It Is What It Is

The Episcopal Church is currently holding their denominational conference in Ohio and discussing, among other things, how to address the issue of homosexuality in their denomination and how they can manage to condone such an arrangement while maintaining their relationship to the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Communion (the world-wide ‘parent’ organization for their denomination) has steadfastly maintained Scriptural fidelity, rejected blessings of same-sex unions and ordination of homosexual clergy and has called for a moratorium on such activity in the Episcopal Church. What is shaping up is, unfortunately, increasing momentum for the liberal positions and a widening divide between the diversity/tolerance/inclusion crowd and conservatives who want to remain aligned with the Scripturally based standards maintained by the Anglican Communion.

I know I don't have to tell you this, but Paul clearly speaks "early and often" about the prohibition on sexual immorality throughout the New Testament (Romans, 1 Corinthians and Galatians come to mind immediately), which is traditionally - and up until about 30 years ago - considered without question to include homosexual activity and relationships.

What I find particularly interesting in the contemporary rationalizations for acceptance of such behavior is implicit rejection of the concept of “plain language.” It's a not-uncommon basis for rejection of cases in our court system when things reach the federal appellate or Supreme Court level. In short, the case is overturned because someone (a lower court, regulatory agency or other entity) has overreached by interpreting that a particular word or statement in law means more than what it means by reading the "plain language".

As an example, I've been working on a case dealing with changes to the US EPA's main air pollution permitting program – known as New Source Review – in which the Agency made significant changes to the rule by re-interpreting a provision of the Clean Air Act and using it to weaken certain provisions of the permit regulations. I won’t bore you with all of the gory details (let me know if you have trouble with insomnia and I will send you some of my position papers on the subject), but ultimately the Supreme Court overturned the rule change by saying that EPA incorrectly interpreted the meaning of the word "all" in the Clean Air Act to mean something akin to "all, except in these other situations". In other words, the Supremes ruled that Congress meant "all" when it wrote "all" into the statute, and no one has the right to reinterpret the meaning of “all” to mean something else.

This, I think, is what we see a lot of with respect to the homosexuality issue - advocates are reinterpreting the "plain language" of Scripture through a contemporary cultural filter to include activities that have not previously been accepted or entertained. Even when they make a meager attempt to justify their position on the basis of “well, Scripture doesn’t really mean that”, analysis of the underlying etymology of Scriptural text undermines their efforts. Study of the native Greek that was the original source text language of the New Testament reveals that, in fact, the interpretations that we’ve grown up with are consistent with the context of how the language was used at the time of the writing. In other words, it means what it says (that plain language thing again).

Below is a link to a highly detailed and footnoted hermeneutical analysis by a fellow named Guenther Haas from Redeemer College in Ontario, Canada. His conclusion, after drilling down to the native Greek linguistic structure, is that:

“the arguments in defense of homosexuality surveyed in this paper fail…because they do not make their case on their own grounds.”

Haas goes on to state that:

“An examination of the biblical passages from linguistic, historical and ethical-theological perspectives fails to support the revisionist ethic and reinforces the traditional Christian teaching that homosexual practice is morally wrong.”

The full analysis can be located at the following URL: http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/haas_hermen.html


At the end of the day, I maintain that the simplest (and traditional) explanation for the intent of Scripture regarding homosexual behavior is the most accurate and bears the greatest degree of fidelity to the true intent of the teachings of Christ. We are called to love and minister to these people just as we are to any other child of God; however, we are under no obligation or expectation to acknowledge, esteem, rationalize or condone behavior that is inherently sinful and undermines a legitimate relationship with God through Jesus Christ.