Editor's Preface
To Continue the Dialogue


This book is a symposium, that is, a collection of chapters contributed by different people with varying points of view. It is important for readers to keep this in mind as they move from chapter to chapter. This means, among other things, that individual authors should not necessarily be held responsible for what other writers have said. And it certainly means that the editor does not necessarily agree with all that has been written. The chapters do not present an argument laid out in a rational order leading to a final conclusion. Rather they are like windows which give us varying perspectives on a common subject.

One might well ask what then gives the book its unity. What, beside the common subject of homosexuality, provides a connecting thread for the beads on this necklace? There are two strands. First is the concern for biblical interpretation or hermeneutics, broadly defined as both determining the meaning of the text and its ethical application (contextualization) in different cultures.

Second is the conviction that the church is not yet ready to declare a dogmatic conclusion to the contentious debate that swirls around the subject of human sexuality. The last word has not been spoken on either the meaning of biblical texts or the scientific nature and origin of sexuality, either hetero- or homosexuality. We do not yet adequately understand how differences in sexual attraction arise. While all the writers agree that any form of abusive, promiscuous sexual expression is immoral, we are not entirely certain how to assess ethical values in all homosocial expressions. Some authors lean one way and some another.

If there is an implicit position we are advocating, it is that the church may need to live with some ambiguity on this subject in the next decades. Even though we essentially agree on the exegetical interpretation of the Scripture text, we may still legitimately differ on its contextual implementation. We may hold to the same basic sexual morality and “family values” and still differ in local applications of these values. Accordingly, we well may need to adjust the church organization to accommodate such differences, much as has happened in some contexts in relation to divorce and remarriage, and has happened among Mennonites, formally committed by confession of faith to a peace church position, when some who serve in the military also become church members.

My own chapters assume this necessity. While I contend that they present a legitimate and authentic reading of the texual meaning, I would not argue that they present the only possible reading. But so long as there are such legitimate differences, we need to be prepared to exercise respectful tolerance and acceptance of one another in the body of Christ. Some of our authors speak of the need not to be too certain or dogmatic in our “firmly held convictions.” Others plead for putting person ahead of dogma, while still others present the different options which genuine and competent Christian scholars have adopted. It is not the intention of any of the authors to argue that there is only one indisputable solution for the church to adopt.

The interpretative process does and must go beyond scriptural word study and determining the historical meaning of the text. There are no revealed applications of textual meanings that can be translated into dogmatic social practice and directly applied universally to each situation. Contextualization inescapably introduces an element of subjectivity. The significance of social practices differ widely from culture to culture and locality to locality because individuals and local communities have their own idiosyncratic experience of culture. Further, anthropologists have discovered that cultural meaning is dynamic and constantly changing. It is this cultural dynamic and flux, not the ambivalence of Scripture, that makes the continual mid-course cultural adjustments necessary. And for guidance in that task we rely on the presence of the Holy Spirit of Jesus.

Because the data are not all in, and because human lives and well-being are at stake, this symposium advocates that the church’s stance should remain one of “dialogue.” Our stance, as Mennonite denominational documents of the 1980s urged, should continue to be an experiential one of study, examination, and exploration as we seek the mind of the Spirit both in biblical understanding and congregational life. A number of church documents have begun to use the phrase “teaching position” to describe the Mennonite denominational stance on homosexuality. This is a happy phrase if it describes the true spirit of the teaching process which requires continuing openness to new information and experience.

Although we have sought balance wherever feasible, the word dialogue in the title should not lead the reader to expect that this volume fully balances views pro and con on the issues involved. Dialogue is not polite adversarial debate. Neither have we tried to balance representative institutional views. We have, in fact, avoided advocacy papers which argue explicitly either for or against the acceptance of monogamous homosexual unions in the church. Thus we have aimed not simplistically to pit the “traditional” against the “innovative,” the “exclusive” against the “inclusive” positions. Our authors vary in their point of view on this issue while frequently pleacing for a continuing openness to developing understanding both of biblical and experiential data.

Those who take an absolutist position on either side of the question will naturally see this as weakness. We hope, however, that our readers will be persuaded that there is room in the church for Christians of both persuasions who remain open to continuing the dialogue.

I would be remiss if I did not point out that this symposium is the result of a close collaboration between the editor and Pandora Press U. S. publisher Michael A. King. He not only encouraged and nurtured the process but has also helped shape its content. All of us, editor and authors, owe him a special debt of gratitude. In addition Michael and I are grateful to colleagues behind the scenes who encouraged and supported the project with both words and money. And we are indeed grateful to our authors for their generous and timely contributions.
—C. Norman Kraus, Editor, Harrisonburg, Virginia


To Continue the Dialogue orders:


 
        Click here to join a Pandora U.S. e-mail list and receive occasional updates and special discounts.  
           
           
           

Copyright © 2001 by Pandora Press U.S.
11/15/07