***Reposted from 9.19.05 - check out new comments!***
I just got the RCA's General synod minutes in the mail a few days ago, and our General Secretary's report was in there, which I hadn't seen yet, so I read it. When it comes to the unity and purity of the Church, I think his theological priorities are out of whack, but I think they reflect a significant number of RCA people's priorities, as well. He says he wants to deal with the issue pastorally, not judicially. But we need to do this precisely because of the classis' failure to pastorally hold a potential minister accountable in lifestyle and morality. It IS true, that the judicial route is the less preferred, though it is a legit stop-gap.
In the long run, I agree with Wes that dealing with these kinds of issues judicially is insufficient. We need to be committed to keep God's Word in our hearts, not just in our rule books.
Hi Steve,
ReplyDeleteI'd like to ask you why you think that a classis hasn't been "dealing with what it is responsible for."
I assume that your comment refers to me and to the classis in which I am a candidate for ministry (New York). You are not a member of this classis, yet you seem to openly judge it as a "failure" for having not dealt with what it is responsible for (ie "holding [me] accountable in lifestyle and morality.")
Why do you think that the ministers and Elders of the New York Classis have not done their jobs properly? Note, I'm still not ordained.
And why do you feel that it is your responsibility to judge their actions at this point? You're not a part of the classis anyway. Would you like it if someone from another classis started judging what your classis was doing?
It seems to me that you do not know exactly what the classis has or has not done. Instead, you're operating out of what you think it has or has not done and you're passing judgement on it.
My first blog comment. I would agree that we ought not jump to conclusions and judgements about other classis. Ann, I know your classis is struggling with this whole thing. Just a couple of questions not judgements- they are just things that cause me concern:
ReplyDelete1) I don't know if this is the same classis as yours so if not forgive me, but how does the pastor of Marble Collegiate announce via the New York times he has preformed many same sex unions- marriages- and nobody brings him to trial? Two thoughts: 1- it appears that his classis is ok with this and 2- he not only did the actions but had not problem publishing it.
2) Ann, how can your classis permit you to do the work of ministry (w/o ordination) when your lifestyle is contrary to the very denomination your serve. It appears as if they are not doing anything. Would it not be better to say, "Ann, we have not made a descion concerning this issue as a classis; therefore, you will have to wait."
I don't know. Just some thoughts and Ann your words are a good word to all of us no matter the situation. Make sure that we are operating, talking and discussing from the facts and not what we think or what we think we've heard.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your words. I am glad God is blessing your life and ministry. I am grateful that you are passionate about reaching people for Jesus.
ReplyDeleteAs to the interpretation of the scriptures. While one could suggest that since the Bible doesn't speak to covenantal same-sex relationships then those relationships are ok. I do not happen to think that that is a fiathful inteprertation of the scriptures, but I suspect that niether of us are willing to give there. So... a couple of thoughts:
1) What defines us? Is is it our sexual orientaion or desires that define us? If some one were to ask me, "Who are you?" I could respond, "I am a heterosexual male." Or could it be our responsibilities or duties that define me. So then I would respond, "I am a pastor." Or perhaps it is our roles that define us. The I would respond, "I am a husband and a Father." Or we could say it is our race, color, creed socio economic status, age, weight or whatever that defines us. Any of these fall short. The scriptures says that there is one thing alone that defines me. I am a child of God. JOhn writes in the 3rd chapter of his first epistle, "How great is the love that Father has lavished on us that we chould be called the children of God! And that is what we are!" My identity is not found in the fulfilment of sexual expression, the fulfilment of a duty or role or anything else. This one thing- I am - you are- God's child is who we are. Phillip Yancy expresses well in a coffe table version of 'What's So Amazing About Grace?'. He has a a page with a a little mirrior on it and as you look at the reflection you read the words beneath your reflection- "The one Jesus Loves."
2) I am continually amazed at how God blesses my life. Just the other day I believed I sinned against another person by not fully listening to them. I was preocuupied with something else and the Spirit convicted me that I needed to call and ask forgiveness. God used my sin as a blessing to this other persons life and a few others in ways I could not even begin to imagine. God bore fruit inspite of me! I hung up the phone and thought, "Wow God! You are so much bigger than me. How do you ever use this broken vessel?" and "Could there have been more fruit had I been obedient and faithful? Did I perhaps miss a greater blessing becuase of my sin?" I'll never know. But I didn't conclude that I should continue that behavior because there was fruit being born. I concluded that God in His grace and sovereingty blessed me inspite of my sin. His grace continues to amaze me - but with Paul I do not want to sin that His grace abounds more.
3) I do not have problems with people taking stands for things that they believe in. I certainly have. But ought not those stands we take be dealt with in the "family"? These are problems individuals have with certain church teachings- ought not the conversation be within the church? Perhaps, their stands publicly make the church look at an issue or teaching, but I just don't think that's the way to go about it. If there issues in my marriage, I certainly don't broadcast them and and publish them opening it up for debate to the world. The world doesn't know me or my wife. We talk and pray with trusted and close friends who know us and can help us. What good or benefit comes from Rev. Williams taking his stand in the news papers?
Thanks Ann for your willingness and heart to engage this discussion. And may God continue to grant you His peace and grace.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI think that gracentruth's questions are signficiant, and want to address them in full and so have posted my response here http://yourcomfort.blogspot.com/2005/10/understandable-questions-and-some.html.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I'm more than happy to discuss my life with folks, but I'm really not keen on having Albert Mohler tossed at me. Steve, if you're so worried about gay folks in the REFORMED church, perhaps you shouldn't use an Arminian to make your point. Or don't you uphold the Canons of Dort?
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI am in the process of putting some exegesis together. But this past week has been extra busy. I'm planning on working on it Friday. Hopefully I'll have something then.
With regard to Dort and Arminians, why is it that you are able to "not let more minor disagreements with someone in one area prejudice agreements with them in another" over issues such as free will and predestination but you are not able to do the same with regard to including lesbian and gay people in the church?
Back in the day, Reformed people would have treated Arminians the way we treat gay folks. Today you embrace them in spite of their differing theological views. You have room enough for them, but not for Calvinist gay people?
All this discussion about homosexuality...but no Scripture to defend the moral legitimacy of it. I sense our RCA denomition's tendency to hold the Bible at arm's length to back up whatever positions the denom wants to take. Regardless of what the whole counsel of God's Word says. I see this as a greater problem than supporting homosexuality because it maligns the word of God and undermines the veracity of our Christian witness, both as individuals and a denomination.
ReplyDeleteUnless we want to witness that it's ok to "play" with scriptural interpretation and ride the fence so we can have some things our way. Why are 2000+ years of understanding God's thoughts on homosexuality as set forth in the Bible suddenly being called to question? I believe it's our natural sinful desire to get what we want, and use any means to do so (loose biblical reading, psuedo-scientific "findings" on DNA/genetics, raising the flag of "liberty", etc).
I fear that Ken is correct in saying: "There simply is no common hermeneutic at work that leaves any room for discussion." The question, however, could be framed differently: "Is there a common biblical ethic that can create room for discussion?"
ReplyDeleteBlessings and peace,
RogueMonk
Hi there,
ReplyDeleteHere's my post about the Bible and homosexuality. More on marriage to come next week...
http://yourcomfort.blogspot.com/2005/10/bible-and-homosexuality.html
Enjoy!
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou're awfuly silent about the biblical support for full inclusion of LBGT people in the life and ministry of the church.
Any thoughts of your own to share about it? I'd love to continue the discussion and hear your ideas.