fbpx
37.6 F
Spokane
Friday, March 29, 2024
HomeBeliefsHow we should respond to GLBTQ controversies within the church

How we should respond to GLBTQ controversies within the church

Date:

Related stories

Now Hiring: Freelance Reporters

Now Hiring: Freelance Reporters SpokaneFāVS.com, an online publication covering religion...

Ask A Mormon: Can you be baptized after death?

Mormons believe that “God is no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34). He loves all of his children, regardless of when or where they were born. We also believe that baptism, and the covenants we make at baptism, are stepping stones on the path to salvation and exaltation.

Ask A Mormon: Do Mormons believe they will become gods?

Latter-day Saints believe that every life — our spirits, our souls, the essence of who we are — is eternal.

Ask A Mormon: Do Mormons stockpile goods?

Are Mormons Preppers? Why and where and for how long do they stockpile goods? Why is this, is there an eschatological reason?

Tripping to Peace at Salt Lake: Individual States or All New Kingdom?

We must, if we are to survive, see that our existence is vitally connected with the equally important existence of the other.

Our Sponsors

spot_img
spot_img

gay_friendly_church_s_200This past spring, the Christian denomination that I belong to approved to offer marriage to same gender couples in states where legal and to offer covenant blessing in states where illegal. We also approved ordination to individuals in same-gender, committed relationships. These two issues were approved after many years of conversation and three years of intense discernment led by inter-judicatory officers in congregations and regional gatherings. The recommendations for policy change passed with overwhelming support.

I recently was emailed by a faith-based action committee that informed me of the turmoil occurring in the United Methodist Church over the trial of Frank Schaefer, a Pennsylvania pastor who officiated at the marriage of his gay son. Pastor Schaefer was in violation of church policy by officiating this ministry to his son and companion and has been suspended for his actions.

I am saddened that men and women of conscience are being ground up by the institutional machinery of the church, but I have to say that the leaders of the institution are only enforcing a policy that the church at large is not yet ready to overturn. While I do not agree with policy that forced the church leadership to suspend Pastor Schaefer, I do support them in their upholding of the policy. I do not know what kind of judgment could have been handed down in regards to disciplinary action; I do know however that the church has been struggling with this issue for some time, as have most Christian churches, and that the Bishop who handed down this ruling did the right thing in accordance with policy.

I am saddened when people who do the right thing while offering meaningful ministry are punished by people who are doing the right thing in their actions as administrators in accordance with policy approved by legislative bodies. In this conundrum, there are no winners. The approach being taken by both sides of this one action in Massachusetts by Pastor Schaefer is destructive and divides the community of believers.

Every denomination that is struggling with the issues of GLBTQ equality must not shout at each other through the organs of the media. Petitions from outside of these communions is not helpful and just causes more strain on already very strained relationships. Time needs to be invested in relationship-building through joint exploration of Scripture in both the scholarly disciplines and the disciplines of spiritual formation. Picking sides and throwing rocks will not change the hearts of people who are struggling with policies that keep us walled off from each other. Thoughtful and intentional conversations and investment in each other is what is needed.

My prayers are with the leaders of all denominations as they lead through these times of extreme change. My prayer is that they will be open to the revelation of God that comes through the thoughtful approach to the Scriptures as well as the voice of the people who are joined in community to help reveal the kingdom of God.

John VanDerWalker
John VanDerWalkerhttp://www.cofchrist-iwest.org/
John VanDerWalker II serves as a Mission Research, Assessment and Support Specialist with the Western USA Mission Field of the Community of Christ.

Our Sponsors

spot_img
spot_img
spot_img

31 COMMENTS

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
31 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Deb Selzer
Deb Selzer
10 years ago

Thank you for an excellent message, John!
When we first build relationship and engage in discernment together, we can then look at the difficult, divisive issues – often with new eyes.

Thomas Schmidt
10 years ago

John, I never compared you with a Nazi, saying only that your position was limited. I very much agree with your reply. I hope you can see that I never compared y0u with a Nazi. Please, my point was that your moderate position was ethically close to that of a “Good German.” That is, one who, while opposing an institutions policy submits to its rule. King faced that ethical point in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, addressing ministers and churches who called for moderation in the Civil Rights movement. I suggested that you were not considering the ethical point that maybe the continued resistance to the institution’s legitimacy might be a proper consideration. I did not serve my suggestion by using the hot button term which is associated the Nazis. But Eric, your post also misrepresented me, for I was very limited in my characterization of John, saying only that his ethical thinking was limited. If you are going to suggest that John and I respond to your “Lets you and him fight”, please don’t get us fighting about something that was never said. I was commenting on John’s ethical argument, not on John.

Dennis, I’m glad you posted your comments about God’s church and the spirit; they are very interesting, and I do like to use that orthodox distinction myself. But don’t we have to be careful what is God’s and what is an institution of the Powers? I’m hesitant, I hope, in assuming that my beliefs and readings of the Bible agree with God’s, especially when they seem to counter the values shown us by Jesus.

Thomas Schmidt
10 years ago

Thanks, John. I don’t mind a free swinging intellectual fight, even when I often feel stung. I do appreciate replies that challenge the argument and that reply to the argument. We have to little time to divert ourselves away from the issue. As my mythical grandfather said, “If the shoe fits, wear it.” Otherwise, lets get back to the argument at hand. I was stimulated intellectually by your arguments. Thanks.

Jan Shannon
10 years ago

John, I totally agree with your article! I can’t help but root for the minister-father who only wanted to help his son, and I can’t be against the denomination for upholding its policies. I once was that minister, who was held accountable by the denomination when I transgressed their rules. I have no heartache toward them for that, though I do not agree with their policy and have found a new church home elsewhere. There must be rules for any organization to function, and when the time comes for change, we must expect the change to cause some pain, but it is often very sad for those on either side.

Thomas Schmidt
10 years ago

I respect and agree with the blogger and the commentators but believe they have remained very incomplete with their analysis. The policy is not only wrong but evil, for it makes some of us second class Christians, denying our humanity. Therefore it must be nonviolently resisted. That was done. However it is not enough to say this and then add that those who uphold the evil policy must be obeyed. Perhaps so, perhaps not. In this case the blogger and commentators remain in the position of “The good German’ who disagreed with the extermination camps but, when ordered, served as guards. “If I don’t, someone else will.” I use an extreme example because the church here is denying the humanity of some of its members in situations which lead to life and death behaviors. With all respect the blogger and respondent do continue to protest, and one even emigrated.

Long ago, in the Civil Rights movement we faced a similar problem. There was little disagreement, we had to nonviolently disobey the evil law. But should we also resist arrest? Most of us decided that, personally, we had to do that too: the law was evil, bad enough, and the authority that upheld the evil law would go even father and try to silence opposition. We in CORE, SNCC and the SCLC learned the lesson of non-compliance with arrest and jail from Gandhi and Jesus, who remained non-responsive before the Sanhedrin and Pilate (Matt. 26: 63f; 27:11f). I would, in my discernment, suggest that the pastor might show up the next Sunday to preach, marry and minister to his or her flock, unless she or he could see that in doing so the flock might be harmed more by that than by submission to evil authority. But that is our cross, isn’t it?

Dennis
Dennis
10 years ago

This is one reason I am so thankful to have found my place in a non-denominational independent body of believers. We do not have to argue or struggle over this, we are able to follow God’s Word and stand for the purity of the church in loving, but honest opposition to practices that are clearly taught in the whole narrative of His story, and in particular locations systematically, to be against the will of God, and in direct rebellion against His character. It is a case of telling Him that we know better, a very proud and arrogant place to be.

Thanks be to God that He gave us His Word that we don’t have to be tossed to and fro by winds of men’s doctrines, but are able to latch on to an anchor for the soul, even to that final day.

Eric Blauer
10 years ago

John, I’m curious about your absence of a response to Thomas, he did say you were like Nazi Germany’s “good German”. You’ve got to have something to say to that indictment.

Eric Blauer
10 years ago

Well said John, no matter which side of the issue someone may fall upon, your words reflect a better way forward.

Dennis
Dennis
10 years ago

What gets me in this discussion is the underlying assumption that somehow the church belongs to us and we could do anything to destroy it. The church belongs to Jesus Christ. He said that He will build His church and the gates of hell cannot prevail against it. In Rev. Chapters 2&3 He states in no uncertain terms how he will deal with churches that turn away from Him. Every group that embraces as good and right the homosexual agenda HAS turned away from Him and will continue to exist as a human social organization only.

Lanora
10 years ago

It’s actually a great and useful piece of information. I’m
glad that you simply shared this useful information with us.
Please stay us informed like this. Thanks for sharing.

Tracy Simmons
Admin
10 years ago

I know Thomas and I knew he wasn’t comparing you to a Nazi. I hope you know that if anyone were calling you that, I would take the comment off the site!

Eric Blauer
10 years ago

I’ve been called “the good plantation owner” on this site in regards to the same issue. I think “the good German” is similarity inflammatory and purposefully polemic.

Laying at our feet dead Jews or dead Gays is a powerful apologetic to some but I reject the idea that by me opposing certain sexual acts of an individual, somehow makes me responsible for their private actions, ie suicide, bad self-esteem, drug use or whatever.

I use the same logic in my voting. I voted for individuals to have legal freedom to do what they will, but I don’t hold myself as somehow responsible or guilty for their personal lives.

So I reject culpability on both fronts in that line of reasoning, each is responsibility for their own lives before God and community.

Thomas Schmidt
10 years ago
Reply to  Eric Blauer

I may be wrong, Eric, but I think your thinking would allow me, in my position of having white male prerogatives and social power to not have added to my guilt the mistreatment of females if I happen to exercise that power. If by my action I dishonor someone and they, in their fragility, commit suicide, am I not also to blame? Am I reading you correctly? I am not replying against your good heart, but against the limited carrying out of the values in that heart. It is well known that many GLBTQ people, as well as Heteros, are such because of biology. We also know our biblical linguistics and anthropology much better, as well as the knowledge criteria of historical reconstruction of the past, and literary criticism of ancient sources. The scholarship is there and available, if we are concerned enough with the validity of our opinions and judgments to avail ourselves. If we in the churches cannot be responsible and make use of expert scholarship and fall back on argument from tradition, maybe we have forfeited our right to form an opinion on such a life and death subject, as it truly is. If I had to choose between accepting some high Christological dogma held by the orthodox, or harming one of the least, goodbye dogma.

Eric Blauer
10 years ago
Reply to  Thomas Schmidt

I’m not saying there isn’t any time when we may impact someone’s life for bad. I countering the tool of choice these days for silencing argument: “If your positions makes someone feel bad than its wrong”, I don’t buy it.

That’s not to say people should be ugly, or seek to hurt someone but truth does call many things good and bad, evil is real, sin is destructive and justice is true. Mercy and love and the fruit of the spirit all fit within that frame work too. Love does articulate evil and place boundaries.

I don’t agree with your choice of scholars and to propose that the issue is settled is playing loose with the facts in my study. Progressive biblical studies are unconvincing from all the angles you mention in my opinion.

Yes, there has been terrible abuse of various groups of people by society, both religious and atheist, and not just by white men. Racism, sexism, homophobia, basically all types of xenophobic behaviors fall on all humans. Women have been and are suffering all across the globe,though we have an amazing country that making more and more steps towards gender equality. But even still…babies are aborted by women, children are sexually abused by priests and pastors, female teachers are preying on young male students, homosexuals are brutalized in many cultures, female babies are abandoned or aborted in china, sex slavery is plaguing continents…it’s all being perpetrated by sinful people, both men and women.

As for sex sin, Genesis, Leviticus, Jesus and his teaching on marriage, Corinthians, Thessalonians, and especially Romans clearly lays out the biblical view of human sexuality as well as the brokenness of human appetites, particularly in matters of sexuality. History and anthropology tell the same story.

On and on, but I Know this is a ping pong game, so I’m not going to pretend that it’s a closed case for everyone here, obviously, I’m a vocal minority on this issue in this circle.

Thomas Schmidt
10 years ago
Reply to  Eric Blauer

Fair enough, Eric. I note that we do not disagree about treating all, whatever social station, as dignified and graceful. Our disagreement might come over tactics of working for change in discriminatory policies that fall short of that, and , majorly, over criteria of validity of argument. You are much more high Christological, and accept orthodoxy, than I. Several times you have put down contemporary biblical scholars and I don’t understand why. Another topic??? Briefly, if faced with a problem of the meaning of a passage, such as Paul’s (not Jesus’) comments about male sexuality and sin, both discussions relying on authority, and arguments based on linguistics and historical method are used. I pay attention to both, but will accept those based on expert linguistics and historical methods, supplemented with archeology and comparative literature, over and against those based on expert authority and tradition. Authority and tradition are valuable, but not over linguistic and historical scholarship. Take for instance the word Paul uses that is mistranslated as “homosexual”. I say mistranslated because the ancients in the time the early Christians were trying to keep their movements alive there was no well formed concept of homosexuality. The Greek term is used for “sexual deviancy”, but it also as often means “over sexed”, a use that explains for the reader of that time why a man might have sex with another man. As for the Leviticus passage, to “lay the lines of a woman” condemns a man who passively receives the seed from another man. That is wrong for the temple cult, who wrote the passage, because it was a waste of seed that might produce the messiah, an obvious violation of God’s plan at that time.

Perhaps my strongest reaction to your orthodox thinking is one of pity; I think you are missing out on a lot of the meaning, creativity, poetry, and excitement that expert scholarship brings to the surface. And, back to the topic about how to approach the church, I fear that if we don’t use our intellect (which does not exclude tradition) with intellectual integrity the church will be lost. Please, I am not saying you lack integrity, just that we all must be careful.

Eric Blauer
10 years ago
Reply to  Thomas Schmidt

Thomas,
I appreciate your engagement, I think my apologetic of the issue over my writing has been more than merely “putting down” contemporary scholarship, I just haven’t been convinced of the conclusions presented.

You said:
“I pay attention to both, but will accept those based on expert linguistics and historical methods, supplemented with archeology and comparative literature, over and against those based on expert authority and tradition.”

Ware you saying that there isn’t any modern scholarship based on the same evidence that comes to an opposing conclusion?

Have you read any or Robert Gagnon’s material: http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-Homosexual-Practice-Hermeneutics/dp/0687022797
I know he’s vehemently opposed by progressives and I’ve read the rebuttals but I still think he’s solid from my level of understanding.

N.T Wright’s short convo reflects my thoughts: http://youtu.be/YpQHGPGejKs

Your comments on pity and integrity imply that I don’t or can’t pull from opposing scholarship, I would say, that’s not true but I can reject it and be intellectually and historically within scholarly circles…just not the ones you may like or agree with 😉

Thomas Schmidt
10 years ago
Reply to  Eric Blauer

Eric, I’m surprised that one with your high intellectual caliber would accept the arguments of Gagnon or N.T. Wright. Both have good academic credentials, but both use dubious intellectual slights of reason in defending their heterophilic agendas. Gagnon believes in therapy that can change sexuality, and that homosexuality leads to pedophilia and unhealthy practices. He often uses the tactic of generalizing from some to conclusions about all. He cites only confirming studies and ignores, or deprecates disconfirming studies.You may see many Gagnon quotes at Here are a few :
“A second negative effect of societal endorsement of homosexuality has to do with the problem of pedophilia and its role in “recruiting” homosexuals into the fold. There can be little doubt that affirmation of a same-sex lifestyle will increase the incidence of pedophilic activity… .”
Gagnon believed that there Is “an Inherent deficiency in homosexual unions” which causes “scientifically measurable negative harm.” In a 2006 article on differing biblical views of homosexuality, Gagnon wrote: “There is thus an inherent deficiency in homosexual unions: the absence of a sexual counterpart to moderate the extremes of, and fill the gaps in, the distinctive features of one’s own sex. This deficiency is largely responsible for the disproportionately high rate of scientifically measurable, negative harm that attends homosexual activity, at different rates for homosexual males and homosexual females respectively. This includes higher rates of sexually transmitted disease (especially among homosexual males), higher rates of mental health problems (especially among homosexual females), higher numbers of sex partners lifetime (especially among homosexual males), shorter-term relationships (especially among homosexual females), and a higher correlation with adult-adolescent or adult-child sexual activity (among male homosexuals). Although proponents of homosexual unions attribute these higher rates exclusively, or nearly so, to societal homophobia, a significant causation factor is likely the distinctive excesses of each sex that are not moderated in same-sex unions. “[RobGagnon.net, 2/16/06] His argument ignores the majority of scientific studies that conclude the opposite. He also wrongly attributes the opposition to “proponents of homosexual unions” rather than “proponents of good science”.
Gagnon believed that Christian psychologists should encourage gay people to resist their same-sex attractions even if it causes them “distress.” While discussing “ex-gay” counseling in a 2005 article, Gagnon wrote: “Consistent with his Jewish Scriptures, Jesus considered sexual ethics to be a life-and-death matter. The incentive behind Jesus’ outreach was a loving sense of urgency about the possible exclusion of such sinners — persons who egregiously transgressed the will of God — from God’s coming kingdom. It was better to enter heaven maimed, through cutting off offending limbs (metaphorically speaking) than to be thrown into hell full-bodied.” Now, doesn’t that quote run wild with putting his own beliefs into Jesus’ mouth.

In a 2009 article about biblical teachings on homosexuality, Gagnon wrote, “[W]hereas race or ethnicity is a 100% heritable, absolutely immutable, and primarily non-behavioral condition, and so inherently benign, homosexual desire is an impulse and, like many impulses, it is not 100% heritable (there may be congenital influences but these are not absolutely deterministic), is open to some change (even if only, in some cases, a limited reduction in the intensity of impulses), is primarily behavioral (here for unnatural, i.e. structurally incompatible, sexual activity), and therefore is not inherently benign. “[RobGagnon.net,3/14/09, emphasis added]
In his 2002 book, “The Bible and Homosexual Practice,” Gagnon wrote: “A second negative effect of societal endorsement of homosexuality has to do with the problem of pedophilia and its role in “recruiting” homosexuals into the fold. There can be little doubt that affirmation of a same-sex lifestyle will increase the incidence of pedophilic activity… ”

N.T. Wright rests his homophobic case on argument from the authority of Christian tradition [which I’ve said was important but not in the least confirming]. He then rejects modern, Enlightened, evidence without understanding their procedures because it doesn’t agree with the authorities. Go figure. He is one of “the first” which Jesus said will be last.

I still feel sad when I think of someone with your heart and dedication relying on such poor scholarship.

Eric Blauer
10 years ago

Dennis,

Is embracing the homosexual and the homosexual agenda one and the same to you?

I take my cue on redemptive inclusivity from Jesus, he choose sinners even ones that he knew would continue to sin.

John 6:70
“Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him.

John 12:4-6
But Judas Iscariot, the disciple who would soon betray him, said, “That perfume was worth a year’s wages. It should have been sold and the money given to the poor.” Not that he cared for the poor—he was a thief, and since he was in charge of the disciples’ money, he often stole some for himself.”

If the pThe one who is Truth could choose and walk with a “son of the devil” than I’m sure we must wrestle even greater with how to receive one another in hope and grace with trust that God’s Spirit, Word and our love will change all of us…over time.

Many people say they “trust and believe” in Jesus but ultimately only Jesus really knows those who are his. In fact He’s not to inclined to put much trust in us anyway.

John 2:23-25
“Because of the miraculous signs Jesus did in Jerusalem at the Passover celebration, many began to trust in him. But Jesus didn’t trust them, because he knew human nature. No one needed to tell him what mankind is really like.”

Dennis
Dennis
10 years ago
Reply to  Eric Blauer

Hi Eric,

Long time since we’ve talked. No, of course there is a difference in embracing the homosexual and the agenda. That is exactly the question. Jesus never embraced the sin agenda even though He obviously was derided by the “religious” for hanging out with sinners. But to say that because He did that He was embracing homosexuality is a total re-invention of why He was willing to condescend to come into this world in the first place. It was to proclaim the truth, to destroy the works of the devil, to do the will of the Father. The Father was the One who sent the angels to rescue Lot before He totally destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

My problem comes from having a known sin be glossed over as non-sin, if I can call it that, and embrace as pastors, teachers and leaders in the church those who unquestionably and proudly hold out their sinful (as the Bible teaches) lifestyle as good, right and loving. It would be equivalent to having a brazen adulterer teaching and leading in the church. The NT teaches that members, for whatever sin they are presenting, be disciplined, even ex-communicated, if they will not humble themselves before the Lord, Himself, and repent and return to submission to righteous leadership.

To use Judas as an equivalent example to homosexuals in the church is confusing to me. God’s sovereign plan used Judas to accomplish His purposes, even though, yes, Judas was a devil. He never ceased to be one, and I believe he is suffering in hell right now for his actions, which proceeded out of a wickend, un-regenerate heart. These actions, whatever type of sin they might be, always, if they are a lifestyle practice, and not an occasional fall into sin, proceed from a lost, evil heart that if not replaced by a new heart from Christ, will result in eternal separation in hell. That’s what Jesus taught more than any other NT witness. My sin is no more acceptable than any homosexual’s sin, but I have confessed (agreed with God) that they are sin and have trusted in Jesus Christ that He paid for them and given me eternal life which I did not deserve. What the NT teaches that comes with that, however, is a new desire NOT to sin any more, of whatever kind of sin I was commiting. I’d like to discuss more later when I have more time. Blessings to you Eric.

Tracy Simmons
Admin
10 years ago

Eek, sorry I let that one slip Eric

Eric Blauer
10 years ago

Thomas,
Were those quotes from papers or books you’ve read or rebuttal quotes from opposing sources? Could you site them for me, so I could reference.

My reading of Gagnon has been in reference to his biblical scholarship, particularly the Hebrew/Greek words and culture matters you referenced. His view on therapy and modern sociological matters are outside my argument.

Nt Wright a poor scholar?…I don’t even know how to respond to that comment. If you truly feel that way, we are on different planets.

I’m afraid we will have just disagree on this conversation, obviously we see and ready things differently. Your point of reference is very different than mine for I do hold scripture as authoritative, as well as orthodox tradition.

Thomas Schmidt
10 years ago

I found many quotes attributed to Gagnon which he made in articles and speeches. You can find them at http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201206210002.

I do not think, myself, that Wright is completely intellectually honest, therefor I call him a poor scholar. His techniques of argument are loaded with attempts to present biased outcomes. He abuses or ignores historical methods. To call him a scholar for me boarders on calling someone who does not use good scientific methods a scientist. He juxtaposes what Jesus possibly said with what Paul, years after Jesus died as if Jesus said what Paul said. There is no indication, given how various schools of thought then were attributing beliefs, that Jesus said much of what Paul said. That needs to be stated clearly by a good scholar. Privileging one’s religious beliefs may be politics; it is not scholarship in my book.

Eric Blauer
10 years ago

Fair enough.

spot_img
31
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x