I think “homosexuality” might be the next “evolution”
Well, here I go… mentioning the “h-word” and the “e-word” in the same post…
[disclaimer: I haven’t done any real research on this at all… these observations may simply be examples of my own life stages at work.]
A little story for you: when I was in high school, “everyone” was ridiculously obsessed with evolution. I know that’s the nature of high schools and that the evolution/creation debate tends to get hashed over in them every handful of years, but the obsession was definitely there and everyone fit into one of two categories. Either they were a) Bible-believing, faithful, conservative, true Christians or they were b) liberal, no-good, satanists who degraded the scriptures and blasphemed God.
(In some communities, I suppose the groups were “a) Bible-believing, faithful, well-educated, liberal, true Christians or b) conservative, no-good, satanists who degrade the scriptures and blaspheme God” but my community was avowedly conservative.)
Each threated excommunication and church discipline on the other. Neither was willing to admit that both sides occasionally made good points. (I suppose I may have given in to a bit of hyperbole here, but you probably know what I mean.)
Time passed. Some people continue to obsess over evolution. Most of us don’t. Those who believe in 7 literal days of creation and those who have a more flexible interpretation of the scriptures/doctrine/theory/concept for the most part get along and let one another live without threat of excommunication or discipline.
When I was in seminary, the same polarizing tendency began showing up around homosexuality in the church. Again, people were shuttled into one of the two above-mentioned groups. Again, threats and mistrust abounded.
Time is passing.
Is it possible that “homosexuality” will be the next “evolution.” I say this because I recently received my latest copy of Perspectives: A Journal of Reformed thought (November) and there is, once again, an article (essay) on sexuality. Now don’t get me wrong, I certainly don’t think the church has adequately addressed issues of heterosexuality, let alone issues of homosexuality, and I do think we must address them and address them well, but my reaction when seeing the article (long before ever reading it) was… “ho hum… another sexuality article.” Which felt exactly like “ho hum… another evolution article.”
The feeling surprised me. I have my own personal agnosticisms regarding how the church ought to handle sexuality issues, but I didn’t expect that response. I find myself wondering if we’re teetering on the brink of coming to the same approach toward non-heterosexuality that many of us have come to with evolution. (An intentionally moderate view that probably terrifies people in both extremes).
hmmm… I wonder.
Grace and Peace,
`tim
11 Responses to “I think “homosexuality” might be the next “evolution””
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
I imagine that the debate going on within the Reform church is not significantly different from that which has been going on for years in other mainstream, non-fundie denominations. I can’t imagine, though, that the evolution debate ever got so heated that anyone was made to feel the need to wear a kevlar vest, as Gene Robinson did for his ordination as Bishop of the NH Diocese.
Being on the receiving end of conservative animosity (and having to deal with it currently in the form of LCMS in-laws-to-be who are hostile to the relationship), it seems to me that sexuality is a much more emotionally charged topic, largely because it’s associated with physical acts. You don’t perform evolution, so it’s much easier for both sides to view it as an abstraction.
I think that ultimately this means it will be much more difficult for the two sides of this particular debate to reach some reasonably comfortable level of detente, though I’m sure my view is colored to some extent by my personal situation. At the very least, I think it will be especially difficult for the extreme conservative end of the spectrum to come to the table.
December 6th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
As I’ve increasingly found to be the case, I do think you’re right. The evolution debate tended to be more civil. Sure people were angry; sure they lashed out at one another; they were judgmental and even violent at times… but never to the extreme that seems almost acceptable for issues surrounding sexuality.
Perhaps it has to do with the “personal-ness” of sexuality… maybe it has to do with the fact that so many people have been hurt in the realm of sexuality and noone can really be “hurt” by evolution. Just as much, though, I think it’s becoming increasingly acceptable to “do” faith on the extremes which is almost never helpful and almost always hurtful.
Until next time.
Grace and Peace,
`tim
December 6th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
I’m not sure what to think about all of this . . . but a few observations.
When I entered the third office (just a hair’s breadth over two decades ago) the idea that we would publicly speculate about the sex lives of ministers was simply unheard of. As long as we were maintaining appropriate boundaries with our congregations and not behaving in a notorious or scandalous way, this was not an issue. If it were to become an issue in some specific case, it was the job of a Classis to take care of it. The idea that we would call on the General Synod to override classical perogatives was also unheard of.
There was, however, a better sense of relationship among office-bearers. We could disagree with each other and still believe that we were well-meaning people of good will, each trying to discern God’s Word in her or his life. Now, the sense of “us” versus “them” is much stronger; we seem less able to relate and live together. While I know we need to repent this, I have no clue as to how we fix it, and without relationship, there can be no covenant . . . and without covenant, there can be no Church as we understand it.
Last, I know it isn’t unique to us in the RCA. I have a dear friend who is Episcopalean, and who lives in Massachusetts. He has contemplated leaving his denomination over the consecration of Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire. I asked him why. He acknowledged that the consecration was legal, that it in no way affected the life of his diocese, and that a lot of what Robinson himself said made sense. He just can’t imagine living in the same church with people who would do this.
I’m reminded of CS Lewis’ “The Great Divorce.” People chose Hell rather than co-existing in Heaven.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
I think out of the two, homosexuality is the tougher issue.
Come on, evolution is a no-brainer. We have to accept what science tells us because if God created intelligence, reason, and logic, why wouldn’t God want us to use those tools to the fullest? Anything less would be going against God.
But homosexuality . . . on one side we have the harsh acriminations of scripture, and on the other we have Christ commanding us to love all with and without warts.
Which side to take?
December 8th, 2007 at 2:35 am
Apropos of this post, I just read the following blog post:
http://theotherandrew.blogspot.com/2007/12/restoring-faith.html
December 8th, 2007 at 10:25 am
James… I think you hit the nail on the head with the “us verses them” comment. I haven’t been around as long as you have, but even in the decade I’ve been in this thing it seems like it’s grown. The extremes seem to be getting more extreme. (Maybe this is a cycle that repeats itself every so often?)
Mel… Thanks for the note on sister Wendy. Good post. Here’s an interesting one on the evolution thing: www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/us/03evolution.html. I think there’s probably some back story here, but still; Disturbing.
Grace and Peace,
`tim
December 9th, 2007 at 12:29 am
Kilter2, sorry I hadn’t noticed that your comment got sent over to be “approved.” For me homosexuality is certainly a more difficult issue but historically I’m not convinced it’s always been the case. Denominations have split over so many things that (to me) seem entirely - or at least relatively - unimportant. (And they have refused to get uptight over some things that seem [to me] to be very important.)
Surely, much of it is hermeneutic. My understanding of how to interpret the scriptures doesn’t struggle with how to reconcile evolution and creation… I do have trouble reconciling what I believe the scriptures say about grace, love, reconciliation, Christianity being a non-law-based religion, etc. and what they seem to say about sexuality.
The problem is that what the Bible seems to be saying and what the Bible seems to be saying seem to be two different things…
Grace and Peace,
`tim
December 10th, 2007 at 12:38 am
Oh. . .I thought first — when I just read your title and first sentence — that you were going to say that homosexuality was the next step IN evolution.
I actually wonder about that. . . now that the earth is pretty full of people.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:35 am
Kathy, I thank God that you’re now in Albany Synod . . . especially because, when you say things like this, you might get burned as a witch in other places in the RCA.
I have a parishioner whose problem with homosexuality was that it wasn’t part of God’s plan for creation as she undestood it. I didn’t challenge that, but engaged her in conversation about how many things aren’t part of God’s plan for creation as we understand it, but how God, in Christ, accepts and uses them.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
I’m glad to be in Albany Synod now too, James.
Although I’ve managed to keep from being burned as a witch in the Midwest too — even WHEN I said things like that
December 10th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Now come on…. I’m a member of one of the RCA’s most conservative classes… if we haven’t burned any witches at the stake lately I don’t think you have to worry about any one else doing it!
*grin*
Grace and Peace,
`tim