June 8, 2009 issue
Rules of dialogue
By C. Norman Kraus Harrisonburg, Va.I greatly appreciate Mennonite Weekly Review’s policy of keeping the conversation on the sexuality issue open, although I often wince at the way writers express themselves in overstatement and disparagement of their opponents. Obviously, feelings are raw.
Actually, the gay and lesbian issues are really no longer the heart of the issue for us as a church. Rather it is the inability to converse with each other as respectful, empathetic brothers and sisters in Christ. Jesus often said, “Let those who have ears to hear, hear.” It seems that we have closed our ears.
Now I am delighted to see that the Peace and Justice Support Network Reference Committee has challenged Mennonite Church USA “to regardless of our diversity of conviction, engage in honest conversations regarding the inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Mennonites in our communities of faith.” (April 30, 2009, “Letter to Mennonite Church USA Congregations.” Online as a pdf under “PJSN Letter to Congregations, Spring 2009.”)
I suggest that to implement this challenge we begin by seriously exploring the rules of engagement. Secular scholars and organizations recognize and deal with the phenomenon of “difficult conversations.” Should not the church be especially sensitive to this issue, which lies at the heart of our peace and justice concerns? Let’s begin talking about how to talk about our diverse convictions —and they are biblical convictions, not just liberal indulgences. Dialogue is not about me changing you. It is about both of us being open to a larger truth.
Comments
-
Yes but how can we linger in polite dialogue while God's one true Word is being compromised? Or, conversely, how can we waffle in the middle, keeping things civil, while our brothers and sisters very humanity is being denied through systemic oppression?
In my opinion our conversation needs to zero in on how we view the role of the Bible in our lives. If one believes that the Bible is God's inerrant word then that person needs to answer the question, "why?" Give us an explanation for why you believe that the Bible should be trusted as an ultimate Godly authority in every case. This is the root of the issue: interpretation of what the Bible is, where it comes from, how it pertains to us. This is something I can have a polite dialogue about.
I feel deep down that the most human, the most truly God-given of all traits is that of thinking critically about one's reality and acting to embrace, shape, or change culture, values, and traditions; is it not God's will that we exercise this freedom in an attempt to bring God's world to greater wholeness and beauty. If we were to, out of obedience, take this gift to the alter as a sacrifice to our Creator, would God not stop us before the knife could fall?
From my experience, no one truly gives the Bible ultimate authority over their behavior. I urge, therefore, that we deeply ask this question of "why we believe the Bible to be God's direct revelation of Truth." If the answer is that God wrote these words directly, or that God spoke them directly to humans who wrote them down, one still must answer why he or she believe that that was the case. If the answer, finally, is that one simply must have faith, be assured that that will not be good enough for someone who does not already have this particular faith.
I don't mean to suggest that there aren't good reasons for pouring oneself out in obedience to the Bible. But I want to hear those reasons spoken with clarity and conviction from those who have them. For too long, I feel, this has been something that's been assumed, something that didn't have to be articulated.
Too often we become angry with fellow Christians because we presume that we're standing on the same foundation. We would not approach a non-Christian who had different values than us with the same ire that we approach fellow Christians. Perhaps we need to recognize that many of us, bearing the same name of Christianity, are standing on different foundations, beginning with different assumptions. Perhaps that is the way to start having a respectful, empathetic conversation.
-
This emphasis on dialogue and the so called need to reach common ground on scriptural issues intrigues me. Further, who determines what is desired common ground or being open to larger truth? I was unaware that truth comes in different sizes. Someone has aply said, "Dialogue is just one more way to wear down the opposition. Talk, talk, talk until they say "uncle", and truth gets lost in the confusion". That is by design and I see it frequently happen that way.
Another quote concerning spiritual matters is "It is better to be divided by truth than to be united by error". And then this verse. I Cor. 15:58 "Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord".
Those who promote dialogue on issues that God has already addressed in the Bible are no match for Satan who comes as an Angel of Light. This is why our society is spiritually rotten. Never did Jesus instruct any of his disciples to meet with the religious leaders of the day to start the dialoguing process on the issues that divided them for the sake of unity, seeking common ground or larger truth. Perhaps if Jesus had posessed dialoguing or negotiating skills, we would not be reading what he spoke in Matthew 23 to the religious leaders of his day.
-
I suggest we go back to Norman Kraus,"Rules of dialogue", June 8, MWR. He mentions two issues. It appears to me that his conclusions apply to many issues--religious and political, ". . . issues are no longer the heart of the issue. Rather it is the inability to converse with each other as respectful, empathetic brothers and sisters in Christ. Jesus often said, 'Let those who have ears to hear, hear.' It seems we have closed our ears." Hearts also?
Ervin Stutzman recently said in a men's Bible study words similar to these, "The Bible was not written only for information, nor for us to quote to prove our point. It was written for us to become transformed."
Dave Augsburger, as I remember, said, "I am not the same person I was when I wrote that (an earlier book)." I believe that is an example of being transformed. Transformation is allowing the Holy Spirit to make us "mature and complete", James 1:4, as only part of the New Testament theme of maturity in Christ.
Have we forgotten the two greatest commandments?
I asked some time ago, "What did Jesus do?" The only answer I got was that he paid the temple tax with money taken from a fish's mouth. Where is that currently practiced? See Jesus' own words, Luke 4:18, 19. Scan the book of Mark, or any Gospel, and see if Jesus did what he was anointed to do. We also know that we have no record that he taught as much about sexuality as he did about many other issues that have never, or seldom, been mentioned in this podcast. Lord, give us the desire to be transformed to be like you!
I'm not sure He tried to convince anyone. He did not have time for that. We do not either, if we love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength. Christ carried out his mission.
I suggest we follow Christ's commands. Christ did. Are we better than Christ? Check the Gospels for Jesus, commands, do them, and you will be astounded how you and others will be transformed. The Biblical book Acts tells how people were transformed. Could we write a 2009 Mennonite (or Christan) Acts?
Comment on the article Rules of dialogue
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.
Download
Download a free PDF showing the populations of
Mennonite groups and other Anabaptists.
