From: "Barbara Bishop"
To: kbellous@baptist.ca
Sent: 10/29/2003 05:49 PM
cc:
Subject: Sept. 19 motion from Council
Dear Ken,
Greetings from MacNeill Baptist. I trust that you are well and enjoying the new work which you and Joyce have entered. We remember you here with affection, and wish you well.
In a few days I will be a retired pastor, as I leave MacNeill and begin the next phase of life. But before I go, I need to respond to the motion passed by Council on September 19, 2003, which removes from pastors and churches the right to exercise their freedom of conscience on this, and presumably, other matters, for a bad precedent is set here, as they will soon be without a pastor to speak as one of them.
Knowing MacNeill as you do, you can imagine how the news of this motion has created a great deal of distress in our church. Fortunately, we have been in a process of open dialogue for some time as we seek God's will in our response to those we love among us who are gay or lesbian, or are parents of gay or lesbian people.
In this respect, we are blessed. Some of us are very open to the full participation of all people in the life of the church and in its ordinances and rituals. Others are hesitant or openly opposed to the notion that opposite-sex and same-sex monogamy are of equal value in the eyes of God. Many are in between on this continuum. But we keep talking- in the pulpit, over coffee afterwards, around dinner tables, and in Bible Study forums. As Baptists, we believe this is how any matter of disagreement or confusion should be handled, and in our church, there has not been the slightest discourtesy or unkindness to anyone. I think some people have moved in their understanding as the rest of the world has, and others have not. But all are very much a part of our church family.
Given time, the church will continue to wrestle together with mutual concerns, and with conflicting paradigms and hermeneutics.
A church like MacNeill therefore does not need Council, which to my knowledge has had no such opportunity for study, discussion, and mutual listening, to be telling us in this coercive and divisive way how we should proceed.
Personally, as a pastor, I have often had to make decisions about whom I will marry. I would prefer not to be doing the work of the state and signing their licenses, and so I do not often do weddings. But if I do, the couple must satisfy me of their mutual love and respect, must give no evidence of violent or abusive behaviour, and must give me a good reason for asking for a Christian wedding ceremony in the church. Christian weddings are the only weddings I will do. So far, my decisions, I believe, have all been appropriate, both when I have refused and when I have agreed to do a wedding. My deacons are informed of the weddings I do, and again, this process has worked well for us.
I have given the "directive" from Council much thought, and in the hopes that my opinion will be respectfully received, I send you the following responses, arranged in a way that I hope will be helpful.
1. In the Matter of polity
It is my understanding that the "New System" effectively ends our history as Baptists. That is, its structure and by-laws either ignore or overtly oppose the notion of congregational autonomy and voluntary association, and take decision-making powers away from congregations, associations, and Assembly.
So I do not really expect any appeal to our history and our polity to be heard. But how I wish it would be, and I am making this appeal to you, for those conditions of "soul liberty" and community study of scripture are surely the last vestige of our life together as something called "Baptist" in the dying days of BCOQ's life.
As painfully as I and other women have often felt the argument that churches didn't "have" to call women pastors, I certainly could not disagree, as a Baptist, with that notion. I always said I would never have gone to a church that was forced to take me anyway. So I could live with the discrimination and misogyny behind so much of the call to "congregational autonomy" when it came to women pastors. But I knew it was there.
I have been called by two good churches, and my sixteen years of ministry in the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec, as a sole or senior pastor, have been rich, wonderful, and Grace-filled. That is good, and I have no regrets.
2. In the matter of the hermeneutics of marriage
"Marriage" in scripture includes much that is culturally abhorrent to us today. We no longer condone polygamy, dowries, the practice of impregnating one's brother's widow, kidnapping and rape as acceptable means of choosing brides, betrothal customs that have a bride go from father to husband's authority over women- all explicitly narrated and never condemned in scripture.
No one would suggest that these "biblical" models are desirable ones. So we need to be careful about how we use the terms "Bible" and "marriage" together. It was not long ago that the terms were used together to force people to stay in bad, sometimes lifethreatening situations.
Nor have we worried much that stories encouraging rape and pillage would be banished from schools for their violence. We have pretty much trusted the good sense of those who lead, teach, and legislate. So too we might trust the good sense of clergy asked to marry couples, people asked to discern God's will in marriage unions, and the ability of a good study group to know how to read their Bibles.
3. In the theology of family
Jesus of course said that his mother and sisters and brothers were those who did the will of God, and not those to whom he was blood-related. Discipleship often required the sacrifice of family or clan ties. In all my years of ministry, I have never told people that they "owed" their family anything. They owe God, and their fealty is to Christ. If one's blood family or marriage partner is also Christ-centred, that is a great gift, much to be cherished. But "the family" is not to be protected for any intrinsic value. What he did seem to suggest in his response to the children around him is that we should care for our children. I believe myself that he would be far more upset about a welfare cut that forces mothers to starve themselves so their children can eat a little (though never enough) than he would be about loving lifetime commitments of two gay or lesbian people who care well for the children entrusted to them.
The "threat to family" is poverty and greed.
4. In the matter of sexual orientation
I believe a test of the way we use scripture is to ask whether or not our use brings life- abundant, resurrection, and eternal life. The use of scripture to shame and do great harm to those who are gay and lesbian among us is, I believe, wrong. Just wrong. I feel quite ill when I think of what it must be like for gay and lesbian people to be in churches where Mr. Harper's political petitions are being circulated with great gusto, in tandem with anti-gay preaching.
Extra-scripturally of course, the world outside this hateful little bubble in the church is well aware that sexual orientation is not a "lifestyle" or "morality" issue, but is a matter of DNA, hormones, neuroanatomy, immunological response, and so on. Do we honestly believe that God is not responsible for all of the above?
A few months ago I was privileged to hear at Anshe Shalom temple Dr. Sandra Whittleson, from McMaster's Dept. of Psychiatry. She is a full professor of Psychology and Biomedical Sciences. She would be an excellent resource for Council should they wish to hear her. When she had finished her very objective and reasoned lecture, Rabbi Irwin Zeplowitz spoke, and referring to the famous Lev. 18:22 passage, he said, "How do we reconcile new information with that which is immutable?" His conclusion: as communities of faith, a "Talmudic way" could be found, a way of "trembling before God" as we seek truth and light in this very important understanding of human life and Divine creation.
My personal feeling is that if two people who are of the same sex marry, there is no harm to us, and certainly no offense to God, whose love, compassion and mercy are always more majestic than ours. If we opened our hearts we might see how to reconcile new understandings, with immutable traditions, and even celebrate the work of love in the world.
In September Robert and I will have been married for 40 years. All our friends, gay and straight, will celebrate with us. Those who are married will hope that they can be together that long too. There can be no harm to us in that.
But in the church we have actively done harm to them.
I have written at length, but this is very important to me, and to many Baptists of all opinions.
Please ask Council to lift their "directive" so that we can continue to act as God's people, responsibly, prayerfully, and lovingly, but in freedom.
I will be giving a copy of this to my Board of Deacons, and as well will send a copy to the Gathering list.
Yours in Christ,
Barbara Bishop.
close window
Gathering of Baptists News Page