The ESV Controversy in the Episcopal Church

John Stonestreet reports:

According to John Burwell’s report from the 2012 General Convention of the Episcopal Church, church delegates got an unexpected education when discussing a resolution to include the English Standard Version of the Bible to the list of officially approved versions for the denomination.

But controversy arose when one delegate discovered that the ESV’s translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9 clearly includes those who unrepentantly practice homosexuality among those who will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Immediately, a new vote was called for and the ESV was rejected.

Anyone who thought that the matter was now concluded was disappointed when someone discovered overnight that the exact same wording is found in the RSV, the NIV, the CEV, and several other versions already approved for use in the Episcopal Church! As Burwell wrote, “Who Knew?”

The decision was then made to send the bill back to committee for further study. Wonder what they’ll find in there next?

About these ads

About Uri Brito

I am the Pastor of Providence Church (CREC) in Pensacola, Fl.
This entry was posted in Homosexuality. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to The ESV Controversy in the Episcopal Church

  1. I suppose the next move will be to approve the Adulterer’s Bible.

  2. Micah Burke says:

    The committee then discovered the “Jefferson Bible” with an apocrypha of “The Gnostic Gospels” and adopted it unanimously.

  3. C. Frank Bernard says:

    RSV uses “perverts” instead of homosexuality: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts

    NIV implies that some pretend or behave like a homosexual and thus “offend” true/innate homosexuality: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

    Ditto the CEV: No one who is immoral or worships idols or is unfaithful in marriage or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual

    Whereas the ESV has little wiggle room (at least for men): …nor men who practice homosexuality

  4. Tfebert says:

    King James refers to “nor effeminate”. Look up the word…there is no way around it. I heard a crippled young person tell me she was made with Cystic Fibrosis but it isn’t who she is and she fights it every day. It is her battle to not let this disease take her without a fight. She went on to say the homosexual man was born with a strong tendency toward the effeminate but it doesn’t mean he has authority to act on it under Christs’ name. Again like the child molestor who says I was made to like children or the murderer or says I need to kill people or even the compulsive liar who says it is my nature-none of these would we accept as normal and say God’s word doesn’t apply since they were made sinners. Sin is sin and cannot be excused away by deciding your sinful broken body is how God made you as an excuse to act on it. We are all sinners and daily must bear the cross of the sins we are drawn to.

    • Rob says:

      @Tfebert. While I realize this is not a forum for discussing what is or is not sin, I cannot help but mention something about what was said. Tfebert, you grouped one’s sexuality in with molestation, murder, and lying as equally sinful. I’d like to examine each of these as briefly as possible. Molestation is forcing sexual acts upon an unwilling person, murder is forcing death upon an unwilling person, lying is forcing falsehood upon an unwilling person, homosexuality is one’s natural predisposition to find willing partners of similar gender to oneself (for comparison, heterosexuality is one’s natural predisposition to find willing partners of opposite gender to oneself). I can’t help but notice that there is something very similar between the first three items and a giant chasm between them and the last item, sexuality. The first three offer no potential for love while the last’s potential is immense. When is love sinful? Since it comes from God (John 4:7), love cannot be sinful since God does not cause us to sin (James 1:13). Every sin works to thwart love and, therefore, God. I simply don’t see that in sexuality.

  5. C. Frank Bernard says:

    Look at the 10 Commandments which Jesus later summarized as the 2 greatest commandments: Love God with everything, and: Love one another as yourself: The first 4 commandments specify requirements from people directly to God, while the rest specify requirements of people to other persons (and of course always at least secondarily to God). All the commandments are arranged in order of importance to God. For example, sometimes people will be placed in a situation where one must seemingly break a commandment to uphold a higher commandment as is oft the case of lying to protect innocent life (prevent murder). Now look at the highest of the commandments dealing with people to persons: “Honor your father and your mother”. The father refers to the man that is the same sex as Adam and the mother refers to the woman he marries that is the same sex as Eve — a sex that God created for men.

    Also, look at Romans 1:21-32: First, people were not right with God with their thanks, honor, etc., and then become futile in their thinking. Then God gives them up to defile their bodies with the same sex for which the penalty was even death. So same sex relations is an advanced manifestation of depravity. The text says that those that escaped the death penalty could still receive in themselves the due penalty for their shameful sexual acts, but even then, their minds can become further debased to commit a broad range of sins including even giving approval to others to be like them.

    • Rob says:

      I really do not wish for this post to become something that it wasn’t intended to be, but I hope that these discussions are welcomed.

      Mr. Bernard, I believe that we hold the Bible in different regard. I do believe it is infallible, but I do not belive it to be inerrant. My father and I could never quite see eye to eye regarding the authority of the Scriptures and so these discussion were always difficult to have because it seemed that each of us was ignoring plain fact: that I seemed to be ignoring black and white text while he seemed to be giving up his ability to reason for God’s greater glory. I loved my father very much and so I do understand where you come from, if only in part. I also believe that each of us is doing our best to understand and love God, each other, and ourselves according to God’s will.

      In response to your last post, I really cannot respond effectively because of our differences in understanding scripture. The only thing that I give is my assurance to continue to study and hope that each of us, and the wider Christian Church as a whole, will agree sooner rather than later.

      • C. Frank Bernard says:

        OK, then.

        I’ll end with a parody of the creation of the second human: “But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into yet another man and brought him to the man. Then the man said, “This also is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; I guess he also shall be called Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his man and hold fast to some other man, and they shall help each other find helpers fit for each other…unless they claim to love each other.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s