Introduction (From the Editor)
In this edition of the journal, we begin a long-overdue discussion of a topic that has been and will continue to be highly controversial: human sexuality and gender identity. To what extent should we welcome and include LGBTQ+ believers in our faith communities? We at the Historical Society believe that the church must address the topic in a way that allows for multiple voices to be heard. We know and understand the official position of the church on human sexuality, and we are aware that the church has addressed the issue in seminars and through discussion in conjunction with revisions to the Manual of Doctrine and Government. Yet we also know that there are many among us who feel like they haven’t been heard. They would like to be part of the Brethren in Christ Church but have either been de-credentialed or left the church because of their disagreement, or feel abandoned, shunned, or excluded from full participation in the church because of their beliefs and/or practices.
The conversation in this edition is between three people representing three different points of view: 1) the traditional position of the Brethren in Christ Church as clearly articulated in the “Articles of Faith and Doctrine”; 2) a pastoral approach that recognizes the traditional position on human sexuality and marriage and also leaves room for ministers to make accommodations for LGBTQ+ people; and 3) the case for the full inclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals and couples in the church. All three authors have similar education and experience, including experience as pastors and professors at the college/university level. All three authors were given the same template for their essays, so that equivalent/parallel information is offered on behalf of each position. Each author has also written a response to the other two essays. This format provides an opportunity for each person and his position to be fully “heard.” It’s one model for how conversations on difficult issues can begin—and, to be clear, it is only a beginning.
Read the three views and responses:
LGBTQ-aug2024