Well, I'm still digging out from under having been away last week and off on Monday but ONE of the things I "dug out" was this great sermon by Colin Coward of Changing Attitude UK.You'll want to read the whole thing, but here are a couple of snippets to get you started:
==========
The Communion has become obsessed with the consecration of one man, and with the issue he represents. Isn’t this current obsession with LGBT people irrelevant, as the title of this Lenten series of sermons suggests, a distraction from more important issues? In a recently published book on the ethics of the New Testament, Richard Burridge, Dean of King’s College London writes "While the spectres of mass starvation, international conflicts, HIV/AIDS and global warming stalk us like four modern horsemen of the Apocalypse, many Christian churches around the world are overwhelmed by internal wrangling about women in leadership and homosexuality."
What it means to be ‘biblical’ lies at the heart of these debates, says Richard. He concludes "Whenever we are presented with a choice between being biblical and being inclusive, it is a false dichotomy - for to be truly biblical is to be inclusive in any community which wants to follow and imitate Jesus."
Why is it relevant to the church that she should affirm LGBT people and why is this a holy cause? Because care for the oppressed and marginalised is core to the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Because LGBT people are subjected to abuse, persecution, death threats, murder and execution in many countries now.
==========
The trauma through which Christianity in general is living, and the Anglican Communion is living with particular intensity, is a trauma about far more than LGBT sexuality and sexual activity. To grossly over-simplify what is clearly a very complex dynamic, I’d like to suggest it is about two core things.
Firstly, literalism and the concrete against the spiritual and the divine. Conservatives want to return us to a pre-enlightenment mentality, a time when they imagine people’s world view was more secure and certain. That’s a fantasy, of course, but in a time of deep insecurity and uncertainty, people of our generation are seeking the security blanket of fundamentalism and secure, ’unchanging’ faith. That isn’t the kind of faith Jesus was encouraging Nicodemus to explore.
LGBT people are scapegoats in this dynamic. We may also be prophets, reminding the church that Jesus is gently inviting us to take the risk of journeying further down the road with him.
Secondly, the exploration of the presence of LGBT people in church and society may also be forcing the church to confront properly for the first time in 2000 years the aversion it carries to the truth that God creates us male and female and sexual. Our spiritual and sexual selves are deeply intertwined, and the church expends enormous amounts of time and energy trying to prise the two apart.
=======
7 comments:
The Communion has become obsessed with the consecration of one man,
Has it?
and with the issue he represents.
What's that issue?
Isn’t this current obsession with LGBT people irrelevant,
No, that's not the issue. This is misdirection. The issue isn't an obsession with LGBT people. It's that a relatively small but economically powerful fraction of the Communion wishes to overthrow two millenia of Scriptural interpretation (or longer, if you include how the Jews interpreted what we now call the Old Testament) to suit their own desires, undermining it's authority and the authority of the church in general. They wish to set man over God.
... a distraction from more important issues?
No. The work goes on.
"While the spectres of mass starvation, international conflicts, HIV/AIDS and global warming stalk us like four modern horsemen of the Apocalypse, many Christian churches around the world are overwhelmed by internal wrangling about women in leadership and homosexuality."
I see no evidence they are overwhelmed. The fight against all these things goes on, with great energy, especially in the countries that are most directly facing them. And in those countries it is being led by the very people who are also having to fight this "distraction". It apparently never occurs to the proponents of such things that they are the distraction, and that it is they who are interfering with God's work.
for to be truly biblical is to be inclusive in any community which wants to follow and imitate Jesus."
But proclaiming homosexual behavior to be in accordance with Scripture and to be celebrated is defying Christ, not imitating Him.
Why is it relevant to the church that she should affirm LGBT people and why is this a holy cause? Because care for the oppressed and marginalised is core to the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
You don't care for someone by telling them that their sinful behavior is actually not sinful. You care for them by helping them to see what sin is and by helping them to accept their burden, fight it and transform themselves in Christ.
Because LGBT people are subjected to abuse, persecution, death threats, murder and execution in many countries now.
Too true, and it's an awful thing. This should be fought with great energy. But you don't do that by telling people that wrong is right. You teach what Jesus taught; "hate the sin, but love the sinner". I quite agree that this principle has been often ignored. But so have many other principles that Jesus taught. We don't abandon them, and we shouldn't abandon this.
Conservatives want to return us to a pre-enlightenment mentality, a time when they imagine people’s world view was more secure and certain. That’s a fantasy, of course,
I'd say that it's the author's fantasy, not the conservatives. I see no evidence that the opponents of what he favors wish to turn the clock back 500+ years.
LGBT people are scapegoats in this dynamic.
Save the victim card. Homosexuals have been very active in pressing this issue. This is not something that just happened.
We may also be prophets, reminding the church that Jesus is gently inviting us to take the risk of journeying further down the road with him.
This is not the road that Jesus wishes us to take. In fact, it seems clear to me that this is the broad road that Jesus warned us to avoid.
... may also be forcing the church to confront properly for the first time in 2000 years the aversion it carries to the truth that God creates us male and female and sexual.
Aversion? I'm not aware of any such aversion? What aversion? Our priests are married, we celebrate marriages and births. I've sat through numerous readings and sermons where sex and love are discussed quite frankly. Sounds like a straw man to me.
Our spiritual and sexual selves are deeply intertwined, and the church expends enormous amounts of time and energy trying to prise the two apart.
No. Not true at all. In fact, what it does is try to tie them more closely together, to ensure that we use our sexuality in the way that God intended. It's the division of spirituality and sexuality that leads to improper use of sexuality.
Okay, I wrote a point by point rebuttal of "ronf"'s rant, but decided not to dignify his exclusionary, narrow-minded, literalist fantasia by providing a logical and reasoned response.
I do not presume to speak for Jesus or read his mind. I will however, reflect upon Peter's experience of the Lord:
Acts 10:28
Peter told them, “You know it is against our laws for a Jewish man to enter a Gentile home like this or to associate with you. But God has shown me that I should no longer think of anyone as impure or unclean.
Coincidentally, we rented "For the Bible Tells Me So" last night, so I'm tempted to respond to ronf, but upon further reflection, I ditto Jack's well chosen words.
Just a note here: ronf fails to mention all the other things that the Bible also forbids/condemns. Why do folks always do that? Either you believe ALL of it or you have to stop beating others with the parts that serve your purpose. The spirit of Jesus was never about beating folks up with "God's will." The issue is about having someone to look down upon, to victimize because it makes us feel righteous-powerful-better than. Today it's the GLBT folks and women and hispanics and the poor. A few years back it was the Irish, the Polish, the Native Americans...The point is that we have to stop this behavior regardless of who the victim is. We just have to stop because that's what Jesus would ask of us.
Ok, I've tried to take time to think long and hard about this. By way of background I want to note I have a Master's Degree from George Mason University's Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution. I've gone back and forth between Stand Firm, Titus One Nine, Thinking Anglicans, Episcopal Cafe etc. and I just want to say that the this entire relationship between the two sides (I choose that terminology because every word has become a political land mine) is completely broken. Both sides play on stereotypes of the other. For example, "For the Bible Tells Me So" is about as representative of US Evangelicalism or self-styled "reasserters" as a Focus on the Family documentary on the Gay Pride Parade is representative of LGBT movement. I've seen and heard both. Much of the language and rhetoric is interchangeable, demonization is in full flower.
People are in a cycle of self-validation. Every time the "other" says something it is first interpreted in the most negative way and then used to validate our own superiority. I can't remember the last time I heard real discussion on any of the sites.
It has come down to power and both sides have put this in zero-sum terms. It is unhealthy and destructive for all concerned. Maybe I'm stating the obvious. I plead with everyone here who reads this to step back next time you get "really infuriated" at something the "other" has said.
What do I see? I see sides who have deeply held convictions that are seemingly irreconcilable. There is no trust. There is almost no love. At best this looks like a nasty divorce and maybe its time the pastors on all sides start looking at it that way.
Rev. Russell, you probably know from your pastoral work that when people demand all or nothing in divorce the scars go deep and the pain lasts for years. Reconciliation, even at the level of being "sociable" to one another is impossible. The damage is also passed down to the next generation.
Someone needs to take the first step. I implore you to use your influence to start "reimagining" this conflict and stepping out boldly for a new path. How would you act if this were a divorce? The arc of this current conflict will leave ultimately leave no winners.
I have intentionally left my personal stance on the issues out of this. I will say that I was born and raised in the Episcopal Church. I have attended parishes on many sides of this debate and all have demonstrated much to approve of and much to be ashamed of.
rwk ... thanks for taking time to comment.
Do me a favor.
Read (or re-read) Michael Hopkins' "Message to the Church"
http://walkingwithintegrity.blogspot.com/2007/07/for-record.html
And then get back to me on "zero-sum terms" from "both sides."
Thanks.
Zero sum is more complicated than that. In this case each side is defining the zero sum on it own terms. To go back to the divorce analogy, you are asking one spouse to accept the infidelity or abusiveness of the other because the unfaithful or abuser says "I don't think this is infidelity or abuse." Note this analogy can refer to border crossings or same sex blessings. One side does not have the privilege of defining the terms of the offense. when there is no communication it is zero sum. Both are playing zero sum games.
As you probably well know, when trust is loss reconciliation is not possible. Sometimes to rebuild trust space is required. Having lived through many painful months of trust rebuilding with my mother and father I can attest to the difficulty of the separation for those caught in the middle. Progressives hold the dominant power position in the Episcopal Church, so space is their prerogative to give. The results of Windsor, Dar et. al. have eroded what little trust conservatives had left. That same trust would have been eroded in the other direction if the Archbishop of Canterbury had not sent Lambeth invitations to the bishops who voted to ordain Gene Robinson.
In the current conflict dynamic, the conflict is expanding. Canada should make that plain. One side claiming they are "reasonable" does not necessarily make it so.
So, let's look at this pastorally then. As a pastor would you keep the feuding couple together in the house day after day where every action is a source of conflict or would you advise a separation so the lives of both might be spared? If you advise separation but not divorce, I assume you would then begin the long, slow, painful work of rebuilding trust.
I will go back to a passage of Scripture that I am constantly called to on this issue. New wine and new wineskins. What I find helpful about this is that Jesus says you put new wine into new wineskins so that both the old and the new will be preserved. He wants the loss of neither.
One can argue that progressives are pouring new wine into old wine skins in the form of the "Gospel of Inclusion" or one can argue that the growing evangelical majority of the overall Anglican communion is putting new wine into the old wineskin. The fact remains that it is clear the wineskin is straining. God desires that neither be lost.
Is the "new wine" parallel provinces in the same territory both attending Lambeth? I don't know. Allowing a peaceful separation with a promise of leaving the door open would make reconciliation easier. It may take a generation but one cannot look down and not see wine all over the floor at the current moment.
Post a Comment