A careful, nuanced and loving engagement with the issue and its complexities…
For the life of me I have a hard time dealing peaceably with certain orthodox leaders who seem unable to or, worse, refuse to distinguish between wolves and sheep, between those who devour and those being devoured. For these leaders, false teachers need compassionate care, nuanced conversation, patient understanding, while those they lead blind into the pit are ignored and forgotten. A few weeks ago Stephen Kuhrt illustrated this maddening characteristic in an article I diplomatically described as, “weak, passionless, powerless, passive, compromising, institutionalist, impotent”
Since that exchange, Jon Kuhrt (I am not sure whether Jon and Stephen are related) has stepped forward to defend Stephen Kuhrt in an article posted on Fulcrum.
Below is my response to his response:
“I have watched with interest the reactions to Stephen Kuhrt’s article about the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCAUK) and its role within the controversies about gay and lesbian relationships within the Church. Stephen called for “a careful, nuanced and loving engagement with the issue, its complexities and the human beings that it involves”.”
No.
Stephen suggested that those ordained leaders who teach that homosexual behavior is acceptable within the pale of orthodoxy are to be given a hearing within the Church and that those who assert otherwise, those who argue that such advocates are heretics, are responsible for “polarizing” the church.
I certainly understand and agree that a kindly pastoral approach is not only appropriate but necessary toward those non-ordained Christians and non-Christians caught up in sexual or any other sort of sin.
But for the unrepentant, defiant, clerical advocates of perversity; for those who lead the Lord’s “little ones” into sin, there is only one appropriate response and that is to defeat, defrock and drive them out of the church, away from the flock, without conversation, compromise and especially without the sort of vain, preening, self congratulatory appreciation of the “nuanced” fog of heterodox “complexities” advocated by Stephen Kuhrt and his defender Jon.
“In response Matt Kennedy on the Stand Firm in the Faith website www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/24813 described him as “weak, passionless, powerless, passive, compromising, institutionalist, impotent”.
No.
I was careful to describe Stephen, personally, as a faithful brother in Christ. It is his response to damnable heresy that is “weak, passionless, powerless, passive, compromising, institutionalist, impotent”
“Rather than simply being weak many evangelicals have a deep and genuine concern for humility in their approach to issues of sexual behaviour – not least because of their awareness of their own frailties and weaknesses.”
It would be nice if these “many evangelicals” who are so deeply and genuinely and (lest we not get the point) so very Publicly and Noisily, “concerned for humility” would also be half as deeply and genuinely humble before God’s own Word written as they are before those clerics who openly defy it.
“Humility is not weakness.”
Not at all. It is a strength.
“Indeed followers of Jesus should always take a humble approach whenever we discuss the behaviour of others.”
Yes.
“God’s grace shows us how we can all be selectively orthodox in our interpretation and application of Jesus’ teaching. The issue of wealth and greed is a good example to discuss.”
Strange. I was not aware that there were Anglicans explicitly rejecting biblical injunctions against greed whilst advocating greed from the pulpit. Are there Anglican clerics calling members of their congregations to “come out”” and live unrepentant greed filled selfish lives?
“Unlike gay and lesbian relationships, wealth and greed is a subject about which Jesus spoke a huge amount. There are so many clear teachings of Jesus which - if we are to take scripture at its face value - show the incompatibility of following him and being greedy. Examples that immediately spring to mind are the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19), the Rich Fool (Luke 12:13), the Rich Ruler (Luke 18:18) and the clear instruction that you cannot serve both God and Money (Luke 16:13). There are plenty of others – and you can’t read Luke’s gospel for long before unearthing many more.”
Amen
“But as this perceptive song points out, Jesus’ example and teaching is not always reflected in the lifestyles of his followers:
The cars in the churchyard are shiny and German
Distinctly at odds with the theme of the sermon
And during communion I study the people
Threading themselves through the eye of the needle”The song rings true because we know how tricky the issue of wealth is within the church. Many Christians are continually wrestling with the challenge of how much they should spend on their cars, holidays and home furnishings. Many vicars and Bishops feel genuinely uncomfortable with the scale of their houses and are concerned about the consistency between the Church institution and the challenge of Jesus.”
Yes, there are many sinners in the church pews and behind the pulpit. I am one of them. So are you. Greed, gluttony, pride, vanity, malice etc…we to varying degrees, by grace, do battle with them all .
But I was unaware that these behaviors had the benefit of any clerical advocates…any collared promoters? Is there an organization, are there ordained leaders, within the church advocating gluttony? Malice? Vain pride?
If such organizations or clerics exist, I would hope that Kuhrt would name them so that we might engage in, “careful, nuanced, loving engagement with the issue[s]...and the human beings [they] involve…”
“I believe the size of the mortgage we take on is the most spiritually significant decision we make. But we have to ask ourselves how often in Church culture are we truly honest about how we use our money? Is Jesus truly Lord over our bank accounts? For many Christians our relationship with money is the love that dares not speak its name.
I wonder what the proudly evangelical churches in the City of London actually say about the greed, reckless lending and massive bonuses within the banking world? They might be hot on issues of personal moral conduct but are they ‘biblically orthodox’ on the issue of corporate wealth and greed?”
Good questions all…of course they are utterly irrelevant to the question of whether the church ought to tolerate false teachers but these are, indeed, fine and thoroughly convicting questions. Evangelical ministers in wealthy London congregations should, indeed, speak up about greed
“Neutering the challenge of scripture
Christians have developed some worrying ways of neutering these straightforwardly radical and demanding areas of Jesus’ teaching. We say things like ‘it was not the wealth of the rich ruler that was the problem but that he loved his wealth more than Jesus’. Instead of a demand which ‘amazes’ the disciples, we turn it into a gentle statement on priorities that would shock no one. It leads to us consoling ourselves that if we really mean it when we sing and worship God then it justifies a massive house and multiple cars. This kind of thinking is rife in middle class evangelical churches.”
The reason most good preachers say that it was not the wealth of the rich ruler that was the problem but that he loved his wealth more than Jesus is because it was not the wealth of the rich ruler that was the problem but that he loved his wealth more than Jesus. Had he loved Jesus more than his wealth, he would have given it away when Jesus called him to do so. But his money was his idol. He claimed to keep the last six commandments but he broke the first and greatest. During the exposition portion of a sermon on the text in question, the religious and social status of wealthy devout men in first century Palestine and the assumptions that the disciples would have likely embraced with regard to wealthy devout men would be crucial to bring out. But it is a more than fair application of the text in question to talk about idolatry in general especially if the congregation to which you minister is blue collar, poor, or idolatrous in some other way besides wealth. Of course, if your congregation is wealthy, it is also a great opportunity to slam home a point about the love of money.
And yet to suggest that the failure to do so on the part of more timid and fearful pastors is in any way comparable to, say, the actual promotion of greed from the pulpit and/or the explicit rejection of those biblical passages that condemn greed is quite a stretch.
“The process of domesticating Jesus’ challenge around wealth starts very early. My kids have a cute book of Stories Jesus Told which says that the ‘eye of a needle’ was a really small gate in Jerusalem which required a camel to take off all his packs before entering. But according to many scholars this is simply a myth developed in the medieval era.”
True. But I remember hearing the “small gate in Jerusalem” story when I was young. The sermon I heard represented a simple call to repent and let go of all the stuff, wealth included, that hinders our obedience to Christ. It was a good message even though the exegesis was flawed.
But I have no idea what the connection might be between those clerics who get their exegesis wrong and those clerics who understand the various texts well enough but advocate same sex behavior anyway.
“Most of us know that any honest reading of scripture show that the life, teaching and example of Jesus clearly show us that following him will mean embracing simplicity and costly generosity.”
True.
“On the subject of wealth, Jesus said to the money-loving Pharisees: “No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money….what is highly valued amongst men is detestable in God’s sight” (Luke 16:13ff). As Tony Campolo has written in an essay called Can a Christian own a BMW? ‘The rich know that if they take the biblical Jesus seriously, they will have to do a lot more than get their priorities right…Jesus calls us to abandon the things of this world, use our resources to feed the poor and take up the cross.’ Rather than simply condemining people with a weakness for German engineering, Campolo challenges us to think about how we steward what God has given us.”
Yes. All this is very nice and true and utterly unconnected to the point at issue.
“Being judgemental?
Whenever I have raised this issue in church discussions, people often say things like ‘But we must not be judgemental’ and will often point to the gaps and inconsistencies in their own life (or mine!).
Exactly. Now that really is being biblical.”
Not so sure I agree. In preaching against greed, one is not being “judgmental” one is simply announcing a judgment that God has already revealed. A good pastor cannot, in good conscience, refrain from making such an announcement should it come up in his text.
“Increasingly I believe that Jesus’ radical example and the costly nature of discipleship should simply drive us to our knees in humble repentance. And it is in this humility, in fear and trembling, that we discuss the attitudes and behaviours of our brothers and sisters in Christ. Examining the logs in our own eyes leads us to humble acknowledgement of our own sin and failings. This is a place of humility where we develop a nuanced and loving response to people of great wealth.”
Yes, this is all, again, very nice and true and, again, unconnected to the point at issue. We are not talking about people caught up in homosexual behavior. When addressing people caught up in sexual sin or sin of any sort directly, we must certainly do so with an attitude of humble repentance—recognizing our own deep sinfulness.
But, again, that is not what is at issue at all. We are not talking about people caught up in sin. We are talking about those clerical wolves, charlatans, liars, and heretics who do the catching—the “angels of light” who teach doctrines that originate in hell and lead the people Jesus died to save away from the light and into the darkness.
“We have to recognise that the wider world sees very clearly when the Church sits light to Jesus’ teaching about greed and money.”
Agreed.
“So when we talk harshly about gay and lesbian people we easily appear as hypocrites who are selectively orthodox and who love pointing the finger at others.”
Kuhrt’s solution to this problem, apparently, is to be really really nice to those who are leading gay and lesbian people to hell while preaching more social justice sermons so that non-believers will like us.
“It is easy to assume that it is fear or hatred of homosexuality that is the real engine room of this concern for Biblical orthodoxy on this issue when they see us sitting so light to other areas of Jesus’ teaching.”
Christian orthodoxy must be defended and proclaimed both in a broad sense and directly at the point at which it is being attacked. When heretics attack the Doctrine of the Trinity, the Church ought not to respond with a ponderous conversation on the benefits of chastity. We respond by defending the Trinity. When they attack the Virgin Birth, the church should not respond with a nuanced discussion of tithing. We respond by defending the Virgin birth. And when heretics attack the Doctrine of Marriage we do not respond by talking a lot about social justice and having tea over careful loving conversations with heretics, we defend the Doctrine of Marriage and condemn all challenges to it.
That may make those outside the church believe that Christians are focused on sex. There is not much we can do about that and frankly, it’s not our responsibility to change skewed perceptions of non-believers. It is our responsibility, and Kuhrt’s too, to defend the faith and to uphold Christian doctrine.
“So I do believe that followers of Jesus should take a ‘careful, nuanced and loving position’ when it comes to discussing issues of sexuality – because this is what we need to do whenever we discuss the behaviour of others.”
How strange to define “humble” in such a way that publicly and willfully defying God’s own charge to the leaders of his Church to guard the flock, to drive away wolves, to not even give basic hospitality to false teachers (2 John 7-11), fits the definition of humble while applying biblical commands is somehow pharisaic.
The most “careful” position possible for an ordained leader in the church with regard to homosexual behavior is to proclaim God’s own judgment which has been clearly revealed in Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:18-33 and 1 Cor 6:9. Ordained leaders are not at liberty to impose their own nuances or warped understandings of “love” onto that revelation, nor are we at liberty to consider challenges to it on the part of other ordained leaders as valid, legitimate or as anything other than hellish lies.
“All of us who want to be ‘Bible-people’ during these current controversies need to reflect deeply on Jesus’ challenge to the judgmental religious leaders of his day…‘Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? But give what is inside the dish to the poor, and everything will be clean for you.’ Luke 11:39”
Indeed. And all of us who are ordained leaders need to reflect deeply on Jesus words to the church in Thyatira:
“I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first. 20 But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. 21 I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. 22 Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, 23 and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works…” (Rev 3:19-23)
Comments
Facebook comments are closed.
49 comments
On a recent trip to Rwanda, my husband and I had interesting conversations with the bishop of Butare and our host priest. Both had grown up herding cattle in Uganda. The bishop commented that it was good preparation for spiritual warfare. These men had fought off lions with a stick as their only weapon. As the lion approaches, the cattle and dogs run away, leaving the cowboy standing between the lion and the herd. If the cowboy runs away, the lion will bring him down. If he takes ones step back, the lion will take one step forward. He must stand his ground. He scares the lion by shouting and shaking his stick; then the cowboy takes one step forward and the lion takes one step back.
[1] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 10-26-2009 at 05:56 AM · [top]
A fine post, Fr. Matt. I, too, have often encountered the argument you parry so effectively here (though for me it has come from unabashed liberals in the Church, not self-identified “evangelicals”). But I have not yet found nearly as effective a counter to it as your essay above. From now on I will refer them to your text! Very well put.
[2] Posted by texanglican on 10-26-2009 at 06:26 AM · [top]
Wow Matt, what a powerhouse of a response!
[3] Posted by heart on 10-26-2009 at 06:31 AM · [top]
Thx, Jill Woodliff, that’s a powerful illustration you’ve brought back.
[4] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 10-26-2009 at 06:43 AM · [top]
Thank you, Matt+ for Standing Firm and not stepping back. The lion is toothless anyway.
There is no theological, factual, statistical or clinical defense for the position that either the same-sex attraction or same-sex sexual acts and relationships are healthy or holy. Both are symptoms of harm, pain and disorientation and lead to more harm, pain and confusion, emotional, physical and relational. Romans 1:18-32
Our Abba Father has a more excellent Way of real holy healthy Love, Truth and Life in the Holy Spirit that leads to Freedom, Peace and Joy forevermore. It takes humility and honesty to turn from sin and agree with God about the harm of sin and its real effects on us. It takes courage to be willing to change and accept and receive God’s help and the help and encouragement of His Body and wise counselors. Thankfully, more and more Churches and counselors are becoming trained to help people caught in the many kinds sexual sin of all kinds that plagues our culture in epidemic proportions.
The necessity of repentance and reorientation to and reconciliation with God is true for all of us. We are all disoriented, cast down, defiled and separated from God. I Corinthians 10:13, I Corinthians 6:9-20
God in His mercy has prepared A Way for us through Jesus Christ. This is the Way of the Cross. This is discipleship, sanctification, transformation, redemption.
WE cannot fix ourselves. God wants to love us, help us, save us from all our sinful inclinations. He alone is able to do so. God alone can and will save us to the uttermost. Hebrews 7:25
[5] Posted by Theodora on 10-26-2009 at 06:57 AM · [top]
This does not seem to be a very careful or nuanced article. Where are the scholars?
RE: ‘Yes. All this is very nice and true and utterly unconnected to the point at issue.”
Seriously, that’s probably the main point—a lengthy red herring on greed.
[6] Posted by Sarah on 10-26-2009 at 07:06 AM · [top]
Sarah,
Matt has at least an M.Div. right? He’s a scholar. Trust me, I have a M.A. Theol.
Fr. Matt, I have a vain hope that there is at least one “orthodox” TEC bishop will take your admonitions to heart and stand up to the lions. It is indeed, though, after all these years, a vain, faded hope…
[7] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 10-26-2009 at 07:13 AM · [top]
Matt,
Thanks for being a shepherd (or at least a faithful sheepdog) of Jesus’ flock. There are indeed wolves in sheep’s clothing among the flock - as well as a lot of hirelings.
In communication with such heretics, I’ve found one approach that rocks them on their heels is to remind them that anyone who hews closely to Jesus’ words *respects* the GLBT practitioners and *believes* they can be more than the sum of their urges and therefore can really show agape towards them.
In fact, the analysis in C.S. Lewis’ book “The Four Loves” is quite helpful here. The GLBT practitioner confuses Eros (especially its perversion into Lust) with Phileo; the false shepherd is (at best) peddling a false watered-down imitation of Agape - and at worst are simply Pharisees with broad phylacteries.
Again, thanks for standing toe-to-toe with smiling heretics.
[8] Posted by Doug Stein on 10-26-2009 at 08:46 AM · [top]
We Westerners have been blinded to basic truths, due to our post-Enlightenment educations.
1. God is good. Satan is bad.
2. Satan hates God. His is a never-ending, diabolical, seething jealous rage. There is no truce.
3. Very good people, people of God, can be influenced by Satan (Mark 1:39, 2 Timothy 2:24-26, 1 Timothy 4:1).
4. The issues and targets are not random. They tend to strike at God’s specific design. I don’t think it a coincidence that TEC, known for its beautiful worship, is now a battleground. The artistic ones most fully express Lucifer’s old job: worship.
5. Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light. (2 Corinthians 11:14)
6. Satan’s arguments are subtle. (Genesis 3:1)
7. Satan comes only to steal, kill, and destroy. (John 10:10)
8. All of us believe some lies. The Father of lies reinforces the lie. That lie becomes our “truth.” We reap what we sow. (Galatians 6:6-8) If we sow lies, we reap bondage to sin. The truth sets us free. (John 8:32)
9. Jesus appeared to take away sins and to destroy the works of Satan. (1 John 3:5,8) Jesus left this world to send another, the Spirit of Truth. (John 14:26)
10. God’s ways are not our ways. (Isaiah 55:8)
When you look at the life of Jesus and compare it to the Western church today, the ministry of healing is not as prominent in church as it was in Jesus’s life. I wonder if one of the lies that many reasserters believe has to do with the understanding of healing prayer in the body of Christ. Do we sometimes quench the ways of the Holy Spirit because they are unseemly?
Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. (Hebrews 13:8) It is only in the context of multiple personal encounters with Jesus in prayer, using scripture, over a lifetime, that each of us can come to recognize the lies that disorder our lives.
Ideally, Jesus names the lies. Jesus recognizes the origins of the lies we believe far better than we. The intercessors simply ask Jesus to come.
[9] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 10-26-2009 at 09:21 AM · [top]
Fulcrum is a group of orthodox Christians. While I understand Fr. Matt’s beliefs, the people at Fulcrum obviously disagree about the best way to steer the church back on path and to deal with clergy who have gone astray. I fail to see what the good of feuding with Fulcrum is. Bishop Wright is the most visible and articulate defender of orthodox Christianity we have. This thread and the “gutless” one seem like just an opportunity to shoot ourselves in the foot and drive away those we have looked to for help. If Stephen Kurht has things wrong, I don’t think these threads are likely to change his mind? But alienate him from orthodox in America? You bet.
[10] Posted by oscewicee on 10-26-2009 at 09:43 AM · [top]
Fulcrum advocates “engaging” the liberals in the same manner that has worked so well here in the States. They often say, England is not the U.S.” Well, with the exiting of the Anglo-catholics, they will see how much the two are similar.
I agree with Jack Spong. The time for debating is over. The listening process/indaba is a lie.
[11] Posted by robroy on 10-26-2009 at 09:48 AM · [top]
Hi oscewicee,
I do not agree that this simply a disagreement “about the best way to steer the church back on path and to deal with clergy who have gone astray…”
This is a question of whether the church is going to discipline/drive out heretics or not. I think if the answer is “not”...which is Kurht’s answer…then we put souls at jeapordy for the sake of clerics being nice to one another.
I won’t do that.
[12] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 10-26-2009 at 09:50 AM · [top]
“This is a question of whether the church is going to discipline/drive out heretics or not…” Why do we have to drive folks out, though we seem to do that well, why not teach and convert?
[13] Posted by FrVan on 10-26-2009 at 09:54 AM · [top]
In fact, it is ironic, the only ones “driven out” are the “orthodox” it would seem…
[14] Posted by FrVan on 10-26-2009 at 09:55 AM · [top]
We don’t have to drive “folks” out. We have to drive wolves in ordained garb out in order to protect the “folks”
[15] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 10-26-2009 at 09:57 AM · [top]
It is ironic…I wonder why orthodox people leave a church led by wolves? Hmm….I wonder if something might have been done to prevent this perplexing problem…oh, maybe decades ago?
[16] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 10-26-2009 at 09:58 AM · [top]
I wonder what could have been done?
....
....
wait!
I’ve got an idea!
Maybe we should not have let heretics into pulpits in the first place? Maybe we should not have engaged in nuanced conversation, plumbed the depths of the complexities of sexual perversion…
It’s crazy I know.
But it just might have worked.
2 John 7-11
[17] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 10-26-2009 at 10:00 AM · [top]
why not teach and convert?
Exactly, Fr. Van.
[18] Posted by oscewicee on 10-26-2009 at 10:07 AM · [top]
“why not teach and convert?”
2 John 7-11
1 Cor 5:12
Galatians 1:6-9
Matt 7:15
“For the life of me I have a hard time dealing peaceably with certain orthodox leaders who seem unable to or, worse, refuse to distinguish between wolves and sheep, between those who devour and those being devoured. For these leaders, false teachers need compassionate care, nuanced conversation, patient understanding, while those they lead blind into the pit are ignored and forgotten.”
[19] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 10-26-2009 at 10:11 AM · [top]
So once clergy go astray, there is no chance of redemption or salvation for them. Got it.
[20] Posted by oscewicee on 10-26-2009 at 10:17 AM · [top]
“So once clergy go astray, there is no chance of redemption or salvation for them. Got it.”
Obviously you do not.
[21] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 10-26-2009 at 10:19 AM · [top]
I have to agree with you. A humble and gentle rebuke is probably the right initial response to a false teacher, there’s always the chance that the teaching was the result of honest confusion. But if the false teaching persists (as it most certainly has in TEC) then one must raise the stakes. TEC’s false teachers lost whatever benefit of the doubt they were entitled to years (decades!) ago.
Wolverine
[22] Posted by Wolverine on 10-26-2009 at 10:28 AM · [top]
Matt+, thanks for writing this. This is good stuff.
I do not hear you saying that “there is no chance of redemption once clergy go astray.” However, as James tells us, teachers are held accountable by God for what they teach (James 3:1).
Peter warns of the danger of false teachers.
False teachers are the ones who are teaching that which is contrary to the Word of God. Our job as shepherds IS to protect the sheep and NOT endorse, encourage or support those who teach heresy/blasphemy. Matt is doing the job of a shepherd in what he is writing.
[23] Posted by Shane Copeland on 10-26-2009 at 10:59 AM · [top]
I have long since come to think of the revisionist approach to the question of same sex attraction as a back-handed version of what is usually meant by the term “homophobia.” But whatever else it is or isn’t, it is effectively a denial that the homosexual person is loved by God and called to repentance and faith in Christ.
It is an attitude of pious condescension on the part of liberal clergy who, having failed to understand what is truly at issue in this matter, go on to compound that failure with their attenuated version of a “gospel” message which would do nothing more than leave us where we’re at.
Perhaps God wishes to save us from our sins but simply doesn’t know how. Well, there is always “gay monogamy,” at least until we find a theological basis for justifying something even less restrictive than that. But until we do, please behave yourselves, in public anyway.
The ground at the foot of the cross is level ground, but not for us. We must step down and step back. God’s grace will not enable us to do more. We may be the sinners for whom Christ did not die, but the Church will give us a pass, so why worry? She still loves you, even if Jesus has His doubts.
Transformation? Yes, there’s that, but . . . you see . . . it’s somewhat overrated . . . and who knows what form it really takes? And it can be so difficult! Why not work harder at your relationships instead - and do try to be less promiscuous. There’s a good boy.
This has become my perception of the mush that these learned gentlemen have to offer. I agree with Father Kennedy that, if the mask of seeming benevolence was dropped, we would see nothing behind it but ravening wolves who would “shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.” Mt. 23:13
Lord, have mercy!
[24] Posted by episcopalienated on 10-26-2009 at 11:00 AM · [top]
Since this appears to be so difficult, I thought the following model exchange might help:
Scenario: A priest is teaching his people that homosexual sex is good:
How should a bishop respond?
Step 1. Bishop: Fr. Marcion, I hear that you have been encouraging people to have sexual relationships outside the bounds of holy matrimony. Is that true?
Fr. Marcion: Yes. The Spirit is doing a new thing.
Step 2. Bishop: I see. Let me share a few passages of scripture with you.
Reads: Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1, 1 Cor 6:9
Are you willing to repent of your false teaching and recant?
Fr. Marcion: No.
Step 3. I have no other choice to but inhibit you from the exercise of your ordained ministry. Effective immediately, you are no longer to preach, teach, celebrate communion, or contact any member of your parish in any way for a period of six months. Within that time, you will be tried for heresy by a jury of your peers in the diocese and if, at that trial, you refuse to repent and recant, you will be removed from office permanently.
Have a nice day.
Model 2: How should a priest respond to a fellow priest…coming soon.
[25] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 10-26-2009 at 11:05 AM · [top]
[20] - “drive out” means drive out from the clerical/Episcopal order, from the pulpit, and from all teaching within the Church. If they persist in teaching falsehood and resist the restorative steps found in Matthew 18:15-17 and Galatians 6:1-5 then strip them of the benefices and status and implicit approval.
For example, the words “Bishop” and “Spong” should have been separated as far as the east is from the west. No Christian pulpit should be offered to him nor should his work be read (except by those planning for an exorcism or a “formation failure analysis” so we can nip such error in the bud).
There’s a secular proverb - “never argue with a fool; people might not be able to tell the difference”. Part of the reason the World is able to stop its ears to the Gospel is that the ministers of the Gospel have used the same artsy-fartsy therapeutic family systems language instead of the clear call of the Gospel.
Sin/repentence, damnation/salvation, pride/humility, goats/sheep, hell/heaven, death/life - these are the contrasts which should be drawn sharply. “Choose this day whom ye will serve…”. Do we hear this clear wind from enough of our pulpits and leaders - or is it the sweet smoky incense of the Lady of the Green Kirtle?
Thanks again Matt for being willing to speak clearly (and your willingness to follow the example of Puddleglum).
[26] Posted by Doug Stein on 10-26-2009 at 11:19 AM · [top]
Thank God I drive a Toyota!
The guy has a point about the Church’s teaching re:wealth, but like Matt I am not sure it actually has anything to do with the discussion at hand.
I belong to a very rich parish. And you may be sure that there is little preaching against wealth heard from the pulpit. On the other hand, this is quite another thing from announcing that there will be a special mass on Thursday for rich people and they are encouraged to wear their longest mink coats and drive only cars costing in excess of $60,000. And of course the Church as a body speaks out regularly on wealth, greed, and over consumption in a world of povery and need.
OTOH, I’m not sure that comments against wealth are NEVER heard in rich parishes. I used to work for Merrill Lynch (a business started by Catholics at a time when all financial services companies were run by Protestants or Jews) and which had an almost unbroken string of Catholic CEOs. When I was working there, the CEO lived in our town. (He had his helicopter take him into NY City when he needed to go). One day my boss (a Catholic, like so many of Merrill’s employees) remarked to me that the CEO was in a foul mood that day. His comment was “he was in church on Sunday and the priest told him to give his money to the poor and I think it p%&&*@ him off. ”
Now a priest who has the head of Merrill Lynch sitting before him (a man who could buy them a new school by writing a single check) and who takes the opportunity to preach against wealth, is not entirely spineless!
[27] Posted by Catholic Mom on 10-26-2009 at 11:30 AM · [top]
I have long since come to think of the revisionist approach to the question of same sex attraction as a back-handed version of what is usually meant by the term “homophobia.” But whatever else it is or isn’t, it is effectively a denial that the homosexual person is loved by God and called to repentance and faith in Christ.
I completely agree with you. It is offering homosexuals the crumbs under the table and calling it a “feast.” “God is too hard for gays, so we’ll make it easy for you and you’ll never know what you’re missing.” I think, perhaps, some of these people don’t know what *they* are missing either. And the clergy who preach this should be disciplined. But Fulcrum can’t throw them out.. They can engage and hold their errors up to the light. And learn for themselves just how deep those errors lie.
[28] Posted by oscewicee on 10-26-2009 at 11:47 AM · [top]
Engaging in dialog with those that are using dialog to ordain more homosexual clergy should be condemned. Engaging in dialog with those that are engaging in ad hominem such as “bigot” and “homophobe” should be condemned. As soon as they pull out these cheap slurs, it is time to get up and walk away from the table.
[29] Posted by robroy on 10-26-2009 at 12:12 PM · [top]
I would agree with Robroy (#29) and would take it one step further. If we use the same huge amount of energy that we have wasted on fruitless ‘dialogue’ or even ‘battle’ with heretics to cheerfully and indefatigably build new orthodox parishes, we shall very soon outnumber the revisionists. The gap is narrowing almost daily.
This may well be a better way to bring the maximum number of souls to Christ, for TEC’s ‘lawyers and liberal politics’ approach to salvation has surely been a disaster, as well as a deliberate affront to anyone who disagrees with them.
What’s the antidote? I wish, for example, that about twenty million people could watch Henry Orombi talk for about five or ten minutes about bringing those ‘dry bones in the spiritual desert’ to life. For fairness, ++Orombi could be followed by Bishop Robinson talking, for the same amount of time, about his victimhood. Now THAT would be my kind of dialogue.
[30] Posted by richard reed on 10-26-2009 at 05:09 PM · [top]
richard reed (#30) wrote:
Somehow, I have the feeling that one cd listen to Henry Orombi speak again and again, and remain on the edge of one’s seat every time.
Listening to someone speak about his (or her) “victimhood” again and again wd be totally different; able to finish sentences bef s/he got more than 3 words into them (yada yada?), but having to remind oneself of the importance of “listening” .....stay awake…...
Does it make a difference that HO is talking about Someone other than himself?
[31] Posted by maineiac on 10-26-2009 at 08:11 PM · [top]
Richard Reed, amen and amen!
In the end, this is the only way to victory. Evangelise and disciple, grow the faithful congregations and leave the apostates to wither.
[32] Posted by MichaelA on 10-26-2009 at 08:25 PM · [top]
I wouldn’t say that his lengthy point on greed was a red herring, but it was actually quite helpful - it spoke volumes.
Jon Kuhrt seems to want to bring the full force of Jesus’ teaching on Greed to bear on modern rich congregations, which I agree with, as does Matt, even suggesting that we have reduced Jesus’ harsh words to meaningless platitudes. However, when the issue at hand - homosexual acts - comes up, he suddenly jumps to the defence of ‘careful, nuanced and loving engagement’.
That looks like double standards to me.
[33] Posted by Derek Smith on 10-26-2009 at 09:55 PM · [top]
This whole battle that Matt (& others) are engaged in is really a part of the bigger battle - the age old battle - the battle for the Bible and its authority.
Not that I am assuming that our age is the most important age ever in the history of the world, but it seems to me that the homosexuality issue for Reformed Anglicans (and Anglo-Catholic Anglicans) is a flashpoint in the same way that indulgences were to Luther.
The problem that some of these Evangelifish that Matt mentions, don’t seem to realise that those who preach and teach a 3rd way regarding sexual expression that God endorses (the 1st & 2nd being heterosexual marriage and celibacy)are also preaching a gospel that has no repentance. A message that says “come as you” but also “stay as you are” rather than a message that says “come as you are and go as Jesus says”. It reminds me of Niebuhr’s comment:
“A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross”.
This current climate in the Anglican communion makes the term “Semper Reformanda” more applicable than ever.
Great post too Matt!
[34] Posted by Joshua Bovis on 10-27-2009 at 05:12 AM · [top]
It is instructive to me that given how long the battle to reclaim orthodoxy and scriptural authority has been waged at the level of intensity illustrated on Stand Firm, that a Feature like Fr. Matt’s stirs up this much debate. Not support mind you, but debate!. As in: “oh my, should we fight for the faith received like defenders of a Great Gift? Wouldn’t it be nicer to sit down at Starbucks and talk and listen and share?”
It is in instructive in that it teaches me (sigh, AGAIN!), never to let my guard down. That even in the midst of the those whom I think would/should be on board to defend a Great Gift, bought at a high price, to be vigilant and to not give ground. Because once you cede anything to the Evil One, he will stalk you ruthlessly to get all of you; just as Jill recounted in the tale of the lion.
God’s word is God’s word, and the Holy Spirit will not lead us into error. He doesn’t have to, we do it just fine on our own.
[35] Posted by Capt. Father Warren on 10-27-2009 at 06:25 AM · [top]
Dear Matt, I agree with all that you say brother. The church needs to exercise its disciplinary office. My question is: How do you fight your opponents and not fall into the snare of their tactics, atitude and behaviour AND WIN?
[36] Posted by AhKong2 on 10-27-2009 at 08:41 PM · [top]
Dear Matt,
I thought that your diatribe was magnificent. Unfortunately, I don’t think that we want bishops deposing people for every “biblical” error. In fact, heresy trials would probably be the death not only of the Episcopal Church, but also ACNA.
For example, suppose I were an Evangelical bishop. Suppose further, that I believe that the Scriptures plainly teach that justification is a matter of God imputing to me the righteousness of Jesus Christ through faith alone. Now suppose I have a an Anglo-Catholic priest who teaches from the pulpit that Justification is not a matter of imputation, but is rather a process by which I become more and more Christ-like. Further suppose that the conjunction of the Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic views is internally incoherent. Ought I (if I were an Evangelical Bishop) defrock the Anglo-Catholic priest?
If you say YES, then we will have a whole new set of church wars between Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals. If you say NO, then it would seem that we are compromising (at least, from the Evangelicals perspective) the clear teaching of Scripture regarding, not just a moral issue, but the Gospel itself. How do you escape the dilemma?
[37] Posted by Cedric on 10-27-2009 at 08:57 PM · [top]
[37] Cedric
To consistently handle the difference between imputation and infusion, you would have to establish two completely separate sub-entities in ACNA that touch each other only at points of mundane temporal organization. One entity would be Anglo-Catholic. The other entity would be Evangelical. Anglo-Catholics would submit to the Anglo-Catholic hierarchy. Evangelicals would submit to the Evangelical Hierarchy. And never the twain shall meet. Otherwise, you end up pretending for the sake of organizational integrity that the Reformation was just a big misunderstanding. The Pope could not hold spiritual authority over Lutherans in 16th Century Germany. The doctrinal differences were fundamental. How then can an AC bishop hold authority over an Evangelical minister in this day and age, or vice versa to be fair? The nature of the conflict has not changed over the intervening 500 years.
carl
[38] Posted by carl on 10-27-2009 at 09:25 PM · [top]
Fr. Kennedy, I have long been impressed by your ability to hit the nail on head. I confess that I have disagreed with you on a minor point here and there and wondered occasionally if you arose on the wrong side of the bed, but you have vindicated yourself today (er, yesterday), when you wrote this. (As if you needed any vindication.) My favorite part is your comment #25.
Clearly, you are addressing clergy condoning/committing heresy and the dichotomy between wolf and sheep but on the subject of homosexuality, I would like to ask for support in dealing with those who argue, “God made me this way.” or “There is a genetic proclivity for it.” I say, “No. God made YOU. You made yourself this way.” and “The scientific evidence for that is very questionable. And what if there is a genetic proclivity for pedophiles or murderers, would that make it okay?” “You can be as gay as you like, but don’t have sex.”
If this is too far off topic, I apologize and you can ignore it. If you wish to respond, I would like to hear it.
[39] Posted by RicardoCR on 10-27-2009 at 10:07 PM · [top]
Dear Carl,
I agree that having two ecclesiastical sub-structures would help us escape between the horns, but doesn’t that seem that at that point we would have two ACNAs? Do you, or anyone, know if carl’s two ecclesial sub-structures idea has gained any hearing or momentum in ACNA?
[40] Posted by Cedric on 10-28-2009 at 04:45 AM · [top]
Matt, My disagreement (if at all) is the line or dichotomy between “folks” and those in clerical garb. There is a lot of grey between those poles and what is the response to those in the middle? Licensed lay preachers? Licensed lay worship leaders? Wardens?
At the moment I am a member of a church without any clerical leadership and the only person above the laity is the bishop who probably would not in any event supervise lay leaders. Even if he would, I’m not sure where lines ought to be drawn.
[41] Posted by Matthew on 10-28-2009 at 11:49 AM · [top]
I am not sure that the discussion of “two ACNAs” in relation to imputed/infused justification is helpful:
Is this situation ever likely to arise within ACNA? “Anglo-catholic” is a very broad term - it includes groups like the Traditional Anglican Communion, who might well preach that justificaton is not a matter of imputation - but priests of that ilk are most unlikely to be found in ACNA, so to put it as per the quote above just creates the potential for unnecessary argument with those who may call themselves “anglo-catholic” but don’t reject imputed righteousness.
By contrast, the anglo-catholics within ACNA are likely to be those that subscribe to the Jerusalem Declaration.
I wouldn’t have thought that +Iker would ever preach that “justification is not a matter of imputation”. So aren’t we setting up a straw man here?
+Iker for example might well teach that imputation and infusion are working together, and he might do it in a way that is rather different to my calvinist theology. So I might well disagree with him, but I can still share a church with him (and I should add at this point that I have a great deal of respect for +Iker!!!).
Whereas I would have serious difficulties continuing in a denomination with someone who taught that there is no imputation of righteousness in justification - scripture is very clear about that.
[42] Posted by MichaelA on 10-28-2009 at 09:22 PM · [top]
RichardCR
“I would like to ask for support in dealing with those who argue, “God made me this way.” or “There is a genetic proclivity for it.” I say, “No. God made YOU. You made yourself this way.” and “The scientific evidence for that is very questionable. And what if there is a genetic proclivity for pedophiles or murderers, would that make it okay?” “You can be as gay as you like, but don’t have sex.”
I generally don’t get too involved in the argument regarding whether there are genetic/biological predispositions for homosexual behavior because I am not a biologist and just don’t know.
I also think it is irrelevant to the question.
1. If there is a biological predisposition toward homosexuality it is simply a confirmation of what Paul is saying in Romans 1. We are fallen creatures. The fall has twisted every aspect of our nature…including our sexuality. That much should be obvious without even considering homosexuality.
2. Because of the doctrine of the fall, no Christian can look at his or her own primal or even inherited impulses and say “God made me this way”.
3. In Christ, however, the old creation has died and we are new creations…the power of God working in us can overcome the power of sin.
So the presence of an orientation, a deep seated away from God and toward sinful behavior is something that all human beings experience. It is called “the fall”. And yet still there is no excuse because we volitionally, willingly, act in accordance with that impulse—whereas in Christ we are given freedom and power to escape and live as sons and daughters of God.
[43] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 10-29-2009 at 05:52 AM · [top]
In other words, if someone comes to me and says, well, you call this a sin but I was born this way. My general response, in more pastoral tones is, “join the club”. We are all natural born sinners.
[44] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 10-29-2009 at 05:56 AM · [top]
Ah, I love the smell of Inquisition in the morning. Can the auto-de-fe be far behind?
[45] Posted by episcopalianIam on 10-29-2009 at 09:37 AM · [top]
Well spoken Matt+. I found this especially timely as last Sunday’s sermon at Celebration Anglican parked on the letter to the Church at Thyatira.
[46] Posted by aterry on 10-29-2009 at 01:29 PM · [top]
Thank you for your thoughtful answer to my question, Fr. Kennedy. I will try that out the next time I get a chance.
So, looking at our situation, clergy are not exempted from “the fall” and are not cured of it at ordination it would seem.
[47] Posted by RicardoCR on 10-30-2009 at 08:59 PM · [top]
“So, looking at our situation, clergy are not exempted from “the fall” and are not cured of it at ordination it would seem.”
Absolutely. In many ways ministers of the gospel are called to be “hypocrites”—we must preach divine truths and commands that we ourselves, being sinners, cannot follow in order to proclaim the cross and the Lord who saves and to instruct both ourselves and those souls over whom God has given us cure in the ways of righteousness.
[48] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 10-30-2009 at 09:18 PM · [top]
I am very grateful to Matt for this article and for those who responded here. I found comment #9 by Jill to be especially helpful.
As someone with a bisexual past (although mostly promiscuously heterosexual) who has lived a life of celibacy for years now, I am still new (about a year) to actually opposing same sex marriage. I was so thoroughly convinced that some people are either born gay or irrevocably conditioned to be gay within the first few years of life, that there is no way for them to be heterosexual, and they deserve to have a spouse, and gay marriage helps cut down on promiscuity, etc. etc. I am an evangelical Mennonite, with an Episcopal past, and I am finding Stand Firm to be the most helpful theological education.
I see that my stand against same sex marriage is still weak, because I read the Stephen Kuhrt article and thought he sounded very reasonable. I then read Matt’s response and thought that made sense. Then I read Jon Kuhrt’s reponse and I was in complete agreement. And finally I read Matt’s response, and realized that Jon Kurht was making exactly the same sort of argument that most folks do in my liberal Mennonite congregation where social justice concerns reign supreme, and salvation is never discussed (except when I am a guest preacher or adult Sunday school teacher and by a few others once in a while). I have so much to learn about standing firm about the authority of scripture and the ability of the Holy Spirit to transform us into new creations.
I find the situation in TEC regarding homosexuality and other heresies to be a strong warning to other denominations that haven’t yet strayed quite so far from the gospel. Mennonites, even liberal social justice ones, have a really good record on living sexually moral lives. Divorce rates among Mennonites are some of the lowest of any Christians, definitely much lower than Catholics and evangelicals in general. Most condemn pre-marital sex. But I increasingly hear support for “covenanted same sex relationships” because the argument is framed in social justice language. Like we stood up for African Americans and other ethnic minorities, and women, and the poor and oppressed of all kinds, we now stand up for our gay brothers and sisters. It all sounds so fair, so reasonable. As someone once part of the gay community, a gay rights activist in churches and elsewhere, it’s painful to be considered a hateful homophobe. I do a little better with clearly heterosexual people, but with LGBT folks, I am largely silent. Perhaps that is best for now when I have yet to be clear and firm on this issue. I am theologically opposed to any sexual options other than heterosexual marriage and celibacy, but emotionally, I still waver.
This discussion between Matt and the 2 Kuhrts and the various responses here has given me some good material to process as I work to strengthen my resolve on this issue.
[49] Posted by KarenR on 10-31-2009 at 10:53 AM · [top]
Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.
Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.