Seven Mission Goals for 2007

1. An active youth ministry in place by the end of the year

2. Hosting a quarterly Friends and Family Sunday (where we invite non-believing family and friends to church)

3. 100% parish participation in the Franklin Graham festival (i.e. everyone gets trained and brings a non-believing friend to the festival itself)

4. The vestry is seeking100% participation in Bible Study.

5 At least 30 new believers by this time next year.

6. An active discipling program by the end of the year with at least 4 leaders in discipling relationships.

7. gathering at least 100 people for worship every Sunday.

Dear Good Shepherd,

 

Good Morning. The following is the second (and quite lengthy) installment of an online debate or exchange in which I have been engaged for the last few weeks with an Episcopalian minister, the Rev. Tobias Haller. Fr. Haller supports the blessing of same-sex unions and the ordination of clergy living in non-celibate homosexual relationships. I have begun responding to his 7 part series and I am, now, on the third installment of my response. I will be reprinting all of the exchanges here because I think they might be helpful in understanding the issues involved and why the Episcopal Church tragically chose to act against the revealed Word of God and lead so many people away from the truth of the gospel. I will pick up my series on the 39 articles after my exhange with Fr. Haller is complete.

Fr. Haller's words are italicized.

The Scriptures and the Created Order part 2: A Response to Fr. Tobias Haller's, “True Union”

by the Rev. Matt Kennedy

Fr. Haller introduces the first part of his formal argument as a response to one of the comments I posted in the thread below his first article. He writes:

“In this post I will respond to the assertion that the purpose of sexuality is procreation. This assertion is well-summarized by a leading member of the reasserter community, in a comment on the earlier post:”

Here is my comment to which Fr. Haller refers:

“The suggestion that a loving companionship between homosexual partners that is consistent with the uniative purpose of marriage can exist does not, of itself, provide a basis for marriage. Nor, by any means, does it provide warrant for the introduction of sexual activity into that relationship.

The reasserting position is that sex is specifically given for the purpose of furthering the ends of marriage: procreative, uniative, and reflective. One of those ends cannot be separated in such a way as to stand exclusive of the others and form a proper basis for the introduction of sex outside of the other three. All three are essential to marriage. And sex is specifically given as a function of them.

I do think deontological reasoning enters into the picture here. Reasserters call the relationships revealed in Genesis 1-2 Creation ordinances. They are especially important as they reflect God's original intent prior to the introduction of rebellion. The Garden is a model of human relationship free of sin. Thus when Christ holds up that model in Matthew 19 , forbids sexual immorality in Matthew 15 (and I do not think a good argument has yet been made to show that either Jesus or Paul would have understood homosexual behavior as falling under any category but the sexually immoral one) and Paul specifically condemns homosexual behavior in Romans 1 etc...these texts are understood as a reaffirmation of the pre-lapsarian model.

There is then, the positive "command" regarding sexual relationships revealed in Genesis 1-2 and the negative condemnation of sexual relationships that deviate from that positive model throughout the rest of scripture.

Constructing a context for sex beyond the one modeled in Genesis, in other words, necessarily twists or distorts the model.”

My reference above to the “reflective” purpose of marriage points to the theological function of the institution of heterosexual marriage in both Testaments. The male-female marital union reflects or makes manifest the relationship between God and his people in the Old Testament (see Hosea 2:14-23 for a classic example) and between Christ and his Church in the New (see Ephesians 5:22-33 ). When a man and a woman marry, they enter into a sacred institution designed and established by God in Eden for the purpose of proclaiming the ideal nature of his relationship with his covenant people.

The husband makes manifest or declares Christ's love for his redeemed people in and through his own love for his wife. He can lie about that love by acting abusively, harshly and/or coldly toward his wife or he can proclaim the gospel by loving her as Christ loves Church. Likewise, a wife declares and makes manifest the Lordship of Christ in her faithful submission to her husband.

There is no room in this divinely established reflective model, which depends necessarily on the complimentarity of the sexes, for a marital union between two men or two women. For this reason, as I pointed out above, even though two men may hold great affection toward one another and treat each other faithfully, there is no way that they can fulfill either the procreative or reflective purposes of marriage.

This is not at all to say that such unions can ever truly fulfill the uniative purpose either since true marital unity depends on true Christian charity. Paul teaches in Romans 1 that homosexual desire flows out of and mirrors the original human exchange of the Creator for created things. The homosexual impulse draws a man toward his own likeness rather than toward a woman and vice versa. Homosexual desire, then, turns in on itself in a way that reflects the turning or twisting of the created order subsequent to Adam's rebellion.

Despite, then, the real emotional affection one man might have for another, and despite the commitments they might make, their union cannot fulfill the “uniative” purpose of marriage.

Before moving on, I think it important to define the term “deontological” I used in my post quoted above. “Deontological” ethics refers to the ethics of “Divine Command”. The core deontological insight is that what God, as sovereign, commands must necessarily be obeyed even when natural revelation and/or natural law seems to undermine or contradict it. This seems obvious, of course, but there is debate within the field of Christian ethics regarding the sources and foundations of ethical thought. Virtue based ethicists tend to focus on the convergence between revealed and natural law and ground their thinking on virtues that can be derived from both sources. Deontologists ground their ethics, primarily, in revealed law and appeal to natural law as a secondary rather than primary source. Neither would deny the imperative weight of divine command. The difference lies primarily in the importance given to natural law. Catholic ethicists tend more toward virtue based ethics, while most Reformed ethicists are deontologists.

One distinctive of Fr. Haller's approach is that he seems to use his unique understanding of nature and/or natural law with regard to homosexual behavior as a lens through which to reinterpret or reimage revealed laws.

Here is the beginning of Father Haller's response:

“The reasserting position is that sex is specifically given for the purpose of furthering the ends of marriage: procreative, uniative, and reflective. One of those ends cannot be separated in such a way as to stand exclusive of the others and form a proper basis for the introduction of sex outside of the other three. All three are essential to marriage. And sex is specifically given as a function of them.”

I think this is an accurate representation of the reasserting position. All three purposes are necessary as purposes or ends in a given marriage.

This does not mean, however, that they must be subjective possibilities.

In other words, to say that the procreative purpose is a necessary component to the institution of marriage is not to say that the barren woman or sterile man cannot marry. It is to say that they must enter marriage open to and fit for the possibility that God might sovereignly determine to open the womb of the wife or fertilize the seed of the husband. Such willingness and openness is impossible for same-sex couples.

Roman Catholic Canon Law (1084), for example, does not forbid the state marriage to sterile men or barren women. It does, however, forbid marriage to those who cannot engage in sexual intercourse at all since to enter the marriage covenant is, necessarily, to promise your husband or wife that you will fulfill the marital obligation. Jimmy Akin has a very helpful post regarding this distinction here .

Moreover, the procreative act between, specifically and necessarily, husband and wife, “successful” or not, is tightly bound to the reflective purpose. The love between Christ (husband) and his Church (bride) produces spiritual children as Christ works through the proclamation of the Church to give new birth to those who were before dead in sin and trespass. But both the conception of spiritual children through the proclamation of the Church and the conception of human babies through the intercourse of husband and wife are wholly subject to the will of God. God does not choose to give new birth with every proclamation of the gospel, nor does he choose to give the gift of new life through every act of sexual intercourse. The Church, nevertheless, must proclaim the gospel. She must act in accordance with the Great Commission, even in, especially in, contexts that seem impossibly sterile and/or barren, leaving the outcome of her proclamation to the Lord's sovereign will.

In the same way a married couple, in keeping with the reflective purpose, must act in accordance with the procreative purposes of marriage without regard to perceived possibilities or circumstances. Even if a couple is “unable” to have children, sexual intercourse between husband and wife, in so far as they embrace the possibility of procreation, remains an act of faith in the God who brings life from the grave. And, again, such an embrace is impossible for same-sex couples.

Finally, the uniative purpose, the bringing together of two differentiated and distinct beings, male and female, husband and wife, into one “flesh” is, quite obviously, fulfilled in the procreative act. And, moreover, the uniative purpose, like the reflective purpose, is quite inseparable from the procreative purpose, again, despite the actualization or “success” of the procreation. The joining of male and female “flesh” necessarily involves the intended joining of sperm and egg. Sexual intercourse is the very consummation or climax (I'm not being graphic here) of the uniative purpose whether or not the joining results in conception because it unifies the flesh of husband and the flesh of the wife and the deepest and most profound physical level. If conception results the child is a living, procreated, symbol of marital unity. If it does not, the procreative act itself between husband and wife, serves to exemplify the bringing together of two distinct, differentiated and complimentary beings in one flesh. The interplay, moreover, with the reflective purpose at this point is obvious.

And, of course, no homosexual union can ever naturally replicate this joining.

In sum, the uniative, reflective and procreative ends of marriage are woven together in a rich tapestry of meaning. A husband and wife fulfilling the procreative end, also fulfill the reflective and uniative ends and the procreative end is, itself, teh summation or symbolic climax of the uniative and reflective ends.

What this means is that even an unintentionally childless married couple can fulfill the procreative purpose if both remain open to God's will because despite any physical maladies hindering the actualization of conception and/or birth, the husband is divinely designed and created as a model of Christ for fatherhood and the mother as a model of the Church for motherhood and both engage in the pleasurable and joyful act of intercourse faithfully fulfilling all three ends of marriage despite those physical circumstances that may seem to prevent conception.

Moving on, Fr. Haller writes:

“I intend to demonstrate that not only is procreation not essential to marriage, but that its relationship to sexuality is not absolute; that it can be (and is) separated from other ends, which in themselves can and do form a proper basis for a sexual relationship within marriage.”

I agree, as I've argued above, that procreation, as an actualized reality, is not essential to marriage. Openness to procreation in accordance with the will of God, however, is quite necessary and essential. And, moreover, since as I've already argued it is tied so closely to the reflective and uniative purposes, the procreative purpose cannot be detached or amputated from the body of purposes without doing mortal damage to the institution of marriage and without marring or twisting the scripturally revealed purpose of sexual intercourse.

Here is the first section of Fr. Haller's argument:

“Ways and means and blessings

Before entering into the specifics, I want to address the language of “purpose” and “function” or “ends.” In general, although this language has a place in the tradition, it seems to me to reflect an overly utilitarian ethic focused on results.”

These first two sentences, I think, reveal a crucial misunderstanding of the language of “ends” that goes a long way in explaining reason Fr. Haller's argument is flawed. The language of ends is not utilitarian and it not only has a place in “the tradition”, it is core biblical language. God has a sovereign “purpose” in Creation and in Redemption and that is to glorify himself by creating and setting apart a people, a bride, the Church that will forever be called by his Name. His ultimate purpose is his own glory. This is no more a “utilitarian end” than any of the other penultimate purposes or ends to which God calls his creatures in the process of glorifying himself in and through them.

The fact that procreation is an end or purpose of marriage does not, as I've already argued, mean that without conception there can be no marriage. The beautiful thing about God's purpose is that all things contribute to that end. The sexual relationship between husband and wife tinged with the hopeful possibility that the procreative act will, by God's grace, result in conception, is in itself a fulfillment of the procreative, uniative, and reflective ends.

Fr. Haller goes on to create a false dichotomy:

I would prefer to follow another aspect of the Christian tradition that refers to the “goods” of marriage. In a virtue ethic, sexuality is not simply a function, or the use of a person (or two persons' use of each other) towards some purposed end or goal, but an act growing out of the love between persons that is open to the good that may be imparted. Self-giving love, rather than self-asserting need, provides the basis for the action which grows out of the love, and which is a blessing in itself apart from any result.”

There is absolutely nothing contained within the above paragraph that in any way contradicts or even adds to the concept of the procreative “end” of marriage. The ideas articulated are part and parcel with it.

“In addition, “purpose” in this context implies an a priori assumption, a social or theological one at that. There is a difference even between a purpose and a function. Purpose sees sexuality not merely for what it does and how it does it, but as a naturally or divinely intended “plan for humanity” — depending upon one's worldview of a secular personified Nature or theological divine intent. It is important, therefore, to be aware of this subtext in the secular and sacred tradition before proceeding. (I am not challenging the notion that sexuality has a purpose in the natural world or in God's plan; I merely flag that this is a second order question, which I will address at the proper point in the discussion.)”

I would not agree that there is an assumption being made. Rather there is recognition that God's pre-lapsarian creation of sexual intercourse was tied inextricably to his pre-lapsarian establishment of marriage and the unitive, reflective, and procreative purposes of the same.

“Defining the goods
Avoiding both “purpose” and “function” at the outset, let me say that most people (including those outside the faith) would agree that human sexuality appears to have two principle goods, procreation and the union. (The “reflective” good, in which marriage serves as an image for the relationship between Christ and the Church, or God and Israel, is solely theological. I will address union and reflection in subsequent posts; as well as a “cause” or end of marriage that has dropped both from this reasserter 's list and from the preface to the Episcopal marriage liturgy: marriage as a remedy for fornication, for those who lack the gift of celibacy.)”

I agree that the reflective end is “theological” in the sense that it is not necessarily recognized or perceived by those outside the faith. At the same time, I would hasten to add that there is an almost universal recognition of a “spiritual” component to sexual relations. This wide-spread perception is, I think, rooted in natural revelation. The connection, then, between sex and the four part covenant between man, woman, God, and Church essential to Christian marriage bears powerful witness to and acts as a kind of symbolic proclamation of God's character and his relationship to his people. The reflective end is, then, “theological”, but it is also evangelical. It proclaims an essential truth about the nature of God and the character of his relationship to redeemed humanity through Jesus Christ.

This explains, I believe, why Paul is so concerned to limit sexual intercourse to marriage in 1st Corinthians 7 . It is not to find a sin-free shelter for sexual activity (as Fr. Haller suggests later). It is rather to ensure the purity of the reflective quality and end of Christian marriage and preserve its evangelical quality.

“In regarding procreation and union, the church has (until fairly recent times) traditionally emphasized the former over the latter, but it appears that such an emphasis is not well supported by Scripture, reason, or even other elements of the tradition. In this and succeeding posts I hope to sketch out a number of points concerning the various goods of sexuality, and consequently, of marriage…

I will not quibble with Fr. Haller regarding “emphasis.” The fact that the Scriptures and the Church together embrace all three ends of marriage ought to mean that contemporary ecclesial organizations do the same. When any of the three ends are consciously de-emphasized, it is an error. Correcting that error, however, cannot mean that the ends emphasized in the past must be de-emphasized and one formerly neglected must be exalted above them. That would simply compound the error. The standard of orthodoxy is to hold to and profess all that Scripture reveals despite apparent tensions such professions involve and despite the moral inconveniences that will necessarily arise.

“I use the word human intentionally, in order to highlight the fact that sex and sexuality are not unique to human beings. We share our being members of a species predominantly male or female, and our capacity to reproduce sexually, with most animals and many plants. It has been observed in the past that expending theological energy on the mere existence of the sexes and the capacity to reproduce — which is part of our animal nature — shifts the focus away from what makes us truly human, as well as serving as locus for the image of God in human form: our capacity to love and to reason.”

Yes, we are mammals. But God has created humanity in his own image and given us dominion over the creatures of the earth. So while our sexual behavior may function, physically, in a way similar to the beasts we are not to take our behavioral cues from the beasts or look to the beasts as moral exemplars. Were it not so terribly depressing, the tendency among revisionists (and I do not believe Fr. Haller is among them at this point) to appeal to the sexual habits of monkeys and dogs both to find rationale for homosexual behavior and as moral exemplars for human “mating”, would be comic.

And, moreover, while it has indeed been observed that, “expending theological energy on the mere existence of the sexes and the capacity to reproduce — which is part of our animal nature — shifts the focus away from what makes us truly human…” such an observation is wholly inconsistent with scriptural revelation. There is a great deal of focus on human sexual behavior throughout the gospels and the epistles. The New Testament is, in fact, decidedly “fleshy” in the sense that the radical opposition between body and soul advocated by Gnostics both ancient and modern, is utterly rejected. God, it seems, is quite concerned about what we do with the bodies he has given us. As St. Paul says in 1st Corinthians 6

“The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined [4] to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin [5] a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body." (1st Corinthians 6:14-20

There is uniform agreement on this point throughout the scriptures. Sexual immorality is abhorrent to God because it represents a corruption of the temple of the body that was designed to be holy dwelling place for his Holy Spirit.

“The witness of nature
No one would claim that sex has nothing to do with procreation; rather it is obvious that the existence of male and female in many species of animals and plants is a part of the natural process by which life is perpetuated. It is not, of course, the only means of such propagation, and many forms of life, even some vertebrates, reproduce without making use of sexual differentiation or sexual intercourse.

However, when it comes to human beings, it is trivial to observe that the existence of male and female, and their exercise of the capacity for sexual intercourse, is intimately connected with procreation.”

I am supposing that by “trivial” Fr. Haller means “evident.”

“The natural law tradition takes this as given; but that is, in part, why this tradition is of little use in the present discussion, as it begs the question: it assumes as a premise the very matter under discussion; that is: that procreation is the primary purpose for or good of sex.”

Whether this is true or not, is, again, irrelevant. It is enough to recognize that sexual intercourse is inextricably bound to the end of procreation and that procreation is only possible through direct divine intervention (as in the virgin birth) or through the sexual relations of a man and a woman.

“The difficulties with ends-based natural law arguments in this regard, which are advanced against birth control as much as against same-sexuality, in particular those that focus narrowly on the mechanics of sexual intercourse, are well summarized by The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics.

It is one thing to say that the natural function of the eye is to see. But even bodily organs can and do serve several functions. And if one asks of the body as a whole what its function is, the answer is much less clear. Even less clear is the answer to questions such as “What is the function of a human life?” or “What is the function of sexuality in a human life?” The way one might try to answer these questions seems quite unlike the way one might try to answer questions about the function(s) of the endocrine glands or the heart in the human body. The notion of “function” at this point becomes much more a matter of moral assessment than a scientific inquiry. (“Natural Law,” 413)”

I read the entire article the Westminster Dictionary and found it to be the typical, if more subtle, deconstructionist attempt to undermine a position or principle by dissecting its integrated parts and dismissing them individually without reference to the whole. Deconstructionists revel in that sort of thing. In any case, while the other two ends are necessarily bound to sexual intercourse, procreation, at the very least, is among the most obvious end or purpose. To say that is not to devalue the uniative end or reflective ends or the obvious pleasur sexual intercourse provides, but it is to say that any comprehensive view of human sexual behavior must, necessarily, include the procreative end.

That the eye has other ends apart from providing sight, does not mean that sight can therefore be lopped off and set aside as an unnecessary end of the eye. Nor does the fact that some are born blind change the fact that one end or purpose of the eye is to provide sight.

“Given that caveat, from an objective standpoint the following observations are telling, even in light of a functional or ends-based viewpoint:

Procreation is not simultaneous with intercourse, which in humans is not the planting of a seed (as the pre-modern world imagined it) but the placement of millions of sperm in a place where they are capable of eventually reaching a single ovum, at which point one of them may fertilize it

Intercourse does not always lead to procreation. Women, unlike the females of most mammals, do not have an estrus cycle, which in many other species limits sexual behavior to times of fertility; thus there is a completely natural separation between capacity to have sexual relations and the capacity to procreate

Procreation can take place entirely apart from intercourse (through artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization); and, perhaps needless to say, apart from marriage

Intercourse can take place when procreation is impossible or avoided: in addition to the lack of estrus, human beings can engage in intercourse when some other cause (intended or incidental) prevents conception

From a sociological perspective, in looking at the question of “the function of sexuality in a human life” is is clear that sexuality has major social implications apart from procreation; and has taken many forms in many cultures

At the same time, it is fair to notice the fact (which reasserters occasionally raise in such discussions) that every human being who ever lived is the result of sexual congress between a man and a woman. This, however, in addition to overlooking conception via artificial means or in vitro, neglects an exception significant to the religious question; which brings me to the witness of Scripture.”

By these observations, Fr. Haller believes he drives a wedge between sexual behavior and procreation. Because sexual intercourse does not always end in conception and because conception can be accomplished apart from sexual intercourse (though not without the necessary elements of male sperm and the female's egg) and because sexual intercourse can take place without or apart from the possibility of procreation, procreation is not a necessary “good” of sexual intercourse.

This is, to use another of the Westminster Dictionary's example, as absurd as suggesting that because some people with eyes cannot see and because people without natural sight are able to “see” through the use of aids like braile and seeing eye dogs and because even the eyes of the blind serve a social purpose, sight is not a necessary good of the eye. Fr. Haller, again, conflates the actualization of the procreative act, conception, with the procreative end itself and, as we have seen above, such a conflation is unwarranted and supported neither by Scripture nor tradition.

Fr. Haller turns to scripture next:

“The witness of Scripture
The most important conception in human history, that of Jesus Christ himself, took place apart from sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. This is, naturally, an article of faith and revelation, not reason. However, we are presented with this theological fact and reason can seek to understand what God may have intended by it. That God should choose this means of entering upon the human scene should give pause to those who wish to make more out of heterosexuality in the scheme of salvation than is actually evidenced in Scripture. As I will demonstrate below, this choice on God's part is best seen as a reflection of the teaching of Jesus on the new Creation, which is not simply a recapitulation of the old, but the beginning of something truly new.”

There is an old exegetical principle that bears directly on Fr. Haller's rather acrobatic hermeneutic: “Where the Scriptures are silent, the interpreter mustn't scream.” It is, in other words, a dangerous thing to establish or change doctrine on the basis of biblical silence. That God did not use sexual intercourse between husband and wife to bring about the conception of his Son Jesus Christ does not constitute an appropriate foundation for the Church to bless sexual intercourse apart from heterosexual marriage.

And, moreover, the bible is not wholly silent on the matter. God determined to interrupt the natural process of reproduction for reasons that are readily inferred from the text of scripture itself. There is no need for speculation.

34 And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”
35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God. 36 And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. 37 For nothing will be impossible with God.”

God the Son would become incarnate, not through human agency (so that no man can boast) but through the will of the Father, “therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.” Far from any sense of validating sexual behavior apart from procreation, God determined to interrupt the natural process of procreation so that the humanity of his Son would not be Adam's humanity, but a New humanity. As Paul makes clear in the 5th chapter of his letter to the Romans, those born of the seed of Adam are doomed to sin and death. They are by nature objects of wrath ( Ephesians 2:1-4 ). But God the Son did not share in Adam's fallen humanity. His humanity was pristine, untouched by original sin. He was not a Son of Adam but the “Son of God.” God, then, interrupted the natural reproductive process because Adam's seed had been twisted and marred. Jesus' humanity was humanity restored; a new Adam not created from the dust of the earth, but created and conceived in the womb of Mary the Virgin.

Fr. Haller seems to be laying the groundwork to argue that God's special and purposive interruption of natural processes, separating conception from sexual intercourse, in the miracle of the incarnation provides scriptural precedent for the Church to bless the separation of sexual intercourse, the procreative act, from heterosexual marriage.

God did it; so can we.

If, indeed, this is the path he means to take, he must beware the unintended consequences.

By the same logic, the fact that God determined to execute his just sentence against the peoples living in Canaan by commanding and then employing Joshua and his army as his means to utterly destroy them, provides precedent and warrant for Christians to utterly destroy the peoples now occupying the Holy Land

That God rained fire from heaven to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, provides Christians warrant to destroy Amsterdam or Las Vegas or Tijuana.

That God struck down Ananias and Saphira for lying to the Church gives the vestry warrant to execute lying parishioners.

The missing concept is, of course, God's sovereignty. God's decisions to intervene miraculously or wrathfully within the processes and institutions of the created order are in keeping with his sovereign authority. We are his creatures. We do not have sovereign authority to do the same apart from his direct command. That God determined to act apart from (though not against) the institution he established at Creation does not give the Church license to do the same.

“Back to the beginning
But let us for a moment return to that beginning, to the Book of Genesis, which is naturally often cited in discussions of human sexuality. It is important firstly to note the obvious fact that Genesis contains two creation accounts, and they are not harmonious in numerous details.”

Nor do they contradict. Genesis 1 provides an overview of the creation of the entire cosmos. Genesis 2 provides a more detailed account of God's creation of humanity. They are different because they focus on different aspects of divine creation.

“This has not prevented people merging the two accounts in various ways. Jesus himself performed such a midrash, though with a significant omission.”

The reason they can be merged so readily is that they describe the same event from differing perspectives.

I am now, by the way, quite curious to explore the castles Fr. Haller later builds atop Jesus' “significant omission” but, alas, he's not yet ready to reveal them.

“However, it appears best to treat the two accounts with some care in distinguishing the concerns each expresses. It is immediately apparent that Genesis 1 refers to procreation (both animal and human), while Genesis 2 focuses on the good of companionship and unity, which I will address at greater length in a succeeding post.”

There is indeed a distinction to be made but Fr. Haller seems to make too much of it. Genesis 1 certainly involves procreation (both animal and human) but it ends with the creation of man, the crowning creation of the cosmos, on the sixth day and it is in that context, the creation of male and female, that the command to procreate is given, not to the beasts, but to the man and woman who are made in the image of God:

"Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

The second account beginning in Genesis 2 fills out the details of this sixth day. In Genesis 2 , the unified complimentarity of the prelapsarian relationship between Adam and Eve is revealed. They are physically distinct and different and yet God joins them together as one. The focus on “companionship and unity” is certainly, as Fr. Haller notes, evident in the second account and, it is important to add, the unity and companionship flow from Adam and Eve's sexual distinctiveness and difference.

Here is the strange observation Fr. Haller makes regarding these texts:

“This alone indicates to some extent the way in which these two goods can be discussed apart from each other.”

Of course they can be discussed apart from each other. Does that mean that one is unnecessary or may be omitted? The lungs and the heart can be discussed apart from each other too but both are essential to the life of the body. In the same way procreation and unity can be discussed apart from one another but both are essential to each other and to marriage.

“Many reasserters seem to think that Genesis offers the best argument against same-sex relationships, and regularly return to it in discussions of the subject. However, the fact that Genesis presents us with the creation of male and female as ordered towards procreation does not in itself automatically indicate or even imply a prohibition on same-sex relationships, any more than the pre-scientific discussion of the origin of the world, or the structure of the cosmos, need automatically rule out the learnings of physics or cosmology.”

The created order does not, “in itself automatically indicate…a prohibition on same-sex relationships” but it does show that the ideal or model prelapsarian human sexual relationship was a monogamous heterosexual one established by God and that sexual intercourse was given within the context of that relationship as a symbolic and real fulfillment of its unitaive, procreative, and reflective ends. And, moreover, it does, at the very least, “imply” that other sexual arrangements are at the very least without divine sanction.

Fr. Haller goes on:

“Moreover, the divine establishment of X does not in itself imply a negative assessment of Y, in particular if X and Y can be shown both to belong to a larger category, and have more in common than in contrast.”

If there were no direct revealed prohibition of homosexual sex, I might have some sympathy for (though not agreement with) Fr. Haller's argument, but the fact is that the divine establishment of X does not stand alone. The scriptures not only affirm heterosexual marriage and childbearing as one of the chief blessings of it, but they also uniformly condemn homosexual activity any and all sexual activity beyond that which occurs between a man and a woman in the covenant of marriage. It seems, given that context, that the establishment of X not only implies a negative assessment of other sexual arrangements but demands it.

That is, of course, unless your methodology involves "undermining a position or principle by dissecting its integrated parts and dismissing them individually without reference to the whole."

“ Part of our problem in the present discussions is our tendency to see heterosexuality and homosexuality as somehow opposed to each other, or mutually exclusive, rather than as (admittedly differing) expressions of one overriding reality — the human capacity to love.”

And it is precisely here that Fr. Haller chooses to ignore Romans 1 . Homosexual affection and desire certainly finds a home within a wider biblical context, but it is not the home Fr. Haller describes. It cannot be categorized within the realm of agape because the homosexual impulse is an inherently fallen one. It turns in on itself. Just as God's human creatures chose to exchange the glory of the Creator for the worship of created things; things like themselves, so the homosexual impulse turns man or woman toward his or her own likeness and away from the complimentary other. The reason Paul turns directly from idolatry to the homosexual impulse in Romans 1 is that creation's idolatrous turn toward the creature is mirrored in the man's turn toward man and woman's turn toward woman.

To see this parallel, follow Paul's use of the word “exchange” (metallagsan) through the text of Romans 1 . Man exchanges the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of corruptible man and birds and flesh in verse 23. They exchanged the truth of God for the lie and worshipped and served the creature in verse 25. And, finally, men and women both exchanged natural function into that contrary to nature; men lusting for men and women for women in verses 26-27.

Paul, then, does indeed set the sexual desire of a man for a man or a woman for a woman into a broader context, but not within the context of agape but in the broader context of idolatry and the fall.

This seems like a good stopping point. I'll come back to the rest of his second article at a later date.

end

UPDATE CONTENTS
GREENING OF THE CHURCH

POSSIBLE STORM BUT CHURCH GOES ON 

NEGOTIATION UPDATE

THANK YOU

FLOWERS FOR CHRISTMAS
CHRISTMAS PAGEANT UPDATE
NEW SERMON SERIES AND PODCASTING INFORMATION
OFFICE HELP
GRATITUDE
WALKABOUT EVANGELISM
BIBLE STUDY
YOUTH INFORMATION FROM MICAH
HERESIES AND CULTS (ADULT SUNDAY SCHOOL SERIES)

NEWS :

GREENING OF THE CHURCH: Possibly the biggest thing going on next Sunday the 23rd(aside from pageant practice) is the greening or the decorating of the church for Christmas. Directly after the 10:00 service, there will be lunch and then we'll all get together and start putting up the tree, hanging the greens, wreaths, lights, etc so that things will be ready for Christmas Eve. This is always a fun time of fellowship so I hope you'll join us. We need all the help we can get.

Please bring a covered dish for lunch!

POSSIBLE STORM BUT CHURCH GOES ON: There may be a blizzard on Saturday night and there may not be. In any case, snow, sleet or storm, there will be church on Sunday morning at the regular time. So if you can get there class, worship, coffee and donuts or something similar will no doubt be waiting.

NEGOTIATION UPDATE: As you know our first proposal for the purchase of the building was rejected. We have been given the opportunity to put together another proposal that meets the concerns expressed by the diocese. Please continue to pray that God will guide and protect us and, in his mercy, allow us to continue serving him and proclaiming his word at our current location.

THANK YOU Church Women of Good Shepherd----Thank you for all your help in making the Christmas Flea Market and Bake Sale very successful on Saturday, Dec. 8th.   We had many satisfied customers.   Thank you again.   On Tuesday 10 Christmas Baskets were put together and delivered!   Also this month our Welcome Bags hit a milestone with 100 given out since Sept. of 2006.

FLOWERS for CHRISTMAS: You may have noticed the absence of flowers on the altar during Advent. Well, for Christmas all that changes and We Need YOUR HELP! Please consider making a donation TODAY for flowers for Christmas . THIS SUNDAY, the 16 th , is the deadline. As usual, your name and the names of the people for whom you give flowers will be printed in the Christmas Eve bulletin. This is a lovely way to remember those you love and to celebrate the great Feast of our Lord's Birth.

 

CHRISTMAS PAGEANT UPDATE : We're down to the wire. I hope everyone has been practicing lines and music at home. If you can at all make it this Sunday in spite of the snow I will be so grateful.

This Sunday is our last rehearsal before a serious dress rehearsal.
12/23 Dress Rehearsal

SERMON SERIES & PODCASTING INFORMATION: We have two more sermons to go in the sermon series based on Colossians 1:9-20 that will has lasted through Advent. The first chapter of Colossians includes, in verses 15-20, one of the most profound Christological (having to do with Christ) declarations in the entire New Testament. Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, reveals the divine majesty and cosmic preeminence of Christ.

In last week's sermon we learned what Paul meant when he wrote that Jesus is the “image of the invisible God.” Among other things, it means that in Christ, we are being remade as the image of God in us being redeemed from the wreckage of the Fall. It also means that in him and through him you are free of the bonds of sin. In Christ, you have the power to change your life. If you missed it or want to hear it again, you can listen to that sermon at the new podcast site . We've already had a very good number of hits and downloads.

OFFICE HELP: WE have had one person volunteer to help in the office. Thank you. As we announced last week, Anne is working at the Christmas Tree Shop. This means that I am looking for volunteers to help out in the office answering phones and reminding me of appointments and meetings. If you remember we made the decision to hire a youth minister/musician instead of a secretary and, judging by the life and growth of the parish this last year, that decision has paid off. But with the situation regarding our relationship to the diocese still unclear we are not yet able to hire a secretary. If you are interested in volunteering your time between 9:00am and noon Monday through Friday to answer phones and keep my calendar, please let me know. This means that from 9:00am to 5:00pm on most days, if you cannot reach me at church you may feel free to call the rectory. It is for now, essentially, my second office.

Here is the number: 607-773-4810

GRATITUDE: We have seen a great outpouring of financial support which is incredibly encouraging to us. This is due both to a larger number of parishioners, our attendance per Sunday is pushing 90 now, and an increase in pledge amount from current parishioners. Thank you for your generosity. So far your stewardship has far exceeded our expectations.

If you have not yet turned in a pledge card, remember, it is never too late

WALKABOUT EVANGELISM: This coming January (not sure about the date yet) we'll be scheduling an evangelism walkabout day. For those who are new to Good Shepherd, about twice a year we bake a few hundred small loaves of bread and pass them out door to door to those who live in the neighborhood. We put the bread in bags along with a tract that gives the message of salvation and some information about the church. God has blessed us with a lot of growth this year, over twenty new members and consistent guests. But of those, only two are converts. The rest are already believers in Jesus Christ. It is a wonderful thing to gain experienced and mature believers as we have. But Christ came to seek and save the lost. And he has commissioned us as his vehicles for that mission. The walkabout is one at least way that we share the gospel, personally, to those on the South-side. I hope you will volunteer to join this effort. I'll pass on more information as the time draws near.


BIBLE STUDY: All the Bible Studies are up and running this week

YOUTH INFORMATION FROM MICAH :

Youth Group is on normal schedule for this weekend. Jr. High Saturday from 6-8, Sr. High Sunday 6-8. Remember to invite friends and bring your Bibles. Jr. High, it is especially important that you do these things, as prizes may await you. Sr. High, don't think this means it's not important for you too. The only prize for you is making God happy. Maybe though He will be particularly happy with you and reward you with an MP3 player , too. I wouldn't bet on it, though. As usual, I am always available to you guys.

Good Shepherd Youth Group Calendar

DECEMBER:
Junior High, Saturday Evenings

December 15 – Regular Meeting, 6-8 (IFE), Meghan Sullivan
December 22 – White Elephant gift exchange and regular meeting, 6-8 (Jason)
December 29 – Micah out of town

Senior High, Sunday Evenings
December 16 – Regular Meeting, 6-8 (Jeremy)
December 23 – White Elephant gift exchange and regular meeting, 6-8
December 30 – Micah out of town

As always, the contact info!
Micah Towery
3155 Broadway, Apt. 15
New York City , NY 10027

ADULT EDUCATION SERIES: HERESIES AND CULTS : We've finished our study of Pelagianism and this week I was going to move on to begin rounding out our series on cults and heretics. Several BU students have asked that I hold off on the discussion of Scientology until after Christmas break and since they did I will. Instead this Sunday we'll take a break and discuss the biblical evidence for the Incarnation and the celebration of Christmas.  John Spong, an Episcopalian bishop, suggests that the idea of the virgin birth was borne of an ignorant and superstitious ancient culture that did not understand the reproductive process and was intolerant of female sexuality. What do you think? We'll talk about it this Sunday

This week we will finish our discussion of Pelagius and then next week move on to a few smaller cults: Scientology, Bahai, and Unitarianism

HAVE YOU…. shared your faith with a friend? The vestry has challenged all of us to share our faith in Jesus Christ with at least one non-believer each month.

Good News for the Week
When Joshua dismissed the people, the people of Israel went each to his inheritance to take possession of the land.  And the people served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great work that the Lord had done for Israel.  And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord , died at the age of 110 years.  And they buried him within the boundaries of his inheritance in Timnath-heres, in the hill country of Ephraim, north of the mountain of Gaash.  And all that generation also were gathered to their fathers. And there arose another generation after them who did not know the Lord or the work that he had done for Israel.  And the people of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the Lord and served the Baals. And they abandoned the Lord , the God of their fathers, who had brought them out of the land of Egypt. (Judges 1:7-12)

Don't forget to....BRING A FRIEND TO CHURCH

Daily Schedule for the week of Sunday December 16th, 2007

Monday:
pastor's day off

Tuesday
8:30 a.m. Morning Prayer
9:00 a.m. Tuesday Morning Bible Study
6:00 p.m. First Light Bible Study

Wednesday
8:30 a.m. Morning Prayer

Thursday
8:30 a.m. Morning Prayer
5:30 p.m. Shepherd's Bowl

6:30 Thursday Night Bible Study

Friday
6:30 a.m. Men's Breakfast/Bible Study
8:30 a.m. Morning Prayer
Pastor's sermon prep day

Saturday :
10:00 a.m. Women's Bible Study
4:30 p.m. Hebrew Class
6:00pm-8:00pm Jr. High Meeting

Sunday December 23 rd 2007 SUNDAY MORNING WORSHIP (SEASON OF ADVENT )
8:00am Worship, Holy Communion and Sermon
9:15-10:15 a.m. CHRISTIAN EDUCATION FOR ALL AGES
10:30am Worship, Holy Communion, Music, Sermon

12:00pm Dress Rehearsal, Greening of the Church, Pot Luck
6:00pm - 8:00pm Sr. High Meeting

God bless you all
In Christ,

 

Matt+

 

a