I have been engaged in the political, moral, spiritual, intellectual, biblical, theological, and doctrinal question of the ordination of self professing (read, "proud") unrepentant (read, "rebellious") homosexual persons for almost as long as I have been married to my wife. This issue, like our marriage, has evolved over the years. Compared to my marriage this issue has evolved (thank God) inversely. While I grow closer and closer to my wife regardless of our "rough spots" - the rough edges with this surprisingly defining Issue only grow sharper. Whereas, with my dear bride, conflicts faced and resolved, create deeper intimacy, with this Issue by my relationship with the PC(USA) grows more and more estranged. I ask myself, often, why this is so.
I have spent a lot of time and energy reading about and considering the nature of conflict between a person and his family or church or community or nation. One simple definition of conflict is disagreement. Some conflicts are real and some are not. Sometimes we don’t so much disagree with what a person is saying as we simply don’t like the person saying it. We simply find someone disagreeable.
We may disagree that a problem exists. We might agree that a problem exists but strongly disagree on the nature of the problem. We may agree on the nature of a problem but strongly disagree on how to address the problem. We might agree on all these things but disagree on whether or not the problem has a solution. We might agree with all this, but strongly disagree that any solution would be better than simply “leaving it alone.”
I think it was a man named Speed Leas who first noted four or so basic approaches to conflict. My recollection is they are: Avoidance, Persuasion, Negotiation, Collaboration, and Arbitration.
In facing a conflict, it is smart for a group to identify the fall back style each group members carries. Some folks will always avoid conflict. Some folks will always try to persuade a contestant that their position is the correct one. Some folks will always negotiate their way through a conflict. Other will always seek the “win/win or no deal” collaborative approach. Some bold personalities will always try to “cut to the chase” and offer the “last word” “this is what we will do” arbitrary approach.
In a serious conflict or interminably stubborn loggerhead, the middle three positions are abandoned. We retreat to our reptilian brain where we either fight or run away. My observation is that these two extremes related to the value folks hold for the underlying principles of the question before them. Those who counsel avoidance believes the issue is “not worth fighting over” while the arbiters believe the issue is “worth dying over.”
I have heard each posture rehearsed this very week over the conflict in our denomination regarding the ordination of homosexuals. Where do you personally stand?
5 comments:
I'm still waiting for those who promote the idea of ordaining gays to answer the questions I believe are important. (1) How does this action further the kingdom of God and our witness to it as Presybterians and Christians; (2) Does this please God, and I must have the biblical proof.
Interesting post about how people deal with cnflict. Many are lamenting the posting of the Layman's article in regional newspapers, and no doubt the conflict will now be brought to the individual person in the pew a little faster.
No more avoidance for ambivalent pastors now.
I fear the "Fellowship" of pastors is looking at colaboration and negotiation. Persuasion has all but failed because it makes people take sides - but maybe that is God's will to have
(like the Layman is pushing) individuals decide what and who they serve. Persuasion is dead - except that the Holy Spirit is the convictor to persuade us.
I've been praying for revivalfor a long time now and in a way the battle going to the individual person and to the local congregation means decision time is here.
Revival is an individual thing that affects the whole, so maybe the line in the sand is a good thing and not to be avoided.
Recently, I realize that my prayers have changed.
Now it is "hurry up, Lord.....hurry up, Lord" and
create the chage in us, in your church that is pleasing to YOU. Hurry up, because this chaos is uncomfortable - and when things get "uncofortable" you can be sure the Holy Spirit is on the move. So Hurry up, Lord!
Linda,
Your words remind me of the prophet Jeremiah - who preaches destruction, then follows the people into the Providential exile - it was God's judgement on a wayward people.
Somehow, I think all this turmoil is from the hand of God and is a judgement. I think we must repent on our stand in favor of abortion - nuanced though it may be.
Having taught biblical studies in a PCUSA-related college for ten years, I stand where the Bible stands. The issue is not a "win or lose" issue. The issue is following biblical truth.
Gary,
My prayers are not for destruction but for revival, but revival may mean God must tear down man's "building" in order to build His work.(The Tower of BAbel comes to mind.)
I do tend to see things as black and white, so forgive me for that simplistic way to viewing a very serious matter in the church that affect ordained clergy and the church.
Becoming a Christian means you admit you need a savior, revival means you submit to that Savior more and more.
I am not sure that the PC(USA) as a denomination is creating a place where "revival" can happen, when you look at characteristics of revival in the past. That is my prayer, that God will create a place that revival can happen in individuals, in Christians, in pastors, in churches. I see what is happening in the PC(USA) as not so much Judgement, but God is moving, perhaps de-constructing, in order to rebuild and revive his people. I am not sure what that will look like, but I see your blog as part of the process as you express your views that have touched me greatly. I appreciate your voice, and respect your views and heart for God.
Post a Comment