The United Methodist Church continues to struggle with
human sexuality issues (actually only one sexuality issue), and I am not sure
if we are being completely honest with one another or ourselves in thinking
this one component of sexuality is the issue. My
own questions have not been fully answered, but I am also not sure if my
questions are being fair. This I am sure of, however: we are not working
out our differences; each side is digging in.
Accountability is everything in the life of the
Church; it is about a community living in covenant with one another within the
greater Body. It is the biblical measure of care and concern for the
spiritual well-being of one’s fellow disciples. As a community held
to a higher (biblical) standard than the common human culture, it is necessary
to sometimes take our fellows to task when we know they are living outside the covenant
standards and are perhaps “in danger of the judgment”. Even in the
common human culture, one who continually refuses to live according to a
community’s lawful standards can expect to be forcibly “cast out” (i.e., locked
up). Only when they can prove their willingness to live according to
the community’s common standards can they be allowed to return – and sometimes
not even then!
Our level of accountability will be virtually
non-existent if our doctrine pertaining to human sexuality, marriage, and
ordination are reduced to individual conscience – which is the essential
doctrine of the common human culture. As long as one’s “rights” are
protected by law, there is no harm and, thus, no penalty.
Except the Church is not – and should never seek to
become – assimilated into the common human culture. The Church
should know and be aware of the culture, to be sure, but for the sake of engaging
members of that culture in a meaningful way. In doing so, however, the
Church must not compromise its integrity and moral authority in a vain attempt
to fit in. Our task is to invite people out of the
mud. Sometimes it is necessary to go into the mud to help pull them
out, but it is not okay to stay in the puddle just to be “relevant”.
Let’s also bear in mind the idea that since we seem to
give a pass to heterosexual divorce and serial remarriage – that one thing
Jesus does specifically mention – then perhaps we should not be so readily
critical of homosexual relationships, since we are engaged in or are endorsing sinful
conduct while projecting “real” sin upon others (the “plank” vs. the “splinter”
in one’s eye). How do we reconcile an attempt to be culturally fair
but biblically faithful?
I’m not sure we can. If we give a pass on
one sin but hold the line on another, we may convince ourselves we are being
“fair” but we can hardly believe we are being “faithful” to our God or our
fellows. Can we? If we
honestly believe there is to be a day of judgment when we will all be “judged
according to our works/deeds” (Romans 2:6; 1 Peter 1:17; Revelation 20:12)?
Like many, I continue to struggle on a personal
level. I am the very last person in a position to judge anyone, and
there is much I do not fully understand. Yet I am also aware of the
many who have left the United Methodist Church in search of …
what? Integrity? A consistent Truth not subject to
“conscience”? To be sure, we can all use a good purging of
“conscience”. There are too many sins to list, too many culturally acceptable
practices that are “incompatible with Scriptures” we give a pass to with a wink
and a nod, sometimes even with congratulations!
I would suggest this.
First take note of Jesus’ admonishment of those who wanted to stone the female
“adultress” but not the male “adulterer” (John 8:1-11): “Let the one who is
without sin cast the first stone”.
Though the Law of Moses required the death penalty – “I came to perfect
the Law and the Prophets, not to do away with them” (Matthew 5:17), Jesus
suggests there is something more at play in this case.
The Law required both parties face the death penalty (“You
must purge the evil from among you”, Dt 17:7), but the crowd chose to target the
“weaker” one. In that single act, the
integrity of the Law is called into question – when the Law was being applied
arbitrarily or even culturally rather than uniformly and fairly. Would Jesus have done the same if both
parties had been present? We can
speculate, but the simple fact is the man (the adulterer) was not there. What others may also have been missing are actual witnesses who would be compelled
by the same Law to “cast the first stone” (again, Dt 17:7).
Then there is the ol’ “splinter” in the eye of the observed vs. the “plank” in the eye of
the observer. What Jesus is saying is very simple: first
purge yourself of sin. Only then can you
see clearly to help purge the sins of others.
And we must not – MUST NOT – attempt to justify ourselves by settling
for, “Well, at least I’m not gay”. That doctrinal
dog will not hunt.
Jesus is not excusing sin, not by any means, nor is He
redefining the nature of sin. He did
tell the adulterous woman to “sin no more”, but that same theme can be applied
to those who were challenged to first look within themselves before they could
dare cast a stone at this woman. Can any
one of us think we are, on any level, “without sin”?
The more I delve into this “issue”, the more I feel
compelled to look more carefully at myself.
Every denomination has some component that does not seem fair or
compassionate, that may even be considered “judgmental” when we don’t get what
we desire or demand for ourselves. There
is, indeed, a compelling theme throughout “The Shack” that stirred my own core:
we judge only according to what we can see with our eyes. Even though we may eagerly lay a burden on a “sinner”,
we cannot possibly know how much of a burden that “sinner” has already been saddled
with. There is very likely already more spiritual
or emotional damage done than we can begin to imagine; and in the end, we hurt
only ourselves and the Church, and we help no one by declaring their sin(s) more
dire than our own.
I can make all kinds of rational, doctrinal, and even “legal”
arguments against gay marriage or ordination; but the more I wade into this mess,
the more “stuck” I become myself. I may
be biblically (technically) correct, but what am I trying to accomplish? Am I really concerned for the well-being of
the soul of another, or am I only culturally offended? Am I really concerned about the judgment they
may face, or am I hoping The Lord will be so busy with them that He won’t notice
me??
A friend asked recently, “Are you turning into a
liberal?” The answer is no, not as he
understands the term. Yet growing as a
disciple, “going on to perfection and leaving behind the basic teachings” (Hebrews
6), compels me to look more carefully first at myself rather than to be too
fixated on the sins of others. I will
continue to preach “The Truth” to the best of my ability, but I will also
continue to depend on the accountability of my fellow disciples to keep me
honest. Only when I am first honest with
myself may I hope to be fully honest with the congregation I serve as
pastor.
I’m not sure what the answer to our dilemma is, but I
do know there are no easy answers I will find alone. I also know that “individual conscience” will
not serve The Lord or His Church. Only
when we are willing to walk together and talk together will we be able to move
on to the next problem … and the next.
God willing, we will be continually “tested” (Dt 13:1-3) until we
breathe our last, being constantly renewed and revitalized! Let that be enough for now.
