The following is what I as a United Methodist trained and studied in Methodist Theology, Human Psychology and logic believe would be a good path for the church's committee on the subject of human sexuality to follow. I attempt to make no conclusion as to what the committee's end result should be. I just point out a logical path to follow as they consider the questions involved.
The quadrilateral of reason, experience, tradition and scripture is not, as far too many published scholars and seminary professors suggest, like a supreme court where some members can be argued down or out-voted. It is rather like a gear box where each gear must be made to work together. Setting one part aside or just letting the whole sit idle is unacceptable. So here I lay out a path to follow dictated by all of these four parts. It is step by step, with what to do for each possible outcome at each decision point.
(1) Is fornication a sin? i.e. Is sex before marriage a sin?
If not then I think we're done.
If we agree that it is a sin then we move on to the next question.
If we can't agree on this answer then we're done with more than this subject. It's time to think of the new names for our churches.
(2) Since fornication is a sin (we've agreed on that in order to get here) then one of two things must be true about homosexual activity. Either it's a sin in all cases or there is such a thing as same sex marriage. So which is true?
If there is no such thing as same sex marriage then the issue is settled. Homosexual activity is a sin in all cases.
It would be prudent to go on to explain why we believe there is no such thing as same sex marriage. Whether or not homosexual activity, a subset of fornication, is a sin would logically have no place in such an explanation, as it would be relevant in the same way that fornication is relevant to traditional marriage. There must be a reason for it not existing stemming from things like definition and function of marriage.
I realize I am imposing my own conclusion that homosexual activity is a sin because it is fornication in this case. I recognize that certain specific acts within the larger set of all homosexual activity are identified in scripture as perversions, and thus sinful for that reason, but those specific acts need not be practiced for there to be a same sex marriage. Thus the perversion argument doesn't apply to the question, the question as to whether there is a context in which some homosexual activity would not be a sin.
For same sex marriage to just simply not exist, the reasons must depend largely on tradition and reason. While one can determine through study of scripture what is meant by marriage when it mentions it, there is no proclamation within the scriptures to be found that says marriage between people of the same sex is wrong. It's not a matter of if it's right or wrong, just one of whether such a marriage exists and whether we could rightly take it upon ourselves to make it exist.
This of course leads to another couple questions. Who defines the marriage that the Bible refers to? And if the marriage referred to in the Bible is not the marriage referred to popularly and within secular law, how does that effect same sex couples who are Christians?
I will interject my own conclusions here. This is very much the same as a heterosexual couple who live together without getting married. Both may have good reasons to believe they're not living in sin, including not having sex for example. But in both cases, whatever conclusions they have drawn for themselves, it is best in both cases not to mention the controversial aspects of their relationship publicly. The unmarried heterosexual couple would be wise not to mention they are not married, or if they do they should make it a point to insist they don't sleep together. Likewise the same sex couple would be wise not to suggest they are anything other than just a couple of good friends living together. These are not lies and they are Biblically sound ways of dealing with "meat sacrificed to idles" type subjects.
If on the other hand we conclude there is such a thing as same sex marriage then we need to carefully, consistently, and rationally define what marriage is. We need to figure out where the defining line is around marriage that distinguishes it from other parts of the larger set of all committed and loving relationships. To do less than this in this case is to make no meaningful statement at all, and to fail to live up to the Methodist tradition coordinating ourselves with reason, experience, tradition and scripture. We will have most especially have fallen down on the reason and experience sides, as we will have failed to offer any real guidance on the subject. The church would in such a failure make itself irrelevant and the opposite of constructive.
(3) However this issue is decided, we must not be superficial. The word "love" in any such decision runs a major risk of being clumsy and misleading. Whether two people love each other is meaningless because it tells us nothing clearly. This is especially true when we are talking about human sexuality. If a couple stop having or never have sex, do they love each-other less? What of a couple completely devoid of affection but still willing to die for each-other? Can their be a greater love? Need I write, "of course not"? So I implore my fellow Methodists not to abuse the word "love" in the statement of your conclusion. Please don't use it like a hammer largely devoid of rationale.
Your conclusion must be clear and include definitions. Is it in reference to sexual activity or sexual inclination? Of course we shouldn't reject people for their inclinations or any activities they ask God to forgive them for. This shouldn't need said in such a statement, and if said would be an insult to our members.
And where the statement is in reference to activity we will need to clearly define the marriage referred to in scripture, and if we conclude it can be generalized to include current local civil definitions, we need to explain why. Being relevant wont be enough there. We would need to explain why we believe our conclusions fall within the original intent of the scriptures.
If we conclude that there is no such thing as same sex marriage we should include why we believe that people have inclinations towards sinful activity and how that includes all of us. Such a conclusion should probably include a strong statement about how we as Christians should deal with our own sinful inclinations and that of our fellow Christians.
In that last context the word "love" should be fairly clear and would not be a hammer.
The quadrilateral of reason, experience, tradition and scripture is not, as far too many published scholars and seminary professors suggest, like a supreme court where some members can be argued down or out-voted. It is rather like a gear box where each gear must be made to work together. Setting one part aside or just letting the whole sit idle is unacceptable. So here I lay out a path to follow dictated by all of these four parts. It is step by step, with what to do for each possible outcome at each decision point.
(1) Is fornication a sin? i.e. Is sex before marriage a sin?
If not then I think we're done.
If we agree that it is a sin then we move on to the next question.
If we can't agree on this answer then we're done with more than this subject. It's time to think of the new names for our churches.
(2) Since fornication is a sin (we've agreed on that in order to get here) then one of two things must be true about homosexual activity. Either it's a sin in all cases or there is such a thing as same sex marriage. So which is true?
If there is no such thing as same sex marriage then the issue is settled. Homosexual activity is a sin in all cases.
It would be prudent to go on to explain why we believe there is no such thing as same sex marriage. Whether or not homosexual activity, a subset of fornication, is a sin would logically have no place in such an explanation, as it would be relevant in the same way that fornication is relevant to traditional marriage. There must be a reason for it not existing stemming from things like definition and function of marriage.
I realize I am imposing my own conclusion that homosexual activity is a sin because it is fornication in this case. I recognize that certain specific acts within the larger set of all homosexual activity are identified in scripture as perversions, and thus sinful for that reason, but those specific acts need not be practiced for there to be a same sex marriage. Thus the perversion argument doesn't apply to the question, the question as to whether there is a context in which some homosexual activity would not be a sin.
For same sex marriage to just simply not exist, the reasons must depend largely on tradition and reason. While one can determine through study of scripture what is meant by marriage when it mentions it, there is no proclamation within the scriptures to be found that says marriage between people of the same sex is wrong. It's not a matter of if it's right or wrong, just one of whether such a marriage exists and whether we could rightly take it upon ourselves to make it exist.
This of course leads to another couple questions. Who defines the marriage that the Bible refers to? And if the marriage referred to in the Bible is not the marriage referred to popularly and within secular law, how does that effect same sex couples who are Christians?
I will interject my own conclusions here. This is very much the same as a heterosexual couple who live together without getting married. Both may have good reasons to believe they're not living in sin, including not having sex for example. But in both cases, whatever conclusions they have drawn for themselves, it is best in both cases not to mention the controversial aspects of their relationship publicly. The unmarried heterosexual couple would be wise not to mention they are not married, or if they do they should make it a point to insist they don't sleep together. Likewise the same sex couple would be wise not to suggest they are anything other than just a couple of good friends living together. These are not lies and they are Biblically sound ways of dealing with "meat sacrificed to idles" type subjects.
If on the other hand we conclude there is such a thing as same sex marriage then we need to carefully, consistently, and rationally define what marriage is. We need to figure out where the defining line is around marriage that distinguishes it from other parts of the larger set of all committed and loving relationships. To do less than this in this case is to make no meaningful statement at all, and to fail to live up to the Methodist tradition coordinating ourselves with reason, experience, tradition and scripture. We will have most especially have fallen down on the reason and experience sides, as we will have failed to offer any real guidance on the subject. The church would in such a failure make itself irrelevant and the opposite of constructive.
(3) However this issue is decided, we must not be superficial. The word "love" in any such decision runs a major risk of being clumsy and misleading. Whether two people love each other is meaningless because it tells us nothing clearly. This is especially true when we are talking about human sexuality. If a couple stop having or never have sex, do they love each-other less? What of a couple completely devoid of affection but still willing to die for each-other? Can their be a greater love? Need I write, "of course not"? So I implore my fellow Methodists not to abuse the word "love" in the statement of your conclusion. Please don't use it like a hammer largely devoid of rationale.
Your conclusion must be clear and include definitions. Is it in reference to sexual activity or sexual inclination? Of course we shouldn't reject people for their inclinations or any activities they ask God to forgive them for. This shouldn't need said in such a statement, and if said would be an insult to our members.
And where the statement is in reference to activity we will need to clearly define the marriage referred to in scripture, and if we conclude it can be generalized to include current local civil definitions, we need to explain why. Being relevant wont be enough there. We would need to explain why we believe our conclusions fall within the original intent of the scriptures.
If we conclude that there is no such thing as same sex marriage we should include why we believe that people have inclinations towards sinful activity and how that includes all of us. Such a conclusion should probably include a strong statement about how we as Christians should deal with our own sinful inclinations and that of our fellow Christians.
In that last context the word "love" should be fairly clear and would not be a hammer.
No comments:
Post a Comment