Scripture:
- To understand the arguments, here are the standard verses pointed to by churches who oppose having homosexual ministers, etc.:
- 1 Corinthians 12.4-11
- Matthew 7.1-5
- 1 Samuel 18.1-3; 20.16-17
Articles:
- Excerpt from Dean Sam Wells' book Speaking the Truth: Preaching in a Pluralistic Culture
- Views on Theology and Gay and Lesbian Issues
- Summary of above by UMC
We began our discussion with a summary of Dean Wells' sermon on homosexuality. He lays out four possible approaches to the issue taken by Christians. The "holiness" approach focuses on the supremacy of scripture, which, according to this approach, condemns homosexuality as an abomination. "One cannot seek a holy life while being unfaithful to the biblical text," and therefore, homosexuals are excluded from God's kingdom. The "kingdom" approach reminds us that there are only a handful of references to homosexual acts in the entire Bible, none of which are in the Gospels. This approach believes homosexuality is a distraction from the more important issues of poverty, war, the environment, etc. Rather than dealing with homosexuality and the church, advocates of this approach would say "Can we talk about something else?" The "pastoral" approach focuses on how gay people are unjustly treated by the church. Emphasizing the fact that all have sinned, this approach teaches love, compassion, honesty, and tolerance. The final approach, the "liberation" approach, believes the way the church has treated homosexuals is pure and simple discrimination. Often connected to secular pro-rights campaigns, adherents to this approach have a deep concern for justice and a reading of the Bible that is aware of the culture of that day. Dean Wells proposes that each of these is a legitimate approach. The point is not our conclusion on whether or not homosexuals should be married or ordained but on how we come to that decision. He says, "What we have to offer the world is not a book full of answers but a way of continuing a conversation with God and with one another." That premise is what this entire study is based upon.
After discussing Dean Wells' sermon, we shared where we see ourselves in his paradigm. In this, we also discussed what we discovered about our denominations' stances on homosexuality. What does the way church members treated Bishop Gene Robinson say about the state of the Episcopal Church? Is the Presbyterian Church of Mount Kisco's Blue Book project in keeping with the denomination's view of homosexuality? Will the United Methodist Church ever really have open hearts, open minds, and open doors when it comes to the issue of gay clergy? There is often a tension between denominational stance and an individual's views. Sometimes, individuals' views are shaped entirely by what their denomination has to say on a matter. Other times, an individual might be wholly at odds with their denomination's position. This latter situation can impede an individual's ability to feel included or even welcomed at a congregation, particularly when members of your Sunday School disagree with most of what you might have to say.
In discussing the issue of gay clergy, we turned to 1 Corinthians 12:4-11. This passage states that the Spirit activates certain gifts in us. There is a sense in which, if you are called by God, you cannot help but eventually give in. This holds true in many clergymembers' call stories, in which they initially resisted the call but gradually succumbed. If this is the case, how can we as the church deny an individual's God-instilled gifts for ministry merely on the basis of her/his sexual orientation? In addition, many churches welcome professing homosexuals into their congregations, even if they deny them ordination. However, gay clergy stand as leaders for gay Christians, who so often have been marginalized and ostracized by the church. To deny gay Christians representation in church leadership is harmful to both the church and its members.
The issue was raised that the Bible is a heterosexual book. In reality, the idea of homosexuality as a sexual orientation is very new. Consequently, Biblical authors had no concept of homosexuality as we understand it today. They only understood homosexual acts, which they viewed as being the result of an excess of libido. These individuals were so uncontrolled in their lust that their sexual appetites were unsatisfied by members of the opposite sex so they resorted to homosexual acts. The problem is not an issue of sexual orientation but of sexual moderation, something that is true of heterosexuals as much as homosexuals. In addition, Paul was concerned with gender and social norms of his day. A man should always be dominate and a woman should always be subordinate. Consequently, for a man to be subordinate or a woman to be dominant in a sexual act was contrary to his cultural understanding and therefore viewed as unnatural. The Bible is not a heterosexual book because these categories did not exist as we understand them today.
Another interesting issue that was raised is the way in which pro-gay rights Christians often use the Bible to support the inclusion of homosexuals. In turning to verses like Matthew 7.1-5 or Romans 3.23, they are implicitly (though often unwittingly) saying that homosexuality is a sin, something they would generally disagree with. How then are pro-gay rights Christians to use the Bible to defend their position?
The church is at a critical point. Its legalism borders on being Pharisaic, but when it welcomes all, does it compromise the Biblical text? In the debate over the sacredness of marriage, are Christians willing to weaken Christ's marriage to the church through denominational splits? Are they willing to deny the God-given gifts of another? We must strive to continue the conversation, building relationships with those who are "other," whether in terms of sexual orientation or ideology or both.
Questions for further reflection:
- If you view the Bible as condemning homosexuality, how do you deal with the fact that Biblical authors had no concept of homosexuality as we understand it today? If you do not view the Bible as condemning homosexuality, what verses will you point to in order to support the inclusion of homosexuals in the church and clergy?
- Should the church focus as much on homosexuality as it does or should it be dealing with more important issues?
- Is dialogue enough at this point or do more concrete actions need to be taken?
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Faith and Money
Scripture:
- Deuteronomy 15.1-11
- Job 42.10-17
- Isaiah 10.1-4
- Matthew 19.16-30
- Mark 12.41-44
- Mark 14.3-9
- Luke 12.32-34
- Galatians 2.9-10
- James 2.1-7
Articles:
- Excerpt from Jim Wallis' God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It
- God and the Recession: How will the Prosperity Gospel ride out hard times?
We began our discussion with a reflection on the reading from Jim Wallis' book. This led to a discussion of stewardship campaigns, a topic we continued to come back to throughout the evening. How can a congregation talk about stewardship without recognizing the poverty that might exist within its own family? What's the deal with tithing? Should one tithe strictly to the church or is tithing to charity the same thing? What about tithing one's time rather than one's money? What if one has the money to tithe but chooses to tithe time instead? If the purpose of tithing in Biblical times was the care of the poor, can we justify spending offerings for buildings and salaries? Paul continuously reminds people in his letters that his collection is for the poor in Jerusalem. When the "pillars" of the church grant him apostolic authority, they ask only that he remember the poor (Galatians 2.9-10). So do our modern stewardship campaigns miss the point entirely? This is a point we returned to later.
We then turned to this week's scripture. In the Law, the Israelites were instructed to hold a year of Jubilee (cf. Deuteronomy 15.1-11). In time, this commandment was disobeyed, leading to the condemnation by the prophets (cf. Isaiah 10.1-4) and, according to scripture, the destruction of Israel and Judah. In recent decades, a grassroots movement has sought to revive this tradition. Jubilee 2000 was an international faith-based initiative which sought the solution to third world debt by the year 2000. While they were ultimately unsuccessful in this goal, they made broad strides. Since the year 2000, this organization has broken up into national movements. Jubilee USA is an alliance of over 75 denominations and faith communities, including First Presbyterian Church in Thomasville. A detailed explanation of their platform can be found here.
In looking at the Job passage, we discussed whether or not this passage could be used to promote the Prosperity Gospel. The sugar-coated retelling of Job says that Satan made a bet with God, Job had everything taken away from him, he remained faithful in spite of it, and, as a reward for his faithfulness, God restored Job's fortunes twofold. However, the story is more complicated than that. The argument was made that this couldn't support the Prosperity Gospel because Job did not want this wealth. He was only given it once he had realized that God's supremacy is all that mattered. The same cannot be said for adherents to the Prosperity Gospel. However, are those individuals who give money to ministries that preach the Prosperity Gospel wrong? Does their sacrifice of monetary resources still count?
Here we returned again to the issue of tithing. While it is easy to say that tithing should be used for the poor alone, the reality is that pastors need to be paid for their work. Buildings need to be maintained. We were reminded that Jesus changes us through our giving. When money is given out of a generous heart for love of God, that is what ultimately matters and what can be truly transforming. No matter what the money is being used for, the giver is changed, and tithing can have an incredible spiritual effect. The problem with the "Sermon on the Amount" occurs when the focus is wrong. Tithing is not about pre-tax vs. post-tax, moving up a percentage point each year according to the distributed spreadsheet, etc. etc. etc. Our tithing is a gift, given in response to God's love and mercy. However, what about those ministries that truly misappropriate funds? Does it really not matter where the money goes as long as the motivation is right?
Ultimately, care of poor comes out of relationships. In the ideal Christian community, there would not be a needy person amongst us because we would be able to have faith that the community would meet any need that arose. Miraculously, there are some churches who still live by this. However, there are more that do not. We need to form relationships through which people feel safe enough to be vulnerable. It is hard to admit that you have lost your job and cannot afford to pay your mortgage or provide food for your family. We need to create safe spaces so that we can know the needs of our congregations in order to properly care for them.
Our discussion then turned to the issue of homeless beggars. What do you do when someone asks you for money? Should you give money? Should you give food? Should you give a gift certificate of some sort by which s/he could buy food? Many homeless organizations will tell you not to give anything because anything and everything can be traded for drugs or other harmful substances. But it is so hard to walk or drive past a person. One of the biggest ways you can make a difference is through treating the homeless individual with respect. Say "sir" or "ma'am." Recognize that they, too, are children of God, and honor that in your interaction.
Poverty is an unfortunate reality in modern society. However, instead of focusing on what we can't do about it, let's focus on what we can. I cannot solve the poverty crisis. But maybe we can.
Questions for further reflection:
- Does it matter if the money is going to be used for malicious purposes if one's motivation is true?
- How has tithing (or not tithing) made a difference in your spiritual life?
- How can we create safe spaces at Duke Chapel for those in need to be vulnerable enough to ask for help?
- Deuteronomy 15.1-11
- Job 42.10-17
- Isaiah 10.1-4
- Matthew 19.16-30
- Mark 12.41-44
- Mark 14.3-9
- Luke 12.32-34
- Galatians 2.9-10
- James 2.1-7
Articles:
- Excerpt from Jim Wallis' God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It
- God and the Recession: How will the Prosperity Gospel ride out hard times?
We began our discussion with a reflection on the reading from Jim Wallis' book. This led to a discussion of stewardship campaigns, a topic we continued to come back to throughout the evening. How can a congregation talk about stewardship without recognizing the poverty that might exist within its own family? What's the deal with tithing? Should one tithe strictly to the church or is tithing to charity the same thing? What about tithing one's time rather than one's money? What if one has the money to tithe but chooses to tithe time instead? If the purpose of tithing in Biblical times was the care of the poor, can we justify spending offerings for buildings and salaries? Paul continuously reminds people in his letters that his collection is for the poor in Jerusalem. When the "pillars" of the church grant him apostolic authority, they ask only that he remember the poor (Galatians 2.9-10). So do our modern stewardship campaigns miss the point entirely? This is a point we returned to later.
We then turned to this week's scripture. In the Law, the Israelites were instructed to hold a year of Jubilee (cf. Deuteronomy 15.1-11). In time, this commandment was disobeyed, leading to the condemnation by the prophets (cf. Isaiah 10.1-4) and, according to scripture, the destruction of Israel and Judah. In recent decades, a grassroots movement has sought to revive this tradition. Jubilee 2000 was an international faith-based initiative which sought the solution to third world debt by the year 2000. While they were ultimately unsuccessful in this goal, they made broad strides. Since the year 2000, this organization has broken up into national movements. Jubilee USA is an alliance of over 75 denominations and faith communities, including First Presbyterian Church in Thomasville. A detailed explanation of their platform can be found here.
In looking at the Job passage, we discussed whether or not this passage could be used to promote the Prosperity Gospel. The sugar-coated retelling of Job says that Satan made a bet with God, Job had everything taken away from him, he remained faithful in spite of it, and, as a reward for his faithfulness, God restored Job's fortunes twofold. However, the story is more complicated than that. The argument was made that this couldn't support the Prosperity Gospel because Job did not want this wealth. He was only given it once he had realized that God's supremacy is all that mattered. The same cannot be said for adherents to the Prosperity Gospel. However, are those individuals who give money to ministries that preach the Prosperity Gospel wrong? Does their sacrifice of monetary resources still count?
Here we returned again to the issue of tithing. While it is easy to say that tithing should be used for the poor alone, the reality is that pastors need to be paid for their work. Buildings need to be maintained. We were reminded that Jesus changes us through our giving. When money is given out of a generous heart for love of God, that is what ultimately matters and what can be truly transforming. No matter what the money is being used for, the giver is changed, and tithing can have an incredible spiritual effect. The problem with the "Sermon on the Amount" occurs when the focus is wrong. Tithing is not about pre-tax vs. post-tax, moving up a percentage point each year according to the distributed spreadsheet, etc. etc. etc. Our tithing is a gift, given in response to God's love and mercy. However, what about those ministries that truly misappropriate funds? Does it really not matter where the money goes as long as the motivation is right?
Ultimately, care of poor comes out of relationships. In the ideal Christian community, there would not be a needy person amongst us because we would be able to have faith that the community would meet any need that arose. Miraculously, there are some churches who still live by this. However, there are more that do not. We need to form relationships through which people feel safe enough to be vulnerable. It is hard to admit that you have lost your job and cannot afford to pay your mortgage or provide food for your family. We need to create safe spaces so that we can know the needs of our congregations in order to properly care for them.
Our discussion then turned to the issue of homeless beggars. What do you do when someone asks you for money? Should you give money? Should you give food? Should you give a gift certificate of some sort by which s/he could buy food? Many homeless organizations will tell you not to give anything because anything and everything can be traded for drugs or other harmful substances. But it is so hard to walk or drive past a person. One of the biggest ways you can make a difference is through treating the homeless individual with respect. Say "sir" or "ma'am." Recognize that they, too, are children of God, and honor that in your interaction.
Poverty is an unfortunate reality in modern society. However, instead of focusing on what we can't do about it, let's focus on what we can. I cannot solve the poverty crisis. But maybe we can.
Questions for further reflection:
- Does it matter if the money is going to be used for malicious purposes if one's motivation is true?
- How has tithing (or not tithing) made a difference in your spiritual life?
- How can we create safe spaces at Duke Chapel for those in need to be vulnerable enough to ask for help?
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Just War
Scripture:
- Matthew 5:9, 38-42
- Matthew 26:47-52
- 1 Samuel 15
Articles:
- Excerpt from Glen Stassen and David Gushee's book Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context
- Stanley Hauerwas on Patriotism Pacifism and Just Warriors
- If you want a more detailed exploration of Stanley Hauerwas' view of war (and don't mind his colorful language): "I'm a pacifist because I'm a violent Son-of-a-bitch" - A profile of Stanley Hauerwas
-Associated Baptist Press - Analysis: Do Baptist leaders regret justifying Iraq war?
We began by looking at the positions outlined by Glen Stassen and David Gushee in their book Kingdom Ethics. According to Stassen & Gushee, the three approaches a Christian can take towards war are Just War Theory, Pacifism, and Just Peacemaking. They advocate the latter, but just peacemaking does not exclude the possibility of just war or pacifism. Rather, they advocate a commitment to just peacemaking and one of the other positions. All Christians can agree that Jesus taught peace. The question is what means should be used for peace to be accomplished.
The question was raised whether there has ever truly been a just war that follows all eight qualifications of just war theory. The trickiest qualifier is "last resort." Who can truly determine that all other possible measures have been taken in order to avoid war? That is what just peacemaking seeks to do, but the question still often remains whether or not every possible other option has been explored. The group discussed various wars in history, sharing their personal experiences and views.
The ties between Americanism, Patriotism, and Christianity were then raised. Why is it that being Christian is so complicit in being an American. Is being patriotic in conflict with being a Christian? How can nationalism be a form of idolatry? Jesus challenged the governmental authority of his day, and many of his teachings are in conflict with the American way of life. Stanley Hauerwas notes a trend in Christianity in which Christians "bend" the teachings of Jesus to be in line with American ideals.
In looking at pacifism, one must ask how we can sit back and let innocents die. Dietrich Bonhoeffer faced this dilemma when he decided that to commit the sin of killing Hitler was justifiable for the greater good. His writings demonstrate his anguish over this decision and his need for confession. It is a tough thing for pacifists to watch innocent people suffer if they suspect that war might cease their suffering. However, as Hauerwas argues, just warriors must face this problem as well. "Collateral damage" is a given in war, especially with modern warfare. How is this instance of letting innocents die any different from innocents dying because of the decision not to go to war?
We then discussed briefly how Christian servicemen and women should understand their role in war. Shane Claiborne argues that one cannot be a soldier and be a Christian. However, the only group member who has seen combat explained there is no philosophy in combat. When someone is firing at you, you don't have time to muse whether or not war is ethical. A great deal of this comes down to rearing. People do what they're told is right, so if you live in a society where war is accepted (and even applauded) you will have a different view of war than if you grew up with a group of peaceniks.
The role of relationships is of prime importance in issues of war. It is harder to kill one's enemy when that enemy has a face. This is where churches can have a major role in promoting peace. By building relationships, it is easier to seek other methods of peace before even contemplating the option of war. It is through these relationships that there is hope for a peaceful future.
Questions for further reflection:
- Can there be a set of qualifications that determine what should be considered to be the "greater good?"
- What are the ramifications of modern warfare for just war theory?
- Is war primarily an extension of politics or morality?
- Matthew 5:9, 38-42
- Matthew 26:47-52
- 1 Samuel 15
Articles:
- Excerpt from Glen Stassen and David Gushee's book Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context
- Stanley Hauerwas on Patriotism Pacifism and Just Warriors
- If you want a more detailed exploration of Stanley Hauerwas' view of war (and don't mind his colorful language): "I'm a pacifist because I'm a violent Son-of-a-bitch" - A profile of Stanley Hauerwas
-Associated Baptist Press - Analysis: Do Baptist leaders regret justifying Iraq war?
We began by looking at the positions outlined by Glen Stassen and David Gushee in their book Kingdom Ethics. According to Stassen & Gushee, the three approaches a Christian can take towards war are Just War Theory, Pacifism, and Just Peacemaking. They advocate the latter, but just peacemaking does not exclude the possibility of just war or pacifism. Rather, they advocate a commitment to just peacemaking and one of the other positions. All Christians can agree that Jesus taught peace. The question is what means should be used for peace to be accomplished.
The question was raised whether there has ever truly been a just war that follows all eight qualifications of just war theory. The trickiest qualifier is "last resort." Who can truly determine that all other possible measures have been taken in order to avoid war? That is what just peacemaking seeks to do, but the question still often remains whether or not every possible other option has been explored. The group discussed various wars in history, sharing their personal experiences and views.
The ties between Americanism, Patriotism, and Christianity were then raised. Why is it that being Christian is so complicit in being an American. Is being patriotic in conflict with being a Christian? How can nationalism be a form of idolatry? Jesus challenged the governmental authority of his day, and many of his teachings are in conflict with the American way of life. Stanley Hauerwas notes a trend in Christianity in which Christians "bend" the teachings of Jesus to be in line with American ideals.
In looking at pacifism, one must ask how we can sit back and let innocents die. Dietrich Bonhoeffer faced this dilemma when he decided that to commit the sin of killing Hitler was justifiable for the greater good. His writings demonstrate his anguish over this decision and his need for confession. It is a tough thing for pacifists to watch innocent people suffer if they suspect that war might cease their suffering. However, as Hauerwas argues, just warriors must face this problem as well. "Collateral damage" is a given in war, especially with modern warfare. How is this instance of letting innocents die any different from innocents dying because of the decision not to go to war?
We then discussed briefly how Christian servicemen and women should understand their role in war. Shane Claiborne argues that one cannot be a soldier and be a Christian. However, the only group member who has seen combat explained there is no philosophy in combat. When someone is firing at you, you don't have time to muse whether or not war is ethical. A great deal of this comes down to rearing. People do what they're told is right, so if you live in a society where war is accepted (and even applauded) you will have a different view of war than if you grew up with a group of peaceniks.
The role of relationships is of prime importance in issues of war. It is harder to kill one's enemy when that enemy has a face. This is where churches can have a major role in promoting peace. By building relationships, it is easier to seek other methods of peace before even contemplating the option of war. It is through these relationships that there is hope for a peaceful future.
Questions for further reflection:
- Can there be a set of qualifications that determine what should be considered to be the "greater good?"
- What are the ramifications of modern warfare for just war theory?
- Is war primarily an extension of politics or morality?
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Religious Fanaticism
Scripture:
- Numbers 25:1-13
- Matthew 19:12
- 2 Timothy 3:16
- Isaiah 2:2-4
- Romans 11:11-15
Articles:
- Excerpt from Karen Armstrong's book The Battle For God: A History of Fundamentalism
- Kansas Abortion Doctor Killed
- Zion's Christian Soldiers (60 Minutes)
- Israeli Settlers Wary
- The Evolution of Islamic Terrorism, An Overview
Our discussion this week focused on trends in religious fanaticism in the Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. We examined Karen Armstrong's claim that this current mode of fanaticism could only have arisen in modern society. While the tenets of fundamentalism (a return back to the basics/an earlier time; rejection of modernity) have been prevalent for centuries, this new form of fundamentalism is a modern invention. New advances in technology and changes in society are perceived as an attack on deeply held religious convictions. This is a movement motivated by fear, a defensive stance fueled by the belief that, if such a stance is not taken up, religion will be pushed to the side in favor of secularization.
The question of "holy sin" was then raised. Armstrong uses this term to describe those morally reprehensible acts that are deemed justified because they are done to advance the kingdom of God. Using the example of Phinehas in Numbers, his murder of the Israeli man and Midianite woman was justified (and just) because it was in line with God's will and consequently saved many Israelites. However, this term is a contradiction. A sin cannot by definition be holy. Therefore, the conclusion was reached that there is no such thing as a holy sin.
This then raised the question of sin. How do we determine sin? It is something that is contrary to the will of God. However, how can we know the will of God? Many fundamentalists would point to their holy book and declare that, through these texts, they know the will of God. However, this does not leave room for revelation. Those who point to the story of Phinehas to justify their actions are missing the qualification of time. Nevertheless, though they are committing actions we would view as contrary to God's will, fundamentalists of each religion truly believe they are just being good Jews/Christians/Muslims. Once again, the question of relativity comes into play.
We then turned to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At its heart, this is a religious issue. Jewish Zionists claim this land because they believe scripture tells them God gave it to them. Christian Zionists want Jews to have this land because they believe scripture tells them this will bring the Second Coming. Consequently, settlers are viewed as justified in their actions because they are merely fulfilling God's promise. Nevertheless, this is also a political issue, involving many powerful leaders. What does it say that the default American Christian position is support of Israel? What does it say that many people are unaware that there are Palestinian Christians? While it was agreed that the only way this conflict can be resolved is if religion is taken out of it, it was also agreed that it is impossible to separate religion from politics in this situation.
I played a song by Angie Aparo entitled "Killing for Jesus." Though he is by no means a religious artist, he has another song on that album entitled "Birds of Palestine." Here are the mp3s for both of those songs:
- "Killing for Jesus"
- "Birds of Palestine"
Questions for further reflection:
- Can we ever know the will of God? If not, how are we to define our morality?
- How can we claim to have the correct understanding of what it means to be a "good Christian"?
- Is a sinful act ever justifiable if it is done for the common good?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
