I’m surprised that there hasn’t been more chat about this here. I’ve seen a little bit on the blogosphere about it.

I want to congratulate Rev. Lane for having the courage to stick to biblical principles. And I hope Kirby will heed the call to repentance. He can’t change his orientation (not easily), but he can choose to be celibate.

Craig is referring to these articles

Hi Craig,

Having read all the correspondence, I do think that Richard Lane should have gone away for a couple of days before replying to Kirby’s condescending reply - he allowed himself to become riled, and his response gave Kirby ammunition.

What concerns me most about Kirby’s initial response is his belief that God wouldn’t condemn 5% of the population to hell because of their sexual practices. It seems that Kirby may have a weak view of sin, and doesn’t realise that we all deserve God’s condemnation because of our sin. If I have understood Kirby’s position correctly, then really he’s pushing a different gospel. I hope that I’ve understood him wrong.

Yes, and I’m sure there are some sexual practices that Mr Kirby *would* want to see condemned - rape and pedophilia for example. I think very few people would consistently argue that sexuality should be somehow “off limits” as regards morality.

With only the SMH report to go on and despite no knowledge of letters exchanged between Kirby and Lane, strategically, I think it does no harm for the public and the powers-that-be, to know that the Church (St James and the UCA notwithstanding) is still willing to say that homosexual practice is wrong and earns God’s disfavour (1 Cor 6:9,10). Sometimes it is hard not to be crass. When we are (self) silenced by cowardice, etc we undermine any fellow believer willing to call a sin for what it is.

Christians need to be much more upfront in expressing what God in His Word has to say over issues like pre-marital sex, adultery and homosexual activity. Similarly, for too long we have accepted blasphemy, spoken in our presence when the one blaspheming knows that we are Christians.

In my opinion, Mr Lane is to be both applauded and supported.

David, the SMH website has the full correspondence online. if you look at the SMH story online the link to the letters is under Justice Kirby’s photo.

Here is the link (PDF) but some of the pages/letters seem out of order.

My personal view was that Richard Lane’s comments were unfortunate, to put it mildly, and his sarcastic, snarky reply really didn’t do him any favours.

What did Lane expect would happen - that by harranging Kirby in a letter, using the terms he did (fool, liar, deceiver, coward etc - !!!), Kirby would suddenly go “Oh good point, thanks for that, never thought of that before, I’ll now go through years and years of enormous emotional pain and turmoil by ending very deep relationships, completely rethink my identity and sexual orientation, and end a lifetime of who I am. Thanks!”? Really?

Kirby came across quite reasonable for someone in his position, and while I don’t agree with his choice to be actively homosexual, if you wanted to engage him on the topic in a serious, loving way, it would take far, far more sensitivity, knowledge, time, understanding, empathy, patience and generosity than was displayed.

Why we should applaud someone who shows so little of those qualities, I’m not sure.

One wonders who is at greater risk of judgement between Kirby & Lane, who appears unable to control his tongue.

James 3:
“Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

[..]

With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt[a] water flow from the same spring? My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.”

and Galatians 6:
“Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.”

Lane’s letters are aggressive at times. But Kirby’s responses contain just as many barbs - they are just done more intelligently, subtley and in cold blood. Kirby’s letters are not a model of grace.

Hi,

I have to say, I just read Richard’s Lane’s letters and he REALLY should have taken a couple of days away before replying!

His second letter is appalling.
Kirby was condescending, sure, but he threw in some rank full tosses that if played well could have been argued against politely but convincingly and made the correspondence a profitable one.

If you are going to rebuke a high court (?) judge expect to have to be called upon to justify your position against his with good argument.  Instead what we read is a sarcastic rant!

The sad thing is that Rev. Lane was the one who opened their private correspondence to the public.

I just hope that lessons have been learnt from this unfortunate episode.
I applaud Lane for his courage to rebuke ‘in love’ but wish he had carried the sentiment beyond one letter!

The sad thing is that Rev. Lane was the one who opened their private correspondence to the public.

Correction. It was Mr Justice Kirby.. although the Juctice says in the SMH that Richard Lane agreed. I have some information that contradicts that assertion.

Craig Schwarze - 11 April 2008 04:00 PM

Lane’s letters are aggressive at times. But Kirby’s responses contain just as many barbs - they are just done more intelligently, subtley and in cold blood. Kirby’s letters are not a model of grace.

Such as? And what is “in cold blood”?

They’re certainly a model of restraint after the initial letter. I personally would have been tempted to reply in kind to Lane after the unsolicited haranguing (or have been so discouraged not to reply at all in despair) but Kirby, to his credit, did not reply in kind. He took Lane up on the issues Lane raised as far as i can tell.

My point was that the bible says those who are teachers will be judged more strictly - in the context of controlling your tongue, no less. Words worth heading, I would imagine.

I dont think it was.  Richard was the one who said he thought the best way to proceed be for him to share their correspondence with other clergy.  Kirby then seized the moment and said in effect ‘that’s fine with me’.

Such as?

This comment by Kirby, for example - “...my own experience in life is that those who are most outspoken against homosexuality are often fighting demons in their own mind...” A very cool and subtle ad hominem.

Richard was the one who said he thought the best way to proceed be for him to share their correspondence with other clergy.

Yes thats exactly why that fact is in dispute.

Checking with colleagues about biblical exegesis is not the same as agreeing to release the letters at a public debate with SMH journalist David Marr.

My unsubstantiated info is that Richard did not agree for the letters to be released in that context.

David, to clarify - i don’t disagree with your comments about the wisdom of the episode. I just wanted to add a note of caution.

Craig Schwarze - 11 April 2008 04:52 PM

Such as?

This comment by Kirby, for example - “...my own experience in life is that those who are most outspoken against homosexuality are often fighting demons in their own mind...” A very cool and subtle ad hominem.

It’s a mild dig, but it’s not without merit, is it, given the example of Ted Haggard as Kirby cites, and you only have to look at US law makers (especially those with a ‘wide stance’) for further evidence.

Is it true of all of those who are most outspoken about homosexuality? No, which is why it is a bit of a dig, but in light of being called a liar, fool, coward, hypocrite etc, it’s pretty darn restrained.

The major criticism is that he passed the correspondence to the SMH knowing what they would do with it (if that is indeed the case), but he does seem quite genuine when he says:

“I ask you to excuse me that I cannot share the mood of frivolity evident in your second letter. I have known too many homosexual people who have been subjected to violence, rejection by their families and suffering self-loathing because of the kind of religious opinion expressed in your letters.”

If we disagree, fine, but we must at least treat those we disagree with and wish to persuade with the same seriousness and respect they give the issue.

To try and persuade someone to modify their behaviour because of a biblical truth, while demonstrating that you have not modified your own behaviour in light of other biblical truths, is going to be, lets say, somewhat of a futile cause.

When you read the letters quickly it seems that Justice Kirby is the one holding the moral high ground. His tone sounds like a kindly old Bishop remonstrating with a overzealous young curate.

Richard certainly sounds aggressive and beligerant and perhaps as one of the posts has remarked, he could have sat on the letters and been a little more thoughtful and well considered in response.

And yet, Justice Kirby comes across as more than a bit sanctimonious and defensive.  He quotes Kinsey’s research favourably (is Kinsey still considered credible?), he recommends a book written by a Kiwi Presbyterian that is obviously supportive to his own view (There are lots of others on the evangelical side including the very gentle, warm hearted yet solidly biblical John Stott in his “Issues Christians Face” book which gives a solid and compelling survey of all the arguments of the pro-gay views.

Richard may sound strident (and sadly way too sarcastic in his responses) but what did our Lord do? In situations in the Gospels when he met people who proclaimed their religious credentials while behaving in ways that completly denied what they stood for. Jesus did himself use strident language of Fools, Hypocrites, Blind guides, savage wolves, children of the Devil and so on. Is that the same Jesus that Justice Kirby is advocating?

Jesus did use very strong language, in fact it was the language of judgement and exclusion.  Are we as Christian people entitled to use that language too?  Surely we can as long as we express our views tempered with compassion, thoughtfulness and even with tears.  Perhaps in the heat of the battle Richard may have gotten a little cranky, especially when butting heads with someone who is a clever and dextrous public debater. However I would rather have him “tell it like it is” even to such a well respected jurist than to let Justice Kirby’s remarks go unchallenged.

If you think Richard’s remarks were unloving and too strident; how would you respond to Justice Kirby’s remarks?

Jeremy Halcrow - 11 April 2008 04:56 PM

Checking with colleagues about biblical exegesis is not the same as agreeing to release the letters at a public debate with SMH journalist David Marr.

My unsubstantiated info is that Richard did not agree for the letters to be released in that context.

OK, thanks for that info.  That mitigates things somewhat. 
But having said this Kirby could argue; ‘you show my views to your people, then I’ll show your views to my people’.
It’s grey enough for him to exploit the moment and make it serve his ends - something he probably wouldn’t have bothered much with had Richard Lane’s second letter not been so firey.

I think the whole thing is sad, especially as I think Lane’s intentions with the first letter were so courageous.
To me, its a cautionary tale about choosing our words wisely (and always being gracious in debate).

@Michael Deal, how do you reconcile Lane’s remarks with James 3?

Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check.

When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, 8but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt[a] water flow from the same spring? My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.

Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.

But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.

Yes I agree David (Miers) I can see why Justice Kirby felt justified in taking the action he did.

... and as Luke says church leaders need to be careful to hear what the critics are actually saying.

The apologetic work that needs to be done on this issue is much tougher than I think is understood by the generation of leadership that grew up pre the gay rights agenda.

Firstly, how the OT laws are read in the light of the NT is poorly taught and understood.

Secondly, the notion that evangelical church teaching is directly responsible for the suicides of young gay males is held to be a self-evident truth in many circles. If you read pro-gay church material they will often cite specific accounts of such cases… this narrative will increasingly find its way into the secular press. And it is difficult to reply to real pain with logical propositions.

NOTE OF CLARIFICATION - the teaching of Westboro Baptist, for example, would be considered ‘evangelical’ by the critics.