The Handwriting on the Wall

By Stephen Noll
http://www.stephenswitness.com/2007/07/handwriting-on-wall.html
Friday, July 27, 2007

Why the Sexuality Conflict in the Episcopal Church Is God's Word to the
Anglican Communion[1]

UPDATE: In September 1997, just ten years ago and one year following the
Righter Trial verdict, Anglican bishops from the Episcopal Church and
from the Global South gathered in Dallas at the "Anglican Life and
Witness Conference," sponsored by the fledgling Ekklesia Society under
the Rev. Dr. Bill Atwood, and the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies. The
relationships formed at this gathering were the beginning of what has
become a strong alliance of orthodox Anglicans around the world.

In his recent comments, the Archbishop of York (23 July 07) has stated
that sexuality does not involve "core doctrines" of the faith and hence
should not be a church-dividing issue. This language of "core doctrine"
is reminiscent of the Righter verdict. The address I presented to the
bishops at this conference was aimed to show why the Episcopal Church's
position on sexuality was and is indeed a heresy and a threat to the
faith once for all delivered to the saints. SN

My dear Archbishops and Bishops and other colleagues:

I am conscious of, and deeply grateful for, the privilege of speaking to
you today, because I believe this week may prove a crisis point that
will affect the future of the Anglican Communion as a unified worldwide
movement. God is, I believe, issuing a challenge to the leaders of
Anglicanism that they must respond to or risk his judgment as the Lord
of history and the Church (Revelation 2:18-29).

I realize this opening statement may seem very Eurocentric and
"parochial," as though the health of the small American Church were the
sine qua non of the health of the worldwide Church. The fact is,
problems in the Episcopal Church tend to become symptomatic. As one
African bishop put it: when America sneezes, the whole world catches a
cold. In the case of the sexuality virus, it has already spread to most
Western churches of the Communion, and Southern hemisphere churches will
be exposed more and more because of the financial, educational, and
media influence of the West.

The Decade of Sexuality in the Episcopal Church

We Anglicans like to think in decades, it seems, as symbolized by the
intervals between Lambeth Conferences which have met every ten years
since 1888. It shall be my argument that this past decade in the
Episcopal Church USA has posed so great a challenge to the Communion
that it is genuinely possible that by the year 2008 the Anglican
Communion will be a name without substance. Absurd? Reflect on what it
once meant to be a member of the British Commonwealth before Britain
pledged its troth to the European Community and how little it means now
when one is subjected to visa checks just passing through a London
airport!

In 1988, the issue of homosexuality seemed but a little cloud on the
horizon of Anglicanism. Prior to the 20th century, the Anglican judgment
against sexual license of any sort had been so unequivocal that when in
1920 the Lambeth Conference addressed the new world of Sigmund Freud, it
did so with seeming assurance:

Recognizing that to live a pure and chaste life before and after
marriage is, for both sexes, the unchangeable Christian standard,
attainable and attained through the help of the Holy Spirit by men and
women of every age, the Conference desires to proclaim the universal
obligation of this standard, and its vital importance as an essential
condition of human happiness. (Resolution 66)

As recently as 1987, this "unchangeable standard" was reaffirmed with
only slight nuancing by the bishops of the Church of England, who
stated:

1. that sexual intercourse is an act of total commitment which belongs
properly within a permanent marriage relation ship;
2. that fornication and adultery are sins against this ideal, and are to
be met by a call to repentance and the exercise of compassion;
3. that homosexual acts also fall short of this ideal, and are likewise
to be met by a call to repentance and the exercise of compassion;
4. that all Christians are called to be exemplary in all spheres of
morality, including sexual morality, and that holiness of life is
especially required for Christian leaders.

At its 1988 Convention, the Episcopal Church USA joined in this
consensus by reaffirming once again "the Biblical and traditional
teaching on chastity and fidelity." Twenty-nine bishops, however,
dissented from this Resolution, and the next year Bishop John Spong of
Newark ordained Robert Williams, an avowed, non-celibate, homosexual man
to the priesthood.[2]

The decade since has been a time of unraveling in the Episcopal
Church.[3] When the Episcopal House of Bishops disassociated itself from
Bishop Spong's act in 1990, he encouraged his assistant bishop Walter
Righter to ordain Barry Stopfel, another practicing homosexual, within
two weeks of the bishops' meeting.[4] It was this act that became the
focal point of the so-called Righter Trial in 1996. Responding to what
we in America call the "in your face" acts of Bishops Spong and Righter,
Bishop William Frey proposed a canon at the 1991 General Convention
stating that "all clergy of this Church shall abstain from genital
relationships outside of holy matrimony." A majority of bishops voted
against this attempt to uphold the Church's teaching through a binding
canon, signaling the unwillingness of Church leaders to stop the sexual
radicals' overt tactic of occupying territory and then calling for
negotiations.

This political stalemate has resulted in a paradox that many outside the
Church find confusing. The Episcopal Church has simultaneously paid lip
service to classic Christian sexual moral norms while allowing rampant
violation of those very norms. In 1996, ten bishops attempted to rein in
this hypocrisy by presenting Bishop Righter for trial under the
disciplinary canon for "holding and teaching publicly or privately, and
advisedly any doctrine contrary to that held by this Church." They lost
the case and were stigmatized as "ten men with an agenda," who were
fomenting division in the Church.

The Righter verdict permitted homosexual activists to advance their
agenda to a new level: the advocacy of same-sex marriage.[5] The victory
of the early 1990's had been the condoning of gay ordination, but it
followed logically that if Barry Stopfel and others were now "wholesome
examples" for the flock of Christ, as the ordination rite declared them
to be, the Church should provide some formal recognition of their
partnerships. Thus although the 1994 General Convention forbade the
publication of any same-sex marriage rites, radical priests and bishops
have been performing informal ceremonies with increasing boldness.
Bishop Douglas Theuner of New Hampshire, for instance, wrote the clergy
of his diocese that he would support their officiating at such acts and
had done so himself. The homosexual lobby claims that similar rites are
being used in a substantial number of dioceses of the Episcopal Church.

This brings us to the General Convention of 1997, which many people saw
as decisive for gauging the future direction of the Episcopal Church.
The news from the General Convention is ominous but not yet disastrous.
On the positive side, with careful planning and much hard work,
supporters of the American Anglican Council prevented the Convention
from passing any formal and explicit endorsement of the homosexual
agenda.[6] It is therefore technically correct to say that the Episcopal
Church still affirms the biblical and traditional norms of sexuality and
marriage.

But this affirmation on paper does not extend to practice, where "local
option" is the accepted order of the day.[7] Openly practicing
homosexual laypersons and clergy spoke without reproach at the
Convention. A number of bishops made clear that they now permit blessing
of same-sex unions in their diocese. As the House of Bishops proposed
further study of whether such rites were possible, Bishop Joe Morris
Doss of New Jersey was asked whether this further discussion meant that
there would be a moratorium on ordaining homosexuals and performing
same-sex "b lessings." "No, it does not," was his blunt answer. As I
shall argue later, this refusal to wait follows necessarily from the
revisionists' claim that homosexuality is a "justice" issue.

The "Kuala Lumpur Statement on Human Sexuality" was brought to the floor
of the House of Bishops for endorsement. By a 2 to 1 vote, the bishops
declined to affirm it, "deep-sixing" it by sending it to a committee for
further study. The votes at General Convention reveal that the Episcopal
bishops are divided 50/50 between those who support the gay agenda and
those who do not. It is equally clear that those who support it
absolutely refuse to conform to traditional standards and their fellow
bishops do not have the power or the will to stop them.

The two main decisions of the July Convention with regard to sexuality
were the revision of the canons to remove from power all who oppose the
ordination of women and the election of a new Presiding Bishop. The
canon revision was significant in that it makes clear that the basis for
the new sexual ethic is not diversity, or tolerance during a process of
dialogue, but justice, as defined by contemporary North American
liberationism.[8]

Let me explain the moral logic of their position. Revisionists read the
Bible and the baptismal vow "to strive for justice and peace among all
people" (American Book of Common Prayer, page 305) in such a way as to
make acceptance of their position morally binding on all. I need to
emphasize that they already employ this same logic against those who
maintain the exclusive biblical standard of "two sexes, one flesh."[9] I
can confidently predict that if the present trend continues, opponents
of homosexual practice will find themselves in the same situation
tomorrow as opponents of women's ordination today. The exclusion of
traditionalists follows necessarily from the liberationist conviction
that homosexuality is a non-negotiable human rights issue and that
opponents of sexual liberation, whether they know it or not, are bigots
(i.e., "homophobes" and "heterosexists").

The election of Frank Griswold as the new Presiding Bishop was a major
source of discouragement to many Episcopalians. During the past 12
years, traditional Episcopalians have come to expect that the national
Episcopal Church will always support and even promote the program of the
homosexual lobby. For instance, the General Convention committee
appointed by national church leaders to consider authorizing same-sex
"blessing" liturgies voted in favor of such rites 37 to 7 (deputies) and
7 to 0 (bishops); but when the House of Deputies received this committee
recommendation, it voted against such authorization. Now that is what I
call stacking the deck.

In 1984, when the current Presiding Bishop was elected, his support of
the gay-rights agenda was not perceived as a crucial issue.[10] That was
not the case this time. Everyone knew in 1997 where the two principal
candidates stood on this issue. Bishop Griswold has consistently voted
with the sexual revisionists in Church councils and has admitted to
ordaining avowed non-celibate homosexuals.[11] In 1994, he signed Bishop
Spong's "Koinonia Statement," along with 80 other bishops, declaring
that he would ordain homosexual persons living in committed
partnerships.

You must therefore understand that when biblically-minded Episcopalians
talk about withholding money from the national headquarters, it is based
on the assumption that the national leadership will continue to promote
practices fundamentally contrary to the Gospel. We are open to creative
proposals from the new Presiding Bishop, but in the absence of such
proposals, we will assume that it is "business as usual" in New York.

Three Reasons Why the Current Sexual Agenda of the Episcopal Church is a
Church Dividing Issue

In a recent lecture entitled "A Challenge to Episcopalians," John Stott
gave sage advice as to how we should live in the present crisis. He
called evangelicals to "stay in while refusing to give in."[12] Bishop
FitzSimons Allison has put this advice aphoristically as Stay. Don't
Obey. Don't Pay. Pray. John Stott went on to say that "we must choose
the really vital issues on which to protest and fight."

There are three compelling reasons why the sexuality issue in our Church
is decidedly one of those issues over which we must fight.

Rejecting Biblical Authority The first reason we must fight for
traditional sexual norms is that they are clearly taught in Scripture,
and the Church that turns away from God's Word in the Bible undermines
the basis of its own authority.

The Lambeth Quadrilateral speaks of the Holy Scripture "as being the
rule and ultimate standard of faith." In affirming this, the
Quadrilateral expresses the classic Anglican commitment to the primary
authority of Scripture in matters of faith and morals (see the
Thirty-Nine Articles, especially articles VI and XX). Everything the
Church teaches and practices must conform to the revealed Word of God in
the Bible. To be sure, some matters are clearer than others in
Scripture, and the question of how to harmonize one passage with another
can be very complex.

In the case of sexuality, however, the Bible in both Old and New
Testaments holds up lifelong, monogamous union of a man and a woman as
God's exclusive norm; it offers no positive examples of non-marital sex;
and it specifically condemns fornication and homosexuality as sin. The
Kuala Lumpur Statement on Human Sexuality is thus correct in saying:

5. The whole body of the Scripture bears witness to God's will regarding
human sexuality which is to be expressed only within the lifelong union
of a man and a woman in (holy) matrimony.

6. The Holy Scriptures are clear in teaching that all sexual promiscuity
is sin. We are convinced that this includes homosexual practices,
between men or women, between men and women outside marriage as well as
heterosexual relationships.

7. We believe that the clear and unambiguous teaching of the Holy
Scriptures about human sexuality is of great help to Christians as it
provides clear boundaries.

The approval of homosexual practice and same-sex marriage poses one of
the clearest challenges to the authority of Scripture in the life of the
Church. Only the most strained reasoning can lead one to conclude that
the biblical authors would permit, much less endorse, these
practices.[13] If the bishops and other leaders of the Church cannot say
No to this clear contradiction of biblical norms, it is hard to believe
they will ever be able to use the Bible credibly in moral
decision-making.[14]

I have been involved for five years in the debate over the use of
Scripture in the Episcopal Church.[15] During these years, I have
encountered appalling apathy, even antipathy, to the idea that one must
search the Scriptures and, when all is said and done, obey the Word of
God written.[16] In the Righter trial, the judges, with one exception,
simply passed over the body of evidence collected by the presenter
bishops that Bishop Righter had knowingly disobeyed his ordination vows
to obey the Bible.[17]

In a debate several years ago, I asked a well-known lesbian advocate:
"Suppose, for the sake of argument, that it could be shown beyond a
shadow of a doubt that the Bible does specifically forbid contemporary
homosexual practices. Would it make any difference to you?" "Well, yes,"
she replied, "but I would not give up my relationship with my partner
because of it." It is crucial to understand this fact: revisionists
enter into "dialogue" with a prior commitment to do what they are going
to do regardless of what Scripture says.

Dishonoring Christian Marriage The second reason why the homosexual
agenda is a matter that we must stand against is that it leads to a
redefinition of marriage that is in fact a denial of our Lord's own high
doctrine. In his teaching on divorce and his presence at the wedding of
Cana, Jesus marked faithful, lifelong monogamous marriage as a sign of
his new covenant relationship to the Church. The "mystery of Christ and
the Church" to which St. Paul alludes (Ephesians 5:32) is in fact
founded on Jesus' own understanding of his role of bridegroom and savior
of his people. Alternatively, Jesus set celibacy, being a "eunuch for
the kingdom of God," as a sign of exclusive love for him. Like Jesus,
Paul also calls some Christians to remain unmarried for the sake of the
Gospel (1 Corinthians 7:32-35).[18]

In their recent "St. Andrew's Day" statement, several of England's
leading theologians affirm this understanding of the apostolic faith,
stating that the Church

assists all its members to a life of faithful witness in chastity and
holiness, recognising two forms or vocations in which that life can be
lived: marriage and singleness (Gen. 2.24; Matt. 19. 4-6; 1 Cor. 7
passim). There is no place for the church to confer legitimacy upon
alternatives to these.[19]

Thus Church leaders have no authority to devise a third sexual
configuration for same-sex couples.[20] The impossibility of this
novelty is suggested by the moral innovators' unclarity about whether to
model homosexual relations on marriage or over against marriage. Some
gay-rights advocates take a "both/and" approach, affirming the sanctity
of marriage and the blessing of alternative sexual unions. Others call
for a "new paradigm" for all sexual relationships, homosexual and
heterosexual.[21]

The truth is, any new paradigm is utterly at odds with the holy estate
of matrimony. Fundamental moral principles and institutions simply do
not allow for compromise or third options. The Prayer Book wedding
service alludes to a Scripture passage that says: "Let marriage be held
in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for God will
judge the immoral [literally 'fornicators'] and adulterous" (Hebrews
13:4). The moral logic of this passage is clear: marriage is honored
when it is set apart from other illegitimate forms of sexual activity.
Therefore talk of blessing the cohabitation of same-sex or opposite-sex
partners dishonors marriage.[22]

Advocates of a new paradigm for marriage have decried sexual
exploitation and abuse but have been vague as to what kinds of
relationships are acceptable. I have asked them several pointed
questions to clarify their position:

Will they uphold homosexual unions as lifelong? =B7 Will they uphold
premarital chastity as a rule for all Christians? =B7 Will they condemn
sexual relations other than those sanctioned by the Church? =B7 Will they
insist that all persons remain in that state to which they have
committed themselves?[23]

No reply. In other words, the Episcopal Church is presently condoning
and promoting practices that are in continual flux. As in the case of so
many other utopian visions of this waning century, we are being told:
"Trust us. We'll tell you where we're going once we've got there."

When the Church gives up the norm of exclusive, lifelong marriage of a
man and a woman, it undermines the institution in society as well. Many
of us in the West know deep down that the abandonment of marital
fidelity over the past thirty years as a public expectation is greatly
responsible for the confusion and personal pain of so many in our
society. We are aware that "no-fault divorce" laws have not only
mirrored the breakdown of the family but have contributed to it.[24]

We in the Episcopal Church know that the revision of the divorce and
remarriage canons in 1973 has led to rampant divorce among clergy and
demoralization of the congregations under their care. We know this, but
we shrug our shoulders fatalistically, saying: "What can we do? My
mother, my best friend, even my priest and bishop, are on their second
or third marriage."[25]

I believe that the Church must regain the lead in this social crisis
that is so close to the heart of our Lord's own teaching and at the root
of so much personal pain and loss. We must repent of our past neglect by
restoring and revitalizing the doctrine and discipline of marriage.[26]
Reforming our practices in the midst of the permissive culture of the
West will be no easy task. It is made even more difficult when the
national Episcopal Church is intent on undermining the effort. It would
be most helpful if the Anglican Communion would provide a counterpoise
by offering positive teaching from the biblical and traditional
viewpoint.

Embracing a False Spirituality The third reason that the gay-rights
movement in the Episcopal Church presents Anglicanism with a historic
test is that it is not just about sexuality but about spirituality. It
has been just over 30 years since my conversion to Christ and baptism in
the Episcopal Church. During that time, I have been reading continually
and widely in works of theology from all sides. What I can tell you with
full conviction is that the issue presented to us in the sexuality
debate is not just about sex but about the meaning and truth of the
Christian faith altogether.[27]

True, there are some folks who hold otherwise orthodox opinions yet
differ on matters of sexuality, but most people who stand there are in
transition either toward a more traditional or a more revisionist
position.[28] If you get in bed with a new periphery one evening,
chances are you will wake up next morning in the embrace of a new
center. (Or, frightened by the strange bedfellow, you may rush back to
your first love.)

The words "sexuality" and "sexual identity" and the so-called "ethic of
intimacy" that defines personal identity in terms of sexual satisfaction
are part of the revolution in the thinking of late modernity.[29]

This revolution begins with the conviction that the Sea of Faith has
withdrawn, leaving the world and the human soul empty and infinitely
plastic. In the grip of this void, men and women grasp for something
that looks like their former spirituality. Falling in love - "Ah, love,
let us be true to one another" - and falling into bed are the common
substitutes for love of God and love of neighbor.

Sexuality is a surrogate religion. What late modernity takes away with
one hand - the divine covenant and purposes of marriage - it offers back
with the idea of sex as a sacrament.[30] Anthony Giddens, a secularist
and a sociologist, puts it this way:

Sexuality, it could be suggested, gains its compelling quality, together
with its aura of excitement and danger, from the fact that it puts us in
contact with these lost fields of experience. Its ecstasy, or the
promise of it, has echoes of the "ethical passion" which transcendental
symbolism used to inspire - and of course cultivated eroticism, as
distinct from sexuality in the service of reproduction, has long been
associated with religiosity.[31]

It is understandable that those without God will seek to replace him and
his institutions with a surrogate. What is deeply troubling is when the
same ideas are taught by Christian bishops and theologians. The clearest
articulations of the worldview chasm between classic and late-modernist
Christianity can be found in the advocates of North American liberation
theology, people like Bishop John Spong and Professor Carter Heyward who
claim that one's essence is "to explore the character of the erotic as
sacred power" and "to live, to love, to be."[32]

I must tell you frankly, Bishop Spong and Professor Heyward are not
"fringe" figures in the Episcopal Church. This past July at the
"Integrity Mass" sponsored by the gay lobby and attended by the
Presiding Bishop and many other church officials at the General
Convention, the preacher uttered the following profundity:

Our special task, our specific charism, is to help ourselves and the
church reclaim the erotic as a central part of our lives ... We know in
the deepest places of our knowing that the pathways to our spiritual
selves are through our erotic selves. We must chart those paths and make
those maps available to the larger church. We must begin with awkward
strokes to touch the strength of our erotic power.

Whatever this means, it is not Christianity, but it was greeted by many
with equanimity and even congratulation. Twenty years ago, who would
have imagined the Episcopal Church would be voting on homosexual
marriage? Watch out! Unless someone calls paganism by its name, you may
be singing "Eros divine, all loves excelling!" at Lambeth 2008.

Venus is a soft goddess, but she has a demonic alter ego, which emerges
in the "exotic" excesses of modern sexuality. Camille Paglia, in her
flamboyant yet insightful way, argues that the Marquis de Sade is the
true prophet of late modern thinking about sexuality.

Humanity has no special status in the universe. Sade asks: "What is man?
and what difference is there between him and other plants, between him
and all other animals of the world? None obviously." This is a
classically Dionysian view of man's immersion in organic nature. Judeo-
Christianity elevates man above nature, but Sade, like Darwin, assigns
him to the animal kingdom, subject to natural force... Since man has no
privileges in Sade's universe, human acts are "neither good nor bad
intrinsically." From nature's point of view, marital sex is no different
from rape.[33]

It is worth noting that several revisionist Episcopalian theologians
have left open a place in their moral evaluation of sexuality for such
exotic practices as sadomasochism and pornography. [34]

Official proponents of the gay agenda in the Episcopal Church have
rightly denounced pedophilia as exploitative. But they also insist that
sexual identity, and homosexual "orientation" in particular, is inborn.
(Actually, only some of them think this. Others believe sexuality is
"socially constructed" and can be chosen.) In any case, it follows that
the Church should help young people, even children, identify their
particular sexuality, with all options open. Once again, the moral logic
of the innovators is impeccable, but their moral conclusions are
intolerable. The explosion point for many traditional Episcopalians has
come when they have faced the reality that they have to protect their
own children from their own Church![35]

The culture of sexual liberation is a new name for an old religion:
libertinism. Unlike ancient libertinism, the modern version,
"liberationism," is a highly politicized movement.[36] One may marvel at
the adeptness by which the "Integrity" lobby in the Episcopal Church
achieved most of its goals in a mere 20 years. But this is not
accidental. Liberationism is based on the assumption that all of life is
a quest for power and that all articulations of truth clothe a hidden
desire by one group to dominate another. Words are, in their view, as
malleable as sex. Thus they use slippery rhetoric about "same-sex
blessings" and "committed relationships" when they mean "marriage," and
they intimidate traditional Christians by calling them "homophobic" or
"heterosexist." It is for this reason that we who have observed close-up
the operation of this ideology warn you who have not: it is foolish to
play by the normal rules of deliberation and persuasion when your
opponents are playing by a different set of rules.

God has given us several little testimonies in the New Testament about
the dangers we now face: I refer to the letters of Jude and John. These
books make clear that moral behavior is part and parcel of the
Gospel.[37] Jude plainly identifies his opponents, who obviously claimed
a high spirituality, as "godless men, who change the grace of our Lord
Jesus Christ into a license for immorality" (verse 3). This verse
reminds one of Dostoevsky's observation in The Brothers Karamazov that
"if God does not exist, everything is permissible."

Libertinism is thus a sign of practical atheism. Jude's strategy for
dealing with such folk is militant: "contend for the faith once
delivered to the saints" by denouncing false teachers, even as you build
yourselves up in the holy faith. Similarly, John urges the church to
test the spirits, knowing that some spiritualities are in fact the
spirit of antichrist (1 John 4:1). While we must be careful not to
demonize our opponents as persons, the New Testament does encourage us
to see ourselves in the midst of a world of contending spirits, some of
whom have clothed themselves as an angel of light.[38]

"Come Over and Help Us"

If my analysis of the crisis facing the Episcopal Church is anywhere
near accurate, it is crucial for the rest of the Anglican Communion to
take notice and "come over and help us." It has frequently been said in
recent years that Third World Anglicans are in a much stronger place
spiritually than Westerners and that re-evangelization of the original
colonizing nations is called for.[39]

What I am asking for is a special form of this: help us defend the
Gospel of Jesus Christ from an attack by a foreign, essentially pagan
worldview. Many Third World Christians know from their own recent
history the striking difference between worship of nature gods and the
one true God. We in the West have forgotten the nature and power of
paganism, and so we find it harder to believe that it is cropping up in
our midst, especially when it is packaged in terms of liberation of
victimized groups and new light breaking forth from God's word.

In particular, I believe the Lambeth Conference in 1998 offers a
decisive opportunity for the wider body of Anglicans to speak clearly on
the question of Christian sexual norms. The Kuala Lumpur Statement on
Human Sexuality has already been widely circulated and gratefully
received by biblically-minded Episcopalians, even though our House of
Bishops chose to sidestep it. I would hope that the Lambeth Conference
would declare that the Kuala Lumpur statement represents the historic
teaching and the exclusive moral norm of the Church. I highlight the
word exclusive because many revisionist leaders use the word "norm"
statistically. Yes, of course, they say, marriage is the norm for the
heterosexual majority, but there can be another discontinuous norm for
the homosexual minority. That is not what the word norm means morally,
where it serves as both an ideal and a boundary marker of true faith and
order, of following Jesus or turning away from him.

If the Lambeth Conference joins the Third World Anglicans in affirming
the Kuala Lumpur Statement, it will give many of us Episcopalians great
encouragement. It will help us rebuff the frequent accusations that we
are not true Anglicans but fundamentalists and literalists in Anglican
garb and that we are the "troublers of Israel" (1 Kings 19:7-18).[40]
Let me refer you to this encounter between Elijah and King Ahab in the
Old Testament. Who is the true prophet and who the true troubler? God
knows. Lambeth can assist by defining the essentials and the limits of
what is truly Anglican.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has called for a larger dialogue on
sexuality. Frankly, I am of two minds about such a proposal. On the one
hand, I think the biblical and historic norms, as summarized in the
Kuala Lumpur statement, are sufficiently clear and relevant, and the
Communion might best "just say No" to the agenda being brought to it
from the West and get on with the mission of spreading the Gospel. On
the other hand, I have no objection in principle to the leaders of the
Church reviewing Christian doctrine within the classic formularies and
its application to contemporary experience.

But our experience of dialogue in the Episcopal Church should serve as a
warning. When the questions are posed and the committees chosen by
revisionists in the bureaucracy, the dialogue is skewed and artificial
from the beginning.[41] I would urge that any dialogue include a
genuinely fair representation of the entire Anglican Communion at all
levels.

Even more importantly, I would ask that the Lambeth Conference demand
genuine accountability from participants by specifying that no dialogue
should take place until all the participants agree to obey the current
norms.

To call for dialogue while acting as if a conclusion (and a totally
unprecedented one at that!) has already been reached is not real
dialogue. What we traditional Episcopalians have experienced in recent
years is a kind of double-talk about "continuing the dialogue."
Revisionists call for dialogue even as they violate existing rules,
claiming "justice" as their guide. Forgive the analogy, but it is like a
terrorist taking over an airplane and then calling for negotiations. So
the Lambeth bishops must say to the American Church: "Sure, we'll talk,
but first lay down your weapons!" Sadly, I predict, they will not do
that. But that reveals something: they are not really interested in
dialogue, they are interested in victory for their cause. Dialogue is a
ploy to pacify and distract their opponents while they continue
advancing their agenda in the Church.

I am not demeaning these opponents (yes, they are opponents). I am
taking them dead seriously, based on their words and deeds over the past
25 years in the American Chu rch. They are contending for the faith as
they understand it; it just happens to be a different faith from that
delivered to the saints of the New Testament and classic Anglicanism.
Perhaps you think I am too pessimistic. Try it! Challenge them to uphold
current Anglican standards in word and deed. If they do, I will gladly
repent of my pessimism and be part of a true dialogue. That simply has
not been our experience here.

Conclusion

After a certain vote in the General Convention that went the way of the
moral innovators, someone turned to Bishop William Frey and said: "Well,
Bill, I guess the handwriting is on the wall!" "Yes," Bishop Frey
replied, "and it says the same thing it said the first time." The
original handwriting was addressed to a complacent ruling class which
had duped its people with idolatry.[42] It read, Mene, Mene, Tekel
Parsin: "God has numbered your days and brought it to an end" (Daniel
5:26-28). Is it possible that these are God's words to the Episcopal
Church today? John Stott himself acknowledged that the time might come
when a Church so renounced the truth that it would cease to be the
Church. Then the Christian's obligation is to leave. I am sorry to
report that many conscientious Episcopalians have reached the conclusion
that that time has already come and gone.

But I, along with John Stott, believe that that time has not yet come.
Grim as I have made things sound in the Episcopal Church USA, I am
actually hopeful for our future. I am hopeful because we have a God for
whom all things are possible. I am hopeful because the majority of
American Episcopal church people do not support the gay-rights agenda.
They are confused and divided in their loyalties. They respect their
tradition and their Prayer Book. They also respect and defer to their
priests and bishops, many of whom have not been candid with them. I am
hopeful because a sizable remnant of leaders are finding their voice to
speak out in the name of historic Anglicanism. Finally, I am hopeful
because you are here and God has linked us together in this great
fellowship of the Gospel in the Anglican tradition.

I subtitled this talk "Why the Sexuality Conflict in the Episcopal
Church Is God's Word to the Anglican Communion," and I conclude with a
warning that failure to deal with the crisis in the Episcopal Church
will endanger the unity of the Anglican Communion. Representatives from
your provinces, meeting at Kuala Lumpur, have already raised the alarm
in your statement on "Anglican Reconstruction." This is a question that
cannot be delayed. What will become of Anglican unity if the American
church breaks into two bodies out of communion with each other, with one
body officially linked to Canterbury and the other officially committed
to Kuala Lumpur? If Anglican leaders look the other way in 1998, such a
situation is distinctly possible.

I believe that if the worldwide Communion would speak clearly and
forcefully to the American Church, there might be a turning back in our
Church to the faith once delivered to the saints. It would hardly be
painless and without distasteful conflict, and even division. But if you
will send a message to the Church in America, like the Risen Lord's
message to the churches in Revelation, who knows but that what has been
so far a Decade of Sexuality might conclude, as it should have been all
along, as a Decade of Evangelism? Such a message would encourage the
faithful and call those who are lukewarm to rediscover their first love
in Christ and his Word.

The handwriting is on the wall. Please spell it out for us, by the grace
of God that is given you and the help of the Holy Spirit. Thank you.

Notes [1] This essay is a revised version of a paper read at the
"Anglican Life and Witness" conference in Dallas, Texas, on September
23, 1997. It also appears in Transformation (Winter issue, 1998).

[2] Williams proved an embarrassment to Bishop Spong. Shortly after his
ordination, he claimed that "monogamy" was a straitjacket and that
everyone, including Mother Teresa, needs sex in order to experience
life. These views are not uncommon in the underground gay movement, but
they got Williams defrocked when he stated them in public. See Robert
Williams, Just As I Am: A Practical Guide to Being Out, Proud, and
Christian (New York: Crown, 1992) esp. xi-xxiii.

[3] See Philip Turner, "Episcopal Oversight and Ecclesiastical
Discipline," in Ephraim Radner and R. R. Reno, eds., Inhabiting Unity:
Theological Perspectives on the Proposed Lutheran-Episcopal Concordat
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 111-133.

[4] Bishop Righter claimed during his trial that Presiding Bishop Edmond
Browning had been consulted about this action and had suggested that
Bishop Righter, rather than Spong, officiate.

[5] In my recent book, Two Sexes, One Flesh: Why the Chu rch Cannot
Bless Same-Sex Marriage (Solon, OH: Latimer Press, 1997) 13-26, I argue
that the terminology of same-sex "blessings" and "unions" camouflages
the real intent to introduce a unisex understanding of marriage.

[6] The Convention did authorize dioceses to include "domestic
partners," which includes unmarried lovers of either sex, under church
health insurance policies.

[7] On "local option" as a transitional stage toward full mandating of
homosexuality, see Two Sexes, One Flesh, 92-93.

[8] In Two Sexes, One Flesh, 53-66, I argue that the liberationist
definition of justice is not rooted in any other major traditions of
Western justice but is in fact antithetical to them.

[9] In a recent parish newsletter, the Rev. Edgar Wells, Rector of the
Church of Saint Mary the Virgin (!), New York City, stated that "a
self-accepting homosexual person who aspires not to celibacy but to
sharing their life with another person is as acceptable for ordination
in this diocese as any celibate or married person." He goes on to say
that "our policy is clear, and I could not be on the Commission on
Ministry if I did not agree with it."
[10] Bishop Browning was one of the twenty bishops in 1979 who signed a
"Statement of Conscience" announcing that they would not obey or enforce
the Church's official and traditional teaching on sexuality.

[11] In his diocesan newspaper, Anglican Advance (Nov./Dec. 1993),
Bishop Griswold is reported to have said: "I believe that it is quite
possible for a homosexual person not committed to celibacy to live a
wholesome and profoundly Christian life." In the June/July issue, he
stated: "Can the values of the Gospel and the taking up of one's cross
and following Jesus be found in sexual expressions outside marriage and
celibacy? ... I have to answer 'yes' based on my own experience of grace
in the lives of persons whose sexuality has been expressed outside these
classical and normative categories." In an interview for Christianity
Today (Jan. 10, 1994) 44, he said that he had ordained homosexual
priests: "The question with respect to sexuality is, How is this
person's sexuality part of their living of the gospel."

[12] This lecture, given in Falls Church, Virginia, in February 1997,
has been circulated by EFAC-USA (P.O. Box 110, Hague, VA 22469;
1-800-472-2593) and published in The Episcopal Evangelical Journal 1/8
(Jan. 1998) 7-9.

[13] In his recent William Tyndale: A Biography (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1995) 239, David Daniell expresses Tyndale's and
Anglicanism's "plain sense" critique of scholastic hermeneutics, which
"can become a licence to what is little more than wilder forms of free
association, whereby words can mean anything, according to whim." The
attempts to root homosexual practice in Paul's hymn to love (1
Corinthians 13) while ignoring his teaching on the shape of Christian
relationships (1 Corinthians 6:9-20) is an example of contemporary
scholasticism at its worst.

[14] Cf. Two Sexes, One Flesh, 40.

[15] See, e.g., my "Reading the Bible as the Word of God," in Frederick
H. Borsch, ed., The Bible's Authority in Today's Church (Valley Forge,
Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1993) 133-167.

[16] In an interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer (Dec. 28, 1997),
Bishop Frank Griswold employs the following rationalization for the
Church to contradict the Bible: "Broadly speaking, the Episcopal Church
is in conflict with Scripture... The only way to justify it is to say,
well, Jesus talks about the Spirit guiding the church and guiding
believers and bringing to their awareness things they cannot deal with
yet [John 16:13]. So one would have to say that the mind of Christ
operative in the church over time ... has led the church to in effect
contradict the words of the Gospel." Bishop Spong in his Nov. 12, 1997
letter to the Anglican Archbishops, uses the same argument and
proof-text.

[17] See Two Sexes, One Flesh, 34-35, n. 20.

[18] This interchange was with Virginia Mollenkott at the 50th annual
Witness conference held at Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry in
Ambridge, Pa., in October 1992. For other examples of open rejection of
the plain teaching of Scripture, see Two Sexes, One Flesh, 38-39.

[19] The St. Andrew's Day Statement: An Examination of the Theological
Principles Affecting the Homosexuality Debate (Church of England
Evangelical Council, 1995) was written by a theological working group
including Michael Banner, F.D. Maurice Professor of Moral and Social
Theology at King's College, London; Markus Bockmuehl, University
Lecturer in Divinity at Cambridge University; Oliver O'Donovan, Regius
Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology at Oxford University; and David
Wright, Senior Lecturer in Ecclesiastical History, University of
Edinburgh.

[20] According to the Thirty-Nine Articles, "The Church hath power to
decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith; and
yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary
to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture
that it be repugnant to another" (Article XX, Book of Common Prayer,
871).

[21] See Charles E. Bennison [Bishop Coadjutor of Pennsylvania]
"Rethinking Marriage - Again," Anglican Theological Review 79 (1997)
506-525. This article was originally presented at the Second
Consultation of Episcopalians for Same-Sex Unions (July 1996).

[22] On October 12, 1997, an article appeared in The Sunday Times
(London) stating that a majority of bishops of the Church of England are
willing to approve of and even bless unmarried "cohabiting" heterosexual
partners.

[23] "What about the bi's?" The notion of bisexuality appears to be a
slippery category that can include people who move back and forth
between heterosexual and homosexual partners.

[24] See Maggie Gallagher, The Abolition of Marriage: How We Destroy
Lasting Love (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 1996); and Barbara Dafoe
Whitehead, The Divorce Culture (New York: Knopf, 1997).

[25] A lesser known fact about the now famous Bishop Righter is that he
was divorced and remarried twice while he continued to function as a
bishop in good standing. Apparently Bishop Righter's practice is now
perfectly acceptable to his colleagues. In the Philadelphia Inquirer
(supra note 16), Bishop Frank Griswold argued that the acceptance of
remarried priests and bishops shows that the Church can revise biblical
norms.

[26] I have made a number of specific suggestions for reform in Two
Sexes, One Flesh, 99-100. Some of these ideas have been taken up in the
"Covenant with the Family" recently proposed by the Institute on
Religion and Democracy (for copies, write Diane Knippers, IRD, 1521 16th
Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036).

[27] A almost sixty years ago, Dorothy Sayers [Creed or Chaos? (New
York: Harcourt, Brace, 1949) 27] identified the Nazi threat in terms of
spiritual warfare: Something is happening to us today which has not
happened for a very long time. We are waging a war of religion. Not a
civil war between adherents of the same religion, but a life-and-death
struggle between Christian and pagan." I am contending that today's
revisionists are analogous to the "German Christians" who co-opted the
church to serve a hostile worldview.

[28] Cf. my colleague David Mills's critique of "centrism" in "The End
of Liberalism" in The Evangelical Catholic (May/June 1997) 2-16.

[29] I have taken the term "ethic of intimacy" from Tim Stafford, The
Sexual Christian (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1989) 15-19.

[30] A national Episcopal Church manual titled Sexuality: A Divine Gift
(1988) made the claim that sex in itself is a sacrament. Cf. also Morton
T. and Barbara Kelsey, The Sacrament of Sexuality: The Spirituality and
Psychology of Sex (Rockport, Mass.: Element, 1991).

[31] Anthony Giddens, The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love
and Eroticism in Modern Societies (Stanford: Stanford University Press,
1992) 181.

[32] Heyward, Touching Our Strength: The Erotic as Power and the Love of
God (San Francisco: Harper, 1989), 91; John Shelby Spong, Rescuing the
Bible from Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Harper, 1991) 243. For an
analysis of the anti-Christian basis of their worldviews, see Stephen M.
Smith, "Worldview, Language, and Radical Feminism," in Alvin F. Kimel,
ed., Speaking the Christian God: The Holy Trinity and the Challenge of
Feminism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992) 258-275.

[33] Camille Paglia, Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti
to Emily Dickinson (New York: Random House, 1990) 236-237.

[34] See Carter Heyward on sadomasochism, in Touching Our Strength, 109;
and L. William Countryman on pornography and prostitution, in Dirt,
Greed, and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their
Implications for Today (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988) 245,
264-265.

[35] Just as the Anglican bishops at Dallas were discussing this paper,
it was reported that at an Anglican youth conference in Wales the
previous weekend the main speaker was an avowed lesbian and the
literature available promoted the gay lifestyle. "This is war," the
moderator at Dallas said. "We cannot tolerate this." "You have to
understand." an American bishop replied. "This is what they call
sensitizing you."

[36] It is the virtue of Jeffrey Satinover's book. Homosexuality and the
Politics of Truth (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996) 229-247, that he
links the drive for homosexuality with "the pagan revolution" in late
modern society.

[37] Cf. Richard Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (Waco: Word Books, 1983) 34:
"Antinomianism is a perversion of the gospel itself."

[38] Oliver O'Donovan, The Desire of the Nations: Rediscovering the
Roots of Political Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1996) 271-284, traces the intellectual characteristics of the antichrist
of late modernity.

[39] The disparity between the fruits of the Decade of Evangelism in the
West and in the Third World was strikingly apparent at the G-Code
Conference in 1995. Cf. Cyril C. Okorocha, ed., The Cutting Edge of
Mission: A Report of the Mid-Point review of the Decade of Evangelism
(London: Anglican Communion Publications, 1996).

[40] This was the clear implication of Bishop Browning's tirade against
traditionalists at the General Convention, as when he said: "Biblical
literalism may be someone's tradition, but it's not our tradition and
it's time we came home to our Anglican roots."

[41] This was true of the "sexuality dialogue" conducted by the national
Episcopal Church from 1992-1994, and the same-sex marriage study in
1995-1996, conducted by the House of Bishops' Theology Committee and the
Standing Liturgical Commission. For the latter case, see Two Sexes, One
Flesh, 113-117. [42] In "Good Restaurants in Gomorrah," First Things
(Feb. 1998) 14-16, Prof. Russell Reno argues that the key to
understanding the Episcopal Church is that it is dominated by
upper-middle-class concerns, among which sexuality ranks high.

This address was the title essay in my The Handwriting on the Wall: A
Plea to the Anglican Communion (Solon, Oh: Latimer Press, 1998).
Reproduced with permission.

END

------------------------------