February 21, 2005
Dear Ken,
Your letter to the senators of the Ministers Council raises important concerns for us. But it also contains basic assumptions I do not agree with. Part of our difficulty in these discussions is our lack of opportunity to sit and talk face-to-face without time constraints. But lacking that opportunity, I want to respond to your letter. I will also accept Kate Harvey’s suggestion to post the response on the MC website.
First, the proposed bylaw amendment would do much more than deny “the seating of a practicing gay or lesbian senator.” In fact, the amendment does not even state that goal directly. These are reasons why I oppose the amendment:
Second, I agree it is past time for us to talk openly about this matter. I would invite us all to be careful about our language, though, especially in written communications. I don’t believe our response in the past has been “neurotic.” I don’t think “head knocking” is helpful. Your reference to “spiritual exercises” felt dismissive to me, and that’s not helpful. And I think “listening to each other and loving each other” is at the very heart of our calling as Christians to “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,” especially when faithful Christians who are committed to the authority of Scripture cannot agree.
Third, you suggest that the Jerusalem Council settled the matter of circumcision for Gentile believers for the whole church and that everyone then followed that “position.” But Paul’s letters to the churches give abundant evidence that many Christians did not consider it settled; Paul continued to respond to the same concern throughout his ministry. One reason is that no hierarchy existed among the churches that allowed anyone, including the original apostles, to settle a matter for everyone. Baptists have continued to leave open may questions of theology and practice to be decided by local churches and associations and other entities within the larger body. Certainly the Ministers Council Senate cannot resolve the question of inclusion of gay and lesbian persons or clergy for the whole denomination, and certainly not for the churches. Our “Jerusalem Council Process” was not intended to do that, nor will our vote on this amendment in August do that.
Fourth, “issues of Baptist polity and tradition” are not secondary “to the main issue before us,” from my perspective. Some people see the question of inclusion of gay and lesbian persons as a primary issue to be resolved, and preferably resolved this year. Other people see any attempt to “resolve” the question by majority vote and then to enforce acceptance of the result of that vote as a requirement for inclusion as a more important concern. When there are half-a-dozen references in Scripture to homosexuality, how can we say the scriptures are clear on the subject? This is not a major concern for the church, especially not one to divide the church as it is doing today.
American Baptists have responded many times to the “Modernist-Fundamentalist controversy of the last century” by calling ourselves again to freedom of conscience and interpretation of Scripture. We continue to state clearly our commitment to the authority of the scriptures, yet allowing freedom for differing interpretations. Calling “the blessing of homosexual practice” a “hot button issue” does not help us deal with it appropriately. Suggesting that those who support it have rejected biblical authority and believe there are no boundaries to freedom also does not help us, for it simply is not true.
I was a charter member of the American Baptist Evangelicals in the early ‘90s in the Central Region. Now I am in the Rochester/Genesee Region and clearly in a different place in my understanding of this question. What has not changed is my commitment to the authority of Scripture and my desire to be faithful to what I understand it to say. What has changed is my interpretation of those few texts which have been understood to refer to homosexuality. I no longer understand them to have any connection to a faithful, monogamous relationship between two persons of the same gender. And that, I believe, is what is the central issue for us.
Our “common denominator” is the One in whom we live and move and have our being. We are joined together in Christ through the Spirit, and our unity is in the Spirit, not in our doctrines and our interpretations of Scripture. The Bible is our authority, not any specific creed, set of doctrines, or interpretation of scripture – just the Bible as we have received it. My understanding of much of what it says has changed – matured, deepened, I believe – through the years, but my commitment to it remains unchanged.
Finally, you ask where the “doors are opened” for us in Scripture for the approval of homosexual practice. Both Old and New Testaments refer far more often to society’s acceptance of slavery and to the practice of excluding women from leadership roles than it does to the practice of homosexuality of any kind. Yet we have understood, in time, that the domination, abuse, and exclusion of anyone because of race or gender is not in keeping with God’s desire and offer of freedom and equal acceptance before God. What matters is each person’s response and relationship to God, and each one’s calling from God (especially in the context of ordained ministry).
The few references to what we commonly call homosexuality are in the context of rape and violence or using boys for sex by older men or rejection of God and worshiping idols. The Bible says nothing about faithful, believing, loving persons who are committed to Christ and seeking to follow Jesus whose sexuality is rooted in their attraction to persons of the same gender and who desire to live in faithful, monogamous relationships. I believe the door is wide open for us in Scripture to affirm those persons as they seek to be faithful to who they are before God.
Thank you for giving us another opportunity for open discussion about these things.
Jimmy Reader
Senator from Upstate New York
February 25, 2005
Dear Jimmy,
Thank you for your letter. I am getting several thoughtful correspondences like yours and I hope these will result in a continuing dialog rather than throwing clods from a distance and ducking. Face to face is always best since speech is more personal than writing. For example, my use of "head knocking" is a colloquialism for what I read happened in Acts 15:7 which happened face to face.
Also, I am not putting down devotional experiences that enrich our lives, but they do not take the place of serious discussion. From the written report of your Jerusalem Council in Upstate New York, each person had two minutes to share his thinking. That doesn't get it done, and I think our correspondence illustrates that.
You raise many issues that need to be addressed in turn. I will understand a lot more of where you are coming from if you will tell me your thinking about a situation that parallels the one we are addressing.
In 1845 Baptist split North and South. As I recall, the triggering issue was over a slave holder that wanted to be appointed as a missionary. The slaveholding side thought they had Scripture on their side. They had texts like the "curse of Canaan" that we recognize as specious. From your position of what I would call "radical congregationalism," what would be your rationale for refusing his appointment? Did they do the right thing or did they miss it? Please help me understand.
In Christ,
Ken Savage
Senator from PSW
February 25, 2005
Ken,
I appreciate the opportunity for dialogue, even in this brief written form. And I want to thank you for the opportunity for senators to express their thoughts in more complete form through responses to your letter put on the website.
I'm not at all sure this is a parallel situation. I haven't studied the history of that separation, but I'm sure there were various political and economic factors in the dividing of our nation and our churches in those years which are not present in this current conflict. If there are parallels, it seems to me that the people upholding the traditional, conservative culture of the southern states felt strongly that the scriptures gave abundant support to the approval/acceptance of slavery.
Certainly at one level of interpretation, they still do -- although we have moved to another place in our understanding of the freedom God calls us to and that we have in Christ.
At another level of interpreting Scripture, however, other Christians understood that God created all human beings to live in equality and in freedom and that no one race of people could be denied those "rights" by other people. Since then many people have understood that women and people of other ethnic cultures should be given the same equality and freedom. And today, some of us see the same application of Scripture to same gender relationships.
I do not know enough about the details of the decision concerning that missionary appointment. I assume I would have voted against his appointment for the reasons I've just given. But, then, I live now and not 150 years ago. Who knows what I would have thought and felt then?
Even in the past ten years, I have come to a different understanding than I once had.
I'm not sure "radical congregationalism" describes my position. Maybe you could say more about why you think it does. I believe we can exist in interdependent relationships with other Baptist congregations and still maintain the local autonomy which has always been part of our tradition.
I guess I'm not certain about this question.
I'm looking forward to our continuing dialogue.
Jimmy Reader
Senator from Upstate New York
March 9, 2005
Jimmy,
You are not sure that the 1845 slave holders issue is parallel. Here are some quotes that may help your research. All but Torbet are from Southern Baptist sources.
Of all the divisive issues in American life in the second quarter of the 19th century, slavery cut the deepest because it was at once a political, economic, social, moral, and religious issue."
--Barnes, The Southern Baptist Convention, 1845-1953
"The southerners did not attempt to defend the evils in the slavery system, but described the institution as an inherited disease to be cured slowly; many justified its continuance on biblical grounds, pointing out that the Negroes' contacts with white masters brought them in touch with the gospel. Northern abolitionists also argued from the scriptures, holding that they taught the inherent dignity and worth of each individual in the sight of God. . . ."
--Torbet, A History of the Baptists
"England abolished slavery in the 1830's. Baptists were among the leaders of the abolition effort there and wrote the Triennial Convention in 1833 urging their Baptist brethren to do the same thing in America....Baptist abolitionists pressed the question....Thus, the Southern Baptist Convention walked on the stage of history burdened by its defense of a practice which subsequent history would condemn. . . ."
--Fletcher, The Southern Baptist Convention, A Sesquicentennial History
History
". . .delegates to the Triennial Convention from north of the Mason-Dixon line became outspoken against employing or supporting missionaries at home or abroad, who owned slaves."
--Armstrong, The Indomitable Baptists
From your present perspective, which side would you have been on? Was slave owning a moral issue or a "states rights" issue? Or could it not be touched because of our Baptist heritage?
"Radical Congregationalism" is my term which you don't have to accept. I mean by it that because of congregational autonomy the larger body has no right to set boundaries of beliefs or practices for a local congregation. The obvious problem in this is that there is no authority to identify a church as being on the Apostolic foundation upon which the church was founded. (Ephesians 2:19,20) If we can believe anything and still be called "Baptist," then we are in reality Unitarian-Universalists. Before I withdraw my label, you need to explain what your boundaries are and what the larger body can do to maintain the "faith once delivered to the saints." (Jude 3)
We need to take a fresh look at our Baptist heritage. Roger Williams was a Baptist for only a short time, and he left to become a "seeker" which seems to say that Baptists were perceived to have a boundary that he felt uncomfortable with. His famous tract on "The Bloudy Tenet of Persecution" was about separation of church and state, not Baptist boundaries. My understanding is that we are non-creedal because we do not believe that any creed can capture the whole counsel of God, and there may be more light to be revealed from Scripture. We are not Quakers. That is not the same as being anti-creedal by saying no truth can be so expressed.
The other part of your letter needs a separate treatment. I hope to get to that.
In Christ,
Ken Savage
Senator from PSW
March 9, 2005
Ken,
My understanding of appropriate "boundaries" is in full agreement with what our ABC identity piece ("We Are American Baptists") says in the section about the Bible. (See http://www.abc-usa.org/identity/bible.html). It holds in tension the freedom of the individual and of a local church to interpret Scripture within the context of the larger church, and it acknowledges the diversity of thought and belief which Baptists have always held on a variety of issues.
My understanding of our present dilemma is that some people are convinced that the Bible is clearly opposed to every form of same-gender relationship, categorizing all homosexual practice as immoral, while other people are equally convinced that the Bible is not at all clear about that and leaves open to interpretation whether we consider it as such today. I do not see the choice as accepting or denying the authority of the Bible but as a choice between differing interpretations. I do not think our current divisions are a matter of "apostolic foundations" or "the faith once delivered to the saints."
Our ABC identity piece, along with numerous statements of faith through the years, sets a lot of boundaries of belief and practice for Baptists. Given your definition, I don't think I am a "radical congregationalist." I think we share a common understanding in a multitude of areas of faith, and in the most important and essential areas of belief. I don't think the concern about homosexuality is important or essential. Therefore, I don't think it is a matter for the larger church to decide.
Returning to the slavery issue, I don't think it is parallel to our current situation. But if it is, I see the abolitionists who argued for a new interpretation of Scripture and the rejection of texts which supported slavery as parallel to progressives today who call for freedom to understand Scripture in a new way in what it says about sexuality, for instance, and to honor the inherent dignity and worth of each individual in the sight of God. I hope I would have been on the side that saw slavery as immoral and believed the church should speak out against it, rejecting the traditional interpretation of Scripture that supported it. Today I am on the side that chooses to speak out against the rejection of persons who are gay and lesbian, believing the church should be open to new interpretations of Scripture which allow for their full inclusion.
Thank you for continuing the dialogue.
Jimmy Reader
Senator from Upstate New York
March 17, 2005
Jimmy,
When people start talking past each other I suspect they have different meanings to the terms they are using. And yes, that means interpretation. There's no other way when it comes to language. We not only have to interpret what the Bible teaches, we must interpret what we mean by Biblical authority. My previous attempt has left us unconnected, so let me make another stab at it.
There is the light of general revelation available to all, (Rom. 1:20; John 1, the Logos) but to know God as personal we have in the Bible his purposes, how he works to bring about his final victory and how we relate to him through his Son. All truth is united in God and so there is a unity of truth in creation, for example. as to why he did it and how he did it. We learn from geology that it wasn't in seven literal days and we may have confirmed from DNA that human life could have evolved from earlier forms. This does not change the intent of the truth in Genesis 1 and 2.
Further, since God spoke through human persons, there is the human element in the Bible just as Jesus was fully human and fully divine. We do not have a docetic Bible. God's truth was expressed through Paul and also through the Gospel writers with their diverse witness to Jesus.
Paul cannot be pitted against Jesus since, after all, his earliest writings were earlier than the earliest canonical Gospel.
With all the diversity in the Bible, it is the task of Biblical Theology to develop the common themes that tie it together. Some approaches are inadequate such as dispensationalism, Seventh Day Adventists who in some ways don't move to the New Testament and Pentecostals who make Acts 2:4 the key verse in the Bible. If we are to give an answer to these and others, or they to us, it must be within the Bible itself. The Mormon "elder" who started off with the Bible but quietly shifted gears to the Book of Mormon is an example of changing authorities in mid stream. The same shift can be made from the Bible to feminism or gay rights, and however much truth these contain, the authority shift has been made.
I would say that to keep the current issue on a Biblical foundation, your position needs to establish that:
The Bible doesn't actually call homosexual practices sin even though it appears to do so.
OR,
The New Testament changes the Old Testament perspective just as it does those Jewish identity issues in the Torah,
OR,
The Biblical trajectory completes our understanding of what was not clear in Bible times such as slavery and women's place but we now see that this was in the Bible all along.
The claim to Biblical authority throws us into the area of interpretation. The greater the claim to authority, the more important interpretation becomes. This is true in every area I can think of. The soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison failed to interpret their orders correctly. (Or maybe they did.) My son in law is a building construction superintendent. He must constantly interpret what the architect intended and what the building codes require. To me, our Baptist freedom is not to hide our interpretations which you and others seem to want to do. It is the freedom to get what we truly believe (not just what others say) out on the table where we can consider and make judgments. That is hard work and both sides have been unwilling to do it.
The level of unity we seem to be satisfied with appears to be that of three year olds in their parallel play. Just being in the same room is not playing together.
Briefly to some of your points: The description of our Baptist identity is just that, descriptive. That is the center of gravity of us as Baptists, and I also am happy to be there. But is there a "proscriptive" definition? Is there something that would keep me from being a Baptist? This is the boundary issue where you say there are various boundaries. If you will name one, then I will understand more what you are saying. If you name one or more, is there any polity that would establish it? It seems inconsistant to me that we could not refuse the seating of a lesbian senator but a TIM group would not be considered unless its application was printed.
You speak of the local church and the "larger church." Is this larger church the American Baptist denomination? You have made an arbitrary choice as to what is a local church issue. How can the issue that is tearing other denominations as well as our own apart be dismissed as a local church issue? What would it take to be a larger church issue? To me the larger church is the Apostolic church build on the Apostolic witness. Baptists and Evangelicals are only a part of this larger church which would include churches in the third world which are experiencing unbelievable growth.
The position you are taking is based on a number of assumptions that need to be explored. Let's keep going.
In Christ,
Ken Savage
Senator from PSW
March 21, 2005
Ken,
If being “connected” means we agree on the answers to our questions, we will probably never accomplish that. I am willing to keep going if we are seeking mutual understanding and not a final decision about the question of homosexuality. We are not going to agree on that. That’s fine with me, but I doubt it’s okay with you. I am willing for you to have freedom to interpret the scripture and to hold to principles different than mine, and I would ask for the same freedom. This is more than a question of local church autonomy. There may be others holding that up as the primary issue, but I don’t believe it is. To explain further, let me respond to some of your statements in your last email:
With all the diversity in the Bible, it is the task of Biblical Theology to develop the common themes that tie it together.
In my recent book, Moral Values: What I Learned Growing Up in Church, [see the Book Club Page on www.ministerscouncil.com], I develop at length the idea that the central theme which ties it all together is love. That is my interpretive lens, on the authority of Jesus, Paul, James, John, and others. All the law and the prophets are summed up in the command to love God with our whole being and to love our neighbors as ourselves. Love does no harm. Love does not condemn. Love forgives all things. God is love, and those who live in love live in God. – All these statements and more, I believe, provide the best lens to interpret all of scripture.
More than a common theme, though, Jesus revealed God to us. I seek to understand all of scripture in light of Jesus’ words and life – who he was and what he said and did – because that’s who I understand God to be. Knowing God is my desire, and not simply interpreting scripture. We begin with scripture because that’s where we learn about Jesus and about God, first of all, and most clearly. Jesus said that love is most important, and so I interpret scripture through that lens.
To me, our Baptist freedom is not to hide our interpretations which you and others seem to want to do. It is the freedom to get what we truly believe (not just what others say) out on the table where we can consider and make judgments.
I have never suggested we hide our interpretations. True freedom allows us to be quite open and honest with each other about who we are and what we believe. I am hiding nothing, keeping nothing under the table. I do not, however, see that doing that leads to the necessity of “making judgments.” I hear you saying that the church must make a decision about whether homosexuality is a sin, and then everyone in the church must abide by that decision. That’s where I disagree . Where is the freedom in that?
The level of unity we seem to be satisfied with appears to be that of three year olds in their parallel play. Just being in the same room is not playing together.
I wholeheartedly disagree with your metaphor. The unity which the Spirit creates is maintained through the bond of peace as we speak the truth to one another in love. I am more than willing to work and play together with you and others in the midst of our disagreements. I don’t want to “just be in the same room.” But that doesn’t mean we always have to agree.
Is there something that would keep me from being a Baptist? This is the boundary issue where you say there are various boundaries. If you will name one, then I will understand more what you are saying. If you name one or more, is there any polity that would establish it?
The Bible is clear, I think, about boundaries around abuse, violence, rape, ingratitude toward God, worshiping “other gods,” and lust. Those are the contexts of the scriptures which mention homosexual acts. The one exception is the holiness code; but since it prohibits so many things we now consider normal or acceptable, how can we isolate one thing and call it a sin? I do not think the Bible prohibits same-gender relationships between faithful, loving partners.
Confessionally, “Jesus is Lord” is one clear boundary for Christians, including Baptists. I might want to include other confessional or theological boundaries, but I am willing to grant freedom to others to choose their own “list” of what might be included.
I don’t think it is the role of polity to establish boundaries of morality or theology. That is the role of scripture and the Spirit and of the churches gathered together in Christ. It is not a static, legal process, but a dynamic and spiritual process which allows us to move in different directions as we are led by the Spirit.
You speak of the local church and the "larger church." Is this larger church the American Baptist denomination? You have made an arbitrary choice as to what is a local church issue.
Ultimately, the larger church is the communion of the saints. I think we cannot neglect the tradition and faith of those who have gone before us. And I think we must always be attentive to what we will pass on to succeeding generations. I am very ecumenical, and I include in “the larger church” Christians of all branches of the church. I often find myself much more in agreement with people in other denominations than in my own. Surely the larger church includes the American Baptist Churches, a voluntary association of churches across the nation, which I have considered “home” for 25 years.
It seems clear to me that given any of these definitions of the larger church, there has seldom been unanimity in theology and biblical interpretation on any number of questions, including this question of homosexuality and the larger questions of sexuality. And where the tradition has been consistent in the past – on the acceptance of slavery and the rejection of women in ministry, for instance – many of us today understand scripture differently from that tradition. I believe that’s the situation today with questions of sexuality.
So, Ken, love and freedom are much more important concerns for me than local church autonomy or any form of polity. We cannot force on one another “correct” beliefs and behaviors, no matter how confident we are in our own understanding of those. If people who proclaim Jesus as Lord choose to live together in love and freedom, we have a lot of room to work and play together – and to carry out the mission and ministry of Christ in this world.
Jimmy Reader
Senator from Upstate New York
April 4, 2005
Jimmy,
We were away a week grandson sitting so there has been a gap getting back to you. Let me try to respond to the differences in my understanding of some of the points you make. This doesn't mean that there aren't huge areas of agreement. Nor is anyone expecting total agreement and I know of no way to force someone to agree with me. I believe we all bear witness to the truth we understand and put it out there for people to accept or reject. Our decision to receive Jesus as Lord is rejected by many, and that's up to them. Nor does our decision for Christ automatically eliminate all doubts. I suggest that our differences do come to strategic points and understanding comes from sharpening these points.
"Jesus is Lord" is the large creedal nesting bowl into which other smaller ones fit. If I believe that the Pope (whomever the new one will be) is Christ's Vicar on earth and is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra then I don't fit in the Baptist bowl. Polity is also a theological issue and the early English Congregationalists considered it such as they established themselves apart from the Anglican church. It is also the framework in which theology happens just as the court system is where trials take place. To have a court system without trials seems vacuous.
You say that you have never suggested that we hide our interpretations. That is literally true, but until now you have said that our polity allows diverse interpretations and so there is no need to go there. In your letter to Kate on your thoughts about the Jerusalem Council process you said, "I do not want these sessions to become debates, presenting all sides of the concern." That sounds to me like a strategy to squelch hearing various interpretations. Otherwise, what is there to discuss?
My concept of our freedom as Baptists is to work at the theological task to better understand what Scripture teaches and how we transpose it for today. That involves interpretation and counter interpretation. Now that you have given some interpretations, let me discuss them.
Regarding God's love as the overarching theme of the Bible. Any one of God's communicable attributes can describe the whole of God's character because all are included in whichever one we choose. Thus "love" includes God's justice, truth, mercy and holiness. One cannot love without hating evil, and this involves justice and judgment. All are combined in the death of Christ as an atonement for sin where love and justice meet as the basis for forgiveness. I can buy this.
However, I prefer the Kingdom of God as the Bible's unifying theme. The theocratic kingdom of David in the Old Testament was a failed precursor to the core of Jesus' proclamation of the Kingdom of God. Love is a reality within the Kingdom. The disciples were sent out two by two to proclaim the Kingdom, not God's love. The last verse in Acts says that Paul, and therefore the early church, boldly proclaimed the Kingdom of God.
The message of Revelation is about the victory of Christ's kingdom over the kingdoms of this world beginning with Rome. The blessings of Rev. 22 flow from the throne of God which suggest the authority of a kingdom to which the nations submit if they are to be healed. To me this is more overarching than God's love.
You answered half of my question about Biblical boundaries and whether there is a polity that could be used to establish such boundaries. I still haven't heard how any boundary could be made real, even the ones you state that come from Romans 1. What does just stating a boundary accomplish? Is "freedom and love" the only thing to be said?
Apparently you follow Bill Hertzog's interpretation based on the holiness code in Leviticus. In the New Testament those parts of the Torah that had to do with Jewish identity (food, circumcision, Sabbath, ritual cleansing) were no longer applied as the message went to the Gentiles. For Jews, all 613 commands of the Torah were moral. For us we must sort out what was for Jewish identity and what was moral or ritual. The clue in Leviticus is that for all ritual laws there was provision for cleansing. This would include such things as touching a dead body, birth, menstruation, nocturnal emission, or even mildew in a house. But for incest, homosexual practices and bestiality these were labelled as "detestable" and the penalty was to be put to death. (Leviticus 18,20) This would seem to separate moral and ritual issues since it would be hard to be cleansed if you have been put to death.
Further, to carry this over to Romans 1 does not apply. Paul is addressing Gentiles and listing recognized Gentile sins. In Romans 2 he is addressing Jews and convicts them of the sin of hypocrisy for knowing the Torah and not keeping it. If homosexual practices are an exception in Romans 1, then his argument stalls by including an exception. Also, how were these Gentiles to know that this was a Jewish ritual thing? That doesn't make sense. He is building to his conclusion in chapter 3 that all are guilty before God. What would this do to his argument that "you are all guilty before God, but not in this one instance?" Paul was a better arguer than that. Phineas had a better argument that Paul considered homosexual practices to be sin, but he didn't know all we know about being gay, so it didn't count. I answered that to my satisfaction.
Thank you for clarifying what you meant by the "larger church." Previously you took the position that this was to be settled as a local church issue. I agree that it is larger than the local church, the mainline churches including us, those churches not identified with the Ecumenical Movement and above all, those astounding number of churches in the third world that will probably be shaping our understanding of the Christian faith in the future. It is interesting that the developing split in the Anglican Church appears to be between the more traditional African bishops and their U.S. and British counterparts.
You say that you don't think the Bible prohibits same gender relations between faithful, loving partners. This is where the discussion has been headed. Now that it is there, how would you build your case for this Biblical interpretation? There are things the Bible does not prohibit but surely does not approve, like gambling and drugs. Based on your position, does the Bible approve faithful, loving (sexual) relationships between heterosexual unmarried partners?
The issue as to whether society should endorse gay marriage is a larger question.
In Christ,
Ken Savage
Senator from PSW
April 14, 2005
Ken,
Is this email correspondence as frustrating for you as it is for me? Without the benefit of knowing each other and hearing the tone of voice and watching body language and without the opportunity to clarify and offer feedback as we go along, the conversation is difficult.
For instance, your reference to my fall 2004 email to Kate when the Jerusalem Council process was just being designed takes out of context what I said there. Here is what you said in your last email: In your letter to Kate on your thoughts about the Jerusalem Council process you said, "I do not want these sessions to become debates, presenting all sides of the concern." That sounds to me like a strategy to squelch hearing various interpretations.
Since you had a copy of the full email, you know that I spoke of the need for “a safe environment for people to openly express their feelings and views.” I spoke of “listening to God as well as to each other.” I spoke of having “an opportunity for people to hear different perspectives than their own.” How could you interpret that to mean that I was suggesting “a strategy to squelch hearing various interpretations”?
Perhaps I should have included the adjective “formal” before “debates.” The “strategy” used in the past has too often been one of formal debate – 2 minutes each for alternating pro and con views, for instance – leading to a formal vote to be decided by a majority. I expressed to Kate my hope that the Jerusalem Council Process would not follow that model, which it did not. The gatherings instead provided a reasonably safe environment for people to express their feelings and views around a subject which continues to be difficult for people to talk openly about.
Another reason this conversation is difficult is that we speak from different paradigms. Your brief summary of the Kingdom of God as an overarching theme of the Bible comes from a traditional, hierarchical model which emphasizes a need for authority and submission. I hear that same need for submission to the authority of established teaching and/or of the understanding of a majority within the group in the various emails you have written.
My understanding of the kingdom of God is that it refers to the presence of God in our midst and the continuing activity of God’s gracious, compassionate, and generous love in all of creation. For me love is the essence of God’s kingdom as it is the essence of who God is. As Jesus preached the kingdom and called for a turning toward God (repentance), he was clear that the most important thing was to love God and each other, to love even our enemies.
You said “ One cannot love without hating evil, and this involves justice and judgment.” Yet Jesus said he came not to condemn the world. He never spoke of hating evil, though he called us to turn away from it. But his harshest words were directed to the religious leaders of the day who demanded strict adherence to the religious and cultural laws of the day but who often seemed to be far from the love of God in their lives. He spoke with compassion to people who lived as “sinners” in the eyes of those same religious leaders. For me, that describes the ways of the kingdom of God.
Our different paradigms are reflected in your comment: I still haven't heard how any boundary could be made real. – Does that mean that unless we can enforce adherence to boundaries we have agreed upon that they have no meaning? I don’t see that. You ask whether “freedom and love” is all there is. I’m tempted to say “yes,” although that would be too simplistic. God loves us, desires to be in a loving relationship with us, reveals the best way for us to live, and gives us freedom to choose for ourselves. I believe that is also how God wants us to be in relationship with other people. I often want far more for people than they seem to want for themselves – from my perspective, of course – but they have to want it and to choose it for themselves. Then I also have to acknowledge that sometimes what I think is “better” has come from my own lack of understanding or from my very different view of what is good or best. And it is not always “right.”
Another paradigm issue comes out of Phineas’ suggestion that our basic differences around the question of homosexuality are cultural ones. Which cultural understanding of sexuality determines the “correctness” of interpretation of the holiness code or of Romans 1, for instance? How much is a matter of cultural differences and how much is a matter of “the truth” irrespective of cultural understanding? The emerging paradigm in the church (using Marcus Borg’s term) sees an openness in scripture to different cultural views about sexuality. I agree. In an earlier email posted on the MC website, I gave a brief summary of why I think the Bible is silent on the question of same gender intimacy (although not on the question of any abusive or violent sexual behavior). If it is silent, this is “a disputable matter” and to be left open for people to interpret for themselves.
One more reason why this conversation is difficult – At the end of your email, you say:
There are things the Bible does not prohibit but surely does not approve, like gambling and drugs. Based on your position, does the Bible approve faithful, loving (sexual) relationships between heterosexual unmarried partners?The issue as to whether society should endorse gay marriage is a larger question.
Where does it end? I have heard people ask whether a vote to bar gay and lesbian persons from the Senate (and by implication, from ABC ministry) will lead to further restrictions in the future and whether the desire to settle by majority vote the question of inclusion of gay and lesbian persons would lead to majority votes to prohibit the inclusion of people in our denomination for a variety of other reasons. That may not be your intention, but your questions above seem to suggest a broadening of the net which would eventually be pulled in to gather up a rather diverse group of fish in the sea for sorting out.
Jimmy Reader
Senator from Upstate New York
April 26, 2005
My e-mail is out of whack so I am using my wife's to respond. Respond to this address until I can get mine in order. J.Sav@juno.com
Yes, e-mail is frustrating because in face to face we could probably clear up meanings quickly. It is a good discipline to repeat what the other says to his satisfaction before stating your own views. I agree that a formal debate structure is not the best format for
dialogue. I do stand by my original letter to the Senators in observing that the agenda for the Ministers Council Jerusalem Councils deviated from the pattern of the Acts 15 original. That was designed to come to a conclusion while ours is designed only to listen to each other "in a safe environment" and settle for our diversity which is a polity issue and not a theological one. Kate told me that the concept took on a life of its own. I feel that I am hearing a number of scriptural terms that take on a life of their own apart from their scriptural setting.
It seems to me you do this when you cite John 3:17 where Jesus said that he did not ome to condemn the world. That's right in the sense that he came so that we could avoid God's righteous judgment through faith in his atoning death. But Jesus had a lot to say about judgment. John 3:18 says that "he who does not believe is condemned already," and v. 36 says that "whoever rejects the Son. . .the wrath of God remains on him." Matt. 11:20-24 Jesus pronounces judgment on Korazin and Bethsaida for their refusal to receive him. Matt. 24, 25 gives Jesus' parables of judgment based on their relationship to him. Matt. 19:28 says that when the Son of Man sits on his throne the twelve will also sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Matt. 18:15ff gives Jesus' words about dealing with a brother who sins and the judgment that is to be made. "Binding and loosing" in v. 18 seems to say that God will confirm the judgment made on earth. 2 Cor. 5: 10 says that we all must appear before the judgment seat of Christ. Heb. 1:8,9 quotes Psalm 45, "But about the Son. . .you have loved righteousness and hated iniquity. . ."
Having visited Dachau and the Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem, I hated what I saw, and not to do so would have been immoral.
I attended the Jerusalem Council in L. A. We were told that we did not come to change anyone's mind but hopefully we might change some attitudes. I wondered whose attitude needed changing. At registration there was a paper available that gave alternative interpretations to key Scriptural passages. There was no occasion to speak to these during the sessions. In the morning session we were asked after reading Acts 15 slowly to respond to what we heard the Spirit say to us. We were not to interpret the text because this was not a Bible study, but simply "listen to each other." It is not a Bible study when there is application apart from an interpretation. In the afternoon because of the number present we were told to summarize our feelings about the subject in one minute.
Since few responded to that challenging time frame, it was lengthened until the last half hour there was helpful dialogue with some articulate positions presented. In my judgment the whole time should have been spent that way.
Regarding the overarching theme of the Bible expressed by the Kingdom of God, if that is traditional and hierarchical it still sounds Biblical to me, and a lot of Biblical scholars would agree.
Not all traditions are bad as you refer to our Baptist tradition of soul liberty. And , yes, there is submission to him who sits on the throne before whom every knee will bow. The key verse is, "Thy kingdom come, [=] Thy will be done on earth as in heaven." God's rule is a present reality but not yet complete, and to the extent his rule is experienced, the kingdom is present. If you are suggesting that I believe we must have a majesterium of doctrine like the Roman Catholics, you have me wrong. But I do believe that if we believe in the authority of the Bible as claimed, we should work hard on building a consensus on what the Scripture actually teaches. I have not heard that willingness up to now. Even the Biblical authors had their own separate theological emphases, but they agreed on the core teachings about Christ and supplemented rather than contradicted each other.
I agree that God reveals the best way to live and gives us freedom to choose. I cannot force anyone to believe apart from his will. We reflect God's love to all whether they choose God's way or not. I see boundaries, not as a prison, but as identity. My ego boundaries define who I am and who I am not. I can only be all things to all persons up to a point. If I never say "no" I will lose my identity. That's what the terrible two's development stage is all about. If our denomination sets a boundary that disapproves
a gay lifestyle, there is freedom to respond to that. If that is not done, then some of us may have to make our choice. In the New Testament I see boundaries of belief and morality being set.
Baptism is itself a boundary between being a Christian publicly or not. I believe our denomination is at this point schizophrenic. We try to be both in the liberal tradition and the orthodox tradition at the same time, and these flow from different world views. I wish we could be the one "mainline" denomination that has examined its assumptions and claimed an identity that rests on a theological foundation.
A revisit of Romans 1. Your first claim referred to the holiness code of Leviticus. If this (chs. 17-26) is only about ritual purity, it is interesting that it includes prohibitions against: idolatry (20:2-5), the occult (20:6), adultery (20:10), prostitution (21:9) blasphemy (24:15) and murder (24:17) in addition to incest, homosexual practices and bestiality. Further, the real instructions for ritual purity and cleansing is in chapters 11-15. It is hard to list all of these under ritual purity. The cultural argument cuts in both directions if you want to go there.
You are concerned that we will be in a domino situation with this decision. This concern has usually come from the conservative side of politics. To me it is a clear cut case of refusing the seating of an announced practicing lesbian or gay man on the Ministers Council Senate. The language whether well stated or not has the intention of excluding other announced deviations from the stated norm that I think we would all agree to. In my judgment this is where the moral line should be drawn. It is not a call for a witch hunt or McCarthy-type investigations. I would cite the model of the Supreme Court that acts on a single case and lets it sort out from there. Regarding the fear of a majority vote, isn't that the basis of congregational polity based on the priesthood of all believers?
I trust the center of gravity of American Baptists not to go to the extreme that you apparently fear. I believe it would be helpful to all of us to know who actually holds the majority on this issue. The others side could then respond accordingly. I just returned from a high school reunion where I sat next to an atheist who identified himself as Unitarian-Universalist. When we got to religion, his first point was that since we can't convince each other, why even discuss it? My point continues to be that if we disagree, then all the more reason to examine what we assume, and > that we can and do choose our assumptions. We had a lively sharing in the time available to us. He was amazed that I could talk about these things without getting angry. Talk about stereotypes. With no boundaries, much of the thinking I hear sounds more U. U. than Baptist.
In Christ,
Ken Savage
Senator from PSW
May 4, 2005
Ken,
I have just returned from the annual meeting of the Ministers Council of Upstate New York, which we combined with a retreat led by Dr. Leonard Sweet, who helped us look at the postmodern world in which the church exists today. My reflections from the retreat reinforce what I said in my last email about how we have different paradigms for understanding and experiencing the world, scripture, and God. How hard it is for people to communicate when they see through such different lenses. When we begin with different premises, all our logic seems illogical to the other.
For instance, many people share your understanding of the goal of our discourses – that we would as a group declare where we stand on the question of homosexuality, based either on consensus of what scripture says or on a majority vote. Those who disagree with that position can then decide whether to abide by it and stay, or leave. However, many people share my understanding of the goal of our conversations – that we would listen to each other, learn from people who are very different from us, expand our experience of the world around us and of God, enrich our understanding of scripture, and agree to live together with one heart of love and compassion in the midst of great diversity. One group can’t understand why we don’t just decide; and the other group can’t understand why we have to decide.
The Jerusalem Councils, as we are doing them, follow the second model rather than the first. Their purpose was to listen, learn, and enrich our experience of community. That was been very frustrating for a lot of you. [By the way, the paper available at the L.A. Council registration table was not “official.” It was never intended to be part of the day. Someone else put copies there, which is why there was “no occasion to speak” to it.] These councils were not designed to be Bible studies or debates, but a time for listening and learning. They followed – intentionally or not – the second model I described above.
Another example of our differing paradigms is the language of boundaries. The postmodern world is increasing global, where tribal cultures of all kinds exist side by side in larger community without clear boundaries (which is also premodern). Riding the subway in New York City last week felt very postmodern to me. The group called “doctors without borders” is postmodern – recognizing the need for medical care of people regardless of national, political, ethnic, and religious boundaries. What feels increasingly threatening to modern people is this postmodern appeal to breaking down the walls, barriers, and boundaries in all parts of life. Celebrating diversity and mystery is a positive value in a postmodern world. For postmodern people, humility is accepting the reality that we all see through a glass darkly, that no one has all the truth and no one understands anything perfectly. There is always room to listen, learn, and enrich our understanding and experience of the world. To “modern” Christians, that feels “wrong” – and quite threatening.
For example, here is what you said in your last email
To me it is a clear cut case of refusing the seating of an announced practicing lesbian or gay man on the Ministers Council Senate. The language whether well stated or not has the intention of excluding other announced deviations from the stated norm that I think we would all agree to. In my judgment this is where the moral line should be drawn.
What seems so clear to you feels threatening and arrogant to others, though I’m sure you don’t see yourself that way. This amendment is not “clear cut” at all to me. In an earlier email, I listed five different reasons why I think it is not a good amendment, four of them having nothing to do with the lesbian/gay question. And we have been working hard for two decades to be inclusive; why would we now write into our bylaws something with the “intention of excluding” anyone? And “deviations from the stated norm” – what are those? It seems obvious to me in these discussions that we do not “all agree” about what those norms are and what deviations would be. You see this as a question about drawing a “moral line,” and I don’t see it as a moral issue at all. I see it as a theological issue and a matter of biblical interpretation. And from my theological/biblical perspective, I don’t see a line to be drawn.
For 15 years I voted against every effort to institute what we now call a “welcoming and affirming” policy. In the past 10 years, I have gradually become welcoming and affirming. The change for me came first through getting to know persons who are gay and lesbian Christians, some of them ministers. I listened to their stories and learned that sexuality was not as black-and-white, not as literally male or female, as I had always thought. My understanding has been enriched through other reading of research that I believe shows a continuum of sexual identity which helps me understand more about the stories I have heard. As I went back to read scripture again, I recognized that the half-dozen texts under discussion and their interpretation accepted a strict male/female dichotomy of sexual identity that has always seemed self-evident, but which increasingly seems to have never been the reality.
In those earlier years I rejected the idea that this discussion is similar to earlier discussions of race and gender, of slavery and women’s rights. I saw those as a matter of birth, and this as a matter of behavior. But I am convinced now that this is a matter of birth as well. Christians once used scripture to “prove” their understanding of the “natural order” of the races (and some still do) in their support for slavery. Most of us believe they were wrong. Christians once used scripture to “prove” their understanding of the “natural order” of the sexes, male and female (and some still do) in their support for the idea that God intends for women to be in submission to men in all areas of life. Most of us in the ABC believe they were wrong. Christians still use scripture to “prove” their understanding of the “natural order” of sexual identity (only male and female intimacy in marriage) in their support for excluding all other expressions of sexual identity. Many of us now believe they are wrong. I think it is the same thing.
Ken, I do not expect to convince you otherwise. Nor will you convince me to return to my earlier position. So what do we do now? This deep paradigmatic split in our denomination is beyond resolution by debate. Postmodern folk are willing to live with the “tribal differences” in the larger community. I don’t think modern folk are willing to do that. That seems to be what you have said fairly clearly. So where do we go from here?
Jimmy Reader
President and Senator
Upstate New York
May 9, 2005
Jimmy,
You confirmed where I think we both knew we were going all along if we stuck with it. You call it different paradigms. I prefer world views, but whatever. The issue before us is truly just the tip of the iceberg. It is difficult to communicate across world views because the same language means different things as we have experienced over Biblical authority. I think we have sharpened the issue to recognize that it is not a Baptist heritage issue or a Biblical interpretation issue but a world view issue because this controls how we view our heritage and how we interpret Scripture. We probably had to jump through those hoops to acknowledge where the real fault line between us lies.
I did not enter this experience expecting to change your mind or anyone else's who chooses not to change. Before we either say, "Let's just get along," or "No, we have to split," let's work at exactly where we differ and make an intelligent decision. I maintain that our world view controls how we think and especially what we allow as evidence. We either live with a world view without recognizing we have one, or we choose it because we believe it correlates with reality better than other options. I am sure we both feel we have done the latter. If so and we are to continue, that's where it needs to go. What reality am I missing? Who better to point that out for me than you, and maybe me for you. We both recognize that we are in a culture greatly shaped by postmodern ways of thinking. You described it well, but I am unclear whether that is your position or are you just describing the current culture that we all must respond to?
Postmodernism comes from philosophy and not theology. The question is, which is to be the one that leads the other? In Acts 17, Paul spoke before the philosophers and they listened until he got to the resurrection. In that he slipped outside their world view over the immortality of the soul as expressed by Socrates in his final dialogue coming from Plato. That is what Paul was talking about in 1 Corinthians 1, 2 about the world that by its wisdom did not know Christ.
I would say that postmodernism is a transition to something yet to be determined. Much of its critique of Enlightenment modernism is valid. But a critique of one position is not the same as establishing something new. Progress did turn out to be a myth. Science not only led to wonderful technology but also to the atomic bomb and WMD's. While religion unfortunately led to the Crusades and Inquisition, the Enlightenment perversely led to the French Revolution, Communism and National Socialism in Germany. There is, indeed, a subjective element in all presentations of "truth," but isn't that what the classical doctrine of original sin teaches? We all see through a glass darkly, but it is not a mirror where we only see our subjective self. There is an object on the other side of the glass to be perceived.
Philosophies go through the process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. This means that what is current is even now in the process of change. When I was in seminary, existentialism was the big thing. Since then liberal theology has led us through the death of God, situational ethics, religionless Christianity, let the world set the Church's agenda, liberation theology and now postmodernism. What will come next? Jerusalem and Athens will always have to interact with each other, but which is the home of our faith?
The very day I got your letter I read this from The Truth About Tolerance, by Stetson & Conti, IVP. I heard echoes of your letter in this:
"Our essentially postmodern times have created and sustained this confusion over an uncritical and rampant skepticism and subjectivity toward anything traditional or not politically correct by the standards of contemporary liberalism. . . .Under the regime of postmodernism there can be only 'truth for me' or truth that I choose within my social setting. There cannot be any public or objective truths. . . .Those who seek to dispel my view, are, in my eyes, imposing on me their own private perspective. . . .They can only be engaged in a kind of conquest of me, an attempt to move me away from my own autonomously chosen preferences and into what they, for their own reasons want from me. . . .Postmodernist ideologies forecloses on debate itself, ceasing to tolerate dissent and dialogue that, if it claims more for itself other than the purely subjective expressions of the speaker, is sinister. . . .The belief in truth as subjectivity short circuits discussion, construing challenge as imposition. It is a dehumanizing perspective."
As you well stated, the goal of the Jerusalem Councils flowed from postmodern presuppositions. The deck was stacked, and you clarified that.
I would like to ask, "Where is postmodernism going?" It appears to me that it is heading in Europe's direction. Is a secularized, post Christian Europe really where we want to go? When I made the statement about what we would all disagree with, I meant things that are a part of aberrant sexual practices that are increasingly becoming an accepted part of our culture. I would include promiscuity, group sex, s-m, "man-boy" sex and the list could be extended. I think we would agree on this. How do you build a fire wall between gay marriage and these kinds of practices that are often a part of the gay community?
I recall C S. Lewis making the point that one way to deal with a position is to give it a label, especially if it is pejorative. Thus "old" or '"traditional" is all you need to say, assuming that "new" is always better. I think he answered that well.
In Christ,
Ken Savage
Senator from PSW
May 13, 2005
Ken,
Please document from my emails where I have used pejorative labels, if that’s what you meant. I believe I have corresponded with you with respect and have avoided language of intimidation. Your use of the quotation from Stetson & Conti’s book, however, did not. Their view of a postmodern worldview, to use your first term, is nothing like my experience of our postmodern world. And their language feels quite inflammatory:
* Uncritical and rampant skepticism
* The regime of postmodernism
* There cannot be any…truths
* Autonomously chosen preferences
* Postmodernist ideologies
* Ceasing to tolerate dissent and dialogue
How could you have heard such “echoes” in my last letter? And how can your statement be read as anything but pejorative in its own right? – Liberal theology has led us through the death of God, situational ethics, religionless Christianity, let the world set the Church’s agenda, liberation theology and now postmodernism.
In an email to Phineas you wrote that he set up “straw men to knock over.” I didn’t read his email that way; but when anyone describes someone else’s views in a way that is contradictory to that person’s actual views and then seeks to discredit them, isn’t that “a straw man”?
My worldview is built on the rock which the storms can’t wash away. I follow Jesus, the way, the truth, and the life. When he says the greatest commandment is to love God and the second is to love my neighbor, I believe him; and I let that desire and life-commitment shape my whole life, including my theology, my interpretation of scripture, my relationships, my ministry, and my understanding of the world.
I believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that I know and come to the Father through him. So I read how Jesus treated people with respect and compassion, especially people who were on the edges of his society and rejected by the “church” of his day – and how he challenged religious leaders who were closed to the grace and love of God – and I seek to live by those values.
In the modern world, including much of evangelical Christianity, many people value clearly-defined boundaries to organize everything in a way that makes logical sense to them (for instance, in systematic theology). When anyone moves beyond those boundaries, they are deemed irrational, wrong, or even immoral. They are outside the group that matters. Nation-states are an example, and that has often led to a militant nationalism and “world” wars. Ethnic cleansing, if not an exclusively modern phenomenon, has greatly accelerated in the past few centuries. Religious wars among Christians dominated Europe after the Reformation; and though the Puritans, for instance, came to this continent to escape, they brought the spirit with them. So many “isms” of our day – racism, classism, sexism – are deeply-rooted in the modern spirit. Evangelicalism – as an “ism” – imbibes on this spirit.
The postmodern spirit – as I understand and experience and accept it – values moving beyond these “isms,” these ideologies. It wants to move beyond such distinct boundaries. It encourages diversity and celebrates differences of all kinds. It sees tolerance as a positive value, rooted in mutual respect and empathy, in a desire to understand one another whether or not we agree. It is a spirit in agreement, I believe, with the one who made the hated Samaritan and a despised tax collector the “heroes” of his stories, and who said we should love our enemies and those who treat us badly. It is a spirit, I think, in agreement with a God who loves the whole world, without exception, and who does not want anyone to perish, in agreement with a gracious, compassionate, forgiving God.
Any ideology or “ism” is a caricature of the true spirit of what it grew it out of, or perhaps a false perception of something that is valuable. I consider myself both evangelical and liberal in the best sense of those words, and postmodern in the best sense of that evolving term. You are right that what we are experiencing is a transition to something yet to be determined. During that transition, perhaps Baptist churches, with their traditional spirit of interdependent freedom founded in a full commitment to Christ, can be a home and a safe place for people wanting to experience abundant life in God.
Jimmy Reader
Senator from Upstate New York
June 1, 2005
Dear Jimmy,
I have gotten behind in my correspondence and have been slow to get back to you. My wife, Juanita, broke her ankle 3 weeks ago which required surgery and can't put any weight on it for four more weeks. That has tied us both down, MY e-mail went haywire and our computer visited the shop for two weeks. On June 21 we will leave for an Alaska a cruise with our five grandchildren. I will miss the Denver Biennial. I hope you can make it.
Let me tell you where I think we are in our discussion. It seems to me there are three main issues that are interrelated. First is what the Bible teaches and what is the nature of its authority. Second is how we perceive the Bible and its teachings in the light of postmodernism.
Third is to what extent is homosexual orientation caused by pre natal factors and how much by cultural and environmental factors and how does this affect our viewpoint on the issue.
In my thinking we have not yet delved into #1 as deeply as we need to.
Now that you have raised the issue of our postmodern culture and the shoe seems to fit your approach, we need to continue to look at that assumption which certainly affects the approach to the Bible and its authority. We haven't even arrived at #3 yet which is still in the background.
Let's go back to what the Bible teaches. I have gathered that your interpretation of the Leviticus prohibitions is based on the Holiness Code on ritual purity, which also is the issue in Romans 1. You did not explain how this holiness code also includes sacrificing children to Molech, adultery, blasphemy, prostitution, murder, rebellion to parents in addition to various kinds of incest, homosexual acts and bestiality.
Surely these cannot be issues of ritual purity.
Also, you maintain that love is the core teaching of Scripture. I agree with you if you mean that it is God's love which led to Christ's act of redemption by exposing human sin so that it could be judged by his atonement on the cross. (1 John 4:10) The message of love is not seen primarily in Jesus' teaching--anyone can teach it--but in his demonstration of love in his willingness to give his life as a ransom (Mark 10:45). His teaching and action must go together.
If you only go with Jesus' teaching, that is a summary of the Torah. A summary does not cancel out the commandments but expresses their intent once they have been internalized. When my daughters took drivers Ed, the instructor didn't just say, "drive safely." They got rules for driving from the vehicle code. Now when they head for home after a visit, I can say, "drive safely" without spelling out what that means because they have learned the rules. If they forget, a C.H.P. officer may be lurking at an overpass to remind them.
Further, the command to love God and neighbor is still a command, even if a summary. A command is not the good news of the gospel. Torah means instruction. The Psalmist (119) loved this instruction because it represented the will of God whom he loved. In New Testament terms it is the didache as opposed to the kerugma or gospel proclamation (C. H. Dodd) Paul says that the law raises in us the consciousness of sin that lurks in our hearts. He would not have thought of covetousness as being sin unless the 10th commandment prohibited it. Our consciousnesses have been raised by many issues that were not a problem before.
Paul says that while the law is good instruction, it also serves to condemn us when we fall short. The harder we try to love God with all our heart and our neighbor as our self, the more we realize we fall short. Those applying for college don't know if their SAT scores are high enough until they hear that they are accepted. The law to love God and neighbor may set a standard so high we cannot reach it. That's not good news.
If you bring postmodern assumptions to the above, it really doesn't matter if you agree or not. It's simply my interpretation. And if my intent is to "force" agreement, that is intolerant and even an act of aggression. I believe it is becoming clearer what assumptions we are bringing to the Bible.
Two recent columns in the L.A. Times, which is politically liberal, speak to the issue of postmodernism. The first column is by Marlene Zuk, a biology professor at U. C. Riverside entitled, "Right, Wrong. . .What's the Dif?" She described how students in her course on animal behavior have trouble accepting that there are right and wrong answers to questions on her quizzes. They assure her that in spite of their scores, they really know the material--that since they really get it they deserve a high grade. After several examples she quotes a student who says that she really knew the answer, she was just "thinking of it differently."
Zuk concludes, "Maybe it's all that self-esteem this generation of students was inoculated with as youngsters, or maybe its the emphasis on respecting everyone else's opinion, to the point where no answer, even a mathematical one, can be truly wrong because that might offend the one who gave it." When I read that I thought, what a description of postmodernism!
The other column was by Morris Dickstein, an English professor in the graduate school at NYU, entitled, "Postmodern Fog Has Begun to Lift." The subtitle was, "In an era of uncertainty, reality makes a comeback." This is interesting because academic postmodern thinking has largely come from the deconstruction of literature. He summarizes postmodern concepts as, "Reality depends on those who are perceiving it, on social forces that have conditioned their thinking, and in whoever controls the flow of information that influences them." He is not being conservative, as he accuses the White House of being thoroughly postmodern in trying to control reality. He refers to "a certain postmodern fondness for not knowing what you think about anything." He says that his colleagues are returning to long neglected writers in the realist tradition. He concludes, "For readers like me. . .the firm social compass of these earlier writers has come as a surprise. . . .Now that the overload of theory, like a mental fog, has begun to lift, perhaps professional readers will catch up to them" I suggested in my last letter and I wonder even more now, could you be buying into postmodernism when it is on its way out?
It seems to me that postmodernism has reduced religious knowledge to subjective reality. It is true for me because it meets my need. It cannot claim objective reality. It is a private value and not public truth. To try to change someone else's mind is to force my truth on them which is at least intolerant. I can witness to what I believe and listen respectfully to what they believe.
To me, this goes against historic Christianity at two points:
The Great Commission says that we are to proclaim the gospel and make disciples. Christianity is a missionary religion that has a message for all. It challenges persons to a "yes" or "no" decision.
If Jesus was raised from death as an objective reality, then this is a truth to be proclaimed
and responded to just as the early church did. If the resurrection was only subjective, then I
can only talk about my experience. This is against what Paul said that if Christ has not been
raised, we are still in our sins.
To track postmodernism, the Enlightenment was a response to the Thirty Years War in Europe which settled the religious boundaries. Truth was now to be established by reason and not religious authority. As science advanced natural causes for what had been mysteries, the sphere of religious authority diminished as the gaps in knowledge were closed by science. The assumption was that God would be squeezed out entirely and so would religious bigotry. Since religion was the symbol of national unity, all wars were considered to be religious in spite of other real causes. This faith in progress was encouraged by the blessings of technological development. (Remember, "Better things for better living through chemistry" --DuPont's slogan which now seems like a joke) Liberal theology linked up with Enlightenment rationalism by conceding real "truth" to empirical science and seeing religion as subjective experience. Both shared the optimism of progress. (The liberal organ was called "The Christian Century") This mood was challenged by the events leading up to WW I and religiously by Barth and others. It was increasingly recognized that rationalism was often rationalization with those in power determining what is "true." Add to this literary deconstruction where what the author meant originally is no longer important, then language can mean almost anything. ("I did not have sex with that woman") Apply this to our understanding of what the Bible teaches and no wonder we are following different paradigms and that what I have been saying is dated by postmodern standards as you have suggested.
The question is whether there is any objective religious truth at all.
If everything is subjective, then no one can lay any truth on anyone.
What we gain is a kind of tolerance which treats religion like a choice of salad dressing--whatever you like. No wonder we need to hear one's thinking only once with no rejoinders. No wonder when you try to answer, the response is, "I can see we are not going to get anywhere." If there is no objective reality to appeal to, there is no chance to change anyone's mind, so why bother? There is no reason to discuss Biblical interpretation. Even though we haven't gotten there, it is clear that there is no reason to consider if homosexuality is genetic or socially conditioned or both. Whatever one claims for himself is good enough. To even question is homophobic.
I am reminded of the game, "rock, scissors, paper." If postmodernism is true (how can it be "true" by its own standards?) then like paper it covers both the rock (Biblical teaching) and scissors (the realities of homosexuality). A metaphor that makes sense to me is that postmodernists have thrown out the baby (objective truth) with the bath water (subjective issues). Evangelicals have tended not to see the water as dirty, but at least they have the baby. If religion is only subjective, that's the surest way I can think of to work ourselves out of a job.
Please correct me where I have misunderstood the issues even though that is not the postmodern thing to do.
In Christ,
Ken Savage
Senator from PSW
June 6, 2005
Ken:
Reality of any kind is always something a bit different, perhaps a bit more, than what I think it is. That is especially true when we try to speak of the realities of God and scripture. A postmodern view of life – in contrast to your descriptions and judgments of it – contains enough humility to say, “I can’t know all there is to know.” That does not minimize the truth or reality of something; it simply acknowledges that we are limited in our understanding of it. For that reason, we are willing to grant others the freedom to see and understand differently.
I want to pose a different question: What is God’s desire for us? Many answers are suggested in scripture. One of the best is found in Ephesians 4:24: “To be like God in true righteousness and holiness.” As I read the passage, that means to “be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other…(living) a life of love.” (Eph 4:32; 5:2) And all of this is because of what God in Christ has done for us.
I offer no better rationale for my beliefs and actions than this. God lives in and with me by divine grace through faith in Christ, and so I am called to live by that same grace with all other people, and especially (as Paul says) with those who are of the household of faith – that is, with all who confess Jesus as Lord and who seek to live in a gracious, faithful, loving relationship with God and people.
My worldview – the way I understand and experience the world – comes out of the authority, the claim upon my life, of God and of the scriptures. My values, my moral commitments, my core principles which shape and guide the way I live and the decisions I make all come from what I understand of God’s will and purposes as revealed to us through Jesus and the Spirit, and through what has been written in scripture.
I reject your repeated suggestions that I do not accept the Bible’s authority because I do not agree with your interpretation of it, specifically on what I consider to be a relatively unimportant matter. I reject the idea that my values and beliefs come out of accommodation to “the culture,” whether of modern liberalism or postmodernism, using your terms. If I am liberal or postmodern, it is because the values and priorities I see there seem to me to agree with what I read in the scriptures, especially in the gospels.
I refuse to get pulled into a back-and-forth argument about what the Bible says. Our interpretations of so many texts, offered by either one of us, are so different that we appear to be having different conversations. Your conversation is filled with language like truth, authority, boundaries, morality, right and wrong; and your language assumes a world of sin and evil which God seeks to control through reward and punishment. My conversation is filled with language like love, grace, relationship, freedom; and my language assumes a world of created goodness, although filled with much that is not good, which God seeks to love and nurture.
We come to the text of scripture with such different paradigms governing our interpretation. My way of seeing it allows you the freedom to follow a different path than mine and to hold different interpretations; but your way of seeing does not allow me that freedom because to you my way seems wrong, and contrary to scripture and therefore to God. I don’t expect you to change for us to live in the same denominational family because my way of understanding God and scripture does not demand it. But your way of understanding God and scripture demands that I change for us to continue to live together.
I have written here in a very personal way, but I know that many others are “listening in.” This is not just about you and me, of course. We both speak for large numbers of other people. And we speak to even more people who are not sure quite where they are in these conversations. I’m not sure there is much point to continuing the conversation in this format; but if you feel it can be helpful, I’m willing to go on. Thank you for the time and effort you have given to our conversation.
Jimmy Reader
Senator from Upstate New York
June 10, 2005
Jimmy,
You present me with a problem. You refuse to get pulled into a back-and-forth argument about what the Bible says. But if we claim the Bible is our authority how can we not deal with what the Bible says? Basic to any Bible study is first, what it says and second, what it means or interpretation. I have offered interpretations and you say that because I do I am not humble enough to listen to others and that I feel mine is the only one possible. I have eagerly waited for your interpretation of the texts cited if it differs from mine. How can I listen to your interpretation if you don't tell me? Just one example is the Leviticus Holiness Code. How can we maintain the authority of the Bible if we aren't willing to discuss what it actually teaches? If it is pride to share what one believes it can also be pride to withhold and run the risk of having others critique what you have published.
A verse that expresses what we can and cannot know about God from the Bible is Deuteronomy 29:29, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law." No one that I know claims to understand all there is to know about the infinite God. But he has given us the information we need to know in the Scriptures. If the Bible is our metanarrative, then we know far more about God than we could figure out on our own. C. S. Lewis said that man's natural religion is pantheistic. We would not know that God stands outside the universe he created and much more without that revelation. If it is God's revelation. then it makes sense to give it our best shot to understand as much as we can. I have partial answers to the problem of evil and that's just one of a list of questions I have bracketed until I am more in his presence. Our knowledge of God and his ways is limited, but does that mean that we cannot know some things for sure? I have grown in my understanding of Scripture and have changed my interpretation on a number of Biblical issues. That has always come when someone has given me a better understanding, much as Philip did to the Ethiopian., and because I was willing to listen.
You ask, "What is God's desire for us?" and cite Ephesians 4:24 as a good Biblical answer. I agree. I would point out that the things listed here that characterizes the new self like forgiveness and living a life of love is sandwiched by those things that characterize the old self in 4:17-19 and in 5:3-14. This sounds to me strangely like the language of morality and right and wrong with boundaries between the old and new self. To me this illustrates that the language of the new self that you say your conversation is loaded with doesn't effectively kick in until the old self is dealt with. The old self is to be judged, and that's judgmental. It seems to me that one of the unique things about the Jewish faith in the ancient world was that through the Torah religion and morality were linked in a way it was not in nature religions and Greek religion. A problem with spirituality is that one can be spiritual without being moral. It is a sad note when evangelicals have a higher divorce rate that the average population. If anything, I believe we need a stronger bond between religion and right and wrong morality. Evangelicals are guilty of pedaling cheap grace (Bonhoeffer), but they are not the only ones.
You say that your core values come from what you understand to be God's will as revealed to us through Jesus and the Spirit, and through what has been written in scripture. Are those two separate sources of revelation? Is there any other Jesus than the one we know through Scripture? Do you separate the "Christ of faith" which can be anything we make him out to be from the Jesus we know from the gospels?
You feel that what the Bible teaches about gay practices is relatively unimportant. I continue to say that this is the tip of an iceberg over different paradigms or world views as you seem to agree. That makes it important beyond the issue itself. You approach the Bible differently than I do, and I am still trying to figure out what the difference is. I thought from your last letter that it was your postmodern mind set, but you reject that so I am still puzzled. I need to understand what values and priorities of liberalism and postmodernism you see in the Scriptures, especially the gospels. Does that mean that the gospels have higher priority over the rest of the New Testament when both came from the proclamation of the early church? That sounds like the rationale for some Bibles putting the words of Jesus in red.
I do not see interpretation of any kind of literature as being that much of a mystery. After deciding what kind of literature it is because each has its own rules, it then comes down to the meaning of words which can have multiple meanings. Usually the context gives the clue and how the author uses the word in other settings. I think the 80-20 rule applies where we understand about 80% of most communications. The other issue after we understand at least most of what the other is saying or has written is, "Do I agree with it?" This is where postmodern thinking comes in because it says that the other is so caught up in his culture, time and philosophy and that's just his opinion. The truth in what is said or written is up to me. Is our differences in what the authors of Scripture originally meant or is it that we disagree with them? Which part of "interpretation" do you mean?
Can we live together as American Baptists with such a division? I understand that it is no problem with you, because from your perspective you would accommodate a Unitarian Universalist. I am still wrestling with that issue, and I appreciate the correspondence from you and others while maybe a waste of time for you has been a clarifying experience for me. I probably was naive to think that if we agree on the authority of the Bible then if we work at it we could come to some basic agreements that would be more than just parallel play. As an evangelical (which is a good Biblical term) I cannot give up the message of salvation through the atoning death of Christ (whatever view of the atonement) as the basis of reconciliation with God. That's Biblical. I also believe that the Scriptures give many incentives (not based on rewards and punishment) for working for peace and justice which has been the thrust of the liberal tradition, and I believe most American Baptist evangelicals give ample room for both. I am not sure that those of the liberal tradition are willing to give respect to the salvation motif in Scripture. They seem to fear that would bring them back into fundamentalist literalism with all of that baggage. Evangelical scholarship has come a long ways since the 1930's while not giving up its core belief in the evangel or gospel from which the term comes. So, who needs to change if we are to be together in true unity?
Now you have raised the specter of postmodernism. To me this represents the boundary (that word again) that could finally divide us. Liberalism still had its link to the Bible through religious experience. It seems to me to be a short step from that to the conclusion that truth is all subjective so that what the Bible does is to lead each to his truth about God which is no longer "truth" in the Biblical sense. Our experience creates our truth instead of the truths of the Bible leading us to our relationship to him and thus to our experience of him.
At this point I do not see how this gap can be bridged. In my judgment radical postmodernism leads to another gospel in its approach to the Bible and its message.
It would help me if you would clarify your position more carefully or clarify my thinking where it is wrong.
I am afraid that we have wasted too much time in denial or in refusing to dig into the issue that is pulling us apart. We all may be forced to make decisions that we may not feel ready for. But as I recall, the part of existentialism that challenged me is that life is about making decisions.
Ken Savage
Senator from PSW
June 10, 2005
Ken,
This is your problem, not mine. I have not responded directly to some of the scriptures you have cited because I did not see how they were helpful to our discussion. Or perhaps because we interpret scripture from such different paradigms that simply giving my interpretation of isolated texts did not feel helpful. What I have tried to do repeatedly is present a larger biblical-theological foundation for my views, supported by references to themes of scripture.
What I have done at times is suggest other scriptures than the ones you suggested which felt like they more directly fit with what I was trying to say. You are obviously a smart man, Ken, and very well-read. For you to suggest that I have not given you my understanding of scripture around the concerns of our conversation feels like you simply don’t want to see it.
Let me respond to some of what you said in this last email, then I want to include here my fairly brief summary of how I understand the scriptures used to condemn homosexuality.
First, you said about the Ephesians text that it “sounds to me strangely like the language of morality and right and wrong with boundaries between the old and new self.” I have never said the Bible does not teach us moral values nor give us a foundation for discerning right from wrong. You have characterized the postmodern paradigm that way, and have suggested that I might believe that. I don’t. But I also don’t think this is prescriptive of what God requires us to do; rather I think it is descriptive of the life God desires for us. There is a difference. It is the difference between legalism and freedom.
Second, you said, “Is there any other Jesus than the one we know through Scripture? Do you separate the "Christ of faith" which can be anything we make him out to be from the Jesus we know from the gospels?” I had referred to Jesus and the Spirit and the scripture as the means by which God’s will is revealed to us. Somehow you made a leap from that all-inclusive statement of how God’s revelation comes to us to suggest that I think they are somehow in contradiction. And from that, you suggested by your questions that I might think Jesus Christ can “be anything we make him out to be.” I know you didn’t say that directly, but it is what you imply by what you say. You have done that regularly in our conversation, and I find it offensive.
Third, you continue to use the term “postmodernism” in a pejorative way, defining it so that it fits your argument against it. Postmodern thought does not, as I understand it, preclude any real truth. That would be foolishness to say that nothing is true unless we think it is. Indeed it seems to me that many conservatives say that only what they think is true is in fact true. That’s what divides us. I am willing to accept that other people may understand something to be true that is very different from my view of it and am willing to give them the freedom to live according to what they see to be true. I am no less convinced of my understanding of it, but I choose not to enforce that view on other people.
My Thoughts on Homosexuality -
There are only a few texts in Scripture which form the basis of our understanding of homosexuality, and which are usually used to condemn it. Here is a summary review of those texts:
The Creation Story (Genesis 1-2)
The story is about the Creator and how God brought order into the chaos of the universe and how God brought all things into existence by the Creator’s word and power. The creation of a man and a woman, made in God’s image and given responsibility for the rest of creation, is central to the story. The necessity of two people being able to “increase in number and fill the earth” requires them to be male and female. Jesus understood this story (see Matthew 19:1-9 and Mark 10:1-12) to mean that God intended two people to “become one” and to continue in a faithful relationship throughout their life together.
Jesus was responding to a question, asked out of the hardness of some men’s hearts, about whether men should be allowed to divorce their wives for just any reason. These texts do not speak about homosexuality but about the importance of a mutual and faithful commitment to the other person, just as God is faithful to us. The necessity of procreation in the Genesis story does not, however, require all couples to be able to have children. We do not condemn childless couples. Does it then require those couples to be of the same sex? That’s the question.
Genesis 19:1-14
The story of God’s destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah is often used to condemn homosexuality because the men of the city wanted to have sex with these two angels who looked like men. But sexual orientation is not the issue. Rather the story at that point is about violence and rape, perhaps even about the ancient tradition of hospitality. Lot even offered his daughters to the men, but the angels prevented that. There is nothing in the story remotely similar to committed gay and lesbian relationships. Ezekiel 16:49 offers another view that the sin of Sodom was that the people were “arrogant, overfed and unconcerned and they did not help the poor and needy.” Those are sins prevalent in a heterosexual society and have nothing to do with sexual orientation.
Leviticus 18 and 20
These chapters have many prohibitions against various kinds of sexual relationships including adultery, incest, bestiality, and homosexuality. There is no question that 18:22 and 20:13, for instance, directly condemn sexual relations between two men. But the surrounding chapters include prohibitions against a number of things which are usually accepted today, such as creating hybrid plants, wearing clothing with multiple fabrics, eating steaks cooked “rare,” trimming our hair and beards, and getting tattoos. This “holiness code,” as it is commonly called, allows for some things which are normally condemned today, such as polygamy and slavery.
These were laws given to a specific people at a specific place and time. We do not accept all the laws today, and we explicitly reject some of them. So how can any one law be singled out as necessarily requiring our obedience today? If the Scriptures allow us to understand any of these laws to be no longer applicable – such as polygamy and slavery laws – are we not free to reconsider all of them in the same way?
Romans 1:26-27
In this text the apostle Paul describes how some women and men “exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.” This is the only text to include women in the discussion of same sex relations. The question for us is whether what Paul describes is in any way the same thing as a committed, monogamous relationship between two persons of the same sex.
Paul focuses in the first chapters of Romans on how the whole world is guilty before God and in need of God’s grace and salvation through Jesus Christ. He talks about how people have refused to glorify God, their Creator, and to be grateful to God, and to worship God. Rather they turned to idols, to “gods” of their own making. In that day people commonly visited temples dedicated to the worship of various gods, and that “worship” often included sexual relations with temple prostitutes, both men and women. In the context of this chapter, many people agree that the sexual relations described here were in the context of idolatrous worship and are not descriptive of committed same-gender relationships.
1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10
These two verses each have a different Greek word, both of which have been translated in various ways. Together they are now at the center of this debate about sexual orientation. But neither word is about sexual orientation. They are words which probably refer to men who regularly engaged in sex with young boys for their own pleasure. Gay and lesbian Christians would as quickly condemn such behavior as anyone else.
Both verses are in the context of describing how some people continue to abuse other people, to refuse to worship God, to be unfaithful to people and to God, to treat other people and themselves without respect or honor. If people who confess Christ continue to live like that, these Scriptures say, they will “not inherit the kingdom of God.” The implication, then, is that people who turn away from that way of living and turn to God are part of the kingdom. People who respect and honor others and themselves and are faithful to God and worship God are living as God desires.
Conclusion -
Given this discussion of these Scripture texts, is a person’s sexual orientation even a matter of concern to us as a church? Our concern is to be people who worship God, who are faithful to God and to people, who do not abuse but rather respect and honor other people and themselves. Our concern is to encourage faithful, committed relationships of love and grace and faith.
No one questions whether the Bible and church tradition assume the normalcy of male/female relationships which often lead to procreation. The question today is whether that is the only God-created way of relationship. Certainly we understand that having children is not somehow “required” by God in marriage. We understand that love, faithfulness, respect, and honor in a committed, monogamous relationship like marriage is what God desires. If some people are aware from their earliest years of sexual desire for people of the same sex, and not the opposite sex, and if some of those people choose to live in a committed, faithful relationship with someone of the same sex, can the church reform its understanding of what the Scriptures say and be fully inclusive of them in its life together?
Conclusion -
Continuing this conversation, Ken, will probably not take us any farther than we have already gone. We have in a variety of ways tried to be clear about our understanding of scripture and the world, including the concerns of sexuality. We speak out of different paradigms, which I am willing to honor but which you are not. We interpret the Bible differently because of our differing paradigms so that even the way we speak about truth and authority – and love and grace – seem confusing even to us. We obviously will not persuade the other of our views, but I didn’t think that was our purpose.
Have a good summer, Ken, and I will see you at the Senate in August.
Jimmy Reader
Senator from Upstate New York