Objectionable... Thanks for the prayers... Keep praying!
Saturday, May 12, 2007 at 5:12PM
Right, now back to SYNOD. Thank you for your prayers for our meetings this week. I am pleased to say, that whilst they were not easy, I do feel that they turned out very well in the end. Of course, victory seldom comes without cost.
Firstly, 19 of our ministers were suspended for some part of their SYNOD in Cape Town for taking a stand on the issue of officiating at same sex unions. You can read the official SABC news release here.
My friend Wessel also has some news on the events in our SYNOD. I would encourage you to read his blog as well.
As many of you know, I am an inclusive and affirming Christian. In short, I believe that scripture says much more about justice, love, and grace, than it does about sexuality. Moreover, Jesus clearly shows that we as Christians need to reach to those who are marginalized, rejected, and on the fringes of society. Moreover, Megan and I have come to know and love many friends, and some family, who have a same sex orientation and are deeply committed to Christ. For some years now I have been part of a group within our denomination that has been trying to encourage the Church to have a far more open and affirming stance towards persons of a same sex orientation. I do sincerely believe that Christ would want all persons to be part of the body of Christ. It is a sad indictment upon the Gospel when we exclude anyone from Christ's love and grace! I do not expect every other Christian to feel the same as I do. However, I certainly would want to have the freedom and privilege of extending Christ's grace to, and not be curtailed or stopped from doing so by the Church itself.
Moreover, I have served on Methodist Church's 'doctrine ethics and worship commission' (DEWCOM) which is charged with helping the Church to formulate it's doctrine and beliefs. (You can read some of the papers and working documents that we have produced here) In particular, Wessel and I were the authors of our Church's current position of 'ecclesiastical unity in Christ', that affirms that even though there are persons with different viewpoints about sexuality, we have faith in one and the same Lord, and so we choose to 'sit with one another around the table of Christ'. In short we compiled the responses we received from a discussion document, did the theology, and then wrote the following report for Conference.
I would sincerely encourage that you read this report before making up your mind about either this issue in relation to our Church, or my stance on it.
Same sex response MCSA Conference 2005.doc
In short, as a result of this position, I (together with clergy throughout the country, including the 19 in Cape Town) tabled a resolution asking that the Church allow those of us who feel compelled to offer ministry to, and in particular seek God's blessing for, same sex couples to be allowed to do so. The motion was defeated.
However, I was so encouraged by the nature and spirit of the debate that took place around the issue. One of the saddest things for me is when Christians attack one another over issues such as this. This was not the case in our SYNOD, however, the outcome is that I have an objection against my name on the matter of our Church's discipline and doctrine (in other words, I had to register a qualified acceptance of the 'questions of discipline' - indicating that I believe, teach, and uphold our Church's doctrine with some qualifications). This position arises from a complex and conflicted process. In short whilst our Conference has allowed us to act in accordance with our conscience, a 'lower decision making body' of the Church (the Connexional executive) tried to override the decision of the 'higher body', Conference, and forbid us to conduct blessings for same sex couples. Whilst I don't want to debate the issue of blessing same sex couples, I did make the point that a lower body of the Church cannot override a higher body. However, the argument was not carried, and so as a matter of conscience I had to give a qualified response to 'the questions'.
Unlike our colleagues in the Cape of Good Hope District, I was however not suspended. Bishop Taylor (who is the chair of the Limpopo District SYNOD in which I was for most of this week) was both wise and gracious in dealing with this matter, and asked that the SYNOD not make any ruling, or request any discipline, until a higher body that the SYNOD (in this case that would be Connexional Executive, or the Conference of the MCSA that meets in August) has ruled on the matter. However, being weary of the unpredictability of our Church's leadership (which I believe was the reason why the 19 ministers in the Cape were so quickly recused from SYNOD), and being the only minister who took this stance in our SYNOD, I fear that I may still face some measure of discipline in the next few days or weeks. So please do be pray for all of the ministers in the MCSA who will face objections as a result of their conscience, believing that Christ loves all persons regardless of sexual orientation. Please also pray for our Church as we seek to find Christ's will in this regard and at the same time remain in loving fellowship with one another.
In particular I want to applaud some colleauges, who at this stage, have made a significant contribution to helping the Church understand the importance of this issue. They are,
Rev Paul Oosthuizen (a first year student minister), Rev Angus Kelly (a third year student minister), Reverends Brian and Dianne Moodie (the only two persons who took a stand in their SYNOD), Rev Wessel Bentley, Rev Mike Durrant, Rev Dr Neville Richardson, Rev Sifiso Khuzwayo, Rev Lynn Walter, Rev Sidwell Mokgothu, and Rev Rudyard Harrison (members of the Limpopo SYNOD who supported the resolution). And then I also want to honour the Rev Dave Morgan, who affirmed and encouraged me, even though he is a proponent of the opposite view to which I subscribe. He truly encouraged me by displaying grace, and Christian love.
We still have a number of SYNODs meeting in the next two weeks. Please continue to pray about this matter!
Lastly, I had the privilege of going from the Limpopo District SYNOD in Rustenburg, to preach at the Highveld and Swaziland District SYNOD meeting in Brakpan this morning. Let me just say, that it was a wonderful honour and joy to share with this SYNOD, however, the greatest joy was the fact that my friend Juan Smith, was accepted for Ordination to the Ministry of the Methodist Church of Southern Africa. Well done Juan! It has been many long years of hard work, dedicated training, and love for Christ and his Church!
Here is the sermon I preached as a charge to the Ordinands and SYNOD, if anyone is interested to read it:
Forget what is behind strain for what is ahead May 2007 Highveld and Swaziland SYNOD 2007.doc
Reader Comments (8)
For those who have been following the unfolding story, here is the press release from the Cape of Good Hope district of the Methodist Church of Southern Africa:
The 178th Synod of the Cape of Good Hope District of the Methodist Church of
Southern Africa unanimously declares that we are united in our diversity.
There are ministers amongst us who seek to exercise their conscience in the
blessing of same-sex unions. They voiced this position with respect and
care. A pastoral commission found that they had no malicious intent towards
the Church and has recommended a process of mediation to clarify the
Church's stand on this matter. These ministers remain in good standing with
the Synod which affirms their ministry.
Despite reports to the contrary, this Synod remains united and respectful of
one another's differences and is committed to journeying forward together.
Much blessing, together in Christ,
Dion
Hey big D - thanks for the mention!
We live in tension I guess.
Oh well - nobody expects the spanish inquisition.
Strength to you Gus! You inspire great courage! I trust that you found support and blessing with you congregation today? That was my prayer for you.
I feel proud to be called a friend of Dion. Thanks again for your encouragement in these years...you have been there from the beginning and I expect you to be there further. I look forward to you being one of my Prebyters in September and although you have said that it will be a priviledge, it is a priviledge to have your hands placed on me. Interestingly enough, I have a Presbyter who is a Liberal and one that is Conservative. I believe this to be a testimony that if I represent the future of the church i.e. newly ordained and young, and the church is going to be one and undivided, the Liberals and the Conservatives will need to be placing their hands together instead of using those hands to injure.
Blessings friend
Juan
Hi Dion,
I am the son of a methodist minister and have followed this debate with interest. You state the following in your text:
"It is a sad indictment upon the Gospel when we exclude anyone from Christ's love and grace! ...I certainly would want to have the freedom and privilege of extending Christ's grace to, and not be curtailed or stopped from doing so by the Church itself."
I totally agree that we should be showing Christ's love and grace to all, including homosexuals, who have often faced terrible and hurtful ridicule by the church. However, based on the word of God, I feel that we should not condone their actions or persuasion for a number of reasons (I would need my own blog for that :-).
Furthermore, I feel that DEWCOM did the church a disservice by publishing the document on homosexualality which came across as very pro/liberal a few years ago. I feel that a more neutral stance document would have served the purpose/intention of the document far better.
Kind regards
Alan
Thanks for the comment Alan.
One of the great struggles in this debate revolves around the interpretation of 'the word of God'...
It might be worth reading a few inputs from varying perspectives.
In doing so you may be surprised to find that scripture says a lot less about sexuality than you have been lead to believe (and it says nothing directly about monogamous same sex relationships since the cultural context simply did not acknowledge such realities. There are of course a few texts relating to perverted and abusive sexual practices. However, it is misleading and misguided to A) think that you can associate same sex relationships with those texts without taking cognizance of what the texts themselves are addressing. If you are going to take the text at face value then I would encourage you to own slaves (the Bible seems to condone that, and does so on numerous occasions, and quite strongly), not eat pork (the bible seems to say quite a bit more about that than it does about same sex), not have any loans or debts, and also write off the debts of all persons who owe you money, not own property for longer than 50 years etc., etc. Clearly we treat certain texts in the bible in the light of changes in society and culture, yet it seems when it does not suit us to do so, we simply choose not to. B) Secondly, it is quite simplistic to associate same sex relationships only with sexual acts that may, or may not, be involved between the consenting parties! In fact, for some same sex couples (it would seem to be more so among women) sex is a very small, and in some instances insignificant, part of what makes up their relationship. I, for example, would feel that you completely misunderstand my loving relationship for my wife if you simply classify and characterise it by our sexual encounters...) Real love is far more complex than sex. So, would we then say that we condone persons of the same sex living together in love, but not allowing them to have sex? Where, then, does the line get drawn? Moreover, are we truly so shallow that we mistakenly believe that intimacy is only a physical reality? Then prostitutes must be some of the most intimate persons in the world, whilst older couples must completely lack closeness... Can you see where I am going with this?
So, what is the point I am trying to make? The point is that good theology needs to be thorough, taking into account the richness and depth of scripture, seeking to responsibly deal with the text to hear what it is saying to us, rather than trying to tell it what it should be saying. Moreover, responsible theology must take cognizance of God's revelation in at least 3 other areas of reality (Tradition / Church history, Christian experience, and reason). This process is fundamental to Wesleyan Theology (it is known as the Wesleyan Quadrelateral, a term coined by Albert Outler who studied Wesley's theology in detail), moreover, this approach is also accepted as a responsible method of doing theology among all of the mainline Christian Churches.
It is not my task to defend DEWCOM. However, let me say that DEWCOM has a responsibility to do good, thorough, theology. If some persons regard it is 'liberal' or 'partisan', then I guess that is their judgment and they have every right to challenge it as a result. However, let it be done with rigour, grace, and integrity to the process of doing theology. Also, there is no such thing as 'neutral' theology. Theology seeks to responsibly discover and communicate God's will to humanity - there is nothing neutral about that process. God has a definite and clear will on all matters. If one says that God says A, but also B, for the sake of neutrality one is not doing responsible theology. However, when one does responsible theological work it should be engaged responsibly with differing points of view that have been wrought in the same rigour and sincere faith (as many, thankfully, did). Did you study the innitial DEWCOM document? You would have seen that it presented not only different approaches to this issue, but also suggested different ways in which persons interpreted scripture and worked out what God's will was for them. As a result of the feedback we received from this we were able to formulate the response that was adopted at Conference in 2005. The responses to this document (that you seem to suggest was not helpful) clearly showed that in almost every circuit that responded there were varying perspectives and approaches. Theology is not democracy, we cannot say "what do the majority of people believe?" and then accept that as a sound theology. There is a Church in South Africa that did this with regards to race relations, the majority were sincere in their belief in the doctrine of 'apartheid', their SYNODs accepted this, but they were sincerely wrong! Theology tries to find truth, even if it is unpopular, or not the mind of the majority.
For those of us who do theology as a vocation, we take the process and outcomes very seriously. I know that God will judge me for the decisions I have made, and encourage others to make. It is because of this that I spent 17 years gaining the skills and insights that have brought me to where I am now, and I still have a very long way to go! I am fundamentally committed to Christ and the Gospel, that is my motivation for doing what I do.
One closing comment. What do mean when you say that you agree that we should be showing Christ's love and grace to homosexual persons? If you cannot accept them for who and how they are you are not showing them grace and acceptance. It is almost like inviting me to your house for a game of tennis, knowing that I am left handed, yet saying that I can only play with you if I play with my right hand. Is that graceful acceptance? I don't think so.
I struggle with the perspective that purports to accept other persons, but only if they are willing to give up who God has created them to be.
Alan, I don't want to be dogmatic about this issue. However, I do feel that it is important enough to take a stand on it.
Let me say, however, that I so appreciate persons who take the time to engage with me as you have! Many have simply labeled me without asking for my input or ideas. I appreciate you!
Much blessing,
Dion
Hi Dion,
Thanks for the lengthy response. Due to my involvement in this process in the methodist church, and my sincere interest in the outcome, I hear your point of view (and have heard similar points of view from other ministers). My reasons go deeper than just what I have written in my brief comment above, but I know that you have heard similar reasons from colleagues that may not support your stand on this issue. As such, I do not want to engage in this debate in this forum.
I am sure that you can appreciate my point of view, although you may not agree with it.
However, I believe that it is when we are able to worship together and work through an issue like this, discerning God's will for His church, and not let an issue like this divide the church, that we are truly united in Christ.
God bless as you seek continue to serve Him.
Kind regards
Alan
Hey Alan,
Thank you for an incredibly gracious response!
We are together on the fact that we cannot allow this issue to divide the Church!
Much blessing,
Dion