Is it policy or doctrine? Is the rule something we use now because of circumstance or is it a divine law eternally? How do we know? Are we meant to? What about issues that are not covered by either, only by uncodified opinion of the masses? These things worry me.
Public policy of a government is often surrounded by rhetorical reasoning and emotion that practically seduces us into subjection. And political doctrine we simply call law. No eternal kingdom could exist with such frivolous attempts at control.
Doctrines have existed before this life and will always be in effect, even influencing the identity of God. They are often easy to identify because of their eternal nature. If something has been always and will be always then it must be doctrine. But our vision is awfully limited to chronological distance. I wonder if Jews thought the Ten Commandments and subsequent Law were eternal in nature. Many forms of Christianity I've learned from certainly seem to feel that the New Testament has always existed. Maybe not in its present form, but certainly in its ideas and discussion. And yet there are obvious cases where what was felt to be doctrine was really just policy.
The Judaizers in 1 Corinthians strongly felt that circumcision was a doctrine. It was required of the patriarchs and their families' so it followed that it must be required still. But Paul does a wonderful job explaining the difference between the law and faith and how the two must work together for our salvation (not just our cleansing). Also, how such sacrifices were no longer required after the sacrifice of the Lamb. Circumcision was a policy, but it was a policy for thousands of years! It would require sight much sharper than most (certainly sharper than mine) to recognize this as mere policy instead of doctrine.
Polygamy was a policy. This is quite confusing because it was a policy taught several times by several people, all inspired by God for their time. How do you deduce policy from doctrine when they come from the same source, the leader of the church (who in turn, receives it from the Lord)? But why was it apart of the church? Why then? I've heard a plethora of suggestions. So many man had fallen in battle and someone needed to take care of their young widows. One recent theory that appeals to me is that the church needed something it could sacrifice to man to become accepted. It is quite difficult to help those who despise you. So many Americans and groups opposed the church in the mid-19th century. Polygamy could have been used as a scapegoat for their aggression and once the church stopped the practice we we were more accepted as pretty decent folk.
The next issue for us is homosexuality. Doctrine or policy? There is some doctrine on the matter, it is just as any other sexual sin and it has the same consequences. I can find little doctrine beyond that. The policies are a little fuzzier, especially when there are no policies and we substitute our own opinions. Anyone can be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints if they are willing to make sacred promises and keep them. Anyone can attend sabbath services. An openly gay man can hold a leadership position in the church (I've heard of several cases in California, no surprise). But do gays and lesbians feel accepted at sacrament meeting? It isn't policy to make anyone feel uncomfortable at church and it is certainly not doctrine to turn someone away, but do we sometimes enforce this as a unspoken rule? I feel confident I can say some LGBTQ's feel just fine in our churches, which is only a start. Why would some not feel comfortable? Since this is a church of charity and accepting others as beautiful individuals, what affect can I have to put the church in a position to change policy and non-policy?
I can do nothing to change another person's mindset or their decisions, but what I can do is help them feel loved and comfortable. If I did all I could to help someone feel a part of this family they would still be able to choose whether or not they wanted to be there, but at least I gave them that choice. If I ostracize someone because of their sexuality (or race or number of children or workplace or anything) then I effectively take away their choice on whether to be at church or not. Yes, they could still show up each week with their head held high and stand valiantly against my ridicule and rudeness, but those individuals are few. (not many actually like the fire. Being thrust in for a moment by another force is one thing, but how many willingly choose to step up onto the pyre and burn?)
So we must love people, everyone, openly and fiercely. Just as I cannot force a gay man to feel comfortable in a church, I cannot force a congregation to accept him in their church. But if I love him and treat him as the wonderful brother and equal that he is, others will eventually treat him the same. I hope. Not all will. But I can help some of that congregation feel more comfortable, more trusting, more accepting. That is the start. If I'm consistent in my treatment of him (and everyone else, for that matter) as a loved sibling who is unique in his trials, his feelings, his thoughts, his goals, and his abilities then I can start the cycle we need.
We change policies day by day, choice by choice.
Public policy of a government is often surrounded by rhetorical reasoning and emotion that practically seduces us into subjection. And political doctrine we simply call law. No eternal kingdom could exist with such frivolous attempts at control.
Doctrines have existed before this life and will always be in effect, even influencing the identity of God. They are often easy to identify because of their eternal nature. If something has been always and will be always then it must be doctrine. But our vision is awfully limited to chronological distance. I wonder if Jews thought the Ten Commandments and subsequent Law were eternal in nature. Many forms of Christianity I've learned from certainly seem to feel that the New Testament has always existed. Maybe not in its present form, but certainly in its ideas and discussion. And yet there are obvious cases where what was felt to be doctrine was really just policy.
The Judaizers in 1 Corinthians strongly felt that circumcision was a doctrine. It was required of the patriarchs and their families' so it followed that it must be required still. But Paul does a wonderful job explaining the difference between the law and faith and how the two must work together for our salvation (not just our cleansing). Also, how such sacrifices were no longer required after the sacrifice of the Lamb. Circumcision was a policy, but it was a policy for thousands of years! It would require sight much sharper than most (certainly sharper than mine) to recognize this as mere policy instead of doctrine.
Polygamy was a policy. This is quite confusing because it was a policy taught several times by several people, all inspired by God for their time. How do you deduce policy from doctrine when they come from the same source, the leader of the church (who in turn, receives it from the Lord)? But why was it apart of the church? Why then? I've heard a plethora of suggestions. So many man had fallen in battle and someone needed to take care of their young widows. One recent theory that appeals to me is that the church needed something it could sacrifice to man to become accepted. It is quite difficult to help those who despise you. So many Americans and groups opposed the church in the mid-19th century. Polygamy could have been used as a scapegoat for their aggression and once the church stopped the practice we we were more accepted as pretty decent folk.
The next issue for us is homosexuality. Doctrine or policy? There is some doctrine on the matter, it is just as any other sexual sin and it has the same consequences. I can find little doctrine beyond that. The policies are a little fuzzier, especially when there are no policies and we substitute our own opinions. Anyone can be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints if they are willing to make sacred promises and keep them. Anyone can attend sabbath services. An openly gay man can hold a leadership position in the church (I've heard of several cases in California, no surprise). But do gays and lesbians feel accepted at sacrament meeting? It isn't policy to make anyone feel uncomfortable at church and it is certainly not doctrine to turn someone away, but do we sometimes enforce this as a unspoken rule? I feel confident I can say some LGBTQ's feel just fine in our churches, which is only a start. Why would some not feel comfortable? Since this is a church of charity and accepting others as beautiful individuals, what affect can I have to put the church in a position to change policy and non-policy?
I can do nothing to change another person's mindset or their decisions, but what I can do is help them feel loved and comfortable. If I did all I could to help someone feel a part of this family they would still be able to choose whether or not they wanted to be there, but at least I gave them that choice. If I ostracize someone because of their sexuality (or race or number of children or workplace or anything) then I effectively take away their choice on whether to be at church or not. Yes, they could still show up each week with their head held high and stand valiantly against my ridicule and rudeness, but those individuals are few. (not many actually like the fire. Being thrust in for a moment by another force is one thing, but how many willingly choose to step up onto the pyre and burn?)
So we must love people, everyone, openly and fiercely. Just as I cannot force a gay man to feel comfortable in a church, I cannot force a congregation to accept him in their church. But if I love him and treat him as the wonderful brother and equal that he is, others will eventually treat him the same. I hope. Not all will. But I can help some of that congregation feel more comfortable, more trusting, more accepting. That is the start. If I'm consistent in my treatment of him (and everyone else, for that matter) as a loved sibling who is unique in his trials, his feelings, his thoughts, his goals, and his abilities then I can start the cycle we need.
We change policies day by day, choice by choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment