Divisive Issue Facing the Episcopal Church

As the Episcopal Church holds its General Convention in Columbus the Anglican Communion is on the verge of coming apart. This Convention faces again the issue of homosexuality and the clergy.

I've listened to and read a great deal of the debate on this issue. Often it is presented as simple- "Read your Bible." It is not.

First, in terms of opposition to gay bishops (or marriage or homosexuality itself), one cannot simply quote the Bible. Without question, the Bible explicitly condemns homosexual acts. Leviticus is very clear on that. The problem, however, for the conservatives who would site these passages is that they lift the passages out of their context. I don't mean to suggest that if read in context the prohibitions aren't really there. They are. By taking these statements out of context I mean to say that the passages prohibiting homosexual acts are in the midst of many other prohibitions. And the others are not all trivial, as some would suggest, and if they are statements from God, as the conservative side would suggest, the we as humans cannot judge them trivial. If the statements about homosexual acts are to be taken as absolute tenants of faith, then what of all the others? I don't see any logic to the notion that the statements about homosexuality are "more important" than statements about looking on a woman's nakedness during her menstrual cycle, or a man having sexual relations with his daughter-in-law. In some cases these prohibitions are a part of the same sentence as those dealing with homosexuality. Either we accept these statements- all of them- as the law, or we don't.

Furthermore, the penalty for a homosexual act in Leviticus is death- not merely being unqualified to be a bishop. Many of the other prohibitions also list death as the penalty. Since the conservative side of the argument (at the Episcopal Convention at least) is not proposing the death penalty for homosexuals, they are guilty of what they accuse us who are more liberal on the matter as guilty of- picking and choosing according to our own understandings rather than accepting the Bible as a complete and literal truth. That's the problem with biblical literalism- you have to take the Bible as whole cloth.

I don't accept the entirety of the Levitican law as properly applied today. I think this law was a product of its time- limited by custom and scientific understanding. I'm not willing to have homosexuals (or witches, or people who have sex with animals, or men who have sex with their daughters-in-law, or men who have sex with both a woman and her mother) put to death. I'm not willing to reject the 10% of the population that is reported to be gay. As we have come to learn through science that people appear to be born gay (not the product of bad parenting, or gay parenting), I'm not willing to reject people as God has made them.

Jesus was asked about which commandments were most important. Love God and love your neighbor, he said. When viewed through this lens, the Levitican law doesn't stand. It is quite simply too harsh for a Christian outlook. It may be relevant to our lives in ways, but as "law" it doesn't fit with a modern, loving approach to the world and those around us.

Does that decide the matter for the Episcopal Church? Not really. There are a lot of issues to consider. There are a lot of arguments to be made. One of those arguments is not simply "Read your Bible," however. When it comes right down to it, I don't think there will be anyone in Columbus who accepts the entirety of the Levitican law. That oversimplified argument falls apart upon close examination.

The other points of debate may deserve more attention. To have success at the Convention, all sides will have to have "big ears" in order to hear what those they disagree with have to say. They will also have to have big hearts, full of love for their "neighbor," in order to reach the best conclusion.

GP