MWR : Who is unwilling?

Last updated November 24.

Send letters to the editor, or suggestions for our stories or Web site, to MWR‘s editors.

May 4, 2009 issue

Who is unwilling?

By Don Patterson, Kalona, Iowa; Ron Bender, Wellman, Iowa; Joel Brokaw, Kalona, Iowa; Jim Hershberger, Wellman, Iowa; Dick Swartzendruber, Wellman, Iowa

In response to the open letter, we would say that the “unwillingness” is equally prevalent for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender group.

They would like to push their religious humanism onto a denomination that still believes the Bible is relevant today. Their criticism of Mennonite Church USA is that we have not offered radical hospitality, but we would also differ with that statement. Many of us have friends of an “other-than-heterosexual” orientation and ache at the thought of our friends being excluded from the church. The truth is that we have “walked with our brothers and sisters” for more than 20 years as a denomination, and they continue to be unwilling to see anything outside their views.

Homosexuality is a sin that has always been in the human situation, much like gluttony, stealing, drunkenness, adultery, incest, bestiality, coveting, jealousy and pornography. The church has recently been clear on our position on pornography. We have remained clear to this point on homosexuality. It is time to clarify what Jesus is calling us to be rather than to become less clear.

Would the LGBT group like for MC USA to include everyone on the list above without looking for Jesus’ love to demonstrate itself through transformation? Or should we strike out the words of Jesus, “Go and sin no more”? Jesus expected transformation and died for it. The Mennonite church should do no less and emphasize even more the entire list that comes from the Bible, not just homosexuality.

Jesus tolerated Judas in his midst, because even Judas would fulfill a part in the divine plan of salvation, but that doesn’t mean that we should emulate Judas. Jesus will be the ultimate judge. We will put our faith in his example and the Word he has given us.

Comments

Looks to me like "they continue to be unwilling to look at anything outside their views" applies to the writers of this letter as much as they think it applies to LGBT folks and their supporters. I think we all need to stick with "judge not and be not judged." I would also refer these writers to Matthew 23:13f and to Acts 11:17.

- John Kaufman (may 3 at 2:22 p.m.)
The difficulty with the writers of this letter is that they continue to perceive a person’s sexual orientation to be his or her choice, and thus something that can be classified as a sin. One chooses to steal, to covet, to lie, to gossip, to look at pornography, to divorce and remarry. Yet few who have engaged in this behavior are denied a place in our Mennonite Church USA, even if they continue in these behaviors.

Yet one cannot choose to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or heterosexual any more than one can choose to be male, female, white, Hispanic, or African American. None of these are sins. Just as we would view it a sin to ask a Hispanic or African American to deny their identity, it is also a sin to ask the same of a gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or heterosexual. This does not mean support for promiscuity or pedophilia, but it does mean we should support monogamous relationships where they develop. It does mean that a person who is GLB or T can have a great deal to contribute spiritually, and thus is fit for providing counsel and leadership in a congregation.

As for “pushing” these views on a “denomination that still believes the Bible is relevant today.” Bible relevancy has been used to justify slavery, to justify exclusion of women from ministry, to ban interracial marriage, and a host of other dogmas. Each of these matters is today considered to be more of cultural reference than of divine inspiration. Yet the Bible continues to be relevant. Would the realization that Paul’s statements about homosexuality were just as culturally based as his remarks about slavery or female church leadership make the Bible somehow less relevant? It does not for me.

The fact is that our GLBT brothers and sisters do believe the Bible is relevant today. Otherwise, why would they bother with retaining membership in a church that seems to despise them? Why would they rake themselves over the coals to be accepted just as they are, just as Christ accepts us?

- James Regier (may 5 at 3:11 p.m.)
The fundamental issue is whether homosexuality is a sin.

Homosexuality is not an immutable trait and is a sin. But, I do believe that our churches should welcome homosexuals. Jesus came to save the sinners and a church community should support homosexuals (as well as pornographers, adulterers, embezzlers, and so on) who want to pursue a relationship with Jesus. It is not up to us as a christian community to change people; only Jesus can bring change. Our duty is to provide support and accountability to those committed to repenting and allowing Jesus to change their lives.

The key is repentance. Our churches have a place for repentant homosexuals. We are all sinners, and even those committed to repentance are imperfect. But, those who choose not to repent do not have a place among us. See Matthew 18.

I think the questions about why homosexuals "would bother with retaining membership in a church that seems to despise them" or who "rake themselves over the coals to be accepted" do not indicate a problem with MC USA's (or a congregation's) theological approach to homosexuality. Rather, they seem to indicate either (1) the church's failure to support its members in their repentance, or (2) the member's failure to repent. Without additional facts, it is impossible to fully evaluate the situation.

- Matt (may 5 at 4:07 p.m.)
I agree that a "fundamental issue is whether homosexuality is a sin."

However, some "additional facts" that seem to be ignored are the increasing mounds of evidence that homosexuality is not a matter of choice. Nor does it lie in the realms of psychology. Recent genetic, medical, and biological studies point overwhelmingly to homosexuality as an inherited trait. As such, homosexuality cannot be considered a sin.

I am aware of the book of Romans, but I am also aware that we no longer recognize slavery as legitimate, which Paul did. We now believe that women can make fine pastors, which Paul would never have allowed. Paul was a man of God to be sure, but he was also a man of his time and his culture.

I am also aware of the Pentatuch's statements about homosexuality. However, I am also aware of its commandments to stone to death anyone guilty of any number of sins, an act we would now hold to be abominable. It also described dining on shell fish and pork to be abominations. Non vegetarians among us eat these all the time. We also wear clothes of multiple fibers.

Jesus said nothing about homosexuality in any of the gospels.

I would agree that all people--GLBTs included--must repent, must turn back to God. But if God created GLBTs, along with everyone else, as they are, Homosexuality cannot represent a special cause for repentance.

Like it or not, MCUSA is indeed at a theological cross roads, and the time for some sort of movement on this issue has come.

- James (may 6 at 9:17 a.m.)
Using scientific studies to determine whether something is a sin is dangerous. Studies yield differing results all the time. One week margarine is good for me and butter is going to kill me. The next week, butter is good for me and margarine is going to kill me. Plastic used to be the miracle product. Now, it leaches toxins. Also, some studies' outcomes vary depending on their funding sources.

My point is that, while science has unquestionably progressed since biblical times, mankind is far from omniscient and our studies are not absolutely dispositive. If we base our beliefs on scientific studies, which change, we sacrifice absolute truth. Salvation becomes subjective and varies week-to-week, like our scientific studies. Moreover, this means that we can research ourselves out of eternal damnation and no longer need Jesus. Using the Bible as our beliefs' foundation preserves absolute truth. Let's not put too much faith in ourselves.

- Matt (may 7 at 12:57 p.m.)
We no longer take the Bible to be absolute truth in certain areas. Women serve in ministry. We eat non-kosher foods. We have abolished slavery. Divorce and remarriage is no longer condemned (even though Jesus himself spoke against it). I do not buy the argument that accepting homosexuals will suddenly render the Bible meaningless or destroy "biblical truth."

Yes, the Bible does contain truth, but Jesus also spoke out against the rigid adherence to the letter of the law by the Scribes and Pharisees. Were they not using the "biblical truth" of scripture in their arguments? Moreover, we need to beware of the tendency to use "biblical truth" as a means of condemnation.

The ten commandments are important, though Jesus narrowed them down to two: Honor the Lord Your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. Accepting our GLBT brothers and sisters into fellowship as they are violates neither this biblical truth nor the spirit of Jesus' message.

I cannot accept that learning from science, or allowing scientific findings to influence our moral outlook, will somehow render the need for Jesus void. Science cannot change human nature. We remain incapable of loving others as ourselves, incapable of treating others as we would wish to be treated, yet all too prone to pass judgment on others from our own standing of imperfection. That is why Jesus came, to show us a better path, to show us a deeper truth.

- James (may 7 at 8:17 p.m.)

Comment on the article Who is unwilling?

The purpose of comments is to engage in dialogue. We expect commenters to treat authors and each other as each would want to be treated. Respectful criticism is welcomed; offensive comments or parts of comments will be removed by the site administrator. Name and comment will be posted; email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.