Gay Clergy

Gay Clergy

The Episcopal Church in New Hampshire recently elected and openly gay priest to be their new bishop. To the dismay of many and the pleasure of most the Episcopal Council of Bishops, amidst efforts to derail the selection, confirmed the selection. New Hampshire's Episcopal Bishop is openly gay and living with another man.

There are many ways to look at this and many questions that need answering.

Should our clergy be without sin?

Should clergy higher in the hierarchy take greater pains to be without sin?

Is living a gay or homosexual lifestyle a sin?

The the people of New Hampshire don't object, why should we?

Jesus Christ was without sin and we all should take great pains to emulate him. Yet, Jesus Christ is Lord and perfect, we are human and imperfect. To what standard should we hold ourselves and our clergy.

John 8:7-11

But when they continued asking him [Jesus Christ], he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

And again he stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground.

And they, when they heard it, went out one by one, beginning from the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the midst.

And Jesus lifted up himself, and said unto her, Woman, where are they? did no man condemn thee?

And she said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn thee: go thy way; from henceforth sin no more.

Those who feel that the new bishop should be asked to step down should send forth one from among them who is without sin to make that request.

The idea that a homosexual lifestyle is sinful comes to us from Leviticus 12 verse 22:

Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

However, in fairness we must consider the times. Women were not considered the equal of men, especially intellectually. The Greeks did not believe you could love a women as you loved a brother, father, or son. They believed that one loved a women as one loved a favorite pet. Women, so it was believed, were solely for the purpose of bearing and raising children.

No efforts were made to teach women to read or write.

Women were not expected to contribute to society in any significant way.

The count of a crowd or group was based on the number of men present, women and children were not bothered with (when Christ Jesus fed the 5,000 that meant 5,000 men, there would also have been women and children present so the crowd actually consisted of 15,000 or more people).

One lay with a woman to bear children.

I have to agree with Leviticus, trying to bear children by impregnating another man would be an abomination.

Just to put this all in perspective:

Leviticus 21:17-21

Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed throughout their generations that hath a blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.

For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or anything superfluous,

or a man that is broken-footed, or broken-handed,

or crook-backed, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or is scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;

no man of the seed of Aaron the priest, that hath a blemish, shall come nigh to offer the offerings of Jehovah made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

This passage suggests that a man who is injured or had some type of defect is not welcome before the altar of God. It is actually a primitive way of keeping genetic defects from continuing in the general population. Those with defects were left to die. It also keeps those who have a temporary illness from coming to the Temple and passing their sickness to others. Actually a primitive form of quarantine. This was there to protect, it does not actually mean that those who do not have 20-20 vision should be denied access to the Church of God.

Leviticus 25: 44-46

And as for thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, whom thou shalt have; of the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

Moreover of the children of the strangers that sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they have begotten in your land: and they shall be your possession.

And ye shall make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession; of them shall ye take your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel ye shall not rule, one over another, with rigor.

This passage suggests that we can buy and sell slaves, that we should make strangers and their children our slaves and allow our children to inherit those slaves. Or was this simply a suggestion that travel to other areas was dangerous?

It can be very dangerous to assume that all of the Bible is the literal truth. Translating from one language to another is not an exact science. At best it is an art. Further, it is almost impossible to know what words and phrases may be idioms from the times, so it is important to understand the time a passage comes from.

Being homosexual or heterosexual is not a choice. Like race, gender, height, and hair color it is what we are. (those of you who are heterosexual ask yourself "Did I ever choose to be straight, or was I just born that way?") I know that I never made any choice in my sexuality, it is just the way I am.

Remember, Jesus Christ suffered and died on the Cross for us. He suffered the punishment for our sins. Thanks to Christ Jesus all of our sins are forgiven by the Grace of God. If (and that is a big if) New Hampshire's new Episcopal Bishop has committed a sin, God forgives him, Christ Jesus forgives him, the people of New Hampshire forgive him, maybe we should find it our hearts and souls to forgive him too!

Which brings us to the last point. If the people of New Hampshire want him as their bishop, who are we to object!

Amen