Evangelicals Concerned Inc.
"Revelation and Homosexual Experience: What Would John Wesley have said about this Debate in the Church?" by Don Thorsen. Christianity Today, November 11, 1996.
by Dr. Ralph Blair
Turning to tradition, Thorsen claims that "the preponderance of church tradition condemned homosexual activity." Whatever one thinks of the evidence for quite different strands of historical tradition on homosexuality, -- evidence to which Thorsen may be giving reluctant acknowledgment by speaking of merely "preponderance" -- he backs himself up with selected "tradition," renouncing that same "tradition" when it’s been as it’s usually been, "violent in its condemnation." Apart from the fact that preponderance in traditions has to do with who has power and who doesn’t (e.g. in-charge Anglicans or underdog Methodists, the heterosexual majority or the gay and lesbian minority, etc.), Thorsen does admit that "tradition is dynamic -- as the Protestant Reformers maintained [and as Wesley himself proved] -- open to reformation." So on what basis does Thorsen pick and choose, retain or reform tradition? Certainly not on the basis of tradition -- preponderant or not. And not even on the basis of scripture alone, for as he admits: "all theological reflection, even when it obstensibly is based on Scripture alone," is informed by reason and experience.
Observing that "too often we seek easy solutions," Thorsen urges that "our investigation should precede claims rather than our claims preceding investigation." That’s all well and good, but that’s not what the United Methodists have done and it’s not what he does. The UMC did not come to this debate without its own culturally-conditioned preconceptions, prejudices, and predispositions that are wary of, if not hostile to, a favorable finding for homosexuals. Indeed, Thorsen grants that he writes within the context of the UMC "statement that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching," an opinion he claims to "applaud."
He mentions some of the "new scientific evidence" on homosexuality but he refuses to let it effectively inform his supposedly "scriptural" opinion. This contrasts with Wesley’s willingness to integrate new scientific data of his own day, even when it "confounded all my philosophy."
Thorsen notes the importance of experience in Wesley’s theology. But he says that today "many resist the integration of experience into their theology." It does seem from what many say that they do resist. But they don’t. We all inject our own interpreted experience into our theological opinions. When it comes to homosexuality, the UMC’s heterosexual insiders rely on their own experience rather than the experience of lesbian and gay outsiders. There’s no particular motive to do otherwise. Of course, gay and lesbian Christians, too, bring their experience to the debate: their deep desire for intimacy, antigay rhetoric thrown at them, etc. But at least homosexuals are experiencing from within the phenomenon in question and their need is something more profound than a matter of disputed dogma, ecclesiastical economics or public relations. It goes to the heart of their experience. But although Thorsen says "we will be able to act more redemptively, especially toward homosexuals, when we first try to understand their perspective," he dismisses their perspective, saying their "‘testimonies’ [are] rationalization ... What is becomes confused with what ought to be." While the UMC insists that homosexuals forgo sexual comfort that heterosexuals are free to seek out and enjoy, it’s self-serving for Thorsen to pretend that the UMC "understands and treats [homosexuals] realistically and compassionately."
Perhaps the best clue to what Wesley would say in the current UMC debate is his following Paul (e.g. Romans 14) on tolerance of conflicting opinions. To Wesley, "orthodoxy or right opinions is at best but a slender part of religion." He says elsewhere: "The distinguishing marks of a Methodist are not ... opinions of any sort. ... All these are quite wide of the point," and adds: "We think and let think ... whether or not these secondary opinions are right or wrong. ... A Methodist is a person who has the love of God in his heart." Yet again: "The truth is, neither this opinion nor that, but the love of God, humbles man, and that only." That’s a good approach for the UMC. It’s the way we all should live -- and let live.