I want to talk to you in this sermon, about the context for the debate we are having in the Episcopal Church. Then after the service, I will have a forum, in which we can begin a conversation together about the content of the debate; which is committed monogamous homosexual relationships, and what the church has decided to do.

I see the context for the debate as three closely inter-related questions: first, how do we interpret the Bible, second, what is the role of the Bible in decisions we make today, and third, what is the nature of authority in the Episcopal Church? The first question, about how to interpret the Bible, has been the subject of debate for thousands of years. In the early church the allegorical and typological methods of interpretation were widely favored. In the last several Sundays we have heard a typological interpretation from Jesus, when he refers to the manna that the Israelites ate on their journey through the wilderness, as a type, or a fore-shadowing, of himself as the true bread that comes down from heaven.

In the last 100 years, there has been a major struggle among Christians over what is known in Biblical studies as the higher criticism: which includes textual criticism, literary analysis, redaction criticism, and so on. The emphasis on a literal interpretation of the Bible developed in reaction against higher criticism. Today's Gospel lesson is a perfect example of how complex this matter of interpretation is. Please look at it with me.

Jesus began by saying, "I am the living bread that come down from heaven." Already in this first sentence, we can see that a literal interpretation will not work. Jesus is not saying that he is a loaf of bread; but rather he is speaking typologically and metaphorically. At the end of the paragraph he speaks of the bread from heaven that your ancestors ate, and compares it to himself. That manna was a type, or a symbol, of God-given bread. Now, he says, God is giving you bread that will enable you to live forever. These ideas make sense insofar as bread can be both the physical nourishment essential for life, and also a symbol for spiritual nourishment. Perhaps his listeners would have understood the metaphor of living bread, if he had stopped there. When he went on to say that his flesh was the living bread, which they should eat, and his blood was true drink, they were offended and appalled. They believed that "eater of flesh" was one of the devil's titles, and that the drinking of blood was a symbol for slaughter. Those listeners were making a literal interpretation and missing the point. Jesus was speaking spiritually and metaphorically about the communion of believers with him, in receiving the Eucharistic bread and wine. Because these words sound so much like the Words of Institution, scholars wonder if they were spoken at the Last Supper, and transferred by St. John to this passage associated with the feeding of the 5000.

What this means for us today, in our debates about homosexuality, is that conservative Episcopalians cite particular verses of the Old and New Testament, in their literal meaning, and out of the context in which they were written. Liberal Episcopalians reject this method of interpretation, and argue that the verses cited were not written to address today's situation.

Now let us look at the second question which frames the debate: and that is, what is the role of the Bible in the decisions made by the church today? As Episcopalians, we believe the Bible to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation. We do not believe that the Bible is inerrant, or to say the same thing in positive language, we recognize that there are mistakes and contradictions in the Bible, and that some portions were valid in their day but not valid for us today. From the beginning of our church in England in the 16th century, we have accepted Tradition, and Reason, with Scripture, as the sources of authority, and we regularly consult all three.

What this means in practice, is that the church has set aside certain laws and customs, as no longer binding or valid, based on reason and experience. At the time we cut our ties with the Bishop of Rome, we decided to reject the canon law of celibacy for clergy, and we decided to reject the custom of worshipping only in Latin. In the 19th century we decided to reject the institution of slavery, even though the Bible supports it. Sometime during the 1960's, women decided they didn't need to wear hats in church, even though St. Paul orders it in 1Corinthians II. Around1970, the church decided that divorce and remarriage were acceptable for Episcopalians, and were not barriers to ordination, despite the words of Jesus (Mark 10:2-9) and Timothy (1 Timothy 3:2, 12). Our present debate about the blessing of people in committed, monogamous partnerships, and our debate about the consecration of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire, also draws on scripture, tradition, reason, and experience, in widely differing ways.

Therefore, my third question is the crucial one-Who has the authority to decide? Whose interpretation of scripture, tradition and reason is authoritative for the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion? I put the question in those terms, because the Episcopalians, who give conservative answers to the first two questions, have decided to appeal to the Anglican Communion, and to the Archbishop of Canterbury. However the Anglican Communion is a fellowship of national churches whose historic origins are in the Church of England. There is no legislative relationship among them, and there is no jurisdiction which the Archbishop of Canterbury holds outside of the Church of England. Within the Episcopal Church, our highest authority is the General Convention. The Presiding Bishop is not the head of our church in the way the Bishop of Rome is head of the Roman Catholic Church. Our Presiding Bishop is president of the House of Bishops, and Chief Pastor of the church. His primary role is leadership in developing the policy and programs of the church, and service as the church's representative to the world. The Presiding Bishop does not have jurisdiction over bishops or dioceses.

For 50 years now, the Episcopal Church has participated in something called the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission, for which the acronym is ARCIC. In 1998 ARCIC produced a document called "The Gift of Authority," and we have been studying that document. That is, our Standing Commission on Ecumenical Relations has studied it, and prepared a Response, which General Convention approved. I have printed the relevant portion of it to give out at the Forum to those where are interested. It says that theologically, authority is a matter of relationships: between God and the church, and among members of the church. Here are the 3 crucial sentences: "authority is given to all People of God so that all may freely and willingly participate in the fulfillment of God's promises, in communion with one another and with God. Thus authority is properly understood as dispersed among the people of God, regardless of their order of ministry. (This is) a principle sacramentally grounded in Baptism, and a related ecclesiology (theology of the church) that makes the whole People of God responsible for the church's life." In other words, all of us here today have authority and responsibility for the church's life, both in this parish, and representatively as we elect delegates to our Diocesan convention.

Now, an objection can be made to this understanding--namely that it seems to make doctrine and worship subject to a democratic process and a majority vote. This brings us to the real question which divides us, in my opinion. Does God continue to speak, revealing the truths which the disciples could not bear, (as Jesus says in John 16), OR, did all revelation from God cease at the end of the apostolic age? Conservative Episcopalians and conservative Christians in general, do believe that revelation ended, and that our call is to live faithfully according the Bible and the Nicene Creed. The rest of us, in varying degrees, believe that the Holy Spirit has been, and continues to guide the church into truth. We believe this not only because we have learned from psychology about unconscious bias, because we have learned from history and anthropology about cultural conditioning, because we have used our own minds and hearts to interpret scripture, but also because we have experienced the presence of Christ in community and been guided by the Holy Spirit, and because the Good News of God's love calls us out of fear, to "speak the truth in love, growing up in every way into Christ... from which the whole body builds itself up in love." I have faith in a living God, who continues to reveal God self to the church and to all who seek. I believe with all my heart that Jesus Christ is here right now, giving us the spiritual nourishment we need to face our problems with grace and courage.

Amen