It has been the issue that has split the Episcopal Church USA. You cannot help but take sides on this issue. The key points of the battle come down to interpretation of the same passages. But at the root, there are fundamental doctrinal issues at state. The issue is homosexuality. There is great confusion expressed concerning the summary of the Law by Jesus and particular lists of sin found throughout the new testament. The dogmatism that accompanies these discussions has been divisive. So, let's review the doctrine and then go to the specific passages.
The doctrines of salvation as expressed in the New Testament are justification, by faith alone, in Christ alone, through His Grace alone, to the glory of God alone, as attested by the Scripture alone, and sanctification, beginning at Baptism and continuing through life with the infusion of Grace from the Sacraments and the hearing of the Gospel preached correctly. Sanctification is both external to us and already accomplished and also a persistent life time of works by the Holy Spirit in which we are allowed to participate. So, then, what of the Law, Love and Obedience?
One of the arguments that is often used against homosexuality is the various lists found in the Bible. It seems that every list contains some mention of sexual immorality, often with homosexuality being explicitly mentioned. It is interesting that theologians can on the one hand deal with the issue of all sin being equal in the eyes of God, and yet on the other hand, single out this one sin as being demonstrative of disobedience to the Law. Note these passages in Acts, 1 Corinthians and Romans: Acts 15:28-29, 1 Corinthians 5, 6:12-19 and Romans 1:18-32. Each talks about lists of sins including sexual immorality. What is troubling to me in this discussion, is the complete disregard for Paul's arguments in Romans 4-11. Is sanctification tied to our success in obedience to the law?
This is the real key to the discussion: the doctrine of sanctification is viewed in terms of works while the doctrine of justification is held as grace. My view is that this is wrong on so many levels. If sanctification is based on works, then a part of salvation is based on works. If any part of salvation is based on works, then you are doing violence to the Gospel. If instead, the arguments of Paul in Romans lead you to the conclusion that Jesus accomplished not only our justification, but that through the Holy Spirit He also provides for our sanctification, then you must come to a different conclusion regarding sin. All sin was imputed to Christ as a part of our justification. To say that sin gets back into the equation through sanctification is to undermine justification. This is Pelagian theology and heretical.
I recently read an argument by one of my favorite bloggers, a SBC pastor who is both a Calvinist and an amillennialist. He argued that the doctrine of repentance was undermined by a person who continued to practice homosexuality; therefore, because of these actions, their transformation would be hindered. This would in essence not be considered true faith. (He was citing an interview between Mark Driscoll and J.I. Packer which I have provided here.) This is a horrible turn of thought. Let's change the sin and continue his line of reasoning. Who among us, particularly in this country, is guilty of covetousness? Everyone? Daily? Hourly? So, if we continue to covet as a regular part of our existence, then our faith is not genuine and we are back to justification by Law instead of by Grace. That line of reasoning completely guts the Gospel. Sanctification cannot be tied to works without losing justification to works as well.
So, what then are we to say about repentance? If a homosexual person understands that God views his behavior as sin and is truly repentant, where does that leave him? I am not aware that either Jesus or any Apostle has stated that any one sin precludes visitation by the Holy Spirit and therefore true faith. It is not written on my heart to know who may be truly regenerate persons. Scripture says that the Book of Life is hidden until Judgment Day, Daniel closed it and John got a peek at it, but it remains closed to human eyes until the Second Coming.
What then of James? If we are to know the elect by their fruit, is the measure of visible sin in a man's life evidence of a lack of transformation? This is a tough question, of course. But we must resist the temptation to be fruit inspectors. The farmer who grows fruit checks his own crop and tends to it so that he might have a successful harvest. In so much as he worries about his neighbors crop, it is only to assist his neighbor in a successful harvest as well. The job of fruit inspection falls to another. We will all face judgment and fail the inspection without the redeeming work of Christ on our side. James admonitions should be accounted as advice to the farmer. It is not up to us to usurp the duties of the inspector. No one knows the heart of man but the Creator. He knows his elect.
Therefore, when we are instructed to love our neighbor, help them know the Gospel. While we are busy laying waste to their crop with the passages I listed above, don't forget to tell them about the Good News as well. Romans does not end at chapter 3, nor pause and resume at chapter 12. Justification is the key doctrine of Christianity. It is the one doctrine that we cannot compromise. Any violence to justification compromises the sufficiency of the Resurrection.
Finally, since this is the point of division of the Episcopal Church USA with the Anglican Church of North America, can we say that this division is justifiable on these grounds? My answer in 2004 was yes. Now, my answer is a resounding no. It is unfortunate that wisdom did not prevail in the election of leadership for the church; instructions to Timothy and Titus seem to have been disregarded. Nonetheless, there was no violation of Justification in the actions of the 2003 convention. The public statements of the presiding bishop concerning other religions, however, are another matter. In the case where she stated that there are many paths to God, she has relinquished the truth claim of the Gospel. In other words, the presiding Bishop is not Christian. Is this fruit inspection on my part? Perhaps. But when the leader of a church denies the Gospel publicly, we are charged with calling her heresy out for what it is. The liberals in power in the Episcopal church who deny the Gospel are the real problem. Homosexuality is just a sin, like any other sin. The Gospel is what may not be compromised, or we cease to be the church.
No comments:
Post a Comment