The latest news about the Special Committee to Study Issues of Civil Unions and Christian Marriage confirms what we already know: The church is divided on the issue.
http://www.pcusa.org/pcnews/2009/09807.htm
It appears that the special committee's preliminary report, which was supposed to come out soon, will include no recommendations -- meaning that there won't be much for us to study.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Class Notes for Week 2
Starting as close to 9:45 a.m. as possible, the class began with a very quick summary of the list of goals we hope to accomplish in the next few weeks and the values we hope to convey as we discuss such a divisive issue.
All attention then turned toward the first third of the documentary, “For the Bible Tells Me So.”
We were introduced to five families — the Robinsons, the Poteats, the Reitans, the Gephardts and the Wallners — who share several commonalities and multiple differences.
All the families are well-rooted in various Christian traditions — though predominately Protestant. And all the parents describe in detail their reaction when one of their teenage or adult children came out as either gay or lesbian — as well as their ongoing experiences coming to terms with what having a gay or lesbian child means to their family and their faith.
Three of the families, in fact, are closely connected with clergy. The Poteats are ministers in a predominately African-American church (their daughter Tonia came out to them while attending college), the Reitans have a number of Lutheran pastors in their extended family (their son Jake, who describes the family as being something out of a Garrison Keillor story, came out while still in high school) and the Robinsons are the parents of Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, who came out to the Robinsons when he and his wife decided to end their marriage. The back story for the Gephardts and Wallners hasn’t been fully told yet.
Between the details of how parents reacted to the news, the documentary presents the views of a number of theologians and pastors from different Christian and Jewish denominations who discussed the passages about homosexuality in Genesis (the sin of Onan) and Leviticus (the holiness code). Specifically, the discussion focused on the word “abomination,” in the Hebrew, referring to an act that is ritually unclean rather than an act that is inherently immoral. As one of the respondents explains, the holiness code says that it is an abomination to eat shrimp. That doesn’t mean that eating shrimp was inherently immoral, but it does mean it was ritually unclean.
The discussion in the film also turned to “procreation” as the purpose of marriage. As Tonia Poteat’s mother explains, “Adam and Steve and Eve and Jane can’t procreate.” The respondents explained that because the Israelites were building a nation, the act of procreation was of utmost importance to them. And homosexual behavior might have been singled out in the holiness codes in part because it did not help grow the nation.
The first section ended with Gene Robinson explaining the individual and couple therapies that he and his wife underwent until he finally owned up to what he was calling “the gay part of myself.” Robinson and his wife decided to have a ceremony in which they released each other from their vows, both pledging to continue to be good parents for their two daughters.
After the film, we split into groups of four or five people, introduced ourselves, and began sharing reactions to the film and to the other biblical passages assigned for class.
Some participants noted how surprised they were that there were so few passages in the bible that discussed homosexuality explicitly. Others were surprised at how widely the biblical translations ranged as to whether a passage explicitly singled out homosexuality or not.
Others noted how well chosen the families were in the documentary — all grounded in faith traditions, coming different generations, different parts of the country, different races and even different birth orders for the children who came out. (I reminded the class that they should pay attention to the rhetoric in which film’s message is being conveyed as much as to the message itself. Because the film tugs so well at the heart strings, its message needs to be analyzed all the more closely.)
Others challenged the films reading of the Holiness Codes — and especially the clip from the “West Wing” included in which the fictional president takes on a radio commentator by equating the biblical passages against homosexuality with passages allowing for a daughter to be sold into slavery and requiring the death of anyone who works on the Sabbath. The vast majority of the prohibited sexual relations listed in Leviticus — various definitions of incest and bestiality — continue to be prohibited (even abominable in the current sense of the words). While the film noted the elements of holiness code we no longer follow, it didn’t point out the elements that we do continue to follow.
All attention then turned toward the first third of the documentary, “For the Bible Tells Me So.”
We were introduced to five families — the Robinsons, the Poteats, the Reitans, the Gephardts and the Wallners — who share several commonalities and multiple differences.
All the families are well-rooted in various Christian traditions — though predominately Protestant. And all the parents describe in detail their reaction when one of their teenage or adult children came out as either gay or lesbian — as well as their ongoing experiences coming to terms with what having a gay or lesbian child means to their family and their faith.
Three of the families, in fact, are closely connected with clergy. The Poteats are ministers in a predominately African-American church (their daughter Tonia came out to them while attending college), the Reitans have a number of Lutheran pastors in their extended family (their son Jake, who describes the family as being something out of a Garrison Keillor story, came out while still in high school) and the Robinsons are the parents of Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, who came out to the Robinsons when he and his wife decided to end their marriage. The back story for the Gephardts and Wallners hasn’t been fully told yet.
Between the details of how parents reacted to the news, the documentary presents the views of a number of theologians and pastors from different Christian and Jewish denominations who discussed the passages about homosexuality in Genesis (the sin of Onan) and Leviticus (the holiness code). Specifically, the discussion focused on the word “abomination,” in the Hebrew, referring to an act that is ritually unclean rather than an act that is inherently immoral. As one of the respondents explains, the holiness code says that it is an abomination to eat shrimp. That doesn’t mean that eating shrimp was inherently immoral, but it does mean it was ritually unclean.
The discussion in the film also turned to “procreation” as the purpose of marriage. As Tonia Poteat’s mother explains, “Adam and Steve and Eve and Jane can’t procreate.” The respondents explained that because the Israelites were building a nation, the act of procreation was of utmost importance to them. And homosexual behavior might have been singled out in the holiness codes in part because it did not help grow the nation.
The first section ended with Gene Robinson explaining the individual and couple therapies that he and his wife underwent until he finally owned up to what he was calling “the gay part of myself.” Robinson and his wife decided to have a ceremony in which they released each other from their vows, both pledging to continue to be good parents for their two daughters.
After the film, we split into groups of four or five people, introduced ourselves, and began sharing reactions to the film and to the other biblical passages assigned for class.
Some participants noted how surprised they were that there were so few passages in the bible that discussed homosexuality explicitly. Others were surprised at how widely the biblical translations ranged as to whether a passage explicitly singled out homosexuality or not.
Others noted how well chosen the families were in the documentary — all grounded in faith traditions, coming different generations, different parts of the country, different races and even different birth orders for the children who came out. (I reminded the class that they should pay attention to the rhetoric in which film’s message is being conveyed as much as to the message itself. Because the film tugs so well at the heart strings, its message needs to be analyzed all the more closely.)
Others challenged the films reading of the Holiness Codes — and especially the clip from the “West Wing” included in which the fictional president takes on a radio commentator by equating the biblical passages against homosexuality with passages allowing for a daughter to be sold into slavery and requiring the death of anyone who works on the Sabbath. The vast majority of the prohibited sexual relations listed in Leviticus — various definitions of incest and bestiality — continue to be prohibited (even abominable in the current sense of the words). While the film noted the elements of holiness code we no longer follow, it didn’t point out the elements that we do continue to follow.
Letter from Ann Reppun
Ann Reppun
San Rafael, Calif.
Aug 16, 2009
Dear Session and Pastor,
My name is Ann Reppun and I was a member of St Andrew 1990-1996. Our daughter Emma, now 17, was baptized by Pastor Mark Martin. Associate Pastor Blake Richter concelebrated our wedding (my wife is Michelle Fouts) at the UCC church in Iowa City in 1996.When we moved, our membership was transferred to our local Presbyterian Church. I am currently the moderator of the Deacons board and I have been a Sunday school teacher for the last eight years. My wife has served as financial chair and clerk on Session. My wife and I were “re-married” to fulfill California State law last September by our Presbyterian Pastor. Over all these years I have received the Messenger and attend St. Andrew yearly when we are back visiting. I am including this personal history because I want you to know that it is possible to embrace gay members and have them fully involved in the life of the church.
We were in Iowa City last week and spent time with Michelle Wikner and Michelle Norman and their daughters. When asked, Michelle and Michelle said it has been a “long and hard summer.” They said they have cried daily since the Session had denied them the right to be married in church. “How could we have let ourselves be fooled into thinking that they would let us be married at our church?”
After reading your Special Report on Marriage Request there were two points I want to put before you for consideration:
First, my wife and I, like Wikner and Norman, grew up in the church. We were loved, nurtured and taught about God’s love for all His children. As teens we were in youth group. We were mentored through confirmation and encouraged to know the “Lord God as our personal Savior.” Each of us accepted Christ as our Lord and Savior. We came into young adulthood feeling like valued members of our church families. In college we reached sexual maturity. We realized that, as the American Medical Association defines it, we were part of a group with a “normal variation of human sexuality.” We realized we were gay.
Straight adults will never know how difficult this self realization is. Nor have they experienced the pain, the searing agony of lying awake at night as you try to make sense of this realization. In my coming out process, I struggled for months with the question “Why would God do this to me? Why would He make me this way?”
Most straight folks don’t spend time contemplating what it is like to come out first to yourself, then to your family and your church. The rejection is often fierce and with the church long lasting. In the spring you are a beloved member of your church. Six months later, after the news is shared, you are not. How is it that you are a child of God before sexual maturity and afterwards, you may be tolerated, but you may not serve on Session and we will not marry you.
You can love the Lord your God with all you heart and soul, — but you will never be allowed into the full communion of the church — because you are a part of the 10 percent of humankind who God made with this variation of human sexuality. Who would choose to be gay?
It is so unfair it makes me weep.
My second question is: When you rejected Wikner and Norman’s request for a traditional marriage ceremony, did you think about St Andrew’s witness to the Gay Community? There are youth growing up at St Andrew right now who will end up having to go through the coming out process in the future. What is your witness and message to them? If it is your son or daughter who wants to be married in the church they grew up in, will your answer be the same?
Here is the most important question: Is it important to you that they remain Christians when they hit sexual maturity and realize they are gay? Do you have any idea at all what it is like for Norman and Wikner to be out Christians in the gay community? The gay community is largely made up of children of God who grew up in the church. They were rejected, scorned and cast out by their churches when they hit sexual maturity. Can you imagine the flack Norman and Wikner get for raising their children in the church … the same church that has dished out so much rejection and pain.
As Norman and Wikner witness to their gay friends about their life in the church, they are scoffed at. Their friends question their trust in “the church” and their love for God. It reminds me of the original apostles out there doing Jesus’ work; they were scoffed at too. But Michelle and Michelle persist, reassuring their friends that “God loves everybody.” And “Jesus died for all people’s sins.”
It’s like you said in your report, “Their love of Christ and this church is obvious.” Who among the Session at St Andrew will now step up and fill Norman and Wikner’s place as evangelists to the Gay Community? Is it only straight harlots and straight beggars that Jesus welcomed into a full life in the church or did Jesus also intend that gay people should be welcome to participate in the full life of Christ’s church?
For 19 years I have sat in the pews at St Andrew. What I know to be true is that at St Andrew, if you are gay, you can sit in the pew but don’t expect to be on session. Joan Benson was asked to be on Session. When she said “Yes, but you know I’m gay.” the St. Andrew member said “Oh, gee sorry. I guess you can’t be on Session.” Can you even imagine the reinforced feeling of lasting rejection that a Christian feels after such an exchange? At St. Andrew, if you are gay, you can sit in the pew but don’t expect to have the bonds of marriage recognized. After all, God made us straight and you gay. It might be Christ’s church but because you are gay, you are just out of luck.
I started this letter with my personal history because I want you to know that it is possible to have gay people fully involved in the life of the church as my wife and I are. Human injustice can only be changed by brave people willing to stand up and say just that. “They are all children of God and we love them and treat them all the same.” Although the General Assembly is currently “investigating” a potential change in its wording to “between two people” Presbyterian churches all around are choosing to embrace the new wording. They are embracing justice for all of God’s children.
There are numerous youth at St. Andrew. This is only the first of many requests that St. Andrew will face. We hope with this difficult and emotional decision made, you will indeed find a reason to have an ongoing scripture-based, open-minded, respectful and loving dialog.
At this moment it is sad and it is illogical to think any of us will feel like valued members until we are valued equally before and after the age of sexual maturity.
Your sister in Christ,
Ann Reppun
San Rafael, Calif.
Aug 16, 2009
Dear Session and Pastor,
My name is Ann Reppun and I was a member of St Andrew 1990-1996. Our daughter Emma, now 17, was baptized by Pastor Mark Martin. Associate Pastor Blake Richter concelebrated our wedding (my wife is Michelle Fouts) at the UCC church in Iowa City in 1996.When we moved, our membership was transferred to our local Presbyterian Church. I am currently the moderator of the Deacons board and I have been a Sunday school teacher for the last eight years. My wife has served as financial chair and clerk on Session. My wife and I were “re-married” to fulfill California State law last September by our Presbyterian Pastor. Over all these years I have received the Messenger and attend St. Andrew yearly when we are back visiting. I am including this personal history because I want you to know that it is possible to embrace gay members and have them fully involved in the life of the church.
We were in Iowa City last week and spent time with Michelle Wikner and Michelle Norman and their daughters. When asked, Michelle and Michelle said it has been a “long and hard summer.” They said they have cried daily since the Session had denied them the right to be married in church. “How could we have let ourselves be fooled into thinking that they would let us be married at our church?”
After reading your Special Report on Marriage Request there were two points I want to put before you for consideration:
First, my wife and I, like Wikner and Norman, grew up in the church. We were loved, nurtured and taught about God’s love for all His children. As teens we were in youth group. We were mentored through confirmation and encouraged to know the “Lord God as our personal Savior.” Each of us accepted Christ as our Lord and Savior. We came into young adulthood feeling like valued members of our church families. In college we reached sexual maturity. We realized that, as the American Medical Association defines it, we were part of a group with a “normal variation of human sexuality.” We realized we were gay.
Straight adults will never know how difficult this self realization is. Nor have they experienced the pain, the searing agony of lying awake at night as you try to make sense of this realization. In my coming out process, I struggled for months with the question “Why would God do this to me? Why would He make me this way?”
Most straight folks don’t spend time contemplating what it is like to come out first to yourself, then to your family and your church. The rejection is often fierce and with the church long lasting. In the spring you are a beloved member of your church. Six months later, after the news is shared, you are not. How is it that you are a child of God before sexual maturity and afterwards, you may be tolerated, but you may not serve on Session and we will not marry you.
You can love the Lord your God with all you heart and soul, — but you will never be allowed into the full communion of the church — because you are a part of the 10 percent of humankind who God made with this variation of human sexuality. Who would choose to be gay?
It is so unfair it makes me weep.
My second question is: When you rejected Wikner and Norman’s request for a traditional marriage ceremony, did you think about St Andrew’s witness to the Gay Community? There are youth growing up at St Andrew right now who will end up having to go through the coming out process in the future. What is your witness and message to them? If it is your son or daughter who wants to be married in the church they grew up in, will your answer be the same?
Here is the most important question: Is it important to you that they remain Christians when they hit sexual maturity and realize they are gay? Do you have any idea at all what it is like for Norman and Wikner to be out Christians in the gay community? The gay community is largely made up of children of God who grew up in the church. They were rejected, scorned and cast out by their churches when they hit sexual maturity. Can you imagine the flack Norman and Wikner get for raising their children in the church … the same church that has dished out so much rejection and pain.
As Norman and Wikner witness to their gay friends about their life in the church, they are scoffed at. Their friends question their trust in “the church” and their love for God. It reminds me of the original apostles out there doing Jesus’ work; they were scoffed at too. But Michelle and Michelle persist, reassuring their friends that “God loves everybody.” And “Jesus died for all people’s sins.”
It’s like you said in your report, “Their love of Christ and this church is obvious.” Who among the Session at St Andrew will now step up and fill Norman and Wikner’s place as evangelists to the Gay Community? Is it only straight harlots and straight beggars that Jesus welcomed into a full life in the church or did Jesus also intend that gay people should be welcome to participate in the full life of Christ’s church?
For 19 years I have sat in the pews at St Andrew. What I know to be true is that at St Andrew, if you are gay, you can sit in the pew but don’t expect to be on session. Joan Benson was asked to be on Session. When she said “Yes, but you know I’m gay.” the St. Andrew member said “Oh, gee sorry. I guess you can’t be on Session.” Can you even imagine the reinforced feeling of lasting rejection that a Christian feels after such an exchange? At St. Andrew, if you are gay, you can sit in the pew but don’t expect to have the bonds of marriage recognized. After all, God made us straight and you gay. It might be Christ’s church but because you are gay, you are just out of luck.
I started this letter with my personal history because I want you to know that it is possible to have gay people fully involved in the life of the church as my wife and I are. Human injustice can only be changed by brave people willing to stand up and say just that. “They are all children of God and we love them and treat them all the same.” Although the General Assembly is currently “investigating” a potential change in its wording to “between two people” Presbyterian churches all around are choosing to embrace the new wording. They are embracing justice for all of God’s children.
There are numerous youth at St. Andrew. This is only the first of many requests that St. Andrew will face. We hope with this difficult and emotional decision made, you will indeed find a reason to have an ongoing scripture-based, open-minded, respectful and loving dialog.
At this moment it is sad and it is illogical to think any of us will feel like valued members until we are valued equally before and after the age of sexual maturity.
Your sister in Christ,
Ann Reppun
Quick guide to the biblical passages on homosexuality
Here’s a quick summary of the Traditional and More Light interpretation of the biblical passages that get used when discussing homosexuality. Please realize that these are simplified versions of larger arguments and that there is no monolithic interpretation of these passages for any side of this debate. Also, please realize that although I use the term “More Light,” these paragraphs are my summaries of various positions. They not pulled directly from any sources from the More Light Presbyterian movement.
Creation (Genesis 1-2)
Creation (Genesis 1-2)
Traditional: The passage says that “God created man in his own image … male and female he created them.” The male/female paring is part of the human creation and is symbolized in marriage. As the second chapter asserts, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” God’s command, “be fruitful and increase in number,” likewise asserts that procreation is one of the main purposes of marriage.
More Light: The creation story isn’t about defining sexuality or identifying sexual prohibitions. And — because it is not concerned with the questions that are being asked of it by traditionalists — neither does it suggest that procreation is a necessary purpose for marriage. Indeed, Chapter 2 seems to stress companionship as the main purpose of marriage — “It is not good for man to be alone.”
Traditional: Whatever other many sins get attributed to the people of
More Light: Ezekiel 16:49 is equally clear when it says that the sin of
Holiness Code (Leviticus 18 and 20)
Traditional: Leviticus 18 says, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable” — an “abomination” in the King James — and that “Everyone who does any of these detestable things, such persons must be cut off from their people.” Leviticus 20 likewise says, “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” Although some of the prohibitions outlined these chapters are no longer viewed as taboo, the vast majority of them are still part of Christian teaching — including prohibitions against incest and bestiality. Thus, the prohibitions against homosexual behavior can’t be dismissed away as easily as the “More Light” proponents would like to believe.
More Light: Among many limitations on sexual relations, Leviticus 18 also includes “Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period” — which seems an act that is ritually unclean rather than something inherently sinful. The commands for purity and non-defilement are so strong, in fact, that other holiness code passages focus on not combing two different fabrics or two different seeds. In this way, the prohibitions against homosexuality are viewed as taboo because they blur gender distinctions (and don’t allow the Israelites make a clean break from the idolatrous actions of their neighbors). Just as the dietary restrictions were removed with vision of Peter before he baptized Gentiles into the faith, homosexuality isn’t idolatrous or otherwise sinful in itself.
Sin of Onan (Genesis 38:1-10)
Traditional: The sin of Onan illustrates how much the early Israelites valued clear family lines and how much they valued the role of procreation in marriage. Onan was supposed to impregnate his late brother’s wife to ensure his brother’s line would continue. But Onan “spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother.” The Lord killed him for the act.
More Light: Onan’s story does illustrate the importance of procreation in ancient near east culture and suggests that the prohibitions against homosexual acts came because the Israelites needed to grow stronger by having more children. Onan’s sin, however, was also to deny his sister-in-law the opportunity to get pregnant and contribute to society in the only way possible for her.
Jesus on Divorce (Matthew 19:1-12)
Traditional: Jesus never dealt with the question of sexuality directly, but in his passage he reaffirms the male-female paring of the creation story: “‘Haven't you read,’ he replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh”? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.’” Jesus also stresses that God’s original purpose was that marriage would last and divorce would not be an option.
More Light: For decades, churches have been dealing with this passage in terms of approving re-marriages for divorced members as well as ordaining ministers on their second marriages. It would be easy enough to say that similar grace should be granted to homosexuals in committed relationships. But Jesus’s own statements on alternative sexuality (eunuchs), familial obligations (especially to his mother and brothers) and discussion of post-resurrection marriages (where there won’t be any) further complicate any discussion of his statements here.
Against Nature (Romans 1-2)
Traditional: This is the most damning passage because, in describing the general depravity of human beings who have turned away from God, Paul says, “Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.” Even if the
More Light: In the very next chapter, Paul turns to discuss how the Christian faith moves beyond the strictures of the law outlined in chapter 1. In expanding the gospel to include the uncircumcised, Paul shows how the early church decided that God didn’t require Gentiles to become Jews in order to embrace the gospel and to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit: “If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised?”
Excluded from Kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)
Traditional: The passage lists “male prostitutes” and “homosexual offenders” among other sinners who will not inherit the
More Light: The exact meanings of the Greek words translated “male prostitutes” and “homosexual offenders” are under dispute. In “The Message” Eugene Peterson translates the list as, “Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it.” Paul was focused on men who offered themselves, for money, in the service of pagan gods. He was not talking about same-sex couples in monogamous, loving relationships who are actively seeking after Christ.
Traditional interpretation of passages on homosexuality
I'm still working on the summary for yesterday's class. In the meantime, here's a link one of the class members sent me providing a longer, traditional readings the relevant biblical passages than what we discussed in class.
http://bible.org/seriespage/all-heaven-allows-homosexuality-and-meaning-love
http://bible.org/seriespage/all-heaven-allows-homosexuality-and-meaning-love
Friday, September 18, 2009
My own biases
Some St. Andrew members recently challenged the wording of one my discussion questions for Week 2. The question asked, “In general, what biblical passages do you have trouble reading because they seem completely at odds with what you consider a modern understanding of science, philosophy, psychology and culture?” They thought the wording betrayed my bias on the subject and risked expanding a rift in the congregation into an impassable gulf.
I’m giving a lengthy answer to that challenge because it’s completely on target. I do come to this issue with a bias, and I’m not trying to hide it. I’d rather own up to it as a way of helping to make room for alternative viewpoints as we discuss this potentially divisive issue. That’s one of the reasons I’ve been working with Pastors Kyle Otterbein and Bob David as this class has been taking shape. And as we facilitate this discussion, I'll also draw on my experiences teaching rhetoric students at the University of Iowa how to map various controversies – how to identify the stakeholders and summarize the various positions before beginning to advocate.
I’ve been thinking about this issue seriously for at least 15 years – ever since I was a 23-year-old youth pastor who tacitly (if not actively) agreed with my senior pastor’s decision to fire an office manager who was just suspected of being homosexual. In that time, I’ve revised my views on this issue. When I joined St. Andrew 11 years ago, I thought of it as fairly liberal congregation, one that was open and affirming in its acceptance of gay and lesbian members. It was a congregation I felt comfortable in, one I thought would challenge my faith and one that I thought I could grow with. And this summer it became clear to me that the spiritual path St. Andrew has allowed me to walk – including my time on session (1999-2002) and the Adult Education classes I’ve been allowed to teach – has led me to question whether the automatic denunciation of homosexuality I learned as a child is a cultural interpretation that’s been added on to the gospel rather than part of the core message of Christianity. (It’s an issue many members of my family will disagree with me on.)
So, I am very interested in figuring out how the church should separate itself from cultural issues that have nothing to do with the core message of the gospel. That’s why I think the discussion question is one we need to ask and answer. There are many passages that have nothing to do with homosexuality but are still very troubling to for 21st-century, American Christians to read: passages dealing with slavery, divine right of kings, racial superiority, polygamy, subjugation of women, holy war, walking away from familial obligations, dietary restrictions, etc. (and that’s only the New Testament).
I would like to hear more about how our church should decide what elements of our faith are culturally determined (and thus open to change and reinterpretation) and what elements constitute the core message of the gospel (and thus are worthy our full obedience and sacrifice). And as we have that discussion, if you think I am using language that is dismissive or betrays my biases, please feel free to call me on it.
This is probably a good time to say that the comment features are active on this site. I’ve set them so that a site administrator has to approve every comment before it goes live, but I’m only doing that to make sure that the site doesn’t get hijacked by people not connected with St. Andrew who want to use this discussion for their own purposes.
I’m giving a lengthy answer to that challenge because it’s completely on target. I do come to this issue with a bias, and I’m not trying to hide it. I’d rather own up to it as a way of helping to make room for alternative viewpoints as we discuss this potentially divisive issue. That’s one of the reasons I’ve been working with Pastors Kyle Otterbein and Bob David as this class has been taking shape. And as we facilitate this discussion, I'll also draw on my experiences teaching rhetoric students at the University of Iowa how to map various controversies – how to identify the stakeholders and summarize the various positions before beginning to advocate.
I’ve been thinking about this issue seriously for at least 15 years – ever since I was a 23-year-old youth pastor who tacitly (if not actively) agreed with my senior pastor’s decision to fire an office manager who was just suspected of being homosexual. In that time, I’ve revised my views on this issue. When I joined St. Andrew 11 years ago, I thought of it as fairly liberal congregation, one that was open and affirming in its acceptance of gay and lesbian members. It was a congregation I felt comfortable in, one I thought would challenge my faith and one that I thought I could grow with. And this summer it became clear to me that the spiritual path St. Andrew has allowed me to walk – including my time on session (1999-2002) and the Adult Education classes I’ve been allowed to teach – has led me to question whether the automatic denunciation of homosexuality I learned as a child is a cultural interpretation that’s been added on to the gospel rather than part of the core message of Christianity. (It’s an issue many members of my family will disagree with me on.)
So, I am very interested in figuring out how the church should separate itself from cultural issues that have nothing to do with the core message of the gospel. That’s why I think the discussion question is one we need to ask and answer. There are many passages that have nothing to do with homosexuality but are still very troubling to for 21st-century, American Christians to read: passages dealing with slavery, divine right of kings, racial superiority, polygamy, subjugation of women, holy war, walking away from familial obligations, dietary restrictions, etc. (and that’s only the New Testament).
I would like to hear more about how our church should decide what elements of our faith are culturally determined (and thus open to change and reinterpretation) and what elements constitute the core message of the gospel (and thus are worthy our full obedience and sacrifice). And as we have that discussion, if you think I am using language that is dismissive or betrays my biases, please feel free to call me on it.
This is probably a good time to say that the comment features are active on this site. I’ve set them so that a site administrator has to approve every comment before it goes live, but I’m only doing that to make sure that the site doesn’t get hijacked by people not connected with St. Andrew who want to use this discussion for their own purposes.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Discussion Questions for Weeks 2 and 3
Read through the biblical passages most often cited in discussions of homosexuality:
- Creation (Genesis 1-2)
- Holiness Code (Leviticus 18 and 20)
- Sin of Onan (Genesis 38:1-10)
- Jesus on Divorce (Matthew 19:1-12)
- Against Nature (Romans 1-2)
- Excluded from the Kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)
- Before reading the passages above for this class, how familiar were you with them? How often have you heard them cited? And what did you notice different about them upon your reading this time that you might not have noticed before?
- In general, what biblical passages do you have trouble applying to your own life for whatever reason?
- In general, what biblical passages do you have trouble reading because they seem completely at odds with what you consider a modern understanding of science, philosophy, psychology and culture?
- What is/are the purpose(s) of marriage? Where does “procreation” rank on that list?
- How have you and your family members reacted to news that someone close to you has come out as gay or lesbian?
- How much autonomy should a local congregation have when it comes to setting standards for ordinance and marriage? How comfortable would you belonging to a congregation or a denomination whose stances on these issues differed from your own?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
