E-Message for Tuesday, 7 July 2015
Worship: Sundays at 8:15 am | 9:40 am | 11:00 am, Wednesdays at 6:35 pm, Fridays at 7:00 pm
Friends, thank you for your great responses to my special Emessage that I sent after the recent Supreme Court ruling on Same Sex marriage. Several hundred responded, either directly or by "liking" and "sharing" my post. Several pastors asked permission to send it to their congregation, as did our District Superintendent who sent it to the clergy and leaders of our District.
Now for the second installment - Differing Theological views. While the first installment addressed differing views over specific Biblical texts, today we will look at how Christ followers in our congregation see the issue different theologically.
Those with a traditional view understand that from Genesis to Revelation, the Bible conveys the view that God created humans as male and female for each other, to be united in marriage for the purpose of shared love, mutual care and reproducing their kind. Throughout the Scriptures, the analogy is repeatedly made between God and Israel as a faithful "marriage" between a man and a woman. Indeed, Israel's frequent idolatry is portrayed as analogous to adultery (see the famous story in the Book of Hosea, and throughout the Prophets). In the New Testament, there is the image of the Church as the Bride of Christ, again, echoing the covenant relationship of marriage, culminating in the wedding feast in the Book of Revelation.
And while it is true that Jesus never spoke directly about homosexuality, Jesus did refer to marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman, affirming the words of Genesis 2. Overall, the Bible seems to be clear that a faithful, monogamous, loving relationship between a man and a woman is the clear Divine intention (although there are those mentions of multiple wives and concubines - how many did Solomon have?) For a much more complete and scholarly treatment of this view, see Richard Hays' book, The Moral Vision of the New Testament - you can get his chapter on this topic online.
The "progressive" view takes an approach something like this:
The primary Biblical ideal is about fidelity - faithfulness to another person, in sacrificial love. It's more about fidelity than male/female - ness.
The Bible was written at a time when any idea of one's sexual orientation being set from birth was unknown, and since such orientation is held to be a reality by persons themselves who are drawn to persons of the same sex, and affirmed by parents who have witnessed it in their child from a very early age, and since many American Psychiatric Organizations affirm that this is true, and stand very much against attempts to "restore" or "re-orient" persons, then, the Biblical goal of fidelity and mutual care and love becomes the same for persons regardless of sexual orientation.
Many of the persons, perhaps all who hold this view, have known persons who are living in just such a loving, caring, faithful relationship, many for lots of years.
I've heard some devout man/wife couples who are pillars in our church say, "The love we have shared together as husband and wife, we don't want to deny this to persons because their orientation is different from ours." Such denial, they believe, would not be loving as Jesus called them to love.
Many persons in this group have come to believe that the "traditional" view, unexamined, has led to discrimination against gay and lesbian persons, and has pushed them further from the church and God's love. Many parents of gay and lesbian children have expressed the pain of seeing their church send what they feel is a "non-Christian" message of non-acceptance and rejection, which is, in and of itself, contrary to the life and ministry of Jesus; it's not what Jesus would do, so it is reasoned.Both positions - those of the traditional and those of the progressive are far more complex than I can share here, but I have heard both views expressed by persons at Trinity.
I've also heard from several persons on both the traditional and progressive side express this comment: I wish the language could be that of "civil unions" rather than "same sex marriage." To be sure, several thousand years of history of "marriage" meaning "male and female" is a major reality and stumbling block for making a change. So, does the SCOTUS decision redefine marriage as many suggest? Or does it provide a way for same sex persons to benefit from the same legal arrangement that men and women have enjoyed for thousands of years without diminishing the institution? Obviously the Supreme Court justices disagreed over the answer to this, as will the people of Trinity and our Country.
What may United Methodist Pastors do? Our Bishop, Kenneth Carter, along with most Bishops of our Church, has indicated clearly that, under the current Book of Discipline (remember, this is our covenantal rule of our life together, and is able to be changed only every 4 years at General Conference), UM Clergy are not permitted to perform same sex marriages, nor may UM property be used for such services. However, as an act of pastoral support, clergy may be present at such occasions in other locations, may participate by sharing words of support, but not perform the ceremony.
That's where we are. Agree or disagree with any or all of the above, I for one am grateful that ours is a Church that fosters, encourages, and allows for healthy discussion, for thinking and reasoning together. I much prefer this to a Church which insists on lock step adherence and conformity with no room for honest reflection, or, more importantly, for the sacred space that is needed for one to truly make ones faith one's own; that requires authentic personal choice and ownership.
As I stated this past Sunday - to the shock and surprise of many - our United Methodist Church counts as its members both George W. Bush and Hillary R. Clinton! That's a very wide tent! And it reflects both the great strength and great challenge of our UM Church. Such diversity is possible only by focusing on the One who is the Christ, our Lord and Savior, and the unity we have in Him, which is vastly more important than anything which would divide us.
That's all for now. God bless and much love, Dan
Trinity United Methodist Church
4000 NW 53rd Avenue
Worship: Sundays at 8:15 am | 9:40 am | 11:00 am, Wednesdays at 6:35 pm, Fridays at 7:00 pm
Friends, thank you for your great responses to my special Emessage that I sent after the recent Supreme Court ruling on Same Sex marriage. Several hundred responded, either directly or by "liking" and "sharing" my post. Several pastors asked permission to send it to their congregation, as did our District Superintendent who sent it to the clergy and leaders of our District.
Now for the second installment - Differing Theological views. While the first installment addressed differing views over specific Biblical texts, today we will look at how Christ followers in our congregation see the issue different theologically.
Those with a traditional view understand that from Genesis to Revelation, the Bible conveys the view that God created humans as male and female for each other, to be united in marriage for the purpose of shared love, mutual care and reproducing their kind. Throughout the Scriptures, the analogy is repeatedly made between God and Israel as a faithful "marriage" between a man and a woman. Indeed, Israel's frequent idolatry is portrayed as analogous to adultery (see the famous story in the Book of Hosea, and throughout the Prophets). In the New Testament, there is the image of the Church as the Bride of Christ, again, echoing the covenant relationship of marriage, culminating in the wedding feast in the Book of Revelation.
And while it is true that Jesus never spoke directly about homosexuality, Jesus did refer to marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman, affirming the words of Genesis 2. Overall, the Bible seems to be clear that a faithful, monogamous, loving relationship between a man and a woman is the clear Divine intention (although there are those mentions of multiple wives and concubines - how many did Solomon have?) For a much more complete and scholarly treatment of this view, see Richard Hays' book, The Moral Vision of the New Testament - you can get his chapter on this topic online.
The "progressive" view takes an approach something like this:
The primary Biblical ideal is about fidelity - faithfulness to another person, in sacrificial love. It's more about fidelity than male/female - ness.
The Bible was written at a time when any idea of one's sexual orientation being set from birth was unknown, and since such orientation is held to be a reality by persons themselves who are drawn to persons of the same sex, and affirmed by parents who have witnessed it in their child from a very early age, and since many American Psychiatric Organizations affirm that this is true, and stand very much against attempts to "restore" or "re-orient" persons, then, the Biblical goal of fidelity and mutual care and love becomes the same for persons regardless of sexual orientation.
Many of the persons, perhaps all who hold this view, have known persons who are living in just such a loving, caring, faithful relationship, many for lots of years.
I've heard some devout man/wife couples who are pillars in our church say, "The love we have shared together as husband and wife, we don't want to deny this to persons because their orientation is different from ours." Such denial, they believe, would not be loving as Jesus called them to love.
Many persons in this group have come to believe that the "traditional" view, unexamined, has led to discrimination against gay and lesbian persons, and has pushed them further from the church and God's love. Many parents of gay and lesbian children have expressed the pain of seeing their church send what they feel is a "non-Christian" message of non-acceptance and rejection, which is, in and of itself, contrary to the life and ministry of Jesus; it's not what Jesus would do, so it is reasoned.Both positions - those of the traditional and those of the progressive are far more complex than I can share here, but I have heard both views expressed by persons at Trinity.
I've also heard from several persons on both the traditional and progressive side express this comment: I wish the language could be that of "civil unions" rather than "same sex marriage." To be sure, several thousand years of history of "marriage" meaning "male and female" is a major reality and stumbling block for making a change. So, does the SCOTUS decision redefine marriage as many suggest? Or does it provide a way for same sex persons to benefit from the same legal arrangement that men and women have enjoyed for thousands of years without diminishing the institution? Obviously the Supreme Court justices disagreed over the answer to this, as will the people of Trinity and our Country.
What may United Methodist Pastors do? Our Bishop, Kenneth Carter, along with most Bishops of our Church, has indicated clearly that, under the current Book of Discipline (remember, this is our covenantal rule of our life together, and is able to be changed only every 4 years at General Conference), UM Clergy are not permitted to perform same sex marriages, nor may UM property be used for such services. However, as an act of pastoral support, clergy may be present at such occasions in other locations, may participate by sharing words of support, but not perform the ceremony.
That's where we are. Agree or disagree with any or all of the above, I for one am grateful that ours is a Church that fosters, encourages, and allows for healthy discussion, for thinking and reasoning together. I much prefer this to a Church which insists on lock step adherence and conformity with no room for honest reflection, or, more importantly, for the sacred space that is needed for one to truly make ones faith one's own; that requires authentic personal choice and ownership.
As I stated this past Sunday - to the shock and surprise of many - our United Methodist Church counts as its members both George W. Bush and Hillary R. Clinton! That's a very wide tent! And it reflects both the great strength and great challenge of our UM Church. Such diversity is possible only by focusing on the One who is the Christ, our Lord and Savior, and the unity we have in Him, which is vastly more important than anything which would divide us.
That's all for now. God bless and much love, Dan
Trinity United Methodist Church
4000 NW 53rd Avenue
Gainesville, Florida 32653 United States
352.376.6615
TrinityGNV.org
Office Hours: Monday - Thursday, 8:30 am - 4:00 pm | Friday, 8:30 am - 1:30 pm
STAY CONNECTED
Trinity United Methodist Church
352.376.6615
TrinityGNV.org
Office Hours: Monday - Thursday, 8:30 am - 4:00 pm | Friday, 8:30 am - 1:30 pm
STAY CONNECTED
Trinity United Methodist Church
4000 NW 53rd Avenue
Gainesville, Florida 32653 United States
____________________________
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment