Civility
is appreciated
[8-22-01]
A number of people
have responded appreciatively to Kurt Norlin's reflections on the need
for calm in the midst of the "bitter battle" going on in our
Presbyterian Church.
Kurt
Norlin responds to these comments. [8-28-01]
Here are two notes
we've received:
Dear Friends,
It was a pleasure to
read the letter, "Calm Voice," by Kurt Norlin.
It was because it did
seem like someone who could listen as well as speak. I think we, (I
refuse to say sides) Presbys from varied perspectives, need to listen
with open hearts. One of my college friends would say...'some ears have
walls' and I think there are far too many walls.
And perhaps what I
got from this was hope. Hope that conversations can continue. Perhaps if
there are some who can't be in conversation they shouldn't be in
positions of power either .... maybe a better test of ability to
lead...the ability to listen.
Bob Shelton,
president of Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary, would teach about
what it meant to listen to someone by doing it. In conversation one
person would stop talking and he would be silent. It was not because he
had not heard ... it was because only after one stopped talking and he
processed what they said did he begin to formulate his reply. Perhaps
this is a model we could all use just now. ... Listen till the 'other'
is through talking ... think about it ... and then respond.
We keep in touch with
our kids who are away from home with the Instant Messenger on the
computer. IM allows you to type back and forth with others. I find it a
refreshing kind of conversation because you wait ... until the full
message is sent... read ... respond. A model perhaps for all
communication.
God abides...and that
IS good news!
Bobbie McGarey
Parish Pastor, Oklahoma
~~~~~~~
To the Web Weaver:
I greatly appreciate
the substance and tone of Kurt Norlin's
article. His article gives us a
starting point for discussion and further exploration. I would agree
that much of the current debate (if we can call it that), has lacked
much of the Biblical and theological rigor that Presbyterians have
claimed as our strength for many centuries. Although, I must add that
many of us on the liberal side of the debate have worked hard to be
Biblically and theologically sound in our arguments, what conservatives
need to understand is that we refuse to simply confine ourselves to the
few passages that speak about same-sex relationships. We seek to read
scripture in its context and in light of the larger themes of scripture
(thus, the emphasis on inclusion which I would argue is Biblical and
should help shape our discussions about sexuality). Clearly, we need to
do a better job of showing how we read and interpret scripture.
I do have a question
for Mr. Norlin and others on the conservative side. How do conservatives
read and interpret scripture in the area of human relationships and
human sexuality? Liberals are often accused by conservatives of playing
fast and loose with scripture; implied in that criticism is that
conservatives take scripture more seriously and literally.
But I would like to
raise another issue in the area of human sexuality which suggests to me
that conservatives have also entered the murky world of Biblical
interpretation. The issue is remarriage after divorce. Until the middle
of this century, most Presbyterians considered divorce and remarriage
after divorce a sin. Why? Because the Bible said so (in numerous
places). Over time, Presbyterians have come to view divorce and
remarriage after divorce differently - so much so that marital status
(including divorce) is mentioned in G-4.0403 as a place where the church
is to work for full inclusion and participation.
So here is my
question: How is it that conservatives are not getting bent out of shape
about ordaining persons who are remarried after divorce (Jesus called
such persons "adulterers": Mark 10:11), but they have decided
to stand firm on the issue of ordaining gay and lesbian persons? It will
be argued by some that God can forgive people of the "sin" of
divorce; but I would point out that Jesus' concern was not about the
"orientation" of being divorced, but the "behavior"
of being remarried after divorce. Such people, according to Jesus, are
adulterers - and thus, according to Mr. Norlin, unfit for church office.
I do not see how a strict reading of Mark 10:11 would allow someone to
conclude otherwise. Mr. Norlin states, "Biblically, however, an
adulterer cannot expect to be welcomed into full and comfortable
fellowship, and into positions of leadership, with nothing said about
his or her sin."
It seems to me, that if
the passages about remarriage after divorce were read as strictly as the
passages about same-sex relationships, then a whole lot of folk in the
church should not "expect to be welcomed into full and comfortable
fellowship, and into positions of leadership." And yet we, liberals
and conservatives, do it all the time.
I would have a much
easier time in this coming debate if I understood how conservatives
interpreted and used scripture when dealing with issues of human
sexuality. Any help in coming to a better understanding of this would be
greatly appreciated.
Thank you for
reframing the tone and emphasis of this critical debate.
Yours in Christ,
Dan Anderson-Little
Dr. Dan
Anderson-Little, Pastor
Trinity Presbyterian Church
6800 Washington Avenue
University City, Missouri 63130
http://www.trinityucity.org/
dan_tpc@swbell.net
~~~~~~~
Would
you like to add comments of your own. Please send a note!
(And please
mention whether you'd like it posted here, and if so, how you'd like to
be identified.)
