21 August 2003 Guest Editorial:
When Inclusion Becomes Sin

Recent Events in the Episcopal Church and Their Lessons for Seventh-day Adventists

Kevin D. Paulson

Editorial #128

The spiritual saga of American Episcopalians took a lurch downward in the past several weeks, with the decision of that church's governing bodies to ordain a practicing homosexual, the Rev. Gene Robinson, as bishop of New Hampshire.

For those less familiar than others with the story, certain facts need to be clear. The bishop in question is an openly active homosexual, not a struggling sinner seeking victory over something he acknowledges to be wrong. Thirteen years ago, this man left his wife of many years, together with his two daughters, to take up residence with his gay lover. In other words, there is nothing subtle about his problem. It cannot be dismissed as a mere youthful indulgence or momentary lapse. We are talking about calculated, deliberate disregard of the plain teachings of God's Word.

Yet his denomination chooses to look the other way, and has proceeded to ordain him.

Paralyzed by Politeness

This latest chapter in the Episcopal saga is by no means the first to demonstrate such abject spiritual decline. More than a decade ago, Bishop John Spong of Newark, New Jersey offered the world an equally blatant rejection of Bible truth. In a controversial book written at the time, Spong declared some of Jesus' statements in the Gospels to be “narrow-minded” and “vindictive,” that the virgin birth is “an unthinkable notion,” and that the story of Jesus' resurrection was never meant to be taken literally (1).

Among other profound insights, Spong's book insisted there is “not much value” to the belief that Jesus Christ was sent to save fallen humanity from sin, that the Old Testament presents a “vicious tribal code of ethics,” and that the apostle Paul was a repressed, “self-loathing” homosexual (2).

On the subject of the Christian and sexuality, Spong had earlier repudiated the Bible's view in his 1988 book Living in Sin?, which alleged that “nonmarital sex can be holy under some circumstances” (3). Soon thereafter, in a precursor of recent developments, Spong proceeded to ordain a sexually active gay priest (4).

Time magazine, reporting on these thoughts and actions, asked incredulously if such sentiments were “excerpts from a tract by a staunch atheist? On the contrary,” Time observed, “those are assertions offered by a bishop of America's Episcopal Church” (5). Time went on to describe Spong's views as “wildly offbeat convictions,” and to ask the obvious question: “Are there any limits to what an Episcopal leader may believe—or disbelieve?” (6).

None, apparently. To my knowledge, Spong was never disciplined by the Episcopal Church. Bishop William Frey, then-president of Pennsylvania's Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, declared when interviewed by Time: “The House of Bishops has shown itself to be impotent in the face of challenges to the core beliefs of the church. We've been paralyzed by our politeness” (7).

It would seem that nothing has changed in the years since.

Lessons from the Episcopal Tragedy

The lessons of recent Episcopal compromises dare not be lost on the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Six lessons in particular stand out as significant:

1. Truth, not superficial unity, is most important. Time and again, as I watched portions of the televised debate in the Episcopal House of Deputies being broadcast on CNN, I found myself frustrated by the arguments of those who urged that Bishop Robinson not be confirmed in his post. They kept referring, repeatedly, to the possibility that Robinson's appointment would split the church and make certain folks upset. This, they argued, was the reason to vote against him.

Perhaps some did say so, but I heard no one—during any of the arguments I listened to on several networks—ever say the reason not to appoint Robinson was because of the plain words of Scripture against the homosexual way of life.

Since the vote, to be sure, some Episcopalians have declared their intention to reassess their relationship with the church because of this compromise. A number of conservative church members will meet this October in Plano, Texas, to discuss what to do next. One bishop who is leading this movement did, to his credit, speak directly of the violation of Scripture that this recent decision represents.

Jesus' prayer for His disciples, “That they all may be one” (John 17:21), was prefaced by His petition, “Sanctify them through Thy truth; Thy word is truth. . . . And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth” (verses 17, 19). In other words, sanctification through God's word of truth is the prerequisite for Christian unity. Any other unity is a satanic counterfeit.

Ellen White, as usual, agrees with Scripture:

Christ calls for unity. But He does not call for us to unify on wrong practices. The God of heaven draws a sharp contrast between pure, elevating, ennobling truth and false, misleading doctrines. He calls sin and impenitence by the right name. He does not gloss over wrongdoing with a coat of untempered mortar. I urge our brethren to unify upon a true, scriptural basis (8).

We have a message to give, and I am instructed to say to our people, ‘Unify, unify.’ But we are not to unify with those who are departing from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. With our hearts sweet and kind and true, we are to go forth to proclaim the message, giving no heed to those who lead away from the truth (9).

Jesus prayed that His followers might be one; but we are not to sacrifice the truth in order to secure this union, for we are to be sanctified through the truth. Here is the foundation of all true peace. Human wisdom would change all this, pronouncing this basis too narrow. Men would try to effect unity through concession to popular opinion, through compromise with the world, a sacrifice of vital godliness. But truth is God's basis for the unity of His people (10).

The Episcopalians have obviously set aside Jesus' prerequisite for unity. We as Seventh-day Adventists dare not do the same.

2. Spiritual problems must be addressed early, or they will grow monstrous later. As was noted above, Bishop Robinson is not the first openly gay Episcopal priest. He is simply the first such priest appointed to be a bishop. One obviously wonders why the denomination waited for such a one to be appointed this high before the lifestyle in question became an issue. Had the issue of gay priests been addressed from Scripture early on, the question of whether to ordain a gay bishop would never have arisen.

Moreover, as noted earlier, Bishop Robinson is not only gay; he abandoned his family of over twenty years in order to practice this lifestyle. Why did the Episcopal Church not deal with him properly at the time he did this?

Seventh-day Adventists need to be listening here as well. We too have at times permitted departures from truth and purity to become monstrous before dealing with them. For example, recent denials of the sanctuary and Sabbath doctrines, together with the authority of Ellen White and the remnant-church theology, would never have gained traction in Adventist minds had the church not first tolerated the spread of a false gospel which teaches justification-alone salvation, the imperfectability of Christian character, and related errors. Recent attacks by Adventist “intellectuals” on the Genesis creation story, the authenticity of Noah's flood, and the inspiration of Scripture itself would not have been possible had certain ones not chosen—long ago—to turn a deaf ear to musings of scholarly unbelief from such groups as the Association of Adventist Forums and others. By not demanding the removal of such persons from employment and fellowship in the church, many in responsible positions have fostered the growth of a culture of doubt among us, allowing the unfaithful to tout their aberrations as legitimate options for Adventists, and to thus convey the absurd notion that the church is “big enough” for views like theirs.

The acceptance of an unscriptural salvation theology has made easy the rejection of the aforementioned pillars of Adventist belief, along with others. Had the denomination long ago laid the ax at the root of the tree, eliminating from our ranks this victory-denying gospel of cheap grace, the natural hostility of this “gospel” to the historic theology, worship standards, and lifestyle witness of our faith would never have wrought the damage seen among us in recent decades. Had the church long ago made it clear that pastors and teachers who deny basic Biblical and/or SDA beliefs will face a swift end to their denominational professions and church membership, the widespread acceptance of such denials which we see among us today would never have become the major crisis the church now confronts.

Unless we are careful, we too can become paralyzed by politeness.

3. No middle ground exists between truth and error. Following the vote of the Episcopal House of Bishops confirming Robinson, one leading bishop interviewed on CNN expressed the need to “find the center” in the debate polarizing his church. But where, might we ask, can such a “center” be found?

The Bible is abundantly clear that the homosexual lifestyle is condemned by God (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10). Either we accept this counsel as our rule of faith and practice, or we do not. No “centrist” position is available in a discussion like this.

Here again, Seventh-day Adventists should take heed. Those seeking the elusive “middle ground” in current denominational discussions must understand that when God's written counsel speaks, no middle ground is available. Those who seek such a spiritual Switzerland are the ones denounced by the True Witness of Revelation as “neither cold nor hot” (Rev. 3:15). It was to such a syncretist, accommodating mindset that the prophet Elijah declared his challenge, “How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow Him, but if Baal, then follow him” (I Kings 18:21).

One Adventist author, in a recent issue of a prominent church publication, warned of what he called “the dangers of black and white thinking,” urging that the church allow for greater ambiguity in matters of doctrine and lifestyle (11). But endless, varying shades of gray are not the message of Holy Scripture. Neither the prophets of the Old Testament nor the apostles of the New presented truth as an ever-expanding cafeteria of spiritual options. Nor did Christ Himself, who spoke of a broad road leading to destruction and a narrow road leading to life (Matt. 7:13-14). What this author denounces as “black and white thinking” is what keeps Christians true to their Lord's changeless standard. Gray thinking, by contrast, leads Christians to turn a blind eye to open sin. Which is what the Episcopalians have sadly done.

Ellen White's superlative language on this point can hardly be misunderstood:

If God abhors one sin above another, of which His people are guilty, it is doing nothing in case of an emergency. Indifference and neutrality in a religious crisis is regarded of God as a grievous crime, and equal to the very worst type of hostility against God (12).

4. Sympathy for people can compromise our stand for truth. One Episcopal bishop from the South observed before the decision in Minneapolis, “Voting against a principle—in this case, gay rights—is easier than voting against an individual person” (13).

Too often, Christians find it easy to sacrifice principle when a friend's reputation or professional future is involved. Even in the Adventist Church, there are times when this has happened.

How many times, when someone's name is brought up for church discipline, or discussed on a nominating committee, do considerations of family or friendship obscure issues of fitness, qualification, or spiritual integrity? Only recently, when a pastor-friend of mine was discussing a recent youth rally at which worship standards were blatantly violated, this pastor nevertheless shrunk from rebuking the actions of the youth director responsible because of the closeness of their friendship. This is always dangerous. Whether someone in error is a friend, family member, or anything else, redemptive discipline must be applied. If wrong ideas are cherished or wrong practices upheld, the person must be visited and labored with. And if repentance and reformation do not occur, separation from the body of Christ—not to mention church employment—becomes the only right course of action (Matt. 18:15-17).

Repeatedly, during the debate over ordaining Bishop Robinson, the Episcopal deputies argued for “love” as the solution to their dilemma. But the love of God as revealed in Scripture never excuses or glosses over sin. Our Episcopalian friends seem not to remember the words of Jesus: “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent” (Rev. 3:19). We as Seventh-day Adventists had best remember these words ourselves!

5. Religious ambiguity brings decline, not growth, to churches. A number of years ago, Newsweek magazine reported how “mainline” Protestant churches were rapidly becoming the “sideline” (14). This article noted, among other things, that the United States has more Muslims in its population than Episcopalians, and that the number of Episcopalians in America is in fact fewer than the number of their Anglican brethren in the tiny nation of Uganda (15). A similar article in the same magazine, written a number of years later, confirmed the continuance of this trend (16).

This is understandable. The mainline churches of America, with their liberal theology and permissive approach to a horde of issues, have learned the simple lesson that when you stand for nothing, you fall for anything. It's like what a Unitarian I once met told me, “When we pray, we pray, ‘To whom it may concern.’” That may sound amusing, but when souls are at stake, it isn't.

When I hear some in contemporary Adventism speak of how openness to doctrinal change, irreverent worship, and lifestyle laxity will somehow succeed in filling our pews, their claim to relevance and awareness of societal reality is hard to take seriously. This selfsame formula for stagnation has already been tried—by the Episcopalians, the Methodists, certain branches of Lutheranism and Presbyterianism, and others. Even those preferring the world to the church rightly understand that the two don't go together. And when the church tries to pretend that they do, it loses credibility. People have better things to do on a nice weekend morning than listen to such rubbish!

6. Inclusion can become sin. One popular phrase used by spiritual compromisers is that of being “inclusive, not exclusive.” This sounds nice, but what is meant by it? According to God's Word, there are ideas and activities to be included in a believer's life, and others which must be excluded. At no time in sacred history did God establish a faith community in which all persons, regardless of belief or practice, were welcomed as members in good standing.

Several years ago, another Adventist author wrote in a denominational magazine:

Are we going to define Adventism in ways that encourage the pursuit of God's truth in every area of life (psychology, sociology, the sciences, the arts), or are we going to judge everything as “foolishness” or “secular” that challenges our concepts? Is it OK to bring a subtle end to dialogue by labeling others who hold views different from our own as ‘disloyal critics of the church,’ or are we going to trust God to lead Seventh-day Adventists into ‘present truth’ confident that God will bless our community with a timely message for this generation—if we will be open to one another? (17).

But “our concepts” are not at issue in the church. “Views different from our own” are not the issue. Being “open to one another” is not the issue. Rather, the great issues in contemporary Adventism offer a choice between obedience to God's written counsel and disobedience to that counsel. The opinions and preferences of people are not at stake. God's Word is at stake.

When Inclusion Becomes Sin

Tragically, there are Seventh-day Adventists who would like to see their own church adopt a more accommodating stand toward the homosexual way of life (18). But as with pleas for the various gospels of easy salvation among us, for the blending of strict Biblical creationism with theistic evolution, for the reducing of inspired authority through higher criticism, and for the lowering of lifestyle and worship standards in the name of “openness” and “grace-filled acceptance,” such pleas must be kindly but firmly rejected.

Inclusion is both appropriate and essential when it involves the church's compassionate yet decisive proclamation of God's eternal truth to all humanity. All are invited, but only those who bring forth fruits meet for repentance (Matt. 3:8) can be welcomed into the church's sacred fellowship. In short, the message of Scripture is both inclusive and exclusive. When penitent sinners of every race, gender, social class, and ethnic origin are welcomed to the Christian fold, inclusion becomes a glorious demonstration of the Master's love. But by accepting as a gospel minister one who practices a lifestyle condemned in God's Word, the Episcopalians have demonstrated that inclusion can also become sin.

1. Richard N. Ostling, “More Spongtaneous Eruptions” Time, Feb. 18, 1991, p. 62.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 175.
9. Ibid, vol. 3, p. 412.
10. ________, Our High Calling, p. 329.
11. Chris Blake, “The Dangers of Black and White Thinking,” Adventist Review, March 29, 2001.
12. White, Testimonies, vol. 3, p. 281.
13. Dirk Johnson and Margaret Nelson, “Gays in Church and State,” Newsweek, Aug. 18, 2003, p. 34.
14. Kenneth L. Woodward, “From Mainline to Sideline: Once the religious establishment, liberal Protestants are losing their sheep,” Newsweek, Dec. 22, 1986, pp. 54-56.
15. Ibid, p. 54.
16. ________, “Dead End for the Mainline?” Newsweek, Aug. 9, 1993, pp. 46-48.
17. Eileen Greenwalt, “An Inclusive Church,” Adventist Review, May 21, 1998, p. 11.
18. See Bob Bouchard and Harvey Elder, “Kampmeeting Supports Gay Adventists,” Adventist Today, Nov.-Dec. 1995, pp. 16,19; “Adventist, Pastor, Husband, Homosexual,” Adventist Today, July-August 1999, pp. 16-19.

Pastor Kevin Paulson serves on the pastoral staff of the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Through the years he has published articles in many publications. He is also editor of Quo Vadis, a truth-filled magazine predominantly featuring the work of SDA young people. Kevin is also the speaker for "Know Your Bible," a radio program broadcast each Sunday at 5:30 p.m. on WMCA 570 AM, in Hasbrouk Heights, New Jersey. Pastor Paulson received his BA in Theology from Pacific Union College in 1982 and an MA in Systematic Theology from Loma Linda University in 1987.