John H Armstrong

Gay Marriage and Gay Divorce

If you oppose gay marriage should you also oppose gay divorce? This is the very real dilemma faced by conservatives in Texas. A recent court ruling in Texas would allow a couple legally wed in Massachusetts to divorce in Texas but some are opposing this ruling.

This story began in 2006 when two men were married in Massachusetts and then moved to Texas. Now they want a divorce. In January the couple reached an agreement re: property and the dissolution of their legal marriage. But when they went to court to formalize their decision the Attorney General of Texas sought to stop the divorce. His argument? Same sex marriage was not allowed by a constitutional amendment in Texas so same-sex divorce could not be legal in Texas. A judge saw it differently and granted them a divorce. She argued that the state's law violated the federal right to equal protection under the law. The Attorney General then appealed the case to "defend traditional marriage." A gay spokesman said, "the irony is that the anti-gay forces are so opposed to gay relationships that they won't even let us out of them."

There are, so it seems to me, several issues involved here. People get married under state law but when they move into another state they are not legally unmarried. There is a principle of comity that states have recognized for a long, long time. But some states do not extend this to gay marriages. Indiana and Rhode Island have denied divorce to gay couples married in other states. New Jersey has allowed it.

You might suggest this couple move back to Massachusetts but they would need to live there for one year to then get a legal divorce. Other issues arise in this messy context as well. If a man has a husband in Iowa, he might take a wife in Texas without being guilty of bigamy. In fact, a gay "dead beat dad" could run off on his partner (and potentially their family) and escape to Texas and not be charged.

The irony in Texas is that the very people who oppose same-sex marriage are trying to hinder a same-sex couple from breaking up. Do not be mistaken, we have unleashed a legal whirlwind. This is not likely to be resolved until we have a national law one way or the other. I cannot see a national law anytime soon so I expect the legal mess will only get worse.

Maybe the first place Christians should focus their attention is on addressing this issue within the church. We are already confused enough there and every day we seem more confused. Changing the culture on this point, at least anytime soon, is less and less likely given all the data we have about this extremely complex social/moral issue. I am not suggesting we sit this out but I am suggesting we might be "wise as serpents" when it comes to how and where we invest our energy in such battles. My guess is calmer minds and hearts need to prevail but the more emotional this all becomes the less likely it is that we can win the big battles on truly moral grounds.

The Protestant Mainline Churches and the Homosexual Debate

I have referred to the debates in the mainline churches over homosexual marriage in recent posts. I had in mind the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) when I did. I could apply the same thoughts to Methodists, Lutherans and others who are pursuing this same course in the present political debates over same-sex marriage and ordination.

I must confess this whole debate underscores the politicization of the church in general and the PCUSA in particular. I do not follow the Methodist and Lutheran debates as closely as that of the PCUSA but I have to believe there are clear parallels when the stories are compared.

In the PCUSA this debate began about thirty years ago. At first it was a friendly debate among thoughtful people. Before long it went to the General Assembly which made a recommendation to the presbyteries to adopt a change in the sexual conduct statements of the church. The presbyteries have voted several times and always rejected the change. Currently there are 173 presbyteries. The votes in these presbyteries are made by ministers and ruling elders from respective churches. If a vote is taken of the members of PCUSA churches it is not even close. The overwhelming majority of Presbyterians oppose homosexual marriage. But the vote is taken among leaders, following Presbyterian polity. Leaders include denominational leaders (who are ministers), pastors and the lay elders. The denominational leaders vote as high as 85–90% for same-sex marriage. The ministers are generally split almost 50–50. The lay elders are strongly opposed. Read that again if you missed it. It is very telling.

The final vote in 2009 was 95 against the proposal to change church practice and 78 for change. This is, by far, the closest vote taken in the history of this movement. When you look at it carefully there is every reason to believe that those who promote the change will win if they persist. There is also every reason to believe they will persist.

Consider the shift in popular votes. In 2001-2 the change vote was 10,189. In 2009 it was 10,359. That is a net gain of only 1.7%. The no vote was 13,273 in 2001–2. The no vote this year was 10,791, a decrease of 18.7%. You can clearly see what is happening. Those who vote for chastity and the sanctity of marriage are in significant decline. The forces for change need only a few more people to stay home and they win. They know this and this is why they are so active politically. They have already made it clear that they will try again in 2010. The response of many who oppose them is to give up. They have already left the PCUSA or they have stayed home and simply surrendered. The truth of the matter is that all it takes is for people of courage to give up and people who want change will always win. The culture is on the side of change, at least younger people in the culture are. It will be hard to resist this over the long haul.

So what are the various LGBT advocacy groups doing? The answer is aggressive politics. Carmen Fowler, president of the Presbyterian Lay Committee (a group that strongly upholds the present stance of the church and opposes the LGBT agenda) has a unique way of describing this struggle. Three games describe what is unfolding: “Go Fish,” “War” and “Manipulation.”

The church has always had one primary calling, to fish for people, to make disciples. Even the most liberal advocates for change recognize this and talk about the need for evangelism quite passionately. So everyone agrees with “Go Fish” but some have a different view of fishing.

The second game being played, says Fowler, is “Manipulation.” This game was made up by Fowler’s family. It can be played by an unlimited number of players so long as you keep multiplying the decks and manipulating the cards. Fowler says the PCUSA has gone from a friendly game of “Go Fish” to a “no-holds-barred denominational version of ‘Manipulation.’” What evidence exists for this claim? Presbyteries were intentionally targeted for their vote. Groups that advocate the change refer to certain presbyteries as “target flips.” (Utah was even called a “bonus flip.”)

But why call this manipulation? Aren’t people on the other side doing the same? Yes, and no. Yes, there is political strategy on both sides, no doubt about that. But the advocates of change know they have to redefine the plain meaning of words like “fidelity” and “chastity” if they are to win. Winning, in this case, is everything so they work very hard to obfuscate ordinary language and to promote “peace and unity.” They want ordinary Presbyterians to believe that they are still playing “Go Fish.” But the game was changed.

The advocacy groups in the PCUSA are willing to go to the last game now: “War.” They have taken the gloves off and they are determined to win. They really do not care about the losses of the PCUSA. They really do not care about the decline of their denomination. They care about winning the game of “War.” Their openly announced plan is to hunker down and wait for their opponents to give up, something that is clearly happening.

So, should good people who want to fish and not fight avoid the politics of these battles? Not if they believe in truth and purity. Not if they believe in reformation and confessional integrity.

But isn’t the culture already moving away from these standards rapidly and isn’t the best way to advance Christ’s kingdom to move on? I say no. Darkness must be openly challenged by the light. Jesus puts his people at enmity against the spirit of the world. Even if the whole world embraces this agenda, and the fact is clear that it is not, then we must still stand for what is morally right. As secularism draws the West closer and closer to the Enlightenment, and the nearer to radical postmodernity, we have a choice. Will we pursue success or faithfulness? We may have to make that choice in due time. In the PCUSA I think that time has come. It has also come for the ELCA and the UMC. The Episcopal Church has already passed that time and their future has been embraced.

The Homosexual Debate in the Church, Part 2

Polyamorous relationships involve three or more sexual partners. These partners may be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. Polyamorists follow the LGBT community in promoting civil rights for themselves and acceptance of their practice as a normal alternative lifestyle. As we saw yesterday this is already legally practiced in the Netherlands.

The point that must be made here is simple—if the marriage debate is about civil rights then the gender of the partner is, at the end of the day, irrelevant! And if this is true then the number of people involved, as well as their age and kinship, should not be restricted since this would violate the rights of the individuals involved. If the issue is “rights” then were do we stop? Can a man marry his mother, a niece her uncle, a brother marry his sister? Should all such restrictions be removed? Some will admit this problem but many want to keep the debate focused on gays and lesbians and not answer this question. The reason seems quite obvious to me.

Question: Could our polygamy and incest laws be abolished over time? You bet. History shows it can happen and the Netherlands shows how a country that was deeply influenced by the Christian faith 100 years ago is now throwing off all such marriage laws.

Does incest have any meaning in the modern context? Yes, but you have to wonder for how long. Who draws the lines and where? If incest is just a relic of biblical fundamentalism who are we to say it should have any bearing on the modern rights debate?

In the Presbyterian Church USA this debate is raging. A recent move to accept gay and lesbian marriage came closer to passing than at any previous time. Advocates are gearing up for 2010 and believe they can finally win. Unless something happens to slow this effort it will, more than likely, soon pass. The denomination, which is already in great decline, will only shrink faster and the cancer of moral compromise will eventually destroy it.

There are several groups promoting the LGBT agenda in the PCUSA. One is called, interesting, the More Light Presbyterians (MLP). It lists 117 congregations in the entire denomination. That is 1% of the total churches in the PCUSA. What amazes me is that 1% can have such influence. MLP is seeking denominational support for its efforts and the executive director believes they will get it. When the polyamorist question was put to the director of MLP he said his group supported monogamous marriage. But, and this is the inconsistency that must be pointed out, the same MLP group supports full rights for bisexuals. This cannot be and proves the disingenuous stance of these civil rights advocates. Like good politicians they understand what people will do now and then how they can get what they want later if they win this present debate.

If you ever find yourself in a discussion about homosexual marriage ask the following questions: Do you also favor the marriage of bisexuals and close kin? You will find the conversation generally goes silent. Why? Well, if you take the “right to marry whomever you please” to its logical conclusion, as has been done in the Netherlands, there is no doubt where this leads.

Is any relationship between consenting adults acceptable legally? Morally? Within the church?

Several things are obvious to readers of the Bible, even those who oppose biblical marriage between a man and a woman. Jesus highly esteemed marriage. He repeated the formula of Genesis regarding one man and one woman. (Advocates of same-sex marriage often say that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality so we should follow him in this pattern.) The relationship of a man and his wife, in marriage, is the pattern the New Testament applies to Christ’s relationship with his bride the church. Marriage, as the older wedding ceremonies clearly stated it, is an institution of God that should be honored by all and entered into soberly and carefully. It is not a civil right.

In Paul’s time homosexuality, bisexuality and transgender were all practiced openly. But in 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 Paul says some homosexuals had ceased to practice disordered sexual expressions. Why? Paul simply and powerfully says this is because: “You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God.” This same Jesus still has the power to break sin in people’s lives. The shame is that the national leadership of the PCUSA knows very little about “this” power transforming lives. When the good news is exchanged for psychology and human wisdom the result will always be a loss of divine power. This message is needed not only in the Protestant mainline PCUSA debate but it is needed in the whole church in America today.

The Homosexual Debate in the Church, Part 1

The Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) is the old mainline Presbyterian Church within the United States. It has roots in the early history of American Christianity and came to its present form through various mergers and developments over the past three centuries. After a division in the Civil War the denomination underwent other divisions in the fundamentalist/modernist debates of the twentieth century. Now the PCUSA is being torn apart by the debate over homosexual marriage. The debate is said, by friend and foe alike, to be over “gay marriage.” In reading the press reports about this debate in recent news it strikes me that everyone involved in this debate would be better served if we called this by the right name—the LGBT Marriage Agenda. (lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgenders).

Why do I say it this way? Because the real debate here is not being conducted honestly. This is true in the wider culture but it is even more imperative that we see this inside the church. Let me explain.

LGBT’s consistently argue that marriage is a right. They then argue that they are being discriminated against by state and church laws that limit marriage to one man and one woman. So far considerable numbers of people seem to agree, though this is still a distinct minority in the culture and the church. But here is the problem—if marriage is a right, and not simply a privilege, then all LGBT’s should be allowed to marry. This is not simply a homosexual debate. We should be clear about this in our discussion. If L’s and G’s can marry then what about B’s and T’s?

The transgender issue may not be a real issue but the bisexual one already is in countries where L’s and G’s get married in the state and the church. This is the argument of the “slippery slope,” which should not be quickly discarded in this particular case. In a bisexual relationship there are at least three people involved and there could be more. (No one places a limit here.) LGBT advocates seem unified in claiming that there is no inherent difference between each of them. Proponents of Gay and Lesbian marriage generally recognize that there should be no discrimination against B’s and T’s. To say otherwise is a form of obvious discrimination if you follow the original argument.

Based on this thinking bisexuals have as much right to marriage as others. Conclusion—acceptance of gay and lesbian marriage leads to the acceptance of polygamy.

For those who argue otherwise I have one answer: the Netherlands. In 2005 the first trio got legally married there. The Brussels Journal said “the union of three partners was registered and polygamy has been legalized in all but name.” The first case consisted of a man and two bisexual women. The Netherlands and Belgium were the first countries to give full legal rights for marriage to gays and lesbians. The facts are clear—they are clearly moving toward polygamy. This is not a straw man!

There is actually a name for this kind of relationship if you Google it: triad marriage. You can find, by a Web search, that there are sites openly advocating this practice and promoting it around the world. There is even another (new) word for those who intimately love more than one person: polyamory. Though not yet in Webster’s it is only a matter of time. A Web search will reveal that loving more than one person at a time is polyamory. These relationships vary from those who just love more than one person in a relationship and accept infidelity and those who reject infidelity. Polyamorists follow the LGBT agenda and see the acceptance of it as normative and desirable.

Tomorrow: Isn’t this debate really about the definition of marriage?

California Same-Sex Law and the Methodists

In the wake of the California Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage, more than 80 retired Southern California clergy from the United Methodist Church are offering to perform same-sex marriages, the Sacramento Bee reports. The ministers made their agreement during the annual meeting last weekend for the California-Nevada Conference of United Methodist Church. Meanwhile, a small United Methodist congregation in Santa Monica, called the Church at Ocean Park, is hosting a “love celebration” this Sunday, July 6, for couples of any sexual preference who want to marry.

The United Methodist Book of Discipline—i.e., official church law—forbids churches and clergy, both active and retired, from performing same-sex unions. If disciplined, the clergy could be defrocked.  However, retired clergy are much less likely to face church discipline.

The California-Pacific Conference of United Methodism is one of the denomination’s most liberal. It is no surprise, at least to this writer, that it is also one of the fastest declining regions, having lost about half its members over the last 40 years, while California’s population has boomed. Less than 3 percent of the United Methodist Church in the U.S. lives in California.

These Methodist clergy are seeking to be progressive and relevant to the culture and the fast-moving changes of California law. They also appear to be "accepting" to some, I am sure. But what they are doing is making the Methodist Church, in California at least, increasingly irrelevant to the purpose that Christ has for his church in the earth. The whole thing is sad beyond words. I pray the Methodist Church, which has officially upheld its own discipline in the past, will now have the courage to apply it to these ministers. I seriously doubt that they will but I am asking God to turn hearts and minds sooner than later.

Seeing the Human Side of the Homosexual Debate

Some newspapers still do a commendable job of putting two opposing sides of a complicated moral issue fairly. I was reminded of this when I read my morning newspaper today. The Daily Herald, a Chicago suburban paper, ran two stories on the issue of homosexuality and Christian faith, side-by-side. Both accounts were written by the same author, James Fuller, a writer for the Daily Herald staff.

One account told the story of a Wheaton College graduate named Rev. Jay Johnson. Johnson, the son of a former Wheaton College professor, believes that he was given an orientation to “gayness” at birth. After many painful years of difficult struggle with his sexual and personal identity, as he tells the story, he decided to no longer fight against temptation any longer. He accepted his “gayness.” He not only “came out of the closet” but eventually became an Episcopal priest, under the oversight of Chicago Bishop Frank Griswold.(Griswold is the same person who led the Episcopal Church USA into its present disastrous direction while he served as its presiding bishop.)

The second account in the Daily Herald report tells the story of Christopher Yuan, a former drug user/seller and homosexual sex-addict, who came to faith in Christ while in prison. Chris eventually attended Moody Bible Institute and now lives a celibate lifestyle. He says his present life is not entirely free from temptation. He believes his faith continues to deliver him from the practice of evil. Chris openly rejects the sexual labels of homo, hetero and bisexuality. Believing he has experienced healing in Christ Chris now considers Christian marriage a real possibility. He adds, “Not everything that feels good is right. Attraction is not a choice, but acting on those attractions is. Acting on same-sex attraction is not encoded into DNA like ethnicity or skin color. Black people can’t wake up one day and say, ‘I’m no longer black.’ Gay people can wake up and say, ‘I’m no longer gay.’ I’m living proof of that.” The debate will go on for sure but the changes in the life of Chris Yuan are unmistakable.

His comments state the issue about as clearly as it can be stated. Is homosexual orientation hard-wired into some people from birth? The honest truth is that we do not know the answer for certain. The majority of people in the popular culture now think that the answer has been proven in the affirmative. This is not the case if you read the various studies conducted on the subject. More research is to be done and people on both sides of this polarizing cultural and moral divide ought to be more honest about the real facts that have surfaced from these very few studies.

What is at stake here is not science, even if we did discover some evidence to support Jay Johnson's view. What is at stake is the Christian tradition of moral formation and sexual ethics. One side thinks the Bible, and the entire Christian tradition down through twenty centuries, does not favor gay-practice and the other believes that modern studies and conditions profoundly argue for a change in Christian interpretation and moral practice. Respect for people, and concern for the truth, often disappears in the heat of these types of debates. This is what made these two particular articles so worthwhile to me. I encourage you to read them. Check out the Daily Herald and see for yourself. After your read Chris's story, which this link should open, then you can find the Jay Johnson's story through the link at the bottom of the article.

The ELCA: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) has been meeting this week at Navy Pier in Chicago. The big-issue has once again been the attempt to legitimate homosexual practice among clergy. This issue will divide the church for certain. But those who propose the acceptance of the practice officially have shown no concern about church unity at all. They believe that this is an issue of justice and thus it is time for the church to repent and embrace their sexual identity and practice.

On Tuesday 80 gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans-gendered ministers attacked what they called a present policy of "don't ask, don't tell." This policy, in effect, allows some latitude for such clergy so long as these ministers do not openly create divisions in their churches that bring about opposition. But this policy is not enough for the aggressive activists. They want a church-wide policy that embraces their lifestyle as biblically and morally ethical. Many of those who openly displayed their opposition to the ELCA on Tuesday are part of the Extraordinary Candidacy Project, a group of ordained gay clergy who are excluded from the church rolls but who serve congregations in the ELCA that choose to call them, thus the "don't ask, don't tell" phrase and the way it is used in this debate.

An ELCA pastor in Chicago was quoted by the Chicago Tribune as saying, "I think this particular moment is pivotal. It really calls the church to accountability for its 'don't ask, don't tell policy.'"

I agree with this argument completely. A "don't ask, don't tell" policy has already given away the moral high ground since it allows the very thing the church says that it does not allow. It is hypocritical to the extreme and both sides know it quite well. The ELCA ought to go ahead and adopt a pro-homosexual agenda entirely or allow historical Christian tradition and biblical authority to trump this cultural captivity of their church body so as to begin some kind of new reformation. The battle is likely lost already, it is really just a matter of time. And the membership losses in the ELCA will likely continue now more than ever.

By the way, Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson was re-elected this week. Hanson is noted for his outspoken criticism of our war efforts in Iraq and his continual unwillingness to express an open opinion on the matter of gay clergy. Does anyone seriously doubt what his position is on the latter issue? Please don't tell me there are not ecclesiastical politics on the left just as there are on the right.  No one is  immune.  If we are talking about a important ethical issue here, and both sides think that we are, then there can be no middle-ground in the end.

New Jersey and Civil Unions

In a decision that is really not surprising to anyone who has been paying attention to the debate the governor of New Jersey signed a civil union bill today that institutes homosexual unions as legal in his state. This bill will grant such couples privileges such as adoption, inheritance, hospital visitation, medical decision-making and alimony rights. It passed the New Jersey legislature on December 14. The legislative action came about as a response to a state Supreme Court ruling in October. This makes New Jersey, Connecticut and Vermont all states that now legally allow civil unions. Massachusetts allows gay couples to marry and California has a domestic partnership arrangement that brings with it full marriage rights.

In spite of various state actions, via ballot initiatives, this trend will likely continue, at least in the more blue states. When some homosexual activists responded negatively to today's action, saying that they still want marriage for all, the governor of New Jersey made it clear that he believes this will come only when society changes so as to allow acceptance more broadly. I have been saying for some time that there is very little indication that things will not keep moving in this direction over the long term. If 90% of people in America have sex before marriage, as reported two days ago, then why would you expect most of these same people to hold to a high view of chastity in other areas as the social forces continue to have their full impact upon our culture?

My question for Christians and churches, in the light of these social trends, is quite simple: "How will we respond when 'no' is no longer the legal response of our society?" Put another way, "Is the missional mandate of Jesus so connected to this issue that we will have no message to speak publicly, except harsh condemnation, when this issue becomes mainstreamed?" We seem unable to separate moral clarity on this issue from love for people; liberal, conservative heterosexual or homosexual.

It seems to me that the church is caught in a huge tension with regard to this issue. Many run to one side or the other in order to escape the tension. We must promote chastity and biblical marriage on the one side. We also need to promote kindness, tenderheartedness and love for all, regardless of their "sexual identity." Our doctrine of God is involved in this struggle and most of us tend to project our emotions into that doctrine. As a result we express our doctrine of God in either moral fuzziness ("Why can't we all just get along?") or emotional anger ("God hates fags!"). Again, we need the wisdom of the ancient church and the perspective of the emerging generation to help us think though this with much more care.

Proclaiming Good News to Mal-Mart?

Wal-Mart has been the favorite target of the left for some years. Most of the time the fire has been rooted in criticism for how it treats it workers. Now the retail giant is under fire for the right for its corporate response to homosexuals. The protest comes from the American Family Association, which asks its supporters to boycott Wal-Mart stores during one of the busiest shopping weekends of the entire year, this Friday-Saturday. A second group, Operation Save America, plans prayer-and-preaching rallies outside Wal-Mart stores.

What triggered this response? Wal-Mart paid $25,000 this summer to become a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce and donated $60,000 to Out and Equal, which promotes gay-rights in the workplace. Some conservative Christian groups see these actions as a betrayal of the family-friendly stance of Wal-Mart. One minister accused homosexual groups of “extorting” stores with their radical agenda. Maybe, and maybe not, is my response. My guess is that there is much more to this than people on either side understand.

Wal-Mart’s spokesman said the company’s outreach to the gay-rights groups was part of a broader effort to serve its diverse customer base. The spokesman said, “We do not have a position on same-sex marriage. . . . What we do have is a strong commitment to diversity. We’re against discrimination everywhere.” The president of the Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce says conservative activists misunderstand the group’s real goals.

I have one question for serious missional Christians: “What on earth does this kind of boycott have to do with our advancing the kingdom of Jesus in this world?”

Must we always politicize the good news into a partisan and public protest against this and that group? Don’t misunderstand me. I oppose same-sex marriage on entirely different grounds, grounds that in the public arena can be articulated without reference to the gospel. But this issue is not really about same-sex marriage at all.

I wonder how multitudes of shoppers will feel about the Christian faith when they encounter these protesters, intercessors and preachers outside Wal-Mart this weekend? Somehow I can’t believe that this effort will incline one person to consider seriously the grace of God revealed in the incarnate Christ. The last I checked this was our corporate calling in this world, to deliver the good news to sinful people, not the bad news of negative political protest over policies that we find personally objectionable.

Engaging public policy issues is important for Christians, as I have argued for some years now. But this is not really about engaging public policy issues. It seems to me that it is more about losing a culture battle and not liking it. And it also seems to be about a form of intimidation and reaction that only harms our collective witness, which gives me another reason to want to tell my neighbors: “I am not that kind of Christian.” This all makes me want to explore how to become a “new kind of Christian.” Lord knows we are going to need such Christians more and more given the old kind of Christian and the witness they have given to the world.

Can an Archbishop Change His Mind?

It was reported in yesterday’s London Sunday Telegraph that Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has changed his view regarding accepting homosexual practice in the the Anglican church. He now says homosexuals should change their behavior if they want to be welcomed into the Anglican Church. Williams has increasingly distanced himself from his one-time support of homosexual relationships and stressed that the tradition and teaching of the church has in no way been altered by the Anglican Communion's consecration of its first openly homosexual bishop within the very liberal Episcopal Church USA..
   
Homosexual advocates are correct to conclude that Archbishop Williams has become increasingly conservative on this issue. This new direction has sparked accusations that Williams has performed an "astonishing" U-turn on the issue. These revelations surfaced in a newspaper interview last week in which the archbishop denied that it was time for the church to accept homosexual relationships, suggesting rather that it should be welcoming but not inclusive. Williams told a Dutch journalist: "I don't believe inclusion is a value in itself. Welcome is. We don't say 'Come in, and we ask no questions.' I do believe conversion means conversion of habits, behaviors, ideas, emotions. Ethics is not a matter of a set of abstract rules, it is a matter of living the mind of Christ. That applies to sexual ethics."

Some twenty years ago Rowan Williams wrote a scholarly essay in which he defended homosexual relationships. What happened to the Archbishop’s thinking on this issue? He says, "That was when I was a professor to stimulate debate. It did not generate much support and a lot of criticism--quite fairly on a number of points."

What really happened here? We don’t know for certain but frankly it appears that Williams has been convinced by the arguments in the unfolding debate itself, and by his pastoral responsibility for the unity of the whole church, to back a resolution that says homosexual practice is incompatible with the Bible. When Williams was consecrated as archbishop a few years ago I wrote that we should give him time to see how he would actually lead the worldwide Anglican Church. Many conservatives wrote him off at the time. But time has proven that Williams is willing to change his mind and take a difficult stand on an issue that is central to biblical Christian ethics.

I suggest that now we should do two things: 1. Pray for Archbishop Williams. He will need more courage and grace to lead faithfully in the coming months. 2. Recognize that leaders can and do change their minds, and sometimes, thank God, for the better. Not all thought on this controversial issue is intractable, especially when leaders are willing to listen and think deeply about the importance of their views to Christ and his people around the world. I have a strong sense that this change in Williams' view happened for several reasons, one of which was the presence of important scholars in the church like N. T. Wright, the bishop of Durham. It appears that Tom has had a huge impact on Archbishop Williams’ thinking. I would also suggest, to my various mainline renewalist friends, that this case provides clear evidence that God can and does answer prayer in these moral battles. We should very quietly rejoice and then keep pressing the struggle for fidelity to bibical authority, especially in private conversations. And we should show other leaders how Rowan Williams has responded, urging them to do the same. Who knows? The Lord might hear our pleas for the church and “restore again the years the locusts have eatten.”