An Inkling
I am continuing this series of daily blogs on why I believe our larger church has crossed a line toward biblical unfaithfulness in its decision to revise our ordination standards. Here’s the next reason: this time the church has changed its standards in spite of the Bible and not because of it.
Those supporting the standard change don’t appreciate being tagged as unbiblical. They say they read their Bibles as intently as those opposing these changes, and that they have simply come to different conclusions. I understand that they value the Bible, but I believe their different conclusions are based upon an intellectual sleight of hand.
When we revisit the church’s teaching on some contested matter, we go back to the scripture, we look again at why our forebears concluded what they did, and we consider whether the proponents of change have a good case. That’s what happened when the church changed her views on slavery, divorce, and the role of women in leadership. In each of those cases the church concluded that the proponents of change made their case, and so the church changed her standards – not in spite of the scripture, but because of it.
Not so this time. Here’s where the intellectual sleight of hand comes in. We entrust our presbyters (elders and ministers) to make these decisions. As they search the scripture they rightly consider the insights of biblical scholars, and particularly when some passages seem pitted against others (a la slavery, divorce, and the roles of women).
In the 1970s, when our church began to revisit teachings on sexual ethics, Bible scholars went to work. Cases were made for and against the proposed revisions. In 2001 Robert Gagnon’s book, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, made a definitive case in favor of the traditional Christian sexual ethic, including clearly reasoned distinctions between this matter and the previously contested areas of slavery, divorce, and the roles of women. And none of the proponents of change have been able to answer him. There have been a few notable efforts (e.g., Jack Rogers’ Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality), but they are notable in part because they have pretended to make the case while totally bypassing many of Gagnon’s key arguments.
Given how the scholarly underpinnings of this debate have worked out, I believe it is intellectually dishonest for the revisionists to claim a biblical basis for their argument. They simply have not made their case. Even so, they have persuaded the church to make these changes – not because of the scripture, but in spite of it.
We have crossed a line. Alas. May the Lord of the church and the scripture have mercy on us all. Tomorrow another reason…
Blessings, Keith
