Walking in Circles

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.