Weekly Update: The Work of Waiting
Wait for the Lord. Be strong. Take heart.
As we wait there is preparation. Or waiting is preparation, or preparation is also a form of waiting. This is at least I think the experience of our congregation. In this advent; this time of beginnings for us as well as celebration and remembrance of the beginning that came in Jesus Christ.
We wait for God to bring those who he will bring to us. We await Larry's licensing and beginning the process of ordination in the evangelical Covenant Church, and we await Jane's ordination to the deaconate. We await the official recognition from the three denominations represented by Tripp, Jane and Larry.
All of this takes preparation Jane for her GOE's etc. Larry preparing to present the work of Reconciler to the Board of Ordered Ministry of the ECC, as a work of the Covenant.
Then there is the constitution of the church, and creating a document that can be recognized by the three denominations and giving articulation to our character as an ecumenical church. Yet, we wait for and prepare for the meaning of being such a church, that will only come in our common life together.
Waiting can be hard work! Tensions between the three denominations are showing, as we are also facing the tensions within each of our denominations over human sexuality. Our own sense as pastors as we are facing the recent tensions that have erupted most recently in the American Baptist Churches and the Windsor Report for the Anglican communion, is that this congregation is called to live into this tension as well. This means that if you are homosexual we want it to be known that you are welcome here, but if you expect that to mean that you will not find in our midst a fellow brother or sister in Christ who does not see homosexuality as part of God's plan for human sexuality, you will be disappointed. Conversely we desire to converse with those who find the only appropriate expression of human sexuality to be between a man and a woman in holy matrimony. You are also welcome here given that you understand that you will have to rub shoulders with partnered lesbians and homosexuals. This isn't comfortable, it means struggling with grace and sin and definitions and Biblical interpretation. However this is what Reconciler is about in the nuts and bolts, it just so happens that in terms of things that divide Christians this is for our time the flashpoint, the issue for which Christians are willing to walk away from other Christians. Admittedly, there are theological reasons for this, precisely why at this time we cannot afford to turn aside from those who for good reasons disagree.
Our hope though is that we can begin to encounter each other as persons seeking God, and the mind of Christ in freedom and hope, and to speak the truth in love to one another. At times that truth is hidden from our eyes. If you think you see clearly and all who do not are in deliberate sin or homophobic or heretics etc, Reconciler may not be a home for you (not that we deny sin or homophobia or heresy, but the knee-jerk reaction is as often as not inaccurate and unhelpful).
Jesus said to the Pharisees "You claim to see but are blind and are condemning. If you confessed your blindness you would see already." In this and so many areas we are blind our divisions, our quick judgments of other's who name the name of Christ, our unwillingness to hear the concerns the actualities of the other side shows us to be blind deaf and mute. May God bring to us healing, for only he can make us whole.
We are called to live in the tension of judgment, grace, truth and love. But the greatest of these (to echo Paul) is love. Reconciler is not the answer we are only seeking something beyond what is, in our coming together we await the coming of Christ and the manifestation of Christ's spotless Bride the Church, the Body of Christ, one holy catholic and apostolic. We do not know what that is in its entirety. Some of our brother's and sisters in Christ believe they know exactly where the church is and we listen asking them to explain the work of the Spirit outside the boundaries they "know" to be there, others see the spotless Bride revealed as only a future hope and we listen to them asking them to explain our longings and sense of call.
As we wait as we prepare as we live into the tensions of seeking the mind of Christ together in the midst of animosity and pain, May the Love of God, the Peace of Christ and the unity of the Holy Spirit be with you and remain with you Always.
Amen
Jane, Larry, and Tripp
posted by Larry Kamphausen at Wednesday, December 15, 2004
69 Comments:
Oy, Blogger anonymousness...
Can you imagine that a person's conviction concerning homophobia and other forms of institutionalized hatred could be well considered, compassionate and just, or must it be "knee-jerk"?
Megan
Certainly Megan. Just as a persons conviction concerning definitions of sin could be well considered compasionate and just, and not just "knee-jerk". Just as a persons convicion about heresy could be well considered compassionate and just, and not "knee-jerk".
The purpose of the asside was not to lable anyone's convicitons as knee-jerk but to acknowledge that often our reactions to others beliefs or life styles are often unconsidered and to invite well considered compassionate and just thinking on this issue. And to acknowledge that there is just such thinking on both sides of various issues confronting Christianity today.
So then, what are y'all's plans for reconciling (there's that word again) such conflicting, but well-considered, compassionate and just beliefs on the parts of your various parishioners-to-be? Presuming that none of them are going to change or give up their well-considered, compassionate and just beliefs.
Don't worry, I'm not going to test this in person. I'll only stir you up from afar.
Megan
Well if they are all holding well considered compassionate and just beliefs then I don't see the problem. ;-]
But seriously this is exactly the challenge. I am not sure we have a plan. That may seem reckless except that we can't so reconcile. We can offer our appraoch to these conflicts, as articulated in the update. We can only attempt to be a space in which fellow Christians can face each other, worhsip and pray together, seeking the mind of Christ. Only God can reconcile, thus the name of the church
This means the possibility of change, not necesarily from one position to its opposite, but possibly (hopefully?) to positions that stand beyond what we currently imagine to be possible. Just because we hold well considered compasionate and just beliefs (or appearantly so) doesn't mean they reflect the Mind of Christ and are true.
We wait for what we don't have seeking answers that do not exist. We readily admit that only God can lead us beyond what currently exists in the church today. I think it would be the greatest of hubris to believe that Reconciler has some answer. I don't have the answer we are seeking something we don't have.
It's still me...
The problem I was trying to point out was when your would-be parishioners' compassionate etc. beliefs CONFLICT. Then what?
You wrote, "We can only attempt to be a space in which fellow Christians can face each other, worhsip and pray together, seeking the mind of Christ."
Wouldn't that be the definition of every church?
So why have another one? What makes Reconciler different? What does Reconciler have to offer that no other church does?
In theatre, directors start companies in order to create opportunities for themselves to work. Perhaps it's similar in your business. I think there's more to it, though, and I'm trying to ferret it out.
We offer nothing that should be very different from any other church. The difference is that most Protestant churches seek to be simply in one tradition or another, and I don't know to many churches that would actively invite and welcome both homosexuals and those who would appose Christian acceptance to homosexuality.
An asside- My own philosophy for beginning a new church is not that said church should offer some unique take on things. A church is to be simply the Body of Christ, that may take on differing forms, but those forms are more organic and not the focus but the result of time and place and membership.
We are simply trying to be church admiting division and difference, even animosity, between Christians and attempting to offer a place where those differing perhaps even stridently might come together.
To some degree this does happen in most churches, but rarely as an intention. This is our explicit intention as exemplified by attempting to bring three very different denominations together and taking the position stated in the update.
That's well said, Larry. I still don't quite get why you'd start a church over it, but to each his or her own.
It seems true to me that Christians (and others) who disagree with each other are encountering each other everywhere in the world. So I'm not clear, again, on why there needs to be a church to accommodate what's already happening all over the place in the actual world.
And I don't have the time or inclination to read the update. Alas.
Oh, I had assumed since you were commenting on it that you had read the post.
In any case, I suppose there is encounter and encounter. I "encounter", I suppose, numerous people on the CTA everyday on my way to work. I however, was meaning something more intentional that involves sticking it out when there might be discomfort pain and deep seemingly unresovable disagreement and separation. It is the intentionality of encounter that I don't partiuclarly see happening. Mayby I just haven't encountered the right groups of Christians. I know of no local parish that quite has this vision. In any case there are plenty of Anglicans who are at least talking as if they do not wish to "enounter" each other any more, and are speaking about going their separate ways (or at least wishing to be left alone by the others to do as they see fit.)
Oh, the post *was* the update. You say "update" and my brain flashes to the weekly parish newsletters of my distant past.
So, of course I read it. I'm not that clairvoyant. :-)
Looking at it from the point of view of someone who was hated and denigrated in the church of my origins, I really question why it would be good for (say) a gay person to deliberately place himself or herself in a congregation whom he or she *knows* contains and welcomes people who hate him or her. I can easily see how that would be good for the haters, but not how it would be good for the hateds. Any thoughts?
Megan
I do not question your expreince, and can only say that I do not condone hate or denigration of a person. Such would not be seen as acceptable behavior at Reconciler.
However, you conflate hatred and homophobia with a position that sees same sex sexual relations as sin. It is unfortunate that as your expreince shows that such positions are often expressed with hate and thus denigrate persons, but that fact does not mean that the position is itself hateful and denigrating.
Saying that certain acts are sinful and unacceptable to God is not the same thing as hate.
Though I suppose that one might see any conversation about sin as denigrating of a person, but then if that is the case Christianity denigrates all of humanity, since Christianity understands that everyone sins.
I know that opposition to homosexuality can be articulated without hate and the denigration of a person. If the issue was simply about one group of people hating another group this would be a simple issue. That just isn't the case. There are braoder and deeper theological issues at work.
"I know that opposition to homosexuality can be articulated without hate and the denigration of a person."
Larry, unless you're gay, I don't think you can "know" this. Me neither. Believe, sure. But know? I don't think so. We happen to believe opposing things.
It's interesting, though, for me to mull on how you (or perhaps y'all, the pastors of Reconciler) are trying to focus your church on being a place where congregation members have the opportunity to, or are required to, grapple with their differences. My experience of church (while not to hold it up as an example by any means) is of a body of people who are expected to believe the same thing, and who are willing to stand up and be counted as believing that thing. I left my church because I was not willing to stand up and be counted as though I believed something I didn't believe, and which I actually found diametrically and deliberately opposed to the gospel.
So it's curious to consider a church that tries to escape that responsibility and make itself a place where the people hash it out, or don't, among themselves. Do y'all envision Reconciler as a place where the hashing is ever finished and a consensual congregational identity and body of policy emerges?
Megan
Had to get my waterwings. Sorry to be late to the conversation, but it was looking deep.
As I understand the church, being beholden to a singular, monolithic dogma is incompatable with the Gospel. Of course, that is a dogma of its own. Maybe what would be better to say is that there is no way that we can know fully what it is that God wills for the world. None have been given full vision, but we are all asked to live fully into what we have been given. This to me means that we are to stand in shared confusion and shared confession.
We have had some of this conversation before. I have certain bounds to my understanding of the faith that I am unwilling to move. But that does not mean that the Spirit does not exist elsewhere. I cannot say where the Spirit is not. I can only say where I see it. And I see it, though perhaps incompletely, in many places. Some of these places are in opposition to one another. It is a tenuous place to stand to say the least. But it is the reality I seem to have been given.
It is dangerous in some ways. I do not wish to slide into relativism. That is always a danger for me. I was raised to think in that way. I still find myself going there. I am less certain that it is an appropriate place for me any longer. I am also certain that "fundamentalism" of any stripe is also inapropriate for me. I know that as I preach and as I live into this congregation's life, I will be speaking to the Spirit revealed. It will surely challenge me and others...and sometimes that challenge will reside in the seeming contradictions that profess the wisdom of the Spirit.
And as I understand it, the Gospel IS the dogma.
What do you make of that?
Megan
Hi...
I've been watching this discussion (and another one on the same themes, involving the same players, posted some months ago) with some interest.
My name's Jen. I know Kate from All Saints, and that's what brings me here. I'm attracted to your vision for a new church, as someone who has worked long and hard (and in some ways is still working) to reconcile homosexuality and Christianity within a singular identity (though stating it this way bristles uncomfortably against all that poststructuralist theory I studied in grad school).
I guess my observation here is that the vision of an uncomplicated mutual reconciliation among gays and lesbians and people who think of the way they express their sexuality as "sinful" might be very optimistic. I guess that means I'm not sure it's realistic. I want to belive that it is, though, so please argue with me.
I was involved with Campus Crusade for Christ in college, and that was a really wonderful community in some ways. People were able to "hold one another accountable" precisely because we all agreed on what we were being held accountable to. We were always striving to be better along the same dimensions. I think that kind of involvement with the lives of others is part of what you're seeking...but I could be wrong about that.
What I can say is that my internal struggle and ultimate decision that I'm okay with who I am and who I love is hard-won. I'm not inclined to take kindly to people telling me I'm being sinful in *that* area of my life. I guess I'm okay knowing there's someone down the pew from me who thinks differently than I do about abortion, say, or war. But when there's a philosophical disagreement about an issue that's fundamental to who I am (again, bristling), the power is all on the side of the person who's doing the judging, because all of a sudden, we're not discussing an abstract issue. We're talking ahout whether I have a right to be sitting there (in a way).
The thing about homosexuality is that it has become so culturally linked to identity and personhood as to make it difficult to interpret a challenge to the lifestyle as anything other than a challenge to the individual--to the depths of that person's identity.
And our culture is seriously fascinated by it. There are many, many other things that are listed in the Bible as sin that don't get talked about as much and are not as linked to identity. What if, for instance, a new branch of fundamentalism were to rise up from within the Christian church that took seriously the sin of gluttony? Too impossible to imagine, perhaps, since many churches are filled with people who are committed to a lifestyle of gluttony and could never give it up or even imagine a different life.
Now I'm off on a tangent. Sorry about that. I'm very intrigued by what you're trying to do, as I said earlier. Megan, I think your comments are very well stated, and I'm glad you're challenging these guys and gals from afar.
I think the gospel is the mystery, not the dogma. I think Jesus realizes how hard this is and, as ever, defies our expectations.
Hi Jen. Thanks for adding your story, comments and thoughts to the mix.
Megan
Thanks a lot to both of you, Jane and Megan.
Jen, it is optimistic. The only place I would push you is to say that none of the arguments you stated are truely philosophical. And that is the point. We cannot get to the whole of the truth. Who we are, as you have stated so well, is essential to the way we cary out the gospel. Whose we are is equally so. Thus we mix and mingle anf fight and rant because many of us are looking for something monolithic, something specific enough say "This is it!"
I think that we may be mistaken if that is how we view Christianity. I believe that the revelation we have been give is Truth, it is the reality beyond the illusion. So, when we limit ourselves to overly specific dogmas, we trap ourselves in more illusion.
I wish I were more articulate, but I am posting from the hospital and things have been wild today. Let me try it another way.
God loves his children. This is revealed to me through the life of Christ Jesus and the people who have spoken about him, have lived into his teaching, have recorded, ordered and reordered the church for two thousand years. To say that any of us have ever completely pinned it in is foolish. Not even the Orthodox will make that claim (someone correct me if I am mistaken). So, my hope for Reconciler is that we may live into the humility that is evident in the results of our (read: the entirety of those calling themselevs Christian) seeking to be Christ to the world. Humility can give greater room for love. It can take us out of ourselves and transform relationships, hearts, lives.
I am not looking for some utopia. Honestly, that is farthest from my mind. The church is not that, nor should it try to be. But the church should be honest with itself...and this conversation is exactly that in my mind. This is how the church is honest with itself.
This is an interesting discussion. It seems to me that Jane, Tripp and Larry consider church as a sort of debating society where all and sundry can come and have their visions challenged, stretched or affirmed as the case may be.
This is a very different vision of church than is usual. Most churches agree on core doctrines, and consider themselves to be places where folks attempting to live in obedience to these core doctrines come to learn the difficult art of discipleship. While it is understood that discipleship requires being stretched rather more than is comfortable, the direction that one is stretched in tends to be one that is in keeping with the values of the church in question. For example, while there are doubtless many on this blog who would feel that my greatest deficiency in Christian discipleship is excessive rigidity, what my pastor and I are currently working on is my pride and temper. My oldfashioned notions regarding human sexuality (and other matters) are not considered much of an issue other than in that they lead me into the sins of anger, pride and uncharity. However, I imagine that many folks at Reconciler would disagree that that is my most pressing ailment, and would find a great deal more to correct in me.
In medicine, if Dr. A thinks you have appendicitis, and Dr. B feels that your biggest problem is hypochondria and flatulence, then usually you end up needing to decide which physician you are going to go with. To simply listen and learn reflectively from all sides means that you are either going to end up dead or with unnecessary abdominal surgery. Truth matters in medicine.
Are there any doctrines that Jane, Tripp and Larry would consider irreconcilable by Reconciler?
For example, recently some TEC priests in Pennsylvania figured that Druidism was reconcilable with Episcopalianism, posting some litergies to Ashtoreth on the National Episcopal website. Would druids open to syncreting Christ be welcome at Reconciler?
My brother, (once Episcopalian) having married a Hindu wife has decided that Christ is the "avatar" of Brahma. He has discerned that there is no significant difference between Christianity and Hinduism, and therefore no longer attends church as he has not found any church that would comfortably reconcile his theology. Should I mention this parish as a theologically comfortable option that will allow him to reconcile his theology? (Alas he lives in San Francisco, so it would be a rather long commute for him!)
I would be interested in knowing what precisely Jane, Larry and Tripp consider core doctrines for Reconciller.
I might add that the direction of discipleship is a core one for parents. (I presume that Reconciler is open to parents or is this a singles only church?)
In a culture that is swimming in sexuality, I wish my children to be stretched in discipleship that emphasizes faithfulness, self discipline and chastity. I consider these a part of Christian discipleship that it is essential the church provide a clear message on.
However others might very reasonably feel that such an emphasis will inevitably lead to a spirit of reduced understanding for folks whose relationships lie outside traditional Christian boundaries.
May I assume that this debating society is going to be a "child free zone"? Because it will need to be. If I were a lesbian parent, I would not be willing to expose my adolescent to "homophobic" views. Similarly, as a parent who wishes my child to incorporate traditional views, I would not be willing to expose my child to what traditional morality considers a form of "promiscuity".
The lesbian parent would feel that protecting her child from homophobic views was more important that learning to get along with all different views of Truth. I respect that. I recently pulled my kids out of the local public school which, while it had excellent SAT scores, also had a culture which glorified promiscuity and drug use, and where every conversation appeared to revolve around who was doing what with whom, and who was the latest to lose their virginity. Come January, they will be attending a Christian (Baptist) school instead which has a dress code and hands out detentions for "PDAs" (public displays of affection). The public school teachers were upset pointing out that I was teaching my children to be elitist rather than egalitarian, and that if SAT scores were similar in both institutions I shouldn't complain. My feeling is that while I am concerned that going private might exacerbate my children's sins of elitism, right now elitism wasn't an issue for them, and I would rather that their Christian focus for discipleship revolve around incorporating the virtues of diligence and chastity, than the virtues of acceptance and egalitarianism.
Some virtues are best learned later rather than earlier. However for a church to be helpful in instilling virtues, it will first need to decide what a virtue is. Does Reconciler plan to assist her parishoners in developing Christian virtues? If so, what do Tripp, Larry and Jane consider virtues? Is it simply "love"? If so what boundaries does Jane, Tripp and Larry have for "love"? Does love have boundaries?
If Reconciler is going to say that all relationships marked by "love" are marked by the Holy Spirit, how will Reconciler reconcile those who are drawn to currently uncool sexual minorities. I presume that both Gay and Straight would be welcome to teach Sunday School. What about other sexual minorities? For example polygamy is acceptable in many countries. If Reconciler has Christian education, would a (nonpracticing) polygamist be permitted to discuss Human sexuality and marriage? (As long as he/she had relationships marked by "love" of course). Incest also has also been acceptable in some cultures. I live with my twin sister. I have done so for twenty years, and we coparent two adopted children. Our relationship is nonsexual. However if we were to make it sexual and proclaim at Reconciler that this was a healthy, blessed thing for the children of the parish to do, and that anybody who thought otherwise was forcing us to "live in a closet" would Jane, Larry and Tripp "affirm" and "bless" this? If not, why not? Our relationship has lasted longer than most marriages gay or straight, and our children thrive within it.
I would hope that those who are sexually attracted to juveniles would at least be "excluded" from teaching juveniles at Reconciler, however "loving" their relationships might be.
If Reconciler wishes to have children and to be a place that makes disciples (young and old) of the nations, rather than be a place to debate theology, then Reconciler is going to decide where her boundaries lie. Because we all have boundaries. Some of us feel that we can make those boundaries as wide as we like, while others feel that it is presumptious to rewrite the boundaries of the Apostles. But there are boundaries for all of us, even in love.
If the point of church is to make disciples, rather than discuss theology, then Reconciler will be forced to discern where her boundaries lie. If it fails to do so, it will become or remain a singles only debating society.
Anonymous wrote: "The problem I was trying to point out was when your would-be parishioners' compassionate etc. beliefs CONFLICT. Then what?"
Well that's when the pastors call for a round of brewski's to assist in theological reflection and general reconciliation.
Anonymous also wrote: "So why have another one? What makes Reconciler different? What does Reconciler have to offer that no other church does?"
Reconciler is different because it is held in a bar! This makes access to brewski's easy, and improves the difficult work involved in breaking down boundaries, and living into pain and confusion!
What Reconciler needs now is a few good stained glass windows featuring "Jesus Christ the Wine bibber" and Jesus Christ coming up with more brewskis (doubtless for excellent theological reasons) at the Wedding party.
The Lord who was friend of tax collectors might well bless this tax deduction!
Clueless,
Good insights.
You could take a gander at our pastoral vision statement. That might answer a lot of your questions. But another answer is this: In the midst of struggling in discipleship, the church has always been a place of debate. It is simply the historical reality of it. Sermons are debates/rebuttals of sorts. Think about the councils, the various synods, life in seminaries...these are all debate. This is what can be the results of living as disciples of Christ. Doctrine may arise out of these debates. So may schism and hurtfulness. What we are trying to suggest is that our congregation is in no way a relief from these debates. We are attempting to say that there is a Tradition in which we all grow and are formed. I would imagine that you and I agree more than disagree. We are solely Christian...we pray the Apostles' Creed in each service. We claim it as true. We desire to be shaped within it. We would not say that Hinduism and Christianity are the same, per your example. We would, of course, respect the Hindu and love the Hindu as we believe God would. But we would not actively "preach Hinduism."
I think that one of the difficulties in speaking of the issue of homosexuality is that there is an assumed dominoe effect depending upon one's perspective. If we affirm homosexuality, then we must be theological revisionists who claim that there is no truth in the "mythology" of Christianity, that Paul is always wrong and that the church is an oppressive institution bent upon the destruction of all it does not understand. If we deny homosexuality as an appropriate Christian witness, then we do not know love, we are blind fools who vote Republican and would rather keep our children away from "those people." The reality is so much more complicated than that...as we all know.
And the reality is that there is much more than homosexuality to discuss and learn about our faith. This is such a heated discussion, a divisive subject.
Why not speak to the very complicated reality that is life in the Kingdom and allow the conversations to take place within the church as opposed to relegating the conversations to the wings of society?
I think that this is the place to riase children. To shelter them in a place where the conversations can occur instead of shileding children from issues...as if we were to afraid to have these hard conversations.
We do have children who attend...ages 2-16. They hear the conversations. They see tears and witness the struggle it can be to BE Christian in the midst of the world. What could be better?
I understand that the pastors feel that there is no better place for children to be than in the arms of a church which encourages adults to weep out their various personal traumas in public. Most churches, parents, and people in general try to protect children. This is why movies tend to place R ratings on the sort of discussion which is apparently considered godly at Reconciler. It frightens children to learn about the vulnerabilities of adults when they are still young enough that they know they need adult protection. In addition, I cannot see how it would benefit my seven year old, for example, to learn that an adult "knew" that she was different from the time she was a young child, and figured that she had to be a lesbian because she never felt attracted to boys. Most kids of elementary school years have no attraction to the opposite sex. Many girls are tomboys and many boys are shy. Usually these things straighten out in time. Reassuring the children that this is a normal developmental stage is better than claiming that this stage will never be left behind.
Nor do I feel that listening to the views of confused adults would be helpful to teenagers. Most teens feel different from other kids, due to their natural self-absorption, and feel conflicted about sex. What they really need at this difficult juncture is sanity and mentoring from the adults in their lives. For example, as I said to my fourteen year old not long ago, "I can understand how rough it is when you lose the love of your life four times in a month, but that is not a good excuse for failing to complete your homework." What boring old parenting does is let the child know what normal is, and reassure the child that yes, eventually the sun comes out. When the adults in a child's life are all as self-absorbed, temperamental, needy, and sex-obsessed as the average fourteen year old, who is there to be the grown-up? As for what could be better than listening to adults weep about their emotional turmoil, and explain about how nastily their ex-wives, husbands, girl-friends, boy-friends, parents, and/or children behaved, well, both the local Catholic and the local Baptist churches have excellent youth groups which have the kids building homes for habitat for humanity, wrapping christmas gifts for the needy, and even (ewww! eww! from the teenage perspective) visiting the elderly in nursing homes. The advantage of these ministries is that they get the children to stop thinking about themselves, their sex lives or tragic lack of one, their ephemeral popularity or depressing anonimity, and the various adults in their lives who fail to properly understand and appreciate them, and to start thinking about other people, about how fortunate they are, and about God. All of these activities are more useful than encouraging adolescents, however old they might be, in their self-absorbed narcissism.
atilla,
Also, good thoughts. I think that we have differing understandings of what it means to raise kids...and to be a kid. I agree completely that kids need stability. I agree that kids need certainty. But kids also need honesty.
An adult can cry in the presense of a child, mourn, be angry, argue, and still say "I will never leave you." It is possible and it is not narcissism.
One could just as lilely encourage narcissism by not speaking out, by not sharing, by abandoning a child to their own worldview. These are different extremes that we are speaking of and I imagine most parents live somewhere in the middle.
Now, what is so R-rated about speaking of homosexuality? That is something I am not so certain I follow. Could you explain?
attila, you said "What boring old parenting does is let the child know what normal is, and reassure the child that yes, eventually the sun comes out. When the adults in a child's life are all as self-absorbed, temperamental, needy, and sex-obsessed as the average fourteen year old, who is there to be the grown-up? As for what could be better than listening to adults weep about their emotional turmoil, and explain about how nastily their ex-wives, husbands, girl-friends, boy-friends, parents, and/or children behaved, well, both the local Catholic and the local Baptist churches have excellent youth groups which have the kids building homes for habitat for humanity, wrapping christmas gifts for the needy, and even (ewww! eww! from the teenage perspective) visiting the elderly in nursing homes."
I think that you see too much of the extreme in what we are proposing. And we are not proposing the extremes of any position except to say that the Creed is True. To be able to converse openly, to allow for healthy expression of emotion makes absolute sense. I am not suggesting that people are encouraged to run willy nilly with their emotional issues in a public forum in some way that is inappropriate. If a parishoner were to do what you suggest, then I would encourage that person to enter into one-on-one dialogue with the pastor. I am suggesting, however, that allowing church to be a forum to speak to difficult and challenging issues only makes sense. And, I would also suggest that such a conversation goes hand in hand with working with Habitat or at a nursing home. Because those actions are a way of doing the same work. It is a way to address reality and not sweep it under the rug as can be the tendancy from time to time in community. This is one reason why there is a blog and that your comments are invited. You are engaging in exactly the process we encourage in the day-to-day life of the church. Is this so onerous to you, so incompatable with living as God's people?
I can't speak for atilla. For myself, I think it is one thing to debate theology on a blog but quite another to discuss some subjects openly among young children. If you permit open discussion regarding homosexuality with children present this de facto legitimizes the behavior. Would you permit open discussion of whether partial birth abortion is acceptable with young children present? Or whether it is ever acceptable to bomb refugee camps? Or whether it is ever okay to divorce and walk away from children of the marriage? There are a lot of topics that are best discussed in small adult forums. This is because there are a lot of things that adults do that other adults of equally good conscience consider unacceptable. Usually children are excused during that period. This is because most adults understand that children are not as adept at rational thinking as adult are. Adults are able to see the pain but still consider the argument. Children for the most part see only the pain. We know know that watching or listening to violence on TV begets violence in children. Why should listening to the sexual confusion of adults not also leave their marks on the minds of children.
A blog is a good way to discuss theology. Mixed age forums are not.
As to the issue of homosexuality, A several thousand student sample performed in the Minnesota public schools make it clear that some 26% of 13 year olds are afraid that they are homosexual. Only 5% still think they are at the age of 17. Why would anybody wish to convince a young child that a stage that most people grow out of is likely to be permanent? Why not just post a large sign at your church saying
"GIVE UP NOW and we will affirm any behavior you feel God is too small to correct in you as being holy".
Okay, I suppose it's my turn.
First, a couple of factual corrections. Our church is not held in a bar, but a coffee house; If you want to sip a mocha latte or some such duing our pre-worship study/reflection time, you are welcome to do so; but no alcohol is present except that which is used in the Eucharist, and we bring that in, along with the bread and the altar linens and the hymnals.
Secondly, we are not "a church which encourages adults to weep out their various personal traumas in public." As with any congregation, that can happen, of course, as parishioners contend with life issues; but a private pastoral conversation would be highly encouraged for one who felt the need for such disclosure.
As to conversations being appropriate to be held in the presence of children, please be assured that this would be a concern of mine, if that were a problem. Two of the children (aged 10 and 17) in our congregation are mine, and as my friends would tell you, I am generally a protective parent (the 17-year-old might say "too protective" at times!). And I can say with conviction that there has been precisely nothing brought up in our discussions of faith, and of the work of trying to live a life of discipleship, that I would consider inappropriate.
Yes, we do discuss issues of conflict. But our study time is hardly the therapeutic group session that some seem to envision. When we speak of "living into tension," we are talking of the inevitable struggle of trying to be Christian in a secular society, and how our denominational/theological understandings influence that. No, we don't always get it right, much as I'd wish it were otherwise. But I believe that we (and in this I include my children, as they grow into their own faith) are better formed as Christians for the effort.
Yes, we do have core doctrine. We say the Apostles' Creed as our testament of faith (though this stretches our Baptist strain, as they are a confessional, and not a creedal people), and we hold to those things as fundamental. That base, as a matter of fact, is a place where we meet together as Christians, in this congregation; and from which we then work, within and between our denominational formations, to live together as a community of faith.
So the question regarding the druids, for example, I would answer like this: all are welcome to come in, and to worship Jesus with us; but the worship, and the beliefs, are definitively Christian, and those who are not comfortable with a lack of syncretism would probably be happier elsewhere. Without meaning to be the least bit less than sincere, I know a fine Unitarian pastor not too far away who would make them most welcome.
But facing the fact that Christians conflict in their understanding, seems to me to be part of raising a Christian family. My children, for example, have been raised in an Episcopal Church, and taught the basics of faith there. But my daughter attended a Lutheran (LCMS) middle school, where she heard differences. We have allowed her-- indeed, encouraged her-- to question those differences (though we've also given her our answers to those questions as they arose) as part of her process of finding and owning the faith for herself.
Similarly, she participated last summer in an inner-city mission program for teens, sponsored by North Park University-- an Evangelical Covenant institution. It was a wonderful experience for her, and opened her eyes to many of the things that Christians can do, and should, but often don't-- in the practical application of their faith, in relation to other people, and the world. How do we deal with those who are different from us (and sexuality is hardly the only area to consider here)?
Acknowledgement of these sorts of things, and prayerful consideration of the way we approach them (or fail to do so) is hardly "self-absorbed narcissism." To the contrary, I believe it can be integral to a life of conscious discipleship.
You make a good point, Shari, and one with which I would agree. There are occasions, and discussions, that do not appropriately include minor children, as well as those which might legitimately include older kids, but not younger ones. And though I will say again that I do not believe we have crossed that line, it certainly is something to keep in mind until the day (God willing) we are large enough to have multiple classes and such happening during Sunday Christian Ed time. So thanks for bringing it up.
Jen again.
I agree that some things are inappropriate for children. Many of the things "Clueless" mentioned in her post are included--though I'd say that any adult going on about relationship difficulties (and not just the homosexuals) would be inappropriate for young children...those kinds of problems should be solved, as others have suggested here, in private counseling sessions and not in public forums.
However, lumping "homosexuality" in its entirety with war and abortion and divorce seems very strange to me. Later in the post, she suggests that these are all things that cause pain...and then goes on to say that we should not subject children to the sexual confusion of adults.
How is the relationship of two women still in love after twenty years together akin to bombing refugee camps? I don't get it. Also, are you suggesting that only homosexuals are sexually confused? And would those who are not confused be able to talk about their lives and their partners in an open forum, even with young children present?
You're right--I wouldn't want my children to be exposed to teachings that presented my lifestyle as "sinful" or "wrong." I would be very upset if that happened. At the same time, I think it's unrealistic to expect that I could control every input...nor would I want to.
I'll tell you something. Those 26% of 13-year-olds who are "afraid" they might be homosexuals will be a lot better off if they feel like they can talk honestly and openly about ALL of their feelings with a trusted adult. There's a lot to learn between 13 and adulthood...as evidenced by the large number of adults that haven't quite managed to learn what they need to learn to emerge from their own confusion.
AngloBaptist said "I agree completely that kids need stability. I agree that kids need certainty. But kids also need honesty. An adult can cry in the presense of a child, mourn, be angry, argue, and still say "I will never leave you. It is possible and it is not narcissism. One could just as lilely encourage narcissism by not speaking out, by not sharing, by abandoning a child to their own worldview."
Actually I disagree. While I agree that not abandoning your children is a prerequisite for parenthood, that is not the only criterion. Honesty is not an excuse for dumping adult burdens on young shoulders. Take me for example. Athough my parents in general had a good marriage, and were good parents, each of them committed the sin of adultery. I know about it because my mother insisted on making me her confidant. Although I offered no criticism at the time, it was not a helpful thing for her to do either from my perspective, from his, or even from hers. It did not make me love her more or love him less. It decreased my respect for her more than it decreased my respect for him. She did not stop until the day that - in response to her question, "Why aren't you mad at your father?!" Can you tell me one good thing he has ever done?" - I responded, "He has never, not even once, said anything bad about you to me."
AngloBaptist said "Now, what is so R-rated about speaking of homosexuality? That is something I am not so certain I follow. Could you explain?"
Sure. In order to discuss homosexuality with a young child, a Christian would have to explain what sex is, how it fits into God's plan, and why some people choose to pursue it outside the bounds of matrimony with forbidden people and/or objects (e.g. dildos for lesbians). Think about this sort of thing in the context of a SpongeBob SquarePants 'toon (e.g. SpongeBob avec Squidward, or Sandy Cheeks avec Mrs. Puff) and you immediately award the show a R rating, even though it would still be just a cartoon. BTW, the current SpongeBob SquarePants movie is rated PG for moderate violence, mild profanity, and moderate sex (nudity.) And yes, my seven year old loved it.
AngloBaptist said "This is one reason why there is a blog and that your comments are invited. You are engaging in exactly the process we encourage in the day-to-day life of the church. Is this so onerous to you, so incompatable with living as God's people?"
Not at all. I have no objection to engaging in adult discourse on the sexual and other heresies dividing the Church of Christ with other adults on an adult forum. I do not however, consider it part of my day-to-day Christian walk, and I sure wouldn't let my children participate in this discourse.
Dear Jane:
Thanks for clarifying that. Like annoymous, I too thought that Chase Lounge was a bar. (I thought that brewski's as an aid to theological reflection was a good idea though! Maybe you could work out a deal with the owner for spiced up latte's.)
I'm glad that you confess the creeds as it is tough to go too far wrong if one uses the creeds as an anchor. I have to say that given your clarifications, I find nothing too much wrong with your approach, and were I both single, Episcopalian and living in Chicago, I'd probably consider worshiping with you. (I wouldn't bring my kids though).
To annoymous, you miss my point. The point is not that two people having a loving relationship is equivalent to bombing refugee camps. The point is that you are engaging a theological question in a manner that appeals to emotion in front of children unable to separate reason from emotion.
For example, many people on this blog may well consider abortion acceptable in some circumstances (though I am not one of them). Do you think it would be reasonable to "discuss" abortion in front of everybody, including children by first showing the movie "The Silent Scream" which shows unborn children desperately wiggling away from the needle, and then massively convulsing as they die? Or to show pictures of fetal body parts as part of one's "theological discussion"? I think most people would consider this an unfair waving of bloody shirts, appealing to emotion rather than reason. (I also think that showing such stuff to folks under the age of about 15-17 is a form of child abuse. We have "R" ratings for a reason, and I personally don't have TV in my home, and I monitor any DVD use or movie that my kids attend.
Similarly, it is not possible to have a theological discussion about whether same sex sex is part of God's plan for creation, or whether those (including myself) who are not called to holy matrimony are called to holy celebacy if there are folks in the disscussion group openly weeping about how dreadfully they were treated. It becomes as difficult to consider either the theological or medical arguments in the face of the pain of gay people, as it is to consider philosophical or medical arguments in favor of abortion in the face of the pain of the unborn child.
I have no trouble with small groups, but frankly, I think blogs are ideal to discuss difficult subjects. On blogs it becomes essential to discuss the subject on the facts alone, rather than with appeals to emotion.
As to those 26% of kids being better off talking about whether or not they might be gay, those who ended up gay tended to have gay mentors. Whether this is a desirable situation depends on whether one believes that being gay is preferable to being straight. On both theological as well as medical grouds, I cannot see the condition as being "desirable" should there be any viable alternative (including abstinence).
Hi everyone:
I feel y'all do need to understand that to be at Reconciler, the 'Reconciler experience,' if you will (!), is mostly about worship. Mostly, we are not holding long coffeeshop discussions about anything. Mostly, we are reading scripture, according to the common lectionary; praying together, sometimes aloud; praying the creeds; hearing sermons; and finding Christ around the communion table. Mostly we are not discussing homosexuality, etc., except from time to time in our half-hour Bible study/Sunday school time before the service.
Mostly, we are trying *not* to start something new but to *submit ourselves* to the forms of worship that the church has long affirmed: icons, Eucharist, the creeds. The forms which so many Protestants have forgotten completely....
These are formative in ways that no amount of discussion can be.
And discussion, in a public body like church, is not to be unboundaried. This is why pastors have offices, or studies (or at least living rooms) - because individual meeting, help, counseling is at times needful. Acrimonious yelling matches between divorcing partners are not appropriate in Sunday school - and anyone at Reconciler can say so. Ought to say so.
One of our 'charter members' is gay. He blesses me continually. He is not a poster child, however, for our teenagers -- Look at him, what a good little Christian gay he is!
I am married. I am not a poster child, either -- Look at her, everyone should be straight like her! (God knows I don't want to make anyone over in my own sinful image...)
And so, Jen my friend (so good to see you here!), and all of y'all, I think the tension can be said this way: you are not going to be welcome at Reconciler if you are not willing at least to entertain the notion that BOTH my marriage to Larry and Jen's partnership with Deb are of God's Spirit. No one says you have to make a decision today -- but along the lines of Acts 10, where God warns Peter, "Do not call unclean what God has made clean," we are asking you to wait and see what might have been made beautiful by God. Made clean.
Are there relationship/sexual actions by 'gay' people that I consider opposed to Christian life? Yes. Cheating on one's partner comes to mind. Are there relationship/sexual actions by 'straight' people that I consider opposed to Christian life? Yes. Cheating on one's partner comes to mind. Beating one's partner comes to mind. Oh, a myriad of abuses come to mind - so many of them perpetrated by heterosexual men .....
[I use quotes around 'gay' and 'straight' because I am well aware these are not hard and fast terms - there is a spectrum, for starters .... Also pardon the pun on "hard" and "fast" in discussions of sexuality!!]
I don't want your children, Clueless, to sit through a fight wherein a pair of adults are publicly bleeding their psychological wounds all over each other. I am not inviting anyone to an orgy, nor tacitly approving folk having orgies. I want your children to come and worship with me, and with Jen, and with Larry, and with Jane's children, and with Jane, and with you ..........
I know worship cannot be unexamined. But there are voices in worship which are small and quiet, much quieter than the voices of discussion. I want to invite people to come and listen to *those* voices, the voices which in my experience are often not heard. Come listen - with me.
Hey there. Wow. This conversation has taken off. Thanks to all who have been participating.
These are some quick thoughts. I'm at the hospital and should not blog long. ;-)
What I remember about my own sexual questions in my teen and preteen years mostly centered around rejection and what was acceptable or not. I am straight, married etc, but for a long time I figured my love of choral singing and classical music made me gay. I also thought that since I liked girls, meaning I found them interesting conversation partners and more likely to avoid fart jokes than the boys my age were, also meant I was gay. There were other things as well that do not need to be shared, but suffice it to say that it took me well into my 20's to dispel these myths in my own mind. A gay man halped me figure this out. I have never had a same sex encounter. Never wanted one. But somehow sexual identity became my issue. Being able to speak to the issue without fear of rejection (not the same as judgment) made all the difference. I wish that for our church.
Just thought I'd throw that in the mix.
Kate said: "One of our 'charter members' is gay. He blesses me continually. He is not a poster child, however, for our teenagers -- Look at him, what a good little Christian gay he is! I am married. I am not a poster child, either -- Look at her, everyone should be straight like her!"
For better or worse, every adult is a "model" to those around them all the time; especially to children. You, I, and your "gay charter member" model "Christian" behavior at all times, including outside of church. Sometimes we WANT our children to notice our behavior. Sometimes we'd prefer they didn't. But we can't say, "Oh, I'm not a poster child! I want to just be me and not have to take ANY responsibility at all for other people's choices." Whether or not we want this to be so, and whether or not they say they care, our children look at us and at what we stand for all the time and every day.
Kate said: "And so, Jen my friend (so good to see you here!), and all of y'all, I think the tension can be said this way: you are not going to be welcome at Reconciler if you are not willing at least to entertain the notion that BOTH my marriage to Larry and Jen's partnership with Deb are of God's Spirit. No one says you have to make a decision today -- but along the lines of Acts 10, where God warns Peter, "Do not call unclean what God has made clean," we are asking you to wait and see what might have been made beautiful by God. Made clean."
As an adult, I can suspend judgment out of respect for gays as fallible mortals, even as I. (My reasoning goes, "Although so-and-so has this weak point, he also has many good points. I know my own sins loom as large as his in God's eyes, although my weaknesses differ from his. Therefore I do not judge him.") However, I am also able to suspend disbelief while watching The Return of the King. My youngest is NOT able to suspend disbelief, which is why I don't take her to scary movies. Although I am not a great model of the Christian life, my child is able to forgive me my sins, BECAUSE I REPENT THEM. She is able to say to herself, "Yes, Mommy was angry and she yelled, and she used a bad word, but she said she was sorry and that she shouldn't have done that." I honestly doubt she could feel that your marriage to Larry, and Jen's partnership with Deb were equally valid expressions of God's spirit, while simultaneously believing what is said in the Bible, UNLESS there was penitence on the part of Jen and Deb. Since Jen and Deb are not repentent, she would either have to believe in Jen and Deb OR she would have to believe in the Bible. I am not willing to force this choice on my young child.
Thank you, Kate. And thank you, "AngloBaptist" (Tripp, right?). Before those posts, my spirit was starting to sink. It's one thing to debate a philosophical issue that you have some emotional investment in...quite another to be in a forum (virtual or real) where you feel people are questioning whether you really belong in the fold (which is the essence of the "theological" debate as regards homosexuality).
This is Jen. Still posting anonymously (sigh).
Attila...I myself am a Christian, and I can think of lots of ways to talk about homosexuality with a young child that don't involve a detailed discussion of sex.
Kate, I appreciate your discussion of what goes on in your church. It really does sound like a good community of people. And it sounds like, even though the intention is to be open to all comers, the community came up with its own way of addressing this issue from a moral standpoint: Those who are unwilling to entertain the idea that all good and healthy relationships are of God's spirit (and not just the heterosexual ones) would probably not feel welcome there. I think that, in order to have true community and to be able to "hold one another accountable" to continuing to live in good and healthy relationships, some agreement on the validity of the relationships themselves is necessary.
Tripp, thanks for your candor. My story is somewhat similar. I had questions from the get-go, but my early religious experiences cancelled that all out. By the time I hit college, that sort of questioning was not allowed for a good Campus Crusader. I went out on plenty of dates, had a few ill-fated relationships, was even married for a year and a half. Not a hint of what you might call fulfillment (I'm not talking about sex) until I started dating women at 32. Even my very conservative family could see how happy I'd become. I wish I had the opportunity earlier to fully explore the feelings that I (instead) shoved only to have to deal with them later.
Well, I sure am glad that mostly what you do is worship. However it is the remaining portion of the time that would keep my kids out of your church.
Because what you both have done is to personalize the discussion. Traditionalists are welcome at Reconciler but only if they understand that charter members will be discussing their orientations in front of Traditionalist children, and that to reject the theology will involve rejecting the nice lady in front of you who is chatting with your child.
How easy would it be to have "theological discussions" on the subject of abortion with a child who was an "abortion born live" as your pastor or charter member? Let's say that the child survived with normal mentation but paralysis of one side. How easy would it be to say "well actually your mother should have had the choice to take your life, because after all I believe that your survival is less important than her sexual freedom?" Personalizing the discussion means stiffling it. In this context, to say that abortion should be kept legal would mean rejecting the individual (abortion survivor).
What you are doing is theological discussion using people as pawns. "Reject this theological argument and you reject me". But theological arguments are not about the feelings of various individuals. Everybody finds some doctrine in Christianity offensive. EVERYBODY. Personally, I truly hate the idea that Jesus Christ is to be the only path to God. However, if this is the truth, then it is my business to get my feelings in line with God's plans for Creation. It is my business to trust God when his message brings me pain or sadness. It is not my business (or the churches) to say that God's will on this particular subject that is dear to me is not binding, and even less am I authorized to teach children, especially the children of those who disagree with me, my personal heresies and biases.
Would you let a Hindu teach Sunday School on the grounds that she is an obvious nice person, and to reject her theological ideas would mean rejecting her as an individual? There are plenty of Hindu's who feel Christ can be added to the Hindu Pantheon without stretching either religion too much. (There are plenty of Christians who also think this, witness Spong).
As I recall, Christ had some fairly harsh words for those who lead children astray. I keep my heresies and hopes to myself for this reason, though I trust God to find a way to reconcile those individuals (including myself) who cannot fully form themselves to the difficult business of being Christian.
It's Jen, not Anonymous.
Christ had harsh words for the Pharisees, too, when they were laser-focused on the hand-washing habits of Jesus' disciples while they had unresolved "lifestyle" sins of their own (Matthew 15).
I've seen the verses you would probably quote me, and I've seen them refuted. I'm not going to argue that score. What I will say is that even if it is a sin, even if it's a LIFESTYLE sin, we're all lifestyle sinners by not caring for the poor and by eating meat from the grocery store and by doing any number of things we do every day and don't repent.
Plus there is an elaborate discussion of how one should wear one's hair attached to the same section as those verses you'd probably quote me. I don't suppose you'd require all parishioners to follow those rules in order to attend your church?
Absolutely we are all lifestyle sinners. Indeed I do not wear my hair covered in church (though I would do so promptly, if those in authority asked me to do so).
However there is a difference between letting a sinner (and we are all sinners) worship in church and letting them teach that their form of sin is holy.
I have no right to justify my sins of anger and arrogance as "pardonable pride" or "righteous wrath". They are simply sins and mortal ones at that.
A Hindu would be welcome as a seeker in my church, though Catholic tradition forbids her to be communicated. However, a Hindu, however godly and wise, would not be permitted to teach unless she stuck fairly close to doctrine (and even then there would be an open question as to whether she would be a good example for Christian children). She would certainly be both welcomed and permitted to join in worship and study however.
Obviously you do not feel the need to stick by the tenants of the three faith traditions in what you teach.
That is of course your perogative, however it is also the reason that my child will not attend your church or any like it while they are in my charge. Indeed, I withdrew from the Episcopal church over similar teachings in my own child's Sunday school. From what I gather, numerous others made the same decision at the church that I attended. At any event, as I recall there were some 325 pledges two years ago, when I left, (down actually from 400+ before the arrival of a liberal rector) and there are some 190 now.
If you want kids in your church whose parents are traditionalists, you will need to be willing to conform yourselves to teaching that which the church calls holy, and to refrain from teaching anything else.
As I see it, Reconciler can only appeal to those individuals who already agree with you that human sexuality is a matter of indifference. By definition that excludes most conservatives, especially those who are parents.
Dr. Christian, This is Tripp. Sorry, I keep logging in with my other i.d.
Heh. What a great name to have, Shari, Dr. Christian. Anyway...
I take your perspective very seriously. You are absolutely right that the way we have spoken in this blog about the issue of homosexuality and what God makes clean would not be a safe or welcoming environmet to more conservative parents. You are absolutely correct.
We are trying to ballance, however, the stance you distrust with the hope of reconciliation with the tradition of the church (thus the focus on worship). This may be impossiblem, then again, it may not. This idea sends me back to the history of the church since its beginning. It has always been a place where believers gather to work through the Truth lived out in the world. Every debate topic from the Chalcedon "substance" debates to the Reformation in Geneva to the SBC deciding that women were also not to be missionaries are mere "highpoints" in our history. The Church has never been placid. It may be gracefilled, but as it is filled to the brim with sinners, it is not placid.
I invite homosexuals in our congregation to not bail from conversation with more conservative Christians because like it or not, that more conservative is a brother or sister in Christ. The same goes the other way. Perhaps that does not change the reality you so clearly state. Again, as we said from the very beginning, those unable/unwilling to participate in that kind of conversation, live in tension in a congregation, to hold one another up as we journey together will not be happy in this church. This means that people who only care for their children to hear "Gay people are beautiful and those who struggle with that are ignorant turds." will also be unhappy.
Yes, this may be impossible, but it is a description of the church, a not-so-placid, grace-filled community on the macro level that may possibly be lived out on the micro level.
It is perhaps an insane thing we are doing. I will grant you that. But asking a Baptist to preside at an altar and proclaim God's real presense in the elements and yet hold tight to Baptist identity is also insane...and yet we do it.
This is how the Spirit seems to be calling us, changing us, moving us. And we are compelled to allow for a place where all of the issues at hand: sacraments, ordinances, praying with a book in hand, singing a cappella, pink hair in church (Scandalize my grandmother!), bluejeans on a pastor, war, sex, greed, sin, peace, hope, love...so many more...can all be spoken to, none be hidden, none be secrets. This is what we are after. We invite all commers to this. I do not know where it will go. I do not know how people will manage their differences. I have hopes, but that's all I have right now...that and the Liturgy.
Hmmm....yes.
I have been reading the comments, and it is very interresting. I, like Kate, and one of the parishoners of Reconciler.
I just have a quick comment about what we are doing...I think.
Maybe we are heretics and should be fried for what we are doing. Maybe we are bringing something prophetic to the church. I don't know.
What I do know is: our struggle is made with the utmost faith. We are willing to listen to what God is leading us. Are we hearing it correctly, who knows, but through our faith we are letting God lead us in this journey (to live the witness of the Risen Lord) through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
It is my prayer that we always remain opend to this call.
Tripp wrote "Again, as we said from the very beginning, those unable/unwilling to participate in that kind of conversation, live in tension in a congregation, to hold one another up as we journey together will not be happy in this church"
The greater question is why would anybody wish to go to a church that engaged in this sort of tension? You are designing a church that mimicks the sort of angry, dwindling congregations that have come to characterize the post GC Episcopal church. Most pastors try to minimize such "conversations" as in order to promote "reconciliation" rather than maximize such conversations.
Why would anyone want to go to a church whose major focus appears to be conversations on sex, however wonderful the liturgy and music might be?
Personally, I rather enjoy theological debate, however even I, when I choose a church home, choose a place that can be a haven and a school for myself and my children. I don't go to church to have fights with people. I can do that from my home computer. My last six months in TEC, I returned from church every Sunday, angrier and more alienated than I was before. I don't go to church to have my sins of anger aggravated. I go to church to put aside my sins and to focus on God. The structure of the Catholic church permits me to do this.
I doubt gay Christians go to church in order to have fights either. I don't see them hanging around your coffee shop if there are traditionalists there, but my guess is that they will successfully run any traditionalists off by making a point of evangelizing their children with liberal theology. (At least that is what was happening in my last TEC church, and is the obvious strategy for those who are in a position of power, and who have an agenda).
Why set up a church whose point seems to be to precipitate conflict? When church becomes a battleground, most people leave. I think most folks enjoy debate rather less than I do and would leave sooner than I did.
If y'all want a church that "stays in conversation" then you will need to take all conversations out of the Sunday school and the pulpit, and confine them to adult forums only. This was the situation in TEC about 30 years ago. However gay Christians will correctly claim that this is "forcing them back into the closet".
If y'all want a church where gay people are out of the closet and publically affirmed (for their longstanding committments or whatever) then there can be no children of traditionalists present (the parents will take care of that part).
Obviously, what you have chosen is to be a gay church. That's cool. I think the entire Episcopal church will become a gay church in 10 years. But by doing so, it will become a boutique church, ministering to a niche market that enjoys liberal theology and good music. That is not a bad thing (especially if you live in Greenwich Village or San Francisco) however you need to understand that is the choice you are making, and that the job market is likely to be poor given the numbers of liberal priests in circulation, and the population of the proposed service market.
Shari, you said "Why would anyone want to go to a church whose major focus appears to be conversations on sex, however wonderful the liturgy and music might be?"
It is hardly our major focus. All we are saying is that we will entertain this conversation as we would entertain any. As it happens to be a pinnacle conversaton for many, we wanted to be upfront with people about how we will manage this kind of thing.
We have had one conversation about homosexuality in our congregational life thus far. We have been meeting/praying together for almost a year. This is the first time we have formally had it as a topic of conversation.
If you have gotten another impression, then I wish to appologize, because the reality is much less stressful.
Peace.
If you have had no significant public conversations on sex at Reconciler, how is it different from any other church? Most churches include folks from a wide theological spectrum and if they hold unorthodox views, these also tend to be silent in public, presenting their questions in small group forums. My current Catholic parish (at about 10,000 souls) is larger than Jane's diocese. We too have Christians who struggle with sexual (not to mention political, economic and other) issues of various kinds, and we discuss them in small groups in Bible study, and other adult forums. I had enjoyed pleasant debates with my group of fellow parents on the subject of birth control, stem cell technology, liberation theology and others. What differentiates us from Reconciler, is that we don't have children in our debates. Another differentiating factor is that unlike Reconciler, we know what the Catholic church's positions on these matters are, and we try to live by the rules of our faith community (however much we fail to achieve this). However our discussion is faith seeking understanding, even where our faith wavers.
So what is different about Reconciler?
Shari
I suppose the reason I got the impression that there had been more conversations than the current one on this blog was Tripps comment given above:
"We do have children who attend...ages 2-16. They hear the conversations. They see tears and witness the struggle it can be to BE Christian in the midst of the world."
May I presume that the tears were regarding some other Christian "stuggle"? For example the two year old could have been witnessing tears shed wrestling with the doorknob on the way into church? (My kid would have sympathized back in the days when she had trouble with doorknobs also...). But I'm glad to hear that your two year olds witness "G" rated "struggles" from their adult mentors.
Pax
Shari
Much has been said, much misunderstood some clarified. It is notable, it seems to me that a statement about attempting (for the moment however long said moment may be) that we at Reconciler were seeking a via media on the issue of homosexuality which then went on to talk about seeking the leading of the Spirit and the Mind of Christ and the church, has lead to such strong opinions about who we are trying to be. In the midst of all these opinions there seems to be failure in communicating missing the reason members of three different denominations have come together in Church of Jesus Christ, Reconciler.
Not that the comments have not been usefull nor that many points that have been raised are unimportant, such as the role of children in church and in certain discussions of adults or the issue of identity, or of boundaries. In fact these things are important.
It seems that the update raised questions of just where does Reconciler and the Pastoral team of Reconciler stands, and who are we going to stand with?
These are at least the things that come to mind as I review the many words that have been spun out by all sides.
I will not reiterate the comments about Reconciler as a worshiping community. I do ask people to realize that a blog emphasizes discussion and debate, and cannot communicate the full life of the community especially when the life of the community is centered on prayer and worship. However, In attempts to clarify misunderstandings (like that we meet in a cafe and not a bar, why anyone would think Chase Cafe was a bar is not exactly clear to me,) I feel that we have not entirely answered the more pertinent questions: what about someone’s hard one identity, what of boundaries, and are we different from any other church that is out there?
For the sake of clarity I will attempt to briefly address these three in separate comments, or as new posts.
Larry said: "why anyone would think Chase Cafe was a bar is not exactly clear to me"
Well, I suppose because the Chase Café is part coffee shop, part art gallery, part live-music/improvisional theater venue, part dance hall, part health club, part cyber café, part pool hall, and part massage parlor, I figured that it must be part bar as well. But you’re right. Although it charges a $5 dollar corkage fee, and has hosted RAVEs, spirituous liquors at the Chase Café are BYOB. (It must not yet have its alcohol license.) And I’m sure that traditionalist parents will be reassured to hear that while entertainment may be non-G rated at night – it stays open until 2 AM – the Chase Café is considered family oriented during the day. A somewhat different place to hold your sedate little Bible Study/Church, but then hey, what do I know? I still say that what it really needs are them stained glass windows....
I offer a few reviews culled from the Internet:
Chase Cafe
7301 N. Sheridan Rd.
Chicago, IL
773-245-0399
http://metromix.chicagotribune.com/dining/45308,0,294544.location?coll=mmx-dining_features
http://livejournal.meetup.com/7/venue/?venueId=25449
http://www1.chicagoreader.com/rrr/news/2002/0201.html
__Most Recent Reviews:__
October 18, 2004
Jon Orwant
New York, NY
Awesome spot. Great music. They have everything from recording facilities, to printing facilities to in house design. It's the most progressive coffee shop I have EVER seen. Truly impressive.
November 4, 2003
Steve W
Chicago, IL
A review from last year called this place "just plain wierd but in a good way" This place might have been through a few changes recently but that review still holds true. The Chase Cafe is the sort of place sit-com writes would set their shows in if they had enough imagination to envision a place like this. Come and check it out. It is a lot of fun and the coffee is good.
October 19, 2003
Tina Fucureli
chicago, il
this is the hottest independent coffee house in the United States.....period!
September 13, 2003
milike girlsalot
chicago, il
this place is hot...* byob, pizza, entertianment, Ms. Pacman, pool, it's the biggest coffee house in the world..*
January 16, 2003
G Hoffman
Chicago, IL
Apparently this place is under new ownership (that's what the cook/waiter told us)...it was a surreal dining experience. The food (breakfast) was good, but there was no menu... the cook said "This is what I am thinking of making you...what do you think?" I almost felt like I was on a live set of a sitcom...people waking up all over the place after a party the night before, random people filling up our coffee cups. I mean, it was entertaining for certain, but if you're not up for adventure and can't handle ultra-casual, I'd avoid it. I could go on for a few more paragraphs with the random entertaining activities going on around us, but I'll refrain.
As anonymous said, the Chase Cafe doesn't really seem to be traditionalist or child friendly: The following are the most recent reviews that I could find; the last being a sample of what apparently goes on at night.
On Saturday 12/4/04 3:05 AM
WHAT an ugly place!!!!my eyes hurt looking at it, first off this is such a dumpy cafe, weird people, gross bathrooms, drunks and stoners all mumbling, confused girls weird guys. empty liquor bottles on floor stinky place ,no parking i cant believe its open!!!!!NOT COMING BACK EVER!!! STAy AWAY!!! trust me DUDE!!!!!!!!!
"http://centerstage.net/patronreviews/pr.cfm?ID=6013&which=place"
--------------------------------------------------------
The following is a recent review of the Chase Cafe by the British rock band, The Convulsions
Thursday, May 23rd - Chase Cafe.
Strange gig, but turned out all right. Café not very well run by very stoned hippies but many large fresh fruit juices with ginger, ginseng and loadsa vodka. This time the entire band goes to Estelle's.
"http://www.chicagogigs.com/convulsions/articles4.htm"
--------------------------------------------------------
Here is a review of the erotic art and fashion show hosted by Chase Cafe, with the URL.
Last night was "Instill It..." the erotic art and fashion show by DHI Enterprises which I helped to tech and sorta keep going. The problem with DHI is that it's one person, David Hawkings (I don't know what the "I" stands for) and virtually no production crew. "Instill It...'s" first production meeting was at five PM last night, with curtain at eight. At Nine, Beatmasta G, one of the musicians, showed up, didn't know he was going on...but coincidently brought his whole sound rig anyway (??) and the house sound tech (who was the only guy who fuckin' knew the house monitors had fuckin switches and knobs (and we never bothered to check!!!) ) showed up at ten after nine! A few hours earlier at five-thirty "T-Most" showed up and said, "you know this room is open" (the sound booth with an entire wall of XLR, quarter-inch patch, and AC), and walked across the space and opened another door and said, "you can use any of this too" (platforms, folding tables (sturdy enough for decks), ladder) so it seemed that we had most of the resources we needed to put on a show...just no design or plan or performers. The space was covered, all walls and cieling, with a mural (beautiful!!) and we were forbidden to hang ANYTHING on the walls or from the cieling. Eventually we decided on a runway set and used their versatile furniture to support the artwork. NONE OF THE MODELS OR FASHION DESIGNERS EVER SHOWED UP!!! In a last minute "show-must-go-on" decision I convinced David to recruit attractive audience members who were really quite fashionable, and the naked-guy who was body painted throughout the night by bodyartist Gregg Verdant, to walk up and down the runway. Though there were only five or so "models" we could actually convince to take the walk, I think the show, if not a success, put up a very good front for, if not erotic art, at least a genuine commaraderie in support of art and home-grown fashion. Naked Guy said he wanted to be "starry Night" by van gogh, and that's exactly what he was...even vincent's pasty greens were right! I believe all in attendance, at this admission-free show were satisfied with the entertainment. Even the improvisational (marginally entertaining), illegal, ambiant-jungle-noise band "The Ignorant Music Project" performed to a highly receptive crowd. And no one deserves thanks more than the extremely helpful and pleasant (did I mention damn-good cooks?) owners and operators of The Chase Cafe in Roger's Park Chicago One block north of Touhy on Sheridan. Thank-you, Owners and Operators of the Chase Cafe Chizancago! Thank-you DHI for the inspiration! Okay it's an insider review...i'm also a libelist...
"http://tronvega.diaryland.com/020322_14.html"
The Chase Cafe appears to be a popular gay watering hole. In addition to rather spicier fare which the curious can dredge up with a google search using their imaginations and the words "Chase Cafe Sheridan" (try "gay male performance scene" as a start) worshippers at Reconciler can turn from praising Christ to learning how "LGBTQ people create/cross boundaries" [with] an evening about jumping cultural and gender boundaries. The featured performer is Dr. Laila Farah, a Lebanese-American feminist performer-scholar, who navigates ideas of nation, gender, and sexuality with innovative performance. The political thrust of her performance comes from a critical and dynamic questioning of US imperialism, Americana, and apathy.
Then, for the children, there is "a screening of "Little Boy Panties." The film explores gender labels in our current society, and poses the question, "Is your gender as easy to change as your underwear?"
http://www.e-poets.net/newswire/news-2004-06.shtml
Just the thing to reassure Traditionalist parents.
So. Where are the brewskis?
I am indebted to Atilla and the various anonymouses (anonymice? anonymi? ) for their discussion. When informed that Chase Cafe was a coffee house not a bar I envisioned Panera Bread. Clearly I lack imagination.
Is there some reason why the pastors chose this particular venue? Most folks would have asked to rent space in the YMCA. Indeed, a few months ago, I recall asking if the plant was at a truck stop. I have always thought that truck stops would be excellent places to have a church plant. Many truckers have a regular route, are far from home, are unable to get their rigs into regular church parking lots and therefore are separated from a church community. A mobile ministry such as Reconciler would fit well there, and would certainly be family friendly. There would be no shortage of parking. I think such a church plant could grow.
May I take it that the key mission in Reconciler is outreach to the Gay community, and this is why the Chase Cafe was selected? Or are there reasons why the pastors thought that the venue would attract more traditional parishoners as well?
Warning...posting while fed up....
First of all, please come join us. See what we are about. It seems that The Anonamouses and Attila and Cluless have come to this grand idea of what we are. Well, folks, get off the high horse and check us out. We are a group of people who get together and worship the Risen Lord, Jesus Christ. We are people who pray. We are people who want to live in the kingdom.
We are different. I am a long haired hippy dude. We have a pink haired goth. A former preppie. We are God's children and we are trying to live with each other.
Clueless asks why we are where we are. She answered it, "I have always thought that truck stops would be excellent places to have a church plant." We are at a "truck stop" in urban America. We have strangers come join us. We have regulars.
Unlike what those who have never participated in our worship would like to think...we are pretty dang traditional when it comes down to it. Heck, we mostly sing good ole time hymns acapella.
We love the Lord and are called to witness where we are called.
The stuff that was quoted in the reviews may go on there...but usually when we are there, guess what...there may be a half dozen people sitting around drinking coffee.
I am ranting now, but please, open your minds and hearts enough to allow that maybe, God is working here. We love the Lord and want others to join in on that joy...because it is freakin' awesome.
(rant over...pray for me a sinner)
Sorry, one more little point:
"May I take it that the key mission in Reconciler is outreach to the Gay community, and this is why the Chase Cafe was selected?"
The key mission, as I feel it, is that we are to reach out to the community. As in every one.
Well I can't speak for Attila or the various annonimice. Some of them may wish to take you up on your offer since some of them sound like they know Chicago.
I personally live in Arkansas, so a trip to any part of Chicago other than O'Hare Airport would be unlikely. (I might take you up on your offer if I find myself with layover time in OHare however).
I accept that you are simply worshiping God as best you can. However I am puzzled why you would plant a church devoted to "reconciliation" between traditionalists and homosexuals in a gay coffeehouse complete with an X-rated night-club, insist that children be exposed to the flauting of orientations, (not to mention whatever posters are advertising the evening's entertainment) and then say you are trying to "reach out to all sides".
Would you try to plant a parish devoted to "reconciliation" in a Phelpsian coffeehouse with Chick Tracks on the wall and pretend that you are "reaching out to the Gay community?"
Why the pretense? Obviously no traditionalist is going to worship with their children in a Gay nightclub/coffeehouse. Why don't you just admit that you wish to serve the Gay community (nothing to be ashamed about in that) and go do it? There is nothing wrong with reaching out to the folks you feel called to serve.
However the way you are going about this makes clear that any "reconciliation" will be by means of traditionalists (or at least their children) being converted to your way of thinking. That's plain old dishonest. You are advertising yourself as holding both parties in communion, but are actively propping up the liberal end, and trying to subvert the conservative end.
While I understand that liberals who take orders in conservative churches have a need to pretend to want traditionalists around in order to maintain income (traditionalists after all are more likely to tithe), I presume that nobody is being paid here, so there would not seem to be a financial need for the apparent pretense that this is more than gay outreach. Unless of course you are attempting to extract grant money from your various denominations on the grounds of reaching out to all sides? (If this were academic medicine, that would be the obvious conclusion of any grant reviewer.)
If getting grants is the reason the church is devoted to "reconciliation" rather than "gay outreach" well Good Luck! I too enjoy writing grants, and had a pretty good track record of getting them back when I was a gene-jockey. Just don't call it Christian. It may be necessary for fund raising, but don't call it Christian, it ain't.
Shari
Chase Cafe is a privately owned coffee shop and performance space. We rent the "gallery" from them on Sunday evenings. Only once has something else been in the space when we were there...a Goth night. It went pretty well...and we were assured afterward that they would never doublebook the space while we were there again. It was a mistake.
But there is something profound about being in such a public space. Jesus never hid himself away in some pretty space. Not that there is anything wrong with the traditional church, but we are so thrilled to be in a public space, not a livingroom, an open forum where all kinds may feel comfortable to see what we are up to. It is urban, maybe a little rough around the edges, but I fail to see anything wrong with that.
We do not control what/whom the owners rent to the remainder of the time. And we do not judge. We are simply present and allow those who do wander in and out the opportunity to worship. It has proven to be quite profound.
"However I am puzzled why you would plant a church devoted to "reconciliation" between traditionalists and homosexuals in a gay coffeehouse complete with an X-rated night-club"
As Tripp said, this is a privately owned place. We have no control to whom they rent. But Calling it a gay coffeehoue with an x rated nightclub...ummm, sorry? A couple of weeks ago there was an open mike night where a majority of the people seemed to be from the retirement village across the street.
As for reconciliation. We seek to reconcile amongst everyone...heck even ourselves...especially ourselves.
I think you are reading things into who and what we are that are incorrect. I will not go into it becausse it has been stated much more clearly by Larry, Tripp and Jane. But I will say that we are much much more than the single issue church you make us out to be.
Anyway...if you are ever stuck in Chicago...stop on by...I buy you a coffee or tea...what ever you prefer
Well it's late, and I'm tired, and Jane's essay on breaking eyeglasses reminds me depressingly of the Anglican Communion.
I probably am reading too much into it. And I apologize about the "grant". I doubt on reflection there is any financial gain to consider here. I expect you are simply a bunch of liberals with no clue as to how conservative parents might react, and that you therefore did not consider venue or much of anything else, when you set up shop.
For those who are considering one day having a parish that actually does want to attract traditionalists, it may be well to try to get into the mind of a traditionalist before then, even if you disagree with him/her on moral grounds. My former Episcopal rector was very like the lot of you and she not only nearly destroyed a very well endowed parish (I understand it is starting to recover now), but she destroyed her career with her ignorance. (So, I'm told, at any rate). I was long gone by the time she apparently burned out and resigned. However I felt rather badly for her, even though she was one of the main reasons I left TEC. She was quite a good person, and could have been successful if she hadn't been so certain in her point of view. Also she was in her forties, had young children, large seminary debts, and as far as I could see was poorly equipped educationally and emotionally for a non-ecclesial career. I don't know what became of her (though I include her in my prayers).
If you are planning to have a broad based ministry appealing to conservatives as well as liberals, then you will need to pick up a few ground rules on what not to do. A basic ground rule with traditionalists is "kids are off limits". The off limits includes things like discussions, Sunday school and venue.
Anyway, I wish you and your "coffee shop" well and if I'm ever stuck in Chicago, I'll stop by and worship with you. (I like my coffee black and without flavoring please).
Clueless said: "Most people would have asked to rent space in the YMCA."
Alas, Clueless, that is NOT the safe option anymore! Today's Chicago Tribune had an article on a "scheduling conflict" at the Chicago YMCA, which you can read at:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0412220371dec22,1,7867671.column?coll=chi-news-hed
Apparently it now stands for "Young Men's Cross-dressers Association". It seems that last Sunday, parents and children were gathering for a 7 a.m. Sunday morning swim meet at the Chicago Y, while the participants of an all-night transgender fashion show and ball were still partying there. "When I got there with my 7-year-old daughter on Sunday morning, I could sense some bad mojo," said Paul N., a parent of a swimmer. Mojo? "It might have been the 6-foot-tall gentleman in tight, leather pants and the leather bustier and the handcuffs, or the other men in leather skirts," he said. "But I think it was the used condoms and cigarettes in the women's locker room that got the parents upset."
Clearly poor Larry, Moe, and Curly were unable to find traditionalist-friendly space anyplace at all in Chicago, which is why they all ended up together on the Chaise Lounge. (Ooops sorry, my Freudian slip is showing!) No wait! I have it! What the pastors need to do is to rent space in the local mosque! Have they considered that?
Atila,
Now you are becoming dismisive and spiteful. I think we have been hospitable to your comments but your last few comments simply are incomprehensible to me since it goes beyond Christian charity. But then there has been little willingness, it seems, to give us the benefit of the doubt: That just maybe we are small group of Christian truely trying to live into an authentic witness for Christ in a urban and diverse culture that we find on the north side of Chicago.
Though I continue to be intreagued by your perspective but think this conversation should leave this space. I invite you (and anyone else who has been following this) over to my blog, the link is on the side bar under "pastors blogs".
"Now you are becoming dismisive and spiteful."
Mebbe so. However, I kind of feel like I am one of the few grown-ups in this forum, so as a parent, and for the sake of your parents and of y'all preserving y'alls options in the various variants of Christianity y'all purport to represent, email your bishops, describing this thread and asking them if they will formally bless your choice of venue. And if not, change it. It's not too late to have this church across the church in the retirement community, for example. If they approve, wonderful! Clearly my views whould then be considered old fashioned and absurd. But if you are going to leave seminary and represent the Lutheran or Episcopal Churches, ask first before you engage in actions which may bring them into disrepute. Baptists I don't know about, but Lutherans and Episcopalians are supposed to be under obedience, right?
I will only say this in responce here: yes I am under authority, The superintendant and associate superintendant of the Central Conference of the Evangelical Covenant Church, know of this church and have known of it from the begining. They also know where we meet, and I am doing what I am doing with their blessing. Since I doubt you are Evangelical Covenant you don't need to worry yourself any further about my being under authority.
You are part of the Evangelical Covenant Church in Chicago? http://www.covchurch.org/cov/
We are talking about the Jesus People? http://www.jpusa.org/jpusa/meet.htm
http://www.jpusa.org/jpusa/documents/eccresponse.htm
The cult described in Chicago Tribune?
http://www.rickross.com/reference/jesuspeople/jesuspeople2.html
I thought you were Baptist?
http://cluelesschristian.blogspot.com/2004/12/blackmail-by-eucharist-in-medical-and.html
Full comment on my blog.
Per Jesus People and the Evangelical Covenant Chruch (ECC). Jesus People USA chose to associate itself with the ECC around 1988. The group has been a head ache for our denomination since it chose to join. They have severe control and authority issues. However, their theology is entirely orthodox. Thus despite obvious abuses they (in my opinion) do not qualify as a cult. I do not encourage people to associate with them. And for the record the denomination and North Park theological Seminary has helped transition many ex-members from that community into more representative churches of the ECC. Jesus People in ethos and history is not Covenant. What the tribune article you refer to ignores is that much of what it reported on the Covenant has saught to correct as much as our congregational polity allows.
"What the tribune article you refer to ignores is that much of what it reported on the Covenant has saught to correct as much as our congregational polity allows."
http://www.rickross.com/groups/people.html
http://www.jpusa.org/jpusa/documents/index.htm
http://www.jpusa.org/jpusa/documents/tribune.htm
I've done quite a bit of searching on the Web today, and can't find anything that suggests that the Covenant is doing anything to try to tone their Jesus People sect down. Can you post that bit? Because you see, for the first time, I suddenly do ask myself whether this church of yours uniting the Evangelical Covenant Church, http://www.covchurch.org/cov/index.shtml the Episcopal Church http://www.episcopalchurch.org/index_flash.htm, and the Baptists can work. Just about everything you've posted before has referred to yourself as being "Lutheran", so I figured that your denomination must be some flavor of Lutheran. Episcopalians and Lutherans are in communion with each other, and as for the Baptists, they come in so many different spots and stripes who can tell whether any particular one of them is a tiger, a leopard or a little domestic kitty cat? So the union seemed previously to be the least of your church's peculiarities. But I gather on perusal of your blog that you are a former not a current Lutheran. CAN a pastor who has left the Lutheran church to join the Covenant Church be in officially sanctioned communion with a pastor who is an Episcopal in good standing? Is the Episcopal church in communion with the Jesus People? Researching back through Jane's blog, I gather that Bishop Edward Little must be her bishop? Jane, have you asked him about this? http://www.churches.kconline.com/stthomas/bishop_little.htm
The Evangelical Covenant Church is a Free Lutheran Pietist denomination. We come out of the Swedish Lutheran Pietist tradition. We are not confessional lutherans meaning we do not consider the Augsburg and other Lutheran confessions to be binding on us but do ground ourselves in Lutheran and Reformed traditions. I was raised in the ECC, and have always understood myself to be a Lutheran in theology. Until relatively recently our confirmation materials were simply Luther's catechism. I am a Lutheran Pietist and my denomination is a Lutheran Pietist denomination. I am not a former Lutheran.
To Atilla. From personal knowledge I can tell you that +Little, if he knows (and he probably does) would not care. Besides, there is some merit in seminarians making parish-breaking errors before they get their first real job. So I would chill and observe how this experiment unfolds. It promises to be interesting.
As for the rest of you, Merry Christmas!
Shari
I wasn't going to read this whole thread of comments, but I did! And I'm glad I did so. Greetings to cluelesschristian, with whom I've participated in discussions before on other e-venues.
All I can add at the moment is my experience of the Church of Jesus Christ, Reconciler. I found the church through its blog, which I had found through various other blogs that may have included Larry's, as I did some Web surfing looking for more information on the Evangelical Covenant Church. The Reconciler blog portrayed an ecumenical venture including my denomination (Episcopal Church) as well as two other denominations (Evangelical Covenant and American Baptist) that I wanted to know more about, and I thought it was about time Episcopalians got involved in such ventures. And it appeared to be led by serious and thoughtful people who were well prepared for this leadership. All of these impressions turned out to be true.
I happen to be gay. My partner and I are in church together on Sunday mornings at the Church of the Ascension on LaSalle in the Near North neighborhood. We share an apartment in Edgewater.
I wasn't looking for a gay church (gay men are well represented in my parish church, so if that were an important need, it's taken care of), and I've never thought the Church of Jesus Christ, Reconciler, was trying to be one, and I still don't. I come at this from a catholic viewpoint (Anglo-Catholic, specifically), which can be boiled down to "y'all come!" -- all are called to the table, all are welcome, all are sinners, whom Jesus came to call.
Why do I attend a second church? In no particular order: (1) Because I believe in its vision and support it; (2) Because I'm nourished by the preaching, the fellowship, and the opportunity to contribute and to hear personal reflections; and (3) Because it's another chance to worship God in Christ on a Sunday, and I've wanted to do so on Sunday evenings as well as mornings.
The discussions have been great; the focus is on Bible study and worship; and I've learned much already. And personally, I think this new community is catholic in the best, broadest sense of the word. May God continue to bless this church.
Hi Scott! I remember you from the Anglican list!
Welcome. This discussion is currently being continued on Larry's blog, only right now the comments are disabled.
Best wishes,
Shari
Try again and let me know if they are still disabled. I had not disabled comments.
It's interesting to me that the conversation here has focused on the very thing that Reconciler claims to try to do, or want to do. It is equally interesting that the conversation has illustrated the good intentions which I pessimistically assert are impossible of fulfillment. Traditionalists do not assume that the two-thousand year understanding of the Church on matters of sin and salvation are open to revision. To attempt to get traditionalists to a position of humility on private interpretation is one thing, but what traditionalists believe about--pace this online conversation--sexuality is not a private interpretation but the public witness of the Church. The pastors and parishioners at Reconciler may have little qualms about saying two thousand years of unchanging Church teaching on human sexuality can be wrong, but it's the equivalent of the apple telling the orange to be more "appley." It's asking a traditionalist to turn public dogma into private interpretation, of turning wine back into water.
Similarly, to ask a gay and lesbian church member to take on humility that they may be wrong is to ask them from the get-go to abandon what they take to be, as expressed here, their "hard-won identity." To say to them that they must consider that the experiences they have are quite possibly not only not of God, but of darkness and the demonic anti-christ, the opposition to God, is it would seem to me for them inconceivable.
I know the hope here is that there is some middle way that is not yet foreseen. But this begs the question that both the traditionalist account and the gay/lesbian account are somehow mistaken and must be reformed. But here you have to speak against both the two thousand year experience of the Church and the traditionalist, and the deep, personal identity of the gay or lesbian parishioner.
All of this leaves unanswered, of course, the whole question of what is the Church? Given that your three traditions are Protestant, it may well be safe to assume that you hold that all three are equally branches/parts of the Church of Christ. Well and good. But how are they so? What makes the Church the Church?
I have looked over your pastoral vision statement (again; I saw it in an earlier form, if I'm not mistaken), and I have to say, the vision statement does not seem very clear to me on what the nature of the Church is, as envisioned by Reconciler. Indeed, I was actually rather surprised that you cited St. Cyprian in your preamble. St. Cyprian, I think it safe to say, would not consider Reconciler part of the one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church of Christ. (Whether St. Cyprian would consider Rome or Orthodoxy that Church, of course, I will not address.)
The best that I can come away from your vision statement with is that Reconciler is a parachurch organization oriented around a somewhat vague ecumenical impetus and geared toward a pedagogical ministry. And if this is correct and more so if this works for you all, great. But I rather suspect that your individual traditions would quibble with this, and of course the question remains as to whether the historic Church ever thought of itself in such terms, and if not whether this makes any difference to you all.
Re: ecumenism - I know what you are getting at, Cliff. And one of the things to keep in mind is that the documents that we refer to have been drafted by at least one of the denominations, the ECUSA, has drafted a document we lean on, and thwo denominations, ECUSA and ABC, are co-signers of BEM. The ECC has a different history, but has a strong ecumenical component.
The ABC, in its most recent evangelical missive, encourages church planters and others who are developing ministries to work with other denominations. When I spoke to the Executive director of the Chicago Region, he showed me several other Federated chruches that exist in the denomination. He was very encouraging. I am not sure that the difficulties you suggest are as acute. They are real, I'll admit, but the traditions themselves are looking to overcome them. We are following their lead.
I have responded to Cliff's comment on my blog.
Post a Comment
<< Home