 Bible scholar criticizes task force’s theological work By John H. Adams The Layman Volume 37, Number 3 Posted August 10, 2004 RICHMOND, Va. – In the final analysis, the 216th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) took a wait-and-see attitude on whether to end its historic prohibition against ordaining practicing homosexuals. The commissioners ducked the issue by deferring to the denomination’s Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity, which will make its final report to the 217th General Assembly in 2006.
But one Presbyterian scholar – Robert A.J. Gagnon of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary — didn’t duck. Through The Layman Online, Gagnon sent an unsolicited, open letter to the General Assembly that challenged some of the task force’s theological assertions in its preliminary report. “In drastically truncating Ephesians’ message about purity, the preliminary report of the task force deserves to be significantly altered before acceptance by the General Assembly,” Gagnon said. “Failing that, it should be rejected.” He proceeded to pick apart the theological section of the report. The report was based almost exclusively on selected verses from Ephesians, emphasizing three points – Jesus is our peace; Jesus is our unity; Jesus is our purity. Period. Gagnon argued that the task force misinterpreted several passages of Scripture by shunning verses that call for Christians to be accountable for their behavior. “The report quotes copiously from Ephesians, citing 1:3-4; 2:13-14, 16, 21-22; 3:18, 20; 4:2-3, 5-6, 13; 5:2, 10, 25-27; 6:15,” Gagnon said. “It omits the warning regarding false teaching in 4:14-16 (we should not be ‘tossed to and fro by every wind of teaching’ but should rather ‘speak the truth in love’). Even more importantly, it omits virtually the entire opening section on moral transformation from 4:17 to 5:20 (36 verses).” Gagnon argues that the task force, quoting from Eph. 5:10 a phrase about “finding out what is pleasing to the Lord,” missed the point altogether. “It is “cited to provide that we “should view disputes as ‘gracious invitations to further work together,’” he said. “This is precisely what the text does not say in context. Rather, in context, the text urges believers to be ‘determining what is pleasing to the Lord’ based on the clarity of the church’s moral exhortation on sexual ethics and other areas.” Gagnon points out that the task force “unfortunately leaves out” stern warnings and exhortations to the church to avoid licentiousness, sexual impurity and sexual immorality (Ephesians 4:17-24; 5:3-12.) Those exhortations, he says, are foundational to the argument that “no unrepentant sexual impurity is to be tolerated indefinitely within the community of faith. Indeed, it must not even be spoken about, that is, in approving terms. Sexual impurity must rather be exposed and refuted.” “The text also makes clear that serial unrepentant, sexually impure behavior can risk a believer’s disinheritance from the kingdom of God, subjecting the professed believer to the same wrath of God that awaits unbelievers. It also goes so far as to say that believers should disassociate from fellow believers who persist unrepentantly in their sexually immoral behavior.” Other task force statements and Gagnon’s responses: Task force: “It is often difficult to see how this goal of Christian purity can be squared with the equally important call to unity and peace.” Gagnon: “Not true. It is easily squared inasmuch as unity and peace must always be centered on the lordship of Jesus Christ and the ‘learning of Christ’ in accordance with the apostolic witness. There is no such thing as a unity based on toleration, and even approval, of sexual behavior that Jesus and the united witness of the authors of Scripture would have been appalled by.” Task Force: “While those who fail to seek purity in any of its forms – truth, goodness, and justice – imperil the faithfulness of the church, purity must not become a pretext for division.” Gagnon: “Not true. Rather, unity must not become a pretext for impurity. Paul is quite clear in Ephesians 4-5 that serial unrepentant sexual immorality of an egregious sort is just cause for disassociation.” Task Force: “In particular, unity cannot be attained if the voices of some members of the body are ignored. It is especially important, when the mind of the church is significantly divided and its decisions are unlikely to be unanimous, that all voices be heard and respected.” Gagnon: “Not true. Ephesians 4-5 says the exact opposite. The church must not allow acts defined as sexually immoral by the united apostolic witness to be spoken about in an approving manner at any time in the body of Christ.” Task Force: “It is a necessity: union with Christ means union with all the other members of Christ’s body, including those with whom one would not ordinarily choose to associate.” Gagnon: “To their ‘necessity,’ Paul would say, ‘Not necessarily.’ Paul, rather, calls on believers to disassociate, at least at some point, from fellow professed believers who refuse to desist from acts that the apostolic witness deems to be sexually impure. Paul treats this as a last-ditch measure on the part of the community to bring offenders to their senses and so, hopefully, to reclaim them for the kingdom of God.” Task Force: “Christians cannot even entertain the notion of severing their ties with sisters and brothers in Christ without also placing themselves in severe jeopardy of being severed from Christ himself.” Gagnon: “Not true. The implication of Ephesians 4-5 is, rather, that the church should consider disassociating themselves not just from believers who persist in sexually immoral behavior but also from believers who condone and support such behavior. Paul is quite clear that believers who persist in sexually immoral behavior are the ones that run that risk of being excluded from God’s kingdom, not those who disassociate from such persons. In fact, Paul labels ‘deceitful’ all claims that such persons are not really at risk. Those who support and condone sexually immoral behavior may become accomplices in a fellow brother’s or sister’s possible exclusion from God’s kingdom.” Gagnon says the task force report, “in all of its severe injunctions about the essential value of unity … ignores the glaring fact that the PCUSA is a denomination. As such, it does not share the same corporate institutional structure with, say, Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Baptists, Pentecostals, Catholics, and others. If we are not violating Ephesians by remaining in the PCUSA, a denominational entity that is structurally separate from other denominations, how can an “amicable institutional separation” of very different elements within the PCUSA be a violation of Ephesians’ message on unity?” He concluded: “And shouldn’t it be recognized that most people in the PCUSA have for years felt a greater theological kinship with many persons across denominational lines than with many persons within the PCUSA? The PCUSA is already in de facto disunity and has been so for decades or more.” The task force will meet on August 3-6 in Dallas. The ordination issue will be the major issue on the agenda. Will Gagnon’s open letter be on the table? |
||
| Theology
that Matters index Respond to this article |
||
| Home
· News
· PLC
Publications ·
The
Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
||
