RESPONSES

With gratitude to Michael and the other writers, I offer a brief pastoral response. Our way forward in the church in relation to homosexuality must primarily be a pastoral way rather than institutional decision and discipline, as Everett and John presume. Founding MC USA by exorcising the "problem of homosexuality" did not build the church on rock but on the sands of institutional majority rule and one-issue discipline.

Current struggles may not seem to be "roiling the church" as Everett says. Still anyone close to the struggle knows that there is more than individual pain roiling many faithful people in the church. I have heard the cries of pain and distress across the church by many who long to find a more loving and just way forward. In this struggle, the church is not best led by institutional decision and such pain is not well cared for by creedal discipline.

Norman, Mary, Ruth, and Paul help us see honestly and faithfully through the eyes of differing experiences and interpretations. Mary rightly names the key tension of "whether the church can hold both these positions within its body." How well we address all aspects of that tension, including the role of pastoral action, exception to the rule, and faithful dissent, will determine whether we are a church flowing with the "healing and hope" we profess. The question is whether we have the will and the wisdom to "hold the tension" together in the church as we walk by faith.

Thanks to Gerald for joining this "conundrum of ‘loving dialogue’" with an exceptional "deconstructive trek through the texts" by articulating the problems and paradoxes we pose. The lightning rod of "homosexuality" has been a litmus test that hides rather than reveals these issues. Having engaged the politics of the state before entering the politics of the church, I am keenly aware of the "political force" of my action. Yet politics is neither my primary motivation nor the impulse for this pastoral act. —Weldon D. Nisly

Each of these good articles made me think. I would have wished for some articles from the perspectives of MC USA denominational leaders.What are they seeing and experiencing? What are their predicaments? Where are they being stretched by calls for multiple responses to this issue? It would be helpful to me to hear of their journeys, their challenges. —Ruth S. Weaver

Along with John Roth, I "want to be part of a church that is capable of considering counter-arguments" (though he seems to doubt my willingness or ability to do that). Thus I find it disconcerting that he criticizes my conversational style rather than my counter-arguments. We seem to be unable to talk about the possibility that there may be more than one biblically supported position, or to discuss the implications of ongoing empirical experience. That is my concern—not that we disagree on biblical interpretation, but that we cannot discuss the basis of our disagreement!

I concur with Mary Schertz that the case for only one biblical position on the subject has not been made. There is still need for what Roth calls counter-arguments or I would call them counter-perspectives. I concur with Paul Lederach that we need to take our church experience much more seriously. And I concur with Marlin Jeschke that for the perpetuation of the human race, heterosexual sexual unions must remain the "norm."

Neither side of the sexuality debate should expect to arrive at one unchanging and universal cultural application of biblical ethical principles. The question is whether we can live with such fluidity in interpretation of these issues as we have with many others.

Establishing an authentic biblical praxis for the constantly shifting socio-cultura context is a perennial priority. If one peruses minutes of the various district conferences, as I have, one will see that Mennonites have faced constant change for 150 years. John Roth wants to consider the sexuality issue conclusively settled, shift our "priority" to other issues, and "move on." But sexuality, social justice, and violence (peacemaking) are unavoidable, pressing issues and have been for decades! The explosive expansion of empirical knowledge and the continuing rapidity of cultural change create a constant and continuing challenge for response, reassessment of positions, and reapplication in practice.

Thus we need to find ways to accommodate the sincere differences of understanding among us. This is no time for the church to pronounce rigid moral and doctrinal dogmas. Perhaps we should be defined more by the questions we consider essential to discernment than by the rigid uniformity of our answers.

For example, for some, pacifism, death penalty, peace, and reconciliation are not fundamental issues. Yet they define Mennonite identity as a Christian group. For some, chastity, sexual fidelity in marriage, and the importance of family are not central issues. For us they are crucial, and our Christian commitment requires us to "continue the dialogue" toward consistent application.

While Jesus did not leave us a detailed set of moral rules, he left us his Spirit and example. We mistake the Scripture as a detailed map rather than an inspired record of that example and of the Spirit’s initial formative guidance in the life of the church.

For those who may be interested in pursuing this line of thinking further, Cascadia Publishing House will be publishing my book Using Scripture in a Global Age in 2006. There I include chapters dealing with the reassessment of biblical interpretation on both peace issues and sexual morals. —C. Norman Kraus