If you live in Scotland, you can't have escaped the last few weeks without taking note of the upcoming Church of Scotland General Assembly. This year's assembly has been largely notable as it contains a debate concerning the legality, propriety, and theological standing of clergy who are involved in same-sex relationships. This is, in so many ways, the "great matter" of the kirk today. To say that the build-up to assembly has been contentious, acerbic, and stressful -for all kirk members- would be a great understatement.
Heretofore, I have largely held back my own opinions and understandings from the debate. (Though, I have centred my preaching the last few weeks to focus upon sensitivity to church unity, as I felt that was a great consideration in this issue.) As I am only beginning the process of becoming an official part of the Church of Scotland, I felt interjecting my own thoughts- as something of an interloper- would be a bit inappropriate. Now that the church has come to an agreement, which is largely a functional and workable compromise, I feel a bit more free to speak my own mind.
There are a lot of things I think I could say about this whole situation. However -and perhaps most importantly- I want to say that I have been entirely dismayed by the lack of theological depth from both sides of the debate in this argument.
I don't mean to take away from the hard work of a two-year theological commission, nor do I mean to be rude or flippant about such a serious issue. However, I fully believe that, with regards to this question, the theological conversation in the kirk needs to be re-evaluated and re-focused.
To begin with -and perhaps most over-arching in my own concerns- is the matter of Biblical authority and interpretation.
Both sides of the kirk, in its theological report, seem to have greatly missed the mark on this issue. From the traditional perspective, I have to question just how -or even what- concept of historic Biblical interpretation and translation is present in the arguments. I question how the authors, of this perspective, would engage other concepts which have previously been described, at one point, as Biblically unacceptable, only to be later found as Biblically appropriate and vice-versa. (Women, slavery, secular education, and other themes come to mind.) Mind you, we can't, in many ways, confuse these issues as all being connected. However, we need understand why one theologically contentious issue might evolve with time and location and others might not. In other words, one must develop a consistent and thorough methodology for engaging difficult theological texts if one is to be serious about their own work. The traditional side has largely failed in this, by my view. (And don't even get me started on the fact that only Koine texts were sampled for textual analysis. Want an interesting and different perspective on 1 Corinthians 6:9? Try checking out the writings of Calvin, Bullinger, Beza, and Luther. VERY different from what you would find in today's Bibles! If you aren't familiar with what your founders said about an issue, then just who's revisionist and who's traditional? )
Moreover, for the traditionalists, where was the interaction with important theological work and writings? A number of the arguments put forward seemed to be based off of theology -Gagnon and others- from quite some time ago. This is theology which, if it hasn't been emphatically disproven, has received some SERIOUS theological push-back. Where is the interaction with the critiques of those such as Dale Martin? I would hate to think that these interactions were not present simply because there was no response available which would not undermine the traditional position. (BTW, I don't mean to sound like I'm picking on the traditional side, my students will tell you that I have no larger pet-peeve than failing to engage opposing views in their essays! )
While the traditional side has some serious theological problems with the arguments that have been placed forward thus far, their opponents stand just as guilty of lax theology.
To begin with, who decided it was okay to have the opposition labeled as "revisionist?!" I'm not a PR-guru, but even I know that this is just an incredibly bad move. Personally, I am very supportive of glbt movements in the church, but I am relatively theologically conservative otherwise. I utterly chafe at being called a "revisionist!" At the very least, one would expect the side to protest such a bloody label! Unless, of course, you truly are revisionist...
......which brings me to another point: where the hell does the Bible factor into the revisionist side's argument?! It seems to me that the revisionist side has largely been content to concede the Bible to the side of traditionalists. Dear friends, again, I largely support your side, but if you are planning to build a church without the authority of the Bible, count me out. Certainly, we should listen for God's still-speaking spirit and allow it to guide our thoughts and actions. However, we cannot escape the fact that, if we are who we say we are, the Bible is the most complete and largest guide to understanding God and bringing God's kingdom that we have available to us. Just as with the traditionalist side, there seems to be a very lacking system of Biblical understanding and employment in the revisionist side.
For the record, I can say that there IS in-fact, a way to engage healthy glbt relationships from a Biblical perspective. Don't throw the sodding baby out with the bath-water, folks. (If you want to know more, see my note above about Reformation translations. Better yet, READ them! If/when I ever get this blasted PhD thesis finished/published, it'll hopefully provide one-stop shopping for such, but still, finding these texts on the internet isn't that hard!)
Again, I don't intend to come across too harsh on, what I'm sure, was a very long and arduous reporting process for the kirk's theological commission. Doing my master's and doctoral work in this arena, I can vouch that it's a surprisingly difficult topic and realm once one gets into specifics. (Heck, my own views have been changed and evolved -from multiple directions- over the years!) At the same time, I can't help but feel that one of the reasons we're experiencing such gripping disagreement is that we're engaging a topic to beat around a larger theological issue. I think the issue most at stake, in the kirk's discussion, is not how we view committed same-sex relationships, but how and why we view Biblical authority and its role in the wider church.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can't help but feel that the turmoil of the kirk will not end until we can sit down -together- and begin to address the how and why of such things.
Anyone feel like starting this dialogue? First round's on me!
