|
|
Friday, November 11, 2005
I am sadder than I have been in a long time. Yesterday at Grace Church in Eden Prairie, MN a meeting took place--one that attractted the attention of both the media and opposition groups. The " "Minnesota Pastor's Summit," as it was called, was an interdenominational effort to (in their words), "Equip Churches to Engage Culture."
That's a friendly way to put it.
To all accounts it was actually a conference about how to hate homosexuals under the guise of concern for congregants and maintenance of "traditional family values." Breakout sessions included such topics as "The Truth of the Homosexual Lifestyle." As if there were such a thing. To refer to "the homosexual lifestyle" is reductionistic, on par with generalizations about "the Christian lifestyle" in a discussion about Pat Robertson. Anybody want to align with his lifestyle?
I was just starting to recover from my frustration this morning. I swallowed anger that had been brewing for the previous 24 hours and drove to work. Right as I pulled into the parking lot, MPR aired a story about how the conference went. I sat motionless as the voices of Christians came on the air and tarnished Jesus' name for all of Minnesota to hear. Read the article. You have time, and you need to do it now. It is a transcription of almost everything from the audio program, save one. At the end of the story they played a sound clip of one of the pastor's announcing there had been a bomb threat, and the building should be evacuated. Preceding the announcement, however, was his smug voice yelling (to the sound of applause), "We are in the enemy's lair! We are in the enemy's lair!" He just said it over and over...
But who is the enemy?
The churched in our number would likely assume he meant Satan, indicating his feeling that the bomb threat was a direct spiritual assault because "the right thing" was occuring. But what about everyone else? I'd wager the majority of those who listen to NPR are not churched. What did they hear in the confident reverend's statement?
I am, of course, giving that minister the benefit of the doubt. I'm assuming he wasn't pointing to homosexuals as the enemy. Or was he? I'm sure he would be quick to deny that he hated gays. He was just protecting our families. Doing his part. Standing up for family values. Being Biblical. The usual rhetoric.
The contentious issue is a constitutional ammendment to define marriage as "the union of one man and one woman." How anyone feels about this ammendment or the politics of the situation is of little concern to me.
My thought is, if we're going to define something, let's define the word, "Christian."
"Christ-like." That's a good definition. Let's start there. Now, friends, tell me this: If Jesus showed up in bodily form at the summit yesterday, which group would have been at the business end of his preaching? Would he have stood outside and berated the crowd of 200 protestors who supported the GLBT lifestyle? Would he have cursed them for their sexual immorality? For destroying the traditional definition of the family?
Or would he have walked through the doors of Grace Church (which I recall had its own trouble with sexual immorality in the past...) and call those inside a bunch of "whitewashed tombs?" Would he have reminded them of his own instructions about love?
As I read the gospels, I see Jesus embodying love to the "sinners and outcasts." Regardless of which of those categories you think homosexuals fall, you have to agree Jesus was more likely to give a piece of his mind to the religious--the pharisees, teachers of the law, etc. In other words, me. I'm the worst. I'm looking up the moral ladder at the homosexuals because of my arrogance and hypocrisy. They're better than me.
"But don't we have to take a stand, Tim?" At what point do we stand up and decry the evils in our society? Let's go with Paul. He instructs us to judge those INSIDE the Church.. If we're going to have a summit to talk about the degredation of marriage, let's discuss the problems found within our walls. The common statistic is 50% of all marriages end in divorce; and alarmingly, Christians show a significantly higher rate of divorce than atheists/agnostics. Now, there's a problem we should discuss at a summit.
I have a hunch the issue of homosexuality as related to religion will define my generation of gospel ministers. What will we say? Perhaps more importantly, how will we say it? When will we say it? It is my firm conviction the kind of rhetoric currently emerging from the Church about homosexuality will not be ultimately helpful for the forward progression of the gospel.
Posted at 02:39 pm by timkjohnson
 | | | timmer k
November 30, 2005 03:28 PM PST
Well, George. Mighty fired up about this, aren't we? I suppose they are called "hot-button" issues for a reason. Please understand if I react with an equal degree of passion.
George said:
"Some think that this generation will usher in the full blown openly homosexual christian lifestyle."
I had hoped to do away with gross generalizations in my original post. There is not a single Christian lifestyle, and there is not a single Homosexual lifestyle. So what does the "full-blown, openly homosexual christian lifestyle" look like? Are we talking about orientation or behavior? That will determine the parameters for future discussion.
About the "bumper sticker theologian" you saw... What if it's a person who thinks that bumper stickers/fish ornaments etc. are a ridiculous (albeit, popular) way for Christians to do evangelism, and that person is doing a bit of ironic social commentary on the back of their vehicle simply to raise the dander of fundamentalist Christians? Put that in your run-on sentence pipe and smoke it...
I am assuming you're a fundamentalist--they're the most likely to throw around phrases like "Truth" and "The Word" as if the Bible were simply a proposition book that a fool could open and find sufficient proof for any reformed Church dogma under the sun. Remember, if you are placing the locus of authority in the actual words on the page, you are removing the Holy Spirit from the process of interpretation. Rigid propositionalism doesn't work because it turns the Bible into a purely historical work. In that case, it can't have any more application for our lives than Shakespeare's "Hamlet." It's time for the Church to move past the Bible as "the inspired Word of God" (which it is) and move on to inspired interpretation. Having an inspired, authoritative text does little good unless the process of interpretation is inspired by the same author.
Speaking of "the Word," let's examine that passage: John 8: 1-11. I emplore you to read ALL eleven verses there, not just the last five words of verse 11. You are an excellent parable about the problematic nature of a propositional version of Christianity. With this kind of faith, you are content to read Jesus statement, "Go forth and sin no more," and ignore the context. What did Jesus say right before that? "NEITHER DO I CONDEMN YOU." Did you get that?
Okay, now let's go with the larger context. The situation is a bunch of crazy religious types getting bent out of shape about a woman's sexual sin. Jesus reaction? To tell the religious types that their sin is on an equal plane with hers. None of them can cast a stone because they are all sinful.
Now, let's push the anaology a bit. I would argue that you and I should not identify ourselves with Jesus in this story saying, "Go and sin no more." Rather, we should identify ourselves as the Jewish leaders. You and I are the bunch of religious fanatics who are content to look over the rest of the self-implicating sins listed in Romans 1 (another passage you should read ALL OF, not just verses 24-25) and instead condemn the homosexuals for their sin. What would Jesus say to you as you stand there with your rhetorical rocks? I'm afraid the Church is to the point where Jesus is saying, "Let him without sin cast the first stone," and we're elbowing him out of the way to get a clearer shot.
So what am I trying to do with my stance on the homosexuality issue? I'm trying to cross the line of stone throwers. To follow Jesus' example of saving lives from over-zealous religious leaders. Do you know why? Because, only after Jesus saved her life in a physical way, and didn't condemn her spiritually did he say, "Go and sin no more." Only in following Jesus' way will the Church have the credibility to say the same. | |
| | | George Beverly Shame
November 29, 2005 04:19 PM PST
"I have a hunch the issue of homosexuality as related to religion will define my generation of gospel ministers. What will we say? Perhaps more importantly, how will we say it? When will we say it? It is my firm conviction the kind of rhetoric currently emerging from the Church about homosexuality will not be ultimately helpful for the forward progression of the gospel."
So Tim what will your generation say?
Some think that this generation will usher in the full blown openly homosexual christian lifestyle.
Reminds me of a bumper sticker theologin I once saw. "Gay Pride Sticker-Cristian Fish Sticker-Porn Star Sticker" all in a row proudly displayed.
How high fly do we fly the "freak flag" before we have to take Christ down off of the cross to proudly display it?
We do need to forward the gospel, but to what ends?
The church is the church and yes people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones! Like you said "let's discuss the problems found within our walls" We are a messed up people. But, should we excuse truth and the word for the "hope" of cultural relevancy?
This a question we all need to be asking ourselves. We need to remember that Christ himself told sinners to go forth and sin no more.
But, what then really is a sin anymore?
| |
| | | Vicki
November 25, 2005 10:52 PM PST
Hey Tim,
I have so many thoughts running through my head reading this. I had heard about this summit actually and I think that I subconsciencously blocked all media coverage of it out b/c I knew that I would have had the same reaction. It totally makes me think of "why do you look to the splinter in your neighbor's eye but ignore the plank in your own."
People are only going to want to have marriage as a permenent one man one woman institution if they truly and fully get what marriage is meant to be. And they are only going to get that by understanding Christ and it sure seems like the most "vocal" and "media-friendly" Christians do a better job of making the divide greater than bringing the masses to the knowledge of Christ.
I have also heard about that statistic of divorce rates among Christians being hirer than non-Christians-oh, and I don't have a reference and I hate giving stats without one, but trust from my experience, there tend to be more abortions among Christian women than non-Christian b/c they feel it is better to hide their sin of "adultry" by having an abortion than it is to delivery the baby-and it is mighty scary that something like those two points are never brought up in marriage or abortion debates!
--Vicki | |
| | | Post_Fidelitas
November 15, 2005 12:21 AM PST
Hey sorry there Timmer, I must consfess to being the anonomous blogger. Each time I got into typing a post I would hit send, and then realize that I not identified.
Sorry about that, anyhow, I like the thoughts, I too am not a Biblical proof texter. I don't think God is either,.. but I don't have a scriptures to "prove" that.
Cheers,
Post_Fidelitas
| |
|
|
|
