Andrew Faiz, in his January article on the uncomfortable topic of homosexuality, makes valuable points about the community the church should be. I begin to experience discomfort with his comments about the uncomfortable when he asks the question, ‘Is the church only for the holy?’ My discomfort continues when he goes on to speak of the neighbour in the pew as broken, lonely, and in desperate need of healing, and then to describe church as a one – stop Sinner’s Anonymous.
“I don’t disagree that the church should be a community that welcomes and cares for all of us broken sinners. But why does a discussion of homosexuality tend inevitably to shift into a discussion of holiness versus sin, or wholeness versus brokenness? Sure, homosexuals, like anyone else, may be flawed and broken, susceptible to sin. But this is not because they are homosexuals; it is because they are human.”
—Rev. William Elliott, Toronto
Busted! That’s my response. The letter writer is chair of Flemingdon Community Mission, where I am on the board, and a friend of mine. And as a friend, I suppose, he is the source of the harshest criticism towards my article in which I said I found it silly for grown men to pore over the Bible looking for sex acts acceptable to God and that the church needs to be a lot more interesting than a club for the holy.
I didn’t see Bill’s angle and when I received his letter my first thought was: Busted! He makes an excellent point: Are we joined as sinners or by grace? A lot depends on the way we view the world and view our relationship with God, the way we accept the blood of Christ, in fact possibly, though I’m hardly a theologian or a subtle thinker, it all depends on whether we are fallen or graced.
Before I delve into that argument, which I will manage poorly I warn you now, let me say this to Bill: In previous columns about what church can be, I’ve always lumped us up as fallen sinners, because that has been my view of being human. That church is a democracy of sinners.
But Bill’s letter opens me to another possibility, a democracy of the graced, for which I need some training. I recall the Mi’kmaq/Acadian theologian and E.H. Johnson award recipient Terry LeBlanc speaking on the foundational point of faith—does it begin with Creation or the Fall? LeBlanc, along with many other theologians, is rethinking the long tradition in Christianity that puts incredible focus on the Fall, the moment of separation, which always has us playing catch – up with God and failing. He argues instead that the foundational moment is Creation itself.
If we focus on Creation, the theological argument goes, the moment when God makes us whole, then there is no Fall, and the relationship is never broken. We must have confidence in the relationship and if we have true confidence then we are immediately empowered to develop further and deeper relationships with each other.
The argument proceeds this way, I think: If we are graced, created by God, and all things belong to God, as John Calvin would say from a different perspective, then there is no playing catch – up and we are all beautiful.
I like this idea, though I have a half – century of being trained differently. I have a lot to learn, it seems. (Thank you for teachin’ me, Bill, but you owe me a beer for making me look bad in front of my readers.)
