This is a follow up to last week’s Blog calling on churches to stop the discrimination and at times persecution of gays and lesbians. Because of some helpful responses I want to discuss the way many, if not most, progressive churches deal with this issue – by declaring themselves to be “Open and Affirming.”
I am opposed to this approach, not least because in my own tradition creeds are an anathema, and this declaration is about as creedal as it gets. I understand the rejoinder that it does not coerce anyone into being affirming, but only states publically the position of the church on this issue as a body, but what about the members who cannot make that statement? If the Open and Affirming decision was voted on, they simply got out voted (an alien way to function as a church, in my opinion). If, on the other hand, the process was consensus making, then the statement should have reflected only what all could affirm with the remainder of the declaration waiting for another day, a day I suspect would never come if churches are as diverse as they should be. Here is why I say that.
People often have conflicting views within themselves about a moral issue. One can believe racism is wrong, for example, and still not support busing. One can believe war is evil and still support the US involvement in WW II. One can believe poverty in this country is unacceptable, but also believes the welfare system locks people into it. Open and Affirming does not allow for this kind of moral ambiguity. It runs roughshod over it. Being Open accomplishes the same thing without doing that. Being genuinely Open means just that – that sexual orientation makes no difference when it come to being a church member. What is more, it means being open to other kinds of person – street people, other nationalities and even religions, people with Aids, people of different political persuasions. Open and Affirming singles out gays and lesbians. That is a problem that goes to the primary reason I don’t support it.
The issue facing churches today is not whether they are Open and Affirming of gays and lesbians. It is whether or not they want to be the church. Authentic church means no human being sets barriers between God and people, whether gay or straight, rich or poor, black or white, emotionally stable or unstable. Truly being the church means all are invited to the Table by God, not by us. It means the ground before the altar is holy because it is level. No one is privileged. It means we who make up the church understand that we are the vessel, not the message, that we are recipients of grace, not the purveyors of it.
Being the church is the most difficult challenge congregations face, for one primary reason. They are embedded in a stale and idolatrous institutionalism that has turned the body of Christ into an organization that functions as if the church has a mission instead of realizing it is the mission. Whether or not to make the changes necessary to free itself from institutionalism so it can be the church is a decision every congregation now confronts. We don’t have to be perfect to be better than we are. If a congregation can reach consensus on being Open to everyone, not some, but everyone, that will be a reliable sign that it is serious about the real goal of its life, which is, to be the church. At that point the only declaration it will ever need to make is, “We are the church, and we mean it.”
linnposts.com 
Jan, I suggest that most Christians do not agree with your opinion that the Church should accept gays and lesbians. I am interested in God’s opinion, not yours. Please show me scripture that supports your position. Then give your interpretation of how two men (or two women) would represent a “family”; a man, a woman and the unique God given ability to produce children then raise these precious children with a father (man) and a mother (woman). Unless you have decided to change the God ordained definition of “family”, you cannot support your position. Why not use your influence to teach that God can deliver from homosexual life choices as many help groups and organizations have been successfully doing for years. Harvey
Harvey, you write as if you know the will of God without question. When we grew up in Lynchburg many Christians believed inter-racial marriage was against the will of God. They were as sure as you are now that homosexuality, even if genetically determined, is an abomination to God. In biblical times marriage was assumed to be between a man and a woman, only for most of that period it was between a man and many women. Women were property, not persons. All that says is that scripture reflects the historical times in which it was written. It contains truth, but it also contains human views and understanding that have changed since that period, and understading the nature of homosexuality is among what has changed. You obviousy reject it being genetically based even though that is the conclusion of the majority of geneticists. That gays can be made straight is truy junk science with no credibility. It is driven by ideology, not science.
So we disagree. I hope you can keep it at that level and in the future avoid personal attacks. We have known each other too long to go there.
Jan,
I agree with you regarding Open and Affirming. While I support the idea that the church is a place for all of God’s people, including Gays and Lesbians, to “work out our salvation in fear and trembling, we can in our efforts to be inclusive, actually become exclusive and alienating. The challenge I struggle with is not the speck in someone else’s eye but my adeptness at ignoring the beam in my own. Jesus went about calling people to repentance, often helping to see their own sin in what they considered to be their righteousness. It is very easy to divide our brothers and sisters into groupings of good and bad. The one who takes away the sin of the world is also the one who sits in judgment. That is a divine responsibility, not my own. The original sin was that humanity trying to do God’s job and not to be content being human. We still succumb to the temptation to be God rather than godly. Thank you for the stand you so eloquently take!
Steve Digby
Wonderful point! This reminds me of the teaching: Let your yes be yes and your no be no. So, if we are able to see everyone as sacred creations of God, spirit infused beings having physical, mental and emotional variation, but, all children of God, this is all the insight we need to love them. Learning to see this way is the hurdle!
I think the Jesus teaching that “The kingdom of God is within you” is possibly the most important and least recognized insight to our relationship with God and each other He spoke. Once we sense our spiritual inheritance, take time to listen to the quiet voice of that kingdom component, our spirit, we receive the understanding needed to address concerns such as the above.
The problem, Jan, is that to say “We are the church, and we mean it” has extremely negative connotations for many folks, given the history of the church. For gays and lesbians, the statement that “we are the church” will be heard as a rejection. So, to say that we are open and affirming is to say, “we are not the church, at least not the way much of the church has behaved in recent times.” I agree that we should affirm everyone, and I hope we try to do that. Our motto is, “Open to people, open to God.”
Thanks, Jeff. I really like you motto precisely because it says so much more than open and affirming. So I think you made my point.
Dear Jan and Harvey, I know and love you both. Keep talking…. this is what it’s all about — in the great Disciples tradition. Thank you both for caring so much.
Thank you Jan for writing part II because it confirms what I sense: That, for me, each individual is a church unto themselves. Therefore, simply said, since I “am” the church I don’t need to “go” to church. The ability(for me) to see all humans as energy, light, spirit, regardless of physical or attitudinal details, allows me to “be the church, and I mean it”.