Before apokalupto moves on to fresh topics, there's still time for me to jot down a few final thoughts on the Marriage, Homosexuality, and the Church Conference I attended last week at Andrews University. It's also time for me to share my position on the debate over whether homosexual sex is sinful, since that will inform the comments that follow. My theology on this issue is informed by presuppositions I have found to be well articulated here.
I believe that from Genesis 12 onward, the Bible tells the story of how God is leading his people on a journey, which includes moral progress, toward Heaven. So I believe the descriptions of Heaven in Scripture (primarily found in Genesis 1-2 and Revelation 21-22) are an ethical compass for God's people, pointing us toward the ideal to which he is taking us. According to this ideal, marriage is a union of one man and one woman (Gen 1:21-28, Gen 2:18-25, Rev 21:2)
Now the problem is, given all the aberrations from this ideal that human beings desire, how do we get there from here. In the scripture we can trace God making allowances for our less than ideal situations while moving his people closer to Heaven (cf. Ex 21:10, 1 Tim 3:12). Some might argue that based on this we can make an allowance for homosexual marriage as a step closer to Heaven.
The problem with this is that God has never indicated in Scripture that such an allowance should be made. Even if you believe that the biblical injunctions against homosexual sex apply to only exploitative or non-mutually fulfilling homosexual sex, it remains the case that God never revealed homosexual marriage as the solution to this problem. In fact, given those injunctions, it seems very unlikely that God would make such an allowance.
Therefore, I believe homosexual marriage is not the way forward for God's people on their journey to Heaven. But if that is a difficult conclusion to arrive it, it leads to the even more difficult question of how the church should then respond to homosexuals. So I offer these reflections on the Andrews homosexuality conference in light of this conclusion and in partial answer to the question that comes from it.
As was the diagnosis another time Adventism and psychology converged, I suggest that the symptoms of multiple personality disorder may have been present in the conference; it spoke with two voices. Those from the counseling and pastoral care disciplines said we need to love homosexuals, and those from the public policy and religious liberty disciplines said we need to fight homosexuals. Now that's a generalization and oversimplification, but the popular perception of this conference will be generalized and oversimplified and the message of the conference will, I believe, end up sounding schizo.
Now if you're schizo, you're mad; and when you're mad, people, in this case homosexuals, don't feel the love. My point being that if you want to do some tough love, you've got to earn the right. Now the public policy guys at the conference said Adventists already have that legitimacy because of ADRA, etc., but I don't buy it.
Adventists earned the right to advocate against slavery by helping with the underground railroad, we earned the right to advocate against alcohol and tobacco by helping people kick their habits, and we earned the right to advocate for religious liberty, by sticking up for other religions, too. What have we done for homosexuals? Since the Colin Cook debacle, officially we've done whole lot of nothing.
I believe our level of public policy advocacy on homosexual marriage, regardless of the position we take, must be correlated with our level of direct ministry to homosexuals or we will end up preaching to the choir and loose our public witness. Right now we've got GLADventist.org and a handful of Wayne Blakelys and Ron Woolseys, so that means we can probably send our lawyers to court. I don't think we should start mobilizing our church members to vote until they can identify at least one homosexual person in their congregation. And if Adventists get something like an AIDS hospice going in San Francisco, I think we'd be ready to start talking to homosexuals about homosexual marriage.
Along the lines of ministering to homosexuals, I think Mark Yarhouse's three-tier distinction is an excellent starting point. I think it has implications beyond homosexuality and could be a good tool for discussing sexuality with heterosexual youth. It opened my eyes to how I have constructed my sexual identity, and, as I've said elsewhere, I think it will be remembered as the ideological core of the conference.
One thing that disappointed me at the conference was conservatives playing the victim card. I believe we need to act out of faith that God is protecting us, not fear of being marginalized.
It also seems to me that conservative Adventist Bible scholars need to take special care to speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15), and this is not something that's impossible to do. When discussing the possibility that a whole class of people may be required by God to forfeit sexual and romantic companionship, we're going to have to do better than, "Life isn't fair." That may or may not be the truth, but it is certainly not the truth in love. Scholars would do well to heed Miroslav Kis' advice that we never discuss this issue from an impersonal, abstract perspective.
Finally, I believe this conference is the start of a new and more healthy direction in how the Adventist Church relates to homosexuals. The general assumption of the presenters was that homosexually attracted persons could, like persons attracted to other sins, be regular members of the Adventist Church. If this assumption is adopted by the church as a whole (and I believe it gradually will be), it will remove a fair bit of the prejudice that Adventists have against homosexuals.
Progressives are of course miffed that the basic question of homosexual practice was not up for debate and will likely claim the conference results are just the same dish reheated and served as leftovers. But why not? Sometimes it takes a little time in the fridge for the flavors to sort themselves out into the right combination. And maybe if we work on it a little more we could one day have a potluck.
Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)
Thank you, David, for the thoughtful comments that we have come to expect from you. Your coverage of the conference was both quite complete and fair-handed, and I have directed a number of people to your site for a good overview of the conference.
ReplyDeleteI agree also with your Biblical analysis of the topic, and think that you put it quite well in your reflections here.
I would part ways with you a bit on your thoughts regarding a schizoid conference. I think that you would find most of the presenters in agreement on the importance of ministering to homosexuals, but also working for the religious freedom of the church to be able to maintain that ministry. We don't realize how close we are, at least in some states, to losing the ability to meaningfully minister, including counseling services, to homosexuals who seek to modify or soften their orientation. This summer, as Mark Yarhouse noted, the APA narrowly avoided forbidding all counseling change attempts. You see, the struggle has moved from shifting homosexuality from a mental abberration into a range of acceptability to now actually forbidding professionals from seeking to help homosexuals move towards a heterosexual orientation.
I have had friends dramatically helped by this type of counseling, and am unwilling to stand by and see them lose their religious freedom to have professional ministerial and religious counseling help in seeking this change. If we delay our public policy advocacy until our ministry is "good enough," we may find our ministry efforts, at least on the professional front, outlawed and at best driven underground. I don't think this can be an either/or situation, but a both/and. But I agree that as a church our first goal must be outreach and evangelism, and public policy issues should be engaged as they enhance, rather than detract from, those efforts.
Whatever we do, Christ must increase. But the man who said this also publicly chastised civil leadership for their immoral choices regarding marriage. It was this, in fact, which ultimately led to his demise. Ironically, it was these events of public advocacy that led to John being finally eclipsed by Christ. May our efforts in this area, in both ministry and advocacy, lead to us being eclipsed by Christ!
I was impressed David at how quickly you could accurately convey what was happening real time onto your blog. Several of my friends and family were able to be aware of what was taking place due to your great efforts. That was quite an undertaking and it is very appreciated.
ReplyDeleteI am directing my church pastoral staff to your final remarks. They are very well stated and I believe accurately reflect the general feel I got from the conference. I know you know my level of frustration as one particular presentation I found hard hitting and not very redemptive. But the redemptive portion came later and that was the only presentation I missed. I'll have to catch it on the CD.
It is extremely difficult to persuade a pastor to consider the nature of dealing with the homosexual issue, when I don't think they feel that congregation is representative of those in need of hearing anything about this part of the Bible's teachings. That is what weighs heavy on me. It almost feels like waiting for some kind of trend to occur, otherwise there is no need to promote any unnecessary attention.
I don's see heterosexual clergy and church members feeling comfortable approaching this topic. To me that was a HUGE factor relative to the conference. The many pastors and leaders that I spoke to are so very hungry for this element. They want more practical advice. They want to know what they're dealing with. They have a lot of answers, bur are not prepared for the types of questions or observations that may take place.
Preparedness for this issue relating to Christianity should be part of every seminary curriculum.
What Nick Miller did was great. It is a monumental start and I could gauge that there is much need for a follow-up seminar focused on the practicality side of the spectrum, still sprinkled with a bit of the scholarly approach for foundation.
Thanks again David for the viewpoints you made public on your site.
Wayne Blakely
Conference Participant
Same-Sex attracted Christian
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to add my note of appreciation for your even-handed coverage of the conference. I was on campus after the conference ended for a few days, but wished I could have gotten there earlier to attend in person.
Nick:
ReplyDeleteThanks for your kind words. I agree with you and ministry to homosexuals and advocacy on homosexual marriage are not mutually exclusive. And as I stated, I believe at this point it would be appropriate for church lawyers to represent our position in court.
On the other hand, we cannot deny the effect of one upon the other. You point out that having a weak advocacy may jeopardize our ministry. But remember that having a strong public advocacy can also jeopardize our ministry. As an example, I offer the Mormons who, without gaining prior legitimacy, have strongly opposed gay marriage, and as a result have closed many doors to ministry among homosexuals.
I believe that given the choice of protecting our institutions or getting access to people, we should always err on the side of people. This is why I think public advocacy should be modulated to our level of ministry.
I believe that the institutional church may need to take a hit on this one, because of our falling short in ministry to homosexuals in the past. I'm ok with this because I believe that ministry is not done primarily by institutions but by people. (Inge Anderson would be my exhibit A.) Of course, it is easier for people to witness with the support of institutions, so I'm not proposing we give up without a fight. But what I am saying is that we need to fight in such a way that we do not needlessly alienate people.
Thanks again for organizing this thing, which was in fact a spiritual blessing to me. As one church ministry professor next to me at the opening program remarked, it was a long time coming. It was indeed worth the effort of all involved.
Great summary, great theology/hermeneutics, and great loving vision. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteWould you mind if I reposted this at:
http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com
Gary:
ReplyDeleteI would be honored to have you repost this on Reinventing. Thank you for the opportunity.
I posted links on Adventist Activism to your coverage. Thanks, Jeff
ReplyDeletehttp://advactivism.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/marriage-homosexuality-and-the-church-conference-andrews-univ/
David, you wrote: "The problem with this is that God has never indicated in Scripture that such an allowance should be made. Even if you believe that the biblical injunctions against homosexual sex apply to only exploitative or non-mutually fulfilling homosexual sex, it remains the case that God never revealed homosexual marriage as the solution to this problem."
ReplyDeleteIt would have had to have been a recognizable problem for it to have been written about explicitly. Generally modern Adventists are very good at extrapolating meaning from scripture when it serves a doctrinal purpose, but very hesitant to do so when it might mean re-defining doctrine - which, ironically, is totally at odds with the mindset of our founders.
You also wrote, "When discussing the possibility that a whole class of people may be required by God to forfeit sexual and romantic companionship, we're going to have to do better than, 'Life isn't fair.'"
You are very right! We'd have to embrace the doctrines of pre-destination in order to continue touting this stance without also displaying obvious hypocrisy.
That said, David. I do very much appreciate your careful and respectful treatment of this subject. I think another angle to consider is that homosexuals who remain in the Christian faith while demonstrating loving, stable, and committed relationships have much to teach us about living in faith. To step out beyond what an institution has set as standard and to live freely in faith such as they would require a complete and utter re-evaluation of what one holds to be true. A very scary thing to do, indeed.
Lastly, I'll leave you with a favourite quote of mine:
"It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong." - G. K. Chesterton
The psychologist William James seemed to understand this concept when he warned that we must live by the truth we can get today, but be ready to call it falsehood tomorrow.
I believe that by no means has the church concluded it's learning on the subject of homosexuality, and despite those who would think it has, must not fall into bigotry by believing its final word is just that - final.
David, you wrote: "The problem with this is that God has never indicated in Scripture that such an allowance should be made. Even if you believe that the biblical injunctions against homosexual sex apply to only exploitative or non-mutually fulfilling homosexual sex, it remains the case that God never revealed homosexual marriage as the solution to this problem."
ReplyDeleteIt would have had to have been a recognizable problem for it to have been written about explicitly. Generally modern Adventists are very good at extrapolating meaning from scripture when it serves a doctrinal purpose, but very hesitant to do so when it might mean re-defining doctrine - which, ironically, is totally at odds with the mindset of our founders.
You also wrote, "When discussing the possibility that a whole class of people may be required by God to forfeit sexual and romantic companionship, we're going to have to do better than, 'Life isn't fair.'"
You are very right! We'd have to embrace the doctrines of pre-destination in order to continue touting this stance without also displaying obvious hypocrisy.
That said, David. I do very much appreciate your careful and respectful treatment of this subject. I think another angle to consider is that homosexuals who remain in the Christian faith while demonstrating loving, stable, and committed relationships have much to teach us about living in faith. To step out beyond what an institution has set as standard and to live freely in faith such as they would require a complete and utter re-evaluation of what one holds to be true. A very scary thing to do, indeed.
Lastly, I'll leave you with a favourite quote of mine:
"It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong." - G. K. Chesterton
The psychologist William James seemed to understand this concept when he warned that we must live by the truth we can get today, but be ready to call it falsehood tomorrow.
I believe that by no means has the church concluded it's learning on the subject of homosexuality, and despite those who would think it has, must not fall into bigotry by believing its final word is just that - final.