Word perverted via back door

"Any attempt by one or some of God’s people to speak today a word that challenges scripture and tradition—a word claiming authority in the church on the basis of the gospel—is, in effect, making a prophetic claim to speak to and for the universal church. Speakers should recognize both the possibility and audacity of their claim. The church must hear and evaluate such voices, testing the spirits, asking whether or not it finds itself addressed in such a word by the challenge and comfort of law and gospel. In other words, the church applies the test of canonicity. Will this new word be heard as word of God, or will it not?"

From this link, 'A New Word on Homosexuality? Isaiah 56:1-8 as Case Study', F J Gaiser, p290 (possibly with 1Th 5:21 in mind)

 

I read with interest that a senior Sydney Anglican cleric attended an event in Sydney. At the event a USA speaker, Rachel Gilson, was listed. Where the herald of the news was surprised of the cleric's attendance on a paid ticket,  I was surprised the cleric graced the event.

Rachel Gilson is a Side B Christian. Side B Christians are defined here. (I use the term ”Side B” reluctantly in that I hesitate to put any descriptor before the word Christian. If I need identify my Christianity with a descriptor, then both Christendom and myself suffer).

Many will be thankful that Gilson recognises God’s good order for marriage as reserved for one man and one woman. Many will be thankful that Gilson advocates that Christians either maintain celibacy or marry a member of the opposite sex. Indeed, many will take joy that Gilson is in a one-man, one-woman marriage. Some robustly support Gilson for her “Biblical sexual ethic”.

And yet, there is still a dilemma.

For Gilson, grasps Christ’s cloak with one hand and her same sex attraction with another when all the time Christ’s message is that both Gilson’s hands must grasp Christ’s cloak (Note 1). While Gilson knows that the same sex attraction will not be part of the New Jerusalem, she does not care to prepare for that time by shaping herself free of same sex attraction. Gilson instead marches forth with the attraction proudly pinned to her chest. For Gilson, the same sex attraction is not something to be repented of. It is not something to be treated in the silence of prayer. It is not open to the benefit that sanctification may bring. That which is unnatural to God's order, that which cannot be let go; is pinned to the chest, it is commercialised.

And there is more dilemma.

Gilson holds that same sex attraction is compatible with heterosexual marriage (Note 2). In this it cannot be said that Gilson has submitted to her husband, for an undesirable sexual attraction plays a part in their marriage. Her attraction, both privately and publicly, need be fully for her husband alone. While Gilson grasps to her unnatural sexual attraction a dog lurks in her marriage. Some commentators note for instance that Gilson married reluctantly. Reluctantly approaching marriage is not a sound starting block.

Gilson is perhaps simply misguided – she is perhaps yet to benefit from sound instruction. Many have sought to pervert the Gospel. Many play games with God’s Word. Gilson stands on a false dichotomy: that God states "no" to same sex attraction, yet God's grace can encompass that which God finds unnatural for mankind (both of these quotes from 'Sex: Telling a Better Story', Rachel Gilson, in "Before You Lose Your Faith" Deconstructing Doubt in the Church by The Gospel Coalition):

On "no": "When I was first feeling drawn to Jesus, I wondered if there’d be a place for someone like me in his church. Initially I was given false hope by friends who told me the Bible doesn’t actually say no to same sex sexuality. But when I read the Bible, I found it does."

On "grace": "There is a better way, a way of grace and truth. Jesus isn’t about stereotypes, prejudice, mockery, or hiding. He’s about life, forgiveness, strength, and joy. Instead of throwing everything out and walking away, take this as a call to grow in biblical discernment and sift the gold of God’s vision for our bodies from the muddy stream of how humanity has soiled sexuality."

Alternatively, it is possible to think Gilson misguided of identity politics. Identity politics tends to reduce everything to a individual-centric viewpoint. Gilson should have no priority of self but instead a priority in marriage (Genesis 2:24).

“All of us have witnessed some pretty amazingly ridiculous interpretations of Scripture, undertaken by well-meaning folk who are not much used to disciplined reading of any texts. When biblical scholars engage in the same game, of course, our tools are much more sophisticated. But make no mistake: many of us really do continue to play the game.” 

The Trials of Biblical Interpretation – Don Carson

Attendance of a senior Sydney Anglican cleric to a Gilson talk is a nod to a perversion of Biblical teaching; a perversion personified of Gilson’s twin duopoly of unnatural desires & a heterosexual marriage [that heterosexual marriage need not be comprehensively honoured] and of God saying "no" yet accepting something that is unnatural through grace. It is a further Sydney Anglican nod to homosexual perversion; the first when Ed Shaw, author of the The Living Out Church Audit, a document that welcomes homosexuals to the full life of a church, spoke at the St Andrew’s Cathedral and other Sydney Anglican venues.

While the senior cleric is of a station that would have him aware of the church’s tradition of testing New Word, perversion of the Word occurs through the back door.

 

Shalom,

Ozhamada

 

Note 1: Mark 5:21-34, the story of the afflicted woman who touched Jesus cloak indicates a distinction between Judaism – where obedience to sacrifices or rituals were necessary – to the Christianity – where faith is required. The mechanism Jesus used to draw this distinction is his insistence that the disciples identify the woman from amongst the great throng of people (verse 30). The disciples could see the woman – and recognised her as one in need – yet they were culturally blind to the woman’s plight. The disciples had not yet fully understood Christ's kingdom so they held to their past. 

Gilson, like the disciples, clutches to that which she is bound. And, to Gilson there is then also God's grace in the provision of a heterosexual marriage. Gilson thus grasps ill-fatedly to both ritual and faith.

Note 2: Lest I am criticised for idolising marriage please consider Gilson's own words on the subject: "Christians rightly celebrate marriage. God created marriage as a symbol of how he loves the church. Human marriage is supposed to be faithful for life, because God is always faithful to his people, as we should be to him. Human marriage is supposed to be the start of a new household, because God’s relationship with his people begins a new family. Human marriage is the only place for sexual intimacy and pleasure, because God’s relationship with his people is incredibly intimate and deeply pleasurable. And, if we have ears to hear, human marriage is only to be a male-female union, because the gospel is the picture of two non-interchangeable and different parties, made one by the work of Jesus Christ. Husbands represent Christ, and wives represent his church (Eph. 5:22–33). Heady stuff, no? Beautiful, too." 'Sex: Telling a Better Story', Rachel Gilson, in "Before You Lose Your Faith" Deconstructing Doubt in the Church

by The Gospel Coalition.

#inclusion #humansexuality #sin #SSM #homosexual #Sydney #livingout #samesexattraction #chastity #bible