Editor’s Note:
So many have so much to say about the overture to General Assembly regarding human sexuality. These letters are the last word, for now, on the subject. We will await the outcome in Vancouver, report the facts and share a taste of the debate, but we will hold readers’ letters for a few months.
I am deeply saddened by the decision to attempt to change the doctrine of the Presbyterian Church in Canada concerning human sexuality. Such a change would not only be misguided theologically but would undoubtedly lead to a loss of ministers, people and resources—witness the experience of the Anglican, United and Evangelical Lutheran churches in this country.
Recent conversations in my community indicate that my already struggling congregation would suffer serious damage if Presbyterians move in this direction. We would undoubtedly lose actual and potential members, and would probably not be able to recover from the fall-out. In fact, my future as a minister in this denomination would be in question since my entire ministry is based on Scripture being ‘the canon of all doctrine,’ and therefore when it is no longer viewed in those terms my preaching is undermined.
In 1994 the church adopted a report on this subject that was based on extensive biblical study and framed in gracious pastoral terms. In the current debate, I have not seen any serious attempts to refute the arguments presented in that wise and careful report, nor even any real efforts to defend the revisionist views we heard so much of a generation ago. The 1994 report has not been answered; it has simply been ignored.
The suggestion that these issues are among the adiaphora—the things that are of little importance—and that as long as we believe in Christ we can somehow agree to disagree on moral questions such as homosexuality strikes me as naïve. It is also difficult to see how some sort of compromise position could be effected between diametrically opposed views.
My fear is that we will spend an enormous amount of time and energy in futile debate on this matter, instead of concentrating on our main task of making disciples for Jesus Christ. And where will all this lead? Possibly to some kind of major realignment, but more likely to fragmentation as ministers and people disperse in a multiplicity of directions.
Will the Presbyterian Church pursue this suicidal course that some of our leaders are bent on, or will a profound repentance bring us back to the teachings of Christ and his apostles, generating authentic renewal? The next General Assembly has a weighty responsibility.
John P. Vaudry, Pembroke, Ont.
The Record has spent a lot of time explaining the fine art of conversation to us. This is what I have gleaned so far. First, shame your opponent; impugn their character by referring to them as “slow learners,” or “self-fulfilled.” If that doesn’t work, attack your opponent by referring to them bad actors or even, terrorists.” Then, accuse them of using different Bibles. (How do we choose with so many versions and pseudo-versions out there?) These questions certainly cause one to yearn for the Book of Forms, where one is constrained to stick to the topic of the motion, instead of emotion. Our Moderator did call for a fair fight.
The Record could have been utilized to teach us about some of the intricacies of such a complex issue. How do we bring our concerns to the delegates who will represent us in the General Assembly? It could have introduced us to some of the LGBTQ folk and their lives. (God knows each one of us by our names, not by what group we belong to). Instead we get, second hand, through a letter from one of our presbyters, that their local motion was passed, and not without controversy. How do we talk to our neighbours in our faith community and especially our members and elders about this complex issue?
Perhaps we would have the following conversation. The preceding appears to be the editorial position of the magazine as stated in the last three or four issues. It believes that the LGBTQ folk have some attritional advantage in their favour, regardless of what the Bible has to say. Instead of assisting the laity, the Record treats us to a contradictory distraction. What is so important that needs to be hidden from sight? Is it not right, then, to question the editorial position of the magazine, or perhaps even question the ability of the editorial staff to handle important church issues?
2 Chronicles 18, gives an account of the king Ahab, who seeks the Lord in the matter of going into battle. In his consultation, he gets the approval of 400 of his yes men, who tell him he will do great things for God in battle. Jehoshaphat reminds Ahab to consult the other prophet, the one of whom it is said has the Holy Spirit with him. Micaiah (a pre-cedent of Daniel who refused to bow down to the world power of his time) tells Ahab he will die. Ahab recounts how Micaiah never has anything good to say. Ahab, in the end, dies, as prophesied. There are things to be said and there are hard things that need to be addressed, long before the GA is ‘prepared’ to vote on the motion that will come before them.
Is the Record prepared, or will it continue to obfuscate and distract? It is certainly good, basic manners to engage in conversation and have a listening ear, but it is also right to exercise the spiritual gifts of discernment and wisdom behind those ears. Instead of listening to each other, we should be listening to what the Holy Spirit has to say and not what the spirit of the times tells us. I think The Record can do better, don’t you?
Clarence Snieder, Brampton, Ont.
Coming as I do, from the other side of this critical issue, I do agree with my brother in Christ (Kevin Livingston, March issue) in valuing highly the unity of the church. As the church of Christ has made its way in the world over two millennia there have been two major moments and many minor moments when faithful members have seen fit to part ways in their communion. Today, however, we find ourselves in a time when Christian churches are fighting for their very survival, because of persecution in places like the Middle East, or disparagement and apathy in the West, such that a struggle for unity calls for as much excellence in effort as seeking clarity in our doctrine.
Nick Athanasiadis, Toronto
With the Bible as our primary rule for faith and life, it will be a difficult path for those who believe in the full humanity of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender persons. That trajectory runs against pertinent scripture.
In a previous age, it was also a difficult journey for those who believed in the full humanity of black persons. That project was also against chief scripture.
Hard it is for those of us in the reformed tradition to see that, like the Sabbath and the papacy—the Bible was created for humans, not the other way around.
Eldon Hay, Sackville, N.B.
The following is an article published in A New Network (a newsletter within the Presbyterian Church in Canada) in 1998. It was sent by the author in March this year as a response to Kevin Livingston’s article that month.
Our ecclesiastical dilemma about the ordination of homosexuals involves such rancour and divisiveness that we are liable to think the present sexuality crisis is without biblical precedent. It is instructive and helpful, however, to note that centuries ago the religious establishment had to deal with an equally polarizing sexuality problem.
The question was whether or not to permit eunuchs to participate in Temple worship, or even to enter the holy place. The biblical decree was unequivocal: “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord.” (Deuteronomy 23:1) Just in case one might seek for exceptions or ambiguities, Leviticus 21:17-20 declares, “No one of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the food of his God. For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, one who is blind or lame… or a hunchback, or a dwarf, or a man with… crushed testicles.”
When the Old Testament dealt with matters of sexuality, whether eunuchs or gays, the Word of the Lord was clear and, it was assumed, unalterable. Whenever pleas for leniency of compassion arose, the answer was, “The Word of the Lord says ‘No’.” And quite understandably too, for with all the wars and plagues that continually decimated Israel, sexuality had to mean one thing: procreation. Even if a husband died before his wife became pregnant, it was the duty of his brother to marry and inseminate his widowed sister-in-law (Deuteronomy 25:5-10). That, too, is the Word of the Lord, although no Christian Church, no matter how literal in interpreting scripture, observes this ordinance today! Since sexuality had one objective, procreation, eunuchs as well as all non-reproductive marital relationships were anathema. Until …
Until the Word of the Lord came to Isaiah: “… do not let the eunuchs say, ‘I am just a dry tree.’ For thus says the Lord: To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give, in my hours and within my walls, a monument and a name better than sons and daughter; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off” (Isaiah 56:3-5). This passage is addressed to the Hebrews who were exiles in Babylon. Isaiah was encouraging them not to lose hope, for they would soon return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple. Things would be different: “Behold, I do a new thing!” says the Lord. One of the “new things” was to alter what had been consider the unalterable regulation concerning eunuchs’ participation in Temple worship.
Then, Isaiah goes on to link both eunuchs and foreigners, both classes being among “the outcasts of Israel.” Under the guidance of God’s Spirit the prophet writes, “the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath, and do not profane it, and hold fast my covenant – these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all people. Thus says the Lord God, who gathers the outcasts of Israel. I will gather others to them besides those already fathered.” (vv. 6-8).
Present day homosexuals who hear those words through the ears of the eunuchs, foreigners and other outcasts, must find this a hope-filled and inspiring text.
The question is now: in our current dilemma, what new Isaiah will step forward and address the question of God’s “unalterable” Old Testament prohibitions concerning non-procreative relationships with the same degree of grace, openness and risk?
What complicates matters is that the days of the lone prophet reinterpreting God’s Word authoritatively are long gone. Matters of doctrinal reformulation require a whole branch of the Church to be a new Isaiah. That is, if we still consider possible that “such doctrine as the church, in obedience to Scripture, and under the promised guidance of The Holy Spirit, may yet confess in her continuing function of reformulating the faith.” If Isaiah could do it, why can’t we?
Those who oppose reinterpreting the Word of the Lord – especially as it concerns sexual relationships – need to be reminded that a priest may not marry a divorcee (Lev. 21:7, 13), that if his daughter becomes a prostitute, she is to be burnt to death (vs. 9). If we are going to be selective about the moral code of Leviticus let us uniformly err on the side of grace – as we also manage to do in our reinterpretation of Christ’s prohibition on the remarriage of divorced persons (Matt. 5:32).
Come quickly, Isaiah, in this hour of our sexuality dilemma and give us a new and liberating Word from the Lord.
2015 Post Script
Homosexuality is usually tainted by being confused with promiscuity, (partly due to behaviour during Gay Pride parades). And yet society has become accustomed to the promiscuity of heterosexuals, judging by the frequency of plays and films dealing with affairs, adultery, infidelity and divorce. The expected promiscuity concerning both heterosexuality and homosexuality prevents us from realizing that true love can be monogamous and faithful with no promiscuity in both types of relationships. HTLG couples can also be inspired by John’s teaching: “Everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.”
Willard Pottinger, Hamilton, Ont.
Overtures from at least three presbyteries that seek full inclusivity of same-sex relationships and LGBT persons in the church are anticipated at this year’s General Assembly. As it was in the past, conversations that shape the church will be informed by—and I list here a few—societal values, the laws of the land, science, and the Bible. Out of the many talking points, many will uphold the Bible as the supreme authority that settles this discussion.
On its own, however, the Bible presents some challenges. Take, for example, the divisive issue of slavery in the United States in the mid-19th century. God-abiding slave masters pointed to biblical passages such as Leviticus 25:44-46 or Ephesians 6:5 as proof that slavery was divinely sanctioned. However, reading the same Bible, abolitionists—who were also God-abiding— pointed to Exodus 21:16 or 1 Timothy 1:8-10 as evidence that slavery is unjustified.
In spite of the biblical support for slavery, I can only imagine that most (if not all) Christians today would oppose the use of the Bible to justify slavery in any shape or form. But here emerges the dilemma: are not all of the words in the Bible divinely inspired? Are not the proslavery passages contained in Ephesians as divinely inspired as the anti-slavery passages in 1 Timothy? When contradictory statements in the Bible on a single issue exist, how does a single verse or a selection of passages rise above the others?
Compared to slavery, there is little, if anything, in the Bible that speaks to LGBT relationships.
Whatever is found demands some reflection. For example, Leviticus 18:22 addresses Israelite males: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” I quote here the
New Revised Standard Version but I also note that another English translation, the New
Living Translation, has, “Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin,” which takes a few translational liberties. The last time I checked, Biblical Hebrew lacks an equivalent word for “homosexuality”.
Reading the NRSV, nothing is said about lesbian relationships, so a literal reading should release some same-sex relationships from any judgment. But reading the NLT, all same-sex relationships are prohibited. When compared to each other word-by-word, both translations contain competing details and ideas. So which translation should we follow? In theory, it is more desirable to quote any biblical verse in its original language (Classical Hebrew and Aramaic in the Old Testament and Koine Greek in the New Testament) than, say, King James or contemporary (Canadian) English. Most of us, however, lack access to the Bible in its original languages. Instead, many of us depend on translations in our native tongue. But as we can see by citing only two out of the many English translations of Leviticus 18:22, formulating any stand on nothing else but selections from the Bible results in a position that is often lost in translation.
There is also the matter of context. Turning to another selection from the Bible, the story of
Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 is often upheld as a biblical indictment against same-sex relations. This interpretation overlooks a past context that gave shape to this narrative. The narrative of the men of Sodom desiring sexual relations with divine messengers criticizes a then-contemporary practice: seeking sex in a cult temple with a prostitute who personifies a god or goddess for the purpose of receiving divine blessings or superhuman, “god-like” powers. Today, this critique is under appreciated as, at least in Canada, sex cults are far less of a thing than they were in the ancient world. Whereas this narrative has quite a bit to say against any carnal desire for humans to “know” divine beings, it does not directly address human same-sex relations.
So what can the church do when the Bible lacks clear and unequivocal guidance on the LGBT overtures and, in the future, on matters of great importance? Given what I have said so far, I realize the irony of turning to the Bible again but nevertheless I offer here an illustration. In Numbers 15:32-36 the Israelites apprehend a man gathering wood on the Sabbath somewhere in the wilderness. The wood gatherer is placed in custody “because it was not clear what should be done to him” (verse 34). Why the hesitancy? The laws that the Israelites already received at Sinai prohibit kindling a fire on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2-3). The point of collecting sticks on the Sabbath is to make a fire on that day, and the wood gatherer’s intent can be easily construed. However, the Israelites lack a law that explicitly forbids gathering wood on the Sabbath. In the absence of a clear law that addresses that specific situation, the Israelites place the wood gatherer in custody until God’s decision is made known. It is only until the Israelites receive God’s decision when they know what to do next. The resolution of this episode—especially its exact details—is problematic to our modern sensibilities (which we must save for another time), but the point is evident. The Israelites realized that despite the numerous laws they received at Sinai they lacked clear guidance on how to act upon an unaddressed situation.
Rather than rush to a hasty verdict, the Israelites prudently consulted God and waited. The episode of the suspected wood gatherer reflects a reality recognized throughout the ages: the Bible sometimes lacks clear and specific instructions for us on how to respond to some of the most pressing issues of the present day. Even when a verse from the Bible is used to support a view, another verse can be used in opposition. Ultimately, settling a debate by pulling out verse after verse from the Bible winds up being a exercise without an end.
Despite protestations to the contrary, discussion on the forthcoming LGBT overtures cannot be resolved by only quoting the Bible. If, however, the Bible is clear on any issue that the church deliberates upon this present day, then it is not on the specifics but simply this: seek guidance from God. In a manner similar to the Israelites in the wilderness, the LGBT overtures at this upcoming General Assembly invite us on our journey to pause, reflect, and seek God in conversation and prayer.
Philip Yoo, via email
