arguments have been:

1. The Church is being split apart. We need to cool it, or drop it.

2. 2000 years of tradition are against it.

3. Nothing should be done until the whole "Catholic" church agrees in a universal council.

4. The Bible is against it.

5. This is a new idea.

I was a Deputy at the General Conventions, which dealt with these issues. Every one of those arguments was rejected, choosing justice over past cultural norms. Nevertheless, the same old stuff has reappeared to justify the exclusion of homosexuals from the full life of the church. Let’s look at them briefly.

Is the church being split apart? I think the splitting is greatly exaggerated. Even so, justice is more important to God than growth and success, however difficult that may be for the corporate mind to grasp. Is it possible that 2000 years of tradition can be wrong? Our own Article 19 of the Articles of Religion, (BCP p. 871) suggests just that. Again we are told that we cannot make a decision until the whole "catholic" church agrees. Why? That has never really been a requirement. Even Constantine couldn’t pull that one off.

Further, we are told that Lambeth does not approve. So? We have been independent from the British Empire for some time now. The Lambeth Conferences, informal gatherings established in the nineteenth century, have no authority over our Episcopal Church. With perhaps the exception of slavery, the Church of England and the Anglican Communion have lagged well behind us on all of the above issues. That is their right, and we as the Episcopal Church have the right to make our own decisions, as the Holy Spirit leads us.

The Hebrew Scriptures do condemn homosexuality, along with a lot of other things like menstruation, being blind, lame, having a mutilated face, being a hunchback, having scabs etc. These are startling examples of pre-modern ignorance, which we no longer believe to be the will of God. Why then are the words against homosexuality treated differently? Is it merely so that we can maintain our prejudice? Jesus never said a word about homosexuality, except perhaps the statement, "...inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me" (Matthew 26:40). Paul’s objections to it reflect the culture of which he was a part, very much like his injunctions to women to keep their heads covered and their mouths shut, or his words to Philemon, upholding the institution of slavery. Surely we need a better way than literalism to understand the Biblical witness for our time. The last objection, that the inclusion of homosexual persons is "a new idea", and therefore somehow not good, reflects a fearful attitude towards life, than the faith of Abraham, who also was presented with "a new idea", and whose "Yes", has been our example of trust in God ever since .

Dr. Peter J. Gomes, in his excellent Biblical study, The Good Book, tells us, "What is at stake is not simply the authority of scripture, as conservative opponents to homosexual legitimization like to say, but the authority of the culture of interpretation by which these people read scripture in such a way as to lend legitimacy to their doctrinaire prejudices. Thus the battle for the Bible, of which homosexuality is the last front, is really the battle for the prevailing culture, of which the Bible is a mere trophy and icon. Such a cadre of cultural conservatives would rather defend their ideology in the name of the authority of scripture than concede that their self serving reading of that scripture might just be wrong, and that both the Bible and the God who inspires it may be more gracious, just, and inclusive than they can presently afford to be."

The Rev. C. P. Criss (Retired), Diocese of Kansas

For information call (316) 683-5686 ext. 11

Email us here.

Home   Prayers   Links   13 Questions   Meeting Notes   Baptism Means