I have not blogged for a while, and probably wont blog again for a while. I had to stop because it was becoming intrusive into my life and distracting me from work, etc. For this reason I regret that I have also not kept up to date with Vindicated or Elizaphanian.
Imagine a child with a complex model made of lego. He is about to show you how clever it is, all the refinements and the innovative use of specialist bricks, but he trips and drops it and it smashes into a million pieces. In a high state of stress he picks up the pieces and rebuilds the model - its basically the same but there are some bits that have changed and he can't quite work out which bits have changed and whether the model has been improved or made worse, and whether the first model was actually correct and that he sould try to get back to it, or if the new one is in fact better.
As part of my 'continuing ministerial education' required by the Chruch of England I had to attend a day-long workshop on the topic of homosexuality
I have to say that it was very well done. The leader was a remarkable lady vicar who has been involved face to face with many of the key players - she has been the guest of one of the AKURE bishops (declining an invitation to his son's second polygamous marriage while there!!), and has also met Gene Robinson. She started by giving the story of her first involvement with this topic, when while working as a nurse she had to care for a young man who had been seriously beaten up for being gay.
Ground rules for the day [try and behave towards your fellow christians as if you are a christian yourself], followed by an icebreaker. Then the first main session, breaking into groups to examine the main scriptures. Each group had one passage - perhaps not a good idea since you really need to see the whole sweep of scipture on this topic. My group got the Sodom and Gomorrah story, which we concluded had too much other stuff going on to use it as a basis for a theology of homosexuality specifically. The group that was disussing Corinthians - without any intervention from me - came to the conclusion that it's pretty clear that the passage is indeed talking about 'committed' or 'long term' relations as well as other forms of homosexuality. This despite the most pro-liberalisation person (who was a very outspoken woman) being in that group. The other person who I had down as being pro-liberalsiation based on his early contributions to the day was in the Leviticus group, and I was surprised that he too as spokesman for the group reported back a remarkably conservative view.
So far so conservative.
At lunch I found myself sitting next to the day leader, and it was here that she spoke positively about Gene Robinson, his humility and lack of self-promotion, and his overall popularity in his diocese. It was here too she told me about the African's tolerance of polygamy, and that part of their objection was that they hadn't realised homosexuality had been decriminalised and they had thought something ILLEGAL was being promoted.
In the afternoon we were aagin divided into groups and ased to look as case studies of pastoral issues - you know the kind of thing - Deaconess Sarah has been dumped by her husband but finds that Jane befriends her and the relationship becomes sexual - can she continue as deaconess? (can she lead the people of God into righteousness?) At first reading they all seems obvious, but the more you thing about thenm the harder they become. Its all very well theorising, but its hard to apply simple theory to the complexity of peoples lives. Of course in my housechurch days it would have been simple - "excommunicate the lot".
So the day seems to conclude that homosexual relationships are indeed sinful, but should still be allowed to proceed with barely a whisper against. I am very puzzled by this!
I went home feeling glad that overall the tone of the session was one that I was comfortable with, and that overall the supremacy of scripture had been upheld, and that overall the ridiculous notion - "Paul didn't know about loving committed homosexual partnerships" - was not supported.
But I found that something deep had been disturbed in me by the day - a deep sense of injustice and persecution against people born a certain way. If I wrote the Bible I would certainly have written it differently! I was standing next to my bookshelf and put my hand on the Bible. I prayed "Lord, speak to me now as I open your word". It fell open at Acts 9 - "Saul, Saul, why do you perscute me?" "Who are you Lord?" "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting"
So was God telling me that I had been persecuting him in my application of Corinthians? I have always warned people against random verse readings of this kind - "Judas went and hanged himself" .... "Go and do thou likewise"..... so that experienc on its own is not enough to change my position, but it has made me think.
I really want to be part of a church that does permit and even bless homosexual realtionships. It feels right and just. But I cannot match that with what I read in Corinthians - "Do not be decieved....arsenokoitai....will not inherit the kingdom of God." Arsenokoitai literally means man-bed [bed as in marriage bed - it's almost exactly the same language as Leviticus]. I want everyone to inherit the kingdom, so I can't encourage people into relationships that would keep them out of it. But if the meaning of the word had in fact drifted away from its original meaning - as the words gay and queer have changed meaning - then I don't want to stop people legitimately enjoying the freedom of our essentially non-legalistic faith.
I couldn't sleep that night. Normally as I am falling asleep I have what i call pre-dreams. I'm not yet asleep and not day-dreaming, it a more uncontrolled dreamlike state as I drop off. Normally I get good pre-dreams.. a colourful peakock, say, or something really whacky and strange. But that night all my pre-dreams were faces passing in front of me, all saying opposing things about homosexuality in theology and the church - never a whole sentance for me to pick up their logic, just the middle bits, random words, all kinds of voices, faces spinning ... and I would wake up again. I gave up and went dowsntairs with a cup of tea and a marmalde sandwich, and watched TV (Good interesting programmes for once) ... and as my tired head lolled around I still kept getting the same nightmarish pre-dreams and I would jerk awake again.
Please pray for me to be able to rebuild my theology of homosexuality, like that lego model i described. Shold I go for the same model again, or something similar but different, or something else altogether? What buiding blocks should I use?
I've said it before:
I don't want to condemn what is good.
I don't want to endsorse what is sin.
And, if I have been wrong all this time on Corinthians, what else am i wrong on? Resurrection? Forgiveness? The whole faith? My whole faith is very wobbly at present.
If i am to become more theologically tolerant of homosexual acts, pray for me to receive a TRUE alternative understanding of arsenokoitai that satisifies my intellectual difficulties with it, for something received by divine revelation rather than by the pursuasion of someone who is simply better at arguing than I am but not necessarily wiser or more informed, and that it will come together with reassurance about my faith, that i have not been getting not wrong all this time.
Thank you.
It was only on the third day that the Risen Lord appeared to his disciples.
ReplyDeleteWhich is a way of saying - don't be in too much of a rush to rebuild the Lego model. Perhaps God wants you to spend some time in Holy Saturday mode. If you keep listening, he will tell you what to do - but his timing might not match yours!
Peace be with you.
Thanks sam - your wisodm is spot on.
ReplyDeleteRe-reading my post i reaslise that my typing is even worse than I thought - please accept my apologies.
http://asbojesus.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/179/
ReplyDeleteNot sure what you're getting at there....
ReplyDelete1 Simply humour?
2 I am miserable because i am trying to think dual things - pro gay and anti-gay?
3 I am trying to say gays should negate their sexuality?
If you mean the latter, I do believe in bodily resurrection and that Christ redeems the whole person. But just as there are aspects of your mind and thoughts that we have to leave behind, so there are aspects of our physical urges that we have to leave behind. Repentance of the mind must be accompanied by repentance of the body. I don't think asking gays to be celibate is dualist any more than asking heterosexual single people to be celibate is dualist. In both cases it is bringing both the mind and body under the rule of Christ. Dualism would be more like the Gnostic approach - "purify the mind but it doesn't matter what the body does because it will be destroyed". Dualism is the separation of mind and body. But in Christianity the body is resurrected, and so it does matter what we do with it.
So, what do we do when the body lags behind our mental repentance? I still cannot make myself drive within the speed limit despite two fines and 6 points on my license this summer - it is sin I know, but I fail - it is the way my body is wired up. Similary a gay man might know his actions are sin but like me find himself unable to stop - its the way he's wired up. Perhaps this is more like the cartoon? Paul had his 'thorn in the flesh' that he could not get rid of, and he says 'the good that I would I do not and the veil that I don't wish is the very thing that I do'. So We are in good company, we recognise our shortcomngs, we acknowledge our sins, and like Peter get our feet washed regularly and start again regularly set free from guilt and pursuing anew the goal of righteosness deeds through Christ.
In this way, as a dangerous driver I will happily share communion with a man who sucks cock [excuse my language], on the undertstanding that we both yearn to be set free from our weakness and look towards a holy and blameless life. But i will struggle to share communion with one who, though celibate, is bitter and resentful against God and wants to re-write the awkward verses to suit himself - by which I don't refer to the specifics of the gay debate I refer to an unrepentant heart that says 'I know best'.
So that's my initial repsonse to the cartoon. Please read this bearing in mind that I am still undecided about the gay debate, taking a Holy Saturday on that one as you suggested.
Simon