Response to Dr. Medley's "Call"
Allow me to sidetrack from the recent GEC meetings and speak to the July 17th letter from Dr. Medley entitled “A Call for American Baptists to Live Lives of High Moral and Ethical Responsibility,” as linked from this blog in the previous post.
While some may dismiss, pooh-pooh, or even get angry at the statement I believe it was important. It may even be unprecedented. While I will bow to some historian correcting me, I have been an American Baptist minister for nearly 25 years and I don’t remember a comparable, personal, pastoral letter from the General Secretary. It is an appropriate response to the current crisis in our denomination.
Dr. Medley described how he has practiced leadership regarding this issue in those areas over which he has authority. I personally believe this has always been the case, even though it was not acknowledged publicly. It is not fair to accuse the General Secretary for not doing things which he is not empowered to do. The General Secretary has no authority to discipline either churches or regions—for any issue. Regions have the sole authority to admit/discipline churches and to recognize or discipline the ordination of clergy. From the beginning, this was essentially an issue between regions. For that same reason it is also not fair to accuse the General Secretary of violating or undermining congregational autonomy (which is not absolute in any case, but that is another issue).
This is also important because it validates the organizational integrity of the General Board. The staff of the General Board (chief among whom is the General Secretary) are bound by the policies, resolutions, instructions, etc., of the General Board. If the staff of the General Board are saying and doing things contrary to what the Board has said, then it is the Board’s responsibility to make the correction. I believe Dr. Medley is making a bona fide effort to interpret and implement one very clear and one very vague statement by the General Board.
It is important because the issue is set in the realm of ethics and morality, where it belongs. Some want to make this a theological issue, so they can start heresy proceedings. But others want to make it a theological issue because they believe Baptist tradition will give them carte blanche. Both are wrong. While ethics/morality are related to theology, they are not in the same category as “God was in Christ reconciling the world.” I expect some challenges from both sides on that.
Dr. Medley affirmed, one more time, his personal position. While that is important for some, it is even more important to understand that there is a sense in which his personal opinion on this (or any other) issue does not matter (any more than mine does). He is an employee of the General Board, just as I am an employee of my Board. Both of us are obligated to interpret and implement the will of that Board even if we don’t personally agree with it.
However, his personal affirmation is important—even grossly understated. Dr. Medley is a deeply spiritual man of high personal moral integrity. Charges and innuendos about his morality are unfounded and out of line. While I have disagreed with Dr. Medley on some things, I have never had reason to suspect his moral integrity. He is living a life worthy of his calling.
The statement was important because it tried to set a very difficult issue in context in as few words as possible. Is there anyone out there who does not believe “we live in a culture obsessed with sex?” Has anyone watched TV, listened to the radio, or read a newspaper recently? This cultural context does not establish moral positions or substitute for moral reasoning. However, it does impact the energy behind those positions. Not many would agree with the practice of slaveholding today, but the culture of the 1800’s gave that same position much more energy then than now. Twenty-five years ago not many would have been involved in a clergy misconduct prevention workshop. Today I have 20-25 at workshops scheduled twice a year. The morality (nor reality) of misconduct has not changed, but our context has created more energy around the issue.
Some will argue that he didn’t say enough about our context, or that he had some hidden agenda and used these words to be PC and deflect. I don’t believe that. It was appropriate and reflective for a one-page letter.
Acknowledging that there are other sins (how dare the Apostle Paul do that?) does not diminish or deflect from any particular sin unless one is inclined to do so because of their own personal agenda. Many have argued that the sexual obsession of our culture is reflected in a singular obsession with homosexuality. Often there are not-so-subtle implications that those persons so obsessed have their own sexual demons or have a deep-seated hatred longing for violent expression. While that is sometimes the case, it is not my experience that most of those voicing moral objections to homosexual practices are obsessed, blinded by hatred, or violent. Indeed, most folks seem so careful to avoid the appearance of obsession, hatred, or violence that they are reluctant to voice their objection.
Lastly, it was important because it was pastoral. Dr. Medley chose not to attack homosexual persons or anyone who disagreed with him. He called us to life in Christ; a life of high moral and ethical responsibility. Does anyone really want to eliminate Christ-like compassion and care? We may debate how that is best done, but I am not ready to discard either. Likewise, does any sin justify hate, violence, or injustice? (Yes, God hates sin, that does not give me permission to hate sinners.)
I stand with Dr. Medley and this call. Even as I hope and pray that we will live lives worthy of our calling, I must confess that I am a sinner. I have sinned against God in thought, word, and deed, by what I have done, and by what I have left undone. I have not loved God with my whole heart; I have not loved my neighbor as myself. I do not need others to gloss over, dismiss, or approve of my sin. I need others to call me to repentance. For only Jesus Christ is faithful and just to forgive me of my sins.
Does this “resolve” the issue? Of course not. But I am more optimistic for the prospects of an honest conversation that I have been in two years.
While some may dismiss, pooh-pooh, or even get angry at the statement I believe it was important. It may even be unprecedented. While I will bow to some historian correcting me, I have been an American Baptist minister for nearly 25 years and I don’t remember a comparable, personal, pastoral letter from the General Secretary. It is an appropriate response to the current crisis in our denomination.
Dr. Medley described how he has practiced leadership regarding this issue in those areas over which he has authority. I personally believe this has always been the case, even though it was not acknowledged publicly. It is not fair to accuse the General Secretary for not doing things which he is not empowered to do. The General Secretary has no authority to discipline either churches or regions—for any issue. Regions have the sole authority to admit/discipline churches and to recognize or discipline the ordination of clergy. From the beginning, this was essentially an issue between regions. For that same reason it is also not fair to accuse the General Secretary of violating or undermining congregational autonomy (which is not absolute in any case, but that is another issue).
This is also important because it validates the organizational integrity of the General Board. The staff of the General Board (chief among whom is the General Secretary) are bound by the policies, resolutions, instructions, etc., of the General Board. If the staff of the General Board are saying and doing things contrary to what the Board has said, then it is the Board’s responsibility to make the correction. I believe Dr. Medley is making a bona fide effort to interpret and implement one very clear and one very vague statement by the General Board.
It is important because the issue is set in the realm of ethics and morality, where it belongs. Some want to make this a theological issue, so they can start heresy proceedings. But others want to make it a theological issue because they believe Baptist tradition will give them carte blanche. Both are wrong. While ethics/morality are related to theology, they are not in the same category as “God was in Christ reconciling the world.” I expect some challenges from both sides on that.
Dr. Medley affirmed, one more time, his personal position. While that is important for some, it is even more important to understand that there is a sense in which his personal opinion on this (or any other) issue does not matter (any more than mine does). He is an employee of the General Board, just as I am an employee of my Board. Both of us are obligated to interpret and implement the will of that Board even if we don’t personally agree with it.
However, his personal affirmation is important—even grossly understated. Dr. Medley is a deeply spiritual man of high personal moral integrity. Charges and innuendos about his morality are unfounded and out of line. While I have disagreed with Dr. Medley on some things, I have never had reason to suspect his moral integrity. He is living a life worthy of his calling.
The statement was important because it tried to set a very difficult issue in context in as few words as possible. Is there anyone out there who does not believe “we live in a culture obsessed with sex?” Has anyone watched TV, listened to the radio, or read a newspaper recently? This cultural context does not establish moral positions or substitute for moral reasoning. However, it does impact the energy behind those positions. Not many would agree with the practice of slaveholding today, but the culture of the 1800’s gave that same position much more energy then than now. Twenty-five years ago not many would have been involved in a clergy misconduct prevention workshop. Today I have 20-25 at workshops scheduled twice a year. The morality (nor reality) of misconduct has not changed, but our context has created more energy around the issue.
Some will argue that he didn’t say enough about our context, or that he had some hidden agenda and used these words to be PC and deflect. I don’t believe that. It was appropriate and reflective for a one-page letter.
Acknowledging that there are other sins (how dare the Apostle Paul do that?) does not diminish or deflect from any particular sin unless one is inclined to do so because of their own personal agenda. Many have argued that the sexual obsession of our culture is reflected in a singular obsession with homosexuality. Often there are not-so-subtle implications that those persons so obsessed have their own sexual demons or have a deep-seated hatred longing for violent expression. While that is sometimes the case, it is not my experience that most of those voicing moral objections to homosexual practices are obsessed, blinded by hatred, or violent. Indeed, most folks seem so careful to avoid the appearance of obsession, hatred, or violence that they are reluctant to voice their objection.
Lastly, it was important because it was pastoral. Dr. Medley chose not to attack homosexual persons or anyone who disagreed with him. He called us to life in Christ; a life of high moral and ethical responsibility. Does anyone really want to eliminate Christ-like compassion and care? We may debate how that is best done, but I am not ready to discard either. Likewise, does any sin justify hate, violence, or injustice? (Yes, God hates sin, that does not give me permission to hate sinners.)
I stand with Dr. Medley and this call. Even as I hope and pray that we will live lives worthy of our calling, I must confess that I am a sinner. I have sinned against God in thought, word, and deed, by what I have done, and by what I have left undone. I have not loved God with my whole heart; I have not loved my neighbor as myself. I do not need others to gloss over, dismiss, or approve of my sin. I need others to call me to repentance. For only Jesus Christ is faithful and just to forgive me of my sins.
Does this “resolve” the issue? Of course not. But I am more optimistic for the prospects of an honest conversation that I have been in two years.
posted by Dwight S. at 9:38 AM
<< Home