A Repudiation of the Teaching of the Bishop of Maryland
The Right Reverend Robert Ihloff
(Episcopal Diocese of Maryland)
By Madeline S. Whitaker
Member, St. John's Episcopal Church
Glyndon, Maryland
November 24,2003
(Click here to download MS Word version of this file)
To: The Right Reverend Robert Ihloff
The Episcopal Diocese of Maryland
East University Parkway and St. Paul Streets
Baltimore, MD 21218
From: Madeline S. Whitaker, member of St. John's Church, Glyndon, Maryland
[Now a member of the Church of the Resurrection, Baltimore]
Re: An open letter of rebuttal responding to your teaching at the Church of the Redeemer on "Homosexuality and Biblical Morality", November 13th, 2003.
[Words in this font are notes taken during the Bishop's talk. Words in this font are a refutation of these comments.]
Bishop Ilhoff began with prayer: "Blessed Lord, who caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning: Grant us so to hear them, read, mark, learn and inwardly digest them, that we may embrace and ever hold fast that blessed hope of everlasting life, which you have given us in our Savior, Jesus Christ; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen." He said we would look at several passages from scripture, and examine 'a more pastoral approach to homosexuality.'
"All scripture is designed for our learning. The plain reading of scripture has pitfalls; i.e., the two different creation stories differing widely in detail. Some OT passages have been clearly refuted in the NT, i.e. Jesus saying: 'your fathers said 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth', but I say…' Plus many 'fussy rules about eating'. These are inconsistencies." I find the 'plain reading of scripture' is actually quite consistent. It begins with the creation story. The two versions are hardly inconsistent-they poetically describe truth in two different ways-the big creative picture and then the detailed personal picture. The union of the two complementary creatures, man and woman, becomes the prototype of marriage, and sets the stage for the later complementary union of Christ and his Church. Homosexual partnerships are a corruption of this complementary union. As for Jesus' amplification of the 'eye for an eye' rule, the Levitical law of 'eye for eye, tooth for tooth' was actually an example of mercy, in that prior to that any offense was responded to with full blown blood vengence. Jesus continued the progression toward mercy and forgiveness with his 'refutation' of eye for an eye. Those 'fussy food laws' were part of the ceremonial law, not the moral code. We know that these dietary laws were abrogated by Jesus' fulfillment of them, and as reported to Peter in the book of Acts. I find consistency to be one of the hallmarks of the biblical moral code. True, there is a gradual progression from OT to NT toward a higher morality where intention becomes as important as action, a maximum ethic. And Jesus said that whoever relaxes one of these laws and teaches men so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.
"No one reads scripture as a literalist any more. For instance, OT refers to God as being head of all gods, and then the idea of only one God emerged. We must read with respect for what it meant to the ancients." I think most intelligent Christian people do not read scripture literally… "The hills clap their hands", but rather they read in the context of the genre of the writing in question-poetry, narrative, history, etc. On the other hand, if we believe that all scripture is inspired by God, it seems reasonable to expect that God will tell us what he wants us to know through his scripture, and that it can be plainly understood by those who read it with a willingness to obey what it says, rather than 'looking for loopholes', as W.C. Fields is reported to have said. I find it remarkably consistent in its progressive revelation of monotheism, which is tied symbolically to the marriage between a man and a woman-the union of God and his people. The marriage covenant, and the restriction of sexual intercourse to the marriage bed, is an earthly picture of that union.
"Since the reformation, the Anglican church has considered scripture primary, but reason and experience inform it. We DO NOT say: "sola scriptura'." We may not say sola scriptura, but where reason and experience conflict with scripture, I have always believed that scripture took precedence. The three legged stool image has become a gross distortion of Richard Hooker's theology. He spoke of tradition (the early church fathers) filling in where scripture was silent on an issue, and reason (common sense) filling in where tradition and scripture were silent. In our 20th and 21st century hubris we have supplanted reason with 'experience'-anyone's experience of anything.
"The aim for tonight is not to change anyone's thinking, but to realize that good Christians reading scripture responsibly can come to different conclusions." About some issues, perhaps, like the place of women in the church, or the relaxing of divorce law. These again are areas in which we see a gradual progression from the beginning of scripture toward the end. But taking scripture as a whole, no good Christian reading responsibly can deny that a theme of limiting sexual intimacy to the heterosexual marriage bed is crystal clear and unchanged from the old testament prophets through the new testament. In addition, the repeated moral decline of God's people (who 'forget their God') and the warnings against it, and the calling to reform, repentance and renewed holiness of life are another crystal clear theme of scripture.
Gen. 19: "I agree that it's an oversimplification to say that the sin of Sodom was lack of hospitality. Were the men of Sodom homosexual? Not clear. Why would Lot have offered his virgin daughters if they were? The parallel story in Judges 19 describes not homosexual sex but heterosexual rape. We don't know the sexual orientation of the Sodomites-but it's the overpowering sexual rape like that committed in prisons, with a desire to dominate and humiliate. Historians say townspeople of the time would abuse visitors this way in order to demonstrate their power." An interesting spin, but whether or not they were homosexual, the fact is that homosexual acts are forbidden, from the first to the last in scripture. This passage has been traditionally understood to mean that Lot sacrificially offered his daughters to keep these men from committing a 'VILE' sin.
"The story of Lot is not about sexual morality. The seduction of Lot by his daughters is not condemned-in fact it's the beginning of two important tribes-the Moabites & the Ammonites." Again, interesting point, but it doesn't change the basic fact that though God may redeem and even use certain sinful behavior (there's as much of that in the O.T. as there is in our lives today), he never condones the sin. And he certainly doesn't change his mind and decide that it's not sin after all.
Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13: "These are two clear prohibitions, part of the 'holiness code', written by priests during a time when they felt God had abandoned them for their sins. It was an effort to live so purely and properly that God would 'come back' to Israel." Are we not still constrained to live purely and properly? Jesus is the plumb line. We no longer live that way in order that 'God would come back to us' - as he has promised never to leave us. We try to live that way out of joyful thankfulness for his great gift of love and salvation, and in our desire to please and obey him.
They didn't know in this culture about "sexual orientation." "Sexual orientation" is a term which has been invented by our culture. There is still no conclusive proof, for or against, the possibility of a genetic link. We are a people obsessed by sexuality, who have come to believe that unless a person is sexually active he/she is not fulfilled. Would we say that the Lord Jesus was an unfulfilled individual? If we interpret scripture in the light of our 'modern' culture, then our interpretation is as unreliable as our cultural mores of the moment.
"Is this homosexuality as we know it? Scholars say not. It was a pagan practice. It was not appropriate for a man to be treated as a woman. Wasting semen was considered a sin because they believed all aspects of a human were contained in the semen, and didn't know about the woman's contribution of an egg." They might not have practiced homosexuality 'as we know it', but they are pretty clear about the prohibition of lying with a man as with a woman, and women exchanging 'natural relations for unnatural'. Interesting that the word used is "UNNATURAL".
"Cursing one's mother and father was also punishable by death." Jesus said we are in danger of the fire of hell if we even call a brother a 'fool'. He was always pointing to the more stringent interpretation of the law, moving it from the action to the motivation of the heart. Lustful thoughts are condemned. And now we are not only relaxing this law which has been a taboo for over 2,000 years, we are reversing it. Celebrating it.
"The 'conservatives' say 'Leviticus condemns homosexual behavior'. But the 'liberals' say: 'we need to see it in the cultural context.'" Again, I believe scripture is clear throughout. The importance of heterosexual marriage, and the emergence of monogamous marriage as the model which best signifies Christ and the church needs no modification because of 'cultural context'. This is not a matter of 'conservative' or 'liberal', but rather of Christian and non-Christian teaching.
Rom. 1:24: "Paul was railing against the fact that the Gentile world had lost its bearings. Their, and our, priorities were mixed up. Paul did not condone homosexual behavior. BUT, he didn't know about orientation. Until recently we thought it an aberration, but that attitude is changing now as we learn that there are strong genetic factors." I expect there will be discoveries soon which will link all sorts of unnatural and sinful behavior to genetic predisposition. But we are still possessed of free will, and the choices we make are either for self gratification or to please God. This culture is not unlike that of Paul's time-we have replaced God with many human institutions and constructs-including the Episcopal Church USA. Changing attitudes of our culture should not translate into changing attitudes by the church about moral issues.
"No one supports casual or promiscuous sex. Gay couples manifesting signs of commitment-where is the great sin here?" This, for me, is the heartbreaking question. Christians who are drawn sexually to people of the same sex have a cruelly difficult row to hoe. As do adults who are sexually attracted to children, married people, and pornographic web sites. Sadly, one undeniable aspect of homosexuality seems to be that monogamous couples are few and far between. Casual and promiscuous sex is more the rule than the exception. For the church to say 'it's okay' makes their situation doubly difficult. The fact is that some, by God's grace, have overcome their 'orientation'. Others have managed, also by God's grace, to live lives of celibacy. Others wrestle before God with it and have occasionally succumbed to their urges, have repented and been forgiven and like all of us who are entangled in repetitive sin, have gone on to the best of their ability, trusting God to ultimately redeem them. But others are living openly in sin-and this is certainly not limited to homosexual couples. Heterosexual fornication hardly raises an eyebrow these days. It's the job of the Holy Spirit to lead them to conviction and repentance, and as with all forms of sin, the church exists to constantly hold up the standard, to support, encourage, and provide avenues of healing. We must be merciful, loving, accepting them as sinners just like us, but NOT condoning or, God forbid, calling evil good.
"The letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law is from the OT holiness code. Jesus is clear that the spirit is more important than the letter. There is a tension between the rules and the spirit of the law. Micah: 'he has shown you, oh man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you: to do justice, to love mercy, and walk humbly with your God.' And Jesus' summary of the law: 'love the lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your strength, and your neighbor as yourself.'" I concur. Part of 'doing justice and loving mercy', and loving God with all of our heart, soul, and strength involves loving his Law-be it ever so difficult, and part of loving others as ourselves involves tough love-not loving their actions which are not only sinful, but quite self destructive, as all sin is, eventually. 'Walking humbly with God' sounds to me like obeying what he has said, and bowing our intellects, passions, experience before holy scripture. Leaders in the church, with the human frailties of us all, are, and always have been, and should be, held to an even higher, more godly standard of behavior.
"The situation of divorce in the Bible is somewhat parallel: Jesus' harsh words in Mark 10:1-12. Matthew's version a little easier to take. The church used to condemn and excommunicate those who were divorced and remarried. Over time we adopted Jesus' example of mercy, forgiving and moving on, making the best of a bad situation. A pastoral response to divorce which no one thinks twice about any more." We know that God hates divorce, and I happen to believe that we have been TOO condoning and perhaps 'moved on' a little too easily in some cases. But there is allowance in the scripture for divorce. There is no allowance in the Bible for homosexual activity, or fornication of any kind.
"Jesus holds up an ideal, but we live in a sinful, fallen world, and are unable to live up to it." Amen to that. But woe to him who leads one of these little ones to stumble, or calls evil good and good evil. I think the Episcopal Church USA is doing just this because of the false teaching of its leaders. The standard is there. We can't live up to it, never could and never will. But beware of changing the standard. If a person is deeply committed to loving God ahead of his own sexual inclinations, as Christians profess to do, then we can find strength to be the person God intends us to be, even if that means celibacy or change.
"On the basis of realizing that virtually all churches have homosexual people in relationships, we are trying to be more pastoral. We want to meet them as Jesus would. There is nothing said by Jesus on the subject of homosexuality-only by Paul." This pastoral response should indeed be our goal. I believe if the church had been properly pastoral from the get-go we wouldn't be in this situation. It's true that Jesus didn't mention the subject of homosexuality-but he was silent on many other moral issues as well, which were clearly understood as part of the moral law. He didn't mention incest or bestiality either-does that mean he favored such practices? In his confrontation with sinners he was both merciful and pastoral: "Your sins are forgiven. Go and sin no more."
In your questions and answers you took great umbrage to the use of the word 'orthodoxy' in talking about this issue. You said that you considered yourself an orthodox Christian, and that this word had never been used to apply to moral issues of disagreement in the church. However, according to Webster, orthodox means: "1. conforming to the usual beliefs or established doctrines, especially in religion; proper, correct, or conventional: as orthodox ideas: opposed to heterodox. 2. conforming to the Christian faith as formulated in the early ecumenical creeds and confessions." By that definition, I would call the traditional view of homosexual activity as sin to be the 'orthodox' view, and this move away from the usual beliefs and established doctrines to be a slap in the face of orthodoxy, justifying a right and proper use of the word 'heterodox'.
I cannot adequately express the depth of my grief over what the Episcopal Church USA has done. It is a betrayal of the worst sort-those who have sworn before God to uphold the faith have deliberately defied scripture and tradition in this irrevocable act which can only be called schismatic.
Faithfully in Christ,
Madeline S. Whitaker
___________________________
"For
the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead,
to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number
of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn
their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."
II Timothy 4:3-4:
"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called
you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-which
is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into
confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if
we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we
preached to you, let him be eternally condemned. As we have already said,
so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than
what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!"
Galatians 1:6-9
Return to the Maryland Network list
