Casting the Stone

I keep wondering what it is about homosexuality that has caused our Episcopal friends in Dallas and Florida to decide it is the one sin which makes one unworthy to serve in the ordained ministry. I don't agree that it is a sin, but isn't one of the tenets of the dominant Protestant denominations that we are all sinners? Even if homosexuality is a sin, I don't suppose living in a committed relationship ranks as a cardinal sin.

The Real Live Preacher (RLP) has a detailed exegesis on the verses traditionally used to support the belief that homosexuality is a sin, and presents a very strong argument that these verses do not refer to homosexuality in the same sense as we understand it today. I will say, up front, that I agree with each one of RLP's points. I do not have the seminary training an ordained minister has, but I have done a fairly close study of the Bible. And I find myself in total accord with RLP's first point: we pick & choose those parts of the Bible to support whatever position we already hold. For example, I prefer not to view the divine as a "Vengeful God", so I screen out a great deal of the smiting that occurs in the historical books of the Bible, and focus on the "Suffering Servant" of Isaiah.

The eighteenth-century mystical poet William Blake puts it this way, in his poem The Everlasting Gospel:

The Vision of Christ that thou dost see
Is my vision’s greatest enemy.
Thine has a great hook nose like thine;
Mine has a snub nose like to mine.

So, perhaps our friends in Dallas choose to focus on Leviticus 8:22, and choose to ignore the 88 other "purity" laws of Leviticus. Perhaps they would tell us that Christ's sacrifice freed us from the old law, and just need to look to the writings of Paul to be assured that homosexuality is an abomination. Well, as the RLP points out, I'm not convinced that Paul is writing about homosexuality in the same sense as we understand it.

Even if Paul is condemning homosexuality, is it reasonable to believe that Paul is deconstructing the Old Law just to build a new one? Paul is the one who assures us that Christ's sacrifice frees us from the constraints of Leviticus and the thousand-and-one laws the Pharisees had constructed on top of Torah. It seems illogical to think Christ would sacrifice Himself to end one Law simply to institute a new Law which is to be observed in the same strict manner (i.e., such that one's salvation depends upon it). And let us be mindful of the fact that Paul was very proud of his logic and his ability to reason.

Perhaps it will help to turn to the words of Jesus. As RLP points out, Jesus does not say anything about homosexuality. Even in Matthew, the most legalistic of the Gospels, Jesus is totally silent on the subject of homosexualty. Which suggests the matter was a non-issue for Jesus. If one looks for a statement from Jesus concerning a new Law, there is one thing which remains consistent in all four Gospels: the "Law" of Love. In John, "a new commandment I give you, to Love one another as I have loved you." I'm pretty sure the synoptics (Mk, Mt, & Lk) all site the "Great Commandment": "Love God with all your body, all your mind, and all your heart; and love your neighbor as yourself."

Somehow, I don't think the proposed actions of the dioceses of Dallas and Florida fit into that Law of Love. They seem very taken with their self-righteousness, seemingly unaware that they will be judged by the same Law they would impose.

So, what is it about homosexuality that makes it worse than "lusting in one's heart"? I suppose our Dallas friends would say it is the fact that gays continue in their "sin". But the verse I just cited from Matthew makes it clear that just thinking about a sin is as bad as doing it. Have our friends in Dallas NEVER lusted for a woman or coveted another person's property? Have they always been scrupulous about church finances?

More basically: have they been faithful stewards of God's creation? Have they spoken out against pollution or injustice with the same fervor they use to speak against homosexuality? How faithful are they in caring for the "widow and children"?

Unless they prove faithful in all these things, I would suggest they reconsider picking up that stone of "schism". I don't suppose I will change anyone's mind here; but I do strongly believe our "schismatic" friends are on a profoundly wrong road. As they would point out to gays, lesbians, et al: it's never too late to repent.

So be it.