United Methodist Communications Photo by Diane Degnan
CT Sexuality Panel
Participants in the Connectional Table's April 29 panel discussion on human sexuality included the Rev. Pamela Lightsey (L), of Boston University School of Theology; the Rev. Mark Teasdale of Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary; and retired Bishop Daniel Arichea of the Philippines.
In his commentary, "Troubling Words", Geoffrey Kruse-Safford brings up several points in his consideration of my comments to the Connectional Table's panel on human sexuality April 29. I appreciate his willingness to take my effort to be faithful and thoughtful at face value. It is in that irenic spirit that I would like to offer a few thoughts in response.
Mr. Kruse-Safford's argument is built around questioning the nexus of experience and history. Specifically, can we make historical claims that carry any weight in the present day given that people and events are bound by certain times and places in history. To this end, he suggests that my discussion of Wesley was meaningless because I lacked this basic insight. Had I recognized this, he suggests that I would have not appealed to Wesley's writings for guidance on the topic of homosexuality because to do so is anachronistic.
This is a serious question of historical methodology that goes well beyond this particular issue: are historical inferences allowable? Can we ask questions of historical figures that move outside of issues or questions they specifically dealt with? Mr. Kruse-Safford's answer to this is clearly "no." Here, we disagree.
My view is that we can make historical inferences legitimately if the following conditions are met: 1) There is sufficient evidence left by the person left to demonstrate the person's broader ways of thinking. 2) This evidence is credible (i.e., can be shown with high certainty that it originated with the historical person and reflected the person's thinking). 3) There is consistency in the person's thinking shown in this credible evidence. In my estimation, these conditions are met sufficiently in reference to Wesley to make a claim in reference to where he stood in reference to homosexual behavior.
It is important to recognize here that I never stated Wesley would support the status quo of the current BOD nor that he would support dehumanizing people. The only claim I made was that Wesley would not see homosexual behavior as conducive to moving people toward holiness.
I understand that the counterargument to this is that sexual behavior cannot be separated from the essence of what makes a person whole. This, for me, is the real nub of the question. Would Wesley accept this argument and therefore change his view of homosexual activity vis-á-vis holiness? I do not think so. My read of Wesley is that he insisted on obedience to the plain reading of the Scripture in order to live into the holiness God desired for us. All behavior was derivative, not prescriptive, of our commitment to enter into this holiness by God's grace.
If my view of Wesley is right, it turns Mr. Kruse-Safford's dehumanization argument on its head. It would be dehumanizing to reduce a person's essence to merely the sum of specific human behaviors when God created humans to be agents of holiness who would enter God's presence. It is humanizing to call them away from behaviors that hinder living into God's fullness for them.
Prof. Mark A. Teasdale is E. Stanley Jones Professor of Evangelism at United Methodist-related Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary in Evanston, Ill.