Many in the past few years have drawn apt comparisons between the widespread theological confusion that characterizes the contemporary Episcopal Church, of which our current sexuality debates are symptomatic, and ancient forms of Gnosticism.
“Christian” Gnostics imported the radical Gnostic dichotomy between matter (evil) and spirit (good) into the Christian faith and, in keeping with it, reinterpreted or revised the apostolic teachings and writings.
Doctrinally, this led to various Gnostic rejections and/or revisions of doctrines such as the bodily resurrection (the goal, after all, was to escape the flesh, not to return to it) and the virgin birth (God take on real flesh?) which, embarrassingly for the Gnostics, indicated that God had indeed taken on human flesh in the Person of Christ. Many of these rejections/revisions are still prevalent among “Christian” Gnostics to this day.
In practice ancient Gnosticism worked itself out in one of two ways: 1. either a cruel asceticism which denied the flesh so as to mortify it and free the soul, or 2. a libertine freedom which, growing out of the idea that flesh is meaningless, suggested that what is done in the flesh is equally meaningless.
It is this latter category of practical Gnosticism, the idea that God is unconcerned with human sexual habits so long as they are conditioned by “love”, along with the doctrinal sort noted above that some argue under-girds the new sexual ethic officially proposed and endorsed by the Episcopal Church since 2003.
However, as I’ve listened and watched the recent interviews of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and reviewed some of the arguments made in favor of the consecration of non-celibate homosexuals and same sex blessings, I’ve become persuaded that Gnosticism is not, in fact, the lone culprit.
Here is the most common articulation of the revisionist argument.
1. Homosexuality is a genetically/biologically predetermined trait/predisposition.
2. God is Creator
3. God as Creator has Created all things.
4. God has called all created things good.
5. Homosexual desire is created by God
6. Homosexual desire and behavior is, therefore, good.
You may notice that this argument differs from ancient forms of Gnosticism in that it assumes the inherent goodness of the created/material order.
The most common appeal, in fact, in revisionist circles is the appeal to creation. +KJS’ interview with CNN is a great example of the above argument. When asked why she thinks homosexual behavior is not a sin she answered:
“I believe God creates us with different gifts, we each come into the world with things that challenge us and things that give us joy and allow us to bless the world around us and some people come into this world with affections ordered toward people of the same gender and some people come into the world with affections directed at people of the other gender.”
She said much the same thing in her interview with Public Radio:
RY: Because why? Why do you believe so firmly that’s the right direction for the church?
KJS: Well, as a scientist and as a person of faith, I—I understand that sexual orientation is a given, for almost all people; it’s not a matter of choice, and in that case, if this is how people are created, then our job as a community of faith is to assist people in finding holy ways of living in relationship, and, uh, that’s what we’re about.
Homosexual desire is “not a matter of choice”. Rather it is “how people are created”.
As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, the core doctrine this argument ignores is the doctrine of the Fall.
The bible teaches that human nature, along with the natural order in general, no longer exists in accordance with the order of creation. It has been twisted or marred by sin. While humanity retains the imago dei, the image of God, that image is damaged.
We are no longer born with hearts, minds and souls directed or oriented toward God. Rather we are born with wills oriented away from God and toward the self. Sin has sunk to the very depths of our being and twisted all of our natural faculties.
This bedrock truth is articulated in Article 9 of the Articles of Religion:
Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek, phronema sarkos, which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh, is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.
Moreover, the doctrine of the Fall is held by every Christian body from Rome and Geneva in the west to the various Orthodox patriarchates in the east.
Thus, the question Christians must ask with regard to any disposition of the will (inherent or not) is whether it is consistent with the created order or whether its presence is a ramification of the fall.
Moreover, since the Fall has also damaged the faculty of reason, it is impossible to make this determination correctly without the aid of both divine grace and special revelation.
Our reason is blinded by sin and our will is enamored of the self. We desire chiefly to satisfy fallen passions and as a result we tend to call evil “good” and good “evil”. We are, as St. Paul says, “dead” in sin.
Thus, divine grace is necessary to free our faculties (reason, will etc…) so that, while still sinners, we might have the capacity to see the good and the power to do it.
And, special revelation (the scriptures being the primary and normative form) is necessary to reveal the contour and content of the “good” guide our freed or “regenerate” faculties to the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Salvation is thus initiated and carried through to fruition by the grace of God alone which enables, empowers, and leads us to submit to the revelation of God.
This is not Calvinism. This understanding of grace, sola gratia, is biblical to the core and as common to Christian bodies (with some variation) as the doctrine of the Fall.
In the West, it was articulated as essential doctrine subsequent to St. Augustine of Hippo’s controversy with the English heretic Pelagius.
It is telling to compare the teachings of Pelagius and his followers with regard to human nature to those of the new Presiding Bishop and various revisionist leaders.
If Pelagius were persuaded that homosexuality were, in fact, an inborn predisposition he would be forced, logically, either to agree with the 6 point argument articulated above or to revise his doctrine.
Why?
Pelagius denied the doctrine of the Fall. He argued that the created order in general and human nature in particular remained intact in the aftermath of Adam’s sin. Human beings are, according to Pelagius, born good.
Thus, faced with the concept of an inborn predisposition toward homosexuality, Pelagius would be forced to choose between the authority of special revelation and his rejection of the Fall. He would either have to jettison the biblical condemnations of homosexuality as sin or rethink his understanding of human nature to allow for sinful predispositions. He could not have both.
If forced to speculate I would say that Pelagius, heretic that he was, had far too much respect for the Word of God to reject it out of hand. I believe that were he shown that certain human beings are born with genetic pre-dispositions toward behavior the bible condemns as sinful, he would have recanted his position on the Fall.
This simply highlights some of the differences between contemporary revisionist thought and Pelagianism. Not only did Pelagius have great respect for the Bible as God’s Word, he was also a strict moralist who believed human beings would be judged and held accountable for every infraction of the revealed law of God.
And yet despite these differences, Pelagius and many leaders of the Episcopal Church including +KJS share a core optimism with regard to human faculties. Human beings are naturally good and can, on their own, recognize the good.
This is why well known revisionist and member of the so called Episcopal “Majority” Elizabeth Keaton recently celebrated the “Feast of St. Pelagius” with these stirring words:
Pelagius
When maintaining a spiritual discipline of daily prayer, it is important that the prayers remain fresh and from the heart, rather than stale and rote.While I love the Book of Common Prayer, the Daily Offices can get dry and dull after a few years. So, I use a variety of sources, including the Roman Breviary, the Taize Office, and Phyllis Tickle’s “Divine Hours.”
My beloved, who is even more deeply committed to daily prayer than I, has been using “Celtic Daily Prayer: Prayers and Readings from the Northumbria Community.”
She came to me this morning, and said: You have to read this. She is almost always right (but please, please, please don’t tell her I said that).
And so I did. And so she was.
Here, read this:
Celtic Daily Prayer
Pelagius (c. 350 – 418): August 28, 2006(NOTE: This can also be appropriately entitled: “How history repeats itself because people forget their own history and because history is written by the victors.”)
We have chosen to mark Pelagius’ memory on the feast day normally assigned to Augustine of Hippo, who did so much to malign Pelagius and who is the source of many erroneous teachings and emphases that still dog Christian thinking today.
Pelagius was a British theologian, teacher, writer and soul-friend who settled in Rome. He was highly spoken of at first – even by Augustine. He taught about the value of soul-friendship. He celebrated the fact that the goodness of God cries out through all of creation, for ‘narrow shafts of divine light pierce the veil that separates heaven from earth.’
But soon he was criticized for teaching women to read Scripture, and for believing that the image of God is present in every new-born child…
In some ways the Episcopal Church is even more optimistic than Pelagius. For Pelagius the “good” was summed up in what the scriptures command. For the many in the Episcopal Church, including the new Presiding bishop human reason stands above scripture and is capable of determining which aspects of biblical revelation remain relevant.
Here is +KJS from the same CNN interview (linked above) quoted earlier:
“The bible comes to us out of contexts that are quite different from our own and people were asking different questions. The bible has a great deal to teach us about what it means to live as a human being. The bible does not have so much to teach us about what sort of food to eat, what sorts of clothes to wear. There are rules in the bible about those that we do not observe today. The bible tells us about how to treat other human beings and that certainly is the great message of Jesus, to include the unincluded.”
First of all, as has been noted before, Christians do not maintain levitical dietary standards because Jesus Christ and the Apostles in the pages of the New Testament revealed that they are not to be maintained. No such revelation has been given with regard to homosexual behavior. In fact, the levitical condemnations with regard to sexual immorality were confirmed by Christ and the apostles.
Secondly, and more to the point, the Episcopal Church, or at least +KJS, believes herself competent to stand over and above both the New Testament and Old Testament and determine which laws remain in force without appeal to the revealed text itself, an amazing feat for a human being.
The uncritical acceptance of the “goodness” of homosexual desire on the basis of its purported genetic/biological origin despite the consistent and clear biblical condemnation of the same bespeaks a theology of Creation unfettered by sin and rebellion.
In fact, the confidence with which +KJS and, indeed, the Episcopal Church, stand over the biblical text suggests a faith in human faculties far beyond even that which Pelagius asserted.
The Pelagian heresy was dangerous because it was a lie. It pointed sinners away from the redemptive grace of God toward a false confidence in unaided human effort.
The neo-Pelagian confidence evidenced above is dangerous for the same reason. It is a lie. We are fallen people. We place no confidence in the flesh. All of our desires (inborn or not) must be tested in light of the Word of God. Those that fall short must be confessed and, by grace, overcome. To hide, reject or deny this truth is to point sinners away from the redemptive grace of God.
20 Comments •
Rejection of the fall and a belief in the innate goodness of man are certainly deeply ingrained in revisionist theology.
If there was no fall, then we don’t need a savior. No savior, no Christ. Furthermore, there appears to be the belief that man is striving forward (evolving perhaps) through our own efforts to improve humanity, both individually and as a culture through time, which has grown into enlightenment and will eventually attain the status of divine through ever increasing enlightenment. This sort of trusting in man’s attempts to evolve into a divine seems a bit more like Buddhism to me. No wonder Schori believes there are others vehicles to the divine!