c. 2003 Religion News Service

(David P. Gushee is the Graves Professor of Moral Philosophy at Union University in Jackson, Tenn.)

(UNDATED) The decision by Episcopal Church leaders to select the openly gay cleric Gene Robinson as a bishop has sent shock waves far beyond the Anglican Communion.

In tandem with another decision that essentially permits local church officials to bless same-sex unions, the Episcopal Church in the United States has now moved decisively toward laying aside 2,000 years of Christian teaching on the issue of homosexuality.

I do not normally make a practice of commenting on issues within other denominations. Every community of believers has its own problems, and my own denomination _ the Southern Baptist Convention _ is certainly no exception. There is always a gap between who God calls us to be and who we actually are. Most of our time should be spent tending to our own gap.

But there is a critical difference between falling short of biblical teaching and deciding biblical teaching no longer applies. It is essential that we be able to tell the difference. It is that difference that motivates this column.

Consider an example from another moral arena. The Bible teaches that we are not to be greedy. If as Christians we accept the Bible’s authority over our lives, we should strive to obey this teaching. We may struggle with greed, and we may well fall short. Indeed, this may be a serious problem for us. But at least we know what the standard looks like. We are able to measure our lives against an unchanging plumb line, and can strive to live rightly with God’s help.

The situation would look altogether different if we instead claimed that the Bible’s repeated teachings against greed do not apply to us _ as, in fact, some do. We could attempt creative new interpretations of the Hebrew and Greek words for greed in order to explain away their plain meaning. We could say that the Bible’s teachings against greed applied to very specific cultural problems within the ancient world and thus are not relevant today.

We could acknowledge that the Bible does teach against greed but claim that such teachings must be subordinated to other purported principles, such as how God loves his people and wants us all to be rich. We could say that the Holy Spirit is today leading his church in new directions. Or we could just say straight out that the Bible is not authoritative divine revelation. All of these moves would help us defang the Bible’s teaching against greed.

This is what is happening on the issue of homosexuality, and not just in the Episcopal Church. I am looking at a shelf full of books that argue that the Hebrew and Greek words for homosexuality don’t really mean what they have been translated as saying. They argue that the Bible’s teaching against homosexual behavior applied only to very specific cultural problems in the ancient world and so they are not relevant to our time.

Some acknowledge that the Bible in just a few places does teach against homosexual behavior but claim that such teachings must be subordinated to broader principles like love, justice and inclusiveness. Some say that though the Bible does teach against homosexual behavior, the Spirit of God is moving his church in some new directions today. And of course some claim that the Bible should not be read as authoritative divine revelation at all.

Homosexuality is not the ultimate issue here. Nor is gay marriage. Nor is whatever the Supreme Court has to say about sodomy. For Christians, at least, the ultimate issue is whether within our own faith communities we will set aside the Bible as the supreme arbiter of spiritual, doctrinal and moral authority in deference to the demands and enticements of culture.

A great number of Christians have done so when it comes to greed. Others are doing so on the issue of homosexuality. Abandoning biblical standards is not the province of any one group of Christians, and does not pertain to only one kind of moral issue.

The biblical tradition stretches back in time some 4,000 years. In one of the great miracles of history, a strong remnant both of Jews and of Christians continues to hold the sacred texts of biblical faith as authoritative divine revelation. For centuries the religious communities gathered around these texts have withstood all kinds of philosophical and cultural challenges in order to remain “people of the Book.” But they have taken many losses along the way as well.

The question of the hour is whether the 21st century will find its own faithful biblical remnant. Every so often an issue arises that illuminates the issues at stake all too clearly. The Robinson appointment is one of them.

DEA END GUSHEE