Feeling comfortable in your grey area

27 August 2008
by Jerrad Peters

I have been wrestling with a question for weeks, if not months. In truth, the various arguments were probably doing battle in my head long before the evolution of an actual, concise question. Anyhow, my wondering is this: do I have to have a Statement of Faith? It sounds simple. But it’s not.

Statements of Faith, or Mission Statements, or grandiose-sounding Confessions of Faith, have been bandied about for almost 500 years. To my knowledge, the first was declared by Huldrych Zwingli in 1523. A Swiss reformer and preacher, Zwingli and his cohort were bent out of shape by traditional laws concerning fasting at Lent and celibacy of the clergy. In 1522, they cut and distributed a pair of smoked sausages during Lent. Two years later, Zwingli married Anna Reinhard in a public ceremony. Between the acts of defiance, he proclaimed the Sixty-seven Articles – the first, modern Statement of Faith.

Hundreds of similar declarations have been written and observed in the centuries since. Many are easy on the ear and written in beautiful, flowing language. They eloquently state the purpose of the church or Christian organization and affirm its doctrine. For example, the Vision Statement of the Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches – the family of churches in which I was raised – avows that “Our vision is to advance the gospel of Jesus Christ through the development of godly character in every member and the mindset of multiplication in every congregation.” Other than the fact that they forgot to capitalize the word Gospel, it’s a perfectly good statement.

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The complete CCMBC Confession of Faith includes 18 chapters which comprehensively deduce my denomination’s interpretation of everything from immersive baptism to the Lord’s Supper to same-sex marriage to the separation of church and state. Much of it I agree with fully. Some of it leaves me either scratching my head or pulling my hair out.

Which brings me back to my question. Do I, Jerrad Peters, require my own Statement of Faith? Is it necessary that I, like the church I attend, specifically outline my beliefs and draw a solid, unarguable line between what I hold as right and wrong? At this moment, I’m leaning more towards no.

Thankfully, unlike my buddy Zwingli, I don’t have to jump through hoops to eat a big piece of steak during Lent or endorse the married lifestyle of my pastor. As a matter of fact, I have found pastors’ wives/husbands to be remarkable, talented people who go about their calling in their own, unique way.

Pastors’ wives/husbands? There’s a quandary. And in trying to answer that question, I’d open up all sorts of wounds and warts about the role of women in the church. For many Christians, it’s a black and white issue. For non-Christians, it’s also black and white – only the opposite color. For others, it’s a very uncomfortable grey area. For me, it’s one of many.

Just as Zwingli had his fasting at Lent and celibacy of clergy, so I have the role of women in the church, same-sex marriage, abortion, and a litany of other issues. They are my uncomfortable grey areas. But need they be? Uncomfortable, that is.

If I walk into a church on Sunday morning, am I going to be less ministered-to because there is a woman behind the pulpit? If I meet a man or woman who practices a homosexual lifestyle, am I going to prevent them from entering into fellowship with me and my church? If a woman admits that she had an abortion, am I going pass judgment on her and allow that decision to hinder our relationship? These are simple questions. And the answers, whether simple or not, have split churches, crippled friendships, and divided families.

In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a ruling which I continue to find encouragingly relevant and significant. “Our Constitution is a living tree,” it read, “which, by way of progressive interpretation, accommodates and addresses the realities of modern life.”

In that, I fear, many of our Statements of Faith fall desperately short. It’s not just that they are woefully outdated, but that they limit progressive thinking, isolate the un-saved, and eliminate the possibility that the original statement might be incorrect.

Interestingly, that passage from the Supreme Court verdict was the preamble to its ruling on same-sex marriage. Regardless of my personal views, that document enshrined in law the right of two men or two women to be recognized as married in civil society. But did it overturn the morality of millions of Christians throughout Canada and the world? Of course not. It merely declared that, from that day forward, same-sex couples would be treated as human beings under the law.

Some Christians, fearing the ethical decomposition of society, were vociferous in opposing the ruling. Others, understanding that their own moral fabric was none the worse, clung to their fundamental belief in the separation of church and state. Still others were left in the middle. All three were well within their rights.

Same-sex marriage, abortion, euthanasia – even church-specific concerns such as the role of women, immersed baptism, and pacifism – it’s so easy to concentrate on the issue to the point of forgetting about the people. But that’s a crucial oversight. And it’s one that I’m desperate not to make.

Consequently, can I, in good faith, adopt a Statement of one? If I legislate my views on every issue under the sun, can I be of any use? After all, God’s concern lies primarily with those who require His love. And it is my duty to show them that love. If showing that love and being that love entail that I burst out of my moral comfort zone, so be it. I am comfortable in my grey area.