Wednesday, September 27, 2006

God is calling... who?

My wife sent me a link to a story about the fact that a recent pick for a bishop in the Episcopal Church was not a homosexual (yes, the title of the article is actually, "Gay priest not picked as N.J. bishop"). I'm going to ignore the fact that it seems funny to have an article about not picking somebody as a bishop. (I mean, what if he wasn't picked because the other person was better - or does being gay mean you should automatically get picked for the bishop spot when you apply?) What I'm interested in was a quote from the article:

"God is calling lesbian and gay persons to be bishops, priests, deacons and lay ministers in the Church, and we must never deny God's call," Barlowe said.

(Barlowe is Michael Barlowe - the homosexual man who was passed over for the job as bishop. And I haven't used the "Rev" in front of his name or anybody else's for that matter - not because he is gay but because I don't think we should be putting "Reverend" in front on a human's name. I feel the same way about "Father.") That statement is, of course, completely absurd. You could put in anything you want to the formula used and it would have equal validity. Here is the formula:

God is calling X to be bishops, priests, deacons and lay ministers in the Church, and we must never deny God's call

Just replace X with whatever you want it to be. Let's try a few out:

God is calling pedophiles to be bishops, priests, deacons and lay ministers in the Church, and we must never deny God's call

Does that seem to be silly? I've gone too far? I haven't, of course. Paul Shanley (and don't go to that link if you aren't prepared for some pretty nauseating facts about Mr. Shanley) was a priest in the Roman Catholic Church. He is also a pedophile. He believed he was called by God to be a priest (just like Mr. Barlowe believes he was "called"). Why would we think that Mr. Barlowe was called and not Mr. Shanley? Why should we "deny God's call" for Mr. Shanley, but not Mr. Barlow?

Here is an even better one:

God is calling atheists to be bishops, priests, deacons and lay ministers in the Church, and we must never deny God's call

There we go. An atheist doesn't even believe God exists. But this one must really be silly, right? I mean, an atheist wouldn't try to be a bishop in the Episcopal church. This must be a straw man argument, a fallacy, something easy for me to refute but which isn't really relevant. Once again, of course, it isn't silly at all. In fact it is depressing how un-silly it actually is. John Shelby Spong retired in 2000 as a bishop in the Episcopal Church. He authored many books during his tenure as bishop and Wikipedia describes him as being, "the bestselling liberal theologian of recent times." Harper Collins, who published some of his books, has posted the first chapter of one of his books titled, "A New Christianity for a New World: Why Traditional Faith is Dying & How a New Faith is Being Born." In this chapter, retired bishop Spong states the following:

I do not define God as a supernatural being.

Since I do not see God as a being, I cannot interpret Jesus as the earthly incarnation of this supernatural deity, nor can I with credibility assume that he possessed sufficient Godlike power to do such miraculous things as stilling the storm, banishing demons, walking on water, or expanding five loaves to provide sufficient bread to feed five thousand men, plus women and children.

I do not believe that this Jesus could or did in any literal way raise the dead, overcome a medically diagnosed paralysis, or restore sight to a person born blind or to one in whom the ability to see had been physiologically destroyed.

I do not believe that Jesus entered this world by the miracle of a virgin birth or that virgin births occur anywhere except in mythology.

Bishop Spong is, therefore, an atheist. But he is an atheist who also claims to have been called to be an Episcopalian bishop (just like the gay man, Mr. Barlow), and "we must never deny God's call."

The bottom line though, is that God does call lesbians, gays, pedophiles, and yes, even atheists to be priests (1 Peter 2:9), but he does not call them to this and expect them to remain lesbians, gays, pedophiles and atheists. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 says:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Please note the bold italicized "were" in the previous paragraph. That is what some of them were but they were washed and sanctified and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. They were not expected to be those things any longer. And if they were still those things then they would not inherit the kingdom of God. That is the key element in this, and it draws out the problem in the original quote from the article:

God is calling lesbian and gay persons to be bishops, priests, deacons and lay ministers in the Church, and we must never deny God's call

The reason why this quote is correct (but not in the way that Mr. Barlowe meant it) is the use of the word "called." In the parable of the wedding feast found in Matthew 22:1-14 Jesus talks about a king who gives a wedding feast and invites several groups of people. First he asks the original invitees to come and they don't (22:5,6 - "But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them") so after destroying them and burning their city (22:7) he widens the invite list to as many people as can be found "both bad and good" (22:10). Well, then the "wedding hall was filled with guests" but as the king goes through the guests he sees somebody there without a wedding garment and when the man can't give a good answer for why he isn't wearing a wedding garment the king has him thrown out "into the outer darkness [where there is] weeping and gnashing of teeth" (22:13). And then we come to the real crux of the matter in Matthew 22:14, where Jesus says:

For many are called, but few are chosen.

So Mr. Barlowe is right, God is calling lesbians and gays and even atheists to his wedding feast, but God will not choose them to remain unless they clothe themselves in the wedding garment, which is Christ and get rid of their sin (observe that these things go together):

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. (Galatians 3:26-27)

Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature. (Romans 13:13-14)