If we know anything about human beings and our history, it’s how often we repeat our mistakes and forget the things which allow us to live in harmony with God, one another and our planet.
Equally, every generation has its so called movers and shakers, people with the desire to change the status quo.
Some have made significant positive contributions and others have not.
So too, when it comes to exercising our authority as interpreters and teachers of the Bible, we find in every generation those who work to change the status quo.
Some have made positive contributions; names like Luther, Wesley, Mbete, and Gutierrez are some that come to mind.
So, in terms of Methodism in Southern Africa (MCSA), the current move by a small minority of theologians to sanction same-sex relationships should not surprise us at all.
That being said, do same-sex relationships deserve to be considered as moral and acceptable within the MCSA, and by implication, broader Christianity?
Because we have been given authority by Christ to bind & loose, (interpret and teach), they do if we chose to say they are.
So, as a person who gets to say what is morally acceptable, I need to understand some things, which have not been raised by DEWCOM, I think mainly because they simply see two sides: for and against.
- Are all the laws in the Old Testament to be considered redundant or just some of them?
If it’s some of them, how do I know which ones are in and which ones are out?
You see, if same-sex relationships are in because men today don’t need to worry about growing their beards or clipping the sides of their hair and a whole lot of other laws which we no longer adhere to, then I have some friends and know of some people who will be overjoyed by this news because we now have permission to decide what constitutes a moral life.
We no longer have any need to conform to those parts of the Bible which we struggle with or, better still, we just take out those parts which suit us and ditch the rest.
Whilst this is not new, we have done this many times in our history. But it’s amazing that cutting hair, eating food and ploughing fields, things previously considered ceremonial, are now used to motivate a change in moral laws.
In other words, does a same-sex relationship violate a ceremonial or a moral law?
- On the issue of same-sex relationships being loving and nurturing:
If these unions primary subscription is to be loving and nurturing, (l & n), then I have met some people who will thank me for making it morally acceptable to marry their mothers (as long as it’s l & n)
Others still will happily marry their sisters (as long as it’s l & n) and some will now be able to marry a dog, sheep or goat, (as long as it’s l & n.)
I personally know a farmer who would readily invite me to officiate in his union!
- On the question of Biblical interpretation:
I recently discovered that the words ceremonial, (related to the way we do church), and moral, (related to standards of conduct), can easily be replaced or confused with my own personal convictions about which laws to leave in and which to leave out.
I am really grateful for this because I really would like to just take the Sunday collection instead allowing it to be banked. This really shouldn’t be a moral problem for me because the Lord knows I need the money.
Also I have a very attractive daughter who I know will help me pay for a new motorbike.
All I have to do is to sell her into prostitution.
This also wouldn’t be much of a moral dilemma for me, because like same-sex relationships, now made legal by the government, there is also a lobby to legalise prostitution.
Hopefully it will happen soon because I have my eye on a BMW 1200!
- On the question of the practice of the MCSA regarding homosexuals.
I was completely astounded at Synod, (Central District), because a ‘father’ of the church, informed us as he spoke on the floor, that it has been our practice to allow homosexual people into membership, leadership and ministry.
I rarely speak at Synod but I felt it necessary to say to the floor that I have been in the MCSA twelve years, ten as a minister, and up until this point, understood us to welcome homosexuals as members. They can be leaders and ministers if they abstain from the practice of same-sex relationships.
Somehow, I had it wrong.
What I believe, I don’t have wrong, is to love them as fellow creations!
I know all of this sounds silly of me, but I need help with these questions because I feel I can’t trust the Bible anymore.
And neither can I trust nearly two thousand years of theological development and Christian doctrine.
They clearly had it wrong on these issues.
Some would argue that it is a very long time to be wrong.
So, anyway, what I really need is the ability to decide for myself which parts of the Bible I can throw out and which I can leave in.
After all, I desperately want to be a visionary.
Is there anyone who can help me?
Rev Dr John Bailie
June 2010
5 comments:
Hi John,
Thanks for your searching and honest questions.
I'm not sure whether you will really want to hear from me here (since I assume you know my position on the questions you raise), but if you are interested in having an honest, open discussion around your questions - if you're really asking for people to help you (I'm not saying that I'm necessarily the person, but I'd like to try if I can) - then let me know, and I would love to engage you thoroughly on the important questions you've raised on your blog.
Perhaps I can kick things off by asking you one simple question that would help me to know how best to respond to you, if you decide to continue this conversation: To what extent have you studied homosexuality from a biblical, theological, biological, sociological, ethical and moral perspective (since these are all angles that you raise in your questions)? Do your questions come from study or from a desire to study something that you have not yet really engaged with in detail? I don't want to assume knowledge that you may not have, but neither do I want to assume ignorance when you may have done a lot of work around this issue.
So, once again, thanks for putting this out there. I hope we can take the conversation further together.
Grace
John
Hi John,
I thought I had already posted a comment, but it seems to have gotten lost. If it does come through, feel free to delete this one.
I'm not sure you'd like me to be the person to volunteer to help (in response to your request), since I assume you know where I stand on the issues you raise. However, if you're comfortable with including me in your journey, feel free to let me know and I'd be happy to jump in.
Perhaps one question: to what extent have you studied homosexuality - Bible, science, sociology etc.? I would be interested to know if your questions arise out of long study around the issues, or from the beginnings of a desire to study them.
Looking forward to (I hope) hearing from you - I'll be subscribing to the comments from your blog, so feel free to respond here, and I'll pick it up.
Grace
John
Hi John
Thanks for the response.
I must admit I'm not an expert on same-sex issues but I do have a passion for and interest in theological development particularly within the MCSA.
So my difficulties arise,(within the same-sex debate,)with our theolgical method rather than simply with the two sided approach of "I stand here" and "you stand there."
I hope my blog does raise some thought in this regard.
JB
Thanks for your response, John. It excites me, because I find myself in the same place - and as you imply, not just with respect to the same sex debate.
Ultimately whatever 'issue' we address, we need a consistent and responsible theological method. It was this quest, interestingly enough, that put me where I am with respect to the same sex debate.
As you mention in your post, we run into the problem of "what parts of the Bible do I keep and what parts do I throw out?". This, it seems to me, is the fundamental problem with our 'traditional' theological approach. We find ourselves using some parts of the Bible literally and without question (e.g. "homosexuality is an abomination"), but then ignoring (at worst) or re-interpreting (at best) other parts (e.g. remarriage after divorce is the same as adultery).
In my frustration with this, I went in search of a method that I could use consistently, no matter what issue I faced, and that would take all of the Scriptures seriously. This is still a work in progress for me - as I suspect it always will be (and should be), but I think I've got the beginnings - for myself at any rate. And the conclusions that have arisen from this method have been surprising for me - especially at the beginning.
At it's heart, the method to which I refer has arisen out of something that Steve De Gruchy mentioned in his book "Aliens In The Household Of God". He spoke of Jesus having a "hermeneutic of agape", and that every interpretive, ethical, and theological decision that Jesus made flowed from agape as the primary value. I have worked with this over the years since I first read it, and it's been really helpful for me.
Grace
John
Yep, frustrating as it may be, devloping a theological method is exiting and fulfilling.
For myself, I find Wesley's quadrilateral helpful - Scripture, tradition, reason and experience.
Trick is to not allow any one to 'dominate the other.'
If we allow Scripture to be the 'one and only', then we become literal.
If tradition then then we fall into theological lethargy.
If reason, then we lock into subjectivism.
If expreince then we 'bang our heads' on relativism.
So for me care needs to be taken to allow the method to inform our 'research.'
Post a Comment