Theology vs. Scripture
I've been doing some thinking. I've been apart of and have been watching the discussion taking place on Locust and Honey on the General conference. I did post some statements but recently a relatively short discussion on homosexuality has surfaced. Now this is a hot button issue for pretty much everyone but there were a few issues I had with the various points that were given, as well as some thoughts on what is happening in the church right now around this issue.
First off, I was struck by the insistence that the church needs to be open and affirming. I am not making any claims on whether this is right or wrong but the church has never in its history been an "open and affirming" organization. This is just a statement of fact, and I find it quite interesting that most people claim that the Methodist church needs to be open and affirming when I believe that John Wesley would not have been. Lest we forget John was known for kicking people out of his societies if he found that they were not manifesting work toward Christian Perfection.
I also find it interesting that we talk about homosexuality as if by choosing to be open and affirming would mean that the church would grow. I know many people would not claim this but it is an issue inherently at stake here. If the UMC become open and affirming the fact is its membership will go down and it will be just as impotent as the UCC or the MCC. Yes I said that, I am not defending it just making a statement of the reality of the problem.
Personally I think what is truly at stake in this issue is what comes first, theology or scripture. Now why is this so some might ask? I honestly believe that scripture is quite clear on what a biblical view of homosexuality is. This is seperate and distinct from whether or not it is genetic or inherited. But we have the other side of the coin. Theologically many of us believe God to be a loving accepting God. This is true in the simple yet profound idea that God accepts everyone, and everyone is a sinner. Because of this we want to place theology in front of scripture, honestly I do view that as putting the cart before the horse.
When we apply theology to this issue there is another problem that arises. This stems from our Wesleyan heritage, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. For whatever could be said it is obvious that John Wesley had a hierarchy when viewing these items. Scripture was ranked near the top, with tradition closely behind. Experience and reason are both on the bottom. (The order being Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience, at least as well as I can remember.) Experience, where most of this discussion is based on one end of this argument is not something that out weighs scripture and tradition. Also we need to, IMHO, have a proper view of tradition, tradition is the voice of the past, this I believe does influence our ability to tamper with doctrine and theology in general.
I have in no way stated my opinion on the issue in this post, just raised some things that are floating around in my head. I don't have an answer for this discussion either, but I can honestly say the more I listen to the arguers on both sides the less I want to associate with either (this is not pointed at those in the discussion over at Locust and Honey just speaking broadly.)
First off, I was struck by the insistence that the church needs to be open and affirming. I am not making any claims on whether this is right or wrong but the church has never in its history been an "open and affirming" organization. This is just a statement of fact, and I find it quite interesting that most people claim that the Methodist church needs to be open and affirming when I believe that John Wesley would not have been. Lest we forget John was known for kicking people out of his societies if he found that they were not manifesting work toward Christian Perfection.
I also find it interesting that we talk about homosexuality as if by choosing to be open and affirming would mean that the church would grow. I know many people would not claim this but it is an issue inherently at stake here. If the UMC become open and affirming the fact is its membership will go down and it will be just as impotent as the UCC or the MCC. Yes I said that, I am not defending it just making a statement of the reality of the problem.
Personally I think what is truly at stake in this issue is what comes first, theology or scripture. Now why is this so some might ask? I honestly believe that scripture is quite clear on what a biblical view of homosexuality is. This is seperate and distinct from whether or not it is genetic or inherited. But we have the other side of the coin. Theologically many of us believe God to be a loving accepting God. This is true in the simple yet profound idea that God accepts everyone, and everyone is a sinner. Because of this we want to place theology in front of scripture, honestly I do view that as putting the cart before the horse.
When we apply theology to this issue there is another problem that arises. This stems from our Wesleyan heritage, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. For whatever could be said it is obvious that John Wesley had a hierarchy when viewing these items. Scripture was ranked near the top, with tradition closely behind. Experience and reason are both on the bottom. (The order being Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience, at least as well as I can remember.) Experience, where most of this discussion is based on one end of this argument is not something that out weighs scripture and tradition. Also we need to, IMHO, have a proper view of tradition, tradition is the voice of the past, this I believe does influence our ability to tamper with doctrine and theology in general.
I have in no way stated my opinion on the issue in this post, just raised some things that are floating around in my head. I don't have an answer for this discussion either, but I can honestly say the more I listen to the arguers on both sides the less I want to associate with either (this is not pointed at those in the discussion over at Locust and Honey just speaking broadly.)
Comments
"If the UMC become open and affirming the fact is its membership will go down and it will be just as impotent as the UCC or the MCC. Yes I said that, I am not defending it just making a statement of the reality of the problem."
I would be interested in some elaboration on this. Based on the context I assume that you are saying that if the UMC accepted and affirmed homosexuality the church would become impotent.
What about being open and affirming to homosexual individuals? That is, to accept them into the church community with the understanding that they have sin issues to deal with, as all others in the church do? Can homosexual individuals be affirmed within the church as persons of no less value and worth in God's eyes than other individuals in the church?
I fully believe that homosexuals have value and worth in God's eyes. Does that translate to acceptance of the behavior? No, at least for me. I believe homosexuals should be accepted into the community, but I also believe that when that individual joins the church, they should be well aware of the stance of the church and what it means as far as their possible leadership role in the church.
Does this make sense?
I have another question: What do you mean when you say that certain denominations are struggling with impotence?
Thanks!
I have found in many of my conversations that for some people to be on the cutting edge of political correctness, or the "liberal/conservative" debate means to be evangelizing. I believe that we need to confront these issues with caring and understanding, but not to be cautious about being in sync with our culture (which I think is sometimes what is pushed here).
"A debate occurs when people take up the arguments that others have raised against them, and try to give serious answers. To do that they must think their opponents mistaken, certainly, but not wholly foolish or malicious. They must suppose that some misconception, or some partial truth not fully integrated into other truths, has limited their vision. they must accept the burden of showing how the partial truth fits with other truths, or identifying and resolving the misconception. This cannot happen while there is still a struggle for rhetorical dominance; that is to say, while each side hope to win a monopoly for the categories in which they themselves frame the question."
The tone of the debate would surely change if we assumed (as O'Donovan says) our "opponents mistaken, certainly, but not wholly foolish or malicious."