Gay Christians have lived with this approach to costly discipleship. That's what the ex-gay movement was all about (as well as other variations like embracing celibacy or rejecting 'gay identity' in favour of describing yourself as 'struggling with same-sex attraction). The trouble is that we don't see our lives being changed - indeed what caused the implosion of ex-gay ministries was the final admission that lives were not actually being changed - nor does the call come from love, and it really doesn't lead to something recognisable as joy. Maybe this shouldn't surprise us. Both Jesus and St Paul are at pains to warn against imposing misguided celibacy rules - Jesus in Matthew 19 is swift to correct those who say it would be better not to marry, and St Paul is quite firm in 1 Corinthians that celibacy isn't for everyone, and shouldn't be taken as a command (it is better to marry than burn with passion).
Yes, I too have heard many contributions on the ‘inclusive’ side of this debate which seem to be saying no more than “please don’t discriminate against people like me because it hurts us” and your point here seems to be that something being painful does not necessarily make it wrong. And I have often thought to myself: Why does the chair allow this time-wasting? Not that someone’s pain is unimportant but it’s just irrelevant to this debate. What a synod should be trying to discern is: what is the right way for the church to proceed? If the “traditionalist” position is what faithfulness to God looks like, then the pain of those whose sexuality has to be repressed is, as you say, a case of having to carry one’s cross. However someone’s pain is NOT the argument that should carry the day. Rather, the argument on the inclusive side that counts is that there is no reason not to be inclusive except superstition- by which I mean an irrational and unjustifiable degree of trust in the words of scripture or in the traditions of the church or in some particular interpretation of either. Many will disagree with that description of the basis of “orthodoxy” but I have long thought that that is the discussion that is needed. And if we cannot agree on that (which is obviously the case, so in fact we could skip the discussion I've just said we need), then, unless you are going to accuse those, like me, with whom you disagree of not being Christians at all- then we will need to agree to disagree and allow freedom of conscience on this question. The elephant in the room (synod debating chamber) is that the argument that “the Bible says so” is childish nonsense.
I agree that many Christians today do not pay enough attention to the costliness of following Christ. But I disagree that being 'welcoming' is necessarily about being 'nice' and not making too many demands. To start with, dominant groups may have to confront exclusionary tendencies in themselves and others, e.g. if white people in violently racist neighbourhoods where many churchgoers support discrimination, which can be emotionally draining and sometimes physically dangerous. And if in an often-excluded group, putting one's head above the parapet, so to speak, often has negative consequences.
But I also believe that being in a committed life-partnership, which may sustain a range of other sometimes costly family relationships and forms of service to neighbours, usually entails a type of death to self. For instance I do not think my late parents' 61-year marriage was simply a continuous round of self-indulgence, nor my 24 years with my late (same-sex) partner. A blessing can be important in framing and sustaining a partnership amidst suffering as well as joy.
I had to read it twice to parse what you are asking from a salvation-by-works. As I understand it, we are called to love, even uncomfortably (if a man asks for your shirt, give him your coat as well!), and we are called to sacrifice our fear; to trust in God whole-heartedly. These are demanding costs and the root layer of discipleship.
No church is Christianity. There are quite a few kinds of Christian churches and they require different things.
Organised Christianity to me is a bit like organised sports. There’s the one sport but some like these rules within it and others like others, so you end up with a sport that has several governing bodies, and different tournaments and championships arrangements.
Very challenged by this.
Brilliant again, thanks Mark.
This was extremely thought provoking, thank you.
Fabulous. Spot on, and perfectly expressed.
Gay Christians have lived with this approach to costly discipleship. That's what the ex-gay movement was all about (as well as other variations like embracing celibacy or rejecting 'gay identity' in favour of describing yourself as 'struggling with same-sex attraction). The trouble is that we don't see our lives being changed - indeed what caused the implosion of ex-gay ministries was the final admission that lives were not actually being changed - nor does the call come from love, and it really doesn't lead to something recognisable as joy. Maybe this shouldn't surprise us. Both Jesus and St Paul are at pains to warn against imposing misguided celibacy rules - Jesus in Matthew 19 is swift to correct those who say it would be better not to marry, and St Paul is quite firm in 1 Corinthians that celibacy isn't for everyone, and shouldn't be taken as a command (it is better to marry than burn with passion).
Yes, I too have heard many contributions on the ‘inclusive’ side of this debate which seem to be saying no more than “please don’t discriminate against people like me because it hurts us” and your point here seems to be that something being painful does not necessarily make it wrong. And I have often thought to myself: Why does the chair allow this time-wasting? Not that someone’s pain is unimportant but it’s just irrelevant to this debate. What a synod should be trying to discern is: what is the right way for the church to proceed? If the “traditionalist” position is what faithfulness to God looks like, then the pain of those whose sexuality has to be repressed is, as you say, a case of having to carry one’s cross. However someone’s pain is NOT the argument that should carry the day. Rather, the argument on the inclusive side that counts is that there is no reason not to be inclusive except superstition- by which I mean an irrational and unjustifiable degree of trust in the words of scripture or in the traditions of the church or in some particular interpretation of either. Many will disagree with that description of the basis of “orthodoxy” but I have long thought that that is the discussion that is needed. And if we cannot agree on that (which is obviously the case, so in fact we could skip the discussion I've just said we need), then, unless you are going to accuse those, like me, with whom you disagree of not being Christians at all- then we will need to agree to disagree and allow freedom of conscience on this question. The elephant in the room (synod debating chamber) is that the argument that “the Bible says so” is childish nonsense.
I agree that many Christians today do not pay enough attention to the costliness of following Christ. But I disagree that being 'welcoming' is necessarily about being 'nice' and not making too many demands. To start with, dominant groups may have to confront exclusionary tendencies in themselves and others, e.g. if white people in violently racist neighbourhoods where many churchgoers support discrimination, which can be emotionally draining and sometimes physically dangerous. And if in an often-excluded group, putting one's head above the parapet, so to speak, often has negative consequences.
But I also believe that being in a committed life-partnership, which may sustain a range of other sometimes costly family relationships and forms of service to neighbours, usually entails a type of death to self. For instance I do not think my late parents' 61-year marriage was simply a continuous round of self-indulgence, nor my 24 years with my late (same-sex) partner. A blessing can be important in framing and sustaining a partnership amidst suffering as well as joy.
Excellent, Mark. Thank you.
I had to read it twice to parse what you are asking from a salvation-by-works. As I understand it, we are called to love, even uncomfortably (if a man asks for your shirt, give him your coat as well!), and we are called to sacrifice our fear; to trust in God whole-heartedly. These are demanding costs and the root layer of discipleship.
No church is Christianity. There are quite a few kinds of Christian churches and they require different things.
Organised Christianity to me is a bit like organised sports. There’s the one sport but some like these rules within it and others like others, so you end up with a sport that has several governing bodies, and different tournaments and championships arrangements.
Christian churches are like that.