Inclusivity and Acceptance
Whatever our sexual orientation we are called to
love one another, to accept and not reject one another. However, the acceptance
and inclusivity must not ignore those areas of our lives which are not in
accordance with God's will. Same sex attraction, together with any other
tendency to express our sexuality outside of God's will, is to be challenged
and resisted. However, for me, the words of Jesus to the woman caught in
adultery encapsulates what our ongoing approach and attitude to each other
should be. Neither do I condemn you . . . go and sin no more.
I recognise that the practical and pastoral
outworking of these issues for individuals and churches is massive, and there
is insufficient space in this article to even begin discussing what this should
look like. However, our churches need to be places where we are accepted for
who we are as persons, but our sin, including sexual sin, is challenged, and
patience and wisdom exercised as we each stumble our way forward in the grace
of God towards a closer affinity with his will.
Conclusion
Nothing I have said above is going to bring
immediate resolution to this very difficult area. All I have tried to do is to
clearly, but hopefully sensitively, state where I, and perhaps a number of
others, stand on this perplexing issue. However, as there are a number of
different perspectives, some of which are held extremely and understandably passionately,
this will mean that that which we each believe the church should be, will not
happen in the near future. And we need to accept that this is so. However, if
we can continue to be honest with one another, patient and loving, and accept
that it's not my will or your will which is to be done but God's, I'm sure
progress can be made.
But I think it will be through a valley of tears
of pain. And the valley may be a long one.
In the meantime I would urge that we continue
talking and never give up on one another, and respectfully suggest that we
resist the temptation to sometimes think the worst of one another but try to
understand where we are each coming from, and then present our challenges to
each other in love. It's certainly not easy to do so, but essential.
Whilst writing this article I have been
listening to this Gowans/Larsson song from the musical Glory (I may have
mis-heard some of the words so feel free to correct my mistakes):-
We're all seeking the same Saviour, we're all
seeking the self same Lord.
We're all claiming the same cleansing, we're all
finding our peace restored.
Varied are the ones we name, the prayers we
plead,
Yet essentially the same the grace we need.
Different in a thousand ways, in this the same.
Side by side in prayer and praise that grace we
claim.
Every seeker comes alone to make his prayers,
But before one common throne we bring our cares.
Coming with an inward open Lord to meet.
We are not alone before the mercy seat.
You can listen too at:-
Bernard Martin
Former Officer UKT
27 comments:
Thank you Bernard!
ACTIVE UKTI
I echo the first comment - well said! I have read all the contributions on this subject, and have seen many express their opinions - some gently, some forcefully, some convincingly, some passionately and some aggressively, but all, I'm sure, were contributed in sincerity.
I’m afraid, though, that as the aggression of gay activists makes relentless headway in the church, as it is already doing, steadily wearing people down with the persistent insistence that their lifestyle is excluded from the ‘sin’ category and their opinion that their lifestyle is perfectly acceptable to God and equal in value to that of heterosexuals, the result will be the further marginalisation of ‘conservative’ Bible-believing Christians who accept the Bible - the whole of the Bible – as the inspired Word of God, and whose views are held in contempt by the GLBT community.
Salvationist, UK
I don't think that anyone accepts the "whole" of the Bible including conservative Christians; nor do I think that the LGBT community holds Christians in contempt, many of whom are Christians.
The difference lies not in a lack of respect for the scriptures but in the way they are interpreted. Besides let it be said that the official position of inspiration as held by TSA has never included the words inerrant or infallible.
Some of are no more sure that Paul was infallible about his views on sexuality than he has proved to be with regards to his view about women and whether they can be in places of authority over men in the church. Let the SA women Generals sit up and take notice!
That said real "Bible-believing" Christians do not allow women to be elders let alone officers or ministers. They are the folk that believe in the "whole" Bible.
It seems to me that such people can be quite self-righteous about their own shortcomings even as they carry their Bibles with them everywhere they go for the whole world to see. Much better to believe in the Living Word and to let one's light shine in word and deed.
As has just been said above, the difficulty is in interpretation. All sides of this debate can claim the Bible as their source, and can say that those who do not hold their view of Biblical interpretation have translated it wrong. All sides believe their view is on solid rock, and others is on sand. As such, we may never come to full agreement. My hope though is for a church where all interpretations are accepted and acknowledged - different interpretations for different people - all valid, all respected. Is this naive? Perhaps a little, but it is my hope and prayer.
There is one main difficulty in just letting things go as they are in the church while continuing to discuss this issue. The problem is that people are still dying, still being murdered, families are still being torn apart, lives still ruined. While we talk, whilst maintaining a traditional view on sexuality until our talk is resolved, people are still suffering. It is their blood that those who just talk without fighting for will have to answer for before God. Christ's blood will not cover the blood of those people, as it will cry out against them. Are those who hold a traditional view prepared to answer for the blood that is on your hands? And don't kid yourselves - it is on your hands.
All the 'Activists' want to do is love. Love is of God and only God. Where there is love, there is God - full stop! We cannot deny that God is present where there is love. If we argue that there are different kinds of love then we have not understood this concept or understood the love that LGBT people have for each other and their children. It is simple. Love is from God, violence is not. Whatever our Theology says is irrelevant against the test of the fruit of the Spirit. Is there love? It is from God - no matter what the Theology says. Is there violence? Then the teaching is not from God - no matter what Theology or tradition says.
Yours in Christ,
Graeme Randall
Former Australian East in London
Graeme - I find your words quite threatening. You say ‘whilst maintaining a traditional view on sexuality until our talk is resolved’ This sounds to me like a veiled threat that people will be forced to ‘reconsider’ their views on GLBT issues, as has already been seen by the appalling treatment of hotel owners, flower sellers, bakers etc who have obeyed their conscience and refuse to accommodate demands by GLBT people for services – thereby destroying their livelihoods. Is that Christian, when they are obeying the very same conscience that God has given them? Graeme, you will evidently not accept a change in your conscientious beliefs about GLBT activities and lifestyles – please give heterosexual people the same opportunity.
I also found the fustian comments in your 2nd paragraph unnecessarily dramatic, bordering on the hysterical, and in direct opposition to the beginning of your 3rd paragraph - 'all activists want to do is love'. As well as threaten traditionalists with having blood on their hands for sincerely held beliefs? I think not.
We all have to stand before judgment at the end of our earthly lives - we all have to account for our actions and interpretations - please afford God the privilege of judging whose blood is on anyone's hands - it's not your prerogative to assume anyone's innocence or guilt.
I know my arguments will fall on deaf ears, and not so long from now I will not be allowed even to print these words because of the GLBT aggressive agenda. And I, along with others who think as I do, will be the marginalized, the ostracized, the persecuted - every adjective you have used to describe the way you feel about GLBTs at the moment. How will you feel then? Will you labour equally intensely to make sure our rights are protected? I don't think so. Once your minority becomes the majority, you won't care about the people whose views and convictions you will displace. And that, to my mind, is equally bigoted.
God created us with minds to think and to consider - we all do that differently.
UK Salvationist
I like the new Living Translation of 1 Corinthians 13 and I think people on both sides of the fence should remember "Love does not demand its own way...it never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance."
Apply these qualities as each of us individually sees fit and are led by God's Spirit.
Canada
I am utterly amazed that citizens in the UK could think that they could deny services to any group of people whether by religion, race, disability or sexual orientation. Such a denial by anyone in my country would result in a case before the Human Rights Commission. Does UK Salvationist think that such denial could be accepted within a Christian context?
Anonymous commenter # 3 above says,
"Besides let it be said that the official position of inspiration as held by TSA has never included the words inerrant or infallible."
My understanding is that this former position recently changed authorized by Linda Bond. I believe the words"inerrant or infallible" have now been added to the doctrinal book officially.
I signed the Articles of War around 1962 with the understanding of our doctrines as published under General Fred Coutts's watch (1969). But that understanding of the inspiration of scripture has changed officially apparently in the Army and the change was made official by Linda Bond.
I still hold to a more liberal view and that's the Army I joined. So much for one Army, one vision, one message. What happened by the way to one Lord or one Saviour?
Canada
No I do not believe you are correct anonymous Canada the wording has been changed, but refers to the scriptures now as "the authoritative word of God". Inerrancy and Infallibility have never been used in the Army's history, they grew out of the five fundamentals, which were part of the modernist-fundamentalist controversy in the USA.
To Anonymous @7 - Just because I indicated I am from the UK, it doesn't mean these instances are from the UK - true, there were UK hotel owners who were prosecuted here, but the other cases occurred in the United States. And I do think that such denials can be accepted in a Christian context. It's all about Biblical interpretation, and people should have the religious freedom to live out what their conscience tells them. I do not believe that gay relationships follow the plan that God has outlined for humankind, and even though you believe that they do, you should also respect my beliefs for following my conscience too. Ultimately, it is God who will decide on our eternal futures, and it won't only be decided on GLBT issues.
UK Salvationist
UK Salvationist - Oh dear.... There was no threat - veiled or otherwise - in what I wrote. I appologise profusely if you thought there was. I was simply saying that while we discuss this issue, people die. I can't stand by and let people die. There is not enough time to debate this through. One life saved is a life saved. I can't stand by and watch people die - literally. That is not an exaggeration. I have known people who have died because they were kicked out of their family, who had medication withheld by a Salvation Army Officer and so died. I have had friends bashed to death for being gay because the preacher said they were an abomination. I have known people who have committed suicide because they were ostracized. I have known many people (myself included) who have been fired from jobs for no other reason that they are gay. I can't stand by and watch it happen while we debate what the Bible does or does not say.
I would also ask that you read what people write before you respond. I did say that my hope and prayer is for a church where ALL people are welcome, and all views are respected. Inclusion means ALL - not just one group. I agree wholeheartedly with the words attributed to Voltaire (he never said them by the way) 'I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it'. In the USA, this has been shown in practice by gay rights organisations funding the defence for those businesses of some of those cases you referred to, and some gay lawyers actually representing the conservative Christian business in one case I am aware of.
What I want is for all to be respected, and for us all to sit down at the table as brothers and sisters in Christ. You as well. I respect you have a strongly held view. For many years, I had that same view, and protested against gay gatherings. I now pursue inclusion and love. I recognise that interpretation is just that - interpretation. There are a LOT of lies been put out by the anti-gay lobies - including falsified reports and surveys - which paint a very bad view of the GLBT community. Get to know us, and you'll find that the reports are wrong. They are stereotypes which are wrong.
If this means that we have multiple expressions of Christianity, and we have a 'liberal TSA' and a 'Conservative TSA' under one General, then so be it. I would prefer unity though.
It can happen, we just need to agree to sit down and talk. I am endeavouring to organise an inclusivity gathering of Salvationists and Friends in London. I do hope that you would join us so that we can discuss together. Inclusion means you as well. Like you, I believe I am a Bible believing Christian. I read the same Bible you do, I worship in church like you do. I have faith in God like you do. But it's like Barth once described, we are all looking up at the same mountain peak, just from different sides of the same mountain.
Yours in Christ,
Graeme Randall
Former Australian East in London
UK Salvationist my comment has nothing to do with your conscience or with my views on the LGBT issue, which by the way is an assumption on your part as you do not know my view.
What I am referring to when I speak of my country is that it is the law of the land. It doesn't matter whatever your religious affiliation may be you are not allowed to discriminate for any reason period. You do not have a choice!
Recently a Muslim barber refused to cut the hair of a woman customer, he soon learned that if that was his conviction he was going to have to hire another barber on to his business who would.
I wonder if you had been Jesus if you would have healed the Syrophenician woman's daughter seeing that his fellow Jews considered her to be a "dog"!
You are going to have to do some catching up if you want to continue to live in this world.
Graeme - what a condescending note. Perhaps you should read your own missive before publishing it. From its tone it would seem that there is no other outcome for you than total capitulation by those who hold a traditional view of GLBT issues. How sad. You defeat all your other statements.
Uk salvationist your freedom to believe as you wish and pursue the faith and interpretation of the bible that you wish is guaranteed by the Universal declaration on human rights to which the UK is a signatory. It is the same declaration that says you can't discriminate against people in the provision of goods and services or housing or education based on inherent characteristics. Since that declaration was made there have been many other instruments adopted, particularly by western countries. Why have christian shop keepers or hoteliers lost those cases? Because their behaviour in civil commerce was inconsistent with the human rights acknowledged by the country they lived and worked in. Rights are not exclusive (ie my right to exist does not give me the right to ensure you do not exist) but at times need to be implemented recognising the inherent tensions. You are free to believe whatever you like, but you are not free to impose that belief or value on others in a democratic society. We differ on whether being homosexual is a sin, and we differ in what sexual behaviour constitutes sin. Most gay people, as Graeme points out, do not fit the stereotype promoted by some in the church. It seems to me we spend far too much time trying to define others sins and get them to change, than we do focussing on how we might live fully dedicated to Christ and so draw others to us. Gay christians, I don't think, in the whole are trying to be aggressive. Many are frustrated by a lack of willingness to engage on what assumptions underline the conservative position. There are gay clergy, gay soldiers, gay officers and gay attenders. Some are married, some are not. Some are married to those of the same sex, some are married to those of the opposite sex. Many have children, many don't. In my experience gay christians want to work out what it is to live christian ly as a gay person. Just like non-gay people, they come up with different understandings of that. For many gay christians the difficulty with the conservative understanding of the bible is not the call to celibacy, but the inconsistency of biblical interpretation applied to the relevant passages. I don't want you to change your position unless you are persuaded by scripture and reason and the Holy Spirit, but like Graeme, I do want you to treat the gay people in your life with dignity and respect, just as I want the gay people in your life to treat you with dignity and respect. We can disagree, but we ought not to stereotype each other, and we ought not to read things into each other's position. I know Graeme and have known him for 20 years. He is passionate, but not aggressive, but he, like me has seen people die. I am tired of burying people. I ma tired of attending funerals of christian gay people whose families do not acknowledge their partner but I think dialogue is the only way forward.
Allyson
Allyson - you make assumptions that because of my views I discriminate against gay people - I don't. You have no idea what my life is like. You say 'You are free to believe whatever you like, but you are not free to impose that belief or value on others in a democratic society'. It seems to me that this is what you are attempting to do with the traditionalists. This is natural when people hold opposing views, so it isn't really worthy of comment, because each group will carry on doing it - it's what constitutes debate in a democracy.
Like both you and Graeme I, too, have seen people die - no-one is immune from this observation or experience, but it isn't only gay people's deaths that are tragic. That, to me, is stereotyping of the worst kind, and, quite frankly, very hurtful. Heterosexual Christians have family problems, too - alienation within the family unit is definitely not exclusive to gay people.
UK Salvationist
Uk salvationist- I do not in anyway assume that you discriminate, I apologies if you thought that I did. I was using "you" in its generic sense to put a proposition and I should have used we. I think all death is tragic, and it is not unique to gay people, but there are aspects of the interaction with the church that are different in the gay experience. I think you are reading my comments as critical of you personally, and I apologise if that is the sense you get. It is not my intention, we are not enemies, we just have different views.
Allyson
The FSAOF is working diligently to convene an inclusivity seminar in London. The 'inclusivity' umbrella covers a broad spectrum; disables - mentally/physically, race relations, ethic responsibilities, LGBT issues, unemployment, and much more.
If you are interested in more information and are able to assist in forming this 1st seminar, please contact: selmoscow@aol.com
I think a broad spectrum of inclusivity is the way to go - a brilliant approach to the disabled, the mentally handicapped, those with mental disorders of all kind and those of different sexual orientations including I hope those who are transgendered, as they are those who are welcomed nowhere it seems in the religious community. Surely these are those whom Jesus would have reached out to with love. Wouldn't it be great if the Army could do the same?
Allyson - I did not take it personally - I meant hurtful to the 'straight' community as a whole, as you seemed to imply above that the gay community has cornered the market on grief. We are not all 'gay bashers' - many of us have connections in one way or another to the GLBT community - through friends or family - and just because we hold a traditionalist viewpoint on the subject of GLBT within Christianity does not make us immune to their sensitivities. Actually, within my own fraternity I don't know anyone who would withhold the hand of friendship to anyone of a different orientation.
UK Salvationist
Anonymous @ 7 & 10 - the people who were prosecuted did not discriminate against the gay people on the grounds of sexual orientation - that's a no-brainer - they disapproved of gay marriage in the case of the baker and florist, and by supplying the services they would be seen as going against their principles. They had no issue with the people themselves - each to his own. The hoteliers ran a guest house in their own home, and held the traditionalist view of marriage (one man, one woman) and could not condone gay people sharing a bed in their home. Again, they had no issue with the gay couple's orientation. But they were prosecuted for standing up for their beliefs, which, to me, is reprehensible.
Yes, I read the newspapers also, and it makes absolutely no difference, whether you think it is reprehensible or not, it is against the law period.
Now let's shift the subject. Jesus said nothing for or against same-sex marriage but he had a lot to say about divorce.
Say I happen to agree with what he said, and a couple whom I know come to me a florist, and I refuse to serve them because I know that it is the third time around for one and the second for the other.
Would the law protect me from discrimination because it was against my conscience? If I were charged could I rightfully feel that the whole issue was "reprehensible"?
I think this whole discussion is unfathomable, incredible, mind boggling, impossible to understand.
My conscience forbids me to remain silent.
You didn't answer my question about the Syrophenician woman.
She was a Gentile, and Jews were to have no dealing with them. Check out the passage again and refresh your memory.
Anonymous@21 - conscience defies logic - that's why it's called conscience. Another description of it is 'gut-feeling'. Nothing you say logically fits in with it, and you cannot be expected to understand it. We are obviously at different polar points on this issue and are unlikely to ever agree.
I have to say I really don't like your aggressive tone - I have done nothing except disagree with your viewpoint and offer my own, which you obviously disagree with. Reinhold Niebuhr wrote the Serenity Prayer: God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can: and wisdom to know the difference. Living one day at a time; Enjoying one moment at a time; Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace; Taking, as He did, this sinful world as it is, not as I would have it; Trusting that He will make all things right if I surrender to His Will; That I may be reasonably happy in this life and supremely happy with Him forever in the next. Amen.
I think a little wisdom is called for here.
On the subject of what Jesus said and didn't say, He said nothing about paedophilia either, and nothing about a host of other sins too numerous to mention, but that doesn't make them acceptable, either in our sight or His.
I didn't reply to your comment about the Syrophenician woman because I thought it was a silly question. I am not Jesus, and never will be, so the situation will never arise. I don't have to 'check out the passage' as you so imperiously put it - my recollection of the story is that the woman cried after Jesus begging Him for mercy on behalf of her daughter, as she was possessed with an unclean spirit. She did what she did because she wanted her daughter cleansed. The Jew and Gentile issue was a cultural divide at the time. She crossed this divide - a classic case of 'mother love'.
UK Salvationist
The Syrophenician woman "crossed the cultural divide" and so did Jesus, and that is exactly the point; and from that moment on he included the Gentiles in his ministry!
"Silly", not at all, we "dogs" became included in the plan of salvation; it was no longer for "the house of Israel" alone.
Ii rather think Jews and Gentiles are different from hetero and homosexuals. You put yourself down.
Sorry I didn't put myself down, I'm a Gentile, I'm also married with adult children and a grandchild. There you go again making assumptions!
I think I've lost the thread of this conversation. I thought it was about GLBT issues. I must be slow on the uptake not to have followed it out of that issue into the huge subject of Jews and Gentiles. Thousands of years haven't sorted out their troubles - count me out. Goodnight.
Thanks for all the comments.
In considering what has been written so far, I would highlight three areas.
1 Interpretation of the Bible
It is clear that although we all respect the Scriptures, our understanding of how it applies to us today differs. This is partly determined by the presuppositions we hold. To assist us in moving forward it seems to me that it would be helpful to give more attention to our presuppositions. This should help us understand the views of ourselves and others better, and to assess which of our presuppositions are of 'rock' and good to build on, or 'sand' and so be avoided.
2 Communication
There are often issues relating to communication. It is possible that I don't say what I mean clearly, or I think I've said it clearly but the response of others indicate this may not be so. Also, in reading another's response I misunderstand their meaning. Again I think it illustrates the inevitable difficulties involved, and the care needed in engaging in such discussions as these. However, no matter what care we take, miscommunication will still occur and so patience and grace towards each other is also needed.
3 Acceptance of differing views
If we could all live together and allow each other to believe and behave as we each feel right, then that would appear to be a good aim to press towards. However, as I think we realise, even if we theoretically accepted the validity of that approach, in practice there would be some beliefs and or behaviours, somewhere or other that we would feel would in no way be acceptable. So the principle of accepting all views as equally valid breaks down at some point. The questions and challenges then arise, to what measure can variation in views be accepted and worked with; or, if I in good conscience I cannot accept a certain view as valid, how should I relate to the holder of that view?
Thanks again.
Regards.
Bernard
Post a Comment