My main point is that if we as individuals and/or a congregation
decide to support other congregations that welcome gays and lesbians
as full members, we should have a clear idea of why we are taking
such a stand beyond "it seems right" or even a vague sense that "I
think Jesus would approve." Even more, if we take a stronger stand by
publicly declaring ourselves to be a "welcoming church," we and
Garland may face serious consequences, and we should be able to give
a clear and well-considered account to the Mennonite Church USA why
we are taking this stand. It seems absolutely reasonable to me that a
national organization be able to establish criteria for affiliation
with that organization, especially if these criteria are established
through a democratic/representative process which self-consciously
seeks guidance from the Spirit. I think they have the right to
question whether congregations who openly violate the principles of
the national organization should remain affiliated with it. If not,
what can such affiliation mean? Should the national organization just
let any group sign up as an affiliate of Mennonite Church USA, no
matter what they believe? On the other hand, the national
organization should listen with sensitivity to minority views as
well, always open to the possibility that the majority may be wrong.
It's a difficult problem.
OK. I'm rambling; back to the point. I think Mennonite Church USA has
the right to question whether "welcoming churches" should remain
affiliated with them, and if we support such churches or become one,
I think we owe the national organization an explanation as a matter
of conscience and integrity.
And it is a matter of whether homosexuality is a sin. If it is a sin,
then the Church must say so and decide what to do about it. Did Jesus
actually condone sin? I don't think so. He said to the woman, "Go and
sin no more." He didn't say, "Sin is fine with me. Don't worry about
it." The lesson I take from Jesus is that we stand with the sinner as
he or she seeks restoration and redemption. This means that all of us
are standing with one another all the time in a continuous act of
restoration and redemption because all of us are sinning all of the
time. (Maybe that's a bit extreme, but that's the way it seems to me
most of the time.)
If homosexuality is a sin, then it seems to me our position should
be: sin is tough; let's work this out together. Join with the rest of
us sinners as we help each other work through our own stuff.
This is a different type of "welcoming" than saying: homosexuality is
not a sin, and you have no need to be redeemed from this condition. I
suspect the national organization would be happier with the first
view that with the second.
In the interest of complete disclosure, I don't consider
homosexuality to be a sin, and I think homosexuals have nothing to be
forgiven for on this score. I also think, however, that this is a
difficult position to defend scripturally. My suspicion is that those
who claim that scripture does not treat homosexuality as a sin have
to resort to a lot of rather fancy footwork and very careful
"analysis" of particular passages. Personally, I would "defend" it
through a rather skeptical and deconstructive theological view that
leaves most of Christian theology in smoking ruins. So, my view will
not be much help toward dealing with the conference.
Nevitt
On Mar 3, 2006, at 6:27 PM, Ray Gingerich wrote:
Friends,
http://www.welcome-committee.org/index.html
Ray
