CENTRAL NEW YORK: FR. TAYLOR-WEISS WRITES TO BISHOP GLADSTONE ADAMS

The following is a letter to Bishop Gladstone Adams written by the Rev. Doug Taylor-Weiss, Convenor of the Confessing Anglicans of Central New York (CACNY). It was sent in response to the bishop's notice to the CACNY that he would allow same-sex blessings "on a case by case basis."

--

O God, who, by the preaching of thine apostle Paul, hast caused the light of the Gospel to shine through-out the world: Grant, we beseech thee, that we, having his wonderful conversion in remembrance, may show forth our thankfulness unto thee for the same by following the holy doctrine which he taught; through Jesus Christ our Lord. —Book of Common Prayer

My people have changed their glory for that which does not profit. — Jeremiah 2:11

I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded. —Romans 16:17-18

Q. How do we recognize the truths taught by the Holy Spirit?

A. We recognize truths to be taught by the Holy Spirit when they are in accord with the Scriptures. —The Catechism

Dear Bishop Adams,

Thank you for responding to our letter regarding your policy on same-sex marriage in the Diocese. I understand that the consultations you describe might take some time, accounting for the delay in your re-sponse. It is a pity that you did not consult the unequivocal teaching of the bishops assembled at Lambeth in 1998, or the Constitution of the Episcopal Church, or the Holy Scriptures, or biology and physiology, or the unbroken moral teaching of the Church from the 1st century until the 21st.

It makes no difference that your blessing ceremonies will not look like weddings. In fact, I bet they will. There will be special clothes, aisle-walking, receptions with dancing and cake, rice thrown and so forth. Of course they'll look like weddings, your liturgical distinctions notwithstanding. More importantly, you yourself admit that you see them as marriages when you state that they must intend "monogamy." Doesn't monogamy come from monos, "alone," and gamos, "marriage"? But these are the "blessing of a friendship/relationship," you say. Really? I have a good friend here at SS. Peter and John named Tom. We are of the same sex. We have a relationship. How exactly are Tom and I to have a "monogamous" relationship since both of us are already married?

You are essentially saying that a same-sex "friendship/relationship" is fine, but that when it includes sodomy and mutual masturbation, then it rises to a new level of goodness becoming something to be blessed by the Church: it becomes a gamos. Your belief, then, is that sodomy and other stimulations imitating true sexual intercourse are part of God's intention for creation, designed for the purpose of human flourishing. A blessing ceremony reserved only for those "friendship/relationships" that sexually imitate marriage can mean no less.

I warn you to remember this: these rites will instruct the youth of the Episcopal Church exactly what you mean by "friendship/relationship." Young people will understand what you are now teaching as "gospel" in your church, even though you yourself may try to deny it. They will conclude that gay sex is good, that gay "marriage" is equivalent to marriage and that God doesn't care what we do with our sexual powers so long as we have what we feel is "integrity." Read Mark 9:42. By the way, since you include sodomy in God's intentions for humanity, mustn't you finally argue that the Lord's original, creative intention was that it be performed without condoms? This, too, you will be teaching our children.

You tell me that it is not your perspective that this "is about overturning 'the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures and of the saints of God throughout Church history…' Well, your doctrine of marriage is in fact an overturning of the teaching of the Bible and of the ages. While it may well be your perspective that what we are debating is not "about" such an overturning, you cannot deny that you are in fact overturning the faith, unity and discipline of the Church which you have sworn to guard. Of all the matters disputed among Christians for 2000 years, never have any of our forebears in the faith endorsed sodomy as good and holy. If you dispute this, show me the evidence. Not a single sentence in the Scripture suggests that homosexual activity is godly. Instead, both the New Testament and the Old consider it an abomination. So, whether or not this little exchange of ours is "about" your rejection of the Church's moral teaching on sex, you and your diocese do in fact reject it.

You are obviously convinced that you are free from the constraints of accountability to the worldwide Communion, to the witness of the Scriptures and of Church tradition, as well as to our Ecumenical partners because you are instead "living more fully into the Gospel of Christ and his intention for all humankind." I find it strange that Christ's intention for all humankind would be that we turn away from the objective good of two complementary sexes that create families into which children might be born toward a world in which subjective sexual desires govern what is counted good and where anything that fulfills one's fantasies and inclinations can, in time, be construed as good. But, then, once you sever yourself from the clear Word of God in Scripture and from the Church's unbroken interpretation of that Word, I suppose anything at all might be considered as "the Gospel of Christ."

I join you in calling for "the interpretive principle for all Scripture and the moral response we make to those Scriptures" to be "Jesus and his life." This is the New Testament's principle of interpreting the Old, and it is the principle used throughout Church history. Saint Paul is using that principle in writing Ro-mans. "In the Gospel," he writes "the righteousness of God is revealed." (Rom. 1:17) Looking through the lens of the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ he writes, "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. . . ." in Romans 1:26-27. Paul was not writing to condemn, but so that the world might be saved through Christ, saved by seeing the folly of its dishonorable passions and brought in repentance to the cross of our salvation. Apparently, that is no longer an interest of the Diocese of Central New York.

Is Paul somehow forgetting about the life of Jesus when he writes that men who lie with males (the arsenokoitai of Lev. 18:22) will not inherit the kingdom of God? (1 Cor. 6:9) Is he writing to condemn such people? Certainly not, but rather to warn them and, even more, to warn the Church against giving them a false view of God's mercy. "Such were some of you," he writes, "but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." (1 Cor 6:11) This is not some regrettable lapse where Paul forgets to interpret the Scriptures according to "Jesus and his life." Instead, it is the Scripture's call to holiness addressed to the gentiles of Corinth who now through Christ belong to the children of Abraham. Corinth, by the way, was well-aquainted with socially-acceptable forms of homosexual practice very like those in our own day.

The "moral response" we are to make to these Scriptures is precisely to love those who are living contrary to the holiness of God, to warn them, to call them to righteousness and to assist them through their many dangers, toils and snares. I confess that I have failed miserably in my ministry to love those trapped in same-sex desires enough to warn them, to call them and to assist them. I have feared rejection. I have been satisfied with the pale "love" of "inclusion," thinking that having them sit on the Vestry counted as love. I repent.

I don't mean to play dumb. I know you are saying that somehow "Jesus and his life" means assuring eve-rybody that they are loved (which is true enough) and then further assuring them that our late-industrialized culture's view of "integrity" will do for a Christian sexual morality. In true gnostic fashion, you are saying that bodies don't matter, but only our inner intentions, our "integrity," our "friendship/relationship." The actual Jesus said instead, "from the beginning of creation God made them male and female." He answered the question about divorce not with warm assurances of inclusion, but with a harsh exclusivism. (Mark 10:11-12) He did not say, as we would, "Ah, well, we all lust a bit now and then. After all, we're only human." He said, "If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away. It is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell." (Matt. 5:29) Nowhere, nowhere does Jesus relax the Old Testament's sexual ethic. Furthermore, he says to us, "Do not think that I have come to destroy the law and the prophets. I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matt. 5:17) This does not sound very far from St. Paul's, "For God has not called us for uncleanness, but in holiness. Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you." (1 Thess. 4:7-8) Your implied notion that "Jesus and his life" somehow entails an attenuated sexual ethic and a gnostic departure from the moral significance of our bodies is incoherent. You have never shown any evidence why this should be the case other than that you wish it were so.

I continue to hold you in my prayers, asking God to bring you to repentance, that you might return to the solemn promises you made at all three of your ordinations.

—The Rev. Douglas Taylor-Weiss is rector, Saint Peter and Saint John, Auburn, New York

END