Sacramento Presbytery and the President of Fuller Theological Seminary's Newsweek article

In a letter placed on Sacramento’s Presbytery web site, Moderator David Rue, gives his introduction concerning dialogue to commissioners. He is thinking of Saturday’s debate on 08- B and is hopeful that the Presbytery will find healing while in discussion.

This is part of the push toward Dialogue vs. debate that I wrote about yesterday. In the letter, Rue points to the President of Fuller Theological Seminary, Dr. Richard Mouw, an Evangelical, as a model of one who wishes to dialogue with those who disagree with his position.

Turning to an article found in Newsweek (Feb. 9, 2009) Rue writes:

“This month another Angeleno [resident of Los Angeles] pleads with the nation in his essay, ‘Less Shouting, More Talking,’ in Newsweek (February 9, 2009.) His name is Richard Mouw, a self-acclaimed evangelical, a proponent of Prop 8, and a virtual unknown. Reminding us that through talking, we have worked our way out of hopelessly deadlock [ed] impasses at other times, he suggests we again talk. He says, ‘I support the democratic process and believe that civil society is at its best when people with different perspectives engage in a mutually respectful dialogue.’"

I believe this quote, taken out of context, is meant to back up the kind of false dichotomies that can be seen in the paper "Dialogue vs. debate.”

But the content of Mouw’s article is not concerned with the difference between debate and dialogue nor do I believe that the author of the Newsweek piece would define debate in the same manner as the Dialogue paper does.

Mouw, as his article’s title implies, is concerned with the kind of argumentation that reaches an unhealthy level of insult and even violence. He writes about the insults he received because he is pro proposition 8. “I've been on talk shows where people phone in to call me a fascist or equate me with those who burned accused witches at the stake.”

Mouw also writes of those who are willing to shout insults at each other from both sides. He writes of seeing, “angry confrontation between two groups at an intersection in” his home town. “Both sides were carrying signs: one set supporting proposition 8—the ban on same sex marriage—and the other opposing it. The two groups were angrily shouting and gesturing at each other as I passed by.” He writes of his tears.

Mouw also uses his article to explain his reasons for being pro proposition 8. He writes:

While my views about sexuality are shaped by my religious convictions, I know that I cannot simply quote the Bible in arguing for public policy. Not every sin ought to be made illegal. But in this case, the issues go deep. For many of us, "normalizing" same-sex marriage comes down to deep concerns about the raising of our children and grandchildren. What will they be taught about sexual and family values in our schools? How will they be affected by the ways the entertainment media portray people with our kinds of views? And will we even be allowed to counter these influences in our homes and churches without being accused of ‘hate speech‘?”

Mouw is certainly calling for respectful dialogue. He wants everyone to hear what the other person is saying. That is also a part of debate. And debate does not mean that we need to raise our voices, our fist, or use insult. Importantly, using either debate or dialogue should not mean that we need to temporarily suspend our beliefs as the dialogue paper insists.

I am almost certain that Mouw would not temporarily suspend his beliefs; an impossible action for a Christian since it is the Holy Spirit which gives faith. And I am almost certain that it is Mouw’s faith that allowed his tears at the sight of shouting people on both sides of the Proposition 8 divide.

Sacramento's Presbytery meeting and "Dialogue vs. debate"

Sacramento Presbytery's moderator, David Rue, has placed a document on our Presbytery site meant to be a guide for our meeting on Saturday. The document is entitled "Dialogue vs. debate." It is a document adapted from, “a paper prepared by Shelley Berman, which was based on discussions of the Dialogue Group of the Boston Chapter of Educators for Social Responsibility (ESR)."

Rue is suggesting that this should be how we address the issues before us in particular 08-B, the removal of the fidelity and chastity clause from our Book of Order.

There are several problems with this paper particularly when a group of Christians are addressing biblical issues.

The first problem with this paper is that it at times redefines debate. For instance while I agree with the idea that “one should submit ones best-thinking, knowing that other people’s reflections will help improve it rather than destroy it” I would not put that under dialogue but under debate with this qualification that “will” be changed to “might.”

The same is true with the idea that “Dialogue involves a real concern for the other person and seeks to not alienate or offend.” While both dialogue and debate might be the cause of alienating or offending that should never be the goal of either.

But some of the statements in this paper are themselves offensive to Christians. For instance, “Dialogue reveals assumptions for re-evaluation. Debate defends assumptions as truth.” Debate or even dialogue from a Christian point of view may be about biblical truths. Therefore a person may rightly understand their assumptions to be truth.

When I look at John 3:16 and state that “God gave his only begotten Son” I am quoting and insisting on biblical truth. To be a believer in Jesus Christ means to believe that some things are true, period. This does not mean that the other person will not be allowed to re-evaluate what I say, it simply means I hold my position as true because I believe it is based on God’s Word.

Another problem is this thought. “Dialogue calls for temporarily suspending one’s beliefs. Debate calls for investing wholeheartedly in one’s beliefs.” But, we are talking about one of the greatest issues in the Church in contemporary times.

When early Christians were called upon to simply suspend their belief’s and say Caesar is Lord they instead invested wholeheartedly in their beliefs to the point of death. This is no mere game we are playing; this has to do with redemption, transformation and the life of the Church. This has to do with the Lordship of Christ. We must not suspend our beliefs.

I will go to Presbytery with the intent of not hurting anyone, of not offending anyone. But the one I am most intent on not offending or alienating is my Lord Jesus Christ.

May God have mercy on His Church.