Again, thank you, Mark, for a heartfelt speaking of the truth in love. It reminds me of the Apostle James’ admonition that the “harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.” The true Spirit of Goodness, in and of itself, needles out error and darkness by exposing all things to the Light which in wisdom allows all to see things for what they are. This is how grace and truth come to any and all of us through Jesus Christ. We can resist God’s gracious ways, but we cannot undo or replace them. To try to do so exposes our own foolishness.
But I would like to take this to another level. I have come to the conviction that unless I can clearly articulate the position of my opponent as if it were my very own position, I do not yet understand neither my opponent nor his/her position. Only then am I privileged to speak with some measure of authority into the thoughts, beliefs or convictions of those who differ with me.
Personally, I am tired of proof texting, even well researched contextualized proof texting, to support a “Biblical argument,” regardless of whether it is defending a progressive or conservative point of view. By so doing I would be reasoning from an already-drawn-conclusion, a methodology that shares almost nothing with the presuppositional starting point of my opponent. I might as well speak English to a person who has never heard a word of English in his/her life. Until I learn HIS/HER language and culture, there is no hope of my ever communicating with him/her. (We know from experience after living and ministering for 35 years in a foreign country.)
Mark, I know you have a lot on your plate, but I believe that it would be enlightening and helpful for many folks, for you to abbreviate or summarize, for example, Walter Wink’s presuppositional and exegetical approach to interpreting the Old and New Testament texts, which consequently would explain HOW he comes to his view of Biblical marriage and sexuality. When we genuinely understand HIS foundational approach to the Biblical text and theology, we will be able to speak to him and his position starting from HIS terms and arguments, thus establishing and maintaining human dignity (yes, even spiritual dignity) whether or not we end up agreeing or disagreeing with his conclusions. Come, let us reason TOGETHER!
You are right, brother, that reading books and articles from the opposing view is important. Been a good while since I've done that.
In the process of writing my dissertation, I read a LOT of opposing arguments. Some of their books take up a lot of space on my shelves. And in preparing to write Into the Light, I did more of it. Chapter 11 lays out my arguments to address so much of what they were saying at the time. In essence, all that I had read was from a "reasonable doubt" perspective. In other words, the authors felt there might be enough wiggle room in the biblical texts that one could reasonably assume that our interpretations might be suspect. Hence, it would be reasonable to doubt the traditional interpretations of the texts.
I heard the OT prof mentioned above named Steven give a talk at a LGBTQ conference. There he explained the passage in Romans 1, stating that there was no way around it. Paul meant what he said about same-sex sexual relations. He went on to say, "But given what we know today, it is OK to say that Paul was wrong on that point." My jaw was not the only one that dropped.
You are also right, Norman, that my plate is too full at this point to read the latest books that have come out. It always seems the arguments are basically the same.
As always, thank you for your frequent prayers and support!
In reading your reflections I couldn't help but wonder if some people had assumed I left the UMC because of this particular issue or because of the denomination's liberal/progressive leanings. Alas, I had abandoned the struggle. Of course I know that you are aware that is not my story at all. However, within this more conservative/traditional brand of Methodism, I find myself in a very different conversation. Just recently I have had two conversations with two groups of pastors in which I was contending on behalf of "Side B" Christians and those who are SSA but are committed to the traditional Christian sexual ethic. I was trying to convince pastors that the attraction itself was not sinful and did not disqualify someone from ministry. So maybe, even though I left the mother church for a more traditional expression of Methodism, I am still an asset in the cause "Of Mercy and Reason."
I couldn't refer to "Of Mercy and Reason" without thinking of you. I think you were the one who told me that Bishop Bashore told a group of pastors that traditionalists had a case but no one was making it. That was one of several prods for me.
And you left largely because your gifts were being neglected. No doubt!
I'm absolutely with you, of course, that attraction does not qualify. I am definitely not Side B, however. Wesleyan theology falls more in line with The Restored Hope Network than it does with Sprinkle's Revoice movement. I hope to soon write an article for Firebrand regarding how a Wesleyan understanding of sanctification does not fit well with their position. I may run that article by you sometime for your perusal and input. Love you, brother!
beautifully put!! Amen.
Again, thank you, Mark, for a heartfelt speaking of the truth in love. It reminds me of the Apostle James’ admonition that the “harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.” The true Spirit of Goodness, in and of itself, needles out error and darkness by exposing all things to the Light which in wisdom allows all to see things for what they are. This is how grace and truth come to any and all of us through Jesus Christ. We can resist God’s gracious ways, but we cannot undo or replace them. To try to do so exposes our own foolishness.
But I would like to take this to another level. I have come to the conviction that unless I can clearly articulate the position of my opponent as if it were my very own position, I do not yet understand neither my opponent nor his/her position. Only then am I privileged to speak with some measure of authority into the thoughts, beliefs or convictions of those who differ with me.
Personally, I am tired of proof texting, even well researched contextualized proof texting, to support a “Biblical argument,” regardless of whether it is defending a progressive or conservative point of view. By so doing I would be reasoning from an already-drawn-conclusion, a methodology that shares almost nothing with the presuppositional starting point of my opponent. I might as well speak English to a person who has never heard a word of English in his/her life. Until I learn HIS/HER language and culture, there is no hope of my ever communicating with him/her. (We know from experience after living and ministering for 35 years in a foreign country.)
Mark, I know you have a lot on your plate, but I believe that it would be enlightening and helpful for many folks, for you to abbreviate or summarize, for example, Walter Wink’s presuppositional and exegetical approach to interpreting the Old and New Testament texts, which consequently would explain HOW he comes to his view of Biblical marriage and sexuality. When we genuinely understand HIS foundational approach to the Biblical text and theology, we will be able to speak to him and his position starting from HIS terms and arguments, thus establishing and maintaining human dignity (yes, even spiritual dignity) whether or not we end up agreeing or disagreeing with his conclusions. Come, let us reason TOGETHER!
You are right, brother, that reading books and articles from the opposing view is important. Been a good while since I've done that.
In the process of writing my dissertation, I read a LOT of opposing arguments. Some of their books take up a lot of space on my shelves. And in preparing to write Into the Light, I did more of it. Chapter 11 lays out my arguments to address so much of what they were saying at the time. In essence, all that I had read was from a "reasonable doubt" perspective. In other words, the authors felt there might be enough wiggle room in the biblical texts that one could reasonably assume that our interpretations might be suspect. Hence, it would be reasonable to doubt the traditional interpretations of the texts.
I heard the OT prof mentioned above named Steven give a talk at a LGBTQ conference. There he explained the passage in Romans 1, stating that there was no way around it. Paul meant what he said about same-sex sexual relations. He went on to say, "But given what we know today, it is OK to say that Paul was wrong on that point." My jaw was not the only one that dropped.
You are also right, Norman, that my plate is too full at this point to read the latest books that have come out. It always seems the arguments are basically the same.
As always, thank you for your frequent prayers and support!
In reading your reflections I couldn't help but wonder if some people had assumed I left the UMC because of this particular issue or because of the denomination's liberal/progressive leanings. Alas, I had abandoned the struggle. Of course I know that you are aware that is not my story at all. However, within this more conservative/traditional brand of Methodism, I find myself in a very different conversation. Just recently I have had two conversations with two groups of pastors in which I was contending on behalf of "Side B" Christians and those who are SSA but are committed to the traditional Christian sexual ethic. I was trying to convince pastors that the attraction itself was not sinful and did not disqualify someone from ministry. So maybe, even though I left the mother church for a more traditional expression of Methodism, I am still an asset in the cause "Of Mercy and Reason."
I couldn't refer to "Of Mercy and Reason" without thinking of you. I think you were the one who told me that Bishop Bashore told a group of pastors that traditionalists had a case but no one was making it. That was one of several prods for me.
And you left largely because your gifts were being neglected. No doubt!
I'm absolutely with you, of course, that attraction does not qualify. I am definitely not Side B, however. Wesleyan theology falls more in line with The Restored Hope Network than it does with Sprinkle's Revoice movement. I hope to soon write an article for Firebrand regarding how a Wesleyan understanding of sanctification does not fit well with their position. I may run that article by you sometime for your perusal and input. Love you, brother!