My response to:
Western Jurisdiction elects openly gay United Methodist bishop by Kathy L. Gilbert July 15, 2016 | SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. (UMNS) http://www.umc.org/news-and-media/western-jurisdiction-elects-openly-gay-united-methodist-bishop .…Bishop Melvin Talbert, retired from the Western Jurisdiction, said he wasn’t sure he would ever live to see the day when the church would elect an openly gay bishop.
“This means our church — at least part of our church — has finally come to the realization that there is no longer any place for exclusion. We are all children of God regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or abilities. We would be blessed to invite all God’s people to their rightful place at the table.” In a statement issued following Oliveto’s election, Bishop Bruce R. Ough, president of the United Methodist Council of Bishops, said, “This election raises significant concerns and questions of church polity and unity. “
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS By Mike Albertson, UMCKY Retired Elder
Conflict is often resolved through the use of power. Augustine summed this practice up with his term: Libido Domino ( Lust for Power). It is not a Christian value, but is a common one. There is a better way to resolve the gay/straigt question. It requires a higher viewpoint, a broader horizon, a differentiated consciousness, a new way of thinking about something.
I am reminded of N. T. Wright’s book: Justification. The opening dialog is of two friends with very different viewpoints on whether the sun is the center of our planetary system with the earth orbiting, or whether the earth is at the center and the sun orbiting the earth. No amount of argument can change either person’s beliefs. After a night’s sleep the one invites the other to go with him to see something important. It is a sunrise and the response is LOOK. See the sun rises. We are at the center! But of course, we now know that NO! The earth is not the center of the universe! This is an illustration of a common sense Description of how things may appear to a person. But the Critical Thinking Explanation demonstrates how things are related to other things. They are understood in theoretical terms. This Is A Differentiation in Consciousness. Some people know the difference.
Different and Changing World Views
Bishop Wright speaks of worldviews and their influence on how we interpret our experiences. In this case one person’s world view is formed by science and common sense; while the other is restricted to the only common sense. The difference is that, in common sense, we describe how things relate to us. Whereas, from a scientific perspective, we begin with descriptions-for-us, but then move to theory to explain how things relate, not to us, but to other things. Over time descriptions change hardly at all. For instance, fire described by Homer in the Iliad is very close to fire described in a current travel story. Theory, on the other hand, aims at complete explanation. From the point of view of theory, the same fire that Homer described is explained as a process of oxidation. Further, theory may change over time as more data are discovered and new hypotheses are developed and tested.
In another example, consider evolution and witness the Kentucky-based 100 million dollar Ark, complete with cages for dinosaurs. Here, we also witness conflicting worldviews at work. A 6,000-year-old earth is conceivable if God can do whatever God wants. The world view at work here is named nominalist (more on that later). Some people believe this, shun conflicting evidence, and want to think no further about it. Scientists, and those with differentiated consiousness, on the other hand, think otherwise, based, again, on a scientific world view where giving an account and providing evidence is essential. From the point of view of science, the answer to the question “How old is the earth?” will be shaped by the available physical evidence. From the nominalist viewpoint, not only is physical evidence ignored, but the view reduces the meaning of the holy texts to a merely physical reality.
Interpretations in History
Every M Div. graduate has heard of Peter Abelard (1079-1142) who authored the Latin book: “Sic et Non,” translated in English as “Yes and No.”
Here begins Peter Abelard’s prologue to Sic et Non: (1-11)
“When, in such a quantity of words, some of the writings of the saints seem not only to differ from, but even to contradict, each other, one should not rashly pass judgment concerning those by whom the world itself is to be judged, as it is written: “The saints shall judge nations” (cf. Wisdom 3: 7-8), and again “You also shall sit as judging” (cf. Matthew 19:28). Let us not presume to declare them liars or condemn them as mistaken – those people of whom the Lord said “He who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me” (Luke 10:16). Thus with our weakness in mind, let us believe that we lack felicity in understanding rather than that they lack felicity in writing –- those of whom the Truth Himself said: “For it is not you who are speaking, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks through you” (Matthew 10:20) (my emphases).
Abelard went on to quote 158 philosophical and theological questions that were currently in dispute. He quoted both sides of the arguments from scripture and theologians, and in a way that allowed no logical conclusions that either side was right or wrong. He left it up to the reader to choose the side they wanted, but denied them that quoting an authority, that is, a person or the Bible, was sufficient to solve the dispute. Both sides must take each other’s arguments as data to be better understood, interpreted, and then we must judge it for ourselves to be true or not: Yes or No. Also, I can think of many examples where religious believers have resolved conflict with power and force. I cannot think of a single time that the resolution was good—or at least Godly.
When I was in seminary I looked up sermons from the M E C South during and after the Civil War. The sermons were quite different from those of the M E C North, even when the lectionary reading was used by both. In both, preachers used many scripture quotes to shore up their completely divergent messages. To my knowledge, those preachers never discussed other views or potential differences of interpretation. They merely assumed they possessed The One and Only Truth. On the Confederate side, preachers often used quotes from Genesis concerning the curse of Ham; and then pointed out that some less than fully-human beings ought to be slaves because they were cursed. Further, the Confederate Union lost the war; but the legal authorities continued to pass laws that made marriage between races illegal. History tells us that those laws changed over time. Even now, we are not finished with that change as is evidenced by the following from a “white guy” to:
“Please Remember My Black Son … This is my family. The White guy is me. That’s my beautiful wife next to me, and probably the most incredible child to ever live, Chi. Chi loves superheroes. Every day when I come home, without fail, he asks if we can play superheroes. He puts on a cape, or his Captain America jacket, and prepares swords and wings out of cardboard. Some days we’re real superheroes–his favorites are Captain America and Iron Man–and some days he makes up superheroes based on things he’s seen in Dora or Wild Kratts, superheroes like “Cheetah Man” and, my favorite, “Super Chi.” Chi brings joy into every room he enters. He’s creative, loving, and sensitive–more likely to give away a toy than to fight over it. There is so much good in that boy it brings me to tears just to consider it. Chi is going to be 13. Not today, or tomorrow, or next year. But soon enough, this boy will blossom–awkwardly but beautifully–into a young man. He’s going to be tall. I’m 6’2″, and he’ll likely be close to six foot. But his skin will be darker than mine, his hair curlier. He’ll be raised knowing and loving his African-American heritage and family. What I’m saying is this: I’m a White guy from the suburbs, and my son will be a young Black man. Soon. And I’m scared to death. I’m scared to death that he’ll be in a hoodie on his way home from a friend’s house and a vigilante will shoot him. I’m scared to death he’ll have a silly toy and an anonymous caller will bring the police down on him, and they will shoot him. I’m scared to death he’ll get frustrated by cops pulling him over too often and he’ll talk back to them once, and they will shoot him. I’m scared to death his tall, dark body will scare some neighbor and they’ll “fear for their lives” and they’ll shoot him. I’m scared to death that, once someone shoots him, the media and the shooters will start pulling together a story that paints him as a criminal who deserves death.”
A Minister’s Story-Calvin and Geneva
”Calvin began his work in Geneva as one of the ministers, and his genius for organization soon manifested itself. He drew up a catechism and a confession of faith, which were accepted by the city government. In 1537 there was some hint of difficulties to come, when many persons refused to accept the confession of faith. On the matter of church discipline, Calvin ran into more serious trouble. It was his aim to make the church autonomous in disciplinary matters. This involved, first of all, the right of the church to decide who was worthy to be admitted to partake of the Lord’s Supper and who should be excluded in other words, the right to excommunicate. The councils had no intention of letting this important power pass into the hands of the ministers; they asserted that the councils alone had the right to settle such questions….”
What can we Learn?
These days the question of dissent seems to center on same-sex relationships. I don’t think that UMC members with conflicting worldviews concerning same sex relationships can be changed by argument or by force. But the UMC certainly supports intelligence and reasonableness and even holiness when it comes to exploring such conflicts. In recognizing this support, can we begin with the same general view in place? The solution still requires our own judgment, but it does not require that it be too-quick or without the prior development of meaning that comes with openness of mind. The correctness of our judgments depends on that prior openness to meaning. The American Civil War for example and Anselm’s Sic Et Non provide evidence for our position. Quoting scripture for evidence requires cherry picking the texts that support one’s worldview and certainly not diving into the conflict and exploring the other’ meaning with the hope of expanding and improving our own. Instead of cherry-picking texts and then closing down, let us explore the meaning of this question: Are same sex relationships an evil or a good in the eyes of God? The correct answer depends on the individuals involved. To you, some responses may be good; and some may be bad. In any case the answer that I offer requires a brief exploration of the meaning of : Natural Law and the Laws of Probability
In pre-modern times only Natural Law was conceivable. Since scripture was “God Given” and considered “God’s Law” adherence was based on Natural Law assumptions. However, today it is possible to understand the laws of probability, and to apply those laws to issues like same sex attraction. In my own life, as example, one of the ten siblings in my family is gay. My best friend is gay. My wife’s first cousin wore dresses when he was five years old, and is gay. At the very least, the laws of probability seem to me to have been instrumental in these person’s lives.
We all grow up and develop standards and values that influence our judgments and decisions. (See the essay On Being A Teen on this site for an example of how problematic that experience can be). Being open to changing one’s mind if a truth claim persuades you is the first step to becoming a Critical Realist: A critical realist means at least being open to the possibility of changing one’s mind. Understanding the theory of “Emergent Probability” that compliments Natural Law theory is essential to a full understanding of this aspect of our concerns about sexual attraction. That being said, such changes can be understood as “emerging” in the larger scheme of things–a scheme that even may be according to God–as still mysterious to us, and perhaps as essential to our furthering our understanding of ourselves and our place in God’s universe.
Words and their Changing Meaning
In seminary, at Asbury, I took a class in moral development. We discussed the meaning of the words “divorce” and “fornication.” Divorce, I learned, was often the result of a new relationship that weakened the bonds between husband and wife. It occurs, for instance, when one spouse is so involved with work that the bonds of their marriage begins to weaken; while the bonds between coworkers may grow stronger. This is not an explanation for failed marriages, but is an example of how some marriages fail and end up in divorce.
“Fornication” has to do with those who used, manipulate, or take advantage of another person for sexual gratification. It is NOT “any kind of sexual activity between two persons who were not married.” I and many others had been taught the later definition as universally correct. In mediating such cases, it is theory that wins over a commonsense self-related-only view (that sometimes turns out to be common nonsense): clear and critical explanation wins over descriptive definitions and views. Therefore, and with theories of word-meaning and interpretation in hand, I claim as true that “any sexual activity that is based only on self-gratification rather than mutual care for and love of the other, is wrong. It is a sin.” Again, ultimately we must understand and judge for ourselves. However, with such a background of changing meanings, emerging history, and ongoing learning in a still-mysterious universe, maintaining an openness to new meaning becomes essential to us all, and this is regardless of our religious affiliations, prior doctrine, and prior interpretations.
Further, those persons with a “differentiated consciousness” (which can and often does occur with ongoing learning) can understand both commonsense answers and theoretical answers, though they differ on principle. In this context, from a commonsense point of view, for instance, the sun moves around the earth, from east to west; whereas from a scientific view, the earth revolves around the sun and has other relationships with other planets, as does the sun. Everyone has common sense—we describe and relate things to ourselves–even those who don’t come in out of the rain may still be said to have some common sense! Theoretical consciousness, on the other hand, requires an interest in and knowledge of some area of empirical study, for instance, math, a science, or philosophy, or even some aspects of theology. To have a differentiated consciousness in this context means we can differentiate for ourselves between commonsense meaning and theoretical/scientific meaning and apply those views in their appropriate contexts.
Science is one way to interpret correctly (in that relatively narrow context); and Biblical texts require another broader and fuller interpretation. In the latter case, the text’s meaning must be brought into the truth of our own lives; and we must remember that such meaning resorts ultimately, not to old doctrine with one and only one interpretation, but to God’s mystery. So the one friend who pointed to the sunrise took that as evidence that the earth was at the center. The friend who points to a scripture and says “Look, God said it, I believe it and that settles it” may be using common nonsensical errors to describe their religious beliefs, as well as giving one, and only one, meaning (theirs) to the words in the scripture. Peter Abelard would urge caution. There are texts in scripture that indicate that Jesus was not bound by law or precedent; for instance, when he mixed with the sinful and forgave their sins, healed the afflicted, and calmed the storm. Is this the Jesus we want to follow; or do we want to make up another Jesus to support our side of the conflict? As Paul reminds us, at least we should not be slaves to the law. Like Calvin, however, some in the church are willing to use their power to punish those who have a different worldview.
But, Calvin was wrong on so many levels. He was in fact a nominalist. And so, though he was brilliant and spot-on with some of his work, he also used his brilliance to think from a view towards thoughtlessness and resistance to what may have been, and was in some cases, qualified and emergent change.
Calvin, Nominalism, and Trusting God: A Note from Roger E. Olsen
This seems to me to be another one of those watershed issues in theology where the Bible isn’t as much help as we’d like it to be. Perhaps the decision about being either a nominalist or realist takes place prior to interpretations of texts. How, then, would one decide which to line up with? Probably by considering the consequences of each and deciding with which set of consequences one can live. For example, if God has no eternal, immutable character that controls or at least guides his decisions and if God can do absolutely anything without limit (The Nominalist view) (except perhaps logic), why not believe that God could, and therefore might, renege on his promises? Can such a God be trusted?
The fundamental issue, it seems to me, comes back to the meaningfulness of a statement like “God is a good God.” Every Christian that I know affirms this. But the statement would seem to mean something entirely different to a nominalist/voluntarist than to a realist/non-voluntarist. To the former it can only mean either that absolute power such as God possesses is good or that whatever God does is automatically good or both. To the latter it means that there exists in God himself a moral structure that prohibits even God from doing certain things–such as lying. The issue of how we might know what “God’s goodness” means is a secondary issue to the primary one I’ve described above. But a realist/ non-voluntarist will argue that a nominalist/voluntarist cannot meaningfully know what it means except that whatever God does is good. Then, of course, there is no connection between God’s goodness and the very best of goodness in our experience except God’s commands. But God’s commands tell us nothing about God’s own being or nature.
I am often inclined to think that Calvinist-Arminian debates that get nowhere except a shouting match have much to do with this fundamental philosophical difference. Of course, both sides think Scripture is on “their” side, but Scripture itself nowhere actually addresses the question as it is posed here. Both nominalists and realists can read and interpret “God is love” as consistent with their view. But when a Calvinist says that God’s “love” is different from our love and means qualitatively different and not merely quantitatively different I suspect he or she is showing nominalist-voluntarist colors whether he or she is aware of that or not. Then I suspect we are using entirely different language games, so to speak. I’m not sure, then, that we can even communicate meaningfully because while we are using the same words we don’t mean the same by them at all. I am sometimes tempted to think that this is THE most basic difference between Christians–whether God has an eternal, immutable character that guides, if not controls, his decisions and actions or not. C. S. Lewis thought it was the watershed issue in culture generally and attributed most, if not all, the ills of modern, Western culture (the “abolition of man”) to the influence of nominalism. (my parentheses) Perhaps some people on both sides of the same-sex issue are nominalists without actually knowing that about themselves. The longer the conflict persists, the easier it is to point to these deeper differences in worldviews.
N.T Wright advocates for Christians to be Critical Realists. A critical realist can answer correctly the questions “What are you doing when you know something?” That is a question about human cognition. A critical realist understands that a person experiences themselves as they wonder, as they seek to understand, as they gain an insight into understanding, and then goes on to marshal the evidence, exhaust the endless questioning, and come to the place where their questions subside and they understand most or all of the relevant meaning involved with the situation. But, then they must reflect on whether what they understand is True or Not, whether the evidence answers all of the pertinent questions. If so then they are ready to make a judgment and can be said to truly know, to have actual knowledge of at least that subject. Such is, again, the postponement of judgment until all relevant meaning has been explored. But there is more: once one knows the truth they are morally bound to act on that truth. Lonergan sums this process up using four imperatives: Be Aware (pay attention to your experiences) Be Intelligent (ask all of the important questions) Be Reasonable (Answer the questions correctly and then you can correctly be said To Know, to have knowledge). Then do the right thing Be Responsible. Don’t just know the truth. Do the truth! Finally do everything in love with God and people: because God so loved the world. And God loved us while we were yet sinners.
I have a website that posts the areas and the scholars that I am interested pastormike40390.sandvox.net
Blessings, Mike
My email is mikealbertson1@mac.com*protected email*
My mobile number is 606-233-7407
My address is 115 Pickett Dr, Wilmore Ky. 40390 Note on “Emergent Probability”