Human Sexuality in an emergent context

[Tim Baer]

This post is not meant to be political or divisive in any way. I genuinely want feedback from this diverse group of emergent Anglicans from TEC, AMiA, CANA, etc. One of the things that attracts me most to the emergent church paradigm is that it is conversational and intentionality about dialogue. It is also focused on the mission of the church. It is not heavily doctrinal or authoritarian as is the modern model for churches, but follows a post-modern approach that admits the absolute truth is beyond our reach (“epistemological humility” as James Henley put it).

While dialogue and cultural/epistemological humility are imperative in the church we can’t put our heads in the sand and ignore that a huge debate on human sexuality is going on in the church. My gut tells me that the debate within the larger Anglican Communion has a lot less to do with human sexuality and more to do with vastly different cultures wherein Anglicanism is practiced and expressed around the world, how they read scripture within that culture, and how they understand the structure of the church and its authority. A lot of people say it is a theological argument going on in the communion, but I think it is a lot bigger than that. I’m wondering how an emergent conversation on the issue would look.

My question to pose for the group is two parts:
What does a conversation on human sexuality, and specifically whether or not gay and lesbian brothers and sisters should be consecrated/ordained/blessed/married, look like within an emergent dialogue? (Please answer without taking sides or debating the issue- I’m just interested in what the conversation looks like within an emergent context since part of emergence is not playing partisan or divisive theology/politics)

And my follow up question is:
At what point in an emergent conversation on this issue in your church do you (as a community or individual) finally have to make a decision and say: Our theology tells us that gay/lesbians are included fully in the sacraments of marriage/ordination. OR Our theology and understanding of scripture says that you are loved by God but cannot be recognized in this way. Or Do you ever have to make a decision or stand within an emergent conversation.

Again I don’t mean to open up a debate on the issue. I am just trying to understand how an emergent post-modern perspective can be applied to a situation that has been and is very divisive within the Church at large. My hope is that a post-modern generation can figure out how we can get along better without saying “the bonds of affection have been breached so we can’t celebrate the Eucharist together anymore”.

[Terry Martin]

Last Sunday's Gospel regarding the weeds and the wheat (BCP lectionary) seems worth noting in this discussion. "The harvest is at the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels."

I get nervous when limited beings like us start weeding God's garden. I suspect that in our zeal to uproot the horrid weed from the ground, we do much damage to the innocent stalks of wheat that were trampled in our haste to be about our Father's business.

Personally, I disagree with identifiying those in committed, long-term relationships rooted in love as "living in sin," but, even if I were to accept that judgment, I would continue to be concerned by the idea that we can somehow surgically remove sin without such an act possibly having a negative impact on the surrounding environment.

I think I'll let the angels do the weeding.

[Patrick Hall]

boy do i agree with you there steve. One of the things which RANKLES me to no end is the way that "orthodox" has been divorced from the Creeds and has become some kind of buzzword that has to do with the moral teaching of scripture. It's QUITE a stretch to get there, especially to try and apply it in the case of sexuality.

[Steve Hollinghurst]

Chuck
i have no problem with the creed as a solid basis of faith. though perhpas i do think it enshrines those essentials within debated now less relevant than they were e.g. the formulation of Christ's nature and God and man firmly in the terms of now defunct Greek understandings of nature. But the principle of fully man and fully God seems solid to me, if difficult for a modernist to believe and tempting for a post-modernist to relativize.
in a sense i think the creedal process is a good model of how we work out faith, and each age should perhaps have it's global creedal statements. indeed this thread started with comments on emerging church and the approach to the sexuality debate. a creedal approach to the essentials of faith would i think point up that human sexuality is not a first order issue by which 'orthodoxy' can be measured.

[Chuck Roan]

This would be a great conversation over dinner. We are essentially coming to the same place, or at least pretty close on how we view scripture. I would say that what we say in the Apostle's creed is pretty clearly taught in scripture. I still say there is absolute truth.. I know a term that gets people excited.. but that truth would be Jesus' resurrection and He is the one way to heaven. This is absolute in the sense that if you take away this cornerstone, then the whole faith implodes. As Paul says, if Christ was not resurrected, then our faith is in vain.

Now.. there are definitely issues that I feel the Bible is NOT specific on, but people often treat as though it does. What the building must look like, size, what time we meet, how long is the sermon, what to wear, how long do I pray.. etc. I also feel that there are issues that are beyond our human grasp.. ie: free will vs predestination, but we can try to understand through scripture.

I will avoid speaking on the areas in scripture that run counter-cultural to what may be considered acceptable, since its likely my intention will be misunderstood or not fully explained in the limits of a blog.

[Steve Hollinghurst]

indeed i want scripture to speak to challange and inspire. i just think we need to acknowledge the way God speaks through scripture is not just in the inspiration of the text, but also in those who compiled and in doing so edited it, and in the many down the years who've studdied it, and finally through those today seeking to interpret it. the Spirit works in all those places. this is great when all agree what scripture is saying...but expereince is often that over time the church comes to understand it differently or most difficult of all different groups of christians can honestly disagree on what the scriptures are saying. so for me the problems come when people claim that 'scripture clealry teaches that ....' when it is rarely that clear, and especially when they are using what they think is 'the clear meaning of scripture' to admonish another gorup who think scripture says something totally different.

[Patrick Hall]

i share your fear Chuck. We must not make the scriptures toothless. The scriptures are the fount from which the kingdom life springs. We must give them room to breathe, to rebuke, to encourage,to correct.

[Chuck Roan]

One last comment.. Patrick, you are right on about the risk of reading scripture with no claims on our life. Thats that heart of my issue when I see scripture's status being downgraded. The fear I have is when scripture is challenging to our cultural view or hard to put in practice.. we may say "oh.. its one man's opinion" or "that was the norm for the culture back then, but not relevant today"/

[Chuck Roan]

Thanks for both posts.. it actually helps clarify and put "meat" on the argument. Obviously I am more modern and to rephrase the earlier quote.. when it comes to cultural trend vs scripture, I will chose scripture. I will agree with you.. scripture has been used as a blunt force weapon in the past and especially towards non-Christians to force behavior change. Personally, I believe we are to use scripture to rebuke and correct, but towards believers, not the world!

While I recognize that there are issues with scripture.. ie who really wrote it, changes. Perhaps one of the most ironic is how the secular world loves to quote the famous "who is without sin throw the first stone", is actually a later edition to the gospel. However, I do rely on faith that God has directed the hands of those before me to bring the Bible to where it is today. The same people who wrote the creeds were around close to the time the Bible was canonized. ( I think.. Patrick, you are more of an expert) But I fully agree with you that the creeds are a great way of seeing the early church and its understanding of worship.

We will all agree though that scripture can not be just a nice reference book. Its more than a list of do and don't and more that a history lesson. Its a sort that gives life and we are to use it to grow in Christ wisdom and ways.

[Patrick Hall]

I like those words: moving beyond liberal, evangelical, catholic approaches to a new Christianity - one that is orthodox (in the "right worship," post/pre modernist buzzword way) and one that is organic. awesome descriptors Steve. hopeful descriptors.

[Steve Hollinghurst]

Patrick
quality post! indeed the challenge is to re-discover scripture not as abtract text but living word, almost a person we talk with not a book we analyse. and there is that facsinating relationship between the Word of God, Jesus and the word of scripture The Word is God come to us as one of us the word is God speaking through us...and there lies an intimate dynamic relationship that i do think opens up afresh in the post-modern. this moves beyond the liberal evangelical and catholic aproaches of modernity to a new Christianity, both orthodox and organic...and i think the words may be geeting carried away, but i mean them ;o)