Scott at Mad Hare has really a cute dog picture and a hilarious rabbit video up at his site. However, it was this post of his that caught my eye:
Invest wisely
When i contemplate the rhetoric that flies around in our society about why discrimination against glbt
folk is somehow okay I always end up back at one thought: On one side
are folks who passionately argue in support of their beliefs; on the
other folks who passionately argue in support of their lives.
Dialogue among people of widely divergent views and beliefs can be productive. That's obvious. i suspect such dialogue has the greatest potential to yield fruit when all involved are making a similar degree of personal investment in the process.
So is there room for dialogue among people who don't agree on foundational issues? Yes, if the personal
stakes of the people involved are comparable.
I could not agree more. The personal investment of the folks on the two sides of the discussion are not necessarily comparable. Scott and other GLTB folks argue for their lives, and are called upon to make the same arguments time and time again. I believe that's why I get impatient with the discussions.
Also, in my opinion, those who argue against equal rights for GLTB are really not talking about human beings, but about sex - what they see as "icky" sex. They don't say that, but that's what much of the talk is about under cover of euphemisms. Especially within the church it's often under cover of the Bible. For someone like Scott, who is just now taking tentative steps back into the church community, this has to be discouraging.
Then comes this from MadPriest:
Let me give you an example. A man who has been told by his doctor that he is suffering from cancer will feel anguish. A man who is a hypochondriac who believes he is suffering from cancer, even though he has not seen a doctor) will feel a similar anguish. On the surface their pain is the same. In mundane terms they are both suffering real pain. But, of course, the anguish of the first man is "real" whilst the anguish of the second man is "unreal."
As I have said before, I am a utilitarian, and so, for me, it is obvious that you alleviate the real pain before addressing "unreal" pain.
Why is it that GLTB Christians are repeatedly called to defend their desire for full inclusion in the life of the church by their fellow Christians? The church should be in the forefront in the fight for mercy, and justice, and equality for all and not dragging behind the secular authorities. What is sadly wanting in church leaders (not all, but some) is the will and the courage to move forward. Those in authority generally must be pushed toward change, or it doesn't happen. Who's to push them? The people under their care, of course. The personal stakes of the parties involved are not comparable. My personal investment is not comparable to Scott's.
MadPriest's post links to An
Open Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury from Jeffery J.Martinhauk of Leaning Towards Justice. It's difficult to pick sections of the letter to quote, so my suggestion is to read the whole thing. Jeffery's letter is eloquent. I totally agree with him when he says that the time for defensive arguments is past. In my experience, what changes minds are not so much defensive arguments, but engaging with GLTB folks face to face, and listening intently, and hearing their stories.
The more I see of the discussions of the pros and cons of full inclusion of GLTB members in the life of the church, the more passionate I become in arguing for inclusivity. Why are we even arguing this? I simply cannot see my Lord Jesus, if he walked the earth today, taking a stand for exclusion. The Gospels speak to me of acceptance. Those he seemed to come down hardest on were the hypocrites, and those in leadership who laid heavy burdens on other people, and those who were smugly self-justifying.
Of course I could be wrong, because I tend to lead with my heart, then follow with my mind. Some folks seem to have no hearts. I can't think what keeps them alive.
Okay, I'll take the bait. I believe I have a heart.
ReplyDeleteI am a pastor. I'm also something of a teddy bear, so my natural pastoral inclination is to say nice things to people and not challenge them.
However, my pastoral ministry is supposed to be informed by the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, which I described at my ordination as 'The Word of God containing all things necessary to salvation'. I have read and considered very carefully the arguments of those who believe that the church's traditional interpretation of scripture on this issue needs to be changed. I personally would be a lot more comfortable if I could make myself believe it. But I can't. I'm not convinced.
To me this is not about inclusion and exclusion. Of course all are welcome. It's about the church's definition of a holy life. Now if someone accuses me as a priest of being 'judgemental' about this, I deny the charge. I'm supposed to get up Sunday by Sunday and give people guidance about holy living. God knows, I need all the help I can get myself, but that doesn't exclude me for ducking the responsibility I've been given. When the passage speaks out against greed and materialism, I speak out against greed and materialism. and if it speaks to the issue of faithful Christian sexual behaviour, I'll speak to that issue too.
I don't like the way people on either side of this debate characterise their opposite numbers. People on all sides of this issue have hearts, and care very deeply. If they didn't, they'd walk away.
Tim, of course, you have a heart. You have a lot more heart than many folks I know on both sides of this issue.
ReplyDeleteI, too, believe that the Bible contains everything necessary for salvation. It says so right there in the catechism, which I also believe, along with the Creeds.
I know that you have thought about this issue and prayed about it, and I have too. I will not try to argue you out of your conclusion.
You're too nice to recognize irony, which is what my last paragraph is about. You noticed that I prefaced my words with, "Of course, I could be wrong". That should have given you a clue.
Fortunately or unfortunately, I tend towards irony more than some folks like. Perhaps the fault lies with me
Tim, what do you you say about living a holy life to the divorced and remarried members of your congregation?
Tim---Can you tell me *why* you aren't convinced by the arguments?
ReplyDeleteIt's not as if there is just one---there are a a number of them, and it was the sheer weight of them that brought me around...
Paige, for me it was the sheer weight of the Gospels that helped turn me around. If gay and lesbian sex is so sinful, why did Jesus never mention it?
ReplyDeleteMimi, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
ReplyDeleteMimi---ultimately, it was two things from the Gospels that "done me in," as Eliza Doolittle would say.
ReplyDeleteOne was the story of Jesus and the Canaanite woman. I've got a "sermon" about that brewing for my own blog, which I may share with you when it's done.
The other was the image of Jesus, hanging on the cross, asking God to forgive the unforgivable.
Jesus LOVED. To a degree that I cannot even fathom.
He FORGAVE. For things that did not "deserve" to be forgiven.
I struggle sometimes to believe that He will forgive me for my two failed marriages, but I simply cannot believe that He would condemn the faithful love between two people of the same sex. People who are MUCH better at following Him than I am.
When I think of Louie Crew and Ernest Clay, who took the BCP and married themselves 34 years ago last week, I am humbled. Despite the hate and prejudice they have faced, both for being gay and for being an interracial couple in the South, they have devoted their lives to the mission of the church. My faith is edified by the power of their witness.
Tim, could you really look them in the eyes and tell them that they--faithful, loving, and committed to Christ--are an abomination to God?
And what would you do with me? I am a heterosexual woman, in the middle of my second divorce. For the first one I had the biblical "out", but not for the second one. The second one I left because I was so lonely in that relationship that I was ready to kill myself. Literally.
Should I stop taking communion? Should I give up the leadership roles I hold in my parish because I'm a bad example to the rest? Should I give up all hope of love in my life because I've failed so miserably to this point?
I really don't know what you will say to those---and I promise to listen carefully to your answers. I think I am MUCH more of a scandal to the church and a stumbling block to my neighbors (or ought to be considered such) than my GLBT brothers and sisters in faithful relationships.
But I get a "pass"--because people know me. They know my story, know that I was so desperate by the end that I was prepared to leave my children motherless rather than endure my marriage any longer. I get a pass---because I am straight, and white, and upper-middle class to boot.
Do you treat me in the same way you would treat Louie and Ernest? If so, fair play to you---though I doubt I could be a member of your church, because who needs to be reminded over and over again that she is a worthless sinner? I'm VERY well aware of that.
If you would treat me differently, why?
Scott, your thoughts were my inspiration. Thanks for letting me steal them.
ReplyDeletePaige, in my reply to Tim, I hope that you did not take what I said about divorced and remarried folks as suggesting that Jesus would condemn you. Indeed, I did not mean that. I would not comdemn you, and Jesus has infinite love and compassion, therefore, IMO, he would not condemn you either.
The more I read the Gospels, the more I am moved to take my place on the side of acceptance and inclusion.
Tim Chesterton said:
ReplyDelete"I don't like the way people on either side of this debate characterise their opposite numbers."
Well, Tim, isn't this the very thing you are doing with your not so subtle implication that GLTBQ people are not living holy lives?
What is it that makes YOU holy? Where you put your naughty bits, or how you live out the Gospel message of Jesus?
Linda McMillan
Austin, Texas
OK, here's the problem.
ReplyDeleteI could comply with Paige's request and lay out all the reasons why I do not find the arguments in favour of changing the church's position compeling. But my position would of course be answerable (and, on this blog, answerable by a lot of people) - and undoubtedly they would be answered. The answers would also be answerable - etc. etc., Jesus will come again and we'll still be arguing about it. No doubt the subject is important, but haven't we all got more important things to do with our time? After all, the track record of both sides when it comes to changing the minds of others in this sort of forum is not exactly stellar.
No, my concern in my original comment was not about changing Grandmère Mimi's mind. My concern is 'How are we going to live togetherin the Anglican Communion, having different views on this subject?' It seems that right now in north America, there are two options for people like me. We can either leave, or we can shut up and bite our tongues while people call us fundamentalists (which most of us are not) and say that we have no hearts and that we're pharisaical and unforgiving and don't understand the gospel of grace etc. etc. Of course, in the African world it's the other way around.
I think there has to be a better way than this "Let's all think of the latest uncharitable thing we can say about the poor ignorant fundies/poor deluded revisionists and post it on our blogs so that everyone who agrees with us can chime in and cheer".
And quite frankly the cheers are not always very enlightening. For instance, the idea that because Jesus never mentioned this subject it isn't important. Jesus never mentioned environmental stewardship, idolatry, compulsive gambling, and the apparently (for Anglicans and RCs) foundational issue of whether or not the person who presides at the Eucharist has been episcopally ordained, either. Usually in this sort of situation one would draw the conclusion that he felt no need to say anything because he agreed with the prevailing opinion.
Likewise, the argument that Jesus forgave sinners is only relevant to this issue if what we are talking about is, in fact a sin. Of course Jesus forgave sinners. As people point out every time I speak about this subject, I myself am in fact a sinner too, with lots of nasty bits that need forgiving.
OK, I have to quit now - I have to go down to my church and do my best, for the hundredth or so time in seven years, to try to help a particular couple save their marriage. I love them a lot and am heartened by the fact that despite all their troubles they keep coming back for help. If you're reading this between 10.00 and 11.00 a.m. Mountain time on Saturday morning, please pray for them and for me.
Tim, my prayers are with you and the troubled couple.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that right now in north America, there are two options for people like me. We can either leave, or we can shut up and bite our tongues while people call us fundamentalists (which most of us are not) and say that we have no hearts and that we're pharisaical and unforgiving and don't understand the gospel of grace etc. etc. Of course, in the African world it's the other way around.
Tim, I don't want to carry this discussion on forever, but I honestly don't understand why those are your only two options, or even why they are seen by you as options at all.
Can't we abide together, lovingly, in our disagreement? The Lord knows, I have no desire to silence you, nor to see you leave. I think you are a gift to the Anglican Communion, and I would count it as loss if you left. And who would silence you? Not me.
Tim---I apologize if it seemed that I was baiting you. I didn't intend to.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm with Mimi---I simply don't see why those are the only two options.
I disagree with you. That doesn't mean I think you should leave---and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean I can't break bread with you.
That is what is so painful about all of this. It's the notion that because we disagree about something that does not have anything to do with our belief in Jesus as the Incarnate Word of God and the author of our salvation, we can no longer participate in the Eucharist together, or engage in mission together.
Please explain that to me. I simply do not get it.
Life is easier when one is a follower of Jesus rather than a Christian. I don't have to exclude anyone or play word games or fight over opinions of what the Bible says. All I have to worry about is loving all and treating others as I would like to be treated. That is enough of a burden. But so far it yields a blessed, wonderful, fulfilling life.
ReplyDeleteWhy must we classify people according to belief? My heart aches for people who must exclude as well as those who are excluded. I keep both in my prayers.
Pseudo, I see that life could be simpler your way. I have written elsewhere that even if it could be proven that Jesus was not God (which it can't) or that Jesus never existed, I would still want to follow the Gospels as the model of how to live a good life.
ReplyDeleteFor me, it seems that being a part of a community of more or less like-minded people, helps me to live that life. For others, like you, this may not be the case.
I also need community, Mimi, which is why I am active in an Episcopal church in which I am comfortable. It is entirely possible to participate while having a skeptical outlook on religion. My faith is strong in spite of my "doubts".
ReplyDeleteAnd why I read the blogs. Some of us have become a virtual community as you know.
Pseudo, I see. You are active in the Episcopal Church. From what you said I thought that you were not a church-goer. I love having you in the Episcopal Church and in the virtual community.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Mimi. I love having you around too and am so glad you finally made a blog. MP would be lost without you. lol
ReplyDeleteMimi, continue to lead with your heart, because it's there the Holy Spirit first speaks to us. I came into faith in my heart and soul long before I did in my mind.
ReplyDeleteJesus said, "Love each other as I have loved you." He welcomed those who were the outsiders and outcasts of his day. I can only think he would welcome all who earnestly seek him.
I've said all this before, and I'll say it again: Christ is our advocate, and I can only imagine at the Pearly Gates finding reasons to let us in. All of us.
God bless you Tim, for earnestly seeking.
Pat, of the lovely prayers, I don't think I could lead any other way, even if I wanted to. I can only hope that my brain kicks in to prevent excesses.
ReplyDeleteForgive me if I have given the impression that I felt I was only being given those two options. I have spoken out strongly in favour of a third, which is exactly what some of you have proposed as well - that we should stay together, with our differences, and honour one another in them.
ReplyDeleteBut I think we have to take this honouring one another very seriously. I think if we do, it will lead to a real change in our behaviour, and the way we speak about those with whom we disagree.
By the way, thanks for those who prayed; my time with the couple in question was extreely positive this morning.
...my time with the couple in question was extreely positive this morning.
ReplyDeleteThanks be to God.
Tim wrote I have spoken out strongly in favour of a third, which is exactly what some of you have proposed as well - that we should stay together, with our differences, and honour one another in them.
ReplyDeleteBut I think we have to take this honouring one another very seriously. I think if we do, it will lead to a real change in our behaviour, and the way we speak about those with whom we disagree.
I heartily agree, and indeed I try to treat those with whom I disagree with respect. One reason I do not join these threads more often is that frequently the level of respect for the opponents of my (very left) position is low, and even when it is not so low, the level of understanding is low.
Of course there are things I do not understand about those on the other side -- for example I do not understand those who would make matters relating to acknowledged sexual orientation into a church dividing issues.
Allen Mellen
for example I do not understand those who would make matters relating to acknowledged sexual orientation into a church dividing issues.
ReplyDeleteAllen, nor do I. The pure church that some hope for never was and never will be, because we are all human, and we are all sinners.
I remember what Kathleen Norris said in one of her books - I can't remember which, and I may not have a direct quote - but it went something like this:
The church is for sinners. If it's not, someone had better tell me, because then I don't belong there.
Church is for sinners but being lesbain or gay and having an intimate relationship with your beloved is NOT a sin.
ReplyDeleteAnn, my dear, amen!
ReplyDelete