I haven’t been sleeping well this week, which is frustrating. I slept in until almost eight this morning, which is not a good idea when the weather is blisteringly hot! After watching an exciting finish to today’s stage of the Tour de France, I went off and did a hard ten-miler in the hills after the temperature was already well into the upper 80s. I was very slow.
I’m not training for a race at the moment. My long-term goal is to run a 50-miler next year (the famed Leona Divide race). I’d like to squeeze in a couple of marathons along the way, and I have committed myself to investing in a road bike so I can start doing more cross-training. My goal these days is to try and run at least 40 miles a week; that seems to be the kind of mileage I need to do so I can eat with abandon. (The truth comes out at last.) And like everyone else, I find that as I get older, my metabolism is slowing down. I don’t burn off the candy and the muffins and the cupcakes quite as fast as I did a decade ago. I will be 40, after all, in 34 months. Yes, I am counting. And I have I mentioned I am procrastinating on my duties as temporary chair of the Carmel High School class of 1985 twentieth reunion?
I came across this statement (released in February, a PDF file) from the Mennonite Church of Eastern Canada on homosexuality. In our increasingly acrimonious and politicized climate around that issue, this document stands out for its grace and its courage and its sanity.
The MCEC Executive Board recognizes that:
1. All people, regardless of their sexual orientation, are of sacred worth and equally loved by God.
At the same time, all people share in the brokenness of humanity. In the context of the church we are called to find wholeness in relationship with Jesus and in Christian community.
2. Sexuality is a good gift blessed by God. However, we live in a highly sexualized culture where sexual innuendo and promiscuity are pervasive. We acknowledge that marital infidelity and extramarital sexual activity are present in our churches. The church needs to speak to many issues surrounding human sexuality.
3. There is strong disagreement at all levels in MCEC on the matter of homosexuality. We have disagreements within our congregations, among our pastors, and we are not in agreement as an Executive Board. Collectively we are not in a place to be able to say, “. . . it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us. . . .†(Acts 15:28).
Hallelujah. Some folks recognize they don’t have all the answers. Would that everyone else in this country had half that humility! So what to do? MCEC decided that they are going to be the church:
In order to move forward as a conference, we need to allow space for differences on this issue. We
believe God is calling us to find our place of meeting in Christ rather than with those who agree
with us in order to stand against those who disagree with us.
In order for respectful dialogue to continue there must be a sense of safe and sacred space. Without such space, no God-honouring solution to the division we experience on homosexuality will be found. It is essential that we commit ourselves to:
1. Provide safe space for persons struggling with questions of orientation and sexuality.
2. Stop the painful exclusion homosexual persons often experience. Anything that perpetrates hatred
or violence has no place in the church.
3. Stop the politicized maneuvering at either end of the spectrum to silence voices of disagreement.
The church will be healthier if all points of view can be openly heard. Among the voices that
deserve to be heard are, for example: homosexual persons who choose to remain celibate for the
sake of Christian conviction; homosexual persons who are in heterosexual marriages and wish to
remain there; those who support change ministries; those who see homosexuality as a sin; those
who celebrate homosexuality as part of God’s creation; and those who want gays and lesbians
included as part of our community.
Oh amen, amen, amen, amen, amen! That third point in bold (emphases are mine) captures the love and the generosity of the third way of Anabaptism perfectly! Let’s hear it for folks who are committed to living with tension, ambiguity, and doubt — and can find joy while they do so. I’m so sick of the self-righteous certainty of both sides on this issue.
My question for my fellow believers out there: Regardless of your own politics and beliefs, what are you doing to reach out to those within your community who hold radically different views on key issues of faith and morals? Or do you even have any dissenting folks?
Lastly, let me note a few blog postings that I’ve been reading:
Father Jake has these good thoughts on John Kerry’s nuanced position on life and abortion.
Josh Claybourn had an interesting post on Christian Libertarianism (something he embraces); the comments section is worth a read too. I found it via The Gutless Pacifist, which is a daily read.
Lorie had a bad Target experience.
Mumcat has these fine meditations on Arizona weather.
Graham (who used to be Felix) at Leaving Munster has some good ground rules for theological debate on the Internet. I liked this bit: If you’re thinking, “Is he really that stupid, or am I missing something?” the answer is: you’re missing something.
Corianne may be only 20, but she writes good. Ignore the Britney pictures on her site, read this. It rings perfectly true.
Jenell, with whom I co-chair the currently fantastical North American Evangelical Gender Studies Association, also writes real good. She has a question for everyone today.
Kendall links to a great sermon on reconciliation and healing, entitled No One Needs to Leave the Table. In the comments section, the arch-conservatives rip it to shreds. Sigh.
Annika has posted about her blogroll’s demographics, and that’s got me thinking.
And lastly, let’s all stay in prayer for Sam Carrasco and the rest of his family. Please visit Jen Lemen’s blog (where she is organizing both financial and emotional support), and read regular updates from Rudy here.
UPDATE: I just got a concerned e-mail from my dear mother, who recently retired from teaching philosophy here. She writes:
Dearest,
I loved the Sexton poem but I am very uncomfortable with “writes real good”! You may be using it in fun, but some of your readers might not know better. Tons of love - Mother
For the record (and out of fear that my Ph.D. may get revoked), I am aware that “good” is generally an adjective and “well” generally an adverb, and it is fun to use the former as the latter, even when one oughtn’t.
There is a part of me that wants to respect the openmindness of the MCEC board– really; but I couldn’t tell you why. Another part of me, my conservative side, says whoa! what is all this change about, am I missing something in the Bible? I think what troubles me is the term openmindness, does it always needs lead to change? Because one sticks to their guns, does that mean they have all the answers or are closeminded?
Tell mom things are changing– many of us are writing real good.
I love this line:
“We believe God is calling us to find our place of meeting in Christ rather than with those who agree
with us in order to stand against those who disagree with us.”
I beleive at deep levels that we cannot see the multifaceted beauty of the faith until all the facets are present. Great post!
Hugo,
I agree with your mother. ‘She writes well’ just sounds right; ‘She writes good’ doesn’t.
I suppose I am among the Mennonites who simply see homosexual behavior as sinful. I also believe that Christians who are homosexuals should choose to remain celibate, just as single heterosexual Christians should. I just thank God that we are saved by his grace, not our behavior.
Hugo,
As I read your postings from day to day I see a man whose temperance, kindness, and wit I hope to one day attain. Thanks for setting the bar so high!
To answer your question, I am in a constant state of dialogue. In my circle of friends, I have three neo-pagans, two High Anglicans (one liberal, one not) two Jehovah’s Witnesses, a Muslim, a Hindu (whom I treat as family), two agnostics, and two Conservative Christians, apart from me, not to mention my Catholic friends in the Cardinal Newman Society, who dragged me along to Mass. I also have thriving sparring relationships with a Unitarian Jew, the President of the Young Socialists and several members of the Green Party. We fight all the time, offend each other regularly, disagree loudly, and enjoy each other hugely anyway. In our church, however, there are few dissenters on issues of morality. We accept the inerrancy of Scripture, hence many of these are non-issues, but the way we live them out causes a little debate.
Speaking personally, I have found dialogue with liberals to be extremely difficult, and I try it every year. We speak different languages, share different assumptions, and practise different faiths, really. I resent their assumption that I need inclusivity lessons, I’m annoyed by the fact that they assume I am a nasty bigot who wants to kill gays. My experiences with “inclusivity” were summed up for me when the President of SCM asked within a sentence or two of meeting me: “What do you believe” And when I answered “I’m an Evangelical” she said “Why don’t you conservatives just leave so we can have an inclusive church?” I’ve found this in many attempts to be the rule, rather than the exception.
Thanks everyone! John, what an awful thing for the SCM woman to say; on behalf of liberals everywhere, my apologies!
Your mother and I think alike!!
Thanks Hugo-You are about the only liberal I have ever met who is truly inclusive. (And I have met many). I have yet to decide whether it is a grace or the result of chronic indecision. ;-)
The trouble I with inclusivity is that it seems to flow from the premise that all beliefs are of equal value just because the people who have them are deserving of equal respect. The latter I firmly believe as much as I disbelieve and disagree with the former.
One of my heroes is G.K. Chesterton who once expressed the opinion that the real usefulness of an open mind is that it stand ready and poised to close down and chew on some idea or another.
Way back when, when I first revealed my same sex attraction and “gayly active” life to my evangelical, English educated, Episcopalian pastor he said, “David, if you need me to affirm what you do in bed, I can’t, because I believe that’s sin. But if you need me to affirm you as a brother in Christ, I can do that because everyone who welcomes Christ is welcome here.”
My problem with the “liberal” side of these discussions is that liberality is usually defined as agreement with the their positions - and if there is no agreement then the charge arises that I participate in oppression or similar accusation.
I remember one heated editorial meeting on my steady path toward orthodox Christianity from so called gay Christianity. One of my frequenet opponents at one point almost growled, “you never listen to me!” To which I replied, “no, I do listen to you, I just don’t agree with you, there is a difference!”
My bottom line is that God created people, men, women and children, in His image and likeness and that means we all deserve respect and we are called to respect one another. Ideas however, are not equal and ideas which appear pernicious (for example, in previous ages, Arius’ idea that Christ is not really God) deserve to be fought and discredited as much as the people held by these ideas deserve to respected, prayed over and loved.
Nicely put, David. But the Mennonites in Canada are not claiming that all points of view are equally valid or truthful; they are saying that all points of view need to be heard and belong in the church. It is possible to say:
1. Most of us believe X behavior is contrary to the will of God.
2. A minority of us believe X is compatible with the will of God.
3. We as a church body will not bless or sanction X behavior.
4. BUT those who do engage in X behavior are welcome here, and we will continue to listen to them as they advocate for a change in our position. We will live in honest loving disagreement, waiting for the Holy Spirit.
“How do we know when the Spirit has spoken?”
A: “When it is in accord with Holy Scripture”
The Catechism of the BCP
But John, now we’re getting circular again! You and I both know that folks in good conscience can disagree about the plain meaning of Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, and so forth…
They like to think they can. ;-)
This is precisely part of my point. These discussions tend to go anywhere in the end because the left side of the discussion, at least lately, has said “we believe the Spirit has spoken so we are going ahead with what we want to do anyway. Witness the Canturbury Confusion or otherwise known as my former communion, the ECUSA.
Hugo, for the liberal side of this discussion to be in correct, in my opinion, we have to throw away the consistent witness of 2000+ years of Christians as to the purpose and meaning of human sexual expression.
We have to throw away the probable meaning of scripture as well, not only the scriptures which discuss homosex directly, but the scriptures around what it means to be Christ’s, what is means to be a member of His body and what it means to be part of his Bride, the Church.
Are we so bold, so arrogant in one view, to decide that we know so much more than St. Francis, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Paul? Could all the generations of Christians that came before us just been wrong about all this, wrong about what the human body means, wrong about the notion that design indicates function?
I couldn’t buy it any longer - and I shock myself now that I ever did. But its only for one side the discussion to proclaim ‘the Spirit, the Spirit’ and act as it likes…oh, and then when the orthodox Christians object, they are being “mean spirited” and “bigoted” and “oppressive.”
David -
You cannot seem to help yourself? “Canterbury Confusion”? I have presumed that you wanted to be taken seriously based on the content of your ideas, but your regular willingness to hurl insults and loaded word choices implies that you are more interested in winning debate points with witty retorts and ad hominem attacks.
To the extent you are attempting dialogue (otherwise, why else would you post?), your method makes it impossible. The disdain with which you apparently hold those who disagree with you is palpable.
I admire the confidence you have in your perception of the Truth, and I pray for your patience with those who have not yet attained your level of understanding. However, I must say, to me, you offer little in terms of an ability to persuade others.
I mean you no ill will, but I think I need to disengage from further dialogue with you and avoid reading your posts.
Peace.
- Robert
Wow, this is a great dicussion. My simple two cents…I believe that homosexuality is sin. I believe that distain for God’s greatest creation, humankind, is sin. I believe that we are called to reach out to all humankind with God’s grace, patience and love, to do otherwise, is sin. We are all born of sin and are sinful in nature…if we were capable of perfection on our own, we would not need God. Our refusal of God in search of our own perfection would be sin. We all desire love and inclusion from someone or something. What we are all truly seeking is God’s grace, forgiveness and most of all his love in order to be whole.
My only complaint…when someone gets in my face with their beliefs and tells me that I am intolerant…aren’t they being intolerant of me and my faith? Why are Christians criticized for our “intolerance” and those who are critical of Christianity are not?
Hugo, haven’t you heard? 40 is the new 30!
Hi Blackkoffeeblues -
As one who disagrees with your belief re homosexuality, I wanted to note that I agree with you that the immediate labeling and accusation of those who are not gay-affirming as “intolerant”, “close-minded”, or “mean-spirited” is not fair or accurate. (To be sure, some who are not gay-affirming are all of those things, but, then, so are some on of those on the other side.)
I believe that one can, with integrity and faithfulness, be not gay-affirming. And, I can and do respect that point of view. Indeed, insofar as discussions about homosexuality are taking place in the Church, it is precisely because of your (and others’) identification as Christians that I consider such opinions. So, the question remains, are those who are not gay-affirming able or willing to consider those of us who disagree with you as fellow Christians? For me, agreement on this single issue is just not the litmus test I employ to discern the authenticity of another’s faith and commitment thereto.
No need to answer, but something to think about.
Nicely put and excellent question…thank you. Yes, I do believe that gay-affirming people can be Christians. I think that I was hoping to mean that when I said that distain for humankind is sinful. I suppose that I should have said that outright. Thank you for the kind shove in that direction. We are all sinful in nature, regardless of what that sin is…I don’t believe in levels of sin. In its simplest terms, I believe a Christian to be one who accepts God’s salvation. I don’t believe that homosexuality is a more heinous sin than say, impatience. Sin is sin and we all require grace, forgiveness and God’s guidance. I happily worship next to Christians who are gay-affirming (that’s a new term to me), work with them in church projects, teach children’s Sunday school with them…there is only one Judge of mankind and it isn’t me.
Robert, I don’t feel any disdain for you or any others who disagree with me. I think a read over at Sed Contra would indicate that I try to take all questions with respect.
I believe the term “Canterbury Confusion” (while admittedly tongue in cheek) is, sadly, much more descriptive than it is perjorative, as a brief tour through the different headlines among Anglican bloggers would easily illustrate.
For example, the New Hampshire parishioners of more than a century old Church of the Redeemer who turned their parish building over to the Diocese and worshipped in borrowed quarters rather than accept the governance of a sexually active bishop that defines himself as gay. If anything, Canterbury Confusion might have been a mild term.
Nonetheless I apologize for any insult you might have felt. I genuinely intended none.
Thanks David for the clarification. And I apologize for my own oversensitivity. I will try to keep my own mind open in the future, rather than being too quick to assign motivations and intentions to others’ words.
Perhaps the increasing lack of civility in these discussions has taken its toll on me — but I’ll pledge not to be part of the problem in the future.