Discussions
On
Human Sexuality and the Bible
By
the Rev. Matt Kennedy
The
debate currently raging in the Episcopal Church and, indeed,
throughout the Anglican Communion, is not over whether believers
ought to love people who are homosexual. Christians are called
to love others. This call is binding regardless of who the
"others" are or how they live. God intervened
and brought salvation to the world in Jesus Christ while the
world was still dead in darkness and sin. For that reason,
no matter what you think about homosexuality, there is never
any justification for cruelty, bigotry, or unkindness. We
owe all human beings dignity, respect, and love. That is not
and never will be up for debate.
The
question is not whether we ought to love homosexual
people. The question is how best to love them. Christians
are called to love sinners (ourselves and everyone else) and
hate sin (our own and the sin of others) in the same way that
one might love a sick person and hate his or her sickness.
Christians must hate sin because it damages God's creatures
and God's creation and ultimately, if not dealt with, it leads
to spiritual death. The debate is not about homosexual people
but about the nature of the homosexual act; whether it is
a deadly sin from the bonds of which we must work to be free
or whether it is an act of love approved by God. Does loving
people who feel they have been born with a homosexual orientation
mean helping them to recognize the sinfulness of homosexual
behavior and repent, or does it mean accepting, embracing,
and even celebrating the homosexual expression of love?
The
Authority of Scripture
The
core issue is the authority of the bible in the Church. Some
argue that the bible is primarily a human book (some passages
indeed inspired by God) that held authority for the Church
in the past but that ought not to bind the Church at all times
and in all places. Those who adhere to this argument presume
that the Holy Spirit can and will lead the Church beyond the
first-century limitations of the New Testament in order to
make the gospel of Jesus Christ relevant to the people of
this age.
Others
say that the bible is a fully human book fully inspired—its
truth superintended—by God the Holy Spirit and, therefore,
its teachings are timeless and eternal. Those who adhere to
this argument assert that the Church never has the authority
to stand in judgment over the bible, but rather the Church
must always humbly submit itself to the written revelation
of God's will.
I
hold the second view, the classic view of scriptural authority,
and I do so for two reasons. First, when the Church begins
to assume that its decisions are consistent with God's will
without any objective means to test that assumption, the Church,
whether she means to or not, sets herself up as the final
arbiter of truth; and in doing this, she usurps a role and
an authority that belongs only to God. When this happens theological
reflection, doctrine, and discipline all become subservient
to human perception and preference, rather than divine revelation,
and the Church inevitably devolves into a distorted mirror
image of itself. In other words, when the bible, God's Word
revealed, ceases to be the final authority, the Church becomes
her own god.
Second, I hold the classical view of scripture because God
himself in Jesus held such a view. Every time Jesus referred
to the “law and the prophets”—which was the 1st century rabbinical
shorthand for the Tanahk or Torah (our Old Testament)—as “God's
Word,” something he did quite often (if you are interested,
I can pass along the passages where he does this), he affirmed
that the Old Testament was and is to be taken and understood
not just as the word of Isaiah, Moses, Jeremiah, etc., but
also as the very Word of God. Jesus himself in other words
used and applied the bible of his day as if it were the direct
revelation of God.
What about the New Testament? At the Last Supper Jesus promised
his disciples that following his ascension into heaven, God
the Father would send his Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, Jesus
said, would guide the disciples into all truth and recall
to their minds the things that he taught and said (see John
14:25 -26; 15:26 ; 16:7-16).
All
of the books of the New Testament were written either by the
disciples present in that room, those whose work had been
seen and approved by them, or those independently commissioned
by the Risen Lord himself (Mark was Peter's disciple, Paul
was commissioned by Christ himself after the resurrection,
Jude was probably Jesus' brother, Luke was Paul's disciple,
etc.). They were all written and circulated separately in
the Church and approved by the disciples. Their authenticity,
truth, and authority, then, is validated by the promise of
Christ himself to reveal through the Holy Spirit all truth
and to bring to light all of his teachings so that they could
be recorded without error and provide guidance and light to
the world and to the Church. You may have heard people say
that the Church created the bible in the fourth century? But
the truth of the matter is that the Church merely recognized
the books already written that had been ordained and inspired
by God.
Our own Anglican Communion recognizes the authority of scripture
in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, specifically
articles 6 and 20 which you can read in the back of The
Book of Common Prayer (pp. 867-876). And the Church
throughout the world—Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant—has
for two thousand years considered the bible the infallible
word of God. Only in the last 200 years have some mainline
Protestant theologians in Western nations challenged the doctrine
of scriptural authority on the basis of now laughably arcane
19th century “enlightenment” methodology and reasoning. One
contemporary result of this doctrinally schismatic move has
been this great debate over homosexuality. Homosexuality,
then, is not the real issue—the real issue boils down to the
authority of scripture in the Church.
Does
the Bible Still Apply to the Modern World?
“But
surely,” some might say, “a book completed so long ago can't
have much to say to modern people living in a modern world.”
Well, if you think about it, there are many, many ancient
books that have had a huge and lasting impact on the modern
world. Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Nicomachean
Ethics, just to name two, have virtually shaped the Western
world politically, philosophically, and morally. Even if you
are not aware of it, many of the ideas and ways of thinking
that we take for granted come directly from Plato and Aristotle,
both of whom wrote and lived before the New Testament was
completed. If human beings—philosophers—writing and thinking
thousands of years ago still have such a tremendous impact
on our lives today, then surely the bible, written by human
beings and inspired by an eternal God, still has something
to say?
Indeed
there are some passages in the bible that we can point to
and say, “Well that was the rule then, but now times have
changed.” For example, St. Peter in 1st Peter 3:3-5 admonished
women not to accentuate their beauty with long braided hair
and expensive jewelry. He said this partly because to do so
in the context of his culture was to show off wealth, attract
attention, and possibly, depending upon the context, ply the
trade of a prostitute. St. Peter's admonishion did not have
to do with earrings or braided hair but with self-aggrandizement,
pretension, and sexual immorality.
To
apply that today would be to say, “Don't dress to show off
your wealth and don't dress in order to sell your body.” Women
have the freedom to wear jewelry and braid their hair today
because generally speaking in the context of contemporary
American culture, such things no longer have anything to do
with pretension or prostitution. The principles at stake in
St. Peter's proscription—humility and modesty in dress—still
bind us. The principle behind St. Peter's command
has not changed, but the way we live it out has because the
culture around us has changed. The truth is always the same,
although its cultural application may change over time.
Sexual Ethics Not Subject to Change
As
you will see, however, the passages in the Bible that deal
with homosexuality are not at all subject to shifting cultural
contexts.
First,
Paul draws a firm link between homosexuality and the fallen
nature of humanity. In a key passage, Romans 1:18-32, he argues
that the homosexual impulse is an inclination that derives
from humanity's original falling away from God. What this
means is that St. Paul does not offer us a culturally bound
description of a behavior that may have been wrong long ago
but is perfectly okay now. Rather he is offering an
ageless identification of homosexuality with a fallen nature
that people of every age share in common—an identification
that therefore applies to all cultures and times. Paul was
in this passage, as Dr. Robert Gagnon notes, “referring to
collective entities, not individuals and to widespread effect,
not origin.” ( The Bible and Homosexual Practice,
Dr. Robert Gagnon).
For
an example of the significance of this point, let's take the
debate over the existence of a gay gene. Contrary to conventional
wisdom, the discovery of a so-called “gay” gene predisposing
men and women toward homosexuality would not upset the identification
of homosexuality with humanity's fallen nature, but rather
such a find would affirm it. Moreover, such a find would be
totally consistent with the classic orthodox Christian assertion
that the Fall affects every aspect of our being.
Second,
the proscriptions against homosexuality found in the OT are
renewed and carried forward across time into the NT and therefore
not bound to the OT sacrificial system, but are transcultural.
Aside from St. Paul, Both Jesus in the gospels of Mark and
Matthew and the NT Church in the book of Acts implicitly refer
to and condemn homosexual behavior along with the entire category
of sexual behaviors listed in Leviticus 18, and by this they
establish the timeless baseline for sexual ethics in the Church.
References to Homosexuality in the Old and
New Testaments
To
demonstrate the truth of these two points, we will discuss
the most important OT and NT passages in which the subject
of homosexuality is discussed directly or indirectly:
•
Romans 1:18-32 (This passage covers the Fall of Humanity as
well as the results of that Fall)
•
1st Corinthians 6:9-10
•
1 Timothy 1:10
•
Leviticus 18:22
•
Leviticus 20:13
•
Mark 7: 21-22; Matthew 15:19 (sexual immorality)
•
Acts 15:20 (sexual immorality)
These
passages make it absolutely clear that in the context of the
whole of scripture, homosexuality is recognized to be contrary
to the will of God and that any argument which puts forward
the idea that homosexuality is a valid life-style cuts directly
against the grain of God's Word written.
Romans
1:18-32
In
Romans 1:18-32, Paul describes homosexual behavior as one
of the twists of human nature resulting from the first human
decision to turn away from God. Whereas Genesis 1 clearly
indicates that human beings were originally intended to join
together as male and female in procreative unions, when sin
entered the world, when human beings turned from the God of
created things to the created things in themselves, God gave
humanity over to its own devices. As a result, all human beings
are born with fallen natures, meaning our souls, our bodies,
our desires have become disordered and twisted. One result
of this twist is that our sexual natures have become perverted.
Natural, or God-created, sexual desires have been exchanged
for unnatural (or fallen) ones. Let me quote here again from
Dr. Gagnon:
“There is a whole series of behaviors and passions listed
in Romans 1:29-31, following the reference to same-sex intercourse
in 1:24-27, that…have some innate basis. People do not choose
to be covetous or envious, for example. They are simply born
with an innate proclivity to feel bad when others have attractive
things or persons that they do not have. That does not mean
that covetousness and envy are natural or in accordance with
nature in the Pauline sense…since by ‘nature' Paul meant God's
intended design for creation untouched by the introduction
of sin into the world (i.e., the anatomical, procreative,
and interpersonal complementarity of male-female sexual bonds…)…Current
theories of homosexual development [therefore] are essentially
compatible with Paul's own view of sin. In Romans 5 and 7
Paul speaks of sin as an innate impulse operating in the human
body, transmitted by an ancestor human, and never entirely
within the control of the human will. This is precisely how
homosex-affirming advocates describe homosexual orientation.
And Romans 1:24-27 itself talks about God, ‘giving over' people
to pre-existing passions for members of the same sex, passions
which, apart from God's help, are beyond control. If Paul
could be transported into the 21st century and told that homoerotic
desires have (at most) a partial and indirect connection to
innate causation factors, he doubtless would have said either
‘I could have told you that' or at the very least, ‘That fits
well into my own understanding of sin.'” (The Bible
and Homosexual Practice, Dr. Robert Gagnon )
In light of all this, care should of course be taken
when reading Romans 1:24-27 not to neglect Romans 1:27-32.
St. Paul uses homosexuality as an example of the shameful
results of the Fall, but he also lists the following ramifications:
envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, gossip, slander, blasphemy,
insolence, arrogance, pride, disrespect, faithlessness, heartlessness
and ruthlessness. In other words, human nature as a whole
has been perverted and marred. This perversion includes but
is not limited to our sexual nature.
To
summarize briefly, in Romans 1:18-32 (specifically verses
24-27) St. Paul points to the existence of the homosexual
orientation, the desire of men for men and women for
women, and the homosexual act, "men
commit[ing] indecent acts with other men", as examples
of human perversity deriving from the Fall.
1st
Corinthians 6:9-11
In
1st Corinthians 6:9-11, St. Paul again turns to the subject
of homosexuality and includes homosexual behaviors in a list
of behaviors considered characteristic of people who “do not
inherit the Kingdom of God” (see above). Some revisionist
scholars have questioned whether the Greek words Paul uses
here are intended to indicate all homosexual activity or whether
St. Paul is addressing specifically male prostitution, in
which case, they argue, this passage cannot apply to the monogamous
homosexual relationships of today. Given Paul's very clear
and strong condemnation of homosexual behavior in general
in Romans 1, the argument over 1 Cor 6:9 is not all that crucial
because we know that Paul condemned the homosexual act in
general whether paid for or not.
But
just to play along with the argument, let me note that the
most common ways the two Greek words in question here, “Malakoi”
and “Arsenokoitai,” were used demonstrate that Paul almost
beyond a doubt was referring to male homosexual relations.
“Malakos” refers most often to a male who is “soft” or effeminate,
or passive. In the context of sexuality it was used most commonly
to refer to the passive partner in a male homosexual erotic
relationship. Some have argued that it refers specifically
to young male prostitutes who take on the role of the female
in bed, but there is another much more common word for these
people, “kinaidos.” So, it's more likely, given the plain
sense of the word “malakos” and the fact that there was a
more common word available—“kinaidos”—that Paul was simply
referring to the passive sexual partner in male homosexual
intercourse, and the identification of these people as male
prostitutes is incorrect.
“Arsenokoites,”
the second word, means “one who lies with a male in a male
homosexual erotic relationship.” This word as it was most
commonly used in the context of sexual relations refers “in
general” to any male who plays the role of the male in bed
with another male, be he with a prostitute or with a lover.
The
interesting thing about this word, as Richard Hays notes in
his Moral Vision of the New Testament, is that coming
from a learned Jew like Paul, “arsenokoites” would likely
represent an allusion to the Greek text of Leviticus 20:13
“meta arsenos koiten gynaikos,” “arsenokoites” being a compound
of “arsen” (male) “and koiten” (intercourse). The compound
word, “arsenokoites” is in fact not known in Greek literature
prior to the NT. For that reason Hays believes Paul likely
created it in reference to Leviticus 20. The significance
of this, of course, is that Paul understood the Levitical
prohibitions against homosexuality to be morally binding on
the church beyond the context of ritual purity. Most likely
these two words taken together represent a blanket condemnation
of both the passive and assertive forms of male homosexual
behavior. This passage, therefore, represents another explicit
NT condemnation of homosexual behavior without regard to cultural
or relational context. ( Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker
Greek Lexicon of the NT and other Early Christian Literature
)
Leviticus
18:22 and 20:13
Now
let's turn briefly to the Old Testament. I have saved this
part of my discussion until now because the material we find
in Romans and 1st Corinthians establishes that Paul not only
carried forward the OT prohibition against homosexual behavior,
but added much to it, providing the reason behind its prohibition,
namely that it is perversion of the created order stemming
from the Fall. It is helpful to have this NT context before
turning to the OT because the OT passages which condemn homosexuality
as an “abomination” or “detestable” (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13)
have been mischaracterized as:
•
Part of the temple/tabernacle purity code, which was abolished
in the NT when through his sacrifice Jesus became the new
Temple, and
•
Part of a xenophobic attempt to retain Hebrew identity over
and against surrounding peoples. Since that particular social
need is no longer extant, the law created to meet it is no
longer necessary . . . so goes the argument.
Inspired by the Holy Spirit, Paul as we have already seen,
and Jesus and the NT Church as we will see, understood the
prohibitions found in Leviticus 18, including Leviticus 18:22,
to be primarily moral in nature. Though there were most definitely
ritual ramifications to transgressing the laws that are spelled
out in Leviticus 20:13 (namely that one became unclean), the
laws in themselves were understood to be primarily moral in
nature. Thus, the either/or character of the most recent revisionist
polemic must be corrected by a both/and point of view.
There are three categories of Levitical law: purity/ritual,
theocratic and moral. Only the last category—moral—was intended
to stand eternally.
The
Purity/Ritual Levitical Laws
The
purity/ritual laws have to do with tabernacle and temple.
They were introduced by God to reinforce the concepts of holiness
and bodily purity. The rules and regulations associated with
the temple no longer apply to Christians for the very good
reason that Jesus Christ, in his body and through his blood,
has fulfilled and replaced the temple, as the writer of Hebrews
makes clear in chapters 9-10 and as Peter's vision makes clear
in Acts 10:9-23. Christ is our purity and our sacrifice.
The
Theocratic Levitical Laws
The
theocratic laws had to do with governing the people of Israel
during the time of the judges and kings. They were intended
to reinforce the concept of Israel being set apart as a holy
nation and people. Because of rebellion and idolatry, those
kingdoms were taken away. The new Kingdom of God introduced
in and through Jesus Christ has superceded the old theocratic
covenant, and therefore, the laws regarding governance in
the Promised Land no longer apply.
Jesus
did not come to change these laws, but rather, as he put it,
to fulfill them. As the representative Israelite, he fulfilled
the mission in and through the law that Israel as a nation
failed to fulfill. In obedience even unto death, he became
the light to the nations and the glory of God's people Israel
. With Jesus' death and resurrection, the people of God have
been given an eternal purity in his blood and have been ushered
into a new sort of theocracy, the Kingdom of God, that includes
all who call Jesus Lord. The old has passed away, God is making
all things new.
Notice,
however, that this fulfillment, this new creation, was initiated
and begun by the sovereign Lord and verified and authenticated
not apart from the law and the prophets, but through and according
to them. This new covenant in blood was not voted on or dictated
by the Sanhedrin or by popular demand, but it was handed down
and authenticated by God himself at the resurrection and ascension.
Moreover, the NT writers themselves, inspired by the Holy
Spirit, attest to all of these things.
The
Moral Levitical Laws are Eternal
Now
we come to the third category, the moral law. These have not
been superceded or changed. In this category you will find
the Ten Commandments, the laws regarding sexual morality,
and the laws regarding the poor and the foreigners. These
laws are consciously alluded to and purposely mentioned by
Jesus and the NT writers as absolutely binding in the new
Kingdom.
The
present debate has centered upon whether or not the sexual
regulations listed in Leviticus 18 are to be categorized as
purity/ritual laws or moral laws. It is clear, however, from
the fact that the prohibitions against all forms of sexual
behavior outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage are consistently
and clearly condemned in the NT, including implicitly and
explicitly homosexual conduct, that Jesus and the apostles
considered these laws to be moral laws established at creation
and in force until the end. That the NT writers considered
them to be moral in nature should be clear from our discussion
of Romans 1 and 1st Corinthians 6:9 above. That Jesus understood
these laws to be moral rather than purity/ritual is clear
from his discourse in Mark 7:9-23 (discussed below). That
the early church held and enforced the same understanding
is clear from the instructions to Gentile believers found
in Acts 15:20.
Jesus does not address homosexual behavior as distinct from
other illicit sexual behaviors, but he condemns it all the
same by his negative application of the word “pornia” in Mark
7:21-22 and Matthew 15:19. The Greek word “pornia” in the
context of first century Judaism referred specifically to
the Levitical laws found in Leviticus 18 (homosexuality is
specifically mentioned in 18:22).
The
rabbis of the first century often used shorthand phrases to
refer to the law, as we saw with the phrase “the law and the
prophets” which refers to the Tanahk. “Pornia” was another
shorthand word that, again, was used to refer to all the acts
and behaviors listed in Leviticus 18 from incest to bestiality,
from adultery to homosexuality. Therefore, when Jesus says,
“But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart,
and these make a man unclean. For out of the heart come evil
thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false
testimony, slander . . . ”(Matt 15:18-19), he indicates very
clearly that all the acts considered sexually immoral in the
Levitical law code, from heterosexual promiscuity to homosexual
partnerships, are to be considered immoral by his disciples
as well. They are, in other words, moral in nature and thus
eternal.
The very same word, “pornia,” is used in Acts 15:20 by the
church council in Jerusalem. They command Gentile believers
to abstain from “pornia,” again, a direct reference to and
a clear endorsement of the Levitical sexual code.
In sum, throughout scripture you will find not one positive
or even neutral word relating to homosexual activity. When
referenced, the homosexual drive and the homosexual act are
always and everywhere referenced as sins consistent with and
arising out of the fallen-ness of humanity. To paraphrase
Dr. Gagnon once again, homosexual behavior is a behavior that
is proscribed by both testaments implicitly and explicitly,
pervasively, severely, absolutely and without shadow or shade.
We
are All Born with Orientations Away From God
I
have no doubt that there are many people who have been born
with an orientation toward those of the same sex, just as
there are many people who are born with orientations toward
promiscuity, strife, deceit, etc. In fact, we are all—every
one of us—born sinners with orientations away from God. Sin
has marred God's original creation.
The
whole point of Christianity is that God in his love has acted
to redeem what has fallen, to restore what has been broken,
and to do away with the sin that has driven a wedge between
him and the people he created and loves. Through faith in
Jesus Christ, all human beings of whatever orientation are
offered forgiveness, holiness, and eternal reconciliation
with God and with one another. Those who come to Jesus Christ
are forgiven for every sin they have ever committed in the
past and every sin they will ever commit in the future. God
himself in the person of Jesus has taken upon himself the
just penalty for all of our sins. And he has committed himself
to live within us, to fill us with his love and peace, and
to cleanse us, his adopted children, from all of our unrighteousness
through his Holy Spirit.
As
Christians it is our role to recognize and identify sin and
to fight through God's grace to eradicate it from our own
lives and from the life of the entire Church. Sin is like
a deadly disease. It must be rooted out and destroyed. The
worst thing you can do with cancer is to deny that it's there
and do nothing about it. In the same way, the worst thing
you can do when confronted with sin, your own or the sin of
the Church, is to deny it or hide from it. That means that
we must be clear with ourselves individually and as the Church
and with the world as to what constitutes sin and what does
not.
On
homosexuality, the scriptures are clear: homosexuality is
a sin. It must be dealt with in the same way all sin is dealt
with: it must be confessed and repented of, and then it must,
by God's help be overcome.
I have heard many say that this is too divisive an issue to
address. Sometimes debates that seem superficial and even
petty to the casual onlooker actually cut to the heart of
very serious, even essential, principles and doctrines. This
is just such a time. The movement to bless same-sex unions
and to ordain unrepentant and practicing homosexuals is a
direct challenge to the validity of and authority of the Biblical
witness and, therefore, worth the fight. But whatever happens,
we can trust in the love of Jesus Christ for his Church and
remember his promise that the Gates of Hell will never prevail
against it. I believe that God is using this issue to force
the Church to come to terms with the authority of the Bible.
Showing
Christ's Love and Compassion to All
I
wish it had been another issue—one not so political—at another
time—one not so rent by discord. But this is where God has
placed us, and this is where we will stand. It is unfortunate
that the current political climate has so clouded this issue
that instead of debating the validity of the scriptural witness,
most of what you hear tends rather to focus upon whether or
not homosexuals are to be “accepted” or “rejected” or whether
or not the Church will be “inclusive” or “bigoted.”
I
say unfortunately because the gospel is kind, loving and forgiving
to sinners. We as sinners know that better than anyone. The
Church is not the home of the righteous, but a hospital for
people who know they are not perfect. The forgiveness of Christ
is the most profound message of the gospel, and it is the
message I would love to concentrate on most. But people cannot
come forward to be healed by Christ unless they first recognize
that they are sick. That is why it is so important to defend
the truth of scripture. It does not help, it is not loving,
it is not compassionate to tell someone who is sick that he
or she is well. In fact, it is a cruel thing. Truth brings
freedom, not bondage, and the Bible's identification of homosexual
behavior with sin is truth.
In sum, it must be remembered that homosexuality is a sin
like any other sin. Lust, covetousness, lying, false witness—all
these are sins as well. There is absolutely no reason to single
out homosexual people for special stigmatization. Show everyone
the same love and compassion that Jesus shows to us in remembrance
that it is only by the grace of God that we are saved—and
not through our own goodness. All sinners of every stripe
are to be welcomed with open arms into the Church because
we are all sinners, and there are things, both big and small,
in all of our lives that are in need of transformation.
At
the same time, we are responsible for preaching, teaching,
and remaining faithful to God's word, knowing that it would
be cruel to have the truth and to withhold it. Hopefully,
as Christian people we will be at least as vigilant in applying
God's word to ourselves as individuals as we are to the Church.
The
Future of the Episcopal Church
Well,
now you know where I stand on the issue. I do not know the
future. I do not know what will happen to the Episcopal Church.
I do not know what will happen to the Anglican Communion.
There is at present an international commission meeting at
Lambeth, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s palace in London,
to determine a way forward. I am not confident. This issue
is unfortunately not one that can have a both/and solution.
Either homosexuality is sin or it is not. There is no middle
ground.
Anglican
Primates representing over half of the world’s 75 million
Anglicans have already declared themselves either out of communion
or in a state of impaired communion with the Episcopal Church.
A network of orthodox parishes and dioceses within the Episcopal
Church that opposes the heterodox innovations of the 74th
General Convention has been created and recognized by those
same primates to be the legitimate Anglican presence, the
only Anglican Church in America. There is, then, already a
very significant division that will most likely grow even
wider.
In
the end, I have no idea what the future holds for the Church
worldwide. What I do know is that by God's grace, so long
as I am Rector of the Church of the Good Shepherd, I will
stand firm on the foundation of the Word of God and remain
faithful to God's Truth, come what may.
In Christ,
Fr. Matt
(Posted
5-15-04)
|
