I encounter a great many problems with 'unity' when it comes to homosexuality and so the point for discussion (by posted comments perhaps rather than emails, although they are welcome) is:
"We will seek unity in our fellowships and make every effort to keep the bond of peace. We pray for the Holy Spirit to highlight areas of weakness, criticism and self-sabotage and we will deal with these promptly, prayerfully and with humility."
Before I try to post my position I think it might be helpful to consider the many positions (not definitive, just a quick splurge off the top of my head) that assault me with regard to 'unity' (and I have many - but mustn't digress) with regard to this topic:
Don't Tell Me
I struggle with those who are happy to fellowship with anyone as long as they know nothing about them or their situation. 'Don't tell' is such a hypocritical place to reside for it permits people to do whatever they like as long as no one finds out! What this means is that they are not happy to fellowship and worse still are happy to permit whatever it is that they don't know as long as they don't know.
The Defining Sin
In many areas, not just the one 'middle ground' is concerned with, there are people who wish to portray an act, theology, lifestyle or attitude as being in possession of, or making incarnate, the 'defining sin'. For some this is being homosexual, for others it is not being homosexual (the sad attitude that considers heterosexuality to be in some way homophobic). What is strange that in every encounter that I can recall with the 'defining sin' brigade they are always more concerned (of gleefully) with the sin of those they condemn than they are with their own shortcomings and double-standards.
Let Me Tell You Everything
The wonderful people who push whatever it is into the light to confront those who they consider oppose their lifestyle choices. The problem is that if one wants to make an issue of something then they really shouldn't be uptight when it becomes an issue! Not only that but it brings about a nasty knee-jerk reaction from the 'don't tell' types and so the battle is really engaged - but peace is never sued for.
Let's All Just Be Happy!
This is the one that drives me bonkers in that I am told that we just need to be happy! One person recently told me that we, "Need to put down our old attitudes and silly divisions that the Bible causes and just love everyone and have a church that is happy!" My problem is that happiness and obedience are two words that go together (obedience begets happiness and vv) and that to assume we can remove the hallmarks of orthodoxy, Stand upon 'The Truth' or revise what the Bible says to support a view so that both sides can condemn others (as so many 'orthodox' and 'liberals' do - there is no monopoly held here by either side it seems) is bonkers.
We should all be happy and this happiness comes from relationship with God through Christ; Through seeing the image of the invisible God made visible in the form of a brother or sister (and that's regardless of who they are, what they think, what they believe or how they live - with the caveat that there are times when we need also to 'restore gently' those who we see caught up in sin).
That'll do for now (there are more but tea is drunk, office is said and 09:00 is fast approaching) and so my views:
We must always seek to live as Church (universal) in a place of peace and concord and this means that we can't expel some without first looking at the beam in our own eyes or without seeing, and acknowledging, the places that we fall short. Unity is not being silent about differences and is not served by the trite utterance of those awful words, "Let's just agree to differ!"
In John 17: 20-23, we find the words:
"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."
Unity is essential if we are to take the Gospel out into the world and have them believe that Jesus is the Christ. Our unity is essential for those who do not believe, it is the remedy for ALL the world's ills and is the path by which others will come.
Unity only works if we are honest with one another. Whatever the relationship, dishonesty undermines and destroys it and Church is no different. The problem here is that pointing out that one doesn't share a viewpoint, doesn't choose to act in a certain way or believe what another believes is so often taken by the other party as a criticism and this is not always because of the way the difference is stated. We need to state our differences in love and look to dialogue and understand where the bumps in the road to peaceful living might be. It could be that some parts of the road just need to be subject to a detour or cones off, but this is the last resort.
Unity is not sitting in a room being shouted at or abused in the hope that eventually the other party will capitulate and surrender (seen that on both sides of the homosexuality 'debate') and neither will it come from the assigning of labels and attempts at humiliating or engaging in the game of 'ad hominem' to defeat the other party. It will not come from dialogue where one party shouts and then sticks their fingers in their ears whilst the other side has a turn (which is pretty much my experience I'm sad to say!).
Unity is reading the Word with the hermeneutic firmly fixed, understanding the context and bringing it with you to the writings of other, not always comfortable or agreed with, authors (best kind - not much fun reading stuff you agree with!). It is taking this and trying rationally to work within our own experience, feelings and situation with love always a forethought and obedience always our guide.
That's what unity is (phone call says 09:15 pick up - so have enjoyed an extra few minutes - hope you will!).
And me? I'm flawed, fallen and struggle with my daily walk on a daily basis. I can do nothing without looking to the grace of God and the indwelling of His Holy Spirit as I try to live out the life won for me by Christ on the Cross.
I pray that this is the same of others and that we will, in unity come to that great day when Christ returns and takes us home to be His Bride - spotless and without blemish or separation.
Pax
17 comments:
Vic: A long post which says a lot at the same as not saying very much, but I'm delighted that you recognise the need for dialogue.
Evangelicals are by no means agreed or at unity on this issue - many now recognising that the bible does not speak with one voice about this issue when you actually analyse it, and was speaking into very specific circumstances when it did speak about it.
I'd also like you to be more specific about your phrase 'that there are times when we need also to 'restore gently' those who we see caught up in sin'. Given that evangelicals (let alone any of the other 'tribes')differ about this issue, how do you determine what is sin, and how do you restore them? Do you offer communion to the committed gay couple who come to your church? Or do you deny them?
Gosh - no pleasing some is there vicar?
Thought you stated your position and the position of others really well.
As for the questions -what a lot of them LOL
Will there be prizes?????
Thank you Andrew, glad you liked the post.
I think I said a lot about my own position - as for the Galatians reference ('restore gently') I would have thought it was self-explanatory: when we find others falling short and sinning, we should restore them gently! Not rocket science, just basic Christianity.
As to how we determine what is 'sin' - a good question indeed! This for some is on a par with the 'Creme Egg' advertising, "How do you eat yours?"
Seems this is a moveable or personal choice for many. Mine is to keep the moral codes as found in the Bible - how do you decide what is sin I wonder?
As for pastoral issues - simply is the way I deal with them. Relationship, dialogue, love and, of course, the Bible.
Thanks
Evangelicals, "obsessed with gay sex," what a funny observation!
Mind you, personalising this comment, leads me to think that the remaining areas I have been asked to consider with regard to 'Middle Ground' might best be left untouched - sad, but perhaps the best option as they get increasing more 'obsessed'.
If you read this Jane, my apologies :(
Vic - dialogue is not just about re-stating your early post more loudly, as if we were foreigners you did not now how to address :) You ignore my points pretty clearly,
Evangelicals read the bible differently on this issue. Hence the lack of unity. The house of Bishops have different views on this issue. Hence the lack of unity. As to how I determine moral issues - scripture, tradition and reason - being an anglican. And as to pastoral issues - I follow the guidance of the bishops pastoral statements - which is clear in this case that we do not exclude from our fellowship those who choose to order their lives differently.
And as to restoring gently - I guess Paul, you and i would mean three different things by that - it was not clear from your context what you meant. So perhaps you could explain.
So do you exclude that couple who disagree with you after dialogue? Or do you welcome them at the lord's table?
Sorry Andrew - didn't realise that I'd treated you as a foreigner (what a nice concept - been on the end of that so often) - sorry you feel that way, apologies.
Thought my answer was 'more specific' regarding the Galatians entreaty in that I explained how I understood it (did that in the blog post and came back to it in my reply) and what that meant for me.
I'm sure you don't want me to name names, situation or the like for that would be to cross a line that I could not.. I'm glad you follow the guidance from the bishops and am assume that we might differ in our applications of the Galatian, and many other, passages.
As for your invitation into discussion of a fictional pastoral encounter, sadly I will pass that by because until it has happened (we're dealing with people, not policies)I would merely be 'shooting the breeze' and when it has (and it has) it has become an issue that I would not discuss for a number of reasons. The potential for more of the same from some for what I have, or haven't said is too dissipating and the scenery on the way surely not worth the journey!
Pax
Vic: it isn't a fictitional pastoral encounter, we are dealing with real pople, and that's why the H of B issued their pastoral statement.
Apology accepted but I'm not yet persuaded you really want to dialogue about this. Do you actually acknowledge that evangelicals have different views about this matter? You have ignored that part of my post twice now. I am thinking that you are probably more of a conservative Evangelical than an open one, and so the 'middle ground' is not where I think it is. The same is probably true of the ordination of women issue. Tell me if I am wrong.
Sorry you didn't think I wanted to dialogue but you are free to think thus. I am not prepared to try and dialogue and be assailed by the inane comments and snipes that this topic always attracts - seem to be a dead horse and I don't have the energy, or intention, to flog it! So now, fingers burned (yet again) I have decided it is futile, I will leave all sides to the positions (open, fixed or merely entrenched).
I am convinced that those who see themselves as evangelical, central and even liberal Christians have differing positions on just about everything (covered the eve's and more besides in the hope this fully answers the question to your satisfaction). I have to say that I am equally frustrated with the 'orthodox', the 'fundamentalist' and the 'liberal' in equal measure for their entrenched and awful positions.
I am billed and see myself as an open evangelical, something perhaps supported by the fact that I am vilified by so many of the book-burning evo's and the ''anything goes as long as it's my anything, liberals' - so once again I guess you've pegged it wrongly, but thanks for giving it a go - a good attempt based on no real knowledge of me other than by a limited and often apparently misleading medium :) (i.e internet - don't do the divination stuff either!!).
I don't come across many pople but if I do I'll think of you (aren't typos fun?). Persoanlly I see the 'middle ground' in the same place as the lady I was seeking to respond to, although it is clear that we occupy different places on a number of issues. As for you I am not sure where you would place it - I would have hoped it would be central as the name implies but perhaps not, as I think you might be implying?
As for women - ordination, consecration and whatever is yet another area entirely but has the potential, like the dreaded issue of homosexuality, to be one where the potential for yet more nastiness, misrepresentation and the like is rife and so, thanks for the invite into this but I think I will decline at the moment (but will ask our pioneer minister when she comes home).
Thanks for the comments (except putting me in with the conservatives but perhaps it was predestined or something) always good to engage, however muddied it might be, and better still that I am still smiling (which is a good place to retire I reckon).
Pax
Well said v!
Don't see you condemnng people to hell; you don't ram your beliefs down the throats of readers either. Your observations about those who stand firm on the word and condemn others supports the open evangelical position you claim to occupy - just as the leading from the Canon suggests that he might be far from you!
Canon are you dialoguing or seeking to entrap?
G
Thanks Greg!
Don't worry about Andrew he likes to toss the odd googly (or curveball if your OSUK) and plays defensively when facing the onslaught! Always fun to dialogue with (and exchange when we don't shout and listen when others speak is dialogue).
Just rushed back in for something and saw there'd been a reply - now back out for communion, funeral visits and more of the world outside the palace.
Thanks,
V
ps. Hopefully this topic can now be laid to rest?
I am seeking to dialogue, not entrap. Sadly I ask even a very straight question like 'how do you respond to house of bishops pastroal statement'and don't get a straight answer. It's a pretty 'middle ground' statement if ever there was one! Not a curved ball, not a googly, just a straightforward question about a real subject.
Not sure why you started the topic Vic if you didn't want a dialogue!
Sorry Andrew but it appears that you are, once again, mistaken for nowhere do I find you ask me about my views regatding the HoB statement - in fact all that I find regarding them until your last post is:
"As to how I determine moral issues - scripture, tradition and reason - being an anglican. And as to pastoral issues - I follow the guidance of the bishops pastoral statements - which is clear in this case that we do not exclude from our fellowship those who choose to order their lives differently."
When you wrote, "And as to restoring gently - I guess Paul, you and i would mean three different things by that - it was not clear from your context what you meant. So perhaps you could explain," I did explain.
Sadly feels less like a dialogue and more like you're holding the spotlight.
As for starting the subject - read back to the first of the 'middle ground' posts and you will understand what I was asked to do and see how I am attempting to respond. Well I was :)
Hey ho :)
Vic perhaps you haven't read the H of B statement? It makes it clear that we don't exclude people from our fellowship if they, in good conscience, take a different line on this matter. I asked you in the first post if you excluded people who were in committed gay relationships or if you welcomed them at the Lord's table - in other words, do you follow the H of B advice in the pastoral statement or do you take a harder line. And no I don't want names or specifics; I am asking about the principle of being in the middle ground and in unity - the subject of your post.
It's not about anyone holding the spotlight is it? It's about dialogue. And it's hard work :)
Sorry, didn't see the HoB statement and the scenario you posed as being one and the same and didn't see it in the way you perhaps assumed I might.
I'm sure you must remember from another place that I have read the statement and so find this to be a bit, err . . . (what word would you use, think of it and apply, that way I might be in the clear)!!!
As for the remainder I have said many, many, many times before that I don't see this as a defining issue and do not see the Eucharist as the place to engage in warfare or to see it used as a weapon of war which I guess answers that question without the burden of names or specifics.
HTH
Thank you! Glad you think that way, and I'm sorry if I didn't spell out the question clearly enough in my first post (although I think I did, re-reading it).
Don't recall anything from any other places - not sure what you mean. But glad you have been prepared to state where the middle ground is here.
:)
Always prepared to state what I believe, think it's called apologetics (and integrity too!).
Glad you're a happy man :)
Pax
You are a most gracious, and gentle, person vicar.
G
Post a Comment