Friday, September 10, 2004

Further Thoughts on Gays in the Church

In my previous article on this topic, I shared thoughts on how Christians and Christian churches ought to treat gay people even if they disagree with them concerning the morality of gay relationships. I have received, without surprise, hostile reactions from some for what they perceive is an article endorsing gay marriage. The basis of this accusation is that I said the government ought perhaps to legalize it or get out of the business of defining marriage all together and instead allow adults whether in a sexual or non-sexual relationship to form civil partnerships. By this logic one would have to say that if you agree that cigarette smoking should be legal for adults then you are endorsing cigarette smoking. Any libertarian minded Republican (which I am neither) would tell you that is non-sense. I was simply saying that compassion towards all sinners ought to include homosexual sinners and that such compassion demands we defend their civil rights at least as much as we would defend the right of the KKK to assemble, speak their minds and perform whatever ritual bonds they desire. Additionally, I mentioned several ways in which the church could be more hospitable. Of course my Methodist tradition is only one of many profound, orthodox and legitimate Christian traditions. We believe that Holy Communion ought to be open to all and that this sacrament is also a "converting ordinance" (Wesley) which can and does transform sinnners' hearts and lives. Other traditions, for equally profound reasons, practice closed communion. They stress that repentence from sin should precede approaching the Table of the Lord. Additionally, some stress a right understanding of the presence of Christ to be a prerequisite for partaking of the body and blood of Christ. While I disagree with the latter, I respect it. With regards to the former I am able to respect it as well if it is enforced consistently. If in such a tradition love is to be shown to the unrepententant homosexual by refusing her reception of the elements at the table of the Lord, those who are unrepentent gossipers, gamblers, greedy and glutonous should be be shown the same love. The homosexual sinner would thus be shown that her sin is not singled ought for special penalty but all unrepentent sinners are denied the sacrament. Whether the Table of the Lord is opened or closed within your tradition, it should be so administered consistently.
I also suggested in the previous reflection that orthopraxi towards gay people can help lead us to orthodoxy over the issue of homosexuality. Jesus gave the church the authority to bind and to loose, to permit and to forbid when there is controversy in the church. How far this authority extends is up for debate; however, that authority is dependent upon the Church being an engaged body, intentionally reflecting upon how well its members are loving one another and always listening for the Holy Spirit's directing while it continually reads the Church's sacred Book and the Tradition which has faithfully sought to carry on its message forward throughout all history and all lands. In this holy and apostolic process, the Church has permitted and forbidden various practices and teachings. The church does not always do this explictly. The practice of slavery (except, of course, slavery to the Lord) has ceased to be permitted in any form even though the Bible in both testaments permitted it and forbade slaves from seeking their own freedom even from cruel masters. Today, the Church forbids its members to practice slavery as it was authorized to be practiced in the New Testament as well as how it was practiced in the ante-bellum South. The Church in many traditions has come to say that the sabbath is to be kept on Sunday even though as a weekly observance the Bible teaches it to be kept on what we call Saturday. (I realize that some Christians want the Church to re-embrace the keeping to the seventh day sabbath while others believe that because Christ himself gives us eternal rest here and now 24-7, Christians need not keep Sabbath on any day at all.) Surely if the Church has authority to loose and bind on this issue which is, like marriage, a "creation ordinance", then it also ought to have the authority to loose and to bind on the issue of Christian marriage. The Church as a whole may come to agree with our Seventh Day Baptist and Seventh-day Adventist friends, that we should have never switched or abrogated the day of sabbath observance. Likewise, the Church, should it decide to bless gay marriages and ordain married gay pastors, could re-embrace the traditional understanding of Biblical prohibitions and forbid the same again. In doing so, the harm would not be more or less than the centuries of Sunday Sabbatarian tradition.

1 comment:

Deborah White said...

Amen! I appreciate the depth of your thought on such matters. Right on target, too. Thank you!
(from Heart, Soul & Humor)