Can We Trust Each Other?
Sunday, June 7, 2009 at 11:27AM I've listened to and participated in all sorts of conversations this week, and despite the diversity of topics and opinions, one theme seems to hover over many of the discussions: distrust.
In my usual crowds, the distrust is mostly directed toward staff and GSC, and revolves around the sense that our way of doing business is becoming increasingly centralized, top-down, disrespectful of the authority of the classes, and intolerant of dissent. We look around at some of the things happening around the RCA in regards to baptism, church-planting, and commissioned pastors, and wonder, "Who moved my denomination?" There is also some talk about what we cannot say for fear that it will hurt the Belhar's chances of passing. We can't talk too much about equality or inclusion, and God help us if we use the now-suspect word "justice," for fear that someone will interpret it as a clear sign that we will use the Belhar to force affirmation of homosexuality.
In other circles, the distrust is aimed toward, well, people who believe what I do about the gospel's call to love and welcome all people. They fear the adoption of the Belhar because of how it might be used to affirm homosexuality. In a broader sense, I think they are also worried about another agenda usurping their priority on evangelism.
I think these are all legitimate concerns and necessary topics of conversation. We need to be able to question the motives, tactics, and direction of our leadership. We need to be able to talk about whether practices adhere to our standards for doctrine and polity. But there is a fine line between expressing sincere concern in the interest of working out our life together, and operating in a state of paranoia about what "they" might do.
I have to remind myself sometimes that it is completely reasonable for someone who believes that affirmation of LGBT persons is not a biblically faithful position to question whether I will push them to embrace something they believe is sin. I also have to remind myself that the fact that they ask this does not mean that they can't or won't be able to think of the Belhar in a broader way and discern whether it should be adopted based on something bigger than fear of this possible use of it. I have to hope that they can and will. I have to trust that our commonalities can help us work out how to live together in our differences. And I have to hope as well that those who disagree with me can find some measure of trust that I, too, seek to be faithful to the gospel, and that I, too, make decisions about my beliefs and practices that are based out of a sincere desire for us to follow Christ. If we can't get to at least that basic level of trust in one another, it will be less and less possible for us to even speak to each other, let alone be a witness to God's work in the world.
Reader Comments (5)
I am sorry to hear of your experience concerning this state of being in the group(s).
However, I am sadder to say that I am not surprised. It has been something I have been
aware of fairly consistently in many groups - not the least of which is The Church - The Body of Christ. Last night I attended a dinner for our county Democrats. While it was a special occasion - what i experienced there was a real sense of passion, camaraderie, and yes TRUST among those gathered. I'm quite sure that trust/distrust does exist in political groups as well as the church but I sometimes get the feeling that people in other groups are more open to dealing w/this issue than the people who come together to worship, fellowship and serve.
The issues you mention in your post certainly have engendered distrust (mis?), concern, and even fear in any number of settings. They are also worthy of the time and attention that will be required to figure things out. But I would hope that the people who are members of Christ's Body would be more willing (than I have experienced - I admit) to work together iin a more loving, respectful & hopefilled fashion than has been the case.
Stacie;
You wrote:
"I have to remind myself sometimes that it is completely reasonable for someone who believes that affirmation of LGBT persons is not a biblically faithful position to question whether I will push them to embrace something they believe is sin."
I feel like I have to remind you that our denomination does hold that the view that a LGBT lifestyle is not biblically faithful. To reference our 1978 paper (http://www.rca.org/Page.aspx?pid=502):
# "Heterosexuality is not only normal; it is normative. Homosexual acts are contrary to the will of God for human sexuality."
# "While avoiding simplistic and obnoxious social crusades, the church must affirm through its preaching and pastoral ministry that homosexuality is not an acceptable alternative lifestyle. God's gracious intent for human sexual fulfillment is the permanent bond of heterosexual love. This redemptive word must be spoken, with sensitivity, caring, and clarity to any person who would make a perverted sexual choice, and to society as a whole."
# "It is one matter to affirm that self-chosen homosexual acts are sinful. It is quite another to reject, defame, and excoriate the humanity of the person who performs them. This distinction has often been missed. It is possible and necessary on biblical grounds to identify homosexuality as a departure from God's intent. However...there are no theological grounds on which a homosexual may be singled out for a greater measure of judgement. All persons bear within them the marks of the fall."
I have many friends who follow this lifestyle. They are not bigger sinners than I am. I am the worst sinner I know, because I see my own sins more clearly than I see the sins of anyone else ... including people of different sexual orientation. I need the Gospel, and the Gospel calls me to repent. The RCA's consistent stance is that we all need the Gospel, and the Gospel calls us all ... homophobes and homosexuals alike ... to repent and to be transformed by the power of Christ's Spirit. Racists need the Gospel too. Remember, when Peter was acting in a racist / segregationist way, Paul chastised him - not for breaking the "no racism rule" but because he "saw that their iconduct was not in step with jthe truth of the gospel." (Galatians 2:14).
I have theological reasons that will more than likely lead me to vote that the Belhar become a helpful statement and not a fourth confession of faith. Homosexuality has nothing to do with it.
Yet ... I mourn the fact that it seems that we've lost a bit of the Gospel in the RCA. That's a later post for someone smarter than me to make, but I find myself praying for a recovery of the full Gospel in our churches and meetings.
(Sorry for the length of this post, but it seems that many are sharing your concern and I felt the need to address it.)
Tim,
You state : # "Heterosexuality is not only normal; it is normative. Homosexual acts are contrary to the will of God for human sexuality."
I realize that this is the official position taken by our denomination at one time codified in this statement. But just because our or any denomination makes an official determination still doesn't mean we are being faithful to the gospel. The official position of the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa was that it was "normal, normative" to keep white & black human beings separate & even declaring the black human beings were substandard to whites - using the scriptures to justify this position. Do you really believe that?
You state:
# "It is one matter to affirm that self-chosen homosexual acts are sinful. It is quite another to reject, defame, and excoriate the humanity of the person who performs them. This distinction has often been missed. It is possible and necessary on biblical grounds to identify homosexuality as a departure from God's intent. However...there are no theological grounds on which a homosexual may be singled out for a greater measure of judgement. All persons bear within them the marks of the fall."
I do appreciate your awareness/acknowledgement of the distinction in the singling out of one group of people v. another concerning the issue that all of us bear the marks of the fall. This is a distinction which people overlook in our rush to judge one another.
However, what does concern me is this notion that homosexuality/lesbianism et. al is a lifestyle - chosen by individuals who what: are just plain rebellious and if they only accepted God they would somehow be able to love a person of the other gender?!
There is a range of human sexual behaviors which vary from healthy to very unhealthy. And there are people who do make unhealthy (even over the top choices) about their sexual activities. But loving another human being should be a "lifestyle" that we are all free to chose - and being in a committed, caring, respectful relationship w/another is not something that anyone does on a whim. Ok - love at first sight - it happens.
For those who say "prayer" changed them - and they are now able to be in opposite sex relationships - well, good for them - if it is a loving healthy relationship. Maybe they were uncertain about their sexuality which is determined and affected by our hardwiring and external circumstances.
But I know far too many people, Christian or not - who have prayed, struggled, begged God to "make them different" and yet nothing changes. They love who they love.
(I am excluding reference to promiscous behavior of any sort and things of that nature). Why should people who love someone of the same gender be excluded from having access to things that you and I take for granted?
A home, a job, the ability to participate in loving and being loved - raising children - being married - being ordained. This is more than just sex w/someone of one's own gender. It is more than just physical intimacy.
If we all bear the marks of the fall, then either exclude everyone - or no one.
Justice is the quality of being righteous or fair. Many philosophers, theologians and others define justice as the proper ordering of people and things. Behind the concept of justice lies the notion of balance--that people get what is right, fair and appropriate.
Stacey, thank you for your thoughtful comments encouraging the inclusion of all God's people.
I believe the biggest issue of Belhar is the way it excoriates the church for NEVER having been the church of Jesus Christ. Never? No never. The Belhar, with its themes of Unity, Justice, and Reconciliation, taken seriously and laid alongside the lived life of the church, shows us painfully and unequivocally that the church has repeatedly and mightily failed marginalized people including children, the differently-abled, women, people of color, THE POOR, and LGBTIQ folks. We easily turn the focus of Belhar on gay people because that focus so easily whips the church into a froth, but if we are honest with ourselves and faithful to the narrative of Jesus Christ which calls us to unity, justice, and reconciliation, we must admit we have failed to be the Christians Jesus called us to be - loving, embracing Christians. There are sadly so many outside our embrace in spite of JC's call to love our neighbors as ourselves and we still don't get it. I pray the Spirit of the one God will blow in us in the coming days and lead us where God would have us go.
My sister, stay strong and continue to love and share the love of God with all God's people. I appreciate you.
Well, this is a new one for me...an attempt at a blog response.
As I reflect on the process and tone of Synod, the underlying dynamics give me some concern too.
Can we trust each other? That question cuts both ways. I get the sense that our denominational leadership does not trust the delegates to come to the right conclusion. In our advisory groups we adopted norms for our conversation, which included encouraging the expression of different points of view. But there is little encouragement to raise concerns on the floor of Synod. How refreshing it would have been to hear someone even say, "These are the weaknesses I see, but the these are the strengths that outweigh the weaknesses in my judgment." Though I understand why Elder Spaans was cut off, it is most unfortunate that he was. It had the impact of squelching dissent. Articles were sent to us, supposedly not to persuade but to inform. But then it seems to me that there should also have been several solicited articles offering critiques.
The effect of all the different official voices chiming in to promote Belhar may be creating an intimidating atmosphere.
And just as the admonition to trust cuts both ways, the admonition not to be afraid cuts both ways. Some are afraid of uses the Belhar might be put to, and we have been urged not to vote out of fear. I think that is legitimate point, by the way. But come now.
My sense is that some of our denominationa leaders are now also "afraid." Afraid that the Belhar may not pass. Afraid of how certain groups will react. And so I wonder if they are leading out of fear too.
May the Lord guide our conversations later today, so that there is trust all around, and somehow discern the Lord's will in this imperfect document.