© 2014 The Wired Word
www.thewiredword.com
On June 19, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA, meeting in
Detroit, voted overwhelmingly to change the definition of marriage from
involving a man and a woman to involving two people, in effect sanctioning
same-sex marriages. Because that change requires amending the denomination's
constitution, the decision will take effect only if a majority of the church's
172 regional presbyteries approve it over the next year.Another strongly supported action of the General Assembly (76 percent to 24 percent) takes effect immediately: allowing the denomination's clergy to perform same-sex marriages in states where such unions are legal. That ruling leaves it up to individual pastors to decide for whom they will conduct weddings, though presumably the congregations those pastors serve will have some voice in such decisions.
While the Presbyterians are working through their position related to same-sex marriage, some other denominations are also seeking to find their way through this issue that has Christian people on both sides. This is a thorny matter in many churches because it involves decisions not only about same-sex marriage itself but also about the authority of Scripture.
Writing about this matter in the July 7, 2013, installment of The Wired Word, we said, "Christians who oppose same-sex marriage often do so on scriptural grounds, citing biblical verses such as Leviticus 18:22, which refers to homosexual relations as 'an abomination,' and Romans 1:26-27, which characterizes such relations as 'unnatural.' Christians who support same-sex marriage sometimes argue that the Bible's 'love your neighbor as yourself' command (Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 22:39) overrides other commands and that in love, we should extend marriage privileges to all, regardless of their sexual orientation."
In that same installment, we said, "In many cases, the clash of views among Christians on same-sex marriage indicates differing understandings of the authority of the Bible. Some Christians consider the Bible to be a complete and unchanging divine statement with a once-and-for-all kind of authority. Thus, if the biblical writers regarded homosexual behavior as immoral, the changing understanding by society and even by science regarding sexuality cannot negate what Scripture says.
"Other Christians consider the Bible to be the Word of God, but also to reflect the limited worldviews of people in the eras in which the Bible was written. This understanding of Scripture allows that God may send new revelations to us that go beyond what the Bible has stated." (Examples: views on slavery; views on women in ministry; whether or not divorce is allowed.)
Discussions of same-sex marriages are further made difficult because they involve not only Scripture, but also the very definition of the word "marriage," with those supporting same-sex marriage advocating changing the definition and those opposing it insisting that such redefinition misses God's intention.
In the United Methodist Church, the disagreement over both sanctioning same-sex marriages and ordaining clergy who are in committed same-gender relationships has led to talk of the denomination splitting. On May 22, a group of 80 evangelical pastors and theologians issued a statement entitled "Regarding United Methodism's Future." The statement recognizes a rift in the church that it says probably cannot be healed. It suggests that it may be time for the church to split "amicably."
At the same time, another proposal within United Methodism, called "A Way Forward," suggests a compromise where the denomination would officially keep its stated position that homosexual practice is incompatible with Christian teaching but would also allow local churches to determine their own course in relating to LGBT persons. Individual congregations could decide whether or not to receive practicing homosexual pastors and whether or not to encourage their pastor to officiate at the weddings of same-sex couples. And annual conferences (the UM equivalent of presbyteries or synods) could decide on their own whether or not to ordain ministers who are homosexual. The goal of this proposal is to allow the churches, pastors and members freedom of conscience while still remaining together in one denomination. The proposal is a kind of third choice -- between staying together in disharmony on the one hand and splitting the church on the other. It's still unclear whether this option will be embraced by those on opposite sides of the issue.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) sanctioned same-sex marriage at its Churchwide Assembly, in 2009. Though not described as such, its decision was a kind of "third way." It gave pastors the freedom to bless same-sex unions and perform same-sex marriage, depending on what is legal in their state, but they are not required to do so. People can now be ordained as ELCA pastors if they are in a committed same-sex partnership or marriage, but a bishop can decline to perform the ordination if he or she isn't comfortable with such. Congregations are free to call (or not to call) pastors in committed same-sex relationships.
One of the resolutions that was part of that 2009 decision reads, "Resolved, that the ELCA commit itself to finding ways to allow congregations that choose to do so to recognize, support, and hold publicly accountable lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships."
The upshot of all of this is that in some denominations, decisions about how the church will minister to and serve people in the LGBT community may be less a matter of denominational fiat and more a matter of decisions by individual congregations and pastors, and/or by regional assemblies within the denomination.
More on this story can be found at these links:
Presbyterians in U.S. to Allow Gay Marriage Ceremonies. USA Today
Regarding United Methodism's Future. Good News
A Way Forward for a United Methodist Church
An Open Letter .... Good News (a response to "A Way Forward")
Where Christian Churches, Other Religions Stand on Gay Marriage. Pew Research Center
The Big Questions
1. When it comes to divisive and contentious issues in the church, how useful is the decision to "agree to disagree" but continue together as a congregation? Why?
2. What ought to be the prime factors to consider when deciding whether your church will change longstanding policies that some -- possibly including you -- consider untouchable? How much is a decision in matters related to homosexual persons affected by the makeup of families in the congregation?
3. In disagreements with other Christians over major issues where no compromise seems possible, how should we characterize those who disagree with us? Does it seem possible to remain in relationships with other denominations regarding larger ecumenical structures or projects if there is disagreement about particular issues?
4. Are there "third ways" (between staying together in disharmony or splitting) that might be considered for your congregation or denomination when there are matters of significant disagreement? If so, what are they?
5. Under what circumstance is a denominational split a good thing? Under what circumstances is it a bad thing? What factors and history inform your answer to these questions?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Ephesians 4:1-3
I ... beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. (For context, read 4:1-16.)
The fact that Paul finds it necessary to urge his readers to make "every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit" suggests that such unity was not always evident in the Ephesian church. It is unity of the Spirit he calls for, however, not necessarily unity -- let alone uniformity -- in opinions or conclusions. Further on in this passage, Paul speaks of coming to "unity of faith" and "to maturity" (v. 13), which suggests he understood that church members grow in understanding at different rates and that there should be a loving quest for understanding and patience while the whole body matures.
Questions: Is unity of the Spirit a biblical command or a goal? To what degree do you consider those who disagree with you regarding same-sex marriage and the church to nonetheless be brothers and sisters in Christ? Does unity require agreement on every issue? Which issues? Does a creed that does not include specific guidance on controversial issues create the possibility of unity? Ought centuries-old creeds be changed to reflect a position on current controversies?
Do you consider disagreements over same-sex marriage to be disagreements within the unity of the Spirit, or between those who remain in and those who reject "the Spirit"? Explain your answer.
Acts 15:6
The apostles and the elders met together to consider this matter. (For context, read 15:1-29.)
Acts 15 contains the report of the first church council on record. The matter it had to decide was contentious: whether Gentiles first had to submit to Jewish rites -- in effect, adopting Judaism -- before becoming Christians (remember that all of the first Christians, including the 12 disciples and Paul, and Jesus himself, were Jewish). In council, they listened to Paul and Barnabas tell of how eagerly Gentiles had responded to their preaching. In the end, the council, with both Peter and James speaking in favor, decided that Gentiles did not need to adopt Judaism to become Christians.
Questions: Read the full report of this council (vv. 1-29). What examples from that meeting might be models for your discussion of your church's ministry to LGBT people or to people whose beliefs differ radically from yours in other ways today? In what ways, if any, is this council not an adequate example for deciding contentious issues today?
Matthew 18:15-17
If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (For context, read 18:15-20.)
Actually, according to biblical researchers, it's not just if that person sins "against you," for those two words are missing from some of the oldest manuscripts of Matthew. So what Jesus probably said was, "If another member of the church sins, go and point out the fault ...." Thus, Jesus was speaking of behavior by a single person that hurt not just one other person, but the church itself. He does not discuss what happens if "the church" (or a denomination of the church) sins. No matter which side of a contentious issue a person is on, he or she may believe that "the church" is sinning and is defying God. A literalistic reading of this passage doesn't help much in such cases. Even so, it is likely that Jesus' words may help in how to approach those with whom one disagrees.
Questions: How does a denomination correspond to -- and fail to correspond to -- "the church" or to "a member"? How should you approach those on "the other side," and when do you decide that they should become "as a Gentile and a tax collector"? Might someone on "the other side" just as well think of you that way? Then what? -- if it's going in both directions?
Acts 24:16
Therefore I do my best always to have a clear conscience toward God and all people. (For context, read 24:10-23.)
Paul made this statement as part of his defense before the Roman governor Felix, following his arrest after certain opponents incited a public uproar against him. His opponents claimed that Paul had profaned the temple (Acts 21:27-28), so when Paul here refers to his clear conscience, he is denying that charge.
But his statement has a larger context as well. He says that he always does his "best to have a clear conscience toward God and all people." That can be understood as reflecting his overall commitment to Christ -- expressed in his behavior, speech and belief.
Questions: When a position promoted by some Christians offends your conscience, how do you determine God's will? Can your conscience be misled? Can your conscience be clear even when in a minority? To what extent can individual or congregational conscience trump a mandate from a larger Christian body? Can you respect the sincere beliefs of those who disagree with you?
Philippians 1:27
Only, live your life in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that, whether I come and see you or am absent and hear about you, I will know that you are standing firm in one spirit, striving side by side with one mind for the faith of the gospel ... (For context, read 1:27-30.)
Questions: Paul here refers to believers having "one mind for the faith of the gospel." But is that possible? Even quite apart from issues related to same-sex marriage and other highly charged matters, how often do you find members of your congregation to be of one mind? About what can we have one mind? About what is it essential that we have one mind?
For Further Discussion
1. Respond to this, from TWW team member Jenni Marner: "We had an interim pastor who had us work through a set of issues and place on a timeline various ideas [such as] hymns vs. contemporary music, women in leadership, discipline of sin, etc. It was a fascinating time of self-reflection of who we are individually and who we were corporately. As a part of that exercise we were encouraged to view our individual ideas as a part of the larger whole. He also encouraged us to come together as one mind as a method to move forward, seeking to pray through the differences and ask God to allow us to have unity within the body. Our church has a history of splits about every 10 years over the latest fad in the church. In the last 15, we have continued to move together and move forward towards loving Jesus more and showing his love to the community we are in."
2. Respond to this, from TWW team member Malia Miller: "Growing up, one of my good friends went to a very conservative church that prohibited many activities that my church allowed. We were able to work through these differences because we had mutual respect, but we had many conversations about what God thought -- particularly about me since I attended the more liberal church.
"[From my childhood] through my college days, I was very active as a gymnast, which became another topic for my friend and me. She was not permitted to wear shorts in public -- or even at home if any male visitors were present -- and I was tumbling around the gymnasium in a leotard in front of high school boys. I always made sure to dress appropriately when at her home, but I skulked about in guilt wondering what her family and other members of her church thought about someone like me. At a time when I was trying to find my way as a young Christian, these issues could have become 'deal-breakers' for me when deciding whether or not to fully commit to Christ. It was hard to understand how two churches preaching from the same Scriptures could have such different interpretations. I found it very confusing since I really had pure motives and was working very hard to live a Christ-like life."
3. Respond to this, also from TWW team member Malia Miller. She was a high-school-level guidance counselor for many years and now teaches others who are in school to be counselors: "Many teens whose sexual orientation is not heterosexual that I have counseled through my work in the schools struggle with a society that labels them as 'sinful' and judges them for something that they truly feel is as natural to them as heterosexuality is to their friends. They aren't necessarily acting on their feelings in relationships, but they live with the shame and disapproval that is evident all around them. Many of them come from Christian families, which compounds their struggle. This is one of the primary reasons that the suicide rate among LGBT teens is so high. They live in a world that sees them as flawed and that deprives them of freely meeting their need for love and belonging. (I guess my bias here is showing, but I worked with so many LGBT teens in the course of my career who would have never freely chosen the difficult path of being gay if it were a choice.) I, too, have struggled with this issue as a heterosexual Christian trying to understand how to make sense of this in context of the Scriptures, but I rest in the peace of my Lord that I don't have to have all of the answers!
"I don't think these topics are just individual choices. When a church interprets Scripture in such a way that they deem activities or the way one dresses as sinful, there is unspoken judgment about those who do not agree or are just beginning their Christian journey. This creates an environment of shame which is not particularly conducive to spiritual growth. I am not suggesting that boundary lines are unnecessary. However, how a church membership handles those who are still seeking clarity on an issue will determine whether a person feels nurtured or alienated."
4. Discuss this, from TWW team member James Gruetzner: "During my life, I have know people who are adamant that their own propensity to sexual promiscuity, to stealing from others, to lying for their own material benefit, and a host of other things is 'as natural to them as' other feelings are to their friends. I've come to the conclusion that 'all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God' and that our feelings about what is right or wrong tend to be poor yardsticks. Feelings are not nothing, of course, but they aren't normative. The somewhat cliched guidance to 'hate the sin and love the sinner' seems pretty good (and I hope that others might hate the sin in me while loving the sinner that I am). My wife and I (and our congregation) have had little trouble with acknowledging both homosexual activity and divorce as wrong, while at the same time welcoming both homosexual and divorced people into our congregation and into our home on a personal level. Jesus ate with sinners, although he was sinless. Can a sinner like me do any less?"
5. If your congregation is part of a denomination, describe the way that congregations relate to the denomination. Are congregations required to follow the leading of the denomination? Is it purely advisory? On a complicated and/or controversial issue, do you think your congregation would follow or ignore a change in denominational policy if the congregation disagreed?
6. Dan West (1893-1971) was profoundly affected by the life-or-death choices he had to make as a relief worker during the Spanish Civil War. His realization that "these people need a cow, not a cup" inspired him to recruit donations of live, impregnated cows to ship to starving people in other countries, a program that eventually became the ecumenical organization Heifer International. In his home congregation in Indiana, the story is told that West, having argued passionately on a particular subject in church council, found himself on the losing side after the vote was taken. He is remembered to have said that he would now become a passionate supporter of the other side of the issue.
Have you ever supported your church even when you did not fully agree with their stance on a particular subject or program? Is this possible for a person of conscience? Does the leading of the larger group, whether a congregation, a denomination or Christendom, determine your response to an issue? What does it say if you can only follow your own leaning on a topic instead of that of the larger church?
Responding to the News
This is a good time to remind ourselves that in most cases of disagreement on significant issues in the church, the debate is not between "true" Christians and "false" Christians -- or between Christians and sinners -- but between sincere people who understand the ramifications of their faith differently. It's good to spend as much time listening as talking.
Closing Prayer
No comments:
Post a Comment