reyes-chow :: MODERATOR

Moderator Monday: Musings on the middle way

[image: furiousgeorge81]

Over and over again in many conversations about and between theological polar opposites, we often hear of this "great middle" that are innocent bystanders to our theological and ideological battles.  This is the group that is not as loud as the "left" or "right" and is generally seen as the group of people that the institution should in many ways be driven by.  The great mystery of the church, but a huge player in our discussions, these are the folks who live in the "Middle Way."  

At it's best this Middle Way provides an opportunity to sit in the tension together, struggle with our disagreement and discern the mind of Christ.  The Middle Way gives us our best shot at getting it right over the long haul.  At its worse, the Middle Way is simply a place of silence, apathy and the bastion of the status quo.  The Middle Way does not rock the boat.  Ironically, I will submit that probably, like most things, the truth may indeed be somewhere in . . . well . . . "The Middle" but when it comes to deep theological disagreements such as Biblical interpretation that leads to our current battles over homosexuality, I have not seen it lived in its best form. 

I would like to think there is this Middle Way, a place where a great number of our people do not simply succumb to a particular posture, but embrace it.  And while the existence of the Middle Way need not be proved to me per se, I know I am not the only one that struggles with the idea, reality and/or efficacy of the Middle Way.  The Middle place I yearn for though is not one that is borne out of our weariness of the discussion, it is borne out of a discovery of larger common understanding of our Reformed faith that remains healthy, prophetic, compassionate and faithful.   I would love to be shown the light, because, as I have argued before, when it comes to these deep theological issues, I am not sure we should or could agree to disagree.

I started thinking about this a little more after Tim Marvil left a comment on my last Moderator Monday that was directed at my service this far.  His point about "healing" I think brings up some important questions for the future of our theological and institutional life together.

I do believe you have done very well in the first 6 months. You have spoken with love, compassion and reason. You have done little, if anything, to cause further dissension. You have not been the spark of healing however. I pray that may come, but we have to still recognize that we have two diametrically opposed minorities pulling the denomination apart. As long as these two theologically disparate groups battle for not only inclusion, but supremacy, then peace will not occur. I have to say I am tired of it. I fall into neither camp and feel victimized. But I pray for the strength to continue and that whatever happens it be Spirit led and not human pride dominated. I have no answers in myself - it is only through mutual discernment and prayer the body of Christ has a chance.

So . . . I guess the big question is, when it comes to the pressing and crucial theological questions of the day especially around issues of homosexuality, "Is there a middle way?"  Is there a "healed" place where two sides can meet and find common approaches to theology and institutional life?  What does a movement towards this look like?  Does one side have to give into the other becoming winners and losers?  Does one side have to simply swallow an interpretation and live with it in faithful disagreement?  Do we have to make some kind of "final decision" as a signal towards gracious separation?  Does someone simply have to decide to leave this part of the family?  Are these not even the right questions?

So you tell me, is there a Middle Way?

Moderator Monday: The pain we cause

[image: azarius]

Even though folks at the Town Halls that I have been conducting over the past months rarely ask about issues of sexuality, I do know that for many the continuing debates over homosexuality, biblical interpretation and ordination demand much of their spiritual, emotional and strategic energy.

As most folks know, I have not given much energy as Moderator to being a part of this debate other than attending some events of some groups, being the receptor of messages of rage, hurt and urging and trying to answer honestly about what I am hearing. 

I don't think it would do any good for me to weigh in on any of the many many many ideas people have for "solving" a seemingly insurmountable denominational impasse.  For one, my relative power or influence on the traditional "players" in the debate, I am pretty sure, is non-existent at best and second, I still think our debates of homosexuality is a way to deflect our energy away from dealing with what I think is a larger question of our ability to effectively be church in the world today as culture changes around us.

Now I understand that we may disagree about the centrality of the homosexuality debate to our future and if you want to know more, you can read more about my thoughts on how we are not dealing with cultural shifts in my post Number 1 reason why PC(USA) churches are dying a slow, painful sad, drawn-out death and other happy thoughts.  These are both worthy of some discussion, but this is not what I would like to to challenge us to think about today.

One thing that I have NOT heard during much of the debate or in any of the many letters that have been sent my way is an acknowledgment from either side that the structural ramifications of their particular belief system causes any kind of pain or hurt to those who disagree.

Rarely have I heard liberals express the reality that by moving towards ordination of GLBT folks, local option or denomination-wide, we are asking conservatives to, in some way, compromise deeply held beliefs and values and to take moral responsibility for something they believe is not morally or Biblically valid.

And at the same time, I have rarely heard conservatives acknowledge the fact that liberals have endured for decades within a system that goes against what they believe is an injustice imposed on GLBT folks in this church AND that they too hold deep Biblical understandings of how we extend the privilege of leadership and ordination.

Our modus operandi is to dismiss the struggles of the other, lest we give ANY validity to their experience or perspective.  Without thinking, we engage in a "my way or the highway" posture that makes it difficult to see any other outcome than an inevitable separation of some kind.  And while that certainly could be in our future,* I think we owe it to one another and to those to whom we have the opportunity model a different way of moving through conflict to engage in the discourse with a posture of compassion and empathy towards the other.

We act as if we are at war with each other with the result to be conquering and expulsion of the defeated.  Now I know this may be the posture of some folks - acknowledged or not - but I still hold tightly to the belief and practice that together, as community, we better and continually discern the mind of Christ and the will of God.  Sometimes this process is conflicted and tumultuous, but for me, the practice and discipline of moving through conflict by a body that claims to be joined by the covenantal reality of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ should never be a war.  Never.

We are called to be different, we are called to a live as a community that believes in new life over death.  We are called to stand apart from the ways the would deal with conflict.  We are called to be first and foremost brothers and sisters in Christ, no matter how much we disagree or what our institutional relationship is at a particular time in our life.  And if we take that relationship seriously, we cannot simply discount the pain that exists, but that we may cause one another.

So what can we do?

Can each of us acknowledge and have some level of empathy for the pain of the other?  Can we acknowledge that our belief systems around issues of sexuality can indeed cause that pain?  And, lastly and most importantly, is it worth it?  I suspect that the most strident of both sides may indeed say, "yes, it is worth it" while others not.  But whatever the case, we need to at least answer these questions for ourselves.  We each need to either live with the pain we may cause NO MATTER how faithful we are being to Christ's calling on our lives and/or decide that it is just not and let that inform how we my vote on amendments, react to results and engage in the future of our church.

At the very least, let us step away from a posture of war and destruction of the other and step into a posture of compassion and empathy.  We know how to battle, why not see what happens if we try a different way.  Who knows what we may discover if we do.

Peace.

* LET ME BE VERY CLEAR - I AM NOT PREDICTING NOR ADVOCATING ANYTHING ABOUT THE FUTURE OF OUR DENOMINATIONAL STRUCTURE.

PS: On another note, Presbyterian mission workers in Peru have been featured on CNN for their environmental work in La Oroya.

Can we agree to disagree about homosexuality?

With the recent PJC decision ragrding Janie Spahr, I am again left wondering if we can truly agree to disagree about this particular "issue" in the church.

This semantics-driven decision and some of the responses I have seen only emphasize this quagmire that we are in regarding our current denominational health.   I am amazed at the wonderful ministry that is happening even though we expend so much energy navigating around this huge elephant in the room that is asking us to define the nature of our denominational relationship.

I wonder if opposing Biblical understandings and homosexuality and the resulting effects of that belief: ordination, marriage, sexuality, etc. are able to live together under one denominational roof.   Or do the very positions automatically create an atmosphere that neither could/should remain in relationship closer than ecumenical brother/sister in Christ?

Tough questions, but yet isn't this really the BIG questions for all of us?  We certainly cannot be expected to agree on everything, but to what extent can we disagree on some things?

What are we willing to live with?

I say this because of what I feel is the basic issue around homosexuality, it is a sin or is it not.  At it's heart, you either feel that homosexuality is a sin that takes us further from God or a gift from God that should be embraced.  Agreeing to disagree mean that we really felt like either was possible and/or are open to the possibilities.  I am not sure either side really is in that space.

Again, what can we live with?

For some issues I think this is entirely possible.  For me I can live with agreeing to disagree on things such as . . .

• How do we engage in evangelism and mission;
• What language we use for God;
• Our voice/action in regards to the Middle East;
• Positions on a myriad of social issues;

But when it comes to homosexuality, regardless on which side of the aisle you live on, how long can one be engaged in a community where the position is held in the contrary?  Could we agree to disagree about the ordination of women?  Could we agree to disagree about interracial marriage?  I don't think we could, but yet for some reason we believe we can in this case.

This is not a call for folks who disagree either way to get the heck out of dodge, but it is a little nudge out there to see what folks are thinking.  If in the end, it looks like we are headed in a particular direction or if we are already there, would our efforts be better spent in grace-filled disengagement that allows for new life? Do we keep passionately engaged in the discourse trying to reach some kind of resolution?  Do we sit in the middle with a posture of "wait and see" and/or "don't ask, don't tell"?

• What do you think?
• What can you live with? 
• Can we agree to disagree?
• What should we live with?

Would love to hear what folks are thinking about this.  Feel free to comment of course, but would also love to have some folks blog about it, just send a trackback so folks can find ya.