A Response To Madison Square Church (In regard to their stance on homosexuality recently made public)

Before I begin, I want to make some things clear:

While I strongly disagree with the public stance Pastor Dave Beelen and Madison Square church have made, I have nothing but the utmost respect for Pastor Beelen and many of their ministries do good work in the community and beyond.  They have been a source of healing when it comes to racial reconciliation and those who struggle with addiction among many other things.

I am not a pastor and my views don't reflect my local church or the denomination I belong to, the United Methodist Church, whose stance (or lack thereof) I also disagree with.  When it comes to education or knowledge of scripture, Pastor Beelen I'm sure could run circles around me.  Before my family became UMC, we even attended Madison Square for quite awhile before we actually became a family while I was dating my wife.  I am fully aware this blog post is unlikely to change any minds, but I am passionate about this issue because I have seen far too many people deeply hurt to stay silent about it.  I have made my beliefs clear about this issue informally, but it is well past due that I make it somewhat public/official.

Here is the link to Pastor Beelen's open letter:
http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=dd210c9e906bee82e2493dc83&id=84bdbe6dac

This post will inevitably be long, but I will try to be as concise and clear as I can.  Anyone who wants to discuss this with me in any forum, whether it be face to face, by phone, or by social media is welcome to do so, but I am not going to argue over this and this will probably be the only extended writing I make on the matter, though I do reserve the right to change my mind.

It breaks my heart that Madison Square has chosen to take this stance given their work in other ministries.  I am not certain, but my hunch is that this was written after a certain degree of wrestling with the issue over prayer and scriptural study.  In spite of this, I believe the wrong decision has been made even though they are trying not to single out homosexuals, they inevitably are.  On the one hand, Madison is saying that they don't want to single out one sin over another, but on the other hand if you are a homosexual and want to be married within the church or become a member, then Madison Square Church will refuse to do so based on Biblical grounds, which is basically just a way of saying their specific interpretation of scripture.

There are so many levels of disagreement that I don't no where to begin, but pastor Dave mentioned in the letter that people have pitted Jesus against Paul and given more weight to certain portions of scripture over others and seems to imply that we should give the entire Bible equal weight when interpreting since the entirety of scripture is "God breathed."  He then says it is bad to mention Jesus' lack of a stance on homosexuality since he also doesn't take a stance on "human trafficking or incest."  I've heard similar arguments to this and I want to be clear:  Comparing homosexuality to incest, human trafficking, pedophilia and bestiality among other things is disrespectful, disingenuous and wrong and it contributes NOTHING to the conversation.  To elaborate further, my response to this is twofold:

Should All of the Bible be Interpreted Equally, Authoritative or Otherwise?

I think, if we are all honest with ourselves, that we give more importance to certain parts of scripture than others.  I think it is a cop out to claim that all of scripture is equally authoritative when it comes to this issue or any issue for that matter.  Smarter people than me have pointed out that what is being interpreted as homosexuality by many today may have actually be something completely different in Paul's time.  I believe Paul was referring to pederasty, which was men taking adolescents or even young boys sexually.  There is historical record outside of the Bible of young boys being used as whores around this time period, and that is far from an equal relationship, far from consent, and harmful.  Even if you are inclined to interpret this as modern homosexuality, ultimately you are trusting in your own interpretation (of which each person, church, denomination, etc. has a unique version of) and singling out a perceived sin over loving God and loving others, and loving God by loving others, which Jesus says all the law and scriptures are dependent on.  Sounds like Jesus wasn't aware of the Neo-Calvinist need to give equal weight to all scripture.

The greater danger here is how we can fall into the trap of using scripture as an idol.  We can get so concerned about the minute details beyond our understanding that we are blinded to God's clear call and blinded to the fact that God is with us and does many works outside of scripture.  If your interpretation of scripture doesn't lead you to a very real God who lives and is authoritative beyond and not limited to the Bible, then I believe you are going down a very dangerous path.

What is Sin, the Role of the Church When it Comes to Sin, and is Homosexuality a Sin?

The other big danger in this stance is the message Madison is sending about sin.  When you make sin a list of choices perceived to be bad, the list is endless and we have no choice but to live by the list and to be judged by it.  Whether the intent is to single out homosexuals or not, the message is that God's grace is not available to all, only to those who live by the church's "list."  No amount of confessing can cover our own sins when we act as gatekeeper for those who fit into whatever category, in this case gay folk.  When we don't acknowledge our sin as a whole, including the sin we all continue to live in daily, we are doing exactly what we are saying we aren't doing.  Madison's sins must not be as bad.  People will argue that it's not the homosexuality, it's the approval of it and lack of confession for it.  Do we really want to go down that road?  Or do we actually believe we are identifying and confessing of everything we do wrong?

In my mind, the church's role is not to be a gatekeeper, not to be as holy as possible and not to decide who's worthy of relationship with God through Christ.  God loves us as we are, not in spite of our brokenness but because we are broken and that we choose to be in relationship with him by loving other broken people.  So while I believe homosexuality is not a sin and that the church should affirm monogamous gay marriage and relationships, making a list is beside the point.  We all live in sin daily and God is with us before and after we become aware of Him and before and after we are in relationship with Him, and if He is ultimately in control our role should be to love God, love others, and in our mission field to measure things through that lens.  How is homosexual marriage not living into the story of loving God and loving others?

Authority

In finishing this post, I think people who argue from all angles would agree that the crux of this matter comes down to authority.   I would agree and make this proposal:  If we can agree that we are limited and diverse in our interpretation of scripture, shouldn't we as individuals and the church approach our beliefs and interpretations much more humbly?  If we are in relationship with God and we love others, do we put more trust in God or our interpretations?  Loving God and loving people is clear and consistent throughout the Bible.  The interpretation of the scriptures relating to homosexuality aren't as clear and there are various interpretations of those scriptures and the original languages they are written in.  We don't have a clear picture of the truth no matter how hard we try.  God is truth.  It is a modern day Tower of Babel and humanity still hasn't learned its lesson.  Doesn't the Bible teach to err on the side of mercy and grace?  Do we really think a loving God is going to punish us for welcoming a group of people who has been historically punished, tortured and victimized by the church?  Scripture has been used to exclude gentiles, jews, blacks, women, homosexuals, etc., etc., etc.  Who is going to stand with our gay brothers and sisters who also are born the way they are but often face a life at odds with their family, friends and churches?

Let the church without sin throw stones.  I put my slingshot away a long time ago and I'm way more concerned with what I have to deal with in the mirror than trying to fix someone else.

I hope the response to this is to bring reconciliation and prayer for Madison and other churches who continue to wrestle with this issue.  I want to reiterate my respect for pastor Dave who at least has linked to opposing arguments and seems well intended.

God bless,

Jason

(Any response can go to comments, or you can facebook me, or my e-mail is jsquiggles23@hotmail.com if you want to setup a phone conversation or a face to face meeting)  

My Perspective On God, Jesus, the Bible and Christianity and How it May Differ From Yours Part 1

I am going to be posting about my individual perspective on topics too deep to confine to one post.  I want to state a few things beforehand so no one is confused or gets caught up in something minor.  While these are my views, I have been influenced by many individuals and while you might disagree, I see my views as compatible with Christianity of which there are many different traditions and translations.  I am writing this series for many reasons, but mostly to clarify my beliefs for myself, and to explain why I differ from more evangelical (for lack of a better word) expressions of Christianity if I do.  In the age of "hot takes" and divisiveness when it comes to opinion, I hope to write in a way that doesn't demean those who believe and/or feel differently.  If you should read this and feel I misrepresent something, please leave a comment or if you know me feel free to discuss via social media.  I do not see my views as absolutely true necessarily:  I could be wrong.  Only God knows all and my intention is to characterize myself and my perspective as humbly as possible.  End long intro rant.

Part One:  The Bible

I could have started this series many different ways, but ultimately whether you decide to identify as a Christian or not depends a lot on how seriously you take the Bible to be.  I don't care to go into a deep history on how the Bible was formed into what it is today, but suffice it to say while there is disagreement on the authorship of many books of the Bible and the authority the Bible has, people seem to recognize that the Bible wasn't written all at one time and that the books come from different eras, cultures and places, etc.

How you interpret the text says everything about what you believe about the Bible.  Some people dismiss it completely and don't believe God had anything to do with it and on top of that believe there is little to draw from historically.  Some believe that we can learn about the cultures and civilizations and eras that the Bible emerged from, but treat scripture largely as myth.  On the other end of the scale there are those that believe scripture is "God breathed," a literal history of the world and every verse is to be taken seriously.  Then there are those who feel the Bible is "perfect in its purpose," but since there isn't consensus on the Bible's purpose, I've heard this said by many different people who would hardly agree on the purpose of the Bible.  The Bible may indeed be perfect in its purpose, but sometimes we say this to keep from addressing the parts of the Bible we don't like or that challenge us.

So what do I believe about the Bible?  I believe the Bible is about human kind's relationship with God.  Furthermore, scripture is unique to me because of the story of Jesus:  His life, death, and resurrection.

I do not believe everything in the Bible happened literally.  I do not think that the historicity of ancient narratives or the lack thereof diminishes from the greater truth behind those narratives.  Let me clarify on this with a couple examples:  I do not believe the earth was created in 6 literal days.  When it comes to Genesis, the creation narrative, and Adam and Eve, I don't believe these things had to literally happen to diminish from the truth that is in the stories.  What is that truth?  The origins of the universe, the world, and humankind go back to a divine creator, and the creator is interested in a relationship with us.  Some would disagree heavily with that point of view, but in my view the origins of Genesis are oral traditions written down by people who were more concerned with the truth of a story than of its historical accuracy.  I believe no one knows how the earth was created, and to say you do is blasphemous.

The other example is that of Jesus in scripture.  I believe that Jesus existed literally and historically.  I believe that the gospels are generally true, but again context is crucial:  The people who wrote the gospels were not as concerned with accuracy as we are today, thousands of years later.  I'm not saying it isn't legit to wrestle with the Bible and ask if Jesus really said this verbatim, or did this event happen exactly in this way, but I find it absurd that for some it undoes their whole worldview to take even one verse in a non-literal way.

To sum things up, I think the Bible says as much, if not more, about the authors of the Bible and the world that they live in as it does about God.  I don't read the Bible giving equal authority to all parts:  I think Jesus' life and teachings are most important when I wrestle with certain parts of scripture and I give more authority to the New Testament than the Old.  I do not think God has changed, but the view of God and our understanding of God and dare I say our relationship with and to God have all changed because humans have changed.

I do want to add one caveat in conclusion:  While I call these "my" views, I have not come to these conclusions on my own.  One critique of "my" position is that I am "recreating God and scripture in my own image."  I want to respond by saying that I am indeed guilty of this; we all are!  I am no doubt off the mark to varying degrees with many of my viewpoints, but I believe it to be blasphemous to claim to know exactly how the earth was created and where we go when we die and to judge people by our own litmus set of beliefs and to claim it is God.  Life would be so much easier if we would approach the Bible and our beliefs humbly no matter how strongly we feel about our own interpretations of scripture.  And that goes for everyone, because I've seen superiority complexes in all beliefs.  A safe rule might be to not substitute knowing for believing.

God bless and please let me know where I went wrong,

adieu until Part 2!

Injustice: Visible vs Invisible

I don't often feel compelled to speak on issues where I feel my voice would just be an unnecessary addition to people who have already made their opinions heard who are much better connected and smarter than I am.  While I am sure there are well rounded opinions on the Baltimore protests, I am going to make an exception to the dismay of many.

I came across a facebook post asking what the church's role is, if any, in situations like the one in Baltimore.  That is a good question, and the problems going on in Baltimore are a good reflection of the many dissenting viewpoints in America on race, the role of the police/authority, systematic racism, etc.  What is not in doubt is that injustice reigns in our communities, neighborhoods, cities, countries and world, both visible and invisible, and it manifests itself in many ways.  In addition to this ongoing injustice, our way of dialogue through various forms of media only adds fuel to the fire and when a community feels like they are not being heard or represented well it can lead to disastrous situations like Baltimore, Ferguson and the many examples before and after.

Visible Injustice

There are two obvious forms of injustice going on in Baltimore, and depending on your leanings it is easy to fall into the trap of justifying one form while going the extra mile to condemn the other.  The first is the abuse of police power.  Unless you've been hiding under a rock for weeks on end, there have been numerous incidents that have left minorities dead at the hands of police officers.  While there is varying justification depending on the incident, it is statistically confirmed that minorities, especially blacks, are more threatened by the use of deadly force than whites, and the difference is exponential.  While it would be great if we could wave a wand and solve this disparity, the problem is only made worse by the fact that this reality isn't even often confirmed by police departments.  It's hard to solve issues when many people refuse that there are issues or worse, blame the victims.

The second form of injustice is the response to these abusive situations, which commonly do more to widen the divide than close it.  I'm all for peaceful protest and these situations call for it, but trying to improve relations with police or just to be heard is undermined when you demonize the police or people in your group engage in looting among other things.  On top of the actual wrong doing by protesters, there are people who will justify those actions.  As people inevitably support one group/viewpoint over the other, the trenches only deepen, the wounds continue to bleed and injustice continues to reign even after windows are repaired and bodies are put to rest.

So, how can the church address visible injustice?

The question remains and the solution, while easily thought of and written is as difficult in action.  Police officers live in our communities with their families.  One of my best friends is an officer of the law.  The first step in healing is to admit wrongs where they exist.  The church can encourage this by facilitating peaceful communication, so that people can be heard.  The more officers that understand the places they serve, the more reasonable the solutions (ideally).  The harder part is for citizens to begin to trust the police again, and for some it may never happen, but if they are able to hear and have productive conversations with officers, it would at the least help to solve underlying issues that affect the community and help no one.

Invisible Injustice

It is difficult enough for people to acknowledge obvious wrongs without justifying one wrong over another.  To try to communicate the complex realities of systematic racism with these same people is often like speaking an alien language.  The sad fact is that many of us either participate in systematic racism, either actively or indifferently, or are affected by it, or both.  This invisible force is the life blood that subtly bubbles over into more aggressive actions.

While it is hard to digest, if you are a white citizen of the United States you have benefited directly or indirectly from a form of government that held minorities back by law.  Capitalism operates under the myth of hard work and creativity leading into financial success, often uncapped (admittedly a generally unsophisticated explanation).  Unfortunately, even if we embrace capitalism's ideals we are confronted by the problem of slavery, followed by the problem of Jim Crow and currently there is the issue of very little progress being made since civil rights along with the reality that our economy benefits from underpaying undocumented migrants to do some of the harshest work this country has to offer.

On top of the racial aspect, the idea that the hardest working make the most isn't even mostly true.  You have the beneficiaries of the rich, you have people whose ideas are stolen, you have people who work their way up the ladder, only to find out that they will never reach the top, etc., etc., etc.

So, how does the church address invisible injustice?

This ones the "doozy."  Many churches don't believe in systematic racism, or that it isn't a big issue.  I think there are more forms of invisible powers working than we are aware of and likewise there are multiple solutions.  Quite simply praying for others and doing whatever you can to love others and doing so with others is a start.  Admitting we are unaware of where we fall short everyday, individually and as a community, and asking for forgiveness is another good start.  We seem to do a good job of being right in this country, but I think the key is often to think of the people we'd most like to condemn, and instead go to "those people" and serve them.  Jesus ate with prostitutes and tax collectors, and was betrayed by one of his own.   I don't know the answers to all the questions I've posed, but I do know that when we befriend the monster, the monster ceases to be.  When we invite the demonized to dinner, they become human.  So who do you/we need to make peace with?  White, black or brown?  Jewish or Catholic or Protestant?  Terrorists?  Fundamentalists? Muslims, Sikhs or Christians?  We often forget the humanity of others, so let's find it now before we lose it.