Here is a link to a conversation i'm / we're having with a friend of mine about the ways differing sides of the discussion about gay people and the church do / can / should relate to one another.
I'm linking to this not because i think we're discussing it well necessarily, but rather because i think it's a massively important point. How is the church to call priorities between people and issues, particularly when the issues are so closely related to people?
I'm also linking to this because the energy i've put into the comments outweigh the energy i put into most of my own posts. Feel free to either join the discussion there or leave comment here, if you fancy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Hmm, good to read Rob's blog but for some reason it won't let me comment there. Not sure why. Here's my thoughts; if you think it betrays too much confidential stuff of what happened in the meeting described (no names but still) then please delete it.
I don't think I was as engaged with this process as I should have been. In fact, I don't remember exactly when it happened even (was it when I was at university, in which case lack of engagement might be a bit more justifiable, or was it before then, in which case less so).
Nonetheless I do remember being disappointed at a church meeting (it may have been the one where we finally came to a "decision" of sorts on all this) when we had a vote on whether or not to have a vote on whether we should think about our church building being used to hold civil partnership ceremonies. I seem to remember less people voted to have a vote than believed it should be used! That on the grounds of unity, but I thought then that that went against the general approach we were trying to engender of being open and not brushing difficult issues under the carpet in order to preserve unity. Unity is not unity if it's achieved by an assumed majority imposing silence on dissenting views.
Maybe I've remembered this wrong - it was a while back - so very happy to be corrected if so.
And Rob - if you're reading this, get your comments box fixed!
Thanks Tim.
How does one sort the comments out? Other people are commenting, so it must be working on some level...
I don't know... it may be something to do with the fact I use a netbook? That's the only thing I can think of, but I do have the same problem on a few blogspot.com blogs (but not on wordpress, and not on all blogspot ones even)
I can't remember the particularities of such a vote as you've described, Tim, but i think the discussions were taking place around 2002, so i'll let you figure out for yourself where you were and what you were up to.
I do, however, find one of the things you've said eminently quotable and perhaps cutting through a false supposition i'd made:
"Unity is not unity if it's achieved by an assumed majority imposing silence on dissenting views"
I wonder if maybe i'd been working too much with a model where unity and justice are seperate and even opposable. What if unity and justice are much more like the same thing? That would be a more helpful way of expressing the paradox i'd posed on Rob's blog where i'd said "Could it be that unity is so important that the only issues worth splitting over are the ones about disagreement over who can be included?" Since if you're not working for justice you're not working for unity, therefore, by definition, you are expelling yourself.
How does that sound for a half-cocked idea?
Yes, I think there's some truth in that. I wouldn't say they are exactly the same thing, but certainly justice is a necessary pre-condition for a full expression of unity. (In the same way I would argue justice is a necessary pre-condition for peace.) I suppose it's possible to have watered-down partial expressions of both, too.
What I think we, as believers, need to remember is that Jesus came to save sinners not judge them. I think the church (believers) needs to reach out to all sinners and show them the way to repent and come into fellowship with our Lord. Like any sin, it needs to be dealt with in a loving way. God bless, Lloyd
I think this is an important discussion one way or the other. I know God has created us all, and he is willing to forgive, so let him judge right from wrong, and let us live by example. However, that does not mean that we can not stand up and say"this is wrong" when it is, that is not judging them for doing something wrong, it is letting them KNOW that we think its wrong.
Hi Lloyd and Sephora,
Whilst your comments are advocating being graceful towards sinners (something i'm a massive fan of since i need to be on the recieving end of such sentiments a lot of the time) you do both seem to be operating with the assumption that homosexuality is sinful.
I'd like to therefore point out that for all the admirable 'don't judge the sinners' talk, once you assert that someone's behaviour is sinful, you have, in fact, already judged them. I think what you seem to be saying then, is that exacting sanctions is what we should avoid.
Here, here!
This is a slightly different point to the one being discussed though, since what's said here assumes that a 'right' opinion is being held. The discussion in the posts, however, is more closely centred around how to consolidate two opposing views, both of which claim to be the 'right' one. That is, one which says 'they are sinful, therefore they should, or should not, be included' and another which says 'homosexuality is as neutral as heterosexuality and the question of including gay people or not is as absurd as discussing whether to include thin people in the church or not'.
How can two groups who think contradictorily different things on a matter so vital as holiness and justice continue to worship together? That's the question, not which view is right.
I hate to sound pessimistic but, if both groups hold their point of view with strong conviction then I do not believe it is possible to worship together.
Whichever church you go to will have a number of points on which you disagree and would change given the opportunity. If they are minor points you'd live and let live.
However, everyone will have 'dealbreakers' which will force them to evaluate their position and conclude it is untenable. For some it may be homosexuality, for others women in authority. If an issue hurts that much a new church may be the remedy.
Antony
Post a Comment