I think it is a mistake to scoff at the idea of story. We offer up selected Scripture passages as though we don’t recall it is a story—a larger picture of what it looks like to walk a journey of faith, to wrestle with our God who isn’t afraid of our laments, our questions, our anger, or of allowing us to live with unanswered questions this side of heaven. If God chose to reveal himself to us in and through stories of his people, doesn’t that indicate that our stories are powerful and viable? If the Israelites, the writers of the gospels, the apostles had not shared their stories, where would we be?
As it has been pointed out here, 2 Tim 3:16 says that “All Scripture is useful …” This includes the parts that are story, as well as the parts that you describe as a “blueprint.” I think what that means, however, is that we must live with the tension that sometimes story isn’t a clear blueprint. If we don’t place certain passages over another because all parts are God-breathed and useful, then the stories (and larger story) of the Bible are equally instructive and able to inform our understanding of the Bible. But how willing are we to embrace the idea that faith isn’t always about having the correct answers?
I think that God’s revealing himself to us through story also teaches us that people’s stories of faith continue to be important, and that we need to be willing to listen to each others’ stories (those that support our viewpoints, and those that don’t).
Unfortunately, the tone and language of this article suggests to me that the author did not go into this meeting with an attitude of gracious listening. Whether strategic or not, he employs an overall condescending satirical tone, repeated phrases that equate A1B’s “agenda” with the “values of the LGBTQ+ movement,” and language that pits one side against another using phrases like “win” and “victory.” Having been to a number of A1B events, I would describe the general posture as anything but militant and strategic. In fact, I have seen Christlike humility and self-sacrificial servanthood to a degree that is rare in the broader church. Anyone who has taken the time to understand this group would see that they love God, value Scripture, and affirm monogamous relationships, and that they are motivated by love. I would hope that someone who is truly trying to listen would make an effort to see that larger picture, rather than attend a single event in an attempt to write an already-biased one-off impression piece for his own strategic purposes.
If we are serious about listening to each other, I think the end result will be that we will be able to see that all of us—even when we find ourselves on opposite “sides”—love and serve the same Lord and Savior. Are we willing to make our love for Christ and his church our primary goal, rather than being right?
Joseph, I think that's a really good question. And not an easy one to answer--it's very complicated, for sure. The first part of my response is that you name 3 ways in which these relationships are difficult, and just one of those puts the onus on people who are homosexual and resistant, while the other two ways puts the onus on the rest of us. So, if we are being completely equal in our percentages, that means that 2/3 of the time, the problem comes with our inability (or refusal) to love well. I see this as the bigger problem.
The second part of my answer is this: for those whom I know who desire for the CRC to be affirming, and particularly those who are homosexual, they do not expect everyone to agree with them. They are simply grateful when people are willing to talk and listen, to have meaningful conversation about this topic. Their desire would not be that we all agree, but that we can together hold the tension that we all love and serve the same Lord. Approaching such conversations with openness by saying, "This is what I believe, but I'd like to hear your thoughts," goes a long way.
Brian, I would describe gracious listening as a posture in which we acknowledge that the person we disagree with has thought about and wrestled with the issue at least as much as we have. And also as being willing to enter a conversation with an openness and willingness to actually hear their viewpoint, rather than looking for fodder to use against them or support our own position.
I don't believe I suggested that our stories are on par with those in the Bible, simply that our stories are important.
When I used the word "monogamous," I was referring to the type of long-term committed marriage relationship that we hold as the hope and standard for those who are heterosexual.
As for the sentence you take issue with: I wrote it because I have taken the time to get to know what A1B is about, and I have found those things to be true. I didn't write the sentence simply because I thought it sounded good.
I think it's the taking time to hear each other that is so difficult--but I think it is key. I think perhaps the reason God gave us a Bible (a Word) that is sometimes unclear, is because he wants us to have a relationship with him. He wants us to take the time to get to know him. A list of rules does not invite relationship. But having to wrestle with the Scripture does. And that wrestling grows the relationship, produces faith. I think that's also true of our relationships with each other in the church--the wrestling isn't easy, but it grows the relationship and produces community. And it requires a lot of humility and graciousness from each of us. If we keep each other at a distance and approach these conversations with an attitude of looking for ways to poke holes in each other's theology, it is much easier to unfairly characterize "the other side" (as it seems the author of this article did with his attendance of a single A1B event and subsequent reporting of it). But if we take the time to listen graciously, community is produced--and I think then the agreement doesn't seem to matter as much.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
I think it is a mistake to scoff at the idea of story. We offer up selected Scripture passages as though we don’t recall it is a story—a larger picture of what it looks like to walk a journey of faith, to wrestle with our God who isn’t afraid of our laments, our questions, our anger, or of allowing us to live with unanswered questions this side of heaven. If God chose to reveal himself to us in and through stories of his people, doesn’t that indicate that our stories are powerful and viable? If the Israelites, the writers of the gospels, the apostles had not shared their stories, where would we be?
As it has been pointed out here, 2 Tim 3:16 says that “All Scripture is useful …” This includes the parts that are story, as well as the parts that you describe as a “blueprint.” I think what that means, however, is that we must live with the tension that sometimes story isn’t a clear blueprint. If we don’t place certain passages over another because all parts are God-breathed and useful, then the stories (and larger story) of the Bible are equally instructive and able to inform our understanding of the Bible. But how willing are we to embrace the idea that faith isn’t always about having the correct answers?
I think that God’s revealing himself to us through story also teaches us that people’s stories of faith continue to be important, and that we need to be willing to listen to each others’ stories (those that support our viewpoints, and those that don’t).
Unfortunately, the tone and language of this article suggests to me that the author did not go into this meeting with an attitude of gracious listening. Whether strategic or not, he employs an overall condescending satirical tone, repeated phrases that equate A1B’s “agenda” with the “values of the LGBTQ+ movement,” and language that pits one side against another using phrases like “win” and “victory.” Having been to a number of A1B events, I would describe the general posture as anything but militant and strategic. In fact, I have seen Christlike humility and self-sacrificial servanthood to a degree that is rare in the broader church. Anyone who has taken the time to understand this group would see that they love God, value Scripture, and affirm monogamous relationships, and that they are motivated by love. I would hope that someone who is truly trying to listen would make an effort to see that larger picture, rather than attend a single event in an attempt to write an already-biased one-off impression piece for his own strategic purposes.
If we are serious about listening to each other, I think the end result will be that we will be able to see that all of us—even when we find ourselves on opposite “sides”—love and serve the same Lord and Savior. Are we willing to make our love for Christ and his church our primary goal, rather than being right?
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Joseph, I think that's a really good question. And not an easy one to answer--it's very complicated, for sure. The first part of my response is that you name 3 ways in which these relationships are difficult, and just one of those puts the onus on people who are homosexual and resistant, while the other two ways puts the onus on the rest of us. So, if we are being completely equal in our percentages, that means that 2/3 of the time, the problem comes with our inability (or refusal) to love well. I see this as the bigger problem.
The second part of my answer is this: for those whom I know who desire for the CRC to be affirming, and particularly those who are homosexual, they do not expect everyone to agree with them. They are simply grateful when people are willing to talk and listen, to have meaningful conversation about this topic. Their desire would not be that we all agree, but that we can together hold the tension that we all love and serve the same Lord. Approaching such conversations with openness by saying, "This is what I believe, but I'd like to hear your thoughts," goes a long way.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Brian, I would describe gracious listening as a posture in which we acknowledge that the person we disagree with has thought about and wrestled with the issue at least as much as we have. And also as being willing to enter a conversation with an openness and willingness to actually hear their viewpoint, rather than looking for fodder to use against them or support our own position.
I don't believe I suggested that our stories are on par with those in the Bible, simply that our stories are important.
When I used the word "monogamous," I was referring to the type of long-term committed marriage relationship that we hold as the hope and standard for those who are heterosexual.
As for the sentence you take issue with: I wrote it because I have taken the time to get to know what A1B is about, and I have found those things to be true. I didn't write the sentence simply because I thought it sounded good.
I think it's the taking time to hear each other that is so difficult--but I think it is key. I think perhaps the reason God gave us a Bible (a Word) that is sometimes unclear, is because he wants us to have a relationship with him. He wants us to take the time to get to know him. A list of rules does not invite relationship. But having to wrestle with the Scripture does. And that wrestling grows the relationship, produces faith. I think that's also true of our relationships with each other in the church--the wrestling isn't easy, but it grows the relationship and produces community. And it requires a lot of humility and graciousness from each of us. If we keep each other at a distance and approach these conversations with an attitude of looking for ways to poke holes in each other's theology, it is much easier to unfairly characterize "the other side" (as it seems the author of this article did with his attendance of a single A1B event and subsequent reporting of it). But if we take the time to listen graciously, community is produced--and I think then the agreement doesn't seem to matter as much.