Probably not, unless the dialogue is
contrived and the people most in danger of seeing themselves as others see them
are conspicuous by their absence.
So why even try? I have personal reasons for
trying.
Not all of those reasons are fit for public
consumption, but I will say this. My very best friends in high school were gays
and lesbians. Not so-so friends, but friends that to this day I have more
affection for than I have for myself. Most of them are not Christian. In fact,
they are perfectly appalled by Christianity. The kind of people, you know, who
buy a copy of the Catholic Catechism for its comic value.
In high school I was this kind of Jesus
freak. I have no idea how my friends put up with me. It’s embarrassing to even
think about. And here I am, decades later, completely at home, and happy as a
lark, in the brilliant company of gays and lesbians, and still pretty sure that
being a Christian and G, L, B, or T stand in tension with each other, to the
point in some cases of outright contradiction. But maybe that isn’t so weird. The
friends of mine I referred to perceive things similarly.
On this topic, as on so many others, it is
important to hear stories and arguments from all sides, not just stories and
arguments that tend to back up one’s own opinions. My reflections in this series
are attuned to the ongoing debate within the denomination I serve, the United
Methodist Church. My guess, however, is that the terms of the debate will be
understandable to many others.
For background of the contrarian kind, I recommend
this
excerpt of a book on New Testament ethics by Richard B. Hays, Professor of
New Testament at Duke Divinity School. For a very different, strongly argued,
and theologically non-stupid take, try this
piece by Kim Fabricius, a Reformed pastor in Wales. The comment threads on
both posts are also worth reading. I also think a recent
article by Scott Stephens is of interest (HT: Ben
Myers).
I realize that an open, vulnerable discussion
on sexual orientation is well-nigh impossible for those who live in much of the
academic world, or wherever liberals, as Scott Stephens puts it, are in the habit of shouting down those they disagree with. In academia, the fear of a night of the long knives is never
distant. In most places, it is obligatorily uncontroversial that homosexuality is
simply another normal and natural sexual orientation. But it only gets worse. In other places, e.g. a
number of Christian colleges and universities, the opposite and symmetrical
position is enforced. In all of these places, people who hold views contrary to
whatever is considered politically correct do well to keep quiet about it for
all the usual reasons.
But sitting on the sidelines is not an option
for someone in the trenches of congregational life. A simple example. It is
typical of United Methodist congregations to charter Boy Scout troops. It has
been typical of ELCA Lutheran congregations to do the same. But now, given the
change of position in the ELCA, tilted now in the direction of a full
accommodation of the GLBT community in its midst, Boy Scout troops looking for
a congregation to charter them are going to steer away from ELCA congregations.
That’s only reasonable. The leadership of the
Boy Scouts is just as conflicted on what to do going forward as are the
rank-and-file in the UMC and ELCA. As it stands now, however, the position of
the UMC is more pluralistic, more muddled if you will, than that of the ELCA.
For that reason, the BSA and the UMC make a better fit.
The risk at the present time is that the UMC,
however famous for allowing a diversity of opinion on things like sexual
orientation, transforms itself into a denomination that no longer tolerates a
diversity of opinion on these questions. If the UMC becomes lockstep
"anti"- or "pro-gay" (excuse the stultifying language), an
exodus will occur.
Were the muddledness of the UMC’s stance on
sexual orientation clarified to the satisfaction of the “left” or the “right,” United
Methodism would no longer occupy the "extreme center" of the
Christian continuum in the United States. That is not a minor detail if one cares
to think strategically.
Regardless of one's opinions on same-gender
sexual orientation and expression, it seems wise to be cautious about changing the
UMC’s current clear-as-mud stance.
Unless your definition of the church is "preaching to the choir," to
people who are just as "progressive" or just as
"evangelical" as you are, the current reality, a combination of a
commitment to the classical "incompatibility" teaching and a de
facto "don't ask, don't tell" policy - which satisfies no one -
is easily understood as a strategic compromise.
It is perfectly natural that, because of the
compromise, the UMC as a denomination continues to bleed members to the "left"
and the "right." Nor would I question the authenticity of the decisions
in those directions.
But I'll take that any day over the massive
hemorrhaging toward the “right” that first the UCC, then the Episcopalians, and
now the ELCA Lutherans are experiencing.
Comments