Where Did the True Theological Liberals Go?
My friends,
A great firestorm erupted on facebook over my most recent note that has been subsequently deleted by me (if you want to read it it is still on my blog www.underethiopia.blogspot.com ). Several individuals have questioned whether I understand the "harm" I am causing by talking about these issues.
What bothered me the most was not that people disagree with me on this (that is not a first!) but that there was a revulsion that this should even be talked about. Part of what I write here is from a message I sent to one individual who had been so offended.
You see the problem here is a deformed liberalism. Liberalism in its pure form is the belief that humans are free -- especially in their own thoughts and speech. Liberalism in this form, is welcoming of all differing "voices" at the table. When talking about any issue the pure liberal desires that no voice is excluded. Sure there are "table manners" that require every voice to be respectful of the others, but if an opinion is too controversial or unpopular that it gets uninvited to the discussion table, the pure liberal feels that the resulting truncated conversation will be incomplete and less valid. For how can the "free thinker" be able to "freely" form their own opinion if a particular voice has been banned. The pure liberal would see such a situation as intellectual fascism. And yet, isn't that exactly what much of liberalism has (de)evolved into? They call for all the voices except the ones that are not on their script,or are uncomfortable. This kind of deformed liberalism is, in fact, not liberalism at all. It is a new kind of fundamentalism. A narrow-mindedness that is not interested in hearing anything other than its own viewpoint. And this is exactly the climate that is being created about many of the issues related to (so called) "liberal" Christianity. Traditional views on human sexuality, the uniqueness of Christ, and beginning or ending of life issues (among others) are "inappropriate" and "unwelcome" in this new fundamentalism that is disguised as liberalism.
I do very much understand just how sensitive and personal the issue of human sexuality -- that I talked about in my blog post -- is to the GLBT (acronym for "Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual, Transgendered") community, and I have always attempted to craft my words accordingly (though I'm sure I often fail at that). However, the "harm" caused by bringing up these issues should never be enough reason to suppress dialogue. Even the most "liberal" of Anglican dioceses -- the Church body in which I serve as a priest -- have pleaded for a continuing dialogue on these issues. My blog posts were written in that spirit. I must say, though, that sometimes it seems that when those who are "liberal" on these issues call for dialogue, they are actually calling for monologue (listen to the GLBT side, but not the nasty "conservative viewpoint).
What I keep trying to remind people is that the question of legitimizing and blessing homosexuality as a holy option for Christians requires a complete shift (or even a complete replacement) of beliefs that the Church has lived out for nearly 2000 years (longer if you include the history of Israel). If a change or reformation of these seems required how can steamrolling over the "old ways" ever be helpful. I know, I know...the argument is given that the harm caused to the GLBT community is too great to allow these "harmful" traditional opinions to be voiced. But what about the harm caused if we steamroll through these decisions (not waiting for each other, not walking together) and we are wrong. What if through the process of discernment the Anglican Communion (even the more "progressive" provinces) find that, in fact, the Holy Spirit is NOT guiding us into this? That the biblical ethics for godly sexuality are, in fact, still valid? That homosexuality is another one of the many ways (no worse than any other) in which we are a fallen people who need the grace and forgiveness found in Jesus? Then will we not be inflicting enormous harm by telling the GLBT community that God is okay with this lifestyle when he really isn't? Is that what good shepherding looks like?
As someone who desires to be a faithful shepherd to the flock, I take Ezekiel 3:16-21 seriously. It keeps me sharing my "unwelcome" voice on this issue (not mine, but what I interpret Holy Scripture's voice to be) for the sake of others:
16 At the end of seven days the word of the Lord came to me: 17 "Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. 18 When I say to a wicked man, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his evil ways in order to save his life, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. 19 But if you do warn the wicked man and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his evil ways, he will die for his sin; but you will have saved yourself. 20 "Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before him, he will die. Since you did not warn him, he will die for his sin. The righteous things he did will not be remembered, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. 21 But if you do warn the righteous man not to sin and he does not sin, he will surely live because he took warning, and you will have saved yourself."
A great firestorm erupted on facebook over my most recent note that has been subsequently deleted by me (if you want to read it it is still on my blog www.underethiopia.blogspot.com ). Several individuals have questioned whether I understand the "harm" I am causing by talking about these issues.
What bothered me the most was not that people disagree with me on this (that is not a first!) but that there was a revulsion that this should even be talked about. Part of what I write here is from a message I sent to one individual who had been so offended.
You see the problem here is a deformed liberalism. Liberalism in its pure form is the belief that humans are free -- especially in their own thoughts and speech. Liberalism in this form, is welcoming of all differing "voices" at the table. When talking about any issue the pure liberal desires that no voice is excluded. Sure there are "table manners" that require every voice to be respectful of the others, but if an opinion is too controversial or unpopular that it gets uninvited to the discussion table, the pure liberal feels that the resulting truncated conversation will be incomplete and less valid. For how can the "free thinker" be able to "freely" form their own opinion if a particular voice has been banned. The pure liberal would see such a situation as intellectual fascism. And yet, isn't that exactly what much of liberalism has (de)evolved into? They call for all the voices except the ones that are not on their script,or are uncomfortable. This kind of deformed liberalism is, in fact, not liberalism at all. It is a new kind of fundamentalism. A narrow-mindedness that is not interested in hearing anything other than its own viewpoint. And this is exactly the climate that is being created about many of the issues related to (so called) "liberal" Christianity. Traditional views on human sexuality, the uniqueness of Christ, and beginning or ending of life issues (among others) are "inappropriate" and "unwelcome" in this new fundamentalism that is disguised as liberalism.
I do very much understand just how sensitive and personal the issue of human sexuality -- that I talked about in my blog post -- is to the GLBT (acronym for "Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual, Transgendered") community, and I have always attempted to craft my words accordingly (though I'm sure I often fail at that). However, the "harm" caused by bringing up these issues should never be enough reason to suppress dialogue. Even the most "liberal" of Anglican dioceses -- the Church body in which I serve as a priest -- have pleaded for a continuing dialogue on these issues. My blog posts were written in that spirit. I must say, though, that sometimes it seems that when those who are "liberal" on these issues call for dialogue, they are actually calling for monologue (listen to the GLBT side, but not the nasty "conservative viewpoint).
What I keep trying to remind people is that the question of legitimizing and blessing homosexuality as a holy option for Christians requires a complete shift (or even a complete replacement) of beliefs that the Church has lived out for nearly 2000 years (longer if you include the history of Israel). If a change or reformation of these seems required how can steamrolling over the "old ways" ever be helpful. I know, I know...the argument is given that the harm caused to the GLBT community is too great to allow these "harmful" traditional opinions to be voiced. But what about the harm caused if we steamroll through these decisions (not waiting for each other, not walking together) and we are wrong. What if through the process of discernment the Anglican Communion (even the more "progressive" provinces) find that, in fact, the Holy Spirit is NOT guiding us into this? That the biblical ethics for godly sexuality are, in fact, still valid? That homosexuality is another one of the many ways (no worse than any other) in which we are a fallen people who need the grace and forgiveness found in Jesus? Then will we not be inflicting enormous harm by telling the GLBT community that God is okay with this lifestyle when he really isn't? Is that what good shepherding looks like?
As someone who desires to be a faithful shepherd to the flock, I take Ezekiel 3:16-21 seriously. It keeps me sharing my "unwelcome" voice on this issue (not mine, but what I interpret Holy Scripture's voice to be) for the sake of others:
16 At the end of seven days the word of the Lord came to me: 17 "Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. 18 When I say to a wicked man, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his evil ways in order to save his life, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. 19 But if you do warn the wicked man and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his evil ways, he will die for his sin; but you will have saved yourself. 20 "Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before him, he will die. Since you did not warn him, he will die for his sin. The righteous things he did will not be remembered, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. 21 But if you do warn the righteous man not to sin and he does not sin, he will surely live because he took warning, and you will have saved yourself."
0 comments:
Post a Comment