June 15, 2004, from Bishop Stephen Bouman:

First of all that resolution should never have come up for a vote. I admit that I spent the majority of my time, preparation and prayer on my two part report to the assembly. Since we are in the midst of a sexuality study this resolution was untimely. I did not even see the resolution until the day before the assembly. I am taking much more responsibility in the future for resolutions as they come in. That resolution should have had a forum around it or a committee of the whole so that we could truly deliberate. And then we should have either voted whether or not we wanted to bring it to a vote or we should have found a way to keep it from coming to a vote. We live and learn. I was put on the spot, of course, by the constitutional challenge and then the challenge of the ruling of the chair. With a parliamentarian in one ear and other distracting things I am sure that it was not my finest hour. I am truly sorry you felt let down by your bishop. I continue to believe that the resolution was not in violation of the constitution. It did not support gay marriage, but equal civil benefits in the public arena. The resolution certainly can be interpreted as support for those unions though and the close vote seems to indicate that many took that interpretation. Bottom line: we should not have to vote on these things. And I need to pay better attention to our deliberative process. (I always thought assembly resolutions were an ersatz experience anyway).

But let me get to more serious matters. I believe that it is always the vocation of a bishop and all of the ordained to protect the Gospel and proclaim it. I have been pondering why this issue above all others brings out such a biblicistic fundamentalism hidden in each of us. I think it is because we believe something we value highly is being threatened, and that something is the Gospel, as you have said. In the Episcopal and Lutheran churches we see Christian certainties being eroded, challenged, abandoned. We see the attempt to recognize gay unions as part of a pattern in which the weakening of biblical authority leads to the ultimate loss of the Gospel itself. Paul Zahl, former dean in Birmingham and new president of the seminary in Ambridge, Pa., which is a center of opposition to the New Hampshire bishop, sees nothing but Anglican "Unitarianism" ahead. I think this is a valid concern. Some see addressing it by drawing a line at gay unions. I think it must be addressed by the office to which all bishops and pastors are called. We are called to tend the Gospel. Here good historical work is helpful. What the bishops of the ancient church in council and otherwise did and were called to do was uphold the integrity of the church's gospel. That is what lies behind the Nicene Creed, the Trinity, the Christological dogma of Chalcedon, the development of a NT canon, and all the steps taken against Gnosticism. It also lies behind Augustine's affirmation of grace alone in the Pelagian controversy. Our call, and that of every pastor, is to affirm, uphold, teach, and proclaim the Gospel. As good news of the dying and rising Christ it can never change. It is as absolute as anything can be. Bishops and pastors who do not teach this betray their office.

The problem is that I think in this sexuality study we are taking a "law" issue and making it a "Gospel" issue. Both sides as doing it. Gays do it when they self-justify their created essence as "giftedness" or "entitlement." For me echoes of President Preus' "Statement of Confessional Principles" and its elevation to Gospel status reverberate in this present controversy. As a bishop I must resist every attempt to take a "law" issue and make it a "gospel" issue-even if it is done by a theologian as eminent as Pannenberg. Gregory, the Church is bound to Scripture "for the sake of the Gospel." When Pannenberg says that a church which recognizes gay unions no longer stands "on the foundation of the Scripture" and "has ceased to be an evangelical church," he is taking a "law" issue and making it a "gospel" issue. We must resist this. Galatians: "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-not that there is another Gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let than one be accursed." We must exhort one another to, in Jenson's words, "tend the Gospel." Gay liberation and entitlement is as much a perversion of the gospel as making a "law" issue a "gospel" issue. "I determined when I was with you to no nothing except Christ and him crucified."

Which leads us to a second thing that is being feared, and that is antinomianism. That in defense of the Gospel we neglect or reject the law. I remember many being labeled a "gospel reductionist" during the Missouri controversies of the 70s. One can and should appeal to the law in scriptures, but to what purpose? One way in which God uses "law" is to expose our alienation from the Gospel. That is what Paul is doing in Romans 1:18 to 3:20. Both those who live within Torah and those who live outside of Torah are condemned because they do not trust Paul's gospel, that is, that Jesus is the messiah (Romans 1:1-4). We are called to total trust, faith, in Jesus crucified, as Messiah, to trust the God who gives life from the dead. (Romans 4). Apart from that we are under God's wrath, not under the gracious judgment of the Messiah.

Also, we uphold the law when we support the government given by God (Romans 13) in its administration of justice: justice for the poor, the oppressed, the victims of violence is always normed by the Bible, especially the voice of the prophets.

The key question is how the "law" in the Bible is the norm or standard for Christian behavior. Are all Gentiles to be circumcised? No. Are all dietary laws to be observed? Ask Peter on the roof in Joppa. Are Jewish marriage, divorce, and women-as-property laws to be observed? No, they are to be transformed by new institutions (such as "virgins" and "widows" groups, thus making women something other than the property of men) and by reforming marriage in the light of Christ and the church. (Ephesians 5).

So the questions we are addressing here is not a "gospel" question but a "law" question. How does the Christian Torah of the NT serve as norm and standard for Christians who are gay and lesbian? This is the opposite of an antinomian question. We are asking, how does the law apply here? What are gay and lesbian Christians to do with their sexual orientation? One direction the church is exploring is this: they are to do the same thing with their sexual orientation as Christians with a heterosexual orientation. They are to remain chaste in celibacy or chaste (faithful) in a union. We call the heterosexual union marriage. That is the home page of 2000 years of the church's tradition and teaching on scripture. We must praise and lift up heterosexsual marriage. We can ask what we should call a gay and lesbian union. We can ask whether such unions should exist at all. But the questions asked are not antinomian. It is rather the church's call to put all relationships and all that we do in relation to each other under the law of Christ (Gal.6:3; I Cor. 9:21; Romans 8:2). The question before the church is whether gay and lesbian unions can be seen as submission to the law of Christ.

The fear of losing the Gospel and the fear of antinomianism are valid fears. I am sorry that in our overheated atmosphere in the church that they are not being addressed. What is right attention to the law of Christ, the "torah" of the New Testament. What is right attention to biblical authority, right attention to the Gospel? Can we keep from fearful sliding into legalism and biblicism?

These are weighty matters. I am truly sorry for the distraction of resolution 2. I pray for you and your ministry. I am proud to be your flawed yet redeemed bishop.

Stephen