Scripture, sexuality and the Church’s call to faithfulness and reform

My June 24, 2013, column for the Grand Haven Tribune, Scripture, sexuality, and the Church's Call to Faithfulness and Reform, also reprinted below:

I’m grateful to my colleague, the Rev. Ray Paget, for sharing his own approach to the difficult exegetical and Scriptural questions surrounding our understanding of sexuality (“God’s sure Word in an unsure world,” Grand Haven Tribune, May 30). We are blessed to live in a community where cordial and respectful conversation on this sensitive question can be engaged charitably. Since a portion of the Rev. Paget’s column was directed to me, I would like to respond briefly.

It is indeed true that the Rev. Paget and I come from traditions that have historically viewed Scripture differently—but we both would affirm its primacy. At my ordination vows as a priest, I declared that I believed the Old and New Testaments to be the word of God and to contain all things necessary to salvation. At the same time, in our Anglican understanding, we recognize that Scripture is always viewed through an interpretive lens, including the tradition of the Church and our own God-given reason.

I would strongly disagree with the Rev. Paget about the simplicity of the exegetical issues involved. Scholars of no less a stature than Roman Catholic theologian Luke Timothy Johnson and the theologically conservative scholar Richard Hays have explored these difficulties carefully and fairly. I commend their work to anyone interested.

The Rev. Paget cites Leviticus 18:22 as direct evidence that homosexuality is a “detestable sin.” The same Hebrew word used there is also used in Leviticus 20:25 to describe eating unclean animals. I wonder if the Rev. Paget would thus view the eating of shrimp or pork to be a similar detestable sin based upon the clear evidence of Scripture.

He also cites Romans 1:26-26 as a text without nuance. I’d wonder if he would nuance Paul’s admonition in Ephesians 6:5 that slaves should practice obedience, a text used for centuries to support the practice of slavery in our own country. Interestingly enough, Paul is talking about people doing what is not natural. We now know that homosexuality is a natural state for a percentage of the population (both among humans and even among some animals). It is not chosen. Paul is opposed to people rejecting their natural sexual state in the interest of experimentation. If someone is naturally, through no choice of their own, attracted to people of the same-gender, Romans 1 doesn’t seem to apply.

Surely he’d say something about how we are under grace and so the laws of Leviticus no longer apply. Perhaps he’d say that the slavery Paul is talking about in Ephesians is different then slavery as it was practiced in the early years of America. That would sound a bit like a “nuanced” understanding of the Biblical text, however. It’s certainly different than the “plain reading.”

Could it be, perhaps, that what is often called “homosexuality” in Scripture is very different than the faithful, monogamous, same-sex relationships that we have seen in or Church? Leviticus is talking about temple prostitution, Paul’s arguments are based upon an understanding of the sex act where a man is always dominant and where the embryo is included in the seed. He speaks strongly against Greco-Roman practices of pederasty and oppression. Can we condemn those with the voice of Scripture and also acknowledge that they are entirely different than two people committing themselves to one another through self-giving love?

One can find all kinds of views in Scripture and one can find throughout Christian history that our understanding of authorial intent, context, history, and linguistic matters has led to the development and change of views as the Spirit has guided the church deeper into all truth, just as Jesus promised would happen in John 16. We now disagree with history and say slavery is wrong. Few Christians today would condemn usury (the lending of money at interest) as intrinsically evil, even though that was the clear reading of text and tradition for thousands of years.


Each generation is called to carefully study the texts of Scripture and the traditions of the church and to ensure that we are truly being faithful to the Gospel message. As the member of a tradition that springs from the Reformation, I trust the Rev. Paget knows the importance of being willing to challenge old assumptions in service to the Gospel of God in Christ. I pray that through dialogue and discussion such as this, all Christians might come to a deeper understanding of the will of God, based upon a careful and thoughtful reading of Scripture, for the world today.

Contraception debate not what it seems

My June 3, 2012, column for the Grand Haven Tribune, Contraception debate not what it seems,

We live in a country for which one of the defining values is the freedom of religion. It is enshrined in our national ethos and also in the First Amendment to our Constitution, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” However, precisely what this value implies has recently become a matter of no small debate. 

Many leaders in the Catholic Church have been fighting the Obama administration for several months now over one particular part of health care legislation—the requirement that insurers cover contraceptive care. They see this requirement as an attack on their freedom to practice their religion and they are using this perceived attack to launch a significant campaign in the name of religious freedom. They are doing this despite the fact that houses of worship are already exempt from this requirement and despite the fact that insurers of other religious institutions are required to provide contraceptive coverage at no charge to religious institutions that might object.  

Now, I have much love and affection for my Catholic brothers and sisters. I count several Catholic priests among my friends and I serve the Episcopal Church as an appointed representative in ecumenical dialogue on the national level with representatives from the United States’ Conference of Catholic Bishops. That said, I do not believe that the voice we are currently hearing from some leaders in the Catholic Church is representative of the best of Catholicism as it exists in America today. Instead, as a Christian priest in another denomination, I feel compelled to speak out regarding these claims of religious freedom being violated. 

If the health-care legislation required that people use contraceptive coverage, then their anger would be legitimate. However, it does not. It simply requires insurance companies and providers to cover the cost of a procedure that is a recognized part of medical care by twenty-first century America. Many leaders of the Catholic Church (though not all) agree with that Church’s official policy that the use of contraception is morally wrong, but this legislation does not compel its use. As the debate has progressed I have become increasingly concerned. After all, for our government to allow any religious institution to force coverage or non-coverage of a medical procedure is to enter dangerous ground.  

As many have noted, this campaign entirely ignores the fact that many women choose contraception for reasons that have little to do with procreation and everything to do with valid medical problems. It’s unconscionable that this distinction is not made alongside of the fact that there is not a similar campaign ensuring the drugs like Viagra are not covered—as though the majority use of Viagra was for the purposes of conception.  

Instead, the goal of this campaign is to use money to coerce individuals into one group’s view of ethical behavior. Whether or not one believes the use of contraception is an appropriate decision for a Christian to make, the decision of an individual should be based upon their own free exercise of religion, not upon enforced economic hardships by denial of coverage. Trying to find ways so that employees of Catholic institutions cannot use health-care to provide for contraception is the opposite of free-exercise of religion. It is about trying to keep something as expensive as possible so that people make the decision that the leaders think they should make. 

The first amendment protects the free exercise of religion for the individual. It does not protect institutions that seek to use that clause to abridge the rights and liberties of its members. It certainly does not mean that the government should support that task. I make this point because of the lessons my own Anglican tradition has learned from history. Though our church has long supported the right of people to use contraception, we have in the past been more than willing to use the power of the State to enforce our own particular views. Indeed, the first pilgrims came here because my own spiritual forebears in the Church of England used law to enforce their religious beliefs. Anglicanism as it has grown up in America and as it exists in the Episcopal Church today has since then always been wary of government enforcement of religious practice. 

The position of these leaders will only ensure that the rich in their Church continue to ignore Church teaching on the matter (as they have for decades) while the poor and the middle-class will be further coerced into doing what the hierarchy believes they should do or pay a financial price. If the Catholic Church wants people to refrain from using contraception, then teach and form believers who agree with Church teaching. This is the harder road, but it is the road with integrity; it is the road wherein people practice their religion with freedom and sincerity. 

Read more at the Tribune's website online here.