[Dialogue] Spong

[KroegerD at aol.com]

June 28, 2006 
A Living Watershed  
A Member’s Personal Reflections on His Church’s Call to a Gay Minister  

Dear Friends,  
This week I want to share with you a rare account of a Protestant church  
wrestling concretely with whether or not to call an openly gay man to be their  
minister. The account was written by a friend of mine named Chris Avis, a 
member  of the United Reformed Church of England, who lives in Exeter. It captures 
so  well the emotions aroused by this issue that I believe it deserves wide  
circulation. I hope you agree.  
John Shelby Spong  
In my experience, emotional roller coaster rides and a church meeting  rarely 
coincide but an extraordinary (in both senses) church meeting at my  church 
early in 2006 was a powerful exception to the rule. Attendance was double  the 
church meeting norm and a palpable tension was in the air. The previous  
Sunday, members had worshiped under the leadership of a man who had been invited  
as a possible candidate to fill the pastoral vacancy and now the church meeting 
 that would in our tradition require at least 80% in favor for the call to be 
 made. This candidate had lived with his partner for over 30 years and 
discussion  would now ensue on whether the applicant's qualifications and experience 
suited  the demanding challenges of the job. That was the theory.  
The Debate  
Our interim moderator chaired the meeting with consummate skill and  
sensitivity, prefacing the discussion with some familiar words from 1 John,  Chapter 
4, including. "Whoever loves God must also love his brother." Discussion  began 
on the candidate's vestments from a man who was "absolutely sickened" and  
reckoned that this minister "would not have looked out of place in a Roman  
Catholic Church." Well, at least the quality of the debate could only improve  now 
and it did when the next speaker said that she had found the candidate to be  
"friendly, truthful and broadminded. He has obviously looked carefully into 
this  church and its surroundings with a view to the future. He has enormous  
experience with social services, young people, local government and has 
preached  in all sorts of churches. We would be missing a tremendous opportunity if 
we did  not call him." A male contributor commented that, "We would have to go 
a very  long way to find someone who would match our requirements as well as 
this man  does."  
A lady then expressed concern for the safety of the families, stating that  
after much "open-minded research into homosexuality," she had concluded, "that  
Jesus was right in advising Christians not to partake in homosexual 
practices.  I'm not against homosexuals at all, but I don't think it's right for them 
to be  ordained to be a role model for families. It would be much better if 
they had a  normal relationship, preferably with children."  
Unfortunately, this lady's research had left her ill informed both biblically 
 and sexually. If Jesus criticized homosexual practices, no biblical author  
recorded it. The condemning of the ordination of homosexuals seeks, in effect, 
 to veto the power of the Holy Spirit who does not restrict calls to serve 
the  church according to sexual orientation. As the next speaker pointed out, "I 
 wonder why our church trains homosexuals at its seminaries and theological  
colleges if they are not going to be allowed to be ordained?" She added that  
most ministers have the same share of family problems as everyone else, even  
though people may not know about it. "I think this man has huge experience for 
 the things we want to do," she added. These informed views were reinforced 
by  the next speaker, who said that her children are "very aware of different 
sexual  orientations and would have much less trouble than a lot of us older 
people in  accepting a gay minister. Not so long ago, women ministers were 
treated with the  same biblically backed rejection," she added.  
"Whichever way I vote," said a man, "somebody's going to leave this church. I 
 think that is dreadful. Am I going to have my priorities with the candidate 
or  with those other members who feel so strongly in opposition that they are 
going  to leave the church? I will vote with them and I also would leave this 
church."  
Another countered this thinking by saying, "I also think it is dreadful that  
some have left our church over this matter but their departure was less 
because  of having to decide on accepting or rejecting a gay minister and more 
because of  deeply ingrained fears that prompted flight rather than the courage to 
give the  candidate the benefit of the doubt and defer any resignation 
decision until  legitimately informed by experience."  
A young mother said that because there were no other similar youngsters  
around, she could not bring her toddler to church at present. Although we were  
not suddenly going to get lots of young families coming, she felt the candidate  
was keen to build on the experience, knowledge and skills of our mature  
membership and that this was an opportunity to be grabbed. A gentleman then  
reminded the meeting that the candidate had lived with the same partner for 31  
years and together they had fostered children. "If that is not a family, I don't  
know what is. Shame on those who would vote against the candidate on the 
grounds  of his sexuality." This brought a gentle rebuke from the Chair, but it 
needed to  be said.  
Then, from a lady, "A test of faith is whether I can make space for  
difference. Can I recognize God's image in someone who is not in my image? If I  
cannot, then I have made God in my image instead of allowing God to remake me in  
God's image."  
A male contributor said that he had never fancied another man (much to the  
relief of his wife) but that had nothing to do with his religion, his morals or 
 his choosing. It was how his creator had fashioned him to be. "To be  
heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual," he said, "is not a choice we make, it is  a 
realization to which we awaken."  
A brief interval of comic relief (unintentional) then occurred with a remark  
from an elderly gentleman: "I fully condemn this sort of carry-on in 
leadership.  It was this kind of nonsense that brought down the Roman Empire."  
An irate gentleman felt that we had been forced into an intolerable position, 
 "between a rock and a hard place," he opined, "but I would say that surely 
such  dilemmas are often found at the very heart of Christian life. To desire a 
 comfortable faith lived in full Christian accord is only human but that 
faith  must be courageously open to the Spirit also if we are to follow the 
spirited  example of Jesus." Another man considered that the appointment of the 
candidate  "would send a very strong message to our surrounding communities that 
we are a  loving, accepting fellowship."  
I am sure that God possesses what is the spiritual equivalent of a  
mischievous sense of humor, as the vote to call was carried by exactly 80%.  
The meeting was a timely reminder to me of just how thin our Christian veneer 
 can become when deeply held religious views and prejudices are challenged. 
Karen  Armstrong has said that the most stubborn obstacle to Christian living 
is the  ego. Following the example of Jesus means a constant battle to sideline 
 self-centeredness. I believe the creative energy that Christians call the 
Holy  Spirit was present at our meeting (because we were present), though at 
times  that voice of love and reason was lost in egocentricity on both sides of 
the  debate. The main item on the agenda seemed not to be the candidate's 
suitability  for the job, but his unsuitability for the calling.  
Several speakers used the threat of resignation as a debating tool, which not 
 only suggested a possible self-awareness of the shaky foundations of their  
reasoning but also demonstrated a willingness to use strategies unworthy of  
Christian debate. A vote either way was going to result in pain and resignation 
 for some and when the required 80% in favor was announced, it marked the sad 
end  of an era for some of our loyal and dedicated fellow members. Unable to  
reconcile fear and acceptance within their perception of our church's 
developing  Christianity, some have departed. The loss to us is great; the loss to 
them may  be more than they currently understand and we long to celebrate their  
homecoming. Some may have voted for a call with considerable reservations,  
nevertheless willing to be guided by future experience rather than past  
prejudice. Perhaps they are the most courageous of all our church members.  
In defense of the detractors, I felt that some had to confront openly,  
perhaps for the first time, sexual issues previously avoided. For many  Christians, 
homosexuality is one of those nasty perversions condemned by the  Bible, 
swept under the carpet of religious conservatism and privately  suppressed. 
Usually the church implicitly supports and encourages this process,  responsibility 
contributed to the raw emotional trauma of some of our debate.  
Whenever I sang H. W. Baker's words, "Where streams of living water flow my  
ransomed soul he leadeth." I used to picture a pleasant walk by a pretty brook 
 with frequent opportunities for refreshing drinks en route. Now I find that 
the  inevitable watershed for our church caused by recent events has changed 
that  serene image for me quite dramatically. The "living water" has become a 
foaming,  rushing river with no safe banks to walk on; the only way ahead is to 
take the  plunge and become willingly carried away by the flow. The majority 
of us  remaining in our church have taken a deep breath and jumped, believing 
that we  will not sink without trace but be buoyed up by faith. I raise my own 
small  glass of living water and drink to that.  
Chris Avis  
_Note from  the Editor: Bishop Spong's new book is available now at 
bookstores everywhere  and by clicking here!_ 
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060762055/agoramedia-20)   
Question and Answer
With John  Shelby Spong 
Walt Kramel, via the Internet, writes:  
Your recent e-mail article, "Jesus for the Non-Religious, Part I," was very  
interesting. I have always maintained doubts about the historicity of Jesus, 
in  particular, how the stories that comprise the New Testament evolved into 
the  texts as we know them today in the Bible. In your very fine article, you  
commented that the followers most likely used the synagogue to transmit the  
story of Jesus. You said in your column that the synagogue "became the setting  
in which his followers told stories about Jesus, recalled the sayings and  
parables of Jesus and remembered and shared the developing Jesus tradition. In  
this fashion, over the years, the Hebrew Scriptures were wrapped around Jesus  
and through them Jesus was interpreted. The content of the memory of Jesus was 
 thus organized by the liturgy of the synagogue. To recognize this connection 
 becomes a major breakthrough into the oral period of Christian history."  
Here is my question: wouldn't the Jews, during the time following the death  
of Jesus (30 C.E. - 70 C.E.) have rejected his status as "the messiah," thus  
discounting Jesus as a messenger from God? It would seem to me that rather 
than  use the synagogue to discuss, and possibly embellish his life; the Jews 
would  not attribute any divine nature to Jesus, thus rejecting him entirely. I 
say  this because it is my understanding that during the time of Jesus; the 
Jews were  anticipating a messiah. Prior to Jesus' death, he was interrogated by 
Caiaphas,  the elder of the Sanhedrin (John 18:12-33). Caiaphas determined 
that Jesus was  not the messiah. Wouldn't that suffice to dismiss Jesus and all 
accounts of his  life as worthy of further discussion in the synagogues? It is 
my opinion that  the Jews would not have revered him as the one whom the Old 
Testament  prophesied. Therefore, I surmise that stories about Jesus would more 
likely have  originated as folklore among the gentiles.  
Dear Walt,  
Your comments suggest a time warp that you have imposed on the New Testament. 
 You quote John's gospel, which was not written until around the turn of the  
first century (100 C.E. or so). You accept the timeline of the book of Acts,  
written somewhere between 90 and 100 C.E. that shows Christians as separate 
from  and over against the Jews. Neither of those uses of scripture is 
appropriate for  discerning facts of history. They were written 60 to 70 years after 
the death of  Jesus.  
Be aware first that not only Jesus but also all of the disciples of Jesus  
were Jews. If the memory recorded in the gospels is accurate, Jesus and his  
disciples were frequently in the synagogue for worship. The first Christians did  
not cease to be Jews. They were called, "The Followers of the Way" and  
constituted a Jesus movement within the synagogue. It was not until around the  
year 88 C. E. that the synagogue and the Christian movement split. That happened  
when the increasingly rigid Orthodox part of Judaism could no longer tolerate 
 what they regarded as revisionist Judaism on the part of the followers of 
Jesus.   
Certainly, Jesus was interpreted immediately after his death in the light of  
the Jewish scriptures, the liturgy of the synagogue and the messianic  
expectations that were alive among the Jews at that time. The gospels assume and  
reflect this process, which obviously had occurred before the gospels were  
written since they are all reflected in those gospels.  
The Jesus we meet in the church today is a gentile creation based on  
harmonizing the human with the divine, which were, in the Greek perception of  
reality, thought to be quite distinct and different. The divine and the human  
related to each other in this view only in tension. That was not so among the  
Jews. Remember that the first gospel to be written, Mark, portrays Jesus as  
having a perfectly normal birth in Galilee and as a fully human being receiving  
the gift of the Holy Spirit at the time of his baptism. That is Mark saw Jesus  
as a God infused human being. John's gospel some 30 years later would portray  
him as a pre-existent divine visitor from the realm of heaven.  
The more I learn about who Jesus was before the gospels were written, the  
more I marvel at his humanity, which is what I believe opened the eyes of his  
followers to the God claims that they would make for him. The issue is do we 
see  God through Jesus' humanity or is his humanity only a mirage to allow God 
to  become visible to human eyes.  
Periodically I will continue to explore these issues through this column and, 
 if all goes as scheduled, I will publish the book, "Jesus for the 
Non-Religious"  in April of 2007. Perhaps with the space available in a book, these 
ideas will  become clearer.  
John Shelby Spong        


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20060629/7bf2d731/attachment-0001.html