|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
