Why I Walked by J. I. Packer

[David Virtue]

Why I Walked
Sometimes loving a denomination requires you to fight.

by J. I. Packer

      In June 2002, the synod of the Anglican Diocese of New
Westminster authorized its bishop to produce a service for blessing
same-sex unions, to be used in any parish of the diocese that requests
it. A number of synod members walked out to protest the decision. They
declared themselves out of communion with the bishop and the synod, and
they appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury and other Anglican
primates and bishops for help.

      J. I. Packer, an executive editor of Christianity Today, was one
of those who walked out. Many people have asked him why. Though one
part of his answer applies specifically to Anglicans, his larger
argument should give guidance to any Christians troubled by
developments in their church or denomination.

      Why did I walk out with the others? Because this decision, taken
in its context, falsifies the gospel of Christ, abandons the authority
of Scripture, jeopardizes the salvation of fellow human beings, and
betrays the church in its God-appointed role as the bastion and bulwark
of divine truth.

      My primary authority is a Bible writer named Paul. For many
decades now, I have asked myself at every turn of my theological road:
Would Paul be with me in this? What would he say if he were in my
shoes? I have never dared to offer a view on anything that I did not
have good reason to think he would endorse.

      In 1 Corinthians we find the following, addressed it seems to
exponents of some kind of antinomian spirituality:

        Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the
kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor
idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor
thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers
will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you
were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the
Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God (6:9-11, ESV).

      To make sure we grasp what Paul is saying here, I pose some
questions.

      First: What is Paul talking about in this vice list? Answer:
Lifestyles, regular behavior patterns, habits of mind and action. He
has in view not single lapses followed by repentance, forgiveness, and
greater watchfulness (with God's help) against recurrence, but ways of
life in which some of his readers were set, believing that for
Christians there was no harm in them.

      Second: What is Paul saying about these habits? Answer: They are
ways of sin that, if not repented of and forsaken, will keep people out
of God's kingdom of salvation. Clearly, self-indulgence and self-
service, free from self-discipline and self-denial, is the attitude
they express, and a lack of moral discernment lies at their heart.

      Third: What is Paul saying about homosexuality? Answer: Those who
claim to be Christ's should avoid the practice of same-sex physical
connection for orgasm, on the model of heterosexual intercourse. Paul's
phrase, "men who practice homosexuality," covers two Greek words for
the parties involved in these acts. The first, arsenokoitai, means
literally "male-bedders," which seems clear enough. The second,
malakoi, is used in many connections to mean "unmanly," "womanish," and
"effeminate," and here refers to males matching the woman's part in
physical sex.

      In this context, in which Paul has used two terms for sexual
misbehavior, there is really no room for doubt regarding what he has in
mind. He must have known, as Christians today know, that some men are
sexually drawn to men rather than women, but he is not speaking of
inclinations, only of behavior, what has more recently been called
acting out. His point is that Christians need to resist these urges,
since acting them out cannot please God and will reveal lethal
impenitence. Romans 1:26 shows that Paul would have spoken similarly
about lesbian acting out if he had had reason to mention it here.

      Fourth: What is Paul saying about the gospel? Answer: Those who,
as lost sinners, cast themselves in genuine faith on Christ and so
receive the Holy Spirit, as all Christians do (see Gal. 3:2), find
transformation through the transaction. They gain cleansing of
conscience (the washing of forgiveness), acceptance with God
(justification), and strength to resist and not act out the particular
temptations they experience (sanctification). As a preacher friend
declared to his congregation, "I want you to know that I am a non-
practicing adulterer." Thus he testified to receiving strength from
God.

      With some of the Corinthian Christians, Paul was celebrating the
moral empowering of the Holy Spirit in heterosexual terms; with others
of the Corinthians, today's homosexuals are called to prove, live out,
and celebrate the moral empowering of the Holy Spirit in homosexual
terms. Another friend, well known to me for 30 years, has lived with
homosexual desires all his adult life, but remains a faithful husband
and father, sexually chaste, through the power of the Holy Spirit,
according to the gospel. He is a model in every way. We are all
sexually tempted, one way or another, yet we may all tread the path of
chastity through the Spirit's enablement, and thereby please God.

      Missing Paul's point

      As one who assumes the full seriousness and sincerity of all who
take part in today's debates among Christians regarding homosexuality,
both in New Westminster and elsewhere, I now must ask: how can anyone
miss the force of what Paul says here? There are, I think, two ways in
which this happens.

      One way, the easier one to deal with, is the way of special
exegesis: I mean interpretations that, however possible, are artificial
and not natural, but that allow one to say, "What Paul is condemning is
not my sort of same-sex union." Whether a line of interpretation is
artificial, so constituting misinterpretation, is, I grant, a matter of
personal judgment. I do not, however, know how any reasonable person
could read Robert A. J. Gagnon's 500-page book, The Bible and
Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon, 2001), and not
conclude that any exegesis evading the clear meaning of Paul is evasive
indeed. Nor from now on can I regard anyone as qualified to debate
homosexuality who has not come to terms with Gagnon's encyclopedic
examination of all the relevant passages and all the exegetical
hypotheses concerning them. I have not always agreed with James Barr,
but when on the dust jacket he describes Gagnon's treatise as
"indispensable even for those who disagree with the author," I think he
is absolutely right.

      The second way, which is harder to engage, is to let experience
judge the Bible. Some moderns, backed by propaganda from campaigners
for homosexual equality, and with hearts possessed by the pseudo-
Freudian myth that you can hardly be a healthy human without active
sexual expression, feel entitled to say: "Our experience is-in other
words, we feel-that gay unions are good, so the Bible's prohibitions of
gay behavior must be wrong." The natural response is that the Bible is
meant to judge our experience rather than the other way around, and
that feelings of sexual arousal and attraction, generating a sense of
huge significance and need for release in action as they do, cannot be
trusted as either a path to wise living or a guide to biblical
interpretation. Rhyming the point to make what in my youth was called a
grook: the sweet bright fire / of sexual desire / is a dreadful liar.
But more must be said than that.

      Two views of the Bible

      At issue here is a Grand Canyon-wide difference about the nature
of the Bible and the way it conveys God's message to modern readers.
Two positions challenge each other.

      One is the historic Christian belief that through the prophets,
the incarnate Son, the apostles, and the writers of canonical Scripture
as a body, God has used human language to tell us definitively and
transculturally about his ways, his works, his will, and his worship.
Furthermore, this revealed truth is grasped by letting the Bible
interpret itself to us from within, in the knowledge that the way into
God's mind is through that of the writers. Through them, the Holy
Spirit who inspired them teaches the church. Finally, one mark of sound
biblical insights is that they do not run counter to anything else in
the canon.

      This is the position of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches,
and of evangelicals and other conservative Protestants. There are
differences on the place of the church in the interpretive process, but
all agree that the process itself is essentially as described. I call
this the objectivist position.

      The second view applies to Christianity the Enlightenment's trust
in human reason, along with the fashionable evolutionary assumption
that the present is wiser than the past. It concludes that the world
has the wisdom, and the church must play intellectual catch-up in each
generation in order to survive. From this standpoint, everything in the
Bible becomes relative to the church's evolving insights, which
themselves are relative to society's continuing development (nothing
stands still), and the Holy Spirit's teaching ministry is to help the
faithful see where Bible doctrine shows the cultural limitations of the
ancient world and needs adjustment in light of latter-day experience
(encounters, interactions, perplexities, states of mind and emotion,
and so on). Same-sex unions are one example. This view is scarcely 50
years old, though its antecedents go back much further. I call it the
subjectivist position.

      In the New Westminster debate, subjectivists say that what is at
issue is not the authority of Scripture, but its interpretation. I do
not question the sincerity of those who say this, but I have my doubts
about their clear-headedness. The subjectivist way of affirming the
authority of Scripture, as the source of the teaching that now needs to
be adjusted, is precisely a denying of Scripture's authority from the
objectivist point of view, and clarity requires us to say so. The
relative authority of ancient religious expertise, now to be revamped
in our post-Christian, multifaith, evolving Western world, is one view.
The absolute authority of God's unchanging utterances, set before us to
be learned, believed, and obeyed as the mainstream church has always
done, never mind what the world thinks, is the other.

      What are represented as different "interpretations" are in fact
reflections of what is definitive: in the one view, the doctrinal and
moral teaching of Scripture is always final for Christian people; in
the other view, it never is. What is definitive for the exponents of
that view is not what the Bible says, as such, but what their own minds
come up with as they seek to make Bible teaching match the wisdom of
the world.

      Each view of biblical authority sees the other as false and
disastrous, and is sure that the long-term welfare of Christianity
requires that the other view be given up and left behind as quickly as
possible. The continuing conflict between them, which breaks surface in
the disagreement about same-sex unions, is a fight to the death, in
which both sides are sure that they have the church's best interests at
heart. It is most misleading, indeed crass, to call this disagreement
simply a difference about interpretation, of the kind for which
Anglican comprehensiveness has always sought to make room.

      Spiritual dangers

      In addition, major spiritual issues are involved. To bless same-
sex unions liturgically is to ask God to bless them and to enrich those
who join in them, as is done in marriage ceremonies. This assumes that
the relationship, of which the physical bond is an integral part, is
intrinsically good and thus, if I may coin a word, blessable, as
procreative sexual intercourse within heterosexual marriage is. About
this assumption there are three things to say.

      First, it entails deviation from the biblical gospel and the
historic Christian creed. It distorts the doctrines of creation and
sin, claiming that homosexual orientation is good since gay people are
made that way, and rejecting the idea that homosexual inclinations are
a spiritual disorder, one more sign and fruit of original sin in some
people's moral system. It distorts the doctrines of regeneration and
sanctification, calling same-sex union a Christian relationship and so
affirming what the Bible would call salvation in sin rather than from
it.

      Second, it threatens destruction to my neighbor. The official
proposal said that ministers who, like me, are unwilling to give this
blessing should refer gay couples to a minister willing to give it.
Would that be pastoral care? Should I not try to help gay people change
their behavior, rather than to anchor them in it? Should I not try to
help them to the practice of chastity, just as I try to help restless
singles and divorcees to the practice of chastity? Do I not want to see
them all in the kingdom of God?

      Third, it involves the delusion of looking to God-actually asking
him-to sanctify sin by blessing what he condemns. This is
irresponsible, irreverent, indeed blasphemous, and utterly unacceptable
as church policy. How could I do it?

      Changing a historical tradition

      Finally, a major change in Anglicanism is involved: Writing into
a diocesan constitution something that Scripture, canonically
interpreted, clearly and unambiguously rejects as sin. This has never
been done before, and ought not to be done now.

      All the written standards of post-Reformation Anglicanism have
been intentionally biblical and catholic. They have been biblical in
terms of the historic view of the nature and authority of Scripture.
They have been catholic in terms of the historic consensus of the
mainstream church.

      Many individual eccentricities and variations may have been
tolerated in practice. The relatively recent controversial permissions
to remarry the divorced and make women presbyters arguably had biblical
warrant, though minorities disputed this. In biblical and catholic
terms, however, the New Westminster decision writes legitimation of sin
into the diocese's constitutional standards.

      It categorizes the tolerated abstainers as the awkward squad of
eccentrics rather than the mainstream Anglicans that they were before.
It is thus a decision that can only be justified in terms of biblical
relativism, the novel notion of biblical authority that to my mind is a
cuckoo in the Anglican nest and a heresy in its own right. It is a
watershed decision for world Anglicanism, for it changes the nature of
Anglicanism itself. It has to be reversed.

      Luther's response at Worms when he was asked to recant all his
writings echoes in my memory, as it has done for more than 50 years.

        Unless you prove to me by Scripture and plain reason that I am
wrong, I cannot and will not recant. My conscience is captive to the
Word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe [it
endangers the soul]. Here I stand. There is nothing else I can do. God
help me. Amen.

      Conscience is that power of the mind over which we have no power,
which binds us to believe what we see to be true and do what we see to
be right. Captivity of conscience to the Word of God, that is, to the
absolutes of God's authoritative teaching in the Bible, is integral to
authentic Christianity.

      More words from Luther come to mind.

        If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition
every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point
that the world and the devil are at the moment attacking, I am not
confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the
battle rages is where the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be
steady on all the battlefield besides is merely flight and disgrace if
he flinches at that point.

      Was the protest in order? Was "no" the right way to vote? Did
faithfulness to Christ, and faithful confession of Christ, require it?
It seems so. And if so, then our task is to stand fast, watch, pray,
and fight for better things: for the true authority of the Bible, for
the "true truth" of the gospel, and for the salvation of gay people for
whom we care.

      J. I. Packer is an executive editor of Christianity Today.

      Copyright (c) 2002 Christianity Today. Click for reprint
information.

      January 21, 2002, Vol. 47, No. 1, Page 46