Note: the following is my own opinion, and does not stand for the official position of the church I pastor. In addition, it is an invitation to conversation. Those who disagree (as well as any who agree) are asked to respond in civility and with an eye toward mutual edification as we all journey down this path together.
On the radio Sunday afternoon the discussion was on Washington's Ref. 71, the 'Everything but Marriage' act. And the callers were angry. Over and over, the challenge was laid out: "Somebody needs to show me how giving gays the same rights as heterosexual couples affects their marriage. How does a gay marriage harm a straight marriage? What right do people have to vote out the civil rights of others?"
This seems to be the idea and the question at the heart of it all: What couples do in their bedrooms ought to be left to them and not the government. The lifelong commitment of marriage (or, in this case, civil union) ought to be up to the individuals involved, not the rest of society and certainly not the government. If two people are in love, who's to stop them from marrying? And how could those against gay marriage/civil unions be so heartless as to hold back basic rights (hospital visitation, insurance benefits) from two people who love each other? And, ultimately, what does it matter? Two men marrying, two women entering a civil union won't threaten 'straight marriage.' In fact, if any man or woman suffer in their marriage just because gays are given the same rights, than that couple had bigger problems to begin with.
I get that. In fact, should Ref. 71 pass, and should Washington eventually pass legislation recognizing gay marriage, it probably won't affect my marriage in the slightest.
But I think that's asking the wrong question. The assumption is "if what I do doesn't hurt you, then what right do you have to stop me?" Especially when the cause seems so noble - the extension of civil rights to a minority group within society.
The real question, though, is not how it affects me. The real question is how it affects society. And not just tomorrow or next Tuesday, but the days, months, and years to follow. And, theology aside, this is the reason I'm reticent to support Ref. 71.
Let me explain my thinking:
The healthiest place for children to be raised is within a family led by the father and mother who created them.
Already, some people are offended, because that statement is judgmental. For that, I am sorry. I don't mean to denigrate adoptive parents, nor single parents. Right now I know personally a half dozen or more mothers attempting to raise kids alone - some because of divorce, some through adoption, and various other reasons. And they are all doing an admirable job. In no way do I want it said that they aren't honorable or doing a wonderful job.
In addition, I know there are gay and lesbian couples raising their kids in a loving, caring environment, doing their best to support their children, loving them with a fierce and passionate love to rival the love of any straight couple. I recognize that reality.
But, in the end, I can't get around the fact that, of many 'good' possibilities, the 'best' possibility is a household with two parents of different gender, esp. if those parents are the actual biological parents of their children.
Of course, life is broken, and we do what we can to make the best of brokenness. Marriages fail, children are born into untenable situations, spouses die, some people can't conceive, others can't (or aren't ready to) care for the children they do conceive. And we do well to honor those who exist in these places of pain, to care deeply for single mothers or fathers, to support adoptive parents, to love kids who can't be with their birth parents.
At the same time, as a society, do we not have the right to strive for "the best," to create systems that push toward the ideal? Just because the ideal isn't always achievable, does that mean we don't work creatively to assist people in pursuing that ideal? (Which is why I'm perversely intrigued by the anti-divorce proposition making the rounds in California. It started out as an ironic statement. . .but I think just maybe we ought to take it seriously.)
At the end of the day, society has the right to formulate policy that is in the best interests of society as a whole. And, if the best possible scenario, if the healthiest situation is for children to be raised in the home in which they were born, raised by both the father and the mother whose genes they carry, then it seems to make sense that we would want policies supporting that ideal, while still showing kindness and consideration for those who can't achieve that ideal.
Sometimes, it seems we're almost ashamed to hold up an ideal, for fear of offending people who can't reach it. In this age of self-esteem, we dare not label something as 'best,' because all the other variations will somehow feel slighted. But this is not a pathway toward sustainable health; it achieves temporary good feeling while ignoring a deeper problem.
So my disagreement with Ref. 71 is not based on any effect it will have on my marriage. My disagreement is that it continues the falsehood that "any scenario is fine, so long as we call it so." Rather than pushing society in a direction of health, it sends the message that any option is just as healthy as the rest. And with that, I would disagree.
Let me flesh this out just a tiny bit: imagine a world wherein the vast majority of kids have been raised by the parents who conceived them, where they have known the loving hand of both father and mother, growing up in the presence of a healthy male role model AND a healthy female role model, where they have learned to respect both genders, where they have grown up within the sphere of influence of a man and all that he brings to the table, and a woman and all she brings to the table.
That, to me, is the healthiest option, and will create the healthiest society. And, as a society, shouldn't we be making policy that pushes us in the healthiest possible direction? Or do we settle for second-best (which isn't the same as 'bad,' mind you) just because everybody wants to be treated equally?
______
Post-script: These are not easy words to write. They are controversial; by some they could be conceived as an attack. I have friends who are gay and lesbian, I have former youth group kids who are now firmly on the other side of this issue. So I'm torn between my personal conviction and my love for them, recognizing that, even in posting this, I may be stretching the bonds of our friendship. On the other hand, we're all given the right to share our opinions in this political system, and too often I've been disheartened by the discussion on both sides. Too many on the one side take to name-calling and Bible-bashing, too many on the other take to bullying and lumping all on 'our side' into one pile. What I'm trying to do here is, in as few words as possible, explain my position without resorting to biblical texts or fear-mongering, trying to be a civil voice in the wasteland of 'activism by shouting,' offering up some thoughts for consideration without 'spreading the hate.' Obviously, I'm only touching the surface of this issue; had I nothing else to do in life I might have written a book. Unfortunately, that's not my calling, so, for now, these few thoughts will have to suffice.
Showing posts with label homosexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homosexuality. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Friday, March 14, 2008
More on the problem, or how I see it
More on yesterday's discussion regarding Jamieson and Hutcherson. . .
I tried to say this on Eugene's blog yesterday, but have been refining it in my head ever since. I'm still not sure this is in its final form, but here it is in process:
As Christians, we believe that our hope, our joy, our peace, our fulfillment is found in one place - in a relationship with the God who created us and loves us and redeems us. In fact, we would go so far as to stake the claim that for anybody, true hope, joy, peace, and fulfillment is found in one place only - in the redeeming love of God who gave his Son to rescue us from our broken lives. Finally, we would say that any hope for the future of our world and the societies in which we live is based in only this - the work of Christ's Spirit to mend back together our broken systems, redeeming and restoring all things back into the perfection in which they were created.
Part of that belief includes the related belief that there are actions, decisions, ways of living that are in harmony with God's work in the world, and that there are actions, decisions, and ways of living that are out of sync with God's work in the world. There are actions we take that lead toward Christ, and thus toward life; there are actions we take that lead away from Christ, and thus toward death. That second category, the actions that lead to death, we call "sin." And "sin" is not bad simply because it's arbitrarily labeled "sin," but because it leads the one who sins away from the Giver of Life.
Christians, then, work at this in their own life. It's called "discipleship." Taking every thought and action captive so that our choices and our actions reflect the will of the One who loves us and redeems us. Sin leads to pain, and obedience leads to life. While we all still sin, our ultimate goal is the pursuit of the life already given to us (I know that seems an oxymoron; blame Paul, since it's his theology. . .).
But we live in a world of people who reject the Christian message, which leaves a bit of a quandary. Do we "live and let live," knowing the choices of the world are only leading them further and further down the pathway that leads to death? Or do we attempt to bring our belief to bear on society, bringing the Gospel that leads to salvation to those who don't yet know?
Here is where the church often fails. For one, we often redefine "sin" as moral code and "sinners" as wrong. Hence, we work hard at "preaching at" sinners, making sure they know that we think they're sinners. For another, we too often focus on the action and not the person. "Sinner" becomes a category, not a real person with real feelings and desires and hurts and passions. "Sinner" implies (in the mind of many church-goers) somebody already on the way to hell, somebody to be avoided or yelled at, rather than a person created in the image of God, somebody already loved by God, somebody looking for hope and healing - just like we all are.
This is where the church has failed historically, and where many fail today.
However, there are those like Jamieson who seem to think that the church should simply change its message. That the church should be all loving and accepting and tolerant. They usually end up at the "judge not, lest ye be judged" place. To which I would respond "Yes - we should be loving, and gentle, and opposed to violence and prejudice at all levels, but at the same time we cannot stand by and in tolerance smile at people who are choosing to live lives that lead them away from the ultimate source of comfort and healing." At some point, it would be unethical and dishonest for us to pretend that all was well when, in fact, we believe that all is not well.
And this is the rub. On this issue, some want to be told "you're fine just as you are." But we can't tell anybody that. None of us are fine, just as we are. We all are held accountable for the decisions we make - whether they lead to life or death. I certainly don't agree with Rev. Hutcherson on a few things, and I wish he would be a little more careful in his public pronouncements, but on this we agree - we stand by the Word of God, which leads to life, and cannot affirm people for making choices that lead to death.
I have a friend who a few years ago told me he was gay. And he had decided he was okay with that. He knew what I believed to be the truth. The day he came out of the closet to me, we had a long talk about all of this. I told him I could not change my belief; in fact, it would make me a hypocrite if I did. He told me he accepted that, and he wouldn't try to change me, but he was content with who he was, and asked me not to try to change him. We affirmed out friendship. And we remained close friends until I moved a few states away.
Somehow, I think this is where we need to get. To love people because they are people, to encourage people to make choices that lead to life, to explain why dealing with sin is so important, but in the end, to respect people's choices, rather than flinging rocks at each other. Most churches need to learn the meaning of "It's your kindness that leads to repentance." But, on the other hand, those who live lives contrary to God's design can't expect Christians to ignore the teachings of God, because we believe that in them is found Life.
But see, already that takes a lot of work, a lot of nuance, a lot of discussion and adjustment and patience and willingness to love people who don't agree with us. . .
and that never makes for good press coverage, does it?
I tried to say this on Eugene's blog yesterday, but have been refining it in my head ever since. I'm still not sure this is in its final form, but here it is in process:
As Christians, we believe that our hope, our joy, our peace, our fulfillment is found in one place - in a relationship with the God who created us and loves us and redeems us. In fact, we would go so far as to stake the claim that for anybody, true hope, joy, peace, and fulfillment is found in one place only - in the redeeming love of God who gave his Son to rescue us from our broken lives. Finally, we would say that any hope for the future of our world and the societies in which we live is based in only this - the work of Christ's Spirit to mend back together our broken systems, redeeming and restoring all things back into the perfection in which they were created.
Part of that belief includes the related belief that there are actions, decisions, ways of living that are in harmony with God's work in the world, and that there are actions, decisions, and ways of living that are out of sync with God's work in the world. There are actions we take that lead toward Christ, and thus toward life; there are actions we take that lead away from Christ, and thus toward death. That second category, the actions that lead to death, we call "sin." And "sin" is not bad simply because it's arbitrarily labeled "sin," but because it leads the one who sins away from the Giver of Life.
Christians, then, work at this in their own life. It's called "discipleship." Taking every thought and action captive so that our choices and our actions reflect the will of the One who loves us and redeems us. Sin leads to pain, and obedience leads to life. While we all still sin, our ultimate goal is the pursuit of the life already given to us (I know that seems an oxymoron; blame Paul, since it's his theology. . .).
But we live in a world of people who reject the Christian message, which leaves a bit of a quandary. Do we "live and let live," knowing the choices of the world are only leading them further and further down the pathway that leads to death? Or do we attempt to bring our belief to bear on society, bringing the Gospel that leads to salvation to those who don't yet know?
Here is where the church often fails. For one, we often redefine "sin" as moral code and "sinners" as wrong. Hence, we work hard at "preaching at" sinners, making sure they know that we think they're sinners. For another, we too often focus on the action and not the person. "Sinner" becomes a category, not a real person with real feelings and desires and hurts and passions. "Sinner" implies (in the mind of many church-goers) somebody already on the way to hell, somebody to be avoided or yelled at, rather than a person created in the image of God, somebody already loved by God, somebody looking for hope and healing - just like we all are.
This is where the church has failed historically, and where many fail today.
However, there are those like Jamieson who seem to think that the church should simply change its message. That the church should be all loving and accepting and tolerant. They usually end up at the "judge not, lest ye be judged" place. To which I would respond "Yes - we should be loving, and gentle, and opposed to violence and prejudice at all levels, but at the same time we cannot stand by and in tolerance smile at people who are choosing to live lives that lead them away from the ultimate source of comfort and healing." At some point, it would be unethical and dishonest for us to pretend that all was well when, in fact, we believe that all is not well.
And this is the rub. On this issue, some want to be told "you're fine just as you are." But we can't tell anybody that. None of us are fine, just as we are. We all are held accountable for the decisions we make - whether they lead to life or death. I certainly don't agree with Rev. Hutcherson on a few things, and I wish he would be a little more careful in his public pronouncements, but on this we agree - we stand by the Word of God, which leads to life, and cannot affirm people for making choices that lead to death.
I have a friend who a few years ago told me he was gay. And he had decided he was okay with that. He knew what I believed to be the truth. The day he came out of the closet to me, we had a long talk about all of this. I told him I could not change my belief; in fact, it would make me a hypocrite if I did. He told me he accepted that, and he wouldn't try to change me, but he was content with who he was, and asked me not to try to change him. We affirmed out friendship. And we remained close friends until I moved a few states away.
Somehow, I think this is where we need to get. To love people because they are people, to encourage people to make choices that lead to life, to explain why dealing with sin is so important, but in the end, to respect people's choices, rather than flinging rocks at each other. Most churches need to learn the meaning of "It's your kindness that leads to repentance." But, on the other hand, those who live lives contrary to God's design can't expect Christians to ignore the teachings of God, because we believe that in them is found Life.
But see, already that takes a lot of work, a lot of nuance, a lot of discussion and adjustment and patience and willingness to love people who don't agree with us. . .
and that never makes for good press coverage, does it?
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Random
- The Tacoma Narrows Bridge toll may go up another $1 in July. Somehow $1.75 just doesn't seem like much to pay for our Trader Joes run. But $2.75 each time starts to feel like a bigger hit on the monthly budget.
- Speaking of which, we just got the bill for last month's heating oil refill. For the first time, it was over $3 per gallon. Makes me even more thankful for all the free firewood we got last year. But. . .it's time to look into replacing the 1960s vintage furnace in the basement. Maybe with a heat pump?
- Robert L. Jamieson has on article on the Rev. Ken Hutcherson in this morning's Seattle P-I. Jamieson works hard at being the P-I's social conscience, and today is taking aim at the anti-gay activism and teaching that Hutcherson encourages in his church. Here's the problem. There is no simple answer to this issue. First, you have to decide what the Bible truly says on the issue, which is no easy task, if you want to do it honestly. Then, you have to decide what your own response will be, especially in light of all that the Bible says about so many other things. Will you actively try to denounce homosexuality? Or will you choose to love homosexuals as people, letting God do his work in their life (that's all assuming you agree that the Bible does, in fact, teach that it is a sin, a position which not every Christian agrees)? And if you choose to work "against" homosexuality, then will you give the same passion to pursuing all the other issues the about which the Bible speaks so clearly? Will you treat divorced people and lazy people and dishonest people the same way? Finally, you have to decide what the role of the Church is in our society. Should we be about passing laws and forcing companies to act "christianly?" Or should we be on the streets ministering to broken people no matter their condition or position?
And that takes a lot of energy, a lot of thought, a lot of nuance, a lot of patience and discussion.
Unfortunately, Jamieson never brings that kind of deep thought into his articles, instead given to cheap shallow rhetoric ("Whatever happened to Jesus' call for compassion, tolerance and humility in faith?"), and Hutcherson doesn't seem to bring that kind of deep thought to his preaching or his political involvement.
Which probably is simply a reflection of where society is at in general. Don't make me think when I can explain my position with a bumper sticker. And don't try to confuse my shallow belief system with all your details. . .
- By the way, take most of what I just said and place it over the Geraldine Ferarro controversy. It's pretty much the same story. People who attempt to make sweeping statements overgeneralize and end up eating their own feet.
- In no way connected to the previous items. . .Our friends down the road at Vaughn Community Church have changed their name, as they are in the midst of changing locations. They are now officially Waypoint Church. You might remember their building burned down two years ago. They are now waiting for the county to finally decide to let them begin construction at their new location along the Key Peninsula Highway.
- Speaking of which, we just got the bill for last month's heating oil refill. For the first time, it was over $3 per gallon. Makes me even more thankful for all the free firewood we got last year. But. . .it's time to look into replacing the 1960s vintage furnace in the basement. Maybe with a heat pump?
- Robert L. Jamieson has on article on the Rev. Ken Hutcherson in this morning's Seattle P-I. Jamieson works hard at being the P-I's social conscience, and today is taking aim at the anti-gay activism and teaching that Hutcherson encourages in his church. Here's the problem. There is no simple answer to this issue. First, you have to decide what the Bible truly says on the issue, which is no easy task, if you want to do it honestly. Then, you have to decide what your own response will be, especially in light of all that the Bible says about so many other things. Will you actively try to denounce homosexuality? Or will you choose to love homosexuals as people, letting God do his work in their life (that's all assuming you agree that the Bible does, in fact, teach that it is a sin, a position which not every Christian agrees)? And if you choose to work "against" homosexuality, then will you give the same passion to pursuing all the other issues the about which the Bible speaks so clearly? Will you treat divorced people and lazy people and dishonest people the same way? Finally, you have to decide what the role of the Church is in our society. Should we be about passing laws and forcing companies to act "christianly?" Or should we be on the streets ministering to broken people no matter their condition or position?
And that takes a lot of energy, a lot of thought, a lot of nuance, a lot of patience and discussion.
Unfortunately, Jamieson never brings that kind of deep thought into his articles, instead given to cheap shallow rhetoric ("Whatever happened to Jesus' call for compassion, tolerance and humility in faith?"), and Hutcherson doesn't seem to bring that kind of deep thought to his preaching or his political involvement.
Which probably is simply a reflection of where society is at in general. Don't make me think when I can explain my position with a bumper sticker. And don't try to confuse my shallow belief system with all your details. . .
- By the way, take most of what I just said and place it over the Geraldine Ferarro controversy. It's pretty much the same story. People who attempt to make sweeping statements overgeneralize and end up eating their own feet.
- In no way connected to the previous items. . .Our friends down the road at Vaughn Community Church have changed their name, as they are in the midst of changing locations. They are now officially Waypoint Church. You might remember their building burned down two years ago. They are now waiting for the county to finally decide to let them begin construction at their new location along the Key Peninsula Highway.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Friday Items of Note
+ There will be no Great Sermon Experiment post this week, as I'll be away on July 15. Lakebay's own Harvey Roberts will be filling in to preach that day. For what it's worth, this is the first Sunday since we arrived that I will be away from Lakebay, that's not related to church business. Only the third Sunday we've missed altogether - I was gone in January for the Confirmation Retreat, and last September for Family Camp at Cascade's Camp. Finally, we get a real vacation.
+ Ben Witherington has written a book about baptism. He summarizes the work over on his blog. He's bound to upset and challenge believers on both sides (infant vs. believers) which is why probably just about everybody ought to read it. It will be soon added to my Amazon list.
+ I finished "To Continue the dialogue," the Mennonite book regarding homosexuality and the Church. It was perhaps serendipitous that just as I was finishing it, I began following the discussion over at Eugene Cho's Blog (see a couple days ago). The middle of the book gave me more of what I was looking for - both in firmer theological work, and in the scientific work as well. My mind is spinning off in a number of directions, and I need time to process. Don't read more into that than is there. I haven't changed my position on the issue; in fact, that's part of the struggle. I've reached the point where I don't believe I will change my mind. The scriptural texts are too clear on this one. But. . .how to maintain a spirit of grace in the world we live in. Must we demand that "they" must change their ways before being allowed into fellowship within the Christian church? How to live in that place of mercy and grace, believing and teaching that a certain activity is sinful, while allowing time and space for the Holy Spirit to do God's work in individual lives? That is the tough part.
For the time being, I'm moving in a different direction. Next on my book list is "Eat This Book," by Eugene Peterson. His opening image is powerful - the Bible is not primarily a book we read for instruction, a book we read for devotional thoughts, a book we read for theology; it is primarily a meal we eat. And like food is digested into nutrients and minerals that make their way to the furthest reaches of our bodies and eventually become us, shaping and forming us, so too are the scriptures to dig deeply into us and form us as we ingest them.
+ Friday Random 10. #2 I saw live - it's the reason I bought their album. #3 is off a wedding album some friends gave us. #7 is from the Cold Mountain soundtrack. #8 is off one of my all-time favorite christian albums. Unfortunately, after this album Nashville got ahold of Bebo, and he's been merely a shadow of his potential ever since.
+ Ben Witherington has written a book about baptism. He summarizes the work over on his blog. He's bound to upset and challenge believers on both sides (infant vs. believers) which is why probably just about everybody ought to read it. It will be soon added to my Amazon list.
+ I finished "To Continue the dialogue," the Mennonite book regarding homosexuality and the Church. It was perhaps serendipitous that just as I was finishing it, I began following the discussion over at Eugene Cho's Blog (see a couple days ago). The middle of the book gave me more of what I was looking for - both in firmer theological work, and in the scientific work as well. My mind is spinning off in a number of directions, and I need time to process. Don't read more into that than is there. I haven't changed my position on the issue; in fact, that's part of the struggle. I've reached the point where I don't believe I will change my mind. The scriptural texts are too clear on this one. But. . .how to maintain a spirit of grace in the world we live in. Must we demand that "they" must change their ways before being allowed into fellowship within the Christian church? How to live in that place of mercy and grace, believing and teaching that a certain activity is sinful, while allowing time and space for the Holy Spirit to do God's work in individual lives? That is the tough part.
For the time being, I'm moving in a different direction. Next on my book list is "Eat This Book," by Eugene Peterson. His opening image is powerful - the Bible is not primarily a book we read for instruction, a book we read for devotional thoughts, a book we read for theology; it is primarily a meal we eat. And like food is digested into nutrients and minerals that make their way to the furthest reaches of our bodies and eventually become us, shaping and forming us, so too are the scriptures to dig deeply into us and form us as we ingest them.
+ Friday Random 10. #2 I saw live - it's the reason I bought their album. #3 is off a wedding album some friends gave us. #7 is from the Cold Mountain soundtrack. #8 is off one of my all-time favorite christian albums. Unfortunately, after this album Nashville got ahold of Bebo, and he's been merely a shadow of his potential ever since.
- Ave Verum Corpus (Mozart) – coro e Orchestra dell’Accademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia
- North to
- You’ll Be In My Heart - Phil Collins
- Hurricane – Mindy Smith
- Beautiful Dream Visions – Sara Masen
- Meant to Be – Jim Brickman
- Sitting on Top of the World – Jack White
- Selwood Farm – Bebo Norman
- Get Me Through December – Alison Krauss
- I’ve Found Jesus – Delirious?
Friday, June 29, 2007
A Few Items of Note
- Covenant Pastor Eugene Cho has found himself in the midst of "the gay debate" over on his blog. Eugene is one who really is trying to be sensitive, culturally-savvy, and open to all people in the name of Christ. Unfortunately, to many on "the other side," if you don't say "I'm 100% supportive of homosexuals in every possible way," then you're am intolerant fundamentalist bigot. His post and the comments are worth plodding through, just to understand where people are coming from.
- One more thing to worry about in Lake Tahoe: Disaster Tourists, showing up to gawk at all the "excitement." Must feel good to be sitting in the ruin of your home, mourning your loss, when up pulls the SUV with all the looky-loos jumping out with their digital cameras and video recorders.
- Horror story come to life. Hackers breaking into your cell phones. Using your cell phone camera to spy on your life - what you're wearing and eating, when you're sleeping. Switching your phone off and on. And maybe it starts when you download ringtones off the internet?
- I'm not buying an I-Phone. Just so you know. Didn't want to stand in line for it. Oh, plus I don't plan on doing business with AT&T any time soon
- And Finally, Dan's Friday Random 10. #s 1-3 all seem to fit the rainy mood outside pretty well. #4 is probably the only song dealing with Alzheimer's/Dementia I've heard. #8 I saw Laurie and Tom do live in the old theater in Newman, CA. And #9 I used to listen to when I worked in the purgatory of Christian Retail, just to keep my sanity.
- One more thing to worry about in Lake Tahoe: Disaster Tourists, showing up to gawk at all the "excitement." Must feel good to be sitting in the ruin of your home, mourning your loss, when up pulls the SUV with all the looky-loos jumping out with their digital cameras and video recorders.
- Horror story come to life. Hackers breaking into your cell phones. Using your cell phone camera to spy on your life - what you're wearing and eating, when you're sleeping. Switching your phone off and on. And maybe it starts when you download ringtones off the internet?
- I'm not buying an I-Phone. Just so you know. Didn't want to stand in line for it. Oh, plus I don't plan on doing business with AT&T any time soon
- And Finally, Dan's Friday Random 10. #s 1-3 all seem to fit the rainy mood outside pretty well. #4 is probably the only song dealing with Alzheimer's/Dementia I've heard. #8 I saw Laurie and Tom do live in the old theater in Newman, CA. And #9 I used to listen to when I worked in the purgatory of Christian Retail, just to keep my sanity.
- In a Lover’s Eyes – Jim Brickman
- Jesus Paid It All – Fernando Ortega
- Goodnight Irene – George Winston
- Silent House –
- Waiting in Green Velvet – Joshua Kadison
- There for Me – Sarah Brightman
- Mildred Madalyn Johnson - Fernando Ortega
- Just a Lie – Laurie Lewis and Tom Rozum
- Body and Soul – Susan Ashton
- 40 West – Infamous Stringdusters
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Book Update
I'm still working through To Continue the Dialogue: Biblical Interpretation and Homosexuality. Homosexuality is obviously a huge issue in the Church today, and I don't see it being settled any time soon. The debate continues to rage, churches continue to divide, and, as society becomes more and more interested in "tolerance," those churches who choose to treat homosexual practice as sin are going to be viewed by outsiders with suspicion and anger. It is my contention that we all need to think deeply about this issue, if only to "be ready to give an answer" to our belief and practice. If a gay couple walks into my church, I want to be ready to speak to them from the wrestling I've done, not from a pamphlet I read somewhere.
Unfortunately, so far at least, this book has not been the help I thought it might be. There have been a few small nuggets here and there, but, at least in framing the discussion, it's left me wanting more. The general feel through the first eight chapters has been almost passive-aggressive. Perhaps that's the Mennonite way showing through - above all, desiring to be "nice" and not offend anyone. Thus we read "The Bible says homosexual activity is a sin" but then "so we must still be open to hear all sides of the discussion and be willing to change our position if necessary."
One particularly troubling chapter was the one attempting to lay out the biblical framework for the discussion. The logic essentially went like this:
- All the verses supposedly condemning homosexuality (and all the reasons why they actually don't)
- All the ways to rightly interpret those verses, thus showing they have nothing to do with homosexuality
- Now let's look at the two options and decide which is the right one.
In other words, it wasn't a fair framework to begin with.
I was also surprised by one author using Richard Hays, who actually concludes that same-sex sexual activity is outside the will of God, to support his position that there is nothing inherently wrong with homosexual activity.
I'm trying hard to have an open mind and not bring all my presuppositions into the reading of this book, but it's hard when I watch people posturing and refusing to take their own stands. Maybe it's just me; I prefer to see two well-defined positions, hear their supporting arguments, and then decide between the two. That's not what is happening here.
However, let me share one of the better passages I've read:
From either perspective, however, I am often deeply offended by the rhetoric I hear and the things written by my brothers and sisters in the church. I find the attitudes expressed, and the lack of respect and care for the gay and lesbian person, disappointing, and at times very painful. Too many times people speak on this subject out of ignorance. Too many who speak have never held a significant conversation with gay or lesbian persons in order to understand their experience and to care for them. Too many of our gay and lesbian sons and daughters in the church have no one in the church who cares for them as persons, no one who prays for them, no one to express interest in their spiritual life.
Instead, I hear people in church circles again and again reflect the anger, fear, and disgust of our society. When I as a parent hear judgment without genuine care for the person, I feel deeply disillusionment and grief."
Unfortunately, so far at least, this book has not been the help I thought it might be. There have been a few small nuggets here and there, but, at least in framing the discussion, it's left me wanting more. The general feel through the first eight chapters has been almost passive-aggressive. Perhaps that's the Mennonite way showing through - above all, desiring to be "nice" and not offend anyone. Thus we read "The Bible says homosexual activity is a sin" but then "so we must still be open to hear all sides of the discussion and be willing to change our position if necessary."
One particularly troubling chapter was the one attempting to lay out the biblical framework for the discussion. The logic essentially went like this:
- All the verses supposedly condemning homosexuality (and all the reasons why they actually don't)
- All the ways to rightly interpret those verses, thus showing they have nothing to do with homosexuality
- Now let's look at the two options and decide which is the right one.
In other words, it wasn't a fair framework to begin with.
I was also surprised by one author using Richard Hays, who actually concludes that same-sex sexual activity is outside the will of God, to support his position that there is nothing inherently wrong with homosexual activity.
I'm trying hard to have an open mind and not bring all my presuppositions into the reading of this book, but it's hard when I watch people posturing and refusing to take their own stands. Maybe it's just me; I prefer to see two well-defined positions, hear their supporting arguments, and then decide between the two. That's not what is happening here.
However, let me share one of the better passages I've read:
From either perspective, however, I am often deeply offended by the rhetoric I hear and the things written by my brothers and sisters in the church. I find the attitudes expressed, and the lack of respect and care for the gay and lesbian person, disappointing, and at times very painful. Too many times people speak on this subject out of ignorance. Too many who speak have never held a significant conversation with gay or lesbian persons in order to understand their experience and to care for them. Too many of our gay and lesbian sons and daughters in the church have no one in the church who cares for them as persons, no one who prays for them, no one to express interest in their spiritual life.
Instead, I hear people in church circles again and again reflect the anger, fear, and disgust of our society. When I as a parent hear judgment without genuine care for the person, I feel deeply disillusionment and grief."
Friday, May 11, 2007
Study Time
I'm going to learn how the Mennonites are speaking to the issue of homosexuality and the Church. Should be an interesting read, since they always come at these issues from angles other than the normal ones.
From the intro:
"What this issue should be about is discernment: trying to discern the will and way of God on this matter at the threshold of the third millennium of the Christian Era. I know, others will disagree with this premise. For some, the issue is standing up for an oppressed minority; for others, it is standing up for the truth as they know it. (Is there any other?) But if we can't step back from our own positions long enough to hear the perspectives of others, then dialogue, if not discernment, is foiled.
In many such cases, the schismatics are putting their own convictions, ideas, and religious experiences - egos, too - ahead of the unity of the body and this treasure we call peoplehood. Whereas I am not comfortable with the current struggle over the 'H-issue,' as one chapter in this book calls it, I am even more discontented with the flight option [running away from each other and the debate].
What I plead for, instead, is a commitment to the common struggle of discovering God's will for us. To do this, we need at least the following: confession, empathy, humility, patience, and prayer."
Whenever I read stuff like that, I'm convinced that the Mennonites and Covenanters are cut out of much the same cloth. So I think I'm going to get a lot of good from this book. I'll let you know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)