Dear Editor,

I feel that Rev. Seaman does not adequately address the concerns expressed about his reasoning.

1. Changing ethics when disobedience increases. Rev. Seaman continues to suggest that a "new ethic" should be formulated whenever a significantly sizable body of believers wants to disobey core sexual standards of Jesus and Scripture generally. His distinction, namely that his morality is "not morality by poll but by practice," is a distinction without a significant difference since "practice" means for him ignoring standards when he encounters large numbers of violators among his own parishioners.

We can and should act on adultery and spousal abuse, Rev. Seaman asserts, but only because "all church members agree" that these are sins that "should not be tolerated." Everything depends on "all church members" agreeing that a given standard is a standard worth keeping. When this is not the case, a "new ethic" is needed. According to Rev. Seaman, we must help parishioners when they don't accept Jesus' sexual ethic to develop their own sexual ethic, one that works for them. Rev. Seaman does say that pastors "need to help them reconcile [the] divergence" between their own sexual ethic and the sexual ethic of the church. But nowhere in Rev. Seaman's past two correspondences do we see any evidence that this reconciliation necessarily involves conformity to the church's sexual ethics.

Rev. Seaman does not tell us when the slide should stop. If in a few years' time committed multiple partner or adult-adolescent unions start to take hold, by Rev. Seaman's logic the church may have to develop a "new ethic" about these too. Rev. Seaman may not want this but he is nevertheless bound to explain why his philosophy of ministry does not lead logically to this sad conclusion.

In Rev. Seaman's rationale, nothing traces back to the lordship of Jesus Christ or the authority of core values of Scripture. I know of not a single author of Scripture, Church Father, or Reformer who subscribed to Rev. Seaman's procedure for formulating ethical standards on the basis of common public consent. Not one. Moreover, many of these great leaders of the past had extensive pastoral experience, even more so than Rev. Seaman. This is an important consideration for Rev. Seaman's argument since Rev. Seaman's makes his interpretation of his own pastoral experience the ultimate bar of authority. Rev. Seaman's thinks that his own interpretation of pastoral ministry trumps not only that of the majority of his fellow pastors in the PCUSA, to say nothing of pastors worldwide, but also that of the great Reformers, Church Fathers, authors of Scripture, and our Lord Jesus himself. And this is what we are being criticized by Rev. Seaman for not taking to heart?

2. Away with thee, Admonition. As in his first letter, Rev. Seaman completely ignores Scripture on sexual ethics. Yet now he extends this to the very concept of admonition. Admonition of any sort he seems to have sworn off, despite Scripture's clear teaching to the contrary.

A false start occurs on this issue when Rev. Seaman asks rhetorically whether he should refuse to do the weddings of cohabiting couples. To this I say: By all means perform the weddings. Marriage is the solution to the problem of temporary cohabiting relationships. Marriage calls for both parties to state publicly the intent to be committed to each other in a lifelong union, which is what cohabiting couples should have been doing from the beginning.

The attack on admonition begins in earnest on the next point. Rev. Seaman asks rhetorically whether he as pastor should "seek out and admonish" sexually active young people who are engaging in premarital intercourse. I'm not sure what kind of image Rev. Seaman is conjuring up here. Is he thinking of a pastor hunting down offenders, beating down their doors, dragging them outside, and exposing them to ridicule? This isn't what admonition in a New Testament sense is about. Neither is it about a cruel and heartless "stern lecture" with "pointing fingers," which Rev. Seaman poses as the only alternative to moral relativism.

Now it is not that Rev. Seaman is incapable of figuring out how to admonish gently since he is willing to admonish, apparently, persons engaged in adulterous behavior. In such circumstances does he "seek out and admonish them"? Is he "judgmental"? Does he give "stern lectures" and "point fingers"? I'm sure that he has the good sense to minister both firmly (as regards truth) and gently (as regards pastoral mode). All the church is asking Rev. Seaman to do is to apply the same good sense to other areas to which he seems resistant. This is not a popularity contest. What Rev. Seaman seems to be saying is that if "all the church members" don't agree with the clear moral stance of Jesus and Scripture, then he won't risk the censure of his critics by standing for Jesus' values. If enough sheep want to stray into wolf territory, it is not his duty as shepherd to guide them back to safe pasture. This is unacceptable moral reasoning on the part of any pastor.

Jesus' statement to the woman caught in adultery, "no longer be sinning," inferring "lest something worse [than stoning] happen to you" (compare John 8:11 with John 5:14), is applicable to other forms of sexual and non-sexual violations of God's standards besides adultery. This command is clearly an admonition but, of course, it comes in the context of a show of love and concern, not only for the violator's survival in this life but also for her survival in the next. Yet Rev. Seaman thinks, apparently, that it is pastorally insensitive to ever tell parishioners to stop sinning even if it is done in the same loving manner that Jesus did it-unless, of course, all church members are agreed that the behavior in question is intolerable. Jesus' assessment, however, did not hinge on social supermajorities; it hinged on the clear will of God and the threat to inheritance of God's kingdom posed by serial unrepentant practices.

Jesus clearly talked about the importance of rebuke for serial unrepentant sin in Luke 17:3-4: "If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him." Jesus did so in a context that stressed extraordinary forgiveness for repeated acts of sins, if repented of. This saying about rebuke in a context of love is an obvious echo to Leviticus 19:17-18: don't hate, take vengeance or hold a grudge against your neighbor but love your neighbor and reprove your neighbor if your neighbor does wrong, lest you incur guilt for failing to warn him.

Why does Rev. Seaman dispense with admonition altogether? The reason is that for him disobedience to Jesus' teaching about God's will is not really about sin. At most it is about pragmatic concerns in this life, what seems advantageous to one's own existence. God doesn't even enter the picture much. Thus, for example, despite Jesus' clear teaching about confining sexual intercourse to marriage and the importance that he clearly attached to such, Rev. Seaman tells us confidently "sex among teenagers... is not about sin" but just "about disease and pregnancy." That Rev. Seaman is willing to call adultery a sin is a mere inconsistency, a morsel not yet digested by his own philosophy of ministry.

Rev. Seaman also has an excuse for forswearing admonition and correction. He seems to think that widespread premarital sex and homosexual practice first became a challenge to the church's teaching in modern times: "Most modern American adults have developed a sexual ethic of serial monogamy." This shows an inadequate sense of historical perspective. All sorts of sexual practices at odds with core sexual requirements in Scripture were common in the first-century Gentile world. Rev. Seaman should read some of the novels of the period to get a sense of what constituted common practice, like Petronius's Satyrica.

Had St. Paul adopted Rev. Seaman's pastoral philosophy, he would have been a lot more accommodating about such practices. Yet we know, as Paul's first extant letter shows, that one of the first things that the apostle to the Gentiles did with converts was to explain clearly to them "what commands... the Lord Jesus" gave us for abstaining from porneia (sexual immorality) and akatharsia (sexual uncleanness). He warned these Gentile converts not to live "like the Gentiles who do not know God" and reminded them that "the Lord is an avenger" against violators and that the one who rejects the commands of God "rejects not humans but the God who gives his Holy Spirit to us" (1 Thessalonians 4:2-8). At the same time St. Paul understood that admonishment had to be tailored to different kinds of respondents: "And we exhort you, brethren, admonish the undisciplined, cheer up the discouraged, give special attention to the weak, be patient with all" (1 Thess 5:14; note that all translations of Scripture are my own). Again, in his letter to the Galatians, St. Paul exhorts believers not to engage in various "works of the flesh" such as porneia, akatharsia, and aselgeia (licentiousness, lack of sexual self-restraint) lest they reap destruction and fail to inherit eternal life (5:16-24; 6:7-10): "You, the spiritual ones, restore [anyone caught in a transgression] with a spirit of gentleness, keeping an eye on yourself lest you too be tempted" (6:1).

Unlike Rev. Seaman, St. Paul didn't hesitate to warn and exhort his parishioners to abstain from acts defined as sexually immoral by Scripture. Paul's converts could accept such admonition because they knew that he would give his life for theirs and that he truly had their best interests at heart. Rev. Seaman's pastoral philosophy reminds me of what St. Paul warned against in 1 Corinthians 15:34: "Sober up, righteously/uprightly, and don't be sinning, for some have an ignorance of God-I say this to your shame."

Why can't Rev. Seaman, when talking to sexually active teens or interacting with parishioners about any other sinful behaviors, imagine correcting gently, teaching consistently, and encouraging graciously and humbly the disobedient towards obedience to God's commands? Is this really too hard for Rev. Seaman to do? I think that for some pastors it is. It is much easier to be accepting of behaviors so that one may be liked by others. Pastors for whom this description is accurate, who refuse to do the hard work of the gospel by speaking the truth in love, should probably find some other line of work.

Rev. Seaman asks rhetorically whether he should speak against the ordination as elders or deacons of his session persons who live unrepentantly in unmarried sexual unions. Is it really so hard to say to such persons, gently and with humility, that the church loves them but that it is inappropriate for leaders to model for young persons sexual activity outside marriage? Is it so hard for those sexually cohabiting to make a lifelong, binding, and public commitment before others? Is this like asking people to put bamboo shoots up their toenails? Or is Jesus not giving us an eminently reasonable command?

Instead, Rev. Seaman shirks his responsibility and expresses defiance to the ordination standards of the church (to say nothing of Jesus and Scripture) by declaring publicly that he will never inquire of candidates whether they "live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness"; indeed, that he would knowingly violate and has knowingly violated this ordination standard by ordaining persons that he knows to be violating this standard. If his statements about his intent and behavior have been truthful, he should be subjected to the admonishment and discipline of the church.

In defending homosexual unions, Rev. Seaman assures us that "the issues that really matter" are whether members contribute "their humanity, faith... talent and faithfulness," including "tithing." In effect violations of the God-ordained institution of marriage are irrelevant so long as one compensates in other areas. The illogic of this assertion should be immediately apparent. First of all, part of what it means to be faithful is to be faithful to Jesus' teaching about marriage and sexuality; and, if one fails, to repent and express a desire not to repeat the same cycle of violations. One's good qualities in some areas do not compensate for failure to repent of active and willful disobedience of God's commands in other areas. Second, limitations of sexual partnerships to number (only two persons in a sexual union), degree of blood unrelatedness (no incest), and age could also be abridged by Rev. Seaman's rationale, so long as members contribute "their humanity, faith and... time, talent and faithfulness," including "tithing."

3. Rev. Seaman thinks that the fact that he has put in 35 years of pastoral ministry justifies active dissent from the clear teaching of Jesus, the apostles, the Reformers, and current PCUSA standards. It does not. The overwhelming majority of pastors worldwide with as much or more experience than Rev. Seaman don't come to the conclusions that Rev. Seaman does. Jesus was not an "ordained pastor" in his day; that is, he was not an officially sanctioned religious leader. And yet I think he understood pastoral ministry much better than Rev. Seaman's truncated version.

It is thus not necessary to be an ordained pastor to have numerous pastoral experiences. Rev. Seaman attacks me personally for having anything to say about pastoral ministry because "Gagnon has not spent one hour in ordained pastoral ministry and perhaps does not understand the reality of pastoral ministry." As an ordained PCUSA elder, a PCUSA professor at a PCUSA seminary, someone who has ministered in leadership roles in intimate house church settings, and someone from whom many with sexual issues have sought ongoing counsel, I have had many opportunities for "pastoral ministry" despite not being ordained officially as a pastor. Pastoral ministry is not the exclusive domain of ordained pastors. And nothing that I have ever said indicates that pastoral counseling should ever be anything other than sensitive, loving, and gentle when encouraging parishioners to obedience to the Lord's commands.

But none of that matters for this discussion, because, contrary to the desperate ad hominem character of his attack, the issue is not about me. The issue is rather about a philosophy of ministry, pushed by persons such as Rev. Seaman, that would have been rejected by nearly every major, authoritative pastoral figure of the church for the last 2000 years, including our Lord and Savior, Jesus, and also the apostle to the Gentiles, St. Paul. Why, then, should his philosophy of ministry be heeded by me or anyone else? I can't think of a good answer to that question.

Sincerely,