Let's not forget there's also powerful stories from the conservative side of repenting, believing God's Word and aligning oneself with Scripture's clear teaching making the "we've got the stories" argument, at the very least, a draw.
It is worth noting that those who speak openly of valuing story only seem to want to lean on the stories that fit their narrative. To my knowledge there have been two men who have openly spoken on the Synod floor about their nature as same-sex attracted men. I would prefer to call what they shared a testimony versus a story, but the terms are somewhat interchangeable. Both of these men supported orthodoxy on human sexuality. We don't hear of them often, and certainly not from those who plead for us to listen to stories. John Klompien gave a powerful testimony last year on the floor of Synod regarding his interaction with several gay acquaintances. He was openly mocked by progressives for his testimony.
In the end it seems to me that the question is not "should we tell stories", but rather what do our testimonies testify about. If my story is mainly about me then I might question whether or not my testimony is God-honoring. Our testimony as Christians is strong and necessary, but hinges on whether or not the end message of our testimony is one of submission to the will of God, testimony to his greatness, and resolve to glorify him in everything.
This is exactly right. I think the key thing is that conservatives are making the argument from Scripture, history, confessions, and so on and using stories to augment and complement are larger argument that has its grounding in something other than the story. It's not that conservatives aren't telling stories or that stories aren't important, it's that the stories function in a different way (and a more correct way, I would argue).
"has its grounding in something other than the story"
I think that's a helpful way to phrase it that gets at the heart of the diverging viewpoints. It seems to me that there are differing loci of authority operating behind (yes, also through) the stories.
In my opinion, not many moderates needed to be persuaded on this SSM issue. It keeps getting tossed around out there like 60% of the denomination are moderates that somehow don't have any convictions about what the Bible says about homosexuality. And that the conservative side and groups like Abide were more strategic to winning them over. In my experience that isn't the case at all. To hold the affirming view and say that homosexuality is not sin is a very progressive viewpoint.
Praying for all delegates of synod this year. I'd prefer the delegates that represent me to make their arguments based off scripture, and not personal stories.
This is a good post Kent. The progressive side have definitely suggested personal experiences are a form of revelation which should receive more weight. You can hear it in the phrase "God is doing a new thing".
I find the stories don't have an obvious solution. It's not "obvious" or logical or theological that after each story marriage should be changed. In fact, it's a pretty simplistic response with huge repercussions.
Let's not forget there's also powerful stories from the conservative side of repenting, believing God's Word and aligning oneself with Scripture's clear teaching making the "we've got the stories" argument, at the very least, a draw.
It is worth noting that those who speak openly of valuing story only seem to want to lean on the stories that fit their narrative. To my knowledge there have been two men who have openly spoken on the Synod floor about their nature as same-sex attracted men. I would prefer to call what they shared a testimony versus a story, but the terms are somewhat interchangeable. Both of these men supported orthodoxy on human sexuality. We don't hear of them often, and certainly not from those who plead for us to listen to stories. John Klompien gave a powerful testimony last year on the floor of Synod regarding his interaction with several gay acquaintances. He was openly mocked by progressives for his testimony.
In the end it seems to me that the question is not "should we tell stories", but rather what do our testimonies testify about. If my story is mainly about me then I might question whether or not my testimony is God-honoring. Our testimony as Christians is strong and necessary, but hinges on whether or not the end message of our testimony is one of submission to the will of God, testimony to his greatness, and resolve to glorify him in everything.
This is exactly right. I think the key thing is that conservatives are making the argument from Scripture, history, confessions, and so on and using stories to augment and complement are larger argument that has its grounding in something other than the story. It's not that conservatives aren't telling stories or that stories aren't important, it's that the stories function in a different way (and a more correct way, I would argue).
"has its grounding in something other than the story"
I think that's a helpful way to phrase it that gets at the heart of the diverging viewpoints. It seems to me that there are differing loci of authority operating behind (yes, also through) the stories.
In my opinion, not many moderates needed to be persuaded on this SSM issue. It keeps getting tossed around out there like 60% of the denomination are moderates that somehow don't have any convictions about what the Bible says about homosexuality. And that the conservative side and groups like Abide were more strategic to winning them over. In my experience that isn't the case at all. To hold the affirming view and say that homosexuality is not sin is a very progressive viewpoint.
Praying for all delegates of synod this year. I'd prefer the delegates that represent me to make their arguments based off scripture, and not personal stories.
This is a good post Kent. The progressive side have definitely suggested personal experiences are a form of revelation which should receive more weight. You can hear it in the phrase "God is doing a new thing".
I find the stories don't have an obvious solution. It's not "obvious" or logical or theological that after each story marriage should be changed. In fact, it's a pretty simplistic response with huge repercussions.