The title was taken from words that the apostle Peter spoke in Acts 10:34-35, which read, "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him."
The back story of Acts 10 is that Cornelius, a centurion and a Gentile (non-Jew) who is "a devout man...that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway[s], is told in a vision that he should set up a meeting with a man (Peter) who at the time was in a neighboring town. Literally at about the the same time, Peter is blessed with a vision in which he sees a knitted, four-cornered sheet, upon which are different kinds of animals that are forbidden to be eaten by Jewish law. He is commanded to kill them and eat them, but hesitates because as a Jewish practitioner, he had never eaten them. As the vision, ends and Peter is contemplating what he just witnessed, servants from Cornelius arrive where he is lodging. The servants from Cornelius and Peter head for Caesaria where Cornelius lives and has gathered his family and close friends awaiting their return. Peter realizes what the significance of his vision was and teaches these Gentiles. Ultimately, these Gentiles are blessed with a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. The Jews of Peter's day had a very hard time with what had happened and the new doctrine of not having to live the Mosaic Law.
The instructor of the class discussed a latter-day event in which a significant change in doctrine occurred within the LDS religion, specifically, the revelation allowing all men to receive the Priesthood. As most class members acknowledged this landmark doctrinal change in 1978, the instructor pointed out how some members, as did some Jewish members in Peter's day, could not abide the new doctrine and left the Church.
He then began to talk about the call by priesthood leaders for Church members to get involved in the passage of Proposition 8. I wasn't sure what that had to do with what occurred with Peter, or what occurred in 1978, but perhaps he was attempting to connect this recent "revelation" with those of Peter's or President Kimball's (the 1978 revelation), and seemed to frame it as a revelation. Gratefully, he only spent a couple of minutes talking about it and accepting remarks from the class about the Proposition 8 debacle.
As whenever the topic of Prop 8 or "same-sex attraction" is spoken of in a class or over the pulpit, I become uneasy, and I was feeling those feelings today. Rather than raise my right arm that had on its wrist a multi-colored band that shows my support of LGBT people and marriage, and hijack the lesson for a time, I kept my arm down. It would likely have come to naught and would not have prompted anyone to consider questioning what was being taught at that very time. I chose to be empathetic to the teacher rather than lead the class in another direction--for better or for worse.
But it seemed so incongruous to be listening to a lesson about inclusivity, about not judging, about casting aside old ways of thinking and being open to new ones, about a God who is "no respecter of persons," to talk about Prop 8.
I had a notion to ask what class members would do if an obviously gay or lesbian couple walked into the room. This couple, like most who dare with great courage and apprehension to darken the doors of a potentially hostile environment of our church building (so ironic!), are probably true believers who want to be nourished with the "good word of Chrst" like their heterosexual brothers and sisters. They would want to be blessed like Cornelius and the thousands of black members throughout Africa and Brazil prior to 1978.
Would the class members get the real message behind Peter and President Kimball's revelations and make the connection between the inclusivity doctrine and its application? It is one thing to talk about changes in doctrine or policy as a topic for a talk or lesson, but quite another to implement what is being preached in the here and now, with His children. It is easier to "respect persons" and emotionally distance ourselves from those we consider "unclean."
If God truly is "no respecter of persons," and I really believe that about my Heavenly Father and His Son, my Savior, it requires us as Their disciples to do what They would do. My duty as a disciple is to be loving, kind, understanding, and welcoming no matter who I meet, because that person is my spiritual brother or sister.
My hope is that the practices of the institutional Church and the behavior of its members will evolve to reflect a more Christ-like treatment of those whose behavior does not match what currently is being taught or inferred in classes or over the pulpit.
No comments:
Post a Comment