Re: No!

Though this discussion crops up periodically, there seems to me to be
one aspect of the topic that is consistently missing.

At one level, there is this fairly indeterminate discussion about right
or wrong based on what the participants have come to understand the the
scripture to say or perhaps not say.
Much of the public discussion has roots in denominational or other
traditional positions, some from personal persuasion or conviction.
This is certainly understandable as ASA and denominations and traditions
define communities are defined (more or less) by certain shared core
beliefs or interests.

But, I keep wondering if there is not a higher level discussion that
needs to be at least articulated.

Presumeably, churches are intended to be expressions of Christ and his
teachings and influence.
In the eyes of some, they are the physical articulation of Christ among
us,...of the Kingdom of God to others.
And yet, much of what many churches and denominations have to say about
and to homosexuals seems to me to do something that Christ would not do.
By taking strong and public positions on this particular issue, they
have created a welcome mat that includes the words, "except for
homosexuals" and by implication, "and the like".

Even without any judgment as to right or wrong, there is no similar
exclusion for theft, or lust, or any of the numerous other scriptural
prohibitions.
In short, that plainly bothers me. What's wrong with this picture? To
me, there seems to be a logical contradiction in play.
My recollection is that Jesus' invitation is not, "Come unto me you
clean, right-minded and right-oriented."
If the real invitation (scripture) is ...uh...corrupted(?) in this way,
then I think there's clearly something amiss.
I'm not a big one on fads like WWJD, but despite that, there is validity
to the question itself, and I think it should be asked and pondered.

If the welcome mat is thoughtfully reset to simply say, "Come unto me
all who are weary and heavy laden", then to be sure, the (organized)
church is faced with consideration of how to qualify those assigned
positions of responsibility.
But I'm not so sure that this really eliminates the underlying WWJD
question. It simply invokes the artifacts of organization, not the
relational charge we have been given.
If an organization concludes that it must to act differently from the
person of Christ, simply because it is an organization, what does that
say about the nature or core beliefs of the organization?

I'm afraid we really are missing something of the person and character
of Christ (and Paul - "neither male nor female...") in this matter.
The difficulty is that the polarization on this subject has clouded a
greater obligation, to think carefully about the consequences of
defining positions for the bodies of Christ that alienate.

On this alienation basis alone - without a right-or-wrong conclusion -
there is an issue to confront.
But in addition, the reality appears to be that much of intensity of the
response reflects in part some pretty persistent fears and
misunderstandings (thanks to the effect of the fringe defining the
perception of the whole - probably from both viewpoints!).
For at least some of us - as I've attempted to describe before - the
composite scientific picture today also seems to be cautionary for the
Christian community.
For me personally - with no relevant family issues in play, to my
knowledge - these latter are sufficiently persuasive for me to be
inclined toward the cultural understanding of what scripture has to say
on the subject, particularly since to do otherwise seems to put us in
conflict with more overarching principles derived from the life and
teachings of Jesus.

Most of us are troubled by the activism of Westboro Baptist Church which
flaunts its communal rejection of gays.
But I wonder how different in fundamentals is a more subtle and
attractive, but nonetheless selective "welcome mat calligraphy" that
accomplishes the same alientating effect?

In short, it seems to me that the rhetoric, at least, needs to be
consciously dialed back.
Even if our particular organization(s) of choice may struggle with
extending our invitation to those with gender perspectives different
from our own, it would seem to me that the least we might do is not war
with sister Christian community organizations who find they are able to
unconditionally extend the welcoming arms of Christ.

As in the time of Jesus, in our own time it is surely no less difficult
to grasp and implement the more personally and corporately challenging
(for whatever the reason) of Jesus' teachings and example. But isn't
that the whole idea of taking on his name?

Or so it seemeth to me. Jim Armstrong

burgytwo@juno.com wrote:

>Terry wrote: "Although I don't agree 100% with the Christian Reformed Church's
>position on homosexuality, I might commend to you the extensive
>research that they have done over the years. A summary can be found
>at http://www.crcna.org/pages/positions_homosexuality.cfm. The church
>takes a strong stand against homosexual practice in the context of a
>fairly nuanced position on homosexual orientation."
>
>Thank you for this reference, Terry. I will take a look at it.
>
>On my web site (page 2, section 10) are several links to counter arguments; those interested can go there to find them. There are also links to material which support the position of the link Terry provided.
>
>As my own position statement (www.burgy.50megs.com/gay1.htm) suggests, there are no easy answers. For a long time I avoided taking ANY position. When that became not feasible, I had to study the issues very hard. It took (literally) several years just to get me to where I am today.
>
>Burgy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Fri Jun 2 12:13:49 2006