Editor’s note: This is the second installment of a three-part article. The first article, “Why do we Presbyterians continue to fight?” appeared in the Outlook issue of Nov. 10 (page 13). The third installment will appear in a later issue of the Outlook with the title, “How a focus on experience can further discussion.”

Entering Bayview Hills Church, I am handed a bulletin with a beautiful line drawing on the cover of a woman holding a child. Inside, I find a “Call to Celebration”:

Leader: With midday, full sun falls upon us.

All: For this time of celebration, we gather as people with daylight understandings, with spirits illuminated by experience and developed by exposure to the faith of others. 

The next Sunday, in First Church of Westfield, a few miles away, the bulletin has nice calligraphy on the cover of a short Bible verse from 1 Timothy.  The “Call to Worship” inside says this:

Leader: Praise be to you, O Lord, God of our father Israel, from everlasting to everlasting!

People: Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the majesty and the splendor, for everything in heaven and earth is yours. (1 Chronicles 29:10-13)

The contrasting styles of the bulletins of these two Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) congregations seem indicative of the differences between them, one a “More Light” congregation and the other a “Confessing Church.” (The names of the churches have been changed.) One would be labeled “liberal” and the other “conservative.” And from the looks of their bulletins and worship style, one seems much more “biblically-based” than the other.

The PC(USA) has been debating sexuality issues for decades, and we are entering another season of debate. Much of the discussion among the factions in the church has focused on how members use Scripture differently. An extensive study of “Presbyterian Understanding and Use of Holy Scripture” was adopted by the 1983 General Assembly and studied widely in the church over the years. That study and others assume that the differences between parties in the debates in our denomination are caused by different readings of Scripture, and that further Scripture study can help bridge the differences. 

While Bayview Hills and First Church of Westfield members undoubtedly looked at Scripture in different ways, my year-long study of these two congregations found that the Bible was not at the center of their differences. Despite clear surface dissimilarity, folks in these two congregations had a lot in common in how they used Scripture, and other factors seemed to be much more important in sorting out their differences on ethical questions like homosexuality. In fact, studying Scripture just might make for more argument and division, not building bridges.

In my interviews with members of both congregations, the folks at the Confessing Church were much more likely to bring up the Bible in their conversations. They would often justify their ethical positions with words like “The Bible says so” or “Scripture guides me in that.” However, when pressed, most of them could not cite specific passages from the Bible to support their positions. They simply had a general knowledge that the Bible held a particular position. 

In the More Light Church, members rarely used Scripture as the first reason for their ethical positions. Instead, they tended to cite generic themes such as “justice” and “peace.” When pressed for their view of the Bible, several members talked about the “core truths” of the Bible without referring to specific moral commands or particular passages. In general, members of both congregations tended to rely on what they thought the Bible said or on general themes of the Bible without knowing specific biblical passages.

On one issue, though, I found remarkable unanimity. In both congregations, the members fully accepted and loved their female pastors despite biblical passages that seem to forbid women in leadership. In both congregations, the Bible passages restricting women were explained as relative only to the context of biblical history and not relevant today. While more strident than most in the congregation, one older leader in the Confessing Church who was particularly opposed to homosexuality, represented many members. He insisted the Bible had only one such verse restricting women and that it only applied to one particular situation in Corinth, not to the context of today’s church. He liked and respected his woman pastor, therefore, he supported women pastors despite the Bible. Although several of the Confessing Church members said they struggled with these passages, no one in either congregation found any biblical reason to question the strong women leaders of their congregations.

The same was not true on homosexuality. As expected, the More Light Church members uniformly used contextual reasoning to say that biblical passages on homosexual behavior were no longer relevant to modern life because the context was so different. However, many members of the Confessing Church who made that contextual leap for women in leadership did not do so for homosexuality. The man who was earlier willing to disregard the “one verse” forbidding women in leadership said that when people used historical context to discount what he saw as clear moral standards for homosexuality in the Bible, then they are “twisting Scripture to justify immoral behavior.” He also proudly proclaimed that he did not and would not ever have any homosexual friends. Others in the Confessing Church were not this clear, though, and many suggested that they were conflicted over such passages. They thought that the Bible was against homosexuality, but they knew good homosexual people in their lives, so they had their struggles with the Bible. Some said that they could justify women in leadership because the Bible had other passages with clear, strong women leaders, but the Bible had no references to acceptable homosexual behavior, so they struggled with the issue of homosexuality and the Bible.

In all of these discussions, it became clear that in both congregations, the Bible was not the center of the moral discussion. As good Presbyterians, they wanted to make the Bible the sole answer for moral questions. However, the folks in these two congregations made their moral judgments beginning with their personal experiences. Everyone I interviewed had experienced good, strong leadership from women in their day-to-day lives and in the church. They had grown to accept it and appreciate it. Therefore, when they came to the Bible, they found ways to justify the clear biblical statements forbidding it. All of them in both congregations felt that way.

When it came to experience with homosexual people, their experiences were different. Unlike the More Light Church, many people in the Confessing Church had not had day-to-day, ordinary experiences with homosexual people, and their understanding of the Bible was different based on those experiences. In ethical discussion, the Bible is important, but personal experience has priority.

In our debates in the Presbyterian Church over homosexuality, if we begin with the Bible, we will likely reach a polarized stalemate. One side will say, “The Bible says so. It’s good enough for God, and that’s good enough for me.”  That effectively ends the conversation. Folks on the opposing side will attempt to argue with what “the Bible says,” but unless we are willing to use context and personal experience in the debate, we get nowhere. Bible discussions are too often divisive. When we begin with the Bible, we are not beginning with a natural place for all of us.

Perhaps we should find a different beginning point — the personal experiences we all share. That’s where all of our discussions naturally begin. Perhaps that should be our beginning point for our debates and Bible study. Experience should lead us into the Bible instead of beginning with the Bible and discounting the importance of personal experience. 

That’s the topic of the next installment in this series.

Next issue: How a focus on experience can further discussion.

Erwin C. Barron is an ordained Presbyterian minister teaching at City College of San Francisco and the University of San Francisco. He received his M.Div. at Princeton Theological Seminary and his Ph.D. in Christian Ethics from the Graduate Theological Seminary. This two-congregation study was done as a part of his work on his dissertation.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (21)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by Tony, December 03, 2008

My recent post quoting Dr. Francis S. Collins' insights on the genetic basis of homosexuality (taken from his recent book "The Language of God) was in response to Rev. Dr. Brown's request for research information from the scientific community on this subject. Collins comments should awaken us to truth that both nature and nurture shape many aspects of our humanity, (not just sexuality) and that at this time we simply don't have a complete understanding of how these two dynamic forces interact with each other as we are being shaped. His comments on scientific research - like those cited by Dr. Brown concerning alcoholism - should also remind us that we are all imperfect beings struggling to come to grips with who we are as human beings and who we are as divinely created beings. Until we all reach that point of seeing through the glass clearly the one rule that should govern our lives and how we treat each other is Christ's rule: To love others as God has loved us, to love others as we love ourselves. And love is patient, kind, and long-suffering. Love is tolerant - and therefore we should be tolerant of each other, loving each other, caring for each other, praying for each, edifying each other as we work towards clarity and understanding.

professor of historical theology
written by paul capetz, December 03, 2008

People debate whether homosexuality has a genetic basis or not as though the question had already been settled as to what causes heterosexuality. Homosexuality may not have a genetic basis; but then perhaps neither may heterosexuality. What causes sexual orientation in either case remains a puzzle. Nonetheless, the moral response to persons who find themselves with a homosexual orientation should not be predicated on the unproven assumption of a "natural" heterosexuality.

Pastor, First Presbyterian Church, Mooresville, NC
written by The Rev. Dr. Clay J. Brown, December 03, 2008

After my request of two weeks or so ago for information regarding conclusive studies on the genetic factors for homosexuality, I'm aware of only one response, from Tony. Thank you, Tony, for the information from and on Francis Collins' book. It is a book I have but haven't read yet, and I now place it on the "read soon" list. I'm a little bothered that others have not responded, given the assurance of such scientific data by previous writers.

I also realize that my earlier statement, based on Dr. Collins' use of the terms "predisposition" and "predetermination" in the provided quote, was less than crystal clear. I admit I was thinking more in terms of what Collins calls "predetermination" when I stated that several respondents had indicated scientific studies in favor of homosexual orientation being genetic in nature. The general tone and tenor of the comments by these previous respondents goes beyond a mere predisposition toward homosexuality. The implication is that homosexual orientation is predetermined genetically and therefore part of a person's nature, and thus homosexual behavior should be accepted by the Church.

It doesn't shock me that components of homosexuality may have a genetic predisposition. We understand this sort of genetic predisposition to be the case with a number of things. Alcoholism may be the most publicized one. It's probably true with things that run the gamut from a short temper to color preferences to criminal behavior to whatever. I'm sure I have a host of genetic predispositions within me, many of which I'm not even aware of.

I'm not sure that the presence of a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality should give those advocating the congruence of homosexual practice and Christian faith any solace, though. After all, what do we say to someone if we think he/she has a genetic predisposition toward alcoholism? "Drink up, for it's the way you were made"? No, of course not. Instead we encourage that person to abstain from alcohol, for the first drink could be the start of an immense and life-deadening spiral toward addiction. So why should the advice to someone with a possible genetic predisposition toward homosexuality be any different? Why would we counsel anyone with a possible genetic predisposition toward homosexuality to follow those inclinations, especially given the Scriptural prohibitions against such practice? I don't think a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality really does what those in the gay Christian community want it to do. A genetic predisposition, it seems, is a two-edged sword.
Grace and peace,
Clay Brown

Pastor Big Stone Gap and Powell Valley Presbyterian Churches
written by Tony, November 26, 2008

In response Brown's request I offer the following quote from Dr. Francis S. Collins recent book "The Language of God" concerning 'predisposition' and homosexuality. Collins reviewed the research on homosexuality and wrote, "An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20% (compared with 2-4 percent of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations." This is the most distinctively scientific statement that I have ever read concerning the genetics of homosexuality. Like Brown I would really appreciate learning about other scientifically sound studies in this area.

A quick question and a quick comment...
written by The Rev. Dr. Clay Brown, Pastor, First Presbyterian Church, Mooresville, NC, November 26, 2008

A QUICK QUESTION: Several commentators related to this series by Dr. Barron, including Dr. Barron himself, have mentioned that scientific studies support their belief that homosexual orientation is not a choice but a product of genetic predisposition. What are these studies that have conclusively proven this to be the case? To my knowledge, there has been no study that has moved through the appropriate channels of rigorous peer review and the rest of the process that proves this conclusively and without debate in the scientific community. If there are, then please expand my knowledge. Otherwise, to claim such is simply not true.

A QUICK COMMENT: To give experience the weight in ethical discourse that Dr. Barron gives it doesn't help us make sound ethical decisions. It simply opens the door for ethical relativism via experience to be the deciding factor. The same process could be used to justify any number of practices that would be at variance with Scripture, from white-power racist theology to polygamy to you name it. Admittedly we bring our experience to our reading of Scripture. But in Dr. Barron's model, our experience becomes the arbiter of the right reading of Scripture. Might we be able to allow Scripture to judge our
experience rather than the other way around?

Grace and peace,
Clay Brown,
Pastor, First Presbyterian Church
Mooresville, NC

Member, 1st Pres. Bellevue (WA)
written by Deborah Milam Berkley, November 25, 2008

I'd like to correct a misunderstanding that Paul Capetz seems to have. He says that Jeff Winter commented that "Barron's homosexuality flavors his reading of scripture" (quote from Mr. Capetz). This is an not accurate description of what Mr. Winter wrote. Mr. Winter's comment was that Mr. Barron's homosexuality flavors what Mr. Barron writes, referring to Mr. Barron's writing of this Outlook article. Since Mr. Barron is writing on the topic of homosexuality and the Bible, it is a pertinent comment. Mr. Barron is somewhat of an activist in gay matters (he was an early leader in the Shower of Stoles project), so it is not off topic to mention this aspect of Mr. Barron's background when he is writing on such a subject. If Mr. Barron on the other hand were an activist for heterosexual-only marriage or ordination, it would also be pertinent to disclose this.

Professor of Historical Theology, United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities
written by Paul E. Capetz, November 25, 2008

In response to Jeff Winter's comment that Erwin Barron's homosexuality flavors his reading of scripture, I wonder if it ever occurs to heterosexuals to ask themseleves whether their sexual orientation flavors how they read scripture!

A Thought
written by Lynn Calhoun, November 24, 2008

Quote:
"I have been in this denomination all my life and have found that the Rev. Barron's of our church (e.g. More Light and Covenant Network folks, liberal elders and pastors) have generally not experienced the power of the Holy Spirit to change lives. They don't understand that the Counselor can bring a person out of homosexuality."

Based upon that comment, it would seem that the Counselor may also be having difficulty bringing some persons out of the abomination of prideful, hurtful judgement of their spiritual kin.

It hurts my heart. I can only imagine what it must do to God's.

Elder, Old First Presbyterian Church San Francisco
written by Michael Berg, November 22, 2008

I am pleased to see Dr. Barron's work in print. I know he undertook this study in very serious and forthright manner and I believe that he tried to be evenhanded in his approach. While there are many issues brought up in the responses to his article, I thought I would address this issue of "outing" Dr Barron and the suggestion that his sexual orientation undermined or distorted his work.

Several of the respondents suggest that Dr. Barron should have told his audience of his sexual orientation and yet none of the respondents who raised this issue disclosed their personal history. It is like saying a black person could not fairly dicuss racism or that a woman could not fairly discuss misogyny, yet a white male could fairly talk about either topic. I am not sure that Fredrick Douglas or Susan B. Anthony would agree.

The common theme to several of the responses is the mistaken belief that homosexuality is a "lifestyle" or "personal choice" that maligns those who make such "choices". This is simply not supported by any scientific research. A corolary of this belief is that gay people can be cured, another misnomer that lacks any support by credible behavioral studies. If we are going to talk about such important matters in our modern church, and believe me , we will, let us at least agree that we will keep our converations based upon fact and not fiction.

I have often heard the Presbyterians do not leave their brains outside the door when they go to church. I am glad that Dr. Barron has used his talented brain in this insightful articles as he looks inside our church.

And for the record, I am a straight guy, married for over 25 years to the same beautiful wife with two extraordinary children whose lives have been blessed by knowing Dr. Barron.

Response to Rev. Barron
written by Jeff Winter, Oak Bluffs, MA, November 21, 2008

In response to Rev Barron's statements, it is important to know that he was married to his male partner in late September. His homosexuality flavors what he writes. I would have appreciated if Rev. Barron was more forthright with his sexuality. In critiquing his statement that we should not start with Scripture when we address the homosexual issue is neither Reformed nor biblical. As a pastor trained in one of our Presbyterian seminaries, he should know that we begin our interpretation of culture and human nature based upon God's Word. The Scripture is foundational for all of life. On a practical note, I have worked with many persons, particularly men, who struggle with same-sex attraction. Those persons who begin to take seriously what the Bible says about homosexuality are the ones who have been successful in moving away from homosexual expression. You see, these people cry out to the Lord and ask Him to give them the strength and power to deal with their homosexual urges. God, over time, moves in them through the healing power of the Holy Spirit and gives them what they need to leave homosexuality or to deal with their same-sex attraction. All of my ex-gay friends began their journey out of homosexuality from the position of Scripture. If they were only led by their feelings they would have remained in bondage to their homosexualty. I have been in this denomination all my life and have found that the Rev. Barron's of our church (e.g. More Light and Covenant Network folks, liberal elders and pastors) have generally not experienced the power of the Holy Spirit to change lives. They don't understand that the Counselor can bring a person out of homosexuality. The Scripture is very clear that the Holy Spirit can powerfully change us, even our sexual orientation. I would advise the Rev. Barron's of our church to seek a deep and abiding experience with the Holy Spirit to help transform the personal sin they deal with on a day to day basis. After they begin to see that God can transform their life then they might be open to believe that the Lord can change the orientation of a person who has same-sex attraction.

...
written by Tony Palubicki, Big Stone Gap, Va., November 21, 2008

Our Lord Jesus Christ, when asked what was the greatest commandment, replied "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." This sounds like something we not only do but also 'experience.' Jesus never asked (or commanded) us to like, agree with, or to condemn each other. He calls, teaches, and commands us to 'love one another.' He challenges us to tolerate each other in love. Maybe someday we will stop questioning each others love for God and for Christ - and really start just trying to love and listen to each other without throwing stones. It seems to me that this is all that Mr. Barron has asked us to do. To what end - so that we might love others as God has loved us!

As to experience John Calvin wrote, "Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But, while joined by many bonds, which one precedes and brings forth the other is not easy to discern." It appears, to me anyway, that Calvin understood that one's experience is very much a part of any conversation having to do with God and doctrinal discussions. Experience and Scripture - like science and Scripture - are not polar opposites or competitors - they are two parts of the whole conversation. We bring our experience to all conversations - Godly or otherwise - but in conversations among Christians having to do with God our experience is tempered and corrected through what Calvin called the corrective 'spectacles' of God's gift of the written Word. If we should disagree with each other, even after having consulting Scripture, then we should (at the very least) agree to disagree - following Christ's rule of faith (the rule of love) until that day when what we see through a glass dimly is made crystal clear. It seems to me that this is the way Christ would have us to proceed - on the issues of homosexuality, ordination, or any other doctrinal issue for that matter.

What Is Authoritative - Experience or Scripture?
written by Reginald Gates, November 21, 2008

C. S Lewis helpfully points out that "What we learn from experience depends on the philosophy we bring to experience", and that certainly applies to this issue.

Mr. Barron points out that "Scripture is still important" but never gets around to addressing the philosophical issue of just how important it is. If experience conflicts with the clear teaching of the Scriptures on an ethical issue, should the Bible be obeyed, that is, is Scripture authoritative? Another way to frame the question is "Is Scripture one of many things we must weigh in our discussion, or is it the primary one, the one that over-rules all others?" The position of Scripture in the debate is what divides the two churches, not their experiences.

As I see it, there are two approaches open to More Light churches: (1) to say that Scripture is not always authoritative in all issues and (2) to say that the traditional interpretation of Scripture on this issue is incorrect or ambiguous. We can and should have conversations about these two issues. Once we have resolved them, we can then proceed to the gay ordination issue.

I would also like to gently suggest that to be completely transparent and open, Prof. Barron might have disclosed at the start of this series that he supports homosexual ordination and gay marriage. It is not that this prevents him from writing a good article - far from it - but in my opinion it would make clear that the author does not approach this series from a neutral perspective.

Member, 1st Pres. Bellevue (WA)
written by Deborah Milam Berkley, November 19, 2008

Dr. Barron is confused about what Mary Naegeli means when she says "end of conversation" in her comment. She does not mean that Christians can no longer discuss any issues because of what it says in the Bible. But she is saying that when God speaks, that's the end of the conversation, unless a person wants to be in open rebellion against God.

The real issue here, then, is not really just whether or not experience is important to consider, even if you place that consideration before listening to Scripture. The real issue is: when we read Scripture, is that God speaking? My guess is that at the Confessing Church, the answer would be "yes." At the More Light Church, the answer would be something along the lines of "not exactly" or "yes, but only with this interpretation that fits the experiences of GLBT people".

...
written by Doug Hucke, November 19, 2008

In his three part series Dr. Barron has pitted experience and the Bible as competing starting points for ethical discussions. This reminds me of the old contrast of doing theology from above (as with Charles Hodge) or doing theology from below (as with Immanuel Kant). Theology from above begins with God’s revelation. Theology from below begins with human experience. Of course these cannot really be polar opposites because we know our experience affects our interpretation of Scripture. I believe we do theology from “the middle” where we have the Word of God interpreted through a lens of experience. But experience is something that leads us to the truth of Scripture not away from it. Something must provide authority for a community to remain a community. Barron writes, “In our debates in the Presbyterian Church over homosexuality, if we begin with the Bible, we will likely reach a polarized stalemate.” What an amazing statement! We are, in fact, polarized and we certainly did not begin with the Bible. We begin with experience which has resulted in our polarization and the loss of community. To begin with experience as he suggests will only lead us further down this road.

You could see it coming in this series. Dr. Barron’s assessment of our ethical debate over homosexuality has led him to the conclusion that experience trumps Biblical authority. In his article he says, “In ethical discussion, the Bible is important, but personal experience has priority.” That is not consistent with our Reformed theological heritage or our confessions. Scripture has priority!

interesting feedback
written by Erwin Barron, November 19, 2008

It's hard to sit back and listen to all of your comments. But it is interesting. I've been trying to hold my tongue and listen to you.

Just a couple of comments at this point. Some of you are misreading me that I want to LIMIT discussion only to our experience. NO! NO! NO! Scripture is still important. It must be part of all Christian moral discussion. I am not an "experience fundamentalist."

I am simply arguing that we should BEGIN our discussion with experience, not with scripture.

Mary Naegli reinforces my point in her comments. Her interpretation of "God speaking" ends the conversation. She begins with scripture and that ends it for her. So what point is it in discussing anything with her? She cites scripture and "God speaking" as the end of it all. She and I disagree, but we can't debate "God speaking" as she says, even if I don't agree that is what God says. That is exactly what happens too often in these conversations that begin with scripture. Someone insists on "God's word." Then we can't discuss it any more without major divisions.

I do not propose that we stop listening to God's word, I only argue that the only way to hear God's word is through the lens of our experience. We cannot avoid that, and we cannot discount it. Experience is a BEGINNING point for discussing scripture and other sources of authority. I do not propose as Ms. Naegeli seems to suggest that experience holds authority OVER God's word. I simply propose a different beginning place. My sharing my experience with Ms. Naegeli and she sharing hers with me is not conversation-stopping. Whereas declaring what "God says" ends it all.

Finally, a comment to Noel Anderson, my seminary classmate with whom I have had many debates. Your opinion that "homosexuals are defined by a willful and defiant patterned behavior" is your moral opinion, based on I don't know what. But it is proven wrong by all sources of ethical authority of which I know, especially modern science and the experience of the vast majority of homosexual people.

Thanks for the comments, folks, and thanks for listening to my ideas. Let's continue the conversation. It's interesting.

member, 1st Pres. Bellevue (WA)
written by Deborah Milam Berkley, November 19, 2008

Mr. Barron says "many people in the Confessing Church had not had day-to-day, ordinary experiences with homosexual people, and their understanding of the Bible was different based on those experiences." He seems to be implying that this is the reason that the members of the Confessing Church believe that homosexual behavior is a sin, unlike the members of the More Light church. But what about the other members of the Confessing Church who do have such day-to-day, ordinary experiences and still hold to their beliefs? For that matter, what about people like me, who have orthodox beliefs and know gay people well, who even love some gay people dearly (I have some beloved gay relatives)? Mr. Barron cannot explain away orthodox theology merely from a lack of experience.

Minister Member, San Francisco Presbytery
written by (The Rev.) Mary Holder Naegeli, November 19, 2008

What ends the conversation?

Erwin C. Barron contends that starting with what the Bible says on an ethical subject (in this case, homosexuality) ends the conversation. Dr. Barron views this as an undesirable outcome, but there is ample evidence in Scripture that God’s Word tends to do just that when “it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12).

To illustrate (and where else would I start, but with Scripture?):

When Job shared his experience of losing everything, lamenting and questioning God, his “friends” gave their interpretation of why he was suffering. In chapter 38, the Lord’s voice thunders forth, “Wait just a minute here, who is questioning whom? Where were you when I set the earth’s foundation and created the world?” End of conversation.

When King David sinned with Bathsheba, the prophet Nathan made a house call and told him a story about a rich man taking a neighbor’s ewe lamb (2 Samuel 12). When David fumed against the man, Nathan said to the king, “You are the man! And here’s what the Lord says about your sin.” David acknowledged, “I have sinned against the Lord.” End of conversation.

When the Rich Young Ruler addressed Jesus with a question about what it takes to inherit eternal life (Matthew 19:16-22), Jesus recited the basic commandments, which the ruler said were already a part of his experience, so what more is there? Jesus went on to say, “Well then, there’s still something lacking. Sell all your belongings to benefit the poor, and then come follow me.” When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. End of conversation.

The experiences of Job, David and the young ruler may each have begged an ethical question, but when God speaks, the conversation is over. Our experience has no authority before the One who made the universe, who established and revealed what is right, and whose discipleship costs us our very selves. Confronted with God’s glorious sovereignty, we are invited to find our life not in our experience but in losing our life for Christ’s sake (Matthew 10:37-39).

So I do not think that Dr. Barron is correct to assert that sharing human experience yields a better ethical conclusion than God’s Word fully appropriated in our faith and practice. Imagine telling God, “I think I can handle this on my own by doing what is right in my own eyes.” This approach didn’t work for Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:1-7); it didn’t work for Israel in the time of the Judges (Judges 21:25), and it won’t work for the 21st century Presbyterian Church.

“See to it that you do not refuse the One who speaks” (Hebrews 12:25).

Executive Vice President, Fuller Theological Seminary
written by Howard Wilson, November 18, 2008

If we begin our ethical discussions with personal experience, rather than with revealed truth, it would seem that we are using a very rubbery anvil on which to beat out standards to govern our lives and churches and ultimately our position before God. If we say the Scriptures contain God's truth, then we have a logical, and fixed, place to start. If we start from "I feel this..." and "My experience is this..." we have no such foothold for our discussion. Dr. Barron says that there really isn't that much that separates the two congregations, apart from their handling of Scripture. In reality, that difference is enormous and critical. Scripture does divide people. As a person who grew up in liberal Protestantism and never had the gospel of grace through the atoning death of Christ explained to me in twenty years, I have experienced the results of an unwillingness to take Scripture seriously. Believe it or not, the Chinese Cultural Revolution was held up to me as a "peace and justice" value. The comparison between women's ordination and homosexual ordination and practice is very weak. It gets trotted out regularly, but has very little exegetical, theological, or historical support.

First Pres Bakersfield, CA
written by Noel Anderson, November 17, 2008

Our friend Erwin is surprised that the response to the ordination of women is not the same as to that of the ordination of practicing homosexuals. Why would they be the same? Women are defined as women by nature and birth, self-avowed practicing homosexuals are defined by a willful and defiant patterned behavior. The juxtaposition is preposterous. No one should expect these separate issues to be dealt with comparably. You might as well express surprise that growing out your fingernails doesn't more closely resemble playing the trombone.

...
written by Dave Moody, November 17, 2008

So, if I'm reading this aright, if we limit discussion to our experiences we will move forward, getting beyond 'old' polarities. If we center our discussion on the Bible, the gap between the two sides will only grow wider, perhaps deeper. It seems, then, the thing that divides us, and keeps dividing us, is scripture.

I think Paul wrote something to Timothy about that tendency.
grace & peace,
dm