I am cross-blogging today on a series Christin Taylor has written recently. We often talk about homosexuality in heated terms and don’t ask hard scriptural questions about it, and we don’t often directly ask actual Bible scholars either. Christin has done that task, inviting Dr. Ken Schenk and Dr. Greg Carey to engage in a dialog with her on this matter… and the result is an interesting discussion I think is worthy of a read. Christin Taylor is the author of Shipwrecked in L.A., a book I just got yesterday and can’t wait to read.
Her series:
The first installment is a Q&A with Dr. Schenck
The second is the same with Dr. Carey
The third is a wrap up with both
I am thankful for this frank encounter with two different scholars. Both were wise, measured, and realistic in their statements, and I learned much from this short series. I am biased a bit, however, as an ordained Wesleyan Minister who is personal friends with Dr. Schenck and also Christin herself, and also as someone who doesn’t know Dr. Carey or his work at all. I perhaps come at this with “those glasses.”
I am glad that Christin offered a forum to think and pray through these matters. I think her series accomplished this with kindness and maturity. My only concern was with the very last response to the questions…
Dr. Carey says:
[quote_box author=”Dr. Greg Carey” profession=””]“I no longer hold any interest in defending my views. I believe it is time for those who exclude LGBT folk to defend their practices”[/quote_box]
Whereas Dr. Schenk says:
[quote_box author=”Dr. Ken Schenck” profession=””]“Anyone who is really interested in truth must be willing to listen objectively to opposing points of view and, at least in theory, must be open to changing his or her viewpoint given a sufficient basis to do so.”[/quote_box]
I don’t resonate with Dr. Carey’s statement at all. Why does he believe that he doesn’t need to defend his views ‘any longer.’ Is the discussion over? I sense an openness in Dr. Schenk’s final comments to continue dialog, and a closed posture from Dr. Carey. It seems he is in fact undermining your entire series with this statement.
Perhaps it was not intended in that way. But it seems to me that he thinks the “the burden of explanation” is in Dr. Schenk’s court… as if the bare reading of scripture is obviously interpreted in the way he says, and that “In the light of the gospel” (read: Dr. Carey’s interpretation of the gospel) an openness “to changing his or her viewpoint” (Dr. Schenk’s words) is not really a possibility.
While there are many that talk about the closed minds of those who are more conservative on this matter, I wonder if closed minds are sometimes more of a matter of posture and attitude than politics and theology. I’ve known Bible-belt Texas Baptists who were close-minded, and I’ve known Unitarian Boston lesbian ministers who were as likewise close-minded.I’m thankful that Christin posted this and that she is continuing to engage on this matter with a full heart, loving actions & and open mind! I admire that in her. I have a sense that she and I are at different points in the journey on this question… but we are both on the journey and I have not yet “arrived” and I’m still learning and hoping to continue redemptive relationships with everyone I know. I should confess that I yearn for a day when we see Christ’s transformation in lives, churches and communities in a way that we are not seeing today, specifically when it comes to the “queer community” and the “evangelical church”–which are so often shouting at each other from different protest marches, figuratively, and sometimes literally. I dream of a day when we hear fewer debates and more testimonies.
How about you? What’s your take?
David-thank you for this post! I have come to the point in my own life where “issues” like homosexuality take on a wholely different connotation when they stop becoming issues and become about the people involved and/or affected by them. It is hard for me to look at this issue dispassionately when I have friends and family living this out every day. I have come to the point in my faith journey where the call to love others and to seek understanding of where they are in their own lives has trumped most everything else. I have conversations with students all the time where I let them know that I have been accused of taking a pass on this issue because I am not standing up and denouncing sin. I suppose it is the ‘intuitive-feeler’ in me but I am keenly aware of my own particular struggles and failings-and the ability of God’s Grace-to intercede and heal me but I am less willing to see SIN and rather to see the people that are loved by God. Some would say that I am copping out or avoiding preaching truth to people. I would say that I am going to focus on loving people in the moment, seeing them for the gifted creation of God that they are, and be ok with that. I feel that too many times we focus on social issues and make them THE THING in our churches: women in ministry….homosexuality, etc…instead of taking the time to remember our own chains that brought us to a clear understanding of the redeeming love of God. I concede that there may be the possibility that I am wrong, that the Corinthians passage that everyone likes to use to condemn homosexuality is true gospel and not merely a response to the environment of the writer dealing with the issues of his day, and that God is sending homosexuals to hell for actively living in sin. But coming from a past of dealing with different addictions, failing over and over again to perfectly following God’s direction to service and love…I guess I am willing to accept that if I take hits on my ledger that decides whether or not I get into Heaven because I did not do enough to condemn homosexuality because I was too busy offering them a safe place of love…then I guess that I am ok with that. God’s grace is sufficient for me. Thank you for taking the time to post this and provide a space for what I hope is a very thoughtful and engaging and loving discussion.
Feltzy, I resonate deeply with your response. My favorite line, “I have come to the point in my faith journey where the call to love
others and to seek understanding of where they are in their own lives
has trumped most everything else.”
When does the love that trumps all, Feltz… require one to speak about sin in frank terms? When should we introduce hard truth in loving relationships?
I guess it all comes down to the Pilate question and our definition of sin.
So for the sake of conversation regarding this idea of close mindedness. I wonder is there a time in which we do not need to have a open mind to something? For example, I do not have an open mind as it relates to the idea of women not being able to be pastors in churches. I think that limiting what women can do in the church is oppression. So like Dr Carey, I have very little interest in exploring that topic any further or defending my beliefs on the topic. Why is that problematic? When is it appropriate to commit to a position believing it is true, stop defending it and thus appearing closed minded. What is the difference between close-mindedness and making a commitment to truth?
Good thought. I am open to it. 🙂
I believe one can be committed to what one considers truth and still willing to engage in dialog about whether it is true or not.
Hi, David. Christin was kind enough to share your blog with me via Facebook. Here’s how I replied. And thanks, Dwayne, for being so helpful. “Thanks very much, Christin. This is helpful. I can report that Dwayne voiced my own understanding better than I could have on my own. If this were a theoretical conversation in which people’s lives weren’t at stake, back and forth dialog would make sense for me. However, people are literally dying while the church goes back and forth with its debates. That’s why I find myself in a place where I take a clear stand and am not ‘open’ to certain kinds of conversation that would be appropriate in other contexts….”
Your willingness to engage here already shows me wrong on one point… You are indeed willing to engage in conversation and perhaps not as dismissive of the need to dialog than I perceived at first.
There are things in life which are important enough that dialog is not futile or unimportant. This is one such issue… I think. On the one hand, how we define and engage in spiritual growth such things as sin, biblical revelation, holiness, sexual identity, marriage and truth are all at stake. On the other hand our inclusivity and love to the “whosoever” of John 3:16, our witness in the world, our call to be meek, peacemakers, to laud the least of these and love the outcast–these too are all at stake. I am unready to lose either baby with whatever someone else might consider bathwater.
Apologies to all on tardiness in comment reply… I posted and ran (vacation) and so was inattentive till now.