Here I conclude my argument that the church’s traditional
position on homosexuality is not only unwarranted and not supported by Scripture and
theology, but is oppressive, not only within the church but by extension, in
society at large, contributing to all manner of rejection, discrimination, and violence. In what follows, I argue that the interconnected web of our
beliefs, supported as it were by core teachings and principles which must hold
up the rest, requires us to reevaluate our oppressive stance against individuals thus
excluded.
Ultimately, religious commitment is faith based, a special kind of choice which is all encompassing. In fact, the commitment of faith is an
unending series of choices, temporally (in the succession of our days). Within the content of our belief, likewise, there is an interconnected web of choices and commitments that hold together, some more central, some more peripheral,
some more rigid, some more flexible.
As a basis for our beliefs we find
scriptural support, support from the teaching and tradition of the church, and support from our own experience, usually in that order (at least in the received model of
Christian orthodoxy). For the scriptural component, we must employ an
interpretive heuristic to determine the order of priority of the various
individual Scriptures and parts of Scripture to make sense of the whole.
For the scriptural component of our beliefs, we must employ an interpretive heuristic to determine the order of priority of the various Scripture to make sense of the whole.
For those parts that are more well attested and more
central to our web of beliefs due to their proximity, for example, to the life
and teaching of Jesus, there is more commitment, more investment, and less willingness to
deviate. Along with these core beliefs, there are areas that are less well
attested and more debatable, to use a
term of art in theological discussion.
We hold essential truths and doctrines, such as the God the
Creator who is holy and righteous, God as Trinity – Father, Son, Holy Spirit;
placing our faith in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as our
divine/human savior offering forgiveness, redemption and restoration and a life
of divine purpose, serving as a model of righteousness, mercy, and compassion that
should define human relationships, and affirming the centrality of agape love,
honesty, integrity, faithfulness, generosity and going on from there.
There are debatable issues and related beliefs such as
the content and style of liturgy and worship, forms of baptism, ecclesiastical
structure, questions of calendars and schedules and strategies of ministry and
mission. There is a spectrum from essential to debatable. As long as religion
has had intellectual content, there has been disagreement. It is the nature of
the thing. Certainly, theological debate was one of the main plot lines of the
entire New Testament, even within Jesus’ ministry. The religious authorities
were constantly challenging Jesus on his teaching and theology, and in fact, he
was constantly challenging them.
When evaluating the
relative placement of an issue on this spectrum, we must consider the relation
to the most fundamental principles (righteousness, justice, love, mercy,
faithfulness), the most core biblical teachings (Ten Commandments, teachings and actions of Jesus, the preaching of the prophets, and the teaching of the apostles - that which is clear and timeless, not obscure and culturally specific).
In our interpretation and application of these beliefs, we must consider the impact on individual lives. Do we offer hope or despair? Do we bind (create bondage) or release (create freedom)? Do we heal or do we traumatize? Do we affirm the person or deny the person, and in either case, based on what do we affirm the person, based on what do we deny the person? Do we create light around the truth or do we obscure by our own wisdom, our own preferences, our own traditions?
In our interpretation and application of these beliefs, we must consider the impact on individual lives. Do we offer hope or despair? Do we bind (create bondage) or release (create freedom)? Do we heal or do we traumatize? Do we affirm the person or deny the person, and in either case, based on what do we affirm the person, based on what do we deny the person? Do we create light around the truth or do we obscure by our own wisdom, our own preferences, our own traditions?
Do we want to make ourselves the personal gatekeepers
whereby we would say to Jesus, “I am compelled to hold this door of the
church closed because of my personal theological convictions.”
I submit to you that
the general theme of Jesus' resolution of theological debate was to favor the
affirmation and redemption of the person over the technicalities of theological
correctness. Note that I did not say Jesus affirmed people in their sin or
self-destruction, but he consistently refused to resolve theological debates at
the expense of people, unless it was at the expense of the religious leaders in
their tendency either to condemn people, leave them in their state of ill-health
at the expense of doctrine, or in their attempt to push Jesus himself into a
theological corner.
For what sake or whose sake are you willing to be wrong on a point of debatable doctrine?
Given our need to grapple with debatable issues, at some
point we must ask the question: For what sake or whose sake are you willing to
be wrong on a point of debatable doctrine? When we “meet our Maker,” as the
saying goes, what doctrines will you be willing to post on the church house
door to the exclusion of one whom God loves, or in sacrifice of what doctrine
will you be willing to say to God ... "I chose to open that door at the risk
of possibly being wrong."
To grapple with this necessary question, we must come to
terms with our approach to the Bible. In technical theological terms, we must
determine our “canon within the canon.” We must determine where be begin in the
task of interpreting the Bible. Some attempt to hold that all of Scripture is
equally authoritative. Logically, as
well as practically, such cannot be the case. All of the Bible is not
equally authoritative. For me, I begin with Jesus’ teachings and actions
(basically the gospels) including, of course the two great commandments, above
all, to love God and to love others, then the New Testament in general,
interpreted in historical context, and from there, the Ten Commandments, the
moral / spiritual admonitions of the prophets, taken in historical context, and
the narrative import of the rest of the Old Testament, and the wisdom of the
“writings” (wisdom literature). This priority of Scriptural interpretation,
along with the required component of historical context, significantly
conditions a great deal of the biblical content.
This complex interpretive task requires of each of us that
we make faith choices in our spiritual affirmations, doctrines, ethical principles and systems that we apply in our communities and social
relationships.
We must bear in mind that insofar as our beliefs and commitments affect others in increasing circles of relationship extending beyond our own families and faith congregations, that love, grace, and humility should prevail, and we should be very circumspect in our human tendency to judge and exclude others under the auspices of a Christian ethic.
I offer the words of Jesus in Matthew, chapter 22 and 23 for
your consideration. There Jesus silenced the leading religious teachers who
repeatedly tried to trap him in contradictions of the religious law. The
debates and challenges were brought to an end as Jesus emphasized the priority
of the two great commandments which, in his words, “On these two commandments
depend the whole of the Law and the Prophets.” Thereafter Jesus offered a
warning to the religious leaders in the form of seven “woes” (note that in a 7
line poem, the middle verse usually most important)
“(1) Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because
you shut off the kingdom of heaven from men; for you do not enter in
yourselves, nor to you allow those who are entering to go in…(2) You travel
about on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make
him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves… (3) You say ‘whoever swears by
the temple that is nothing, but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is
obligated’ … (4) You tithe mint and dill
and cumin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law; justice and
mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without
neglecting the others… (5) You clean the outside of the cup and of the
dish, but inside you are full of robbery and self-indulgence… (6) You are like whitewashed tombs which on
the outside appear beautiful, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all
uncleanness… (7) You build the tombs of the prophets an adorn the monuments of
the righteous, and say ‘If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we
would not have been partners with them in scheduling the blood of the
prophets.’ Consequently, you bear witness against yourselves, that you are sons
of those who murdered the prophets.”
I say again, in the case of rejecting and excluding others
from full participation in the community and in the church, for the sake of
love, are you willing to consider that you may be wrong? Or alternatively, for whose
sake are you willing to be wrong?