I just turned off the television, where I had happened upon an interview with an Episcopalian minister discussing some sort of rift inside his church (or, better described, denomination). Apparently there was a confirmation to bishop of an openly gay Episcopalian priest, and the more conservative sect of the church is unhappy.

This I was okay with. (I can feel the flames already.)

It’s unbiblical, says the priest. The interviewer asks, doesn’t the church grow and adapt to the world around it? Doesn’t it consider the changing times? And I hold my breath until the priest continues with a resoundingly solid answer - although society may be changing, God does not, and his word doesn’t need to. Basically, it’s not a bunch of pop culture psychology - it’s solid principles and a sound life-guide, no matter what century we are in.

Some text:


“You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”

Leviticus 18:22-23

“If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death.”

Leviticus 20:13

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

“For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”

Romans 1:26-27

So. Where are the conservative Episcopalians coming from? The Bible. The Scriptures. The inerrant and infallible word of God, as all Scripture is God-breathed. I’m not arguing. Lots of people argue with me, but I’m not arguing.

So, this interview continues, and the priest defends the conservative sect. Lovely, no problem. It’s unbiblical, it’s not what God teaches, etc. Fine. Then the interviewer smoothly asks, Isn’t this the same as when, during the ’70’s, there was conflict over women being ordained into the church? That was also considered unbiblical.

At that the priest hems and haws, and I start throwing rotten vegetables at the screen. Well, he says. It’s not really the same thing. Then he gets me smokin’ pissed. He says that was about church structure, this is about morality.

Oh yeeeeah, I forgot. Whether or not to condone a gay Bishop falls well outside the realm of church structure. Hello?

Sometimes I wonder what Bible everyone’s reading. Is it the one that I have? The New International Version? The New American Standard? Or is it the X-acto Special? You know, the one that comes with the little knife made exclusively for cutting out Scripture you don’t want to believe.

Look. Say you’re a Christian, say you follow Jesus Christ, and I’m holding you to a higher standard. I’m sick to death of having the name of my Lord dragged through the mud because of hypocrites.

But anyway.

So, some thoughts on female pastors:

Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer[Greek also: bishop], he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)

1 Timothy 1-6

Last I checked, women have husbands, oui? Also, before militant feminists get their panties in tiny twists, here’s my thought: I am different from a man.

Yes, I know, it might be hard to believe. But I’m different from a man. It’s hell to get the pickle jar open - I have to bump it against the counter, run it under hot water, beg and plead with it, etc to get it open. I cannot effortlessly pop a new jar of pickles open. I wasn’t born with that kind of testosterone.

God created men and women for different tasks. This isn’t a matter of one being better that the other - but in general they each have their strengths and weaknesses. And isn’t it funny how the strengths and weaknesses generally offset each other? Hunh.

God didn’t create men with a uterus. Most women can attest to the fact that God didn’t make men very warm and fuzzy and squishy inside, either. Men and women have similarities and differences - and I believe it’s their differences that make things work.

Oh yes, the militant feminists, I nearly forgot.

My thought is this: God’s an unfair chauvinistic bastard. No, really, I’m just kidding. God’s a caring god. Witness:

(To Timothy, a younger preacher): You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine. Teach the older men to be temperate, worthy of respect, self-controlled, and sound in faith, in love and in endurance. Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.


Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. In everything set them an example by doing what is good.

Titus 2:1-7

Oooh, yeah. God’s a real bastard alright. Look at him instruct Timothy to encourage (not FORCE, but encourage) the young men to be self-controlled. When’s the last time anyone saw a “young man” (think 18-25 years old) being “self-controlled”? Ooh, he wants the old men to be temperate and sound in faith. If anyone works with the geriatric set for more than a week, they’ll see how many old men out there are bitter and angry. Temperate? Not hardly. Sound in faith? Yeah, maybe faith in the Almighty Dollar and that’s sometimes it.

Ooh, another one. Teach the women to be “subject” to their men. Yep, right there he says women should be slaves, whipped constantly by their husbands, unable to make up their own minds or have their own thoughts.

No.

Perhaps he’s saying that in any union, there should be love enough and trust enough that the two become actually one. Isn’t that the point and purpose of marriage? (Well, maybe it used to be.) In a strong relationship between two people, there will sometimes be a tie vote. The husband says black, the wife says white, and gray is not an option whatsoever. Do they remain at a stalemate forever? Or perhaps the wife looks at the man she married, the man she decided to become forever (should I use quotes there?) attached to, the man she loved and trusted enough to combine her life with, and sees that maybe he really might be right, or that maybe this compromise isn’t life or death, and that maybe it really can be black because she didn’t marry an idiot, right?

Ooh, “subjecting” herself really hurt, didn’t it?

Somehow I feel I’ve gone way the hell off the subject. So.

I sat and watched the floundering Episcopalian priest in frustration. The Episcopal church ordains women, but it’s out of the question to ordain gays? WTF? Any time your answer to a question like the one from the interviewer is, “Um… uh… Well, that’s different… um….” instead of standing on Scripture and giving a decisive, “It’s unbiblical,” you have a problem. Especially if you are supposed to be standing in the name of the Lord.

So, shut up and sit down. Don’t tell me tithes are biblical. Don’t tell me that priests not being allowed to marry is biblical. Don’t tell me there’s a purgatory, don’t tell me I can’t dance, don’t tell me that music is a weapon of Satan, don’t tell me my glass of wine (or two) will send me to hell. Don’t tell me any of this unless you can show me Scriptural proof of your tale. Just because it’s “how we’ve always done it” doesn’t make it right.

And a parting p.s. on this winding story: From the Did You Know? Department -

Not that I’m bitter just because my family descends from the original French Huguenots, but… This is from Reformation.org.

August 24, 1572, was the date of the infamous St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in France. On that day…began one of the most horrifying holocausts in history. The glorious Reformation, begun in Germany on October 31, 1517, had spread to France—and was joyfully received. A great change had come over the people as industry and learning began to flourish, and so rapidly did the Truth spread that over a third of the population embraced the Reformed Christian Faith.

However, alarm bells began to ring at the Vatican! France was her eldest daughter and main pillar—the chief source of money and power. . . . King Pepin of the Franks (the father of Charlemagne) had given the Papal States to the Pope almost 1000 years earlier. Almost half the real estate in the country was owned by the clergy.

Meanwhile, back in Paris, the King of France and his Court spent their time drinking, reveling and carousing. The Court spiritual adviser—a Jesuit priest— urged them to massacre the Protestants—as penance for their many sins! To catch the Christians off-guard every token of peace, friendship, and ecumenical good will was offered.

Suddenly—and without warning—the devilish work commenced. Beginning at Paris, the French soldiers and the Roman Catholic clergy fell upon the unarmed people, and blood flowed like a river throughout the entire country. Men, women, and children fell in heaps before the mobs and the bloodthirsty troops. In one week, almost 100,100 Protestants perished. The rivers of France were so filled with corpses that for many months no fish were eaten…

…When news of the Massacre reached the Vatican there was jubilation! Cannons roared—bells rung—and a special commemorative medal was struck—to honor the occasion! The Pope commissioned Italian artist Vasari to paint a mural of the Massacre—which still hangs in the Vatican!

And an endnote regarding my particular ancestor’s trip to America in 1699:

The Huguenots won a short period of relief from persecution with the ascension of Henry IV to the throne. The Edict of Nantes gave full freedom to his Protestants subjects. The signing of this Edict inaugurated an era of peace and great prosperity for France. However, for granting his subjects liberty of conscience, the king was stabbed to death by a Jesuit named Ravaillac. This Edict of Toleration was revoked in 1685, and a new storm of persecution ensued. The exodus began again with over a million Huguenots fleeing France to avoid certain torture and death.