There was a back-and-forth between
James Toews, author of the post about what he believes about inclusion and affirmation, and some anonymous commenters.
Since it’s easy to overlook comments, which appear at the
bottom of a post (and really, who comes back to an old post, anyway?), I’ve
decided to post them here.
If you have a comment about his post, or this exchange, feel free to share it as well.
Anonymous, September 6, 2023 at 1:39 PM
James conveniently skips over other biblical passages that list LGBTQ+ sins as ones that will exclude them from entering the kingdom of heaven. Does
he think we should rewrite the Bible to agree with him.
James Toews, September 7, 2023 at 9:55 AM
Fair comment. Here’s my response for you to test.
First, “All Scripture is God-breathed . . .” 2 Timothy 3:16. Full stop. The
Bible is not subject to rewriting or “conveniently skipping over.” So here is
how I read Scripture on the matter of inclusion.
Second, all Scripture is read through two centres: “‘Love the Lord your God
with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the
first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor
as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Matthew 22:37-40.
Third, all
Scripture must be interpreted and applied through the lens of mercy. “On
hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the
sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I
have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” Matthew 9:12-13.
Fourth, judgmentalism—natural as it is—is fundamentally the wrong paradigm
through which to read and apply Scripture. Hence, I take this injunction as
Biblically centrist: “Therefore, let us stop passing judgment on one another.
Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the
way of a brother or sister.” Romans 14:13.
Therefore, I believe that in their practice of excluding LGBTQ+ people and
their allies, our MB leaders are on the wrong course.
These points are not to be seen as a kind of “final word,” but are intended to
lead to a family conversation in the pattern of Acts 15.
I hope that helps.
Anonymous, September 7, 2023 at 12:09 PM
James,
this is very helpful information. Can you clarify how your understanding is not
in conflict with the MB Confession of Faith that calls for sexual intimacy only
in a marital relationship, which is between a man and a woman.
I agree
that churches should not exclude LGBTQ+ people, yet I struggle with their
involvement in leadership roles if they are not committed to this aspect of the
Confession, or if the teaching of the church endorses marital relationships
outside of that described in the Confession. Thank you for your insightful
comments as we journey on this.
James Toews, September 7, 2023 at 10:47 PM
Thanks for those kind words I
will do my best to answer your questions. This is to be a conversation not a
declaration.
Part of the challenge is that
this is a multi-dimensional issue and answers can get long :). I will try to
both break it down and keep my response as short as possible.
#1. I believe that the question
of the inclusion and affirmation of LGBTQ+ people in the church is first a
pastoral imperative and then a theological challenge. That order is important
as Jesus demonstrates. LGBTQ+ people are real people to be cared for by us, not
a theological puzzle for us to solve.
I say this because I began my
journey some 14 years ago trying to answer theological questions. Then I met
and got to know LGBTQ+ people. Theology is important, but only if it begins “on
the right foot,” as it were. When it doesn’t, theology can be destructive.
I’m happy to engage theological
questions, but my primary qualification is pastoral, having been a pastor for
the past 37 years.
#2. With that, let me step into
what has become a litmus test of confessional orthodoxy for MBs: Same Sex
Marriage [SSM]. A theology of marriage, in this context, is a relatively new
challenge given that SSM was only recognized in Canada in 2005.
Our 1975 MB CoF was composed only
7 years after homosexual behavior was decriminalized in Canada. For most of
history, Confessional articles on marriage were almost entirely focused on the
problem of divorce and its implications. Now that SSM is recognized as a legal
entity, the church must wrestle with what that means pastorally.
I and others in the Open Space
group, have been pressing for a truly open CCMBC family conversation on this
matter. That call has been rejected.
#3. I believe that what I have
proposed, in defining inclusion and affirmation, is entirely in keeping with
our CoF. I believe that these must themselves be affirmed. As important as the
theology of SSM is, I don’t believe it can precede inclusion and affirmation in
church practice.
In the New Testament church, the
parallel challenge was first the Samaritan and then the Gentile problem. Both
groups were excluded in practise because of their unclean identities and
presumed behaviour—even after the Acts 15 council that was supposed to settle
the matter.
I believe that if Jesus were to
tell the story of the Good Samaritan in our context the hero would be the Good
Lesbian.
I have not addressed the
leadership question you asked, because I suspect that a theology of SSM lies at
its core. If I’ve missed your query, tell me.
Anonymous, September
8, 2023 at 4:31 PM
More good information again.
Thanks James. I understand your pastoral heart and see where this is critical
in our relationship with all people. There are a few really difficult areas
that we get hung up on:
First, we never really seem to
define what 'inclusion' and 'affirmation' actually mean. Are they different? We
seem to live in a world of polarities where if you don't accept something in
its entirety, you are deemed to fully reject it. This is unfortunate.
Second, we also tend to group
LGBTQ2S+ as all one community when really they do consist of different groups.
Our COF would seem to not be in agreement with SSM, which is where I find the
conflict. Yet this does not mean that we don't love our LGBTQ family members
and friends or want them to worship with us.
Third, it is very true that SSM
only became legal in Canada recently, but the legislation cannot drive our
beliefs, otherwise the same could be said about abortion and MAID. Legislation
certainly demands a response from us as we deal with a very real situation, but
not necessarily a change in our beliefs. Imagine the implications in the U.S.
where every state determines its own legislation governing some of these areas.
Wish I had more time, but these
discussions can go on forever. I'm sure Open Space has many ongoing dialogues
and is much farther ahead on this topic than many of the rest of us. Thanks.
James Toews, September
9, 2023 at 11:02 AM
Thanks for engaging with me. Imo,
inclusion and affirmation are related and go together—but are quite different.
Defining terms and agreeing on the definitions is both the most vital and
energy consuming part of fruitful conversations. I’ve put forward my
definitions. I hope they make sense.
Agreeing on terms, definitions
and their history is especially vital in the matter of SSM. So far, we MBs have
not yet had the conversation. The easy default is to make declarations and then
talk past each other about this biblically complex institution.
I think how you are I are
engaging is a model for how to talk through vexing matters. Imo the biggest
need in our MB family is for open respectful talking to each other.
I hope this has been helpful and
I’m happy to carry the conversation forward both privately and publicly as time
permits.
And the good news is we want to have another Open Space event. We’ll keep you posted. I’d love to see you there.
