Declaring sin not to be sin
The Layman March 2005 Volume 38, Number 1, April 12, 2005
Scott Anderson is a warm, friendly intellectual. He displays no bitterness when the conversation goes against his homosexual lifestyle, which occasionally has happened during the three and one-half years he has served on the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity.
Anderson trained for the pulpit, earning a master of divinity degree. But, while other homosexuals and ordaining bodies were twisting the meaning of the “fidelity/chastity” clause in the PCUSA, Anderson declined ordination.
Other members of task force have obviously held Anderson, who once theologically described same-sex bonding as “sanctification,” in high esteem. “I have come to realize that I don’t want to be part of a church that doesn’t have Scott in it,” Mark Achtemeier said in his “Remarks to John Knox Presbytery” last November. Similar statements have been made by other task force members, who appear to be leaning toward a recommendation that presbyteries and sessions should be permitted to ordain men and women who are in monogamous same-gender relationships.
But for all his admirable qualities, Anderson is wrong and he should not be a model for what the task force ultimately recommends. Anderson has declared that the clear word of Scripture on sexual behavior is not binding. He has decided that his lifestyle is not sinful. Of course, every deacon, elder and minister in the PCUSA is a sinner. And some of those sins are equal to or more egregious than Anderson’s. But they cross the line when they declare their sin not to be sin and rule out the power of God that leads to confession and repentance.
Anderson’s situation reminds us of William Bennett, another person we admire. With the help of a financial gift, the Presbyterian Lay Committee sponsored a presentation by Bennett at the 212th General Assembly in 2000. He spoke eloquently to more than 1,000 people about virtue, right and wrong. But in 2003, it was disclosed that Bennett was a high-stakes gambler at the casinos. His first reaction was that there was nothing unvirtuous about his gambling. “I’ve gambled all my life, and it’s never been a moral issue with me,” he said.
Members of the Lay Committee were shocked that he dared to be casual about an activity that had obsessed and destroyed so many people. The paragon of virtues was justifying his own immorality. “Bennett was not using judgment or self-discipline and, consequently, he stepped over the boundary of his appetites,” The Layman said.
Later, Bennett, like the prodigal son, came to his senses. “It was a sin because it was a bad use of time and resources. Mortal sin? Venial sin? Something in the middle? I have no idea. But excess, for sure.”
Scott Anderson is a gifted man, but he remains outside the boundaries of Scripture and the denomination’s constitutional requirements on sexuality. The task force members who hold him in high esteem would serve him and the church better if they urge him to adopt a Biblical commitment to sexuality rather than cross that line themselves.