I will get into some deeper discussion of Christian ethics, but please continue reading, as I try to put this into plain language. When we discuss ethics, we are discussing decisions for the way the church lives out our mission in the world. The category of "ethics" is fairly broad; some topics might include ecological ethics, or economic ethics. Ethics deals with social issues in the wider world as well as issues pertinent only to the church, such as virtue ethics of the Bible. Whenever we discuss how we should live in community with one another, we are talking about ethics.
All ethical discussions use a particular method of discourse in posing the question. One method is known as "teleological ethics" which emphasizes the end result of a particular course of action. In other words, these ethical decisions are made based on asking ourselves, "what is the likely outcome of our decision?" If you use teleological ethics, then you might favor someone like Robin Hood, who steals from the rich because the end result is favorable. The course of action is understood to be good, or in our case, "righteous", based solely on the ending result.
Another method for ethics is known as "deontological ethics" which emphasizes whether the decision is "right" or "wrong", "good" or "bad", "lawful" or "unlawful". In a nutshell, this method asks whether the action in question is permissible. If you favor deontological ethics, you would not favor someone like Robin Hood because his method of stealing is inherently "wrong" or "unlawful". You would much rather ensure that all decisions and actions in a particular course are lawful based on what you consider "law". In Christian discourse, we will assume Scripture as our primary source of determining what is "lawful".
A third proposal for Christian ethics, proposed by R. Niebur and accepted by ethicist Stanley Hauerwas, is known as "character ethics" which emphasizes the character of the Christian as becoming holy during a lifetime through Jesus Christ. This particular proposal is a unique solution for the Christian community, although it could perhaps be used by people of other backgrounds. In a nutshell, rather than asking ourselves what is the desired outcome, or what is the most lawful course of action permissible, decisions are based on who we are becoming in Christ Jesus. Instead of responding to the ethical dilemma, we instead ask ourselves, "who are we?" and seek to arrive at a result which is fitting for our character and our identity as Christians.
With this in mind, we turn to our discussion of homosexuality. First, I recognize that as I am not a homosexual, I am limited on how I can speak to this issue; just as I cannot speak for women or for people of a particular race/nationality other than my own, I cannot give certain answers as to how the homosexual community has experienced this discussion, although I imagine it has been painful at best for millions of Americans to be so passionate about their very personal decisions. I continue with the prayer that homosexuals reading this will understand that I am not attempting to put words in their mouth; I am merely adding my voice to the conversation as one of many.
I propose that one of our biggest stumbling blocks in the homosexuality debate is how we have launched our ideological campaigns based almost entirely upon deontological ethics, our second option found above. It is interesting because in most situations, teleological ethics are used in America today, both by liberals and conservatives. One example is the war in Iraq which was launched eleven years ago. Those in support of the war, largely conservatives, argued that bringing peace and stability to the country and removing Saddam Hussein from power would benefit the people by improving human rights and quality of life. Furthermore, a democracy in a Muslim country would have been a model for other countries to follow. Those against the war, largely liberals and some libertarians, argued that a war would result in loss of life of coalition forces, cost trillions, and would not bring about peace or stability in the region. What is fascinating is that very few people argued for or against the war based on the very principle of war--is war permissible to bring peace? Deontological ethics were for the most part thrown out the door in favor of considering the end result.
Now church politics are much different than national politics; this is merely an example of a situation that you most likely recall clearly. Church politics are similar in the fact that we rarely look to deontological ethics for regular decision-making. Why is this true? Probably because very few things in God's creation are black and white, cut and dry. When we as God's people use the Law in such a way where everything is clear and absolute, then we are guilty of legalism no differently than the Pharisees of Scripture. But that doesn't give us an excuse to throw out the possibility of ethical decision-making. In other words, we can't simply allow an ethical free-for-all either.
The question of homosexuality has been debated as a deontological question, because nearly everybody has the deontological question in mind: "is homosexuality permissible?" Whether you say "yes" or "no", this is your implied question, and this is true for nearly the entirety of our American society and the whole of the Methodist world. Lord help us, for we know not what we do.
Our current debate about homosexuality is going nowhere because we have selected the wrong question, as an entire society, to ask ourselves. We need a new question, and we need to let go of our old ways of thinking and debating the issue. We need a mass repentence from this debacle, and it will take quite a while to do this. However, it is possible through Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom all good things are possible. Rather than deontological ethics, which have grievously failed us in this debate, we need to consider character ethics as the Christian alternative.
Character ethics asks us this question: "who are we becoming in Christ Jesus?" It may not at first appear to be the question we need to ask ourselves in association with the homosexuality debate, but without answering this question we are doomed to repeating ourselves until we are completely irrelevant. What kind of church are we becoming? If we are repenting of our sins, and we are moving towards deeper sanctification, and we are moving onward to Christian perfection, what course(s) of action would we take on this issue? What course(s) of action might we not take?
If you are reading this post looking for my silver bullet to the debate, then I apologize as I do not have it. Rather than focusing on what courses of action we ought to take, I would like to list some courses of action I recommend we not take as the United Methodist Chuch, and as individual members thereof:
1. We must no longer accept the dangerous view that homosexuality has one "right" answer in any direction. Scripture is complicated, and the church is a testimony to the nature of ethics as messy and diverse. Currently in 2014, among mainstream Christianity, many people affirm very different ethical views. Many denominations ordain women into ministry, while some do not. Most Christians are perfectly fine with divorce, even though it is not permissible except in a few situations in Scripture. And we have no problem as a church fighting wars to bring peace, which is condemned throughout the Scripture in both circumstance and Christ's ministry. These are all messy debates, and homosexuality is one of those. Anyone who can come up with a solid, black-and-white answer is not using responsible ethics. Of course, I am not damning these people; all of us are in this boat together, and none of us is specifically to blame. We have stumbled into this false debate unintentionally, and it's simply time for us to repent, turn away from our old ways, and be made anew in Christ Jesus.
2. We must no longer consider our stance on homosexuality as a litmus test for one's faith and adherence to Scripture. Time and time again, online and in person, those on both sides of the debate claim to have the answer to interpreting Scripture correctly to the exclusion of the other side. The fact is that both liberal Protestants and fundamentalists are probably not using Scripture the way John Wesley used Scripture, and certainly not the way the early church used Scripture. However you interpret Scripture, you do not hold the only keys to the heart of God. We believe in a God who loves all of God's children on earth, and seeks a deeper relationship with them. To say that someone who feels one way or another on the issue of homosexuality is a heretic is rather judgmental and is certainly not in the character of moving towards sanctification. Yes, we are using the same Bible to reach different conclusions. Rather than hate one another, we ought to thank God for making Scripture so rich and full of wisdom, truth and direction, and work together to find answers to our challenging questions.
3. We must not allow the possibility of schism to enter into our hearts, especially in response to the homosexuality debate. If we are to ask ourselves, "who are we becoming in Christ Jesus?" then "a divided church" is certainly not the correct answer. We must accept the tension that stirs in a church of faithful believers who stick together as a family, as the Body of Christ, despite differing views. In the American Protestant churches, schism, division, and splitting has been the answer for far too long. Christ instructed his followers to be "like-minded" in all things, not necessarily "same-minded", but alike as a healthy family is like-minded. We are a community together, and in the UMC, we are connected to one another deeply. Anyone who seriously walks down the path of schism ought to be reprimanded at the very least, and ought to repent publically and decisively. However we interpret Scripture, schism appears to be a far worse fate for the church than any decision surrounding human sexuality. No, the entire world and heaven are not at stake in the discussion of homosexuality; the world will continue to spin and God will continue to be God no matter what decisions are made.
4. We must never forget that all homosexual people are people, and homosexual Christians are just as worthy to have a seat at the discussion as non-homosexuals. This may sound like I'm targeting those who are against homosexuality in the church, but it's a key point for our discussion. If God loves all of his people and Christ is capable of forgiving all sins and all sinners, then why should we ever consider discussing homosexuality without "self-avowed, practicing homosexuals" at the table? The grim truth is that far too often homosexuals are not even consulted through these debates. The result is that homosexuals are even more marginalized, which is silly because they are the focus of the conversation. They are not the "naughty children" at the dinner table--they are Christians!! And it's very possible that they hold the best answer to the debate, and certainly they can add much to the conversation. But we aren't listening to them, and that is the problem. We need to listen to one another, regardless of how different we believe or interpret Scripture. We need to remember that the purpose of listening is to understand someone else, not to better be able to attack them soon after.
I urge us all to pray unceasingly for this issue, because it will not simply go away. We need more than ever a single voice of peace and love to the world, even if that voice responds in millions of different ways to the issues that we deal with. Jesus Christ has called us to be his disciples, his people of earth, that the gospel might resound in all nations and among all peoples. We have so much more to do, and the time we spend on this issue has already diverted much of our energy and witness. We must remain united and "like-minded", we must repent of our past, and embrace the future which is God's kingdom here on earth. May God grant us the courage and wisdom to swallow our pride and allow conversation where difficult and two-sided, black-and-white, cut-and-dry debates have left us hollow and starving for Jesus.
No comments:
Post a Comment