I
hold membership in a Christian denomination threatened by schism over the
issues of covenant and human sexuality.
The covenant issue relates to the commitment of clergy to observe
denominational polity as prescribed by the Church’s Book of Discipline, more
specifically the prohibition of clergy administration of marriage vows to
homosexual persons and the willingness of an increasing number of clergypersons
to ignore this prohibition. The human
sexuality issue relates to differing interpretations of the thinking of
Biblical writers about homosexuality, but more specifically to union of
homosexual couples in marriage. The
latter issue is the dominant issue because denominational polity in many other
situations is already subject to “blind eye” exception.
I
view this as another example of the failure of so-called sacred texts to
provide answers beyond human interpretation, and the predisposition of human
beings to be guided primarily by personal prejudice, both in their
interpretation of sacred texts and their insistence that their interpretation
reflects divine will.
I
believe that, regardless of the church’s decision regarding division or
continuing organic unity, a basic issue will persist, one that eventually may render
the church both irrelevant and impotent as an effective agent for spiritual
renewal and transformation in society.
That issue is our reliance on differing human understandings of the nature and character of our God, by whatever
name. God experiences vary from person
to person and cannot be effectively regimented.
Yet, religious institutions exist in part to regiment thought and
behavior. Humanity has been
accommodating and amenable to such regimentation historically, but younger
generations seem much less responsive to the authority and dogma of
institutional religion.
Unless
institutional religion rethinks its role in society from that of a spokesperson
for God and guardian of what it perceives as sacred (not something I envision
as a likely course), I believe it will eventually be relegated to history’s
dust bins. That is a sad outcome for me
because of my strong perception of the church’s unique potential as an agent for
peace and harmony in human affairs. One
step in this direction would be a recognition that human sexuality is a human
issue, not a God issue. If the church
has something to say about it, and I believe it should, it should be in the
context of an understanding of God as creator, provider, sustainer, healer,
lover, and not as dictator, rule maker, behavior monitor, and punisher. That doesn’t seem to be the way of the Jesus
I strive to follow.
Your
thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment