So I was listening to BBC Radio on the way home from work this morning, and they spoke with a couple of high-ranking members of the Anglican church in Africa about the homosexual Episcopalian bishop issue. The bishop from Kenya was pretty on the ball; he said that the problem wasn’t that people who identify themselves as homosexual are coming into the church - obviously, the church is open to every human being - the problem was that there are very clear-cut guidelines in the Bible as to what kind of behavior is required of church leadership positions. He also said that the Bible doesn’t give much room for interpretation as to whether or not homosexuality is a sin; not only does it say that it is, it says so numerous times. Then they interviewed the Archbishop of Central Africa (if I heard it right; I just listened to this interview about thirty minutes before I started typing this; perhaps I should double-check BBC online and see if I can get all the titles correct), who was of an opposing view, saying that, amongst other things, it was wrong for the church to be exclusive to certain groups. He compared the situation to a similar one in his youth when the church forbade certain racial groups from entering (more on this flawed comparison in a second). He said that the church’s stance against homosexuality was entirely culturally-based. He added that the strong language coming out of the Anglican churches condemning the Episcopal ordination of an openly gay priest was deplorable, and none of their business anyway.

Is it telling that the more Biblical position is coming from the younger churches in Africa?

Okay. First of all, everybody sins and falls short of the glory of God. Duh. It says so in the book of Romans...Romans 3:23, to be precise. Now that this is understood, it’s important to note that there is a BIG difference between someone saying, “Yeah, I failed; I gave in to temptation, I do it a lot, but it’s wrong, and I want to stop,” and someone saying, “There’s nothing wrong with what I did, and I shouldn’t have to feel badly about it.” The problem is not that the Episcopalian fellow is “gay” (meaning, he has homosexual desires), it’s that he’s “openly gay” (meaning, he has homosexual desires and sees nothing wrong with acting on them). Homosexuality itself is not the core issue here; it’s only one of a multitude of sins that everybody suffers from in one form or another, one that isn’t necessarily greater or lesser than any other sin as far as God’s concerned, and one that’s received a lot of media attention (and thus, a stronger Church reaction).

Secondly, there’s been a huge push in the world to get people to accept the idea of homosexuality as a sort of extra ethnicity. If that’s true, then perhaps I should identify myself as an Adulterer because I’ve entertained sexual fantasies more than once about women whom I wasn’t married to? It frustrates me, because it convinces people to identify themselves as “homosexuals” - to connect their identity to a type of sinful behavior. It reduces people’s dignity as God’s creations, and reinforces the mistaken conclusion that these same people are beyond Christ’s redemption; that the Bible and the Church must change to allow them in. Some people theorize that homosexual orientation is a genetic thing, but even if it is, that doesn’t stop it from being something to avoid. It’s genetic that I should desire women, but that doesn’t make it okay for me to pursue them all sexually, or even to think about them in terms of sexual fantasy. Jesus said “...whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:27). I can’t act on my anger, I can’t act on my greed, I can’t act on my laziness...I’m called to deny my “natural” desires constantly! Man.

I’m thankful that God allows me to have a wife; that this is a holy thing in His view. I’ll admit it - I’m a lustful man. I can’t imagine how difficult it must be for a man who has homosexual urges, to be told that he has to turn from those desires completely. It must feel like God hates him, or at least, never wants him to experience sexual pleasure. It must be a terrible feeling, but then I’ve heard of numerous people in the Church who say that Christ delivered them from those desires. God is greater than our desires, and if He says that something we feel is sinful, why wouldn’t He give us a way to escape them? He doesn’t want us to sin, because that would go against His entire nature. He created us; He must be more powerful than our flesh.

Not to mention that His grace is sufficient for us. Even though we struggle and experience these desires, His forgiveness clears the slate every time. Good thing for me.

Okay, I’m wavering a bit from my topic.

Thirdly, “none of the Anglican church’s business”?! Is the Archbishop denying the existence of the Body of Christ, the spiritual unity of the Church on earth? Does he really believe that these denominational lines segregate us to the point that we can no longer consider each other Christians; that the political hierarchies and earthly structures of the Anglican church and the Episcopal church supercede spiritual brotherhood? Does he believe that we are not our brother’s keepers, as Cain insinuated? “As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.” “No man is an island.” Do I need to throw out some more aphorisms?

What I found most chilling was the Archbishop’s response to the reporter’s question: how do you respond to those who say that this is not a sociological or cultural issue, but a theological issue; that this goes against Scriptural teachings? His answer: “Who can honestly say that they have always lived according to Scriptural guidelines?”

Do I need to point out that this is not a legitimate answer, but an excuse for wrongdoing? He never said in this interview that it wasn’t a sin to engage in homosexual fantasies or acts. He just shrugs and blows off the entire matter by saying, “Hey, world, it’s not like you’re all perfect or anything.” If a highway patrol officer pulls you over and says, “Did you know that you were driving fifteen miles per hour over the speed limit?” I can guarantee you that if your answer is “Who can honestly say that they’ve always driven under the speed limit?” you will not go home without a ticket.

I wouldn't seek this guy out for spiritual counseling any sooner than I would Fred Phelps in Kansas.

I find it deeply troubling that an Archbishop - which, if I’m not mistaken, is the highest rank in the Anglican church - would answer a theological question by saying, “Well, nobody’s perfect.” Whether or not someone has lived up to a behavioral code has nothing to do with this issue. It’s not saying that it’s okay if a church leader sins. The problem is one of a church leader - who is in a position to teach others, right? - believing that this isn’t a sin at all. We don’t get to pick and choose what’s Right and what’s Wrong! I’ve heard one or two arguments that engaging in homosexuality isn’t a sin, but they all depend upon the assumption that the Bible is incorrect in several places, which just doesn’t wash, or that when the Bible identifies “homosexual offenders,” it doesn’t mean people engaging in homosexuality, but in people engaging in homosexuality in “bad ways.” Aside from never getting a satisfying explanation as to what constitutes “bad ways” in this context, there doesn’t appear to be any mention in the Bible whatsoever of what “good homosexuality” should be like.

[If you’d like to investigate this further, please look at Tektonics.org, which I have a link to on the right, or CRI, which has some excellent essays on these subjects here and here. There are far more complete and educated responses to this issue than I can go into here and now.]

The rest of his comments were of such a secular humanist tone that I’m tempted to ask when bowing down and worshipping Humanity as Divinity is on the official agenda. Will that be before or after the Antichrist gets here, please?

Okay, maybe I can get some sleep now. Man.