Much to my dismay, my reservoir of blog posts-to-read has overflowed. To be honest, I have a pile in my office of really good posts-to-read from before the turning of the new year. I’m not sure I’ll get to them; they may be either pitched or filed away. We’ll see.
But today I read a very good entry I wanted to commend and pass along: this truly wonderful exposition by Kim Frabricius entitled Twelve Propositions on Same-Sex Relationships and the Church from back in January. Here are her first three propositions:
1. Let it be said at once that the question of same-sex relationships and the church is a question of truth before it is a question of morality or discipline. Is the church’s interpretation of scripture true? Is the church’s traditional teaching true? If they are not, then they have to go, otherwise the faith of the church becomes bad faith. As Milton said, “Custom without truth is but agedness of error.” One other thing in anticipation: Jesus said that the truth will make us free (John 8:32); Flannery O’Connor added that “the truth will make you odd.” But before we say anything more, we must know what we are saying it about. In most discussions on the issue of human sexuality we talk at each rather than with each other; in fact, we talk past each other.
2. I take it that homosexuality – and certainly the homosexuality I am talking about – is a given, not a chosen (a “life-style choice”); a disposition recognised, not adopted; a condition as “normal” as left-handedness – or heterosexuality (whether by nature or nurture is a moot but morally irrelevant point). I also assume an understanding of human sexuality that is not over-genitalised, where friendship, intimacy, and joy are as important as libido, and where sexual acts themselves are symbolic as well as somatic. Needless to say, the “Yuk” factor deployed in some polemics has no place in rational discussion, while the language of “disease” and “cure” is ignorant and repugnant. Fundamentally, homosexuality is about who you are, not what you do, let alone what you get up to in bed. This is a descriptive point. There is also a normative point: I am talking about relationships that are responsible, loving, and faithful, not promiscuous, exploitative, or episodic.
3. What about the Bible? This is the Protestant question. “The Bible says,” however, is a hopelessly inadequate and irresponsible answer. Nevertheless, we must certainly examine specific texts – and then (I submit) accept that they are universally condemnatory of homosexual practice. Arguments from silence – “Look at the relationship between David and Jonathan,” or, “Observe that Jesus did not condemn the centurion’s relationship with his servant” – are a sign of exegetical desperation. No, the Bible’s blanket Nein must simply be acknowledged. But Nein to what? For here is a fundamental hermeneutical axiom: “If Biblical texts on any social or moral topic are to be understood as God’s word for us today, two conditions at least must be satisfied. There must be a resemblance between the ancient and modern social situation or institution or practice or attitude sufficient for us to be able to say
that in some sense the text is talking about the same thing that we recognise today. And we must be able to demonstrate an underlying principle at work in the text which is consonant with biblical faith taken as a whole, and not contradicted by any subsequent experience or understanding” (Walter Houston).
I’d demur a bit about this last point, because the next several go on to show how, for most of the scant references cited, the Biblical material isn’t in fact saying a Nein to “homosexual practice” for various reasons. Kim’s point is that there are Neins being said, but to different things, really.
Nevertheless, this is a great read. Check it out. […Ed Note: If you’ve got time, check out the comments too…]
Also, tangentially, I just worked through the Strategy Report adopted by the New Wineskins Association of Churches. I’ve got some comments that I might put into an upcoming post. I am trying to distance myself from the initial reaction to having my position repeatedly called unfaithful to the bible and then reading the authors of the report decry the arrogance of their interlocutors. How does one react to that? How does one attempt to maintain a charitable and grace-offering relationship with fellow clergy and elders who willingly distort the theological convictions and views of others? Anyway, I’d encourage everyone to read that strategy report, remembering that it is also a rhetorical document.
I have a place in my heart for pastors and churches who are torn by their conscience to remain in our connectional body. There is likely a way to process their schism as faithfully as possible on both sides. (And yes, it is a schism). My greatest concern is with pastoral pensions and medical care…
On the other hand, I’m deeply wounded and ashamed by the tact many of them are taking in their argumentation; they ought be more honest with the true differences on both sides and what that means for the church. And I think that the language used here is simply inaccurate:
- such as with the case of the word ‘coersion’ that comes up with regard to our property trust clause in our Consitution which both defines our connectional system (we’re not congregationalist, nor truly hierarchical) and which defies the history of churches that voluntarily assented to the current constitution and its trust clause when we merged as a denomination in 1983;
- so too the purported arguments about the PUP as “changing” what is in fact a reaffirmation of historical Presbyterian practice (local examination with higher-governing oversight, acknowledging that the scruple issue muddies the waters);
- so too the language that the Trinity Report is “unscriptural” when it is in fact rooted in biblical hermeneutics and full of biblical citation, an exercise (not universally successful) of lifting up the biblical resources for thinking about the trinity while upholding the classical trinitarian formula “Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”
And there are others; those are just the ones heavy on my mind.
Why mention all this here? Well, this group, among others, argues that there is “clear teaching of scripture” on the homosexuality issue, among other things. This has been the recent trope, since most of them adopt Robert Gagnon‘s argument that this is in fact clear cut. But Fabricus is more on point.
That’s enough for the day. May all who read this have a grace-filled Lenten season…
Great post. I’m with you. Thanks.
Thanks, Drew. Welcome to the blog, too! 🙂
Kairos – hello.
As you may know, I am not a supporter of ‘gracious separation’. I have repeatedly said I do not believe the PC(USA) has apostatized – and that is one of the few reasons I’d leave. I have also tended to believe that there are potential ways forward within the PC(USA) – though none of these are particularly pleasant or easy.
Yet I find myself defending the NWAC – at least on a couple of points here. First, the use of the word coercive may indeed be over the top. But the ramifications for pension funds and property ARE being used to encourage people to stay when they feel that to do so would violate their consciences. (Obviously – and I have criticized this – much of the language of unfaithfulness is overdone – but so is the language of “schismatic” and “true church”.) The strategy papers were indeed coercive as they recommended preemptive strikes against churches suspected of disloyalty. (Do these documents really reflect the kind of PC(USA) you want to see?)
Second, the effects of the PUP have yet to be seen. (Though the one effect – the increase of peace, unity or purity in the church – is thus far lacking.) As I read it, it should change nothing. (Which I support on grounds of process – any real change would have had to have the ratification of presbyteries to be legitimate.)
Third, the Trinity Report has certain weaknesses. Yes, it does affirm many orthodox beliefs, and yes, it does draw heavily from Scripture – but oddly, not as heavily from the majority of Scriptures. The triads were not particularly successful as Charles Wiley details (to a degree). The basis for, for example, “life giving womb” as a reference to the Holy Spirit is not to be found in Isaiah – and Wiley’s alternate suggestion of the story of Nicodemus is also weak. Again, this report was only received – not policy for the PC(USA). But we have a history of received reports being used as policy.
My point is that the ‘grievances’ of the NWAC are, in cases, legitimate. I happen to believe that the bottom line issues are different than those being played out. I’d love to see an honest discussion of these issues – because I don’t think any of knows whether or to what degree we can find common ground. And I don’t see the current conversation lending itself to that result. (By current conversation, I mean, of course, that within the PC(USA) – not your blog.)
I say this sadly because I know there is much good in the PC(USA) – but without honestly addressing the true differences on both sides, I think we will just continue to be divided and misunderstand and misrepresent one another. It is conceivable that disaffiliation may be unavoidable – but ignoring the differences is not a way to ward that off.
Hi Will. Welcome!
I’m aware through your writings that you’re currently at that place. You’ve been clear on that point for a while, which has been helpful. But more than that, I appreciate that you model an authenticity in your observations that I just don’t get from the NWAC strategy paper, or from other online supporters of that particular movement. Perhaps there are some out there; I’ve just not encountered them thus far.
I’ve got mixed feelings about the justifications of the NWAC’s “grievances.” I never said that none of them are legitimate, but some of the grounding for it certainly isn’t, at least in my judgment. In particular: several of the ancillary supporting documents in the strategy report are trash, something I didn’t feel about the actual report.
My point about the use of the word ‘coersion’ was narrow: its the wrong word to describe the basic argument that the property trust clause in our constitution is unjust. One’s feelings about the denominations’ attempt (as smart or unsmart, as biblical or unbiblical, as accurate or inaccurate, whether in a historical, legal, or whatever sense, as right or wrong it might be) to defend that constitutional fact aren’t pertinent to that point: all PCUSA churches that currently are part of our communion have consented to, and heretofore lived with, the constitutional notion that our individual churches are local expressions of our denomination’s ministry, and that the property is being used in trust of that larger ministry.
I’m in the midst here of a building renovation that totals more than a million dollars of congregational gifts. The giving goes to renovate our sanctuary, chapel, and communal space. Its substantial, but its in service not just of our ministry but the expression of the Church and under the banner of the PCUSA. That’s how we understand our ministry together. Its just wrong to abandon that under the (in my judgment false) argument that we are really congregationalists and any notion that binds our property together for the denomination’s common ministry is ‘coersion’.
That’s really a different argument than the one you’re defending, that there are coercive means being waged against NWAC or similar congregations/pastors. The “Louisville Papers” are a mixed bag for me: legally, there’s a real point in there; theologically and practically, there are some coercive elements to it. However, much of the commentary on this has been unaffected by either a distinction between the legal requirements of am individual church or a denomination adjudicating such a case given extant law and accepted secular legal practice, on the one hand, and the very real political situation in the church, on the other. And as such it becomes hyperbolic in nature.
To summarize my general feeling on this: the property issue isn’t something I lose sleep over. The churches in question are trying to “change the rules” in the middle of the game, and that’s fundamentally wrong. The idea of transferring to another reformed body (maybe the EPC) or providing a mutually-acceptable solution between the presbytery and the church in question are fine by me, but not so the idea that the church has no obligation in this case to the denomination from which it wants a divorce. There is blame enough to go around here, and both sides need to give up some, but both sides need to recognize their obligations to each other and act accordingly.
More of a concern to me is the pension matter. We need a way to deal appropriately with the pensions and medical issues of folk who are leaving. I know next to nothing about this, but I’m hopeful that the BOP is working on a method for those who transfer in a constitutionally acceptable way…
On to PUP and Trinity: We’re not that far off, you and I, on the Trinity report. I read your recent posting about your Wiley conversation. But you’d agree, I assume, that the press the Trinity report has received is unfair and to call it unbiblical is not being charitable either to its intent or its content, even if one can quibble or even strongly disagree with its arguments?
I’m angry, personally, about how PUP’s been misconstrued, particularly here in my presbytery, where ads have been published saying all sorts of crazy things. NWAC’s strategy paper repeats some of that, but not all.
I’m glad to see your comments, and I understand much of your defense of these particular points here, but I still think that so much there is just misguided and, what my real beef is, not justly argued. *shrug*
Thanks for the substantial response. You are, as always, quite gracious.
Last point first – I tend to agree with you. In many cases we are evading the actual points of contention. I’m not sure why this is. (Aside from anything else, I tended to find the 217 GA far less problematic than others – yes there were things that make traditional Presbyterians crazy, but that is always the case. I think a lot of it is that many were prepared for a far more extreme GA, and when it didn’t quite materialize in that way, they were a little out of their reckoning. Still, there is something to the ‘sum of effects’ argument that has merit – it is not a reaction to this GA, but to many.) I really do believe the best approach here is for us to be honest with one another and let the chips fall where they may. I know I am as guilty as anyone of going off on tangents that don’t speak to the heart of the issue.
Trinity report – I have some serious concerns, but yes the press oversimplified by a long shot, and I don’t find it un-biblical or even that far from orthodox. (I’m not entirely sure that we can evade responsibility for the press reaction, though – as, in places, it lent itself to misunderstanding, and parts of it were driven by political concerns. I am very certain that Wiley did not intend to provoke this reaction.)
I personally do not believe the property trust clause is a good idea. That said, for the vast majority of PC(USA) churches, it has been in place and understood – so it shouldn’t really be evaded now. There are PCUS exceptions to this, however – where their understanding was not the same. For me, I find the NT admonition against Christians using secular courts against each other to be guiding. I don’t see the justification that can evade “Why not rather be wronged?” (I regard defense against such suits somewhat differently – to me, there is a greater onus on the aggressor – whether PC(USA) or congregation.)
I wish you well with your renovation project. Sounds like a large endeavor.
On the NWAC strategy report, I need to examine the ancillary documents more closely. I have at this time no opinion on them. (I focused on the report itself, to be honest – which I found had strong points and weak points. It is clearly a rhetorical document.)
Thanks for your further thoughts, Will. Peace to you this Lenten season…
Thank you. Likewise.