This book already includes some thirty-plus pages of editorial introductions spread over two parts. Let me keep this short. Except for the new responses at end, Part One was first published in a special edition of DreamSeeker Magazine (Winter 2006, available online at www.CascadiaPublishingHouse.com/dsm/winter06/current.htm). As noted in my introduction to Part One, Weldon Nisley’s faithful dissent from his church’s teachings on homosexuality formed the seed out of which this book grew. Agree or disagree with Nisly or the book, he deserves special thanks for setting the project—unwittingly at first!—in motion. Next in line for appreciation are surely the writers of Part One, who established the foundation for the book, and the writers of Part Two, who respond to the Part One conversation as well as offer their own original materials. Parts One and Two, then, are closely interrelated as they come together to enable this book-length project, yet each has its distinctive origins and makes unique contributions. As my introductions to Parts One and Two at times reveal but I want to underscore here, for many or all of these writers the mere decision to be included in this book was brave. Addressing homosexuality or "homosexuality" risks plunging one into dissension, ridicule, criticism, even employment jeopardy, no matter what one’s perspective. So why not leave well enough alone? Special thanks to those writers who in choosing not to leave well enough alone made this book possible. A note also on those pesky quote marks. The discerning reader will note that in routine use of the word homosexuality, including in the title, this book does not include quotes. That is a choice probably favoring one group over another. Often the preference of the LGBT community is for quotes. Why? Because, frequently following the work of the French theorist Michel Foucault, they see "homosexuality" as a construct, a Western cultural way of building understandings of sexual identity that may be considerably more arbitrary than we realize. And that view deserves engagement. Why then not use the quotes? For a reason that will probably dissatisfy all: Many will believe that the very effort to continue a conversation on homosexuality that should already be seen as concluded (the church already knows the right teaching here) biases this book in one direction. One modest way to reverse the bias is to drop those quotes. And watching the biases is important, given that this book’s overarching advocacy is not for a particular position on homosexuality but for a process of discernment that engages respectfully the variety of positions, including positions in some opposition to each other. There is a strong point of view—let the church do better than we have to trust that God speaks through all, not just a slice or a majority. But if that is the goal, then let as many of that "all," holding as many different positions as possible, do the speaking. And let the book strive when possible not to so favor one position over another as to regress into speaking only for its slice. I wish even more slices were represented. As I mention in the introduction to Part One, it has been a particular challenge to secure writing from persons who want to support the Mennonite Church USA teachings on homosexuality. Perhaps seventy percent of my efforts to acquire material not only for Part One but then again for Part Two went into seeking such writers. For reasons I speculate on in Part One but don’t claim fully to understand, such writers are exceptionally wary of appearing in print. Although I see them as still underrepresented, more did appear to agree in Part Two than Part One. Given the reluctance of many of their peers to go public, I’m particularly grateful to them for enriching this book with their stories, biblical studies, and cultural analyses. Now let the conversation stumble
forward, missing quote marks and all, into many
contentions, small and large, in hopes of getting
somewhere.
|
|
|||||||||||||
