Comments for Agree to disagree? at http://www.pres-outlook.org , comment 1 to 2 out of 2 comments http://www.pres-outlook.org Wed, 08 Sep 2010 20:08:11 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.pres-outlook.org/opinion/editorials/9752-agree-to-disagree.html#comment-5322 While I appreciate the congenial spirit of the committee's work and your points, I find both to be disingenuous and not really addressing the heart of the matter. In Hebrew the required answer to Amos' question is an unqualified "NO". Any first year Hebrew student can affirm this. It is for this very purpose that we have such things as "essentials of the faith", and why we speak about certain theological positions as being non-essentials. This is so that ultimately we can agree on essentials and agree to not agree on non-essentials. If we have indeed reached a stage in the life of the denomination where an essential (fidelity/chastity) is being "re-negotiated" or "re-visioned" to a non-essential, let us be open and honest about this. And let us also treat with grace and compassion those congregations that find this unconscionable and Biblically non-negotiable, by allowing them to no longer "walk together" with us (the removal of the property clause). - Adel Thalos Tue, 09 Mar 2010 07:18:22 +0100 http://www.pres-outlook.org/opinion/editorials/9752-agree-to-disagree.html#comment-5320 The new format for the Outlook is really handsome! And as I review the content, I am convinced that the magazine is one of the most helpful resources for pastors and concerned laypersons. Of course, the magazine is a kind of concourse in which the differing parties on the issue of homosexual leadership are brought into renewed contact with one another, sometimes on a weeky basis, by news or partisan communications. This could be a good and necessary thing, promoting mutual understanding. It does however require a great deal of editorial sensitivity. Evangelical conservatives who have been dealing with the gay issue for years, sometimes for decades, have at times found themselves being subjected by church leaders to a process leading to managed compromise, and sometimes to a surrender of core beliefs. They may be able to continue to confront the controversy, again and again, with a sense of responsible commitment to promote the purity, unity and peace of the church. But they are going to be sensitive to any approach which seems to load the dice in order to promote, or move gradually toward, a surrender of biblically based convictions. So that we don't turn off and lose conservative readership, I would just encourage you to continue to weigh the balance of pros and cons in each issue or the magazine, so that there is a sense of fairness. The March 8 issue, for example has a cover which argues for gay marriage with two posters, and there are several photographs in the In Focus section which seem to feature a gay couple and a family with two fathers. William Weston's interesting commentary seems to indicate that the convictions of the three minority members – among how many majority members? – were overridden by a forceful intervention of the convenor. If there is no Minority Report because of time constraints, this is going to look like a bad process – unfortunately, not a new problem. Periodically, I review what I wrote on this issue in a 1978 book. While I was writing, I found myself motivated not just by theological and biblical concerns in the abstract, but by pastoral concern for homosexual persons based on Romans 1 and I Corinthians 6:9-11 (the latter containing the key word arsenikoitai). These texts provoke deep sobriety for all of us, whatever our sexual condition or conviction. But they surely lead us to challenge ourselves and one another on the consistency of our Christian lives. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God! Can we then easily pass over the need to correct ourselves and one another on issues of conduct? At this point a lot – a critical amount --hangs on what kind of biblical and theological resources are currently available in the denomination, since sessions are being advised to study these. If they do not provide a clear account of the diverse opinions and texts dealing with this issue, we will again feel the gravitational tides of controversy and incipient schism. On the single issue of homosexual marriage, it is interesting to see that the Democratic platform only supports civil unions – and President Obama has said that the Bible teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman, echoing Karl Barth. These politicians have a sense of what American convictions will support at this point. Any position on marriage which is out of harmony with Scripture will turn out to be, as one member of our original task force put, "the bond which breaks" – that is, which breaks the church. We have to ask ourselves if the church has the traction to head off in a kind of prophetic direction not supported by Scripture. My advisor at Princeton, Lefferts Loetscher, said positions on this issue which are against Scripture are theologically bankrupt – and he used to chide me about biblical literalism! Keep on keeping the faith! Richard Lovelace Northampton, Mass. - Richard Lovelace Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:45:54 +0100