Hoffstadt Creek Bridge, Mount Saint Helens (photo from trekearth.com)
An article in the local Maple Ridge Times explains that a Maple Ridge Anglican church has voted to allow same-sex marriages, and will do so when given permission by the diocese. This church had kindly assisted me with my questionnaire a few months ago and so I do not write this article with hard feelings against anyone! I genuinely appreciated their help in providing a liberal theological voice to my questionnaire. I have nothing personally against any liberal churches or homosexuals. The Times explains that at least 15 churches have voted to separate from the Anglican Church of Canada over this issue.
In the article the Reverend explains that they are an inclusive church and they stand for the liberal voice. I am a moderate conservative, and do not consider myself a fundamentalist, but I thought that a truly Christian church should stand for the voice of God through Scripture. The Scripture is to be followed as God’s Revelation for the world and the church, regardless if it means taking a conservative or liberal stand on an issue.
The Reverend points out that some people state homosexuality is a choice, but he disagrees. I can half grant his point as I think evangelicals at times are in error when they separate sinful choices from a corrupted human nature. It is not simply a choice. The Reverend states that homosexuality is part of the natural order of creation. I reason that this is a half-truth. Yes, in a fallen world, some persons by nature and choice are homosexual. I am not a scientist and I am not going to argue for or against the idea that some persons are born homosexual, but, even if it can be shown scientifically in conclusive manner that homosexuals are different than heterosexuals this would not make homosexuality natural within a Biblical context, in a fallen, corrupted creation. As human beings are corrupt in sin (Jeremiah 17:9, Romans 3:23, 6:23) it should not be a surprise that what seems perfectly natural for some is considered unnatural and corruption by God. Those who live in homosexual practice stand outside of God's Kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Revelation 21:8). The entirety of humanity is corrupted, including physical nature and so a hypothetical homosexual nature in some persons would still mean that homosexual acts would be sinful.
The Reverend states that we need to get away from flat earth theology and become more enlightened.
Biblically enlightened?
As I noted in my previous article on this subject, Romans 1:26-27 discusses the issue of homosexuality. James D.G. Dunn states that Paul's attitude to homosexual practice is unambiguous. Dunn (1988: 74). For Paul this practice is a passion not worthy of respect and is unnatural. Dunn (1988: 74). Cranfield notes from the Biblical text an abandonment of natural intercourse with the opposite sex, for same sex intercourse. Cranfield writes that Paul is explaining that homosexual acts are contrary to nature and the creator's intention. Cranfield (1992: 35). It is perversion that is condemned. Cranfield (1992: 36). Mounce states that Paul views homosexual practice as shameful, unnatural, indecent, and a perversion. Mounce (1995: 82). Mounce traces it back to the Old Testament condemnation in Leviticus 18:22. Mounce (1995: 82-33). Mounce further writes that in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul notes that homosexual offenders will not be allowed to enter the Kingdom of God. Mounce (1995: 82-83). These offenders are 'soft ones' who allow themselves to be used as women. Mounce (1995: 83). Mounce makes the very reasonable deduction that there is no room for the allowance in the Christian Church of homosexual practice since it is clearly condemned in both Testaments. Mounce (1995: 82-83).
Biologically enlightened?
Basic biology tells me that marriage by definition is in part sexual and can, under normal circumstances, lead to sexual reproduction. I am not stating that a heterosexual couple that marries and cannot have children is not a valid marriage, nor is a marriage invalid where no children are produced by choice. Old persons that get married cannot have children, however, the physical sexual act of intercourse would be the same for all heterosexual couples and would be natural regardless of whether or not pro-creation could take place. The natural ability to sexually reproduce is impossible normally with homosexual couples, thus there is a clear distinction and I think that this should be legally recognized.
The Christian Church with the use of Scripture and biology should definitely be able to see that there is a clear distinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriages, but many extreme liberals within the Church have lost trust in the word of God. I for one if I was an Anglican would refuse to submit to leadership that does not take a contextual evaluation and application of Scripture very seriously, placing it in front of sentiment and social and political ideology.
The Reverend notes that some Christian churches opposed the abolition of slavery in the past and compared it to the issue of churches opposing same-sex marriage. I think this is faulty reasoning as the Bible does not condemn any ethic group or race as being less than human or unnatural, but homosexuality is considered unnatural and sinful. Slavery did exist in Biblical times, but an aspect of New Testament teaching is equality of persons in love and that a person should no longer be a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother as Paul tells Onesimus concerning Philemon in Philemon 1:16.
In closing, I present a link and article and some key points from the article. I provide this as a contrast to the views of the Reverend regarding civil rights for blacks and homosexual rights. I can write concerning this article if needed in comments.
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=18338
Texas: 'Gay rights,' civil rights not the same, black leaders say
He (Dwight McKissic, pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church and president of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention’s Pastors’ Conference) pointed out three major differences between the two movements.
First, civil rights are rooted in moral authority, while homosexual rights are rooted in the lack of moral restraint, McKissic said. Trying to undo the damage of years of a race of people in slavery was the right thing to do, he said, whereas trying to change laws solely because of the decisions of a group of people is not the right thing.
Second, civil rights are rooted in constitutional authority, while homosexual rights are rooted in civil anarchy, McKissic said. According to the Constitution, all men have God-given rights. It was because of these rights Martin Luther King Jr. and others fought for freedom. He cited a speech King gave in Washington D.C. “He says, ‘America has written black folk a check and the check came back marked with insufficient funds,’ because the Constitution guaranteed us rights to vote, rights to buy property. It guaranteed us certain unalienable rights.”“But,” McKissic said, “the gay community [is] trying to write a check on an account that hasn’t been opened yet.”
Third, the sufferings of the homosexual do not compare to the suffering of the black man in America. McKissic said when the homosexual community suffers through 200 years of slavery, is declared only three-fifths human and is denied the right to vote or buy property, then the two movements can be compared.
CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
DUNN, JAMES D.G. (1988) Romans, Dallas, Word Books
MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.
