(no subject)
earlofstomp has posted a link to this discussion on acceptance or rejection of homosexuality in the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, and asked for my feedback on the theology and such.
So, here are some thoughts on the article. Forewarning: I am not ordained in any faith, unless you count the doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers. That means I will follow Jesus' advice not to put use a title, and simply let you judge my words based on their quality, rather than on any honorifics.
Ms. Newman, I think, misses a major point in her discussion, which centered around the question "How should we respond to churches that do not believe as we do regarding (in this case) homosexuality?" She discussed three options: Acceptance, Blocking, and Overacceptance, ultimately recommending the third as a way of reclaiming moral high ground, feeling empowered and in control, and enriching the community of the faithful.
This question comes from Jesus' advice on how to handle fellow believers with whom you have a disagreement. He advises that one not take them into court, but talk with them privately. Failing a good resolution, one should take along a like-minded fellow, and repeat the private meeting. If an acceptable resolution cannot be reached, one should treat the person as one would any of the non-believers.
Modern Christians, finding this advice, seem to me to miss several important things. First, notice what a change Jesus' advice is from Mosaic Law. He doesn't say, if your brother is sinning, you get to stone him. He doesn't say, you get to torture him, burn him, or ostracize him. The extreme penalty one can apply is to treat him as you would a non-believer. If you want to check what he consider that standard to be, please consult the Golden Rule and the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Notice that that amounts to, at most, not eating the Lord's Supper with him. Notice also that that does not give you the right to throw him out of the communion, but merely gives you the option of choosing not to eat it yourself with him.
But that hasn't been good enough for most Christians across much of history. They have come to this reading not with the question, "In what way can I best model Jesus' personality and example in my own behavior?" but rather, "Hey, just how much hate and cruelty can I get away with and still think of myself as a good person?"
So, in my not all that humble opinion (I mean, I can't fool you guys for a minute, can I?) the North Carolina churches have utterly missed the boat. If you actually believe homosexuality offends God, then don't practice it. Or accept that you do, and be grateful for the propitiatory sacrifice of the Crucifixion. If other Christians want to worship along with gay men, or black men, or Republicans, or communists, or vegetarians, or plumbers, and you think that is wrong, then you get a couple of chances to make your case to them. If you fail, you can choose not to associate with them.
But you don't get to: burn, torture, kill, slander, taunt, or even hate them (or anyone else) without endangering your soul. At least, that was the opinion of Jesus of Nazareth.
As for the prospect of choosing a stance that demonstrates my own moral superiority to another person, believer or non-believer, you will have to pardon me while I stop laughing. I mean, come on. Christians practice a ritualized cannibalism as the central sacrament of their faith. That means one very vital thing: that they are the lowest of the low, and have no ability to judge anyone (oddly enough, I seem to remember something about not judging people being one of Jesus' other bits of advice). Now if someone wants my advice on a bit of morality or behavior, I'm happy to discuss it, and to tell them whether it seems helpful or harmful, loving or hateful, to the best of my ability. But what they do is up to them.
Anyway, that's what occurs to me at the moment.
So, here are some thoughts on the article. Forewarning: I am not ordained in any faith, unless you count the doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers. That means I will follow Jesus' advice not to put use a title, and simply let you judge my words based on their quality, rather than on any honorifics.
Ms. Newman, I think, misses a major point in her discussion, which centered around the question "How should we respond to churches that do not believe as we do regarding (in this case) homosexuality?" She discussed three options: Acceptance, Blocking, and Overacceptance, ultimately recommending the third as a way of reclaiming moral high ground, feeling empowered and in control, and enriching the community of the faithful.
This question comes from Jesus' advice on how to handle fellow believers with whom you have a disagreement. He advises that one not take them into court, but talk with them privately. Failing a good resolution, one should take along a like-minded fellow, and repeat the private meeting. If an acceptable resolution cannot be reached, one should treat the person as one would any of the non-believers.
Modern Christians, finding this advice, seem to me to miss several important things. First, notice what a change Jesus' advice is from Mosaic Law. He doesn't say, if your brother is sinning, you get to stone him. He doesn't say, you get to torture him, burn him, or ostracize him. The extreme penalty one can apply is to treat him as you would a non-believer. If you want to check what he consider that standard to be, please consult the Golden Rule and the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Notice that that amounts to, at most, not eating the Lord's Supper with him. Notice also that that does not give you the right to throw him out of the communion, but merely gives you the option of choosing not to eat it yourself with him.
But that hasn't been good enough for most Christians across much of history. They have come to this reading not with the question, "In what way can I best model Jesus' personality and example in my own behavior?" but rather, "Hey, just how much hate and cruelty can I get away with and still think of myself as a good person?"
So, in my not all that humble opinion (I mean, I can't fool you guys for a minute, can I?) the North Carolina churches have utterly missed the boat. If you actually believe homosexuality offends God, then don't practice it. Or accept that you do, and be grateful for the propitiatory sacrifice of the Crucifixion. If other Christians want to worship along with gay men, or black men, or Republicans, or communists, or vegetarians, or plumbers, and you think that is wrong, then you get a couple of chances to make your case to them. If you fail, you can choose not to associate with them.
But you don't get to: burn, torture, kill, slander, taunt, or even hate them (or anyone else) without endangering your soul. At least, that was the opinion of Jesus of Nazareth.
As for the prospect of choosing a stance that demonstrates my own moral superiority to another person, believer or non-believer, you will have to pardon me while I stop laughing. I mean, come on. Christians practice a ritualized cannibalism as the central sacrament of their faith. That means one very vital thing: that they are the lowest of the low, and have no ability to judge anyone (oddly enough, I seem to remember something about not judging people being one of Jesus' other bits of advice). Now if someone wants my advice on a bit of morality or behavior, I'm happy to discuss it, and to tell them whether it seems helpful or harmful, loving or hateful, to the best of my ability. But what they do is up to them.
Anyway, that's what occurs to me at the moment.