Comments on James Toews' post about affirmation and inclusion: What about biblical passages against LGBTQ+? How is his view not in conflict with the Confession of Faith? Toews responds.

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.