Draft of Ministerial Covenant : Love the Sinner?

[revtj]

Sisters & Brothers

My soul has been aching lately due to renewed dialogue with friends & alumni of Covenant College where I rec'd my AA in 1980. I am experiencing a lot of "love the sinner, hate the sin" rhetoric as well as "some of my best friends are gay, too bad they're going to hell..." Worse than that, a few are associated with Reconstructionism which calls for the death penalty for gays, and they argue for this in what they consider christian love.

Last night I was up late troubled by it all. I wrote the following draft of a ministerial covenant and I am challenging "Love the sinner" pastors to sign on to it and to take it to their governing bodies and make it a part of professional ministry in their denomination.

I invite your ideas, critical and otherwise...


Here's a sample of what I mean...a draft of a ministerial covenant to be signed on to by clergy who respect civility and human rights...

1. I will not use any church pulpit or authority donated to me by virtue of my service to degrade, defame, denigrate, insult or incite inflammatory rhetoric against any person or group of people including but not limited to Jews, non-Christians and Christians of other traditions, homosexuals, women, people of color, immigrants, nor any other minority;

2. I will not accept any profit, fame nor privilege based in the degradation, denigration, insult or blame placed on any person or group of people including but not limited to Jews, non-Christians and Christians of other traditions, homosexuals, women, people of color, immigrants, nor any other minority;

3. I will assert my authority as a Christian and a minister of the Gospel to protect basic human rights, and use my influence to advocate for the protection of these rights even in the face of obvious or not so obvious differences I may have with any group or individual;

4. I will at all times seek to use the authority of my office as a conduit of the Spirit, building bridges of dialogue, peace and understanding; in matters where this abiding in the Spirit seems ineffective, I shall commit myself to constant prayer and petitioning of the powers that be to value peace and human dignity above any peculiar policy, dogma or creed;

5. I will recognize evil as a systemic force to be reckoned with, residing in the fallen principalities and powers of this world, rarely manifesting in any one person or group of people; Thus, I will continually challenge systems and powers which sustain evil, degrade people, and deny civil liberties, but I will refrain from identifying any one person or people as scapegoats or as categorically irredeemable.

[Liberal Crozier]

My dear brother in Christ,

You must realise that their " theological, scriptural and moral 'high' ground" is informed by fear that inerrancy has had the fatal flaw since the Reformation....that proof-texting or language is fluid by its very nature. Every generation has its own particular colloquialisms and secondary word definitions, and the Reformation as well as the Magisterium has had an unholy alliance with the Enlightenment.

The topic sentence speaks to the analogy of the fearfull males huddled in the Upper Room - including the doubting one and the supposed primus inter pares of the apostolic team - prior to the receiving of the Holy Spirit at the Pentecostal feast...promised by Christ Himself.

All of us who have served in faith communities have witnessed the transformation of lives and hearts and words by accepting the Holy Spirit in our lives. It more than reinvigorates our faith - it gives it LIFE. From dying embers, the picture is of a soul on FIRE with both zeal and commitment.

As Gene Robinson quoted, we indeed must love them anyway. We must wipe away the angry look, and the harsh words, and soothe the muddy wound as we are bashed by their Bibles. I am so glad that their canons only allow 66 instead of the 72. I assume that means that the Septuagint Churches bash with more heft.

I truly believe that the changes we seek will happen in God's good time. For us, I also hope that the ' marriage ' of Church and State should end. The Sacrament of Marriage should be divorced from the Civil Marriage Statutes.
We both call it Civil Marriage. Partners decide that a sacrament or ordinance informs their Faith would do so without the Minister signing a secular document.

[BruceChris]

Hey folks, in the 15th century, every churchman alive knew two things without question: That the sun revolved around the earth, and that it said so in the bible. So much for inerrancy. Read your Spong, fer chrissake.

Now, with massive amounts of scientific evidence, including documented events within our own lifetimes, some peoplle still refuse to believe that any species could ever give rise to any other. Never mind evolution. I am afraid that Dotti and Rory are right, we will simply have to get to know and make friends with the fundies, one at a time. ( ?)


Peace and Love, BruceChris

[revtj]

LiberalCrozier & BruceChris...your comments are appreciated, but were they on topic? I guess I really need to feel heard on this...

[BruceChris]

Revtj, I guess you're right. I was responding primarily to something that LC had posted. I know that in my church, we have a LOT of discussion about Christian responsibilities, boundaries, and when to recuse oneself. Of course, in a church full of gay and lesbian human service professionals, it is almost always about those things anyway.

Now, it would just be very nice if the biblical literalists would consider stop and consider your approach.

I apologise. BruceChris

[Liberal Crozier]

My dear brothers in Christ,

Firstly, I read your letter and found your plea for tolerance, compassion and dialogue to be compelling. It is my prayerful hope that they will read and understand and more, reply in similar vein. I believe that the description falls under the rubric of " Christian fellowship."

Secondly, my reply suggests that the Dominionists have no intention or belief that we are a valid part of the Christian faith community. This truth colours their behaviour and their rhetoric. Again, their theo-neo-conservative agenda militates against acceptance that the John 14 verse addresses. In their House - you only find one room - the "studio motif" - with no one else allowed or welcome.

Don Quixote was accused of fighting windmills. It sometimes seems easier than argueing with right wing theocrat windbags. (sorry, one of my father's preferred clever sayings molded to many topics.....).

I have contributed several threads this morning, and would also be interested in your imput. This is the first day since hospital that I have had the energy to share.

[revtj]

Liberal Crozier,

I am glad you are feeling better. I had forgotten you were in the hospital. I should be listening to your needs rather than whining about my own.

I have a strong connection to the alumni group and only some of them hold narrow, hateful views. But they all do believe homosexuality is a sin because, they insist, the bible says so...nothing new or shocking about that.

So I have tried to stop arguing about the bible and I have requested that they prove the 'love' they have for the homosexual sinner (as they see it) by standing up against hatespeech and categorical condemnation of any group of people as irredeemable. I have had some good discussions and only a few have remained closed-minded on the topic.

I would absolutely love for them to debate hatespeech and categorical condemantion on a higher level, say, at the presbytery meeting or even just a committee. The way I see it, it could only help.

Now you take care of yourself and get well. I am praying for you!
revtj

[tdogg]

RevTJ,

Very interesting concept. I like your draft. I do see room for those who would sign on to still preach negatively regarding the 'sin' of homosexuality while urging everyone to treat them fairly. It was well worded and considerate tho.

Have you passed this on to anyone yet (other than here)? It will be interesting to see how it is received in the 'church.' May I suggest sending it off to all the AG 'in charge' folk??! Doubt you would get anyone to sign on..
or am I just being pessimistic....

[revtj]

So far the responses have had to do with defining degrading and inflammatory rhetoric. Instead of defining this for them, I suggested that it would be an excellent topic to discuss at the presbytery level. I can only see good coming out of that.

One person has said that we sinners just aren't worthy of defining what's inflammatory rhetoric. Jeez, Louise, that Calvinist doctrine of total depravity gets dragged out when these people don't want to mow their lawn!

I assume they are looking for a way to maintain their belief that homosexuality is a sin. I tried to make the point that they could still maintain this belief, even teach it and preach it, and make a commitment against hatespeech & inflammatory rhetoric as well. So far this seems like too much for them to wrap their minds around but I haven't given up!

[Zerbie]

Good evening TJ,

I've read your recent posts on this subject with interest and care. I don't feel I have anything to contribute, as much of this topic is going over my head (never having been affiliated with a church, I cannot relate to any of the specifics or offer a critique.) But you've mentioned feeling deep sorrow at least twice recently that I can recall, so I wanted to send you some of these:

It's not quite on your topic, but some folks I know have been involved with the Phoenix Affirmations, and with Crosswalk America. Easily found on google. I believe you might enjoy reading a summary of what those things are all about. Upbeat, courageous, beautiful, and motivating. Sounds like you could use some of those feelings about now. Check 'em out. Phoenix Affirmations. Crosswalk America.

Your proposed statements are also very beautiful. I have no critique. Thank you for taking the step to craft them.

[Britt.]

I also lack any critique. for that. It's very well written. The fact is when I hear something to the effect of "I love you, but hate what you do/who you are," I don't feel the slightest sprinkle of love coming from that person.

[Liberal Crozier]

The Pre-Ratzinger era, either as head of the Inquisition or as pope, spoke to the belief that homosexual orientation not expressed sexually was "morally neutral" and that the proscription was about "sexual acts" deemed sinful. This totally unacceptable but nuanced approach allowed for the Roman Catholic Church to allow for DIGNITY in Catholic houses of worship, to name one of the many progressive views prior to 1978.

Since that time, and especially following the paedophilic scandals, the Halloween term spoke to "instrinsic disorder" - making the psychosexual reality also sinful and against natural law. I am not amazed to note that the new Vatican proscriptions are carefully worded with many, many new "adjustments". There were many nervous cardinals, archbishops and bishops who are actively as well as celibate psychosexually gay men. There are also rumours that have implied that men elected within the last hundred years had such an orientation. " Outing" from priests down the food chain would have rocked the very foundation of Saint Peter's.

Prior to the last two regimes, the "Imprimi Potest" - one rung under " Nihil Obstat " allowed progressive theological voices like John McNeill or Charles Curran or Hans Kung or Martin Borman ( yep, Jebbies...."almost Catholic ) . The Catholic approach was not so much to resurrect the Reformation Curran's observation that the sin of inhospitality informed the Sodom story - or other scripturally centred apologetics. No.....they attacked that Dominican who gave them Aristotle and the Summa Theologica and of course, Scholasticism following the breach between Western and Eastern Christianity.

The philosopher Blondel was especially informative to John McNeill. He spoke about " condition " and "activity". His favourite analogy was the heterosexual prisoner who engaged in homosexual sex while in prison. He then spoke about the homosexual "prisoner" in a heterosexual marriage in order to "pass in society." Remember, this book was written two years before the APA removed homosexuality from the DSMII.

TJ - I know the pain inflicted upon us when our mother (alma mater) still speaks with ever more strident and harmful words. I personally accept the admonition given by +Gene Robinson when he quoted another , saying simply -" Love Them Anyway". Some are motivated by hate; others by pharisitical righteousness, and the vast number through fear that you might represent an enlightenment given by the Holy Spirit. We love you and pray for you on a daily basis.

[Zerbie]

Dear Crozier,

That is beautiful. Thank you.

[Vanessa White]

Rev: Glad to see you around again- I've missed you!!! I think that your proposal seems to fit what you are looking to do- cut down on the mean-spirited words and rhetoric, the stopping of categorizing and generalizing about human beings, including gay persons, even if these religious persons need to still believe that homosexuality is a sin. Even though that would be my ideal world- for those to embrace the fact that they love the person and don't consider the behavior a sin- I would think that this is a very good start, and one that meets them on their ground a little bit. The part where I get concerned when I feel as a community that we make a concession like that (allowing for these persons to hate the sin) is that it enables them to continue to view us as nice people participating in terrible behaviors, rather than seeing it as a whole package, and that sexual orientation is not just about behavior. But, I love your idea and think it is a great start! Please don't get discouraged, I have often found your voice and how you put it into action down there in the South to inspire me onto what I hope will be greater things!! Peace be with you always! Vanessa

[Daniel]

Revtj,

It's taken me a while to sort out why I found the start of this thread and your thoughts exressed therein to be so disquieting. And while I do not have a definitive suggestion on what you might 'do' with the document posted, I've realized that, like you, I wrestle with this same concern in my own way though I am not in dialogue with my alma mater.

The point here for us both may be how to engage what seems to be unengageable (I think I just made up a word?). In my own world, this had taken the form of addressing my family's homophobia. Which has been very hard to do seeing that they by-and-large refuse to dialogue with me about the matter in any way that brings me any peace of mind- or lets be blunt- any satisfaction. My last communication with my older brother (who is a missionary) amounted to his asserting that gay marriage had nothing to do with him (translation: "don't tell me what I don't want to know") and that I shouldn't be upset about something I would probably never be able to have (translation: "staight folk get the whole jar of cookies....keep your hands out!"). A frustrating situation to be sure when the 'other' side in the 'dialogue' is intent on keeping power as well as 'face'. And it is the latter aspect that is perhaps the most infuriating (yes...I admit to working on my anger about this issue). All too often, one is left with the impression that one's voice is not being heard above the din that unthinking straight people make when fighting amongst themselves. They seem intent on keeping up appearances at all costs for each other: whoever has the best face job 'wins'. (Remember that old Twlight Zone episode where a party full of people take their horrid masks off in the morning only to find that they've become the mask?)

I share your late night troubles. And at times I have despaired that my biological family will never 'know' me. (This can lead one to depression if one doesn't cultivate a life as well as a sense of humor.) One thing makes me keep the faith however. And that is the observation that gay people have something like X-Ray vision. Perhaps that early self-knowledge helps us see around corners and into the very heart of things. Perhaps we just have to have the courage- as you do- to insist that others look a little deeper than their own self interest.

[Zerbie]

Now this discussion is definitely living on two levels.

TJ, as I see it, is addressing the rhetoric that is most directly and obviously damaging. There are some people for whom that is as far as they are going to look (right now, and perhaps ever) - they haven't got any intention of looking beyond their belief that homosexuality is "wrong" but they are willing to take enough steps to acknowledge their fellow humans' rights to employment, freedom from harassment, that sort of thing. That is a good and very important step. And to some extent, we may always have folks among us who do not even wish or try to move beyond it to the kind of understanding we wish we had from them.

It's an entirely separate matter to try and engage people to look beyond just those few things (which look all too much like mere concessions in a way, as critical as they are.) I can't imagine trying to engage on a deeper level people who refuse to see our soul, on an ongoing basis. Which runs us into one of my "peeves," if ya will.

We hear cries from the "other side" of the argument that gays are not tolerant of their beliefs whilst demanding "tolerance" for themselves. The problem is, and I speak only for myself here, there is a limit to what I personally will tolerate. If someone adamantly refuses to perceive the best part of my spiritual being, calls it perverse and so on, this is someone unwelcome in the innermost realms of my emotional life. We might get along very well and have friendly talks about other subjects, but I will not share the best of me with this person, because I do not want such a person in the inner sanctuary of my heart. There are certain things I will not tolerate, and one of those things is negating, ridiculing, or adamantly arguing against love.

But TJ is, as Vanessa says, reaching out to a certain audience at a level where they CAN be reached, and that is, certainly, a way to possibly begin bridging the chasm between the "us/them". On one level, it IS enough. On a further level, no, it is not enough yet. But if it is still something better than what we have, then it is progress. And progress is good.

Circular much?

[awediot]

Whatever terminology we want to use, the concept of hating the sin while loving the sinner simply means one can love, or just like a person regardless of some of the crappy things they do. A true friendship allows for those things to be pointed out to each other with the intent to help, even if it hurts a little...

The difficulty with homosexuality is that straights cannot easily make the distinction between what we (or anyone) can merely do (sleep with the same gender) and what we (and only we) actually ARE. The ACT (at least outside of a committed relationship) IS sinful (gay or straight). Our existence is not... Even within the xtian-Right they do not agree if we are sinners because of our mere thoughts, or only when we act on them.

1. I will not use any church pulpit or authority donated to me by virtue of my service to degrade, defame, denigrate, insult or incite inflammatory rhetoric against any person or group of people including but not limited to Jews, non-Christians and Christians of other traditions, homosexuals, women, people of color, immigrants, nor any other minority;

revtj, this strikes me as quite similar to your definition of nonviolence. Your gentleness of spirit and longing for kindness is an ideal I too desire to catch on, but it is too sweet to be effective... The above completely undermines ANY criticism toward ANYone for ANY reason. It defeats the very reason for ministry. Even your selective spotlight in this statement, "Worse than that, a few are associated with Reconstructionism which calls for the death penalty for gays, and they argue for this in what they consider christian love." clearly singles out a minority for their beliefs and insults them, breaking the rules you want them to accept. I agree with you, but you cannot have it both ways...

I wish I had a suggestion how to inspire them to refine their understanding of sin, and how and to whom it applies. But that is beyond my scope... Recently on another site I asked what the one, unforgivable sin, blaspheming the Holy Spirit looks like? The response: "If you look at Mark 3:22-30, you will see that the religious leaders were accusing Jesus of doing miracles by the power of Satan, to which Jesus responded with His assertion that blaspheming the Holy Spirit would not be forgiven. From this it's possible to see that this particular sin would take the form of attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to Satan." was startling to me. Christians do this ALL THE TIME! It is an admonishment not toward the depraved or backsliding, but to the clergy themselves... Perhaps this can be utilized is some fashion to instill a pause in some of them when God's mysterious ways and our inability to understand spiritual matters gets bowled over by their tongues too quick to judge.

[revtj]

Hey thanks for the s, I needed that! I am surprised at how emotional this has been for me, it's like seeing an ex-lover again after 26 years or something!

Yes to all your observations, too...I really want to vomit when homophobic christians try to paint themselves as victims; you know, that we homos are trying to 'force' all this 'sin' on them. I just have to ignore those kind of comments, they are so clueless to me!

The advantage is that this is an academic community I am conversing with, which, while it values dogma and doctrine, also values THINKING, and for that I'm grateful. Some of them do seem to be able to see the distinction between teaching/preaching hate and teaching/preaching their view of homosexuality & the bible.

Unfortunately, I have not had much luck with getting even the most open-minded of them to make the connection between hateful/violent (i.e. abominnation/reprobation/unnatural) theology and the guy with the baseball bat who goes to gay-town on a Saturday night. They want to say that they aren't responsible for that and that we're all sinners, and then they get around to, well, sin has consequences and too bad gaybashing is one of them. Then they start all over with the 'love the sinner' stuff and 'some of my best friends are gay but they're going to hell' stuff.

But some of them are taking my concerns seriously, they're just not too sure what to do. So...I'm choosing my battles at this point. I do pray that someone will have the guts to take up the idea of getting their denomination to discuss the ideas in the (above) covenant I suggested.

Thanks for your support. I'll keep you updated!!

[Zerbie]

Awe,

It isn't mutually exclusive to refuse to "degrade, defame, incite inflammatory rhetoric" etc, and yet to offer criticism.

Criticism takes the form of:
"Hey, Awe, "degrading" someone (for what they are) means something different than "criticizing" something they say, or do (the way friends and teachers offer criticizm of our writing, singing, artwork, the way a coach or trainer critiques your form, etc)."

Degrading takes the form of name-calling, over-generalizing, yada yada. Like, "Homosexuality is a persistent disorder. Gays are disgusting." Blah blah blah. That's degrading.

TJ doesn't slam the door on helpful criticism. Nah. Cuz if I'm wrong about this, then I just degraded and defamed you.

Nahhhh.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by revtj

Unfortunately, I have not had much luck with getting even the most open-minded of them to make the connection between hateful/violent (i.e. abominnation/reprobation/unnatural) theology and the guy with the baseball bat who goes to gay-town on a Saturday night. They want to say that they aren't responsible for that and that we're all sinners, and then they get around to, well, sin has consequences and too bad gaybashing is one of them. Then they start all over with the 'love the sinner' stuff and 'some of my best friends are gay but they're going to hell' stuff.

Open mind? How about open heart? I sometimes wonder what these people FEEL. Where is their compassion....and I'm not talkin' pity. (Do I sound indignant? Sigh. Sometimes one gets tired of doing all the heavy lifting with people like this. They may claim to be logical and rational, but their reactions to logic are all too often far from it. I try to remind myself that the mind, when presented with a fact and a picture- will go with the picture. This means that all too often while us homo's are having a 'logical' discussion, the other party is 'seeing' us as a sex act: they're not thinking about facts. They're busy reacting to the pictures in their mind. Ick factor!)

It's always a mind warp to see how those who maintain the most unloving of thoughts distance those same thoughts from their place of origin. For me, this is the inherent difficulty with love the sinner hate the sin thinking. It splits the mind in two and makes heaven hell. (sliding into metaphysics here.....sorry!)

But some of them are taking my concerns seriously, they're just not too sure what to do. So...I'm choosing my battles at this point.

This tells me that you're on to something and that they, perhaps unconsiously, understand that they can't keep using the same exit strategies. That's something worth running with. They're discomfort isn't bad you know. Confusion is often the first step towards the light.