Friday, June 16, 2006

I'm back from annual conference. I had to leave early so no decisions rendered down yet. More updates later. I decided to instead pick the most controversial issue in the church - the one over which we might actually split - and blog about that. Quick note: I have no authority, doctoral title, or references. Sorry.

Homosexuality (don't pretend to be suprised - did you think I was going to blog about inclusiveness?)

Bishop Charlene Kamerer writes about an experience she had in her youth that shocked her and turned her off from church. Her (fairly conservative) Methodist church made an action plan detailing what to do if any black people ever tried to come to the church. Charlene had never felt any anger, racism, or hatred towards these black people - she had black friends. And sat in abject horror listening to her church make a plan to ensure that a strict policy of racism was enforced.

I realize that racism and homosexuality are different topics entirely. I realize that being gay is a sin and being black definetly isn't. (Although, interestingly enough - being racist is a sin - oh please don't make me write a blog on inclusiveness!) But there is a need to compare these two topics. We young adults sit and shake our heads in sorrow when our annual conference discusses this topic. Even the most accepting churches have a policy in place of what ministries gays can participate in and which they can not.

To most of the young adults in church this issue isn't a far removed "what if?" categorary, but rahter a direct reflection on our good friends - who happen to be gay. We are often turned off to church and ultimately Christ - when our churches make plans to keep people out of God's love.

We read Bishop Kamerer's account and are embarresed by how poorly the church of Jesus Christ handled the race issue. (handles?) Yet, we continue to willingly ignore our history and allow out bigotry to stand in the way of loving others and allowing change. We will have gay pastors. Gay people will be allowed FULL rights in our churches. Our decision is not whether gay people will be given these rights - our decision is whether we will have to tell our children that we were that church council creating an action plan to ward off the niggers - to keep the fags out of ministry-, or whether we will tell our children that we supported full rights for gay people - even when it was unpopular to do so.

My father wants to leave Kane First because of David and Leanna's approval of a gay lifestyle. We don't condone sin - just the idea that man is sinful. I think it is just as much a sin to reject one group of people for their sin when we have sin in our own lives. Rejection of a people group based solely on their sin is dangerous - it's much too easy. It may sound bold and courageous to fight for Christian ideals and so on ... but, real courage is loving homosexuals when it is difficult.

I have two very good friends who are bi-sexual. I also live my life by the policy of generosity. If I take you out to eat I will pay. These two factors put together equal a good bit of rumor material. Sometimes it is difficult. It would be a hell of a lot easier for me to assure them of their eternal damnation based on obscure old testament passages, a few writings of Paul, and a complete betrayal of Jesus' core message. It was difficult at times to love them. But, it was probably difficult for Jesus to die on that cross, but he did it anyway. I'm not trying to make myself out to be some Messiah figure or holier than though because I took a gay friend out for coffee. (I've learned to never crucify yourself - you can only get one hand up.) I'm just stating that it is the right thing to do - and I did it. I plan to keep doing it, too.


We will most likely continue to fight about this topic. We will probably continue to alienate youth and young adults who just don't understand what the problem is. I read once of an early Bishop in the Church who was asked to speak after is was discovered that two monks were in a homosexual relationship. I imagine that everyone was waiting expectantly for the Bishop to reign down hellfire and brimstone - and for the two sinners to be killed as it is written in Leviticus. Instead, that Bishop stood up and asked the people to instead focus on his sin.

We all have sin in our lives, and, yes, we as Christian should live our lives in Christ's freedom so that everyday was can claim victory over more sin, and realize in real and powerful ways the grace of God. Let it be known, however, that sin still exists. The next time you feel ready to judge gays for their lifestyles - look at your own sin, my sin, the pope's sin, Debbie Airgood's sin, or even Aunt Mabel's sin. It is present in everyone's life - now, tell me again why their sin is worse.

2 comments:

Pastor Bill said...

Hey Michael,
I guess I'll chime in here with a point as well. I hope you gathered from our conversations at Annual Conference that I don't have an absolute position on the topic of homosexuality (though we didn't talk about it, I don't have an absolute position on abortion, either...which in my memory was a topic that was similarly divisive but managed to not split the church).

My problem is not one of grace. I have always stood that if I'm going to err, I will err on the side of grace. I will continue to extend more grace to people than the "law" of the church strictly demands.

However, I too understand that homosexuality is sin. And, while the core message of Jesus is love God with all that you are and love people, we show our love of God with all that we are by living out personal holiness (that is to say, by the power of the Holy Spirit, we try to live as much without sin as we possibly can...).

What struck me when I read your entry was Paul writing "theives, stop stealing..." (Ephesians 4:28)

The United Methodist Church has for a number of years now been willing to ordain homosexuals. That has not been a problem - we ordain alcoholics, drug abusers, wife abusers, liars, theives, racists, and the list goes on and on (yes, I intentionally chose some sins that "don't hurt anybody else" because that non-biblical arugment is often rasied). The standard has been, CONFESSED and PRACTICING. We would not, as a denomination, ordain the "God hates fags" guy. He's a racist. He is a self-proclaimed, practicing racist. That is sin.

It is really the "practicing" part of the equation that causes problems. If we are to hold to any kind of scriptural authority (and it's a straw man argument to say "...obscure old testament passages, a few writings of Paul, and a complete betrayal of Jesus' core message." Isn't the core message of Jesus deliverance from sin - not love them while they wallow in it?

None of us is without sin. But when we refuse to repent of our sin we are refusing Christ. I don't stand up and say "accept me because I'm a glutton." I say, with shame, that that is one of the two main struggles in my life (the other being a procrastinator - they're both related to self-control) and I repent of it - and pray often for strength to overcome... But I didn't say to the Board of Ordained ministry - look, I have no self-control but that doesn't matter becasue Jesus said that you have to love everybody and so you have to ordain me. We actually talked about what got me to the state I've been in...and the Board saw that God was working in me to change me - that I was being sanctified from a state of self-professed sin. I could have been rejected as a pastor - and, had I entered into the ministry five years earlier SHOULD have been rejected for self-control issues. I was living in sin and had no intention of repenting.

Should a pastor who freely and openly admits that he is addicted to pornography be orained? Will we have gay pastors? We already do. Will we have unrepentant gay pastors? Well, probably. Don't know. But it opens the doors that maybe we do or don't want opened.

The long and the short of it is that I don't know how anybody can hold a position that being gay is a sin and not a position that the gay person should be repentant... And, if I don't have any position on repentance, then I don't have a true Christian message...

So, Michael, I struggle with the whole thing too. One of the pieces of legislation at AC this year was about inclusiveness - and my interpretation of it was that we should welcome everybody as full members in our congregations no matter what. And I can't do that. I know that it was intended to allow gay people to be welcomed as full members of our congregations, and, frankly, I don't really have a problem with that. But I think we still have to hold a certain minimum standard, don't we? I mean, one of our questions to join is "do you profess Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?" I mean, what if somebody says, "Nope, not gonna do that - but I still want to joint the church?" So, I had to vote against the legislation. And that's not just a made-up possibility - something very like that actually happened at the last church I served... So what should we do? Where is the line?

I won't condemn anybody to hell. That's God's right - and God's alone.

But I struggle, like so many , to know the line between right and wrong. Ten years from now I may look on what I just typed with horror (doubtful, but it's possible). But as I understand faith, the Bible and being the Body of Christ, I stand where I stand...

Pastor Bill said...

Oops - the one paragraph should have read, "What struck me when I read your post was "thieves, stop stealing..." which is to say, if you are living in sin, STOP...."
Don't know quite how I messed that up...