Now I knew that when I posted the 'fruity' thoughts that I would be treading where some might fear to tread, but also know that unless we dialogue and understand how others would deal with an issue then we have no comparatives or remedies against our own methods of engagement. After all, the object is not to be prescriptive but to engage in a dialectical discourse. Seems this goal might be achieved.
An area for a later revisit surrounds the issue of homosexuality being a choice, but that's for another time.
What is interesting is that I, like all pastors, clergy, ministers of leaders represent the communities they serve (and are themselves part of). This raises an interesting point, made thus:
"Whether this man and his partner would be welcome in the building depends not only on you but the reaction of other members of the church community. How do you go about ensuring that any welcome you personally may give is as widespread as possible within your congregation?"
This is an extremely valid question and one which I feel may be different from congregation to congregation. One congregation I know would be split into three distinct groups, those vehemently opposed, those passionately for and a larger muddied and either ambivalent or even apathetic centre.
There is a potential issue always lurking in the background in that what the dog-collar believes or promotes has the potential to be at variance with the congregation (and of course, vice vera) and I think that this is best dealt with by transparency and by cross-fertilisation between dog-collar and congregation. My goal is to lead the people such that they grow as disciples and that we have the same DNA as me. My opinions and ideas are tempered, developed and matured by the people I seek to serve. If it works as it should then we have the unity that Church should be. The journey to this requires loads of listening and dialogue. It needs loads of respect and tolerance, especially with some of the tosh that is thrown up (often from the dog-collar as well as the members!) and loads of prayer, study, teaching and love. If we did this locally, nationally and globally we would find that even though we had areas of difference, we could at least share where we can and not act so awfully where we can't.
It's about respect, love, looking and being like Jesus and celebrating Christ in the other person.
I hope that makes sense and perhaps takes us forward a bit. It's not easy, but it is doable.
Moving on, we have:
"I am unsure how widely this aspect has been thought through, but I am aware of differing views in my own parish. Unfortunately, there is no half-way house here. It seems to me that we need to welcome all, without judgment and allow them to be Christians in the light of Christ.
I don't believe that anyone is asked to agree with another's lifestyle or sexual orientation, rather to accept people for who they are. It just seems wrong to me to condemn or to turn away anyone who comes to the Lord's house."
The answer is that it has been quite widely thought through but my attitude is to be always willing to consider and think through more than I have! Dialogue with me!
I don't want a half-way house. I don't think the 'Let's just agree to differ' approach does anything except fuel schism and dissent and worse still, the awful distrust that so debilitates the Anglican Communion as it stands today. Christ died for all and therefore all may come to Him. Anyone who calls themselves Christian and restricts God's grace to the few that they consider to be acceptable choose only those who are acceptable to them, choosing to speak for God. My approach has to be what does the Bible say (in the light of the 39 Articles perhaps as clarification of our doctrinal bits) about the situation?
The difficulty comes when we start to engage with others and find that they have an area which denies that which God commands. The pain is that for so many this is about sexual sin and homosexuality in particular, but of course (as I keep saying) this is not the defining issue. We are concerned with sin it all its poverty and undermining glory!
I would have to take a differing view in that those who are not against something may very quickly find themselves consider to be for it! That I oppose a number of things in the lives of those in, as an example, the fellowship I am a member of, is only to be expected. That one of those with whom I have problems is me should be a certainty and my greatest area of conflict. Sadly this is not always the case, splinters and beams! We need to engage in relationship with those around us. If we do this then we see people who sin rather that sin with people attached.
the key comes in that it is the enemy (the devil, satan, whatever you'd like to call him) who is the accuser of the brethren. It is he who condemns and therefore is we do the same can we claim to be children of the light? Don't think so!
Regardless, I don't think I could turn away someone because of what they'd done (I've included paedophiles and others elsewhere despite criticism) because sin is merely a binary state, '1' or '0' and we all have the switch set to '1'!
I am in a very blessed and wonderful position in that we are a small fellowship (phone box almost full now) and we are a close-knit family. I know this is not the same for others - but I am only speaking from where I am and will benefit from hearing the accounts, and views, of others in disimilar situation and realities.
That's the first couple engaged with. I'm (obviously) not an expert, merely someone trying to dialogue and also stimulate some of the people I engage with outside of cyberworld to challenge their thinking with regard to pastoral engagements and personal opinions.
Thanks to RevSimmy and UKViewer for helping me move the dialogue forward.
Pax
(more soon)
10 comments:
Vic, thank you for your thoughts.
I suppose that like many others, I have been a victim of my upbringing in the RC Church, then with a major part of my life being spent in the Services, which culturally until pretty recently were very black and white about sexual orientation.
Thankfully that changed in the 1990's and now, LGBT people are accepted exactly for what and who they are. The criteria being 'the best person for the job' rather than meeting a number of discriminatory conditions.
I found myself being really enlightened about a whole range of discriminatory issues, when formally trained in Equality and Diversity at the RMCS, and went on to be an Advisor and Champion on these areas.
This training and experience became even more relevant when I returned to the Church and strove to understand and become familiar with the Churches doctrine/policy on human sexuality (which I was required to agree to when starting the discernment process for ordination).
The policy requires clergy, if entering a civil partnership to give assurances of celibacy, while it is regarded as to intrusive into the lives of laypeople to give the same assurances.
This sounds very much like having your cake and eating it. What is source for the goose,is not sauce for the gander!
Off course the policy also covers conduct of sex outside marriage between hetrosexual clergy and laypeople as well, so it is consistent at least in that.
The dilemma over human sexuality and gender issues are ones that the ABC has indicated are ones of second order, compared to the real issues facing us. But it must be a real and immediate one for the Vicar presented with the issue at the drop of a hat.
The way each Vicar and congregation deals with it, will differ, but I am sure that we cannot afford to bury our head in the sand and hope that it will go away.
The message perhaps is that ongoing and open debate is needed to both inform and to overcome prejudice. As you have said, we all start from the point of being sinners and I most certainly, will not be the first to have changed their view, inspired by what I have experienced in life and as I have grown as a Christian.
I too did the EDA course at RMCS and still function as quad-service EDA role and so understand where you're coming from in terms of training and experience.
I think that there are standards which need to be expected from clergy but also think the fudge that brought this situation into being brought more problems than it ever solved!
We reap the benefits of the pointyheads and other grown-up not having the balls to make a definite stand all those years back.
And it's obviously not an'agree to differ' area for anyone.
Thanks for comments - I've had a few say that we should just ignore and move on with some areas (this being one of them) rather than seek to engage and dialogue. Don't see this as being right and so we will continue.
Pax.
Re the homosexuality as 'choice' nonsense: I am old enough to remember when homosexuality was routinely denounced from the pulpit, the tabloid press, the medical establishment and the judiciary, when queer bashing was ignored by the police and young gay people were bullied at school and regularly disowned by their families. Why anyone imagines that one might choose to undergo such treatment is beyond me. The choice is between silence and celibacy, or the only kind of sex life that can actually fulfill you. Things are immeasurably better these days than they were even twenty years ago, because so many homosexuals from the fifties onwards had decided they wouldn't put up with being treated as lesser beings, and they worked hard to chang perceptions. No thanks to Christianity. I'd tell your two gay men to drop you like a hot brick.
VS (I like that, 'Turn Quickly!')
Thank you for your observations (although you've gone of a bit prematurely regarding 'choice')
Seems like you've seen some of the bad times when homosexuality was regarded as both an aberration and counter-cultural and responded to in wrong ways. Never to be condoned or supported.
The jury is still out regarding choice as far as I am concerned, but I have to say that I fear that they will discover a 'gay gene' (other than Robinson) because being such a minority sport it will then start people looking for a cure, which would be a bad place to be or have!
It seem to me that just as "the homosexuals of the fifties onwards had decided they wouldn't put up with being treated as lesser beings, and they worked hard to chang perceptions," so now (in the same way) must the Christians act also!
I'm sorry that you can't thank Christianity, but that's your choice and as for the two gay men, I still see one (only seen the other once or twice in total) and he engages and actually comes across when he sees me to dialogue. We appear to be perhaps a little more something or other than you might be advocating.
Perhaps it's merely 'Christian'.
Be careful with the hot brick and thank you for your comments which are always considered and never discounted out of hand.
Have a good weekend.
Efharisto!
Well, I wasn't actually around in the fifties, cannot claim to be so venerable. Born 1959, so I hardly count - but I am grateful to the people who started the whole movement for openness back then.
'Minority sport' quotha! Now that is unbearably patronising, Vic. You are talking about a psychological constellation that is of profound emotional, sexual and intellectual importance to a very large number of human beings, so let's not trivialise it. Would you say heterosexuality was a 'sport'? The actual bonking bit might be characterised as sport, and I would not object, but there's more to a sexual orientation than bonking - a great deal more.
Am curious as to how christians 'loved and supported' those who are 'sexually excluded'. After all, one could believe oneself sexually excluded only by taking Christian ideas of sexuality as a standard. Who needed your love and support and what form did that take? Welcoming penitents?
VS, sorry about the age thing, assumed you were quoting from experience (thanks for the clarification) and sorry you found the 'minority sport' patronising, it wasn't meant to be, it's just an expression I use to denote that whatever it is referring to is neither mainstream or majority and truly wasn't meant to trivialise. I often use it to classify some of the things I'm into and so don't see it that way (but communication is not, as they say, intent). Please accept my apology on that.
As for your curiosity, I'd love to tell you about some of the groups I have been involved with, many of whose members were excluded and acted against by mainstream secular society (where they were to be found).
The first way we supported was to create a safe environment where people could be honest and find themselves accepted. We helped some of the people who were struggling and helped many through what these days is called 'transition'.
I would always welcome a penitent but many of those I engaged with were not that, but were excluded, were marginalised and, as per your fifties reference, subject to some vile treatment.
We stood with them and because of this we were also attacked by some, but these were merely people waiting for Fred Phelps to come along and justify them.
As I keep saying, the key is to seek places where we can see jesus in others and to celebrate where we can, not seek the places where we might attack.
Hopefully this will catch on with those both sides of the line.
Thanks for your comments, and again, sorry for any offence caused.
pax
Your the victim of your own folly with this thread - should have merely answered no and walked away.
I might be up against it but to have merely said 'No' and walked away would be to dismiss the man and to deny my Christian faith.
If I cannot engage and show some respect then how can I claim to be a disciple? What would Jesus have don?
Sorry, I think you're wrong (but thank you for your comment, all grist to the mill!).
Pax
If you were gay then your in denial.
If you haven't been you don't have the right to comment.
If you are gay then everything and everyone is against you and you need to be assumed to be more than equal.
you are casting pearls and wasting your time and acting wrongly with your attempts to "dialogue" - what does the bible say in 1 Corinthians five?
I will continue to dialogue with some people but in a less public forum and perhaps where words are heard rather than read.
I will continue to be open to those with whom I differ and contend and hopefully I will meet some who will teach me, and perhaps also learn as well.
To reject without engagement is something I will leave to others, even if it might be a less painful way forward.
Don't think I heard it was an easy path we're following Him along.
Pax
Post a Comment