Meaty Monday: Between a Rock and a Hard Place

Drew, you nailed my point precisely...are we to just be about maintaining a certain narrowly defined sexual ethic or an overall package of discipleship to Jesus, that encompasses so much more than sex?

And as far as sex is concerned I don't see the church getting out of this particular morass until it does the hard work of developing a broad, covenantal sexual ethic.

"In my own experience, I was single, dating, engaged, and then married at various stages during my ordination process and no one dared or bothered to ask me about either my fidelity or chastity during any stage of that process. Surely if this was of concern and someone cared enough, they would have asked me?"

This is a good point. How has this actually been checked in the past? I mean, what if I was living with a woman (you know like Barth's "help-meet") and simply said, Oh but we don't really have sex. It looks like a shady situation according to the rule, but also it's totally legal by the same standard. So would we be looking at uneven enforcement if I said I am living with a man, but we don't really have sex? Or is the latter legal anyway? The problem is how we can objectively assess a situation based on a clear standard.

I think this is why it is important to go back to presbyteries for sound deliberation at this point. I am hopeful that this will occur.

To the last point about placing a higher value on a specific sexual ethic, what troubles me is that according to the standards I can be greedy self-aggrandizing and if the church I serve likes my behavior, there is nothing in the constitution to stop that kind of conduct. I have seen these situations as well. So that is where the language of the amendment now seems to be more strict in some areas, and less strict in others because it is not as explicit regarding sex. I am not sure why this is a bad thing in that regard unless one has a specific sexual agenda at the expense of everything else that is of importance in the conduct of a minister of the Gospel.

Perhaps there was less media coverage because we have become irrelevant. The current media is a very competitve cut-throat market where every story has to be a revenue puller. We have been arguing for so long over these issues that it is barely worth repeating in the media.

Thanks for a very interesting post putting the emphasis not on the issue but on the actual proposed amendment. It will be curious to see if this round of discussion in the presbyteries brings us as a denomination to look more closely at the wording -- or if we simply get stuck at this one issue that seems to hold our attention beyond all others. I too pray that we can look at the wording and listen for the Spirit to guide us to what we believe we are called to do in these days.

Good stuff man. Good stuff. I will too be interested to hear the discussions in the next few months.

I pray that people will hold their emotion or at least not be subject to it, but instead take the time to listen to the guidance of the Holy Spirit for them, as individuals, as parts of a community, and as part of the greater church.

Blessings,
Greg