Listening to Others
Here's a Conundrum ...
We have some friends who travel frequently to the States, have a lot to do with the church there and are often invited to minister in various places. Their links are, however, with the much more evangelical, traditionalist, and anti-any-change-in-stance-about-homosexuality end of the church spectrum. So they bring back horror stories about the church situation there, depicting the evangelical faithful (primarily within the Episcopalian Church) as an embattled minority, persecuted and discriminated against by the liberal, anti-scriptural, and apparently unbelieving hierarchy. Their latest account of the Gene Robinson affair is that it was not primarily about sexuality, but about the whole way that the liberals have abandoned scripture and any semblance of obedience to God's word.
Now this is so different from the picture I get from other sources - the relatively few American Christians I know, what I read in Church Times or in people's blogs, etc. - that I simply don't know how to reconcile these different versions of the world. It suggests to me a possibility that all the talk about schism comes not from our substantive differences of opinion - which no doubt are real - but from mistaken understandings of what the other person's opinions or motivations are. Perhaps the words 'from not listening to the other person' may not be entirely inaccurate?
But can it really be that liberals in ECUSA claim that they are ignoring scripture? Surely not: surely this is an anti-liberal libel. But if that is how non-liberals actually perceive and are able to represent the situation, then I reckon liberals haven't done a good enough job of explaining why a liberal position in the homosexuality debate is compatible with - I would say, demanded by - a faithful reading of scripture.
Lambeth 1998 urged all Anglicans to listen to the experience of gay and lesbian people. I wish we would. Because that is what really made me think again about the whole issue. It's when you realise - and really come to believe - that sexual orientation is not chosen, but part of our God-givenness as humans, that you can start to address the question, How, then, can we live holy lives? rather than, What acts are or are not sinful?
The problem is that it has been so difficult for gay and lesbian people to testify to their experience, and faith, within the faith community that has so long misunderstood and persecuted them, that it is almost impossible for anyone to really listen to and hear those whose views or experience are different.
We have some friends who travel frequently to the States, have a lot to do with the church there and are often invited to minister in various places. Their links are, however, with the much more evangelical, traditionalist, and anti-any-change-in-stance-about-homosexuality end of the church spectrum. So they bring back horror stories about the church situation there, depicting the evangelical faithful (primarily within the Episcopalian Church) as an embattled minority, persecuted and discriminated against by the liberal, anti-scriptural, and apparently unbelieving hierarchy. Their latest account of the Gene Robinson affair is that it was not primarily about sexuality, but about the whole way that the liberals have abandoned scripture and any semblance of obedience to God's word.
Now this is so different from the picture I get from other sources - the relatively few American Christians I know, what I read in Church Times or in people's blogs, etc. - that I simply don't know how to reconcile these different versions of the world. It suggests to me a possibility that all the talk about schism comes not from our substantive differences of opinion - which no doubt are real - but from mistaken understandings of what the other person's opinions or motivations are. Perhaps the words 'from not listening to the other person' may not be entirely inaccurate?
But can it really be that liberals in ECUSA claim that they are ignoring scripture? Surely not: surely this is an anti-liberal libel. But if that is how non-liberals actually perceive and are able to represent the situation, then I reckon liberals haven't done a good enough job of explaining why a liberal position in the homosexuality debate is compatible with - I would say, demanded by - a faithful reading of scripture.
Lambeth 1998 urged all Anglicans to listen to the experience of gay and lesbian people. I wish we would. Because that is what really made me think again about the whole issue. It's when you realise - and really come to believe - that sexual orientation is not chosen, but part of our God-givenness as humans, that you can start to address the question, How, then, can we live holy lives? rather than, What acts are or are not sinful?
The problem is that it has been so difficult for gay and lesbian people to testify to their experience, and faith, within the faith community that has so long misunderstood and persecuted them, that it is almost impossible for anyone to really listen to and hear those whose views or experience are different.
2 Comments:
Tony,
It might also be possible that the liberals *have* explained how their beliefs have been derived but the conservatives have neither listened nor even indicated a desire to dialog.
Liberals aren't ignoring scripture -- just using different lenses through which scripture is read. Most of the liberals I know look at not just what it says on the surface but also try to put it in the context of the time of writing (how the first hearers would have heard and understood based on their language, experience and culture) and then let the Spirit guide them to understand how the passage applies to the world today. Liberals are accused of being "pick and choose" but the accusation comes from those who pick and choose themselves -- usually just different passages and interpretations. But if one mentions that it is shouted down by the conservatives. Only *their* interpretation and *their* devotion to scripture is authentic, orthodox and right with God. This includes those whose culture accepts polygamy as normal even though it is repugnant to other
I wish I could tell you how sick and sad it makes me to hear continually how "sinful" the liberals are. I know what God's laid on my heart and conscience, and I know that it isn't because I will it to be so that I believe what i do. I believe too that others who believe as I do are following the same compulsion of belief.
But that's just my 0.02. fwiw.
Every lesbian I've ever met has been a devout Christian. The church and homosexuality can definitely get on well.
Post a Comment
<< Home