| BY GRACE ALONE |
| Written by Arlo Duba | ||||||||||
| Wednesday, 02 March 2011 21:25 | ||||||||||
|
I was graciously granted an interview that is on the Outlook web site. Please read that, and then this theological addition. Dear Presbyterian friend I have serious questions about the theology of those who are voting “No” on 10-A. I sense that they are speaking of law, law, law, without any mention of grace. I sense that those who oppose 10-A are failing to stress the gospel that we are saved by the grace of God in Jesus Christ. From my study of the Bible during the last two or three years, I see grace, not law. It is on the basis of that study that I urge you to vote “YES” on Amendment 10-A. No one will deny that Luke’s gospel and the book of Acts provide a continuously growing inclusiveness in the Judeo/Christian tradition, from calling Anna a prophet, calling Levi as the fourth disciple, to the Macedonian Call that brought the gospel to Europe (for which we Euro-Americans are indebted). I am convinced that Jesus himself willed that inclusiveness by repeatedly going beyond the restrictions of the Books of Moses. I believe that this growing inclusivity reaches a penultimate point with Peter’s dream and the conversion of Cornelius and his household. Those who oppose 10-A don’t seem to emphasize that we are saved by grace, not by works. Some of them make it sound as if they have discovered the unforgiveable sin. I believe that the Bible will not support considering any decree of God as unchangeable, except one: that we are saved only by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Jesus himself said, “You have heard it said by those of old time, you shall not . . . . , but I say to you . . . . Five times in Matthew 5. And I am finding in most who object to 10-A, that there is hardly a hint of the saving gospel. Rather, they lean on a doctrine of works, not of grace. We Presbyterians have always believed that we are saved by grace, not by our works, not by our practices, lest anyone should boast. Let those who boast, boast in the Lord. Read again Romans 3:9ff. Read again Romans 7:7 through chapter 8. Yes, this is the same Paul who wrote Chapter 1. Paul reminds me of John Calvin who would excommunicate for a list of sins and sinners that would include virtually every human being. In the next paragraph he says “yet, while we abide in this world . . . we are all poor sinners. . . Yet for all our faults and sins—which are too many to count—humbly and lowly in heart we ask mercy of our very good Father” who invites to the Lord’s Table all of us who ask God to look not on our iniquities, but on Jesus. Read again the account of Peter and Cornelius. Read in particular, Acts 11:1-3. Note that it was those disciples from Jerusalem who challenged Peter. The thing that was bothering them was not Peter’s theology, but his failure to keep Levitical law. They were appealing to a theology of works. “The circumcised believers criticized him, saying, ‘Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?’” In response Peter retold his story, ending with verse 17: “If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I should hinder God?” That is the question that Candidates’ Committees should be asking: has God given this person the gift of Christian commitment and the gift of leadership ability? In this Bible study I noted what I now believe God has been trying to show us, ever since Isaiah 56:3-8, and Jeremiah 38 that God is no respecter of persons of different identities. Luke’s writing picks this up more graphically than any other books of the Bible. He does this through the sequence of Philip’s preaching to previously outcast Samaritans and then to the Ethiopian eunuch, whose gender condition I believe is a metaphor for people who are gender and/or sexually “different.” He climaxes that by the vision of disgustingly different and inedible creatures to Peter. God caused Peter to “see through” this as a metaphor, showing him that he should call no human being “profane or unclean.” Then I believe Peter would ask us, if we turn down a person who is a believer, who has gifts for ministry, though he or she is of a “different” sexual or gender condition, are we hindering God? I pray that we will not find ourselves as those who hinder God. God’s grace is greater than all our sin. I will not consciously hinder God any longer. I urge you to do the grace-filled thing, of letting God call whom God will. If we refuse, are we putting ourselves in the place of God? I believe Peter would say, we may be hindering God. Let our presbyteries deal with candidates, not according to some identity or practice, but only by examining their call, if it be of God, whose grace surpasses all that we could ask or think. I believe that covenant faithfulness is what God desires, a faithfulness between two persons with each other and with Christ, and none other; yet who will boast only in the grace of God and the love of Christ, living out their covenant of faithfulness to each other and to God, God’s will, and God’s reign. Yours in the service of the gospel, Arlo D. Duba The Rev. Arlo D. Duba, Ph.D., is Professor of Worship Emeritus and Former Seminary Dean, University of Dubuque Theological Seminary. He presently resides in Princeton, N.J. Your Responses (5)
Thomas Fultz
said:
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed|
Mobile, AL I read the referenced interview previously on the Covenant Network website and had several questions on Dr. Duba's conclusion. I posted those questions there, but got no response. I find it hard to understand why Dr. Duba limits God's desire for human relationships "to faithfulness between two persons with each other and with Christ, and none other." On what basis does Dr. Duba definitively determine that is God's desire? If Dr, Duba is convinced so much of the Bible points to inclusion, why then would God allow exclusion of the full expression of bisexuality? If grace trumps works, then what can be called sin? As I understand from the interview and the article above, Dr. Duba would exclude God's people from plural relationships that include sexual interaction between a bisexually oriented person and persons of both genders, meaning at least two sexual partners. It is not clear how Dr. Duba's understanding of Galatians, Luke and Acts lead him to extend the church’s ordination to a person who claims a gay or lesbian sexual orientation, but not to a bisexual in relationships with persons of both genders, if practiced in covenant faithfulness agreed to by the three involved? How does Dr. Duba determine if bisexuality is or is not a gift from God? How does he determine if non-monogamous heterosexuality, and in particular bigamy, is not one of the “humanly conceived identities” of sexuality he mentions in the interview? Why wouldn't a covenanted/faithful sexual relationship between one female wife and two male husbands be included as part of the “broad instance of sexual-gender inclusivity in keeping with this increasing inclusivism theme in Luke-Acts”? To follow Dr. Duba's approach, because "God's grace is greater than all our sin" no sinful activity hinders God's call; BUT wait - in the final paragraph above, Dr. Duba states an exclusively based conviction that only monogamous relationships are acceptable practice. All this is an interesting perspective on God's grace - vastly different than mine. I learn from the Scripture that while we receive salvation by God's grace, God's call to God's people is to live a life of good works, that is to say say we are called to holy living. We are to reject sin - that which separates us from God, and turn to God and God's ways. God's grace is not license for any behavior or practice, it is a call to follow the narrow path, a call to repent when we sin and turn back to God's ways. |
Steve Frank
said:
|
Hamilton, MT I respect Dr. Duba and agree with everything he has said about inclusion of the marginalized. I agree that scripture is very clear that women, eunuchs, Samaritans, and members of every other group are all to be welcomed into the kingdom of God as persons. But Jesus put conditions on who may enter the kingdom. When he entered Galilee he was "proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, 'The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.'" To enter the kingdom of God one must "repent and believe in the gospel." (Mark 1:14-15 ESV) First one must "repent," recognizing the call to repentance as a gift of grace. Obviously no one need repent of being a woman, male, Samaritan, Greek or other Gentile, Jew, eunuch, slave or free. These are conditions, not behaviors proscribed by Torah or Jesus' Torah (Tanakh) teaching. So I must ask Dr. Duba, what did you find in your Bible study that indicates we no longer need repent of particular sins? In the PC(USA) during the last 30+ years, it does not take a prolonged study of scripture to know that homosexual practice is clearly identified (by many of us, and most of the holy, catholic, apostolic church) as sinful behavior - along with stealing, name-calling, slander, lying, coveting, gossiping, idolatry, murder, adultery, and fornication. If you changed your mind about this and/or the ordination of GLBT persons, you say nothing about why you do not now recognize homosexual practice as sin. Instead you seem to suggest that GLBT folks were metaphorically represented in Peter's dream (Acts 10). If so, I find that an amazing stretch of analysis. (And I beg your forgiveness if I do you an injustice.) I once favored ordination of GLBT folks. I once labeled myself G/B and had begun believing God made me such. During that time I did not feel safe around Christians who regarded themselves as conservative, evangelical, or orthodox. Like so many GLBT folks I had reason to expect condemnation instead of compassion. For years I slipped into worship services and was sure to exit by the final "amen." To fast forward, as the Lord in his grace was healing my brokenness, he introduced me to someone with a different worldview than is shared by most other Presbyterians. He understood the healing story of Mark 5:1-17 experientially. As he ministered to me there were audible and visible manifestations of demons - unclean spirits. One after another we discovered my own legion of spirits - e.g., lying, covetousness, abuse, murder, idolatry, rebellion, witchcraft, fornication. Can anyone disagree that each of these spirits is associated with a particular sin? These sins were mine, the sins of others against me, and generational sins. And yes, there was also a spirit of homosexuality attached to that shared sin in my life. By God's grace I am now free from those spirits. By grace my gay-bisexual life, repented of and healed, was left behind years ago. By grace I have seen freedom and healing for others like me. What keeps us trapped in the endless debate and struggle over ordination issues and the authority and understanding of scripture? It is our rationalist, western, unbiblical worldview. Very often Presbyterians and others dismiss my story as weird. (Delusional?) Superstitious and worse. When they do so, they dismiss Jesus' ministry of grace (Acts 10:38) and his giving his disciples - us - authority over such unclean spirits (Luke 9:1-2; 10:17-19) so that we may heal and set others free of Satanic oppression. Do I cry poor me? This is not about me. This about Jesus, grace, and the truth Jesus proclaimed and is. It is about what he did both before and on the cross. It is about what he did in his resurrection and ascension. It is about him healing a very broken world, a world broken by sin. A world - and a church - blind to our sins and the deceptions of sin. And it is about truly knowing who we are in communion with Jesus Messiah. Grace and peace. Steve Frank, HR |
Noel Anderson
said:
|
Upland, CA Dr. Duba is a very good and kind man, but his argument fails miserably. On the same line, couldn't we say that, for instance, a group of Alcoholics who refused to stop drinking to excess, but who had banded together and still proclaim Jesus' Grace--that these meet the same criteria? Come on, people--we're not talking about whether or not sinful behavior removes one from God's Grace, it doesn't; we're talking about whether or not certain behaviors fall beneath the dignity of leadership. Drunkenness does. So does all sexual immorality, including the GLBT gamut. The disaster here that Presbyterians no longer believe that healing is either possible or desirable. We have ceased to believe in God's power. |
Dr. Mike Garrett
said:
|
Snellville, GA It's hard not to respect the intellect or kindness of Arlo Duba. Still I struggle. Amendment 10-A removes the requirements for "fidelity and chastity" for EVERYBODY. Dr. Duba says he believes that "covenant faithfulness" is what God requires between two persons but the definition of that is up for debate. Does that include sexual relationships outside of marriage or before marriage? Is the standard some form of serial monogamy? Is there a standard? Who decides? Grace doesn't permit everything. The questions matter because there are all kinds of voices in the Presbyterian Church advocating all manner of contradictory answers. |
Tom Hobson
said:
|
Belleville, IL 1. Dr Duba claims that the issue is grace, which implies that the behavior at issue is sin. Most of those who advocate the repeal of the fidelity-chastity standard say it is an issue of justice toward those for whom same-sex desire is a good gift from God. Which is it, grace or justice? It cannot be both. And if it is an issue of justice, it cannot tolerate injustice. Therefore, permission for LGBT ordination will quickly become mandatory LGBT ordination. 2. Jude 1:4 warns readers against those who "twist the grace of God into aselgeia." This word is a broad word usually translated "licentiousness". As I have argued in Filologia Neotestamentaria ("Aselgeia in Mark 7:22" - you may google it), this words appears to be Jesus' term for homosexual behavior on his sin list in Mark 7. Like those of us who oppose Amendment 10-A, Jude wanted to write a happy epistle about the grace of God, but found it necessary to "contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints", precisely because too many in the church were twisting God's grace into aselgeia. 3. God calls only sinners who stumble and struggle to obey. God does not call people who are determined to remain in active rebellion against Jesus' Lordship. |
Write a Response
