Bridging The Gap

The Heresy of Restored Hope Network

2013-07-27T12:23:00.000-04:00

Okay – so I had another frustrating go on Moody Radio and their “Up for Debate” program. The first time I was on with Mario Bergner and it was super frustrating. This was mainly due to the host favoring Mario so that I felt I had very little opportunity to respond to things he would say. This time around was slightly less frustrating. The other guest was Anne Paulk who has been hired as the Coordinator for Restored Hope Ministries. RHM is the break-away group that left Exodus last year and maintain fundamentalist views about orientation change and the demands of obedience for people who experience same-sex attraction. This time I didn’t get interrupted mid-sentence – but I was asked to speak first every time – which meant that Anne always got to respond to what I’d said – but I was not afforded the same opportunity. This inevitably skews the conversation.

So, since I did not have the opportunity to say everything I wanted to say – and because I now feel that after this first-hand experience I can say some things in response to RHM – I figured this was the time to put some of my thoughts out there.

The focus of the program, apparently, was on the efficacy of orientation change. I think this is really a distraction and a secondary matter in the whole question of how the Christian community ought to engage with sexual minority individuals. (Note: Anne thought my use of this descriptor was “modern” language – and that she didn’t believe there was such a thing as sexual minority individuals. From my perspective, there are people who have a different experience of sexuality than the majority of people who find themselves heterosexually attracted – and so it simply makes sense as a value neutral term to describe them as those who have a sexual minority experience.)

So I tried to open with a nuanced allowance that understands that sexuality is fluid for some people, perhaps especially women. The idea that some people may experience some shifts in their experience of sexual attraction isn’t such a controversial idea in my mind. There are many people in the human population who have the capacity for bisexual functioning – and to think that they might make some choices to particularly focus on one gender or the other isn’t such a stretch. But I wouldn’t call this orientation change.

I also think that human beings have the capacity to live chaste lives with determination and God’s grace. It might be difficult. And imposed singleness and celibacy can certainly cause distress, pain, and other negative effects on a person’s sense of self. But sexual chastity is certainly something that can be achieved. But again, I wouldn’t call this orientation change.

I have a lot of mixed feelings about mixed orientation marriages. I have gone on record as saying that I do not recommend that people take this route. On the other hand, I offer support to the best of my ability to those who are living in the reality of a mixed orientation marriage and desire to maintain a faithful, healthy and loving relationship. And again, I believe that God can extend grace in these situations.

However, I also know the pain of a marriage that comes to the breaking point. And one of the reasons that marriages come to a breaking point is when the disconnection between spouses is so deep that one can feel like they are emotionally and spiritually dying. Part of the genesis of such disconnection is when one spouse feels that they have to hide or suppress a significant aspect of their personhood. Having walked with many people through this valley of the shadow of death, I also believe God’s grace meets us when we come to the limit of what we can endure. Separation and divorce are always painful - but they are not outside of the reach of God's mercy and grace.

All of these things may be important for the Christian community to process in consideration of how to journey with sexual minority persons. But they are not the primary matter. The primary thrust of the entire story of Scripture is the revelation of a God who so loves what he created that a way has been made for all of creation to be fully reconciled back to God. This is entirely God’s gift to a creation groaning under the burden of limitation and brokenness. This reconciliation has been God’s plan from before the creation. This reconciliation is God’s magnus opus in Jesus Christ. And the reality of this reconciliation cannot be thwarted by any decisions or behaviors of human beings. All things in the creation are offered one choice: to receive or reject the reality of this reconciliation. The repentance that is asked is the changing of our mind from viewing ourselves as our own god to the embrace of God and his gift of reconciliation. Everything else is secondary.

The heresy, and yes I will choose to use such a strong word, of the Restored Hope Network is that they take this mystery of reconciliation out of God’s hands and put it in the hands of human beings. They state that:

Sexual purity is a life-and-death matter. Sexual holiness for Christians matters to such an extent that living an unrepentant sexually immoral life can get even self-professed Christians excluded from the kingdom of God. For some this may mean that such persons were never true Christians to begin with; for others it may mean that such persons have fallen away from a once genuine faith. Either way, both can agree that a life committed to unrepentant, sexual immorality is evidence of a life not lived by saving faith.

The reason a conversation about sexual orientation change is so frustrating with someone from the Restored Hope Network is because we read the bible and construct our theology in such vastly different ways.

The starting points for engaging scripture that Anne articulated were the creation of male / female and her conviction that she looked at the absolute truth of the bible. It also was apparent that her focus was on the need of human beings to repent and walk in obedience.

As I have previously posted, I believe that the foundation for our engagement with scripture must be on God. That causes me to construct (because yes, all of our theology is constructed) my theology on the foundation of the Trinity and the Incarnation. Understanding our sexuality doesn’t begin with the description of male / female in the creation account – it begins with who God is and what it means to be created in God's image.

The idea that some people follow the “absolute truth” of the bible while others follow “revisionist” interpretations is a convenient way to dismiss someone else’s perspectives. But it is false. No one engages scripture without interpretation. And no one is a perfect interpreter of scripture. Period. That means that all Christians need to have some humility in presenting their scriptural convictions. The idea that we can quote this text or that text and make absolute claims that supposedly someone with different convictions couldn’t possibly argue is immature at best.

I do believe that scripture is inspired by God. I believe that we have been given God’s story so that God can reveal who he is to us and show us that the way of reconciliation has already been accomplished for us through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But each particular text comes to us with the reality of original context, translation, and the need for discernment to name just a few simple factors. And the reality is that committed followers of Christ wrestle with the implications of context in different ways, understand the dilemmas of translation in different ways, and exercise discernment in different ways. We see this reality within the pages of scripture itself. The early church wrestled mightily with how to discern the integration of the Hebrew scriptures and the teachings of Jesus and the implications for those who were Jewish and those who were Gentile. And people disagreed. And none of these disagreements nullified in any way the accomplished work of reconciliation through Jesus Christ.

While I believe that ongoing repentance and obedience are important markers of the Christian life, I do not frame things the same way that Anne does. The life of a follower of Christ begins with the earth-shattering realization that the God of the universe knows my name, counts the hairs on my head, and loves me beyond my imagination. The rest of my life in Christ flows out of perpetual gratitude for this reality. That means that when I change my mind about something, it is because the love of Christ compels me. That means when I make a difficult choice to obey God instead of going my own way, it is because I trust the love of Christ to be life-giving. We repent and obey in response to God’s love – not to keep or earn God’s love. The idea that a failure to repent of something or a failure to obey means that God will withdraw his love and withdraw the reconciliation that Christ accomplished makes a mockery of the cross. Is our sin more powerful than the cross of Christ? Surely not. Christ has already swallowed up sin and death. It has already been defeated. When our hearts are turned towards Christ to rejoice in and receive the good news that we are reconciled to God through Christ then absolutely nothing can separate us from the love of God. Certainly, where committed Christians wrestle to interpret and discern, and come to differing conclusions about what is being asked of us in our grateful response to God’s love there is an abundance of mercy and grace. It is God’s heart that all things would be receptive to the amazing reality that Christ has accomplished reconciliation for the whole of creation.

Restored Hope Network advocates orientation change because they believe that it is the only way for a sexual minority person to be enfolded into reconciliation with God. While they might acknowledge that some people will continue to experience same-sex attraction, their focus is on the fight, the struggle, the need to strive against what they deem to be sin. I think this is a heretical priority.

The reality is that the bible doesn't speak to matters of sexual orientation, sexual attraction, or sexual identity. The bible speaks to particular sexual behaviours in specific contexts. The challenge for sexual minority persons and the Christian community is to discern what that means for those we today understand to be predominantly oriented to their own gender. Homosexual rape - negative prohibition. Sexual behaviour in the context of idol worship - negative prohibition. Coercive sexual behaviour with minors - probable prohibition if that is what the translations are referring to. Consensual, committed partnerships - not mentioned. Thus the complexity in the discernment process. Thus the reality of diversity in perspectives.

What I do know is that our humanity matters to God. Our personhood matters to God. Our sexuality is part of our personhood. It doesn’t define us. It doesn’t constitute our entire identity. But it is a part of our humanity that we can honestly accept as we seek to discern how to live as a faithful follower of Jesus. And our drive to relationship and family is part of imaging God and it is something that God acknowledges as a legitimate need - even before sin entered the creation.

To pit feelings against obedience is a reductionistic view of sexuality and our humanity. Every human being has temptations to face. The deeper we are immersed in the confidence of God’s love, the more we are able to gratefully choose God’s life-giving reality over the empty escapes we are so often drawn to. And yet our human lives are marked by the ways we succumb to lure of empty pleasure. The western church is, by and large, a fat, lazy, consumeristic, and apathetic bunch to name just a few of the obvious fruits of our giving in to temptation. Despite all this, we are the people of God. Beloved. Fully dependent on grace. Fully dependent on the accomplished work of Christ.

Where our gratitude for this gift of grace shines is when we pour out self-giving love, when we live faithfully, when we not only forgive our enemies but learn to love them, when we care for those who are marginalized and in need, when we live humbly and work for justice, when we participate in nurturing shalom in our communities.

I wish I could say that I hear this in the work of the Restored Hope Network. What I hear is an inordinate attention on determining who is right, who is in, and criticizing those who aren’t. I don’t hear much of a passion for the world that God has made. I don’t hear much of a passion for those on the margins cowering in fear. I don’t hear a whole lot about God’s love or mercy or grace. I hear words of repentance and obedience…. And I am reminded of Jesus’ words reiterating the words of the prophet Hosea:

“But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Matthew 9:13)

“If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.” (Matthew 12:7)

My Response to the Closing Down of Exodus

2013-06-20T19:23:00.001-04:00

While I was away speaking to a group of largely conservative pastors and inviting them to consider the challenge and opportunity of generous spaciousness in their congregations, social media was a’buzz with the news that Exodus International is going to shut down. I had read Alan Chambers’ apology yesterday. But pretty typical for me, I was not at the forefront of this news. New Direction has always, rather purposely, flown under the radar, focused on being faithful to carry out what God has asked us to do.

None-the-less, this is pretty big news in our arena of engagement and some of you have indicated that you’d be intrigued to hear my thoughts. So….. here goes:

From even before the time I spoke at the Exodus leadership conference in early 2008, I have prayed and deeply desired Exodus to truly experience that change is possible. The kind of change I prayed for was a change of heart, a change of priority, a change of focus. When I took my role as Exodus regional rep for Canada in, I believe, 2004 it was with the conviction that God was asking me to engage and that the time period would be three years. It has always been my feeling that one should engage and seek to “be the change they long to see” rather than sitting and bitching from the outside.

The truth is being a mainly straight Canadian female meant that I didn’t have a whole lot of influence in the large American evangelical system in which Exodus was birthed and sustained. The address in 2008 was my swan song and not long after that we quietly withdrew from Exodus circles so that we could continue to press forward to listen and learn and stretch and be re-born into the postures of generous spaciousness.

After that keynote, I was asked to write a guest post for Ex-Gay Watch. I decided to use the opportunity to articulate an apology to ex-gay survivors and other LGBT people who had been harmed negatively affected by the ex-gay paradigm. I said that we weren’t going to be focused on reorientation change, that we had no clear idea about the causation of same-sex sexual orientation, and that we did not think that Christians who claimed to love gay people should be involved in political measures seeking to limit the rights and freedoms of others.

If some of this is sounding a wee bit familiar ….. it does to me too. I’ve been saying for a while now that Exodus seems to be taking some pages from New Direction’s playbook – only about six years later. I don’t say that to boast or to take credit or to gloat or any such thing. I am very aware that being a small organization in Canada and having a leader who did not have her personal life and testimony enmeshed in my leadership role afforded New Direction more nimbleness to respond sooner. At the same time, we did pay a tremendous cost. We lost, over the course of a few years, 50% of our donors. There were some former board members who did not like the direction I was trying to go – resulting in some very difficult months when I didn’t know if I would be able to keep my position. And, there were the emails – some threatening, some expressing disappointment, some accusing – from those who believed that I was no longer following God’s will. Oh – and I got thrown under the bus in an article by Alan Chambers in Charisma.

So…. What do I think about Exodus’ announcement that it is shutting down?

When New Direction was going through the birth pangs of trying to move towards generous spaciousness, we had a very involved conversation as board and stakeholders about whether we should change the name of the organization and start over with a fresh, new blank page. After all, here in Toronto, New Direction had that association with ex-gay – not a nice or easy legacy to navigate. It would have been really nice to change the name, rebrand, and simply start over.

In the end, we felt that it was very important to keep the name. It has been hard. I still meet gay people in Toronto whose first reaction is cynical and bitter when they hear that I lead New Direction. But it has been richer too. I get to hear the painful stories. I get to be a humble ambassador of reconciliation. I get to be a living apology. And sometimes our biggest critics have become some of our biggest champions. Read this letter from an ex-gay survivor that we feature on our corporate website. For us, we needed to own our history. We wanted to demonstrate that Christians do have the capacity to listen and to repent (change our minds). We wanted to earn credibility and trust – not just expect it with a nice, clean slate.

I’m not sure that would work in the same way for Exodus. So I’m not suggesting that they shouldn’t close down. But, I do wonder if they simply re-open, with a new name, if there aren’t a few red flags for me. When I wrote my apology for Ex-Gay Watch, New Direction still clearly held a traditional theological view of marriage. What we found, however, was that the notion of building bridges while holding a clear position was a bit of an idealistic pipe-dream. If we really wanted to nurture open and safe and spacious places for people to explore, wrestle, and ultimately own their own spiritual journey – we needed to relinquish our certainty – and acknowledge that Christians with deep commitment to Jesus Christ and to the Scriptures come to different conclusions on the question of whether a committed gay relationship can be an expression of faithful discipleship. As leaders and as an organization – we had to relinquish power, control, status, privilege – and humble ourselves in the place of real tension – where we have to trust that the Holy Spirit is more than able to lead people in the way they need to go. We don’t need to control the outcomes in people’s lives. Our role is to enter mutual relationship with a commitment to keep looking to Jesus.

This has been liberating and challenging. We do our very best to honour people where they are. We do our best to listen to people’s convictions, values and beliefs with open hearts and minds – knowing that God can be trusted to lead and guide.

I’m not saying that people cannot have a position. Not at all. People should be encouraged to work out their salvation with fear and trembling (ie. work at clarifying what they believe and why they believe it) all the while knowing that it is God who works in us to will and to act according to his good purpose. But as an organization, and leaders within that organization, we want to be in the posture that allows people to wrestle with God.

Is there a need for an organization that holds a traditional view of marriage that seeks to be of support to same-sex attracted people? Perhaps. There are certainly same-sex attracted people with those convictions. And it would certainly be wonderful for them to have support. And it would certainly be good for those folks to move from the house of fear to the house of love. So the idea of reducing fear may be a very important one.

Exodus, as an icon of an ex-gay paradigm that has been demonstrably harmful, closing down is a good thing. Exodus reincarnated as some organization with a brand new name …… I’m not sure what I think about that.

But this is what I think will be important:

· Absolute honesty and transparency about the connection to the legacy of Exodus
· Clear and honest messaging about the purpose, goals, and expected outcomes of the support and resources that are offered
· Ongoing work of being a living apology – being available to make amends and do the hard work of justice and reconciliation with ex-gay survivors
· Addressing the real issues surrounding ex-gay philosophies in our culture-at-large: ie. holding the Restored Hope Network accountable for things that have been proven ineffective and harmful
· Speaking out for matters of justice, particularly in international contexts, for sexual and gender minority persons.
· Affirming the faith of gay Christians committed to Jesus Christ
· Acknowledging that theological differences about sexual morality are secondary issues – our reconciliation to God has been fully accomplished through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I would imagine that many who have had some connection with Exodus in the past may have mixed feelings about today’s announcement. There has been a lot of hurt. There have been times that trust has been broken. It won’t be a smooth or easy ride for many to trust Alan or the board members – and some may never trust them. This is a reality that Alan Chambers will need to face with patience, humility, perseverance and grace.

If we serve a God who redeems, restores and reconciles, then we are called to be a people of hope and a people of faith. Doesn’t mean we have to be stupid or have our eyes closed. But it does mean that we also are called to patience, humility, perseverance and grace.

I, for one, will seek to live into those postures as I wait and see. And in the meantime, I will continue to pray. I will pray for the many ex-gay survivors. I will pray for the many sexual minority young people in our churches. I will pray for the broken relationships in families. I will pray for wisdom, discernment, courage, and honesty. And I will pray that God will keep my heart open, loving, and gracious as I place my trust in Christ alone.

Generous Spaciousness 2013: My Life Changed ~ by Gary Hazen

2013-06-19T14:07:00.002-04:00

A month ago I attended a retreat that just days before I hadn’t even heard of by a ministry that only weeks before that I had come across through apparent happenstance during my internship. This apparent happenstance was actually divine providence through the amazing work of the Holy Spirit. This ministry was New Direction, and this retreat was the Generous Spaciousness Conference Retreat (GSCR) at Crieff Hills Retreat Center in, quite literally, the middle of nowhere. It was beautiful, quiet and a refreshing change of scenery from the city life.

I was invited to go on this GSCR by Wes Patterson and at first I have to admit that I was hesitant to attend. This hesitancy came from a place of insecurity where I was afraid that if I went on the retreat that I would be moving on into a place of self acceptance, and I felt unworthy at the time of this kind of acceptance. It wasn’t until I spoke to my brother Jason that I realized that this fear was not a valid reason to deny myself the opportunity to learn, grow and move forward, and taking that first step was one of the best decisions I have ever made. It ultimately helped me experience true wholeness and authenticity in Christ, as well as engage with more members of the Body of Christ in a safe and genuine environment while learning about Generous Spaciousness.

That being said, I am going to give you the top five things about this retreat that changed my life due to New Direction.

5#: Having the opportunity to hear the stories from people who journeyed before me, and being able to relate to their experiences while actually seeing for myself that it does get better. Hearing all their “…but God” stories on how He intervened in their lives in powerful and magnificent ways was incredibly encouraging for me on a personal level. This was because a lot of my life I thought that I was the exception, that God would work in all their lives but not mine. I felt defined by my past experiences more than Christ, and because of that I didn’t really believe that it would get better for me, fortunately I now know I was mistaken.

4#: Having the freedom to completely let go of the façade I had grown naturally accustomed to wearing for years was so incredibly powerful that I didn’t feel the full impact of that until after the weekend. In my life I had conditioned myself to monitor myself and pretend to be something that I was not for long enough that, like many people, I had began to actually believe it and it would be almost effortless, except that type of personal, self imposing deceit takes a toll. At the GSCR I got to experience a genuine, more authentic version of myself…no, not version but my real self. There is something so powerful about being able to be truthful to your own reality without fear judgment and that was a freedom I had the privilege of experiencing at the GSCR.

3#: As Christians from many different traditions within the Body of Christ we all have had the chance to experience the presence of Christ in a myriad of ways. For example, my background is Christian Reformed and Pentecostal so when I am in a worship setting I am most comfortable in one of those two settings and I know what to expect. All that being said, when we were engaged in praise and worship there was something so fantastic and awesome about the presence of the Holy Spirit in that place, that it felt as though heaven had come down—if only for just a moment. Being in a room full of LGBT persons who all share a common love for Christ was a genuine honor; and it helped me feel connected with the general Body of Christ once again.

2#: The leadership of New Direction placed us in prearranged community groups where each member had a unique story to tell and we could, ideally, learn from one another and appreciate each other’s stories. When I first heard of the community groups I didn’t really think that our community groups would be so pivotal in my retreat experience, but my group’s impact on my retreat experience was fundamental to my growing understanding of God in my life and my understanding of displaying generous spaciousness. Our community group was a safe, confidential place where we could let our guard down and be ourselves and work out what Generous Spaciousness really looked like for us, while living it within the interactions with one another. By the end of the weekend it felt more like a family than a small group. We cried together, prayed together and wrestled with our ever so real realities together.

#1: By the end of the weekend I walked away from the retreat feeling rejustified as a child of the Most High, an heir with Christ and someone who was fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14, NIV). My identity in Christ and call of God was reaffirmed and strengthened like never before. My personal belief that God has created me with wonderful plans and that His love and compassion for me is unconditional was rekindled. I also walked out of the retreat feeling a new appreciation for life. Prior to the events of the GSCR I was walking through life either simply content with little enthusiasm with what life had to bring me, or a level of premature anticipation of being present with the Lord. I was so distant from the Church and with my genuine acceptance of my identity in Christ that there was no true joy in me; because of this retreat my faith and life were both reaffirmed and secured once again within the infinite love of God, as well as the Christlikeness of His people!

I hope that this personal account of how the GSCR genuinely impacted my life inspires you to pursue Christ wherever you’re at, and whatever your reality is. I firmly believe that there is no circumstance or situation bigger than God and if my experiences at this retreat helps inspire you to learn more about what Generous Spaciousness looks like for you then feel free to contact New Direction.

Blessings,

Gary Hazen

If I was Rob Bell .....

2013-05-28T23:09:00.000-04:00

I received an email from a pastor today. He is part of a group that I will be speaking to in a couple of weeks. The email contained a video clip of Rob Bell and a British theologian named Andrew Wilson. The pastor in the email admonishes the group to watch the video before my coming to speak to the group.

In the video clip, Andrew Wilson has a very clear position that same-sex sexual behavior is sinful. He is trying to understand Rob Bell’s position. It is clear that Wilson and Bell differ in their perspectives. What comes across in the video, however, is that Wilson is articulate and clear – and Bell is murky and evasive. And the end result is further polarity, further misunderstanding, further perpetuation of distinguishing true believers from heretics by using gay marriage as a litmus test for orthodoxy.

Wilson pushes for a very black and white position. Either gay sex is sinful or God says it is righteous. Either the Bible is true or we just put the Scriptures aside for the sake of cultural progress. Wilson is trying to nail down whether Bell’s exegesis is different or if his hermeneutics is different. He is asking if Bell thinks that Jesus and Paul were not referring to our contemporary reality of same-sex oriented adults desiring to be in a marriage relationship (and instead referring to historical and cultural experiences of same-sex behavior in the context of pederasty and idolatry) or if Bell thinks that Jesus did prohibit all same-sex sexual activity – but got it wrong because he too was just a product of his time and place. These are important and incisive questions. And Bell seems to avoid responding.

Perhaps, Bell just didn’t want to go down the tired path of argumentation – and as might be gleaned from his closing remarks – wants to just acknowledge the differences and still see one another as brothers in Christ. Maybe he resists engaging the questions because he doesn’t believe this should be the litmus test for orthodoxy. I’m guessing there.

If one reads through some of the comments, however, Bell’s responses (or perceived lack of response) elicit very strong, certain, proclamations of Bell’s heretical position. One commenter said, “Rob Bell is apostate concerning the faith doesn't even understand the basics of Jesus teachings about holiness...I fear for anyone who might follow him..beware!”

While Rob Bell may have well been inviting Andrew Wilson to experience generous spaciousness with him in his closing comments, the robustness of this posture seems lost on Wilson and the viewers of the video. What is of ultimate importance is ascertaining what Bell’s position is and why he holds it.

Indeed, Scripture does implore us to, “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.” (I Peter 3: 15, 16)

Surely there is more to be said from the Scriptures about why generous spaciousness, or the invitation to experience Christian unity in the midst of differing perspectives, is a faithful response in today’s discussions about Christian discipleship for sexual minority sisters and brothers.

So, if I had been Rob Bell in that particular interview / debate these are some of the things I would have said in response to Andrew Wilson:

Wilson speaks of an arc of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation and suggests that this arc is one man, one woman, in marriage, for life. I would ask whether this is really the primary arc one ought to consider when contemplating matters of sexual ethics for sexual minorities. When I consider the large story of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, I see a beautiful and perfect creation where there is justice and peace for all in the beginning …. and in the end I see this creation restored to a place of justice and peace for all. This trajectory and focus on justice, or to put it another way, shalom, is the consistent expression of God’s heart for all that he has made. So when we consider matters of sexual ethics, a primary question for me – more primary than a question of complementary gender – is the question of removing barriers for people to flourish.

As I have said in a previous blog series, your theological starting point makes a big difference in your articulation of a theology or ethics of sexuality. If your starting point is creation order you will land in a different place than if your starting point is the essential character of God as Trinitarian – relational. God is relational – and we are created in his image. What implications does this have for sexual minority persons? If it was not good for man to be alone in the garden, the perfect creation prior to sin, how does this fit with the call to refrain from intimate relationship for an entire group of people?

If your theology and ethics is deeply informed by the Incarnational strategy of God – the stripping of privilege and status in order to identify with those who are alienated, different, and marginalized in order to bring restoration and wholeness, you may end up in a different place than if your emphasis is on a prescriptive normativity. One must grapple with the question of whether the complementary male and female in the creation narrative is descriptive or prescriptive. And, people will differ in how they answer that question.

Rob Bell makes reference to Neil Plantinga’s definition of sin in the interview. Plantinga says that sin is “culpable breaking of shalom”. This is an understanding of sin that may be different from the typical definition of “missing the mark”. “Missing the mark” seems to suggest that you will lose something if you sin. “Culpable breaking of shalom” carries a sense of loss and grief. Another way of looking at this may be to consider why a Christian would try to refrain from sin. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ has swallowed up sin and God’s victory over sin and death is sure and complete. As human beings, this means that the way to be reconciled to God has been accomplished. Human beings are confronted with a very simple but profound opportunity – we can either receive this good news and believe it to be true – or we can reject it. Salvation is completely and totally held within God. Our sin cannot nullify what Jesus Christ has already accomplished. We aren’t reconciled to God because we do well at sinning less. We are reconciled to God because Jesus Christ has made it possible. We seek to live lives free from sin because first, we are so grateful for what Christ has accomplished on our behalf and second, because we do not want anything to impede or distract from our communion with God through the presence of the Holy Spirit. That means, that as children of God, we do not need to be so fearful of whether or not we interpret Scripture perfectly. We rest in the glorious good news of what Christ has accomplished. And in gratitude for this, we seek to live lives that are open to and experiencing this amazing gift of grace. To somehow suggest that sin has the power to defeat what Christ has already accomplished makes the enemy dance a jig – because then God’s children are living in fear rather than living in the joy and gratitude of Christ’s victory. The point is not to decipher what is sin and what isn’t – the point is to open our lives to the reality of who we are in Christ and live in grateful response – trusting that the Holy Spirit is more than able to continue to lead us into all truth and into a deeper and deeper communion with God.

If I had been in Rob Bell’s seat for this interview, I would have talked about the difference between our Christian lives being energized by fear or energized by love. Now don’t misunderstand me, I think that love still has a healthy sense of reverence and awe for a God we can never fully apprehend. But such love is not afraid that God isn’t really good or isn’t really loving or doesn’t really want to receive us as reconciled children because of what Christ has accomplished. When we are energized by love, we are free to live in joyful gratitude with the desire that nothing would impede our communion with God. But when we are energized by fear, we don’t want to take any risks, we don’t want to make any mistakes, we strive and drive and inevitably try to earn God’s love.

If I’d been in Rob Bell’s place, I would have talked about my conviction that we are called to worship and serve Jesus as Lord – not the Bible. Don’t misunderstand me, I am deeply grateful for the gift of the Scriptures because they are God’s special revelation of himself to us. But I encounter so many Christians who seem to make the Bible its own idol. They seem to worship the Bible more than Jesus. When I read the Scriptures, Jesus makes clear that the Holy Spirit is going to keep on revealing Jesus to us. When I read the Scriptures, I’m called to put my hope in the Living Word – Jesus. That means that I can recognize that my interpretation – and everyone else’s for that matter – will always be incomplete, imperfect. I will never know with 100% certainty how to interpret the Bible. What I can know with 100% certainty is that God created the world, loves the world, and will reconcile and restore the world – and that I can participate in this reconciliation. So, when I look at texts of Scripture, it is completely appropriate to ask if my interpretation is Christ-like. Is my interpretation consistent with what I see in the Scriptures of what Jesus did and taught.

If I’d been in Rob Bell’s chair, I would have talked about the model of incarnation in contrast with the model of proclamation. With proclamation, we interpret and decide what is sinful, tell people that, and call them to repent of anything in their lives that is sinful. This action will make them right with God. With the incarnation, we seek to walk as closely with Jesus, through the enlivening of the Holy Spirit, as possible. As we embody his presence, we do life with the people around us. We become living models of the way of Jesus. We work for shalom – we help people to flourish, we help people to experience justice. We embody forgiveness and the fruits of the Spirit. We are alert for the opportunities to explain why we live the way we do – and so we share the gifts of Christ.

If I’d been in Rob Bell’s place, I would have talked about the spiritually formational value of living in the tensions of our differing approaches, understandings and interpretations of Scripture. I would have shared about the power of being enlarged in humility as I anticipate encountering God already at work in those with whom I disagree – and being open to learning and being blessed by God’s presence in the other. I would have talked about the power of living out the radical hospitality that Jesus demonstrated.

I would have talked about Jesus’ words about good trees bearing good fruit – and bad trees bearing bad fruit. And I would have shared about the reality of experiencing good fruit in the lives of those who have different theological perspectives than I do.

I would have talked about the reality that much of our Christian teaching on sexuality has been socialized by patterns of fear, anxiety, disgust, power and control. I would have used examples from church history where pagan dualisms were baptized into Christian theology, where shame and guilt became sanctified motivations for punitive, control based teaching. I would have done some reflecting on the many different sexual mores in the narratives of Scripture.

And I could go on ….

My point is not to argue for Rob Bell’s position. My point is that there are robust theological reflections that help us to understand why we can come to such different perspectives on matters such as our theology and ethics of sexuality. My point is to try to demonstrate that generous spaciousness is not some weak, compromise that is simply motivated by keeping up with culture and trying to make God relevant in a gay-positive context. Rather, generous spaciousness costs us our pride, it costs us the luxury of arrogant certainty. Generous spaciousness costs us our security in our exegesis, our hermeneutics, our interpretations. (especially when such exegesis and hermeneutics result in prohibitions for others that do not personally affect ourselves) Generous spaciousness forces us to find our security in the wild, untamable revealing of Jesus Christ to us through the Holy Spirit, through the Scriptures, through tradition (including contemporary tradition), through the academic disciplines, and through our experiences. And the truth is that this revelation is not in our control – it is in God’s control. This demands our humility, our openness, our fearlessness, our willing to risk following – even when it seems God is doing a new thing.

God has put us in a body made up of different parts with different functions. We need one another. We cannot say to another part, “I have no need of you”. Rather, we need our diversity, our different emphases in this journey of discernment. But it means that instead of trying to nail each other down into black and white proclamations of truth, we extend space to one another – space to quiet ourselves and hear what our consciences are telling us. And sometimes that is really hard to articulate and explain. Sometimes what our conscience, activated by the Holy Spirit, is saying doesn’t hold up well in a debate with someone who is so very, very certain. But can we still make room for one another in the Body? After all, whose call is it concerning who is in the Body and who isn’t? Jesus said let the wheat and the weeds grow together so that we don’t unwittingly uproot the wheat while trying to pull the weeds. The Harvester will know the difference at the right time. In the meantime, on such sensitive and complex matters, let us be gracious and kind to one another – listening for where God may be at work .... for who knows, perhaps God will show up and show us something of himself in the other.

Reflections on the Generous Spaciousness Conference Retreat

2013-05-28T21:33:00.000-04:00

It has already been a couple of weeks since our first Generous Spaciousness Conference Retreat – hard to believe how fast time goes. I have been so busy with meetings and presentations that I haven’t had that much time to simply sit quietly and reflect. But as Wes and I went through our lists of “celebrate” and “improve” it was really wonderful to see that all the things in the “improve” column were about behind the scenes administrative type details. And all the things in the “celebrate” column were connected to our hopes and goals for the experience. That is amazing – and I am humbled and grateful.

For those of you not able to attend, let me describe the design and intent behind the experience.

Generous Spaciousness is a framework in which we hope that the Body of Christ can experience unity in diversity. That means that we enter this space with the acknowledgement that Christians who love Jesus and who deeply care about the Scriptures come to differing conclusions on many controversial matters – including the questions that surround marriage equality. Rather than focusing on boundary maintenance – that is trying to figure out who is “in” and who is “out” – generous spaciousness is centered around key core values. Those values include: humility, hospitality, mutuality and justice.

Our goal for the conference retreat, therefore, was to gather a diverse group of people, introduce them to the concept of generous spaciousness, and then invite them to spend time in the rhythms of worship, silence, and dialogue over a weekend together. Our central common ground, for the majority of our participants, is our commitment to Jesus Christ. We did gladly welcome individuals who do not identify with Christian faith or who are questioning their faith for a few reasons. First, we believe that Jesus would welcome them. His ministry modeled a radical hospitality – and we wanted to as well. Second, we believe that non-Christians have much to offer this conversation – and in particular, may be well equipped to help Christians see their blind-spots. So, if non-Christians were willing to participate within the parameters of generous spaciousness and to honour the reality that the conference retreat would be unapologetically Christian, we were glad to welcome them. And for those who came, their presence did prove to be enriching and a gift.

Given this central focus on shared faith in Jesus Christ, worship was essential to our time together. We were grateful for the sensitivity of our worship leaders as they led us through carefully chosen songs, litanies, and Scripture readings. We had times of corporate prayer together that centered us and prepared us to listen for God’s voice.

Worship was followed by keynote presentations that were prepared to catalyze the dialogue in small groups. The first keynote introduced generous spaciousness and its core values. It also laid out the parameters of dialogue so that all the participants could go into their groups with a common understanding and commitment to listen deeply, extend mutual respect, avoid arguments or trying to persuade one another, and works towards shared understanding and a deeper, rich and more robust understanding of the intersection of faith and sexuality by sharing in one another’s experiences.

We called our small groups “community groups”. Our hope was that as each group had the opportunity to meet four times over the course of the weekend, that they would experience a sense of community together. Based on our best knowledge of the background of the participants, we made the groups as diverse as possible. Of the 60+ participants we had age differences, we came from different ethnic backgrounds, we worshipped in different traditions, we had different levels of theological education and had differing theological views, we had various ministry involvements, we had different relationship experiences, different sexual orientations, different gender identities, and we had different expectations coming in to the conference. Groups were 6-7 people with one participant asked to give very basic facilitation simply to ensure that parameters were being honoured and participants were all having the opportunity to engage.

This rhythm of worship, silence and dialogue was followed by a very informal meet and greet over wine in a box and potato chips. This seemed to be a big hit – and it was a delight to hear conversations springing up everywhere. Hugs were plentiful. Some people knew each other before coming – but a lot were making first-time connections.

The next day we again entered our rhythm of worship and silence. We wanted to make space to hear from God prior to spending time listening to each other. We wanted our hearts to be open to God first. The second keynote was focused on Scripture. But maybe not what some people expected. We didn’t look at 6 or 7 verses that seem to deal with same-sex sexual behavior. Rather, we spent time considering the complexity and variety of ways that we have learned to approach and interpret Scripture. We considered the reality that no one is a perfect interpreter of Scripture and were again called to a posture of humility.

The community groups were then invited to reflect together on their journey with Scripture – what has influenced them, what questions they wrestle with, what fears and anxieties they bring to the text. This was a real opportunity to listen, to encounter difference, and to resist the urge to correct or convince one another to see things the way we do.

In the afternoon we had time for what we loosely called affinity groups. We wanted people to have the chance to connect with those whose journeys might be similar to theirs. One was for family members and a lot of the parents who have gay children joined together for sharing and prayer. Another was described as “discipleship” and in our preparations we thought this would be a good connection for those who were still trying to figure out how they were going to integrate their faith and their sexuality. One was called a “couples” group – though we should have simply called it a relationships group. And a final group was called “next steps”. We figured this would be a good group for straight allies and those who were interested in possibly launching some kind of connection point in their own region. What surprised us a bit was that people made unpredictable choices about which group they would participate in – but that was totally fine. Later there was another community group time.

The evening session brought us back to worship and silence. This keynote focused on embodiment. Gay or straight or cisgender or transgender or queer, many of us who have grown up in the church have been affected by an unbiblical dualism that pits our mind and spirit against our physical body. Many of us have been deeply socialized in our Christian communities to feel anxious and ashamed of our sexuality. In this keynote, we wanted to find common ground, in our diversity, in celebrating the good gift of our bodies and of our sexuality. In an unplanned response to the nudging of the Holy Spirit, we called up several people to offer prayer for others. Many came forward, some with tears, receiving blessing and encouragement to love their bodies and to be grateful for God’s good gifts to them. Some who had been deeply wounded by years of self-loathing heard prayerful words of affirmation that they are God’s Beloved Child.

After this session we had a sharing circle where the whole group had the opportunity to share what this experience was like for them. This was a beautiful time of connecting together as a whole group.

Our meal times were shared in the dining room where we ate family style – close enough together to share stories and laughter. The rain held off, and people had opportunity to go on the trails in the beautiful surroundings of the retreat center.

The final morning we shared in worship, inviting God to again center us in his presence as we had done all weekend. We waited in silence. And we had the opportunity to break the bread and drink the wine (well, ok, grape juice) by serving one another in our community groups. We closed off our experience with a final community group session and lunch.

No event is ever perfect – and I would be the first to say that there are always things to improve on and learn from. But having said that, I can also assert that God showed up and the experience of many of the participants was beyond our imagination and expectation. Personally, I was struggling physically with the pain and fatigue of fibromyalgia. It had not been a good week. And yet, with every hug, every conversation, every bit of shared laughter, every tear shed, every honest word, vulnerable sharing, and authentic owning of each person’s own space …. There was wonder and joy at the incredible experience of being the Body of Christ together. Messy, diverse, challenging – but gentle and sensitive to one another, kindness and compassion flowing. I am so very grateful!

These are some of the comments that were shared about the conference retreat – and we hope to have a future blog with more personal reflections:

“The interactions and stories I heard blessed me more than anything. I thought I would meet a few people to interact, but the community groups broke and healed my heart.”

“The highlight for me was meeting people with same sexual orientation, connecting with others, stressing that we are beautiful people, and being in a non-labeling environment.”

“The loving community fellowship that permeated the entire weekend was incredibly healing and empowered me with a real sense of purpose going forward in my life.”

“This weekend has given me a glimpse of what the church can be at its best.”

“The highlight was being able to connect, make friendships and rediscover my place in the family and kingdom of God. Also, rediscovering my self-worth and value in Christ.”

“Blessing came from hearing everyone’s stories. We truly are not alone.”

“I was feeling very down, overwhelmed with life and the weekend has encouraged me and reminded me of the abundance of God’s grace.”

“I came with very little expectations as to what the Lord would do to me or through me. I’ve experienced authenticity in sharing with people and grace, encouragement and empowerment from the Holy Spirit.”

“The healing release of emotion and prayer as I owned the hatred I feel for my body, confessed it as sin, and then released it at the foot of the cross.”

“Worshipping and sharing Communion with my community group.”

“My highlight was feeling the presence and love of God and breaking down barriers.”

“I have been surprised and amazed that generous spaciousness is being provided far more by the LGBTQ group than by the church. Duh.”

“Being in a place where I am not the minority”

“What an incredible outpouring of love and compassion.”

“Connected with people in a way I did not expect. I was able to speak openly and honestly.”

Since this was such an amazing experience, we plan on following up in a couple of ways. We hope to hold another conference retreat next spring. The content will be fresh and new but the rhythm of worship, silence, and dialogue will remain.

But we also are in the planning stages of using the content from this experience to host a conference in September. It will not be in retreat format – it will simply be a Friday night and then all day Saturday conference. But we will cover the same material in the rhythm of worship, silence, and dialogue. And we are quietly expectant that God will again to immeasurably more than we can ask or imagine. If you are interested in participating in either of these opportunities, feel free to let us know: info@newdirection.ca

Review: Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from they Gays vs. Christians Debate

2013-04-19T12:11:00.001-04:00

I was asked to write a review of Justin Lee's book, "Torn" for a Canadian Christian

newspaper. This particular paper is one that I used to read at my Pake and Beppe's place (Friesian for grandparents) when I was growing up. It particularly, but not solely, caters to people of Dutch and Reformed background. It's a paper that demonstrates the intellectual legacy of a group of Christian immigrants who built churches, Christian schools, and other social institutions such as a labour union, an office to pursue matters of social justice, and social service agencies for the disabled, unwed moms, those struggling with addictions etc.

The folks who read this paper will come from a variety of perspectives. Sometimes you find progressive thought in surprising places. Sometimes you encounter a stronger conservatism than you might have expected. But these are people who have a deep and strong faith. People who want to honour Christ and build his Kingdom. And with that in mind, and a strict word count, I offered this review of Justin's book. And, since you can't access it without a subscription .... here it is:

Many things have changed since the onslaught of the culture wars over homosexuality. Culture around us has become much more gay-positive. People coming out as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender is much more common. And more people have positive relationships with gay people than ever before. But this does not mean that the culture war is over in our churches. In a world of social media, it isn’t difficult to encounter harsh words targeted towards one group or the other. The tensions, both inside and outside of the church, on the subject of gay marriage continue to make navigating this complex terrain challenging and often confusing.

Even where churches have clear doctrinal positions, many Christians feel uncertainty or confusion about what they should think about gay marriage. Other Christians quietly disagree with their church’s position. Some Christians worry about where the church might be headed on this matter. And others may feel impatient and frustrated by positions they deem to be disconnected and irrelevant to our current context.

In the midst of this reality are the lives of gay Christians. They are often torn between their loyalty to their faith and the churches they grew up in and their honest acceptance of the reality of their same-sex orientation. Justin Lee is such a young man. Justin grew up in the Southern Baptist denomination and was in every way a committed Christian on track to enter full-time ministry. His journey of self-discovery regarding his sexuality turned his world upside down. But it did not ship-wreck his faith.

In his publishing debut, “Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays vs. Christians Debate”, Lee shares a story that challenges assumptions and typical ministry interventions. Justin is representative of today’s gay Christian. Strong faith. Determined to be part of the church. Maintaining Christian values around sexual purity. Strong self-awareness. Resisting pressure to submit to potentially harmful change programs. In-depth study of the scriptures. Open to a committed same-sex relationship.

And there is the rub for many Christians. Justin’s commitment to his faith is undeniable. His conclusions from his engagement with scripture concerning a future relationship ….. well that may be a whole other matter.

If you’re looking for a book that will decisively argue a scriptural case for gay marriage – this isn’t the book. No doubt those who want to pick apart his experiences to critique his conclusions will have ample ammunition. Justin’s journey is not that of a scholar. He is the Christian who sits next to you in the pew – who happens to be gay. His story is personal and compelling – and one that the church cannot afford to ignore.

So if you’re looking for a book that will help you enter the life of a gay Christian who may be very similar to you – this is a great book. Justin’s story challenges people in the church to reflect on the lived reality of a committed Christian, seeking God’s will for his life as a gay person. Justin’s story invites us into the tension that he experienced as he struggled to integrate his faith with the awareness that he would go through life as a gay person.

In addition to his personal story, Justin did enter ministry and became the founding director of the Gay Christian Network. This online community welcomes gay Christians regardless of whether they believe God’s word calls them to celibacy or they are open to marry a partner of the same-sex. Justin has been at the forefront of cultivating a community where such differences are secondary to their primary commitment to Jesus Christ. After a decade of engaging with thousands of gay Christians, Justin has some very practical steps for the church to take to be more hospitable to gay people – regardless of where you land on the gay marriage question.

The reality is that this culture war is not going away. Justin’s book can serve as a personal invitation to transcend the debate and enter the relational reality of our gay Christian sisters and brothers. This invitation will mean taking some risks and navigating tension and disagreement. But this is the place where the church should be.

Compassion as Justice-Love

2013-03-18T21:25:00.001-04:00

I thought it was time to write a slightly shorter, less dense, lighter post than my last few series. And as usual, a number of disparate things have been floating around in my mind. So hopefully I’ll be able to weave these various threads together into some kind of cohesive whole.

There has been some buzz today about Rob Bell articulating his support, as many had assumed anyway, for gay marriage. Speaking at an Episcopal cathedral in San Francisco Bell said, “"I am for marriage. I am for fidelity. I am for love, whether it's a man and woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man. I think the ship has sailed and I think the church needs -- I think this is the world we are living in and we need to affirm people wherever they are."

Seeing various comments on facebook, some expressed delight, some frustration that it took him so long, some have dismissed him from evangelicalism, and some predicting a pathway to the future of Christianity in the west. Indeed, the range of these responses indicates just how much of a litmus test this issue has become.

I am not gay. I will never know what it is like to feel emotional, spiritual, romantic and physical attraction to other women. I will never know what it is like to open your heart to the possibility of intimate, life-long love – taking the risk to empty yourself on behalf of another, trusting the other to love you the best they can, recognizing that such relational love is costly, demanding, and lacking a guarantee of personal fulfillment – I’ll never know what it is like to feel the possibility and potential of such love and know that people you care about, who you worship with, who you grew up with, who you have served believe that such love is an abomination, a threat to God’s intention for family, the church, and society-at-large. I’ll never really know what any of that feels like.

I’ll never know what it is like to pour over the scriptures, deeply committed to being open to God’s will and trying to discern what the good news of the gospel is for your life – when so much of the church seems to have very little, if anything, good to say about the way you love, who you love, and how you want to journey through life in love.

But I do know what it is like to be afraid of getting it wrong. I do know what it is like to be scared of somehow disappointing God. I know what it is like to be a people pleaser to try to avoid the rejection of others. I know what it is like to work very hard at being a good Christian – only to find that a life of striving burnt me out and made God seem very, very far away. I know what it is to feel the sting and hurt of others’ judgment. I know what it is like to be considered a heretic, told I’m leading the church astray, and accused of being demonized.

I know what it is like to feel alone, misunderstood, and scared for the future.

And into the midst of all these experiences, I know what it is to receive the compassion of God ….. and know I am called to do likewise in extending compassion in mutual relationship with others.

I was in a thrift store the other day, one of my favorite pastimes, and came across the book, “A Spirituality Named Compassion” by Matthew Fox. I have been slowly meandering through this book like one savors a delectable cheesecake. Fox reminds us that, “Compassion operates at the same level as celebration because what is of most moment in compassion is not feelings of pity but feelings of togetherness. It is this awareness of togetherness that urges us to rejoice at another’s joy (celebration) and to grieve at another’s sorrow. Both dimensions, celebration and sorrow, are integral to true compassion. And this, above all, separates pity from compassion for it is seldom that we would invite someone we had pity on to a common celebration. (Notice the preposition on as in “patting one on the head”) Yet the passion-with of true compassion urges us to celebration.”

In the last year, I have had the opportunity to celebrate with a number of my gay friends as they entered marriage covenants together. Each ceremony was unique, heart-felt, Christ-centered, and intimate. My presence was not a political statement or doctrinal position. My presence was being with my friends in their moments of celebration. My presence was entering in to experience their leap of faith to commit their lives to one another. My presence was an expression of my love.

Latin American liberation theologian Jose Miranda says, “Love which is not an acute sense of justice and an authentic suffering with-my-outraged-brother, such love does not transcend. It is satisfied with itself although with its words it denies that it is so; and thus it remains in itself and does not transcend." I want my expression of love to sing with justice – not only the desire for all of my human brothers and sisters to flourish – but the will to make it so. I want my love to transcend beyond my own narcissistic individualism that can so easily focus on merely what is good for “me and mine”. I want my love to reach to any fringe where anyone experiences alienation from God and others to draw them in …. and that means I will weep with those who weep, and I will rejoice with those who rejoice. And I will trust the Holy Spirit to lead all of us to righteousness, to repentance where needed, and to maturity in our discipleship.

A good number of years ago, I was asked by a gay activist whether or not I would attend a gay wedding of friends – and I replied that I would and that I would bring a gift. That comment led some to disown me as a ministry leader and to even question the veracity of my Christian faith. Since then, New Direction has continued to move into a place of generous spaciousness – that makes room for the diversity in conviction of Christians on the question of gay marriage. In my wrestling with God and the text of Scripture, this honouring of our common humanity as image-bearers of God, this prioritizing of relationship and community, this commitment to humble listening and engagement across difference, and this non-negotiable value of hospitality for all and particularly those impoverished for any reason, smells more like Jesus than dogmatic politicized, individualized expressions of black and white certainty on moral questions that have no contextual mirror in the biblical narrative.

But not everyone sees it that way.

One of the ways a sense of space can feel restricted is by an exaggeration of pressure and suffering that those on the extreme ends of this polarized matter express. I recently saw a video of a ministry leader talking about an experience he had with a panel – of which I was a member. In the discussion that night, I was probably one of the more bold voices challenging this leader to consider the implications and consequences of certain philosophies and emphasis in his ministry network. My somewhat-out-of-character confrontational approach that night had everything to do with justice and my sense of what was humanizing and liberating for people based on my experiences in ex-gay ministry and with many ex-gay survivors. For me, it was my love in action. When I heard this ministry leader recounting the experience you would have thought we had all sharpened our pitchforks and were out for blood. But the confrontations that did occur weren’t really about him – they were about justice for those who have felt driven to suppression, denial, shame and repression.

We all like to have our ego’s stroked. And in the Christian community a great way to do that is to share stories of suffering “for the gospel”. But leaders need to have integrity. We need to be honest and resist the temptation to exaggerate to prove our own worth and effort. We need to live simply, humbly and rest in God’s grace.

I would be the first to say that this is hard. When you get a hateful email you want to tell everyone so that they can reassure you, comfort you, and help take away the sting. But this isn’t a justice-love that transcends the self. When someone from within the Body of Christ treats you like crap, you want to expose that for the hypocrisy that it is. But that isn’t a justice-love that transcends the self.

Resisting the lure to become political, to play the power cards, to assert pressure to change …. none of this is easy. But it may be essential for those called to long-term incarnational ministry. Incarnational ministry means I am willing to be misunderstood – and not tweet about it the minute it happens. Incarnational ministry means I do my best to not take offense – when it would feel so much better to vent and rant and rave and let everyone know just how hard-done-by I am. Incarnational ministry means that God’s grace is enough for me.

In many ways it feels like we’re in an accelerated pace on the gay marriage question. As a Canadian, where federal gay marriage has been in place since 2005, you’d think this would be old news. But this isn’t necessarily the case. For many in the Christian community this has continued to be a difficult, contentious, and complex challenge. Rob Bell’s statements from last night may open the door for others to express more openly what they may have been pondering privately for some time. For others, his statements will only serve to alienate, confuse and frighten even more. But in this time of transition and shifts, let us enter the true spirit of compassion – that celebrates with people, that sees justice and love inexplicably intertwined. Let us express ourselves most fully through loving relationship relegating our dogma to secondary status. And let us embody incarnational postures that invite us to honest, humble integrity in private and in public …. so that we will truly carry the winsome fragrance of Jesus Christ into every encounter, conversation, and nook & cranny that God gives us the privilege of engaging.

-wg

Sexual Ethics & Generous Spaciousness: Part 3

2013-03-12T12:42:00.001-04:00

I have decided to take another paper that I wrote for my doctoral program and break it down into several parts for the blog. I have tried to make it a bit more readable - but it will likely still feel a bit academic. I hope, however, that it will cause people to think and start some robust conversations:

Read Part 1 and Part 2

An Ethics of Generous Spaciousness:

In light of my conviction that our sexual ethics must be reflected upon communally and enlivened in our interdependent lives together, acknowledging the reality of diversity in perspective is a critical factor in the development of my thought. The dissonance and lack of integrity and consistency in position is, I believe, eroding the capacity of Christians to think courageously and respond with confidence to our rapidly changing sexual landscape. In the midst of this uncertainty, the public witness to the life-transforming grace of Christ is distorted, particularly in the message to gender and sexual minority persons.

An ethics of generous spaciousness prioritizes a hermeneutic of justice and hospitality in engaging Scripture and tradition. Generous spaciousness views these as overarching themes of the biblical witness. Justice means that all people are treated equitably such that they are valued and extended dignity and respect. Hospitality means that all people are welcomed into the process of reflection, invited to listen, to discern, to wait, and to learn from others.

Generous spaciousness fearlessly opens discussion regarding the resources of reason through disciplines such as biology, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and philosophy. In such discussion, it is acknowledged that there are competing ideas, theories, and interpretations concerning human sexuality. Such acknowledgement creates room for people to differ in their understanding of human sexuality.

Generous spaciousness acknowledges the pervasive role that experience plays in our ethical reflections. Our interaction with other sources, norms, and values is all filtered through the experience we bring to the table. Additionally, we have different experiences of sexuality, of identity, of relationship, of intimacy. Individual experiences are afforded equitable space, not compared or judged against another. There is room to listen for the presence of God in one another’s journeys.

Generous spaciousness acknowledges the patriarchy that pervades the Christian tradition. In corporate engagement with the Christian tradition, practices, norms and mores are considered in their historical context and critiqued in light of the conviction that all people are created in the image of God and there are no hierarchies of person in Jesus Christ.

It is clear, that an ethics of generous spaciousness interacts with these sources governed by a set of values. A primary value is the expectation that ethical reflection will be motivated and energized by love. This is in distinct contrast to reflection that is fueled by fear. Whether studying the scope of the biblical witness, engaging the Christian tradition, wading through the depth and complexity of resources through the academic disciplines, or carefully attending to personal experience, generous spaciousness consistently seeks to draw the community towards reflection that intentionally moves in a spirit of love towards God, oneself, and others. This love manifests itself in very practical ways. Love demonstrates to the other that we see and affirm their value and beauty. Love invests the time to understand what the other believes, why they believe it, how these beliefs are expressed, and why. Love enjoys others by intentionally seeking an authentic point of connection. Love empowers others, in a spirit of mutuality not condescension, in their search for meaning, understanding, and wholeness. Love invites trust and belonging risking the extension of trust and invitation to others. Love is willing to forgive. Each extension of love humanizes those with whom we enter into ethical reflection with. Fear dehumanizes. Love humanizes.

Generous spaciousness values the model of the incarnation as the way to wield power and influence others. Jesus stripped himself of his divine privilege. He emptied himself of his divine power. He chose the power of powerlessness. Ethical reflection in diverse communities values the suspension of privilege in order to experience equity in the discernment process. Voices have the opportunity to be heard regardless of age, gender, race, orientation, role or position. Humility is the preferred posture. Participants acknowledge the limitations of their interpretation of the sources and norms.

Generous spaciousness as a framework for ethical reflection in Christian community expects and relies on the Holy Spirit to guide the journey of discernment. Openness is cultivated as a sign of dependence on God’s leading. Waiting and silence are welcomed as spiritual practices essential to the reflection process.

Application to the Question of Gay Marriage:

It is clear that a framework of generous spaciousness for communal ethical reflection will be rejected by some in the Christian community. Those who refuse to suspend heteronormative privilege will find such a process problematic. Those who insist on biblical authority through proof-texting will find a hermeneutic of justice and hospitality intolerable. Those whose primary concern is to argue which behaviors are immoral and which are moral will find the relational priority of generous spaciousness a profound disconnect. Those who believe experience and spiritual discernment to be too subjective and therefore suspect will be wary of such a process.

Given the values that shape an ethics of generous spaciousness, will this simply exclude all those who hold a traditional view that contraindicates gay marriage? Is generous spaciousness ultimately exclusive despite inclusive language?

In this time of transition and change within the faith community in our struggle to articulate Christian sexual ethics, I believe generous spaciousness holds open an inclusive invitation for those who are willing to engage both their certainties and uncertainties. Generous spaciousness holds the opportunity to experience the suspension of patriarchal bias and heteronormative privilege in a safe environment of mutual respect. Generous spaciousness offers a non-anxious environment where deeply entrenched stereotypes and biases can be revealed and addressed. And generous spaciousness resists a coercive or uniform expectation of conviction.

In this process, a faith community can disagree about the role that gender plays in human reflection of the image of God; disagree about the causation of same-sex attraction; disagree about the permanence or fluidity of sexual orientation; and disagree about the best exegesis of particular texts referring to same-sex sexual activity. But an ethics of generous spaciousness, when applied to the question of gay marriage for Christians, will invite a diverse community to find common ground in its commitment to justice and hospitality; in opposition to patriarchal oppression; in promoting equitable treatment of all persons as having dignity and value; in postures of humility and openness to the Holy Spirit’s leading; and persevering in responding with love rather than fear. This ethical framework leaves room for unanswered questions and differences in perspective. But it nurtures unity in our diversity. An ethics of generous spaciousness acknowledges and welcomes the tension between the autonomy of the individual and the call of mutual connection, accountability, and respect in community.

In practical terms, an ethics of generous spaciousness will guide a community to welcome gay Christians who are married, gay Christians who choose celibacy, and gay Christians in mixed-orientation marriages. An ethics of generous spaciousness will remind a community to demonstrate love and justice for all across differences. A sexual ethics of generous spaciousness will create space for individuals to experience intimate relationships that are mutually respectful, self-giving, humanizing for both partners, and committed to honouring the promises and commitments that have been made. The community will encourage individuals and couples to continue to grow in discernment, mature love, and the commitment to foster justice in and beyond their intimate relationship. Commitment in the community will ensure that disagreements about gender will not manifest through misuse of power. Such disagreements will be framed through exploratory dialogue, ongoing listening, and humble acceptance of plurality in understanding.

Reflection on sexual ethics in our Christian communities must remain open to development, refinement and reformation. An ethics of generous spaciousness is a framework for a church in a time of transition and change. It nurtures space for the individual to wrestle with God and the sources of Scripture, tradition, reason and experience. It draws individuals into community where we recognize our interdependence and the impact of our choices and decisions about our sexual lives. It moves communities forward on the road to equity and justice while avoiding coerced uniformity in understanding. Generous spaciousness recognizes that sexual ethics must be greater than particular black and white, yes or no questions. It embodies justice for all.

-wg

Sexual Ethics & Generous Spaciousness: Part 2

2013-03-11T11:15:00.001-04:00

Read Part 1

Applying Sources and Norms to the Question of Gay Marriage:

Current and contextual ethical reflection recognizes the need to pay attention to all of the contributions that arise from scripture, tradition, reason and experience. Additionally, there is an acceptance and expectation that conflicts will arise among these sources and that good ethical reflection will do the rigorous work necessary to resolve such conflicts.[1] Each of these sources has a unique offering for the ethical task but also has limitations and weaknesses as well.

Experience:

In the Evangelical community there is a typical suspicion of the source of experience. The subjective nature of lived experience can lead to accusations of manipulation and self-deception along with a general sense of the untrustworthiness of human intuition and perception. The idea that experience is the lens through which we discern truth would ring heretical to many Evangelical ears. Given this filter, it is not difficult to understand why the lived reality of LGBT sisters and brothers can be dismissed or minimized in the ethical task. Margaret Farley reminds us that experience is “an important part of the content of each of the other sources, and it is always a factor in interpreting others.”[2] The idea that one is following “pure Scripture” refuses to recognize that there is no application of Scripture without interpretation. And interpretation is affected by our experience. So while Evangelicals may remain suspicious of lived experience, they may also fail to consider the ways that experience colours their perspectives on matters of sexual ethics. This is particularly true if they are reflecting on matters that do not affect them personally. It is critical to recognize the ways that social norms influence our interpretation of sexual experiences. Farley says, “Publicly provided norms, whether religious or secular, have shaped experiences so that, for example, sex is sometimes experienced as evil precisely because it has been socially interpreted as evil; sex has sometimes bee experienced as deviant because it has been identified and treated as deviant; sex has been experienced as not open to communion with God because it has been interpreted as without this possibility.”[3]

A critical question raised by the source of experience is that of authority. Given the reality of social construction, experience is never pure or universal and its authority can seem to be lost in translation. Farley shares important guiding criteria for the use of experience in moral discernment: “coherence of the insights from experience with general moral norms; intelligibility of accounts of experience in relation to fundamental beliefs; mutual illumination when measured with other sources of moral insight; harmful or helpful consequences of interpretations of experience; confirmation in a community of discernment; and integrity in the testimony of those who present their experiences.”[4]

When we consider general moral norms in light of the question of gay marriage, several key issues need to be addressed. There is dispute between those holding a traditional view and those who hold a progressive view as to what these norms ought to be. One key norm is to “do no harm”. This is consistent with the call to ensure there is no coercion, violence, or misuse of power in the relationship. The witness of many gay Christians who have entered a marriage or covenant union is one of personal well-being and positive contribution to neighborhoods and faith communities. In fact, some gay Christians share that prior to being open to entering a marriage relationship all of their spiritual and emotional energy was invested in themselves as they sought to maintain celibacy or strive to attain some level of bisexual functioning. Once married, they were able to become more fully engaged in serving and contributing to the lives of others because their angst over their identity and pain from their isolation had ceased. Experiencing love in intimate covenant relationship freed the partners to express self-giving love to one another and in their communities.

Another norm to consider is that of mutual respect. This norm is connected to the commitment to fidelity as mutually agreed upon by equitable partners. Ethical reflection in Christian context considers this norm as an intrinsic attribute of God and the gift and responsibility of human beings to image God in our relationships. One of the arguments that opposes gay marriage has to do with the assumption of infidelity in gay relationships. The experience of gay Christians, as I have had the privilege of hearing their stories of their own lives and the lives of other gay Christian friends, is a dedication to the expression of mutual respect through the keeping of covenant promises that include sexual fidelity. In Norman Pittenger’s interpretation of marriage we see that, “Marriage is the intimate and faithful communion of two covenanted and embodied persons. What is distinctive about this relationship compared to other types of human relationships, is that through its promises and through the radical and intimate self-giving and receiving a sacramental quality emerges – a distinctive participation in the divine Love.”[5] The experience of married gay Christian couples is shared through stories of long-term committed relationships that embody mutuality, respect, and self-giving love that spills over from the relationship to the community they participate in. Such stories encompass journeys of maturing in faith, the fruits of the Spirit, the desire and action to serve and works towards justice and shalom for the common good.

Questions for reflection: What additional norms might you add in consideration of sexual ethics? What might the implications be for a question like gay marriage?

Tradition:

If there are challenges to applying experience to the process of ethical reflection, the role of tradition is no less problematic. Stephen Barton warns against trying to harmonize the various streams of church tradition. But he also rightly challenges us to resist belittling or ignoring tradition either. He says, “They represent the attempts of Christian individuals and communities in times past and present to develop a good and more godly family and social order.[6]

Feminist theology, in particular, helps to expose oppression in the Christian tradition as it impacts sexual ethics. Ellison says, “The marriage debate is complicated and made more difficult because the dominant Christian tradition suffers from two major deficits when it comes to sexuality and relational intimacy: first, a noticeable ambivalence, if not outright hostility, toward sex, and second, a longstanding patriarchal bias.”[7] Ellison goes on to clarify that the patriarchal construct is based on gendered roles of “domination and submission, authority and dependence.” Because of these unjust power structures, Ellison would maintain that the tradition ought not be defended or preserved but rather critiqued and deconstructed.

Question for reflection: What do you think about the claim that the Christian tradition contains a partriarchal bias? What impact might such a claim make on your view of biblical interpretation? What impact might such a claim make on your understanding of gender and sexuality?

Reason:

There is much complexity and controversy that continues to surround the notion of sexual orientation, sexual identity, and gender itself. On one hand, Ellison reminds us that, “the impetus for reforming Christian sexual ethics has come not from inside the tradition, but from two outside sources: first, from the social and natural sciences, with their fresh insights about human diversity and psycho-sexual development and, second, from social justice movements and the moral wisdom emerging from especially the feminist, LGBTQ, and anti-racism movements, but also the disability rights movement, the anti-violence movement among survivors of sexual and domestic abuse, and the ecological movement with its nondualistic framework and holistic appreciation of relational systems.”[8] On the other hand, social construction and deconstruction, sexual fluidity, and the entire notion of queer (with its nondefinitive sense of inclusion), raises questions for many entrenched in a heteronormative paradigm concerning the legitimacy of gender and sexual minorities as a people group. This battle reached its peak in the 1990’s when the culture wars over causation were fought from the academy through to the popular talk show of the day. Joseph Nicolosi, former president of the National Association for Reparative Therapy of Homosexuality, was fond of saying, “There is no such thing as a homosexual, there are only heterosexuals with a homosexual problem.”[9] “Sexual dimorphism assumes that biological sex, viewed essentially in terms of reproductive function, determines not only psychological identity (genderized identity of femininity and masculinity), but also a person’s preferred social role and, importantly, object of sexual desire. This paradigm naturalizes reproductive heterosexuality and presumes that if human sexual development proceeds on track, then a “normal” adult person will be sexually attracted to an adult of the “opposite” sex.”[10]

Ellison presents an “alternative paradigm that challenges the dichotomous gender assumptions at the core of the reigning paradigm and argues that the biological distinctions between male and female have been overdrawn, are matters of degree, not kind, and are not always clear-cut; that the various indicators (chromosomal, hormonal, anatomical, psychological, social) employed to differentiate sexual identity are sometimes ambiguous and, even when clear, do not necessarily cohere in a single developmental pattern; that social roles and erotic attractions are diverse and not predictable by sex/gender (psychology does not follow biology lock-step); and that the distinctions between normality and deviance (perversion) are cultural and moral judgments, not scientific.”[11]

Reflection on sexual ethics in the Christian context must take seriously the reality that gender and sexuality are more complex and diverse than the Christian tradition ever imagined. Our intersex sisters and brothers provide a concrete example of the complexity that must be navigated in order to extend honour, dignity, and equitable opportunity to experience intimate relational love to all God’s children.

Questions for reflection: What weight does your understanding of gender play in your ethical reflections on sexuality? How do you make room in your reflections to consider the impact of social construction on gender?

Scripture:

If six or seven verses that hold no positive witness to covenanted same-sex love may be inadequate to guide us due to notions of homosexuality that are “obscure, mistaken, or irrelevant to the contemporary debates about same-sex love”,[12] then how are we to read and engage Scripture? What is a helpful hermeneutic to guide our ethical reflection?

Johanna W.H. van Wijk-Bos wrestles with the authority of the biblical text by suggesting that the reader must understand that the text “exceeds the sum of its patriarchal parts.”[13] She further concludes that a hermeneutic that exposes such prejudices must be employed to ensure that we are consistently biblical in our reflections. Such consistency must run through the course of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. Those with a progressive view of Christian sexual ethics make justice their hermeneutic. For example, the 1991 Presbyterian study, “Keeping Body and Soul Together” declares that the “great moral divide is between justice and injustice.”[14] For those who affirm Christian sexual ethics that prioritize justice, the emphasis is to “not focus their attention on asking whether homosexuality is biblically warranted, but rather on whether the devaluing, disrespect, and mistreatment of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender persons are, in any way, in alignment with the core biblical mandate to seek justice, honor the stranger, and protect the vulnerable and marginalized.”[15]

Application of the hermeneutic of justice is strongly criticized. David Jensen suggests that this hermeneutic views Scripture as “insufficient, outmoded, or oppressive” on matters of sexuality. He claims that Scripture is engaged with suspicion, rendering any literal reading of the Bible unacceptable, and marginalizing Scripture with its critique of the lack of erotic justice.[16]

The tensions and differences in how we interpret and engage Scripture have been and will be a consistent reality among Christians. How then can we construct a sexual ethics that are vibrantly Christian and will serve such a diverse church? Sexologist, William Stayton says that the “two sexual theologies cannot be reconciled or integrated.”[17] Here he speaks of a system that judges specific acts to be immoral or moral and appeals to biblical authority for this immutable code. The contrasting system is one that is focused on the integrity and vitality of relationships. Stayton, after many years of ministry and clinical practice, suggests that many in conservative churches publicly proclaim the first system, but privately make their decisions on relationally based system that seems to resonate with their reality. Such a disconnect in understanding their own lives may render many in the church unable to enter the tension and complexity and uncertainty that are an inevitable reality in the journey of risking to reflect more deeply on the framework that undergirds our sense of sexual ethics.

Questions for reflection: What do you do when your ethical system seems to be disconnected from your own and / or others' lived reality?

Next post: So what does a sexual ethics of generous spaciousness look like?

-wg

[1] Farley p.182

[2] Ibid. p.190

[3] Ibid. p.190

[4] Ibid. p.194

[5]James Nelson. “Embodiment: an approach to sexuality and Christian theology” Augsburg Pub. 1978 p.136

[6] Stephen Barton in “Christian Perspectives on Sexuality and Gender” ed. Thatcher and Stuart p. 460

[7] Ellison et. al. eds. “Heterosexism in Contemporary World Religion” Pilgrim Press 2007 p.39

[8] Marvin Ellison. “Making Love Just” Fortress Press 2012 p.18

[9] I was witness to this statement at a conference where he was speaking in 2002.

[10] Ellison “Making Love Just” p.20

[11] Ellison “Making Love Just” p.20

[12] Ellison “Heterosexism in Contemporary World Religion” p.55

[13] Johanna W.H. van Wijk-Bos “How to Read What We Read” p.63 In “Body and Soul: Rethinking Sexuality as Justice-Love”

[14] Presbyterians and Human Sexuality 1991

[15] Ibid. p.55

[16]David H. Jenson. The Embrace of Eros: Bodies, Desires, and Sexuality in Christianity ed. Margaret Kamitsuka (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010) p. 19

[17] William R. Stayton, “Sexual Value Systems and Sexual Health,” in Sexual Health: Moral and Cultural Foundations, vol. 3¸ed. Michell S. Tepper and Annette Fuglsang Owens (Westport, CT:Praeger¸2007) p.81

Sexual Ethics & Generous Spaciousness: Part 1

2013-03-09T10:52:00.000-05:00

Ethical reflection within a framework of faith in Jesus Christ is appropriately an evolving practice. Christians who truly seek to follow the way of Christ will recognize that this way is never static or formulaic. The way of Christ is always contextual and always open to the ongoing revelation of God’s story in our day and in our time. Jesus promised the coming of the Holy Spirit who would continue to reveal, lead and guide his followers. That this impacts our ethical reflection should come as no surprise or threat to those who recognize that this truth we seek to embody in our Christian faith is found in a person, not a proposition, and found through dynamic relationship, not rigid laws.

If this is the case with ethics in general, it is all the more so when it comes to reflection on sexual ethics. God’s interaction with people through the stories revealed from Genesis to Revelation presents a variety of sexual mores, customs and practices. The Biblical witness fails to present one permanent, universal sexual ethic. Walter Wink says, “The Bible has no sexual ethic. Instead, it exhibits a variety of sexual mores, some of which changed over the thousand year span of biblical history. The Bible only knows a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in any given country, or culture, or period.”[1]

Many who profess Christian faith, however, do proclaim one sexual ethic. It can be summarized as the conviction that marriage is to be between one man and one woman for life, marriage is the only appropriate context for sexual intimacy, and any sexual expression outside of this context is immoral. This sexual ethic has been the backdrop for the shaming, exclusion and marginalized status of those who are single, divorced, or outside of the heterosexual majority.

Human beings, unique in all of creation, were created in the image of God. They were created out of the outpouring of self-giving love flowing from the relationship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The image of God, therefore, is essentially relational and expressed through love. This draw to intimacy is an intrinsic part of being human. And unlike the angels, human beings were created with an embodied reality. Our bodies matter. And it is through our bodies that the image of God, this draw to relational, loving intimacy is expressed. All humans are sexual beings. All humans seek to overcome aloneness, the one thing the Creator deemed “not good” in the perfect creation, through embodied expression of relational love. “Sexual love, like all love, gives rise to and is the ground of desire – for fuller union with, and greater affirmation of, the beloved.”[2] The question that arises with the traditional expression of a Christian sexual ethic is that it fails to consider the implications of this image of God for those who do not find themselves in a life-long marriage with a spouse of the opposite gender. God’s movement towards creation is always particular and distinct. God counts the hairs on our heads, he knows us by name. Jesus exemplified living by the spirit, not the letter, of the law. Jesus discerned the application of God’s word in each unique circumstance never relying on stereotypes or generalizations. This is especially critical to bear in mind when considering the implications of gender and sexuality in ethical reflection in the Christian context given the history of patriarchy throughout the Christian tradition. As an example, James Nelson captures both the strength and weakness of Karl Barth’s theology of marriage saying, “The two-fold strengths of Barth’s approach are indeed of central importance: that we are created not as solitary selves but as beings-in-relationship, destined for communion; and that sexuality is intrinsic to and not accidental to our capacity for such co-humanity….. Either his interpretation of the image of God makes a woman’s humanity crucially dependent upon her husband’s masculinity and the husband’s upon his wife’s femininity, or it makes their humanity dependent upon heterosexual genital intercourse, or both. In so doing, Barth’s interpretation subtly but surely rests on either sex role stereotypes or on the genitalization of sexuality, and probably on both. And in so doing it unfortunately has squarely linked the doctrine of the image of God with the alienated dimensions of our sexuality.”[3]

In today’s context, there is greater familiarity with the reality of individuals who experience enduring orientation to be emotionally, spiritually, relationally and sexually completed by someone of their own sex. While there continue to be many unanswered questions and much complexity concerning sexual orientation and gender expression, what is clear is that there are children of God who are drawn to image their Maker through covenanted relationship with someone of their own sex. As Christians from a variety of theological backgrounds learn through relationship with LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) individuals, there is much diversity in perspective on the question of whether or not gay marriage is an appropriate expression of Christian discipleship. The traditional sexual ethic perpetuates polarity and enmity among Christians through its insistence of one permanent and established ethic as the only correct way to interpret and engage the Biblical witness. Faithfulness requires openness to continue to wrestle with the implications of Scripture, tradition, reason, and lived experience in the ongoing construction of sexual ethics that can serve the reality of a diverse Body of Christ.

The question of gay marriage for Christians is one that impacts Christ-followers throughout the world whether they are queer or not. Just as God is in essence relational, human beings are created interdependently. Desmond Tutu has said it well when explaining the concept of ubuntu, “If I diminish you, I diminish myself.”[4] If the church is not able to openly consider the development of sexual ethics that include the reality of our LGBT sisters and brothers, the church continues its participation in the exclusion and marginalization of gender and sexual minority individuals. Such exclusion, as imperceptible as it may seem to some, erodes the capacity of the church to celebrate and nurture human wholeness and flourishing. It is true, of course, that human beings do not need to experience sexual intercourse to live a full life. Jesus modeled that well. Farley says, “To say that we are incomplete in ourselves does not mean that we are “halves” of persons who will be “whole” only when we find our gendered complement. We may indeed long for union with another, for a kind of wholeness that comes from both a profound love and a sharing of our lives. Gender by itself has never guaranteed we will find what we seek.”[5] A question to be grappled with is whether the traditional sexual ethic adequately considers the legitimate need to experience the companionship, belonging, establishment of family, and intimacy that covenanted relationships offer to all, regardless of sexual orientation. Sexual ethics that deeply consider and honour the humanity of gender and sexual minority individuals is essential for human flourishing in our churches and communities.

The perception that traditional church teaching excludes queer people from intimate relationships is an incredible barrier to the development of mature faith for all who are or know and love LGBT people. Many individuals I speak with cannot necessarily theologically explain why this sense of injustice overrides fear of God or the church, but it is sufficiently powerful for them to walk away from established Christianity. It is my assertion that human beings, through God’s gift of natural revelation, know something of God’s relational character and balk at the thought of a group of people seemingly arbitrarily being excluded from this essential life experience. Literalist interpretive justification such as, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it” carries very little weight to those who in their gut believe that excluding LGBT people from the potential for covenanted, consummated love is intrinsically unjust and inconsistent with a belief that God is love. “The biblical witness, in particular, claims to present truths that will heal us, make us whole; that will free us, not enslave us to what violates our very sense of truth and justice…. As a revelation of truth, it asks for something less like a submission of will and more like an opening of the imagination – and hence the whole mind and heart. In its own terms, then, it cannot be believed unless it “rings true” to our deepest capacity for truth and goodness.”[6] Christians are called to address their internal anxiety and enter the dialogue about just and inclusive sexual ethics because it is a matter that is deeply maligning Christian witness and impeding the resonance of what seems true and good with the perceived expression of the Christian religion.

Grappling with the question of gay marriage for Christians exposes power structures and misuse of status and privilege that is rampant within the church. When one considers the perspicuity of Scripture, it is clear that God’s story demonstrates that there is a way for all of creation to be reconciled to God through Jesus Christ. It is also clear that God calls humanity to join in the work of ensuring shalom for all, creating an environment of justice where all can flourish. The Incarnation demonstrates God’s strategy of stripping power and privilege to undo the powers and principalities that undermine and oppose God’s justice and love for the world. This power of powerlessness reveals the movement towards reconciliation and redemption of all things. Engaging in reflection on the ethical question of gay marriage quickly reveals where privilege and power have become entrenched strongholds that are impeding the church from fulfilling its call to be a blessing for the common good.

Finally, ethical reflection on gay marriage will reveal the reality of diversity in our Christian community. When one considers the sources that undergird ethical reflection, it is not difficult to see why there would be such diverse perspectives. Our engagement with Scripture from exegesis through to hermeneutics is based on differing frameworks and different priorities. Consideration of tradition may emphasize various streams of thought. In the area of reason, there are many competing theories about the formation and construction of sexuality from such disciplines as biology, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and philosophy. And the arena of experience is afforded different weight and is itself, incredibly diverse. Such diversity is a given. The expectation that Christian ethical reflection will lead to uniformity in the expression of sexual ethics is unhelpful. Rather, the construction of a framework of sexual ethics that will be of practical use to Christians in a pluralistic context will anticipate and acknowledge this reality of diversity. Sexual ethics that only communicate an ideal will be of little communal use where the navigation of disagreement is a given.

In the following posts, I will seek to reflect on a sexual ethics of generous spaciousness. The articulation of this framework prioritizes the interdependence of our human communal life, the consideration of the public witness of the church, the call to a strategy of incarnational powerlessness, and the acknowledgment of the diversity in perspectives within the church. As an advocate for the flourishing of life and faith among LGBT sisters and brothers, it is my hope that a sexual ethics of generous spaciousness will encourage and affirm their deepest humanity as they find themselves in diverse communities.

-wg

[1] Walter Wink. “Homosexuality and the Christian Faith” Augsburg Fortress 1999 p.44

[2] Margaret A. Farley. “Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics.” Continuum International Pub. 2006 p.171

[3] James Nelson. “Embodiment: an approach to sexuality and Christian theology” Augsburg Pub. 1978 p.136

[4] Gandhi, M., Tutu, D. “Peace: The Words and Inspiration of Mahatma Gandhi” Blue Mountain Arts, Inc. 2007

[5] Farley. p.157

[6] Farley p.195

The Place of Lived-Experience

2013-03-05T21:51:00.000-05:00

One of the questions that came up from my “Starting Point” series was about the place of lived experience. That particular series focused particularly on theological starting point based on different emphasis in scriptural interpretation. However, throughout church history, leaders have acknowledged that we should make use of several different sources as we try to interpret and discern the best perspective to hold on a controversial matter. Scripture is often cited, by Christians, as the primary source. John Wesley talked about a three legged stool – with scripture being the seat. The other three sources are: tradition, reason and experience.

Many evangelicals tend to be wary of experience. It is typical to hear statements like, “You can’t rely on your feelings.” There seems to be a fear about the subjectivity of our own experience. And, it is true that human beings tend to be masters at self-deception. We can convince ourselves of all kinds of things that will lead to our own comfort and benefit – even if our conscience might twitch a bit.

But is this resistance to allow our experience to speak to us warranted – or is it evidence of the degree to which our fear has caused artificial compartmentalization within us? How many Christians have felt in their gut that something seems right – but the fear of judgment kept them from exploring a new and different way of living?

The reality is, that when we consider the four sources from which Christians draw to interpret and discern, experience impacts the way we engage the other three. Our experience, including what we’ve been taught and seen modeled for us, impacts how we engage scripture. And no matter how amazing the pastors, leaders, and teachers in our lives have been – no one is a perfect interpreter of scripture. All human beings must be willing to humbly acknowledge that they could be wrong – since no one apprehends perfectly. Our interaction with the disciplines of reason – philosophy, anthropology, psychology, sociology, biology etc. – are also all impacted by our experience – what we’ve learned, what we’ve read, which scholars have influenced us. And the impact of tradition is clearly filtered through our experience – what church we grew up in, where our pastor went to seminary, what authors were recommended to us.

The idea that we can get away from the subjectivity of our experience is a fallacy. And the idea that we can argue away a person’s lived experience is also a fallacy. As much as we love to be in control and on top of things – the wild card that our experience is forces all of us to live with some mystery, uncertainty, and the potential of unanswered questions.

That is why our stories matter. And that is why our stories make people nervous. Stories can feel, at times, to be manipulative to those who are primarily concerned with coloring in the lines. That’s because stories impact us. They touch our emotions and our spirits. One pastor, who was very focused on trying to ensure that people in the church remained in opposition to gay marriage told me, “You have to be careful to not love people too much. Loving people changes you.” This statement screamed of a fear that experience – through love – would create an openness to others that couldn’t be trusted.

But …. If we actually look at the lives of some of our most esteemed biblical characters – we will see that they colored outside of the lines in dramatic and transformational ways. We will see that their experience of God took them way outside the common understanding and expectation of their day.

Consider these words from Richard Rohr:

Experience Trumping any Scripture or Tradition:

Kingdom people are history makers. They break through the small kingdoms of this world to an alternative and much larger world, God’s full creation. People who are still living in the false self are history stoppers. They use God and religion to protect their own status and the status quo of the world that sustains them. They are often fearful people, the nice, proper folks of every age who think like everybody else thinks and have no power to break through, or as Jesus’ opening words state, “to change” (Mark 1:15, Matthew 4:17) and move beyond their small agenda. Courage is certainly the foundational virtue. Without it, faith, love, and hope do not happen. It takes immense courage to trust your own experience, and to be willing to pay the price if you are wrong. And you might just be!

Yet why do we piously admire kingdom people like Mary and Joseph, and then not imitate their faith journeys, their courage, their non-reassurance by any religious system? These were two uneducated laypeople who totally trusted their inner experience of God (angels and stars) and who followed these to Bethlehem and beyond. Mary and Joseph walked in courage and blind faith that their own experience was true—with no one to reassure them they were right. Their only safety net was God’s love and mercy, a safety net they must have tried out many times or else they would never have been able to fall into it so gracefully.

Adapted from Preparing for Christmas with Richard Rohr, pp. 66-68

As the church wrestles with the reality of diversity on a question like gay marriage for Christians, let us remember how God uses people’s experience to lead and guide them into new and fresh revelation of his working in a particular time and place and people. We can trust that the Holy Spirit will help us discern. We do not need to be afraid. As we love, as we enter another’s story, as we listen …. we can trust that Jesus is more than able to reveal himself to us ….. and perhaps we ought not to be so surprised if it seems he is revealing himself as lavish in love and grace and mercy. And when it sounds too good to be true …. that is because the mystery of God’s outrageous grace and unconditional love is more than we could ever ask or imagine!

-wg

No Position?

2013-03-04T17:13:00.000-05:00

Last night we had a small group of people gather to hear the story and journey of New Direction. I was asked a fantastic question, one that I have pondered a fair bit. The questioner inquired about the trajectory and future of New Direction. He talked about the race issue and the implications of generous spaciousness ….. musing that at some point you wouldn’t want generous spaciousness to include the position that would continue to relegate people of colour to the back of the bus. He wanted to know whether generous spaciousness was a temporary posture – and one that would give way to a fully and completely affirming perspective – challenging any other position.

This is a great question – it demonstrates a real wrestling with matters of justice and equity and what generous spaciousness really means – and what it creates space for. Clearly, generous spaciousness is not meant to be a shelter for injustice or the perpetuation of inequity of persons. There is a commitment to honouring our interdependence as persons with the understanding that “If I diminish you, I diminish myself.” In light of that, if someone truly holds convictions that differ from mine – held without fear, anger, prejudice or shame – then I want to ensure that they have the space to hold those convictions in alignment with their conscience.

The challenge with the topic of same-sex sexuality is that it is not a perfect parallel to the issues around race and racism. While there may be similar issues around status, privilege, equity and justice – they are also distinct and can’t be spoken about as if they are exactly the same. One of the ways I have viewed this reality is to think about it as somewhere between an issue like race and an issue like women in ministry. As I’ve written about before, as a woman in ministry I encounter people who believe that women should not be allowed to preach or teach. Some of these people may hold these beliefs because of internalizing a patriarchal system the views women as less than men. I believe the system of patriarchy must be addressed and dismantled – because I think it is in contradiction to what scripture tells me about who I am as a woman who is a child of God and created in God’s image. But there are people who do not hold these convictions because of patriarchy – but because of the way they approach and engage with scripture. They believe, sometimes with some degree of pain, that women ought not to teach and preach or lead because of the way they interpret particular passages of scripture. While I might disagree with them, I believe that scripture calls me to honour them and their convictions.

With the topic of same-sex sexuality I think there are some non-negotiables that need to be addressed. Sexual minority persons are not second class citizens in any way. They are children of God, created in God’s image. They deserve to be honoured with the same dignity and respect of any other human being. The ground is level at the foot of the cross where every human being needs God’s grace. Every human being has been given free will and a conscience and the gift of exercising these things. Therefore, coercion, violence, pressure, shame, rejection ought never be used to try to get people to believe what you believe. If it is God’s kindness that is to lead us to repentance, then we ought to entrust people to God and respond to them, despite differences, with kindness and love. If God refuses to turn us into robots to guarantee that we will believe the right things and follow his ways, then we ought not try to control someone’s behaviours or beliefs either.

But what about those who deeply believe that gay marriage cannot honour God or receive his blessing? Is this belief, based on someone’s best reading of scripture, inherently controlling, shame-based, fear-driven, or disrespectful to gay people? Some might say yes – that this belief is unjust and that we will reach a time in the (near) future when this is even clearer than it is today. For me, I am compelled by the lives of disciples that I know who are gay and deeply convicted and committed to living a celibate life. This isn’t just straight people reading the bible and conveniently demanding uniform celibacy for an entire group of people. These are gay Christians who have done thorough study, who accept the reality of their same-sex orientation, who find their security in being the Beloved of God – who also believe that scripture compels them to be committed to live a celibate life. Who am I to insinuate that they are in opposition to the path of justice? Rather, I find myself compelled to ensure that as they may find themselves more often in the minority among other gay Christians, that they experience a safe and spacious place where their consciences are honoured, where they are encouraged to live in alignment with their convictions, and where I am postured to listen and learn from their journey with Christ as a mutual pilgrim with them. (This could be similarly applied to those who experience same-sex attraction but who are deeply committed to their opposite gender spouse and family.)

Generous spaciousness is committed to a trajectory of justice and equity. The kind of space we want to nurture views all people as loved and valued by God. God, through Christ, has broken dividing walls. Generous spaciousness also recognizes that people committed to Jesus Christ and committed to the authority of the scriptures do come to different convictions on the matter of gay marriage. Generous spaciousness focuses on the question, “Given this diversity, how now shall we live together?”

There is a lot of pressure in this whole conversation however. For someone to believe that God will not bless or honour the commitment of a same-sex couple in a marriage relationship can seem to be unjust – especially if they are straight and perhaps married themselves. There are no simple easy answers. Anyone who is a Christian needs to wrestle with these challenging matters. I believe it is incumbent upon any Christian to do their homework and understand why they believe what they believe and to think very deeply about the way Christ would have them express what they believe. I think they also need to humbly and openly consider what others believe and why they believe it – and have the grace to see the ways that those they disagree with are also seeking God’s face through earnest and faithful engagement with the scriptures.

One of the things I am encountering more and more in response to this difficult matter is people who simply say, “I don’t have a position.” I can totally understand why people say this. The minute you express your convictions on this matter all kinds of assumptions can be made. And often, once you declare your position the conversation shuts down pretty quickly. Either the person who asked you agrees with you – so there isn’t much else to say – or they disagree with you – and unless the two of you want to get into one of those exhausting debates (which many of us are thoroughly sick and tired of) then there isn’t much more to talk about either. I find that the people who say, “I don’t have a position” are usually those who hope to actually be able to engage in some conversation about the matter. That, and they hope that this will be a way to prevent offending someone.

That isn’t what Wes and I encountered yesterday. We spoke at a Baptist church and Wes shared about being a gay Christian – though he did not reveal whether he was or wasn’t open to a same-sex relationship. I had made it clear in my message that we were not there to promote or defend a particular theological, moral position (that was the job of their local pastor and leadership team) but that we were there to encourage them to a deeper commitment to incarnational ministry with those who may be different from them or disagree with them. A lot of people were tracking with us, and many thanked us after the service, some with tears in their eyes. But there were a couple of men who became very insistent in demanding to know what our position was. They were pretty sure that based on what we said that we were affirming of same-sex “practicing” (as they called it). We explained that at New Direction we acknowledge that Christians disagree about this matter – and that we wanted to create space for people to wrestle with God and scripture and to own their convictions and live in alignment with their conscience – and that our focus was to encourage them in their walk with Christ with the confidence that the Holy Spirit could be trusted to lead them and us in all truth and righteousness. Their anxiety was palpable. They did not have the capacity for a conversation. They just wanted to know the black and white answer to what our personal position was. We attempted to open the conversation in a number of different ways but they simply became more frustrated and more insistent on knowing what our personal position was. In the end, they left with a pretty intense emotional weight hanging in the air.

I have sometimes encountered people who say “we have no position” whose contribution in conversation reveals that they do have a position – they just don’t want to say so. While I understand that they may say that to open the conversation – for anyone who has any experience in this conversation, they will sniff out their real position pretty quickly. In this case, the “we have no position” isn’t viewed very favorably – because it seems like a cheap attempt at an easy way out of owning the position that is held. It can feel like a bait and switch. "Let’s be friends, I have no position" ….. but as time goes by it is pretty clear that there is a position and that there isn’t room to belong on an equal footing and to differ from that position. This can be really frustrating because investing time and energy in relationship only to discover later that there isn’t really room to experience equity if there is disagreement can feel devaluing. It can feel like the person who said “I have no position” was really just banking on persuading you that their position was correct so that everything would be alright in the end. When this doesn’t happen people get hurt. This is especially true if a pastor says, "we have no position" but their real position is that gay people can experience transformation including the capacity to enter a heterosexual marriage. If the pastor is straight and married this can seem especially underhanded. And if the pastor has not familiarized himself with the reality of ex-gay survivor narratives and the research that indicates orientation change is extremely rare and attempts to change someone's orientation can be harmful, there can be an understandable response of cynicism, bitterness and resentment and a real sense of betrayal and mistrust of the church.

I think the only real way you can say, “We have no position” is to acknowledge that there are faithful Christians who take the bible seriously who come to different positions. For example, if a church invites me to preach and says, “We have no position on women in ministry”- I will need to know upfront if my preaching there is going to cause a problem or conflict for the congregation. I need to know if I accept this invitation am I going to get a call in a couple of weeks saying, “Sorry, we actually can’t have you come because our community can’t support women in the pulpit.” If a church invites me to come and says, “We acknowledge that Christians disagree about women in ministry – and our members who do not support women in ministry are given the space to choose whether to attend or not attend when you preach” that is a different story. It might not be as ideal as going to a place that is fully supportive of women in ministry – but at least I know that there has been honest discussion and that I can go and offer my gifts and service with the confidence that it will be a relatively safe space for me. But if a church says, “We have no position – but please come” and I go and discover that really they disagree with women in ministry and just invited me so that they could try to convince me that I’m wrong to get into the pulpit – that is NOT ok.

But, I think that is what some pastors and ministries are trying to do to gay people. They say, “we have no position” to try to seem invitational – but when the rubber hits the road the gay person realizes that the pastor or ministry is expecting them to submit to some kind of healing process or expectation of transformation or they will find that they are not able to serve or contribute unless they agree with the position that celibacy is the only option for gay Christians. This is NOT ok.

New Direction skirts a pretty fine line, I realize. We sort of fit into that “no position” description. Wes and I do not talk about our personal position on gay marriage for Christians. That isn’t the point of our ministry. And we know that as soon as we do reveal our personal positions conversation can shut down or people who disagree with our personal positions can simply write-off what we are saying about the church nurturing hospitable space and engaging in incarnational ministry. But, we don’t have a hidden agenda either. We aren’t trying to convince a church to adopt this or that theological position. We come into a church with the understanding that we will honour their position and work within the boundaries of that. And for gay people, because we acknowledge that faithful Christians disagree – we nurture safe spaces that don’t hold a hidden “gotcha” later. A gay Christian can connect with us in the confidence that our clear priority is that they have every opportunity to explore and grow in their faith in Jesus Christ. We aren’t going to break off relationship based on their convictions about gay marriage. We are going to keep on walking together, growing in our capacity to follow Jesus in alignment with our conscience and convictions.

Unlike issues around race, I believe that questions around same-sex sexuality are a disputable matter. That is why generous spaciousness is so important. Through generous spaciousness we can promote justice and equity as non-negotiables within the context of different convictions. We can expose the energies and motivations that are inconsistent with the character of God. We can experience freedom from control, coercion, violence, shame, fear, anger, rage, malice, slander …. and we can welcome humility, grace, patience, forgiveness, kindness, gentleness, self-control, hope, faith, and love. For these are the things that will remain – when we see Jesus face-to-face and fully understand what his heart was regarding these matters – it will be those virtues and fruits of the Spirit that remain. And that is what generous spaciousness is all about.

-wg

What's your Starting Point? Part 4

2013-03-01T06:00:00.000-05:00

I have decided to take one of the papers that I wrote for my doctoral program and break it down into several parts for the blog. I have tried to make it a bit more readable - but it will likely still feel a bit academic. I hope, however, that it will cause people to think and start some robust conversations:

Read Part 1 and Part 2 and Part 3

Concluding Reflections:

Many Christians from both Catholic and Protestant traditions have inherited a theology of sexuality that is constructed from a creation order starting point. The primary focus of such a starting point is the differentiation between male and female. The concept of complementary persons coming together in one flesh union as part of the mystery of humans imaging God is an inherent core in this theological system. Such an understanding is supported by reflection on the Genesis creation accounts, and as we see in “Theology of Body” strengthened by Jesus’ assertion of the implications of these narratives in his response to questions about divorce. This theological understanding has served the church well through many generations where the dominant theological emphasis fit the experience of the majority of people.

As the voices of those on the margins, whose experience of both gender and sexuality differ from the majority experience, are increasingly heard, there has been much strife and turmoil within the church. Where a theology of sexuality constructed on the binary of male and female is upheld as the only authoritative way to assess the questions from those on the margins, there is little room for accommodation of grace for diverse experience. Because it is often so threatening to conceive of things from a different starting point, alternative theologies can be caricaturized as simply “twisting Scripture to make it say what you want it to say”. Indeed, if one starting point is viewed as the only authoritative way to engage Scripture, then any alternative reading is suspect. Often, the result is to not only seek to disprove and discredit such readings, but also at times to demonize those who promote a different interpretive framework.

This polarity and enmity, however, is eroding the integrity of the unity of the Body of Christ. It is destroying our witness in a pluralistic, post-Christian, and LGBTQ-positive culture. And it is alienating the population of people who do not fit binary categories of male or female or heterosexual.

By raising the critique of a singular focus on the Genesis narratives to construct a theology of sexuality, I am not seeking to discount this as a valid theological starting point. Rather, by considering the implications of some of the historical and biological findings that point to the potential that the Genesis narrative is literary rather than literal, my hope is to demonstrate that it is important to at least open the possibility that we may need the resources from alternative starting points in the construction of a theology of sexuality that remains faithfully engaged with the Biblical story and yet is enlarged in its capacity to address our current contextual realities.

The deconstruction of social categories of gender and sexuality raise many concerns for Christians. However, when we are willing to consider the largeness of God, the ways his movement towards us is based not on binary gender categories, but on the overflow of self-giving love, we may discover a generous spaciousness in which we can hear the encounters and engagement with God of those on the margins. In humility and with a non-anxious commitment to listen, we may find stories of fecundity and creative fruitfulness beyond that of procreation that are obviously promoting justice and shalom in a needy and hurting world.

A creation order starting point will almost certainly view a covenanted same-sex relationship as inconsistent with the witness of Scripture. Because of the emphasis on the complementary nature of male and female, this is essentially built into the foundation on which they construct their theology of sexuality. A Trinitarian / Incarnational starting point emphasizes the relational, self-giving love of the Father, Son and Spirit as the foundation for a theology of sexuality. Such a starting point does not necessarily see a covenanted same-sex relationship as intrinsically inconsistent with the manner in which human beings are to image God in their intimate relationships.

Both starting points find their basis in Scripture. Both seek to engage Scripture with a commitment to its authoritative place in our theological reflections. The apostle Paul reminds us that we are members of one Body, but that different parts of the Body have different functions. These parts of the Body may seem to be at odds, but that does not mean they are not part of the same body. In fact, we need these different parts of the Body, these different starting points, to sharpen and challenge one another. But, such sharpening and challenging should be done in a spirit that recognizes our interconnectedness. Often, the debate seems more intent on amputating part of the Body that is articulating insights and invitations that are different than the implications of another view. Amputation hurts the whole body. But where we can grow in listening to one another, in a spirit of humility, we can nurture a more generous spaciousness where we are all challenged to grow in maturity. We do well to remember that we are caught up in the overflow of the self-giving love of God made manifest in the person of Jesus Christ. In his life, we are called to work towards justice and shalom for the creation he loves. “When Paul in Galatians 3: 28 says that in the new perspective of the Jesus movement the usual hostile divisions between males and females, between Greeks and Jews, between slaves and masters are rejected and dissolved, we hear a new symphony, a fresh song of joy, that promises a new heaven and a new earth marked by justice and peace.”[1]

Alan Jones reminds us of the tension we live in regarding our sexuality, the potential for unhelpful extremes, and the foundational reality that all of these questions are ultimately made right through our primary identity in Jesus Christ. “The key to human identity is not our sexuality as such but is our relationship to Christ through the Holy Spirit. The most real thing about us is our baptism, not our sexual identity or lack of it. Sexuality itself is an inexhaustible symbol. Maleness and femaleness partake of mystery and are the means, the sacraments, of our self-transcendence. Human sexuality needs redeeming like everything else. Without the gospel, the medicine of immortality, our sexuality is a tragic gift. It participates in nothing but the inexorable journey to corruption: the cycle of dung and death. Without the gospel we are prey to a despairing biological determinism on the one hand, or an androgyny which denies the glorious mystery of sexual differentiation, on the other.”[2]

In the midst of these extremes, biological determinism and androgyny, live real human beings who were created to image God in self-giving relationships of love. For some of these human beings, rigid categories cannot encompass the complexity of their reality. As the church wrestles to move forward faithfully, we do well to recognize that different starting points in engaging Scripture can mean diverse conclusions on the manner of faithful discipleship for those on the gender and sexual margins. Recognizing such diversity in constructing a theology of sexuality can remind us that we are part of a large, diverse Body. We have different functions. But we need one another. And in Christ, even such diversity can find unity and a shared identity.

-wg

[1] Daniel C. Maguire. “Men, Male Myths, and Metanoia” in Body and Soul: Rethinking Sexuality as Justice Love ed. M. Ellison S. Thorson-Smith (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press 2003) p.176

[2] Alan Jones. “Male and Female He Created Them” Anglican Theological Review 57 no 4 O 1975, p 434

What's your Starting Point? Part 3

2013-02-28T06:00:00.000-05:00

Read Part 1 and Part 2

A Trinitarian and Incarnational Foundation for Sexuality:

Unlike a creation order starting point that focuses on the complementary nature of male and female as the foundation for a theology of sexuality, Trinitarian theology is focused on the relational nature of the Godhead. Existing in eternal, self-giving love, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit created the world out of the overflow of their love. “Because God is an internal community within God’s very being, this collapses the usual difference between the self and the other (that is, otherness as being “external” to one’s self). Thus, God consists of both the “self” and the other.”[1] This love is described as perichoresis which is a profoundly intimate interpenetration of three persons. Trinitarian theology provides a rich foundation from which to envision a radical love that dwells within the communion of persons.

C. Baxter Kruger is a contemporary Trinitarian theologian. He says, “In sheer grace, the Triune God decided not to hoard the Trinitarian life and glory, but to share it with us, to lavish it upon us. Why this is so, why God is this way, why the Father, Son and Spirit set the fullness of their love and lavish grace upon us and determined such a glorious destiny for us, can only be answered by peering into the mutual love of the Father and Son and Spirit. For in one way or another, the existence of everything, not least of every human being, finds its purpose in the deep and abiding love of the Triune God. That circle of love, that circle of intimacy and togetherness and fellowship, that circle of purity and mutual delight and eternal wholeness, is the matrix, the roux, of all divine thought and activity.”[2] The lavishness and intimacy of Kruger’s language demonstrates the kind of foundation that Trinitarian theology can offer for the construction of a theology of sexuality. There is no talk of complementary ontology. Rather, within this generous relational experience of God humans are invited to participate where self-giving is given primacy as the attribute of this love. While a creation order starting point might argue that true self-giving is tied to procreation, and that the ultimate expression of God’s self-giving love within the Trinity resulted in the creation of the world, it can be argued that fecundity can be experienced in many ways, not only in the giving birth to children.

God is not gendered. He transcends the categories of gender. While the persons of the Trinity may be described with male pronouns for Father and Son and female pronouns for the Holy Spirit, the Godhead is not limited by gender categories. Gavin D’Costa draws on the theology of Hans von Balthasar who conceived of each person of the Trinity as both act and pure receptivity. D’Costa then suggests that each of the three persons of the Trinity is “simultaneously supramasculine and suprafeminine in its own giving and receiving, which spills forth into the universe.”[3] Such Trinitarian views challenge the necessity of binary gender roles in our experiences of covenant intimacy.

The Trinity can be described by the notion of perichoresis and the mutual interpenetration of three distinct persons who become one in their union. Some queer theologians challenge the gender binary of male-female heterosexuality as the only way to image God by suggesting that the interpenetration of three persons of the Trinity would actually, if taken literally, imply that humans should image God through a polyamorous union of two males and a female (given that the Father and Son are most often associated with male pronouns while there is the tradition of wisdom and Sophia that may lend a feminine identity to the Spirit). The point is not to force this kind of literal application, but rather, the point is to suggest a more generous way of imagining the human potential to image God through our self-giving relationships. The intimacy and relationship that is longed for ought not to be reduced nor focused upon a genitalized sex act. Rather, by reflecting on the perichoresis of the Trinity we are invited to imagine a generous, fully trusting, fully knowing, relational intimacy that is beautiful and wondrous in its purity and lack of defensive self-protection.

The Incarnation of the Son can be described as coinherence where two ousias (natures) indwell the one person. The Incarnation is the mysterious enfleshment of the divine in the person of Jesus Christ. Out of the overflow of love of the Trinity came the gift of Incarnation wherein the Son would assume the nature of a human being. Philippians 2 describes it vividly, “Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!”[4]

Body theology has arisen from reflection on the significance of the Incarnation. “Body theologians maintain that the incarnation is a sign and revelation of the way that God works generally – in and through bodies….. An embodied theology relocates salvation in and through the body. Our alienation from our bodies is healed and we experience the saving grace of God within them. It is the discovery of ourselves as we are, as bodies. Grace to become enfleshed, this is the message of the incarnation, and it reaches out to us through other fleshly creatures.”[5]

One of the noted scholars in body theology is James Nelson. In his book, “Embodiment: An Approach to Sexuality and Christian Theology” Nelson addresses two key dualisms that infiltrate many Christian perspectives on sexuality. The first is the anti-body dualism that separates body and soul and views the body as a temporary vessel. The second is the male / female dualism which is developed as the view that male and female have fundamental differences, sometimes even understood to be opposite to one another. Often connected to this is the notion that maleness is superior.[6] Nelson deconstructs both of these dualisms. Body theology formed from an Incarnational starting point clearly draws very different conclusions than that of a creation order starting point that particularly emphasis the distinctiveness of male and female.

Another aspect of Incarnational body theology is to explore the ways that the experiences of our sexuality help us to understand God. In an essay that focuses specifically on women’s sexuality as an invitation to see God in new ways, Rebecca Todd Peters says, “If we start with women’s bodily experience of sexuality as a window into the divine, its very mutability can offer insight into redefining the way we think about God/ess. Opening up our understanding of God/ess to the possibility of change can resonate profoundly with men as well as women.”[7] Peters goes on to contrast a male-centric theology of God that tends to emphasize control and order with a willingness to look at the stories of God who wrestles with humans, negotiates with humans, and changes his mind in engagement with humans. Women’s sexuality, and indeed sexuality in general, can help us to reimagine and have a much larger and richer sense of God. Peters says, “A God/ess open to change, vulnerability, and partnership exercises a non-traditional form of power rooted in relationality and reciprocity. These, then, can become the moral ground for ethical behavior in the world, including sexual behavior.”[8] This idea of the power of powerlessness is, at its core, confirmed in the Incarnation. The Incarnation reminds us that God took on human flesh in Jesus Christ. He took on the entire human experience in a way that transcends the binary of male / female.

However, to even invite such theological reflection can be profoundly threatening to those who are accustomed to having built a theological system around an unconscious sense of God as male and theological order resting on very definitive separation between male and female. Peters says, “The accusation of pagan worship is levied against feminist, womanist, mujerista, and other liberationist theologians whenever they explore female images and embodiments of the divine. The strategy of the right wing has been to obfuscate meaningful theological efforts to reexamine God language and moral norms for sexual behavior by quoting people and ideas out of context and by playing on people’s fears of change and difference. The fact that the terms “homosexuality” and “goddess worship” have become lightning rods for conservative and fundamentalist factions of mainline churches is not coincidental. Changes in these two areas of theo-ethical discourse – language about God and sexuality – will require an enormous paradigm shift.”[9] The potential richness of theological imagination that is opened through these pathways of reflection ought not to be ignored because it is threatening. Like everything in theological reflection, there needs to be testing, discernment, and searching of the Scriptures. However, to outright refuse to engage on the basis of predetermined binary constructs seems to enlarge the potential for an impoverished and increasingly rigid engagement with God.

Virginia Ramey Mollenkott stretches the boundaries even further in her focus on transgender realities. She points to the work of an evangelical biologist, Edward L. Kessel, who draws out the biological implications of the virgin birth. She says, “All parthenogenetic (virgin) births result in offspring with two X-chromosomes. Because Jesus apparently underwent a sex reversal to a male phenotype (as sometimes occurs in parthenogenesis), he appeared to function as a normal male. However, if the Scriptural account is to be read literally, then the fact is that Jesus was chromosomally female all his life. By this interpretation, Jesus is not a male Savior, but an intersexual Savior; so that even from a biological perspective, women “resemble Christ” just as closely as men, and transgenderists resemble Her/Him most of all!”[10]

While such thought might seem to be nearly, if not completely, blasphemous to many Christians who hold a traditional, creation order view, stretching such boundaries helps to expose how gendered much theology is. Today there is much consensus that a sense of appropriate gender is socially constructed and that the concepts around gender evolve and change throughout the course of history and culture. Theology that can transcend these constructs of gender may reveal a God that we cannot easily control to fit our boxes. Interpretive engagement with Scripture that risks different starting points and different emphasis can enrich our journey with God. David Carr reminds us, “One might argue that such untamability is a problem, that we must find some way to stabilize interpretation so that it will yield a single meaning from the Bible. Yet I would argue the contrary. It is precisely the multi-voiced, untamable character of texts like Genesis that has served divergent faith communities through the ages. Not only is the text itself untamable, but interpreters—especially in the present (post)modern period—can be counted on to expand that untamability by reading it in varied ways.”[11]

Trinitarian / Incarnational theological starting points can introduce new levels of generous spaciousness into the conversations about sexuality. Because such starting points help us to transcend a fixation on the complementary nature of male / female, they can provide a wonderful opportunity to expand our Spirit-shaped imaginations as we consider how to best navigate questions of discipleship for sexual minority persons.

Next Post: Concluding Reflections

-wg

[1] Patrick Cheng. Radical Love: An Introduction to Queer Theology New York: Seabury Books 2011 p.56

[2] C. Baxter Kruger. Jesus and the Undoing of Adam (Jackson: Perichoresis Press 2003) p. 19

[3] Gavin D’Costa, “Queer Trinity” in Loughlin, Queer Theology p. 274

[4] Philippians 2: 6-8 NIV

[5] Elizabeth Stuart and Adrian Thatcher. People of Passion: what the churches teach about sex London: Mowbray 1997 p.98

[6] Cited in: Bev Harrison. Making the Connections “Misogyny and Homophobia” 1985

[7] Rebecca Todd Peters. “Embracing God as Goddess” in Body and Soul: Rethinking Sexuality as Justice Love ed. M. Ellison S. Thorson-Smith (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press 2003) p.163

[8] Ibid. p. 168

[9] Ibid. p.161

[10] Virginia Ramey Mollenkott. “Crossing Gender Borders” Body and Soul: Rethinking Sexuality as Justice Love ed. M. Ellison S. Thorson-Smith (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press 2003) p.192

[11] David McLain Carr. “Untamable text of an untamable God: Genesis and rethinking the character of scripture” Interpretation 54 no 4 O 2000, p 356

What's your Starting Point? Part 2

2013-02-27T06:00:00.000-05:00

A Challenge to the Creation Order Starting Point:

In the summer of 2010 a number of provocative articles were published under the banner of the BioLogos Foundation. For some, these articles opened a whole new avenue for thought, imagination, and dependence on the Spirit of God to reveal truth on long-held doctrines of the faith. For others, the articles presented another threat and attack to the fundamentals of a theological understanding of creation, fall and redemption. On a more particular level, I believe these articles raise very significant implications for a theology of sexuality that is primarily constructed on a creation order foundation.

Over the years scientific research has challenged assumptions and interpretations of Scriptural texts. Arguments about a flat earth, the sun rising and setting, or the age of earth are historical examples that brought much pain and strife but ultimately convinced many that the Bible was not intended to be a science textbook. The quest for the historical Adam is a contemporary question that has fascinated and troubled Christians and observers. In the article, “After Adam: Reading Genesis in an Age of Evolutionary Science,” Dan Harlow pulls together current findings from the fields of both biology and Biblical studies. In it, Harlow argues that, “It is therefore difficult to read Genesis 1–3 as a factual account of human origins. In current Christian thinking about Adam and Eve, several scenarios are on offer. The most compelling one regards Adam and Eve as strictly literary figures—characters in a divinely inspired story about the imagined past that intends to teach theological, not historical, truths about God, creation, and humanity.”[1]

Harlow supports this astounding statement by explaining that the most recent findings of molecular biology indicate that the genetic diversity of the human population could not be traced back to a single pair. He says, “The best mathematical models suggest, rather, that the ancestors of all modern Homo sapiens were a population of about 10,000 interbreeding individuals who were members of a much larger population living in Africa around 150,000 years ago.”[2]

This scenario opens the door to many different possibilities when it comes to an understanding of human sexuality. Of the 10,000 individuals, might any of them have been sexually attracted to those who were biologically similar to them? A basic understanding of the survival of the fittest would suggest that these individuals would not become the dominant experience of human sexuality. But does that exclude the possibility that sexual fluidity was part of the earliest human experience?

A common framing of same-sex attraction is to view it as an experience arising after the Fall. The Fall might be described as, “God originally created a first pair of human beings, positioned them in idyllic spiritual and moral conditions, so that when deliberately subjected to temptation, they were genuinely free to obey God or not. They freely chose not to obey God, and as a consequence, they “fell” from these utopian beginnings, so that they and all their descendants, by heredity, became mortal, and enslaved from birth to a natural desire to embrace their disobedience (sin).”[3] Seeing same-sex attraction as a result of the Fall presumes that it is not God’s original creative intention for human beings. There is a definitive line between the experience of Adam and Eve in the garden prior to succumbing to deception and partaking of the fruit of the tree and the rest of human history. Post-Fall, it might be understood that all of creation is marred and affected by sin. This includes the reality that human sexuality is often understood to be broken and in need of the redemption of Christ. Sexual desire outside of the heterosexual norm has been viewed as disordered, deviant, or even perverse and directly due to the influence of sin. In some circles in Christianity, the understanding of the redemption of such broken sexuality is the transformation of existing sexual desire for the same-sex towards singular attraction to a spouse of the opposite sex.

If however, Adam and Eve are literary and not historical figures, then the description of the deception, disobedience, and advent of sin into a perfect creation may need to be reconsidered. For those who hold to a traditional view of the Fall, this calls for some radical reimagining. George Murphy, a theologian of science, helps us in this regard, “Our picture of creation is then not one of static perfection but of divine activity in the dynamic universe, which the physical and biological sciences disclose to us. God intended time and history, and the final state of things will not be just a return to the initial state. In that consummation of history, there is indeed the tree of life (Rev. 22:2) but in the midst of a city, into which people have brought “the glory and the honor of the nations,” everything good accomplished in human history.”[4]

Is it possible, that one of the good things accomplished throughout the course of human history will be to come to a deeper understanding of the essential nature of humanness beyond sex and gender? Will one of these good things be the unraveling of injustice perpetrated through patriarchy, misogyny, misandry, and oppression of those who do not fit traditional binaries for gender or sexuality? Is it possible that the human race is moving closer to an experience of intimate bonding that transcends a singular focus on procreation? Particularly now that the earth has not only been populated, but is facing over-population, is it possible that our experience of self-giving love in covenant relationships can transcend the limitations of a male-female binary? If we are moving towards the eschatological community where genital sex acts and male-female coupling will give way to deeper dimensions of sexuality, could some of the deconstruction of gender and sexual binaries be part of moving towards a justice-shalom motif where our humanity is enlivened by self-giving love in community?

When the creation text focuses on the creation of male and female can this be considered descriptive rather than prescriptive as an essential part of being human? For those who tie the maleness and femaleness of humanity directly to an ontological reflection of the image of God, there is no room or imagination for a human experience of sexuality where complementary gender is not a core part. However, if God is not gendered, then why would the gender of the communion of persons be critically linked to imaging God rightly?

Clearly, the coming together of male and female is tied to procreation. This is a beautiful aspect of God’s creation that gives birth to family environments where children have the optimal home in which to understand who they are and be nurtured and taught to journey through life in a manner that promotes and experiences shalom. The Genesis narratives describe this in poetic form that elevates the value of fidelity wherein the family is protected. But does this description necessarily preclude those who do not fit the majority experience of gender or sexuality from intimacy, from experiencing the communion of persons? Does it preclude such persons from extending nurture and teaching to children who have become displaced from their family or parent(s) of origin? Does a description of the majority experience mean that there is no accommodation of grace for those whose experience differs?

Elizabeth Newman says, “Genesis 2:24. This is a positive statement or commandment, enjoining a man’s lifelong commitment to a woman. The hermeneutical question is, Can we readily convert that positive statement into a prohibition of lifelong committed sexual relationship between members of the same sex (a phenomenon that as far as we know was not publicly recognized as a social possibility in ancient Israel)? Producing a valid prohibition from a positive biblical statement is a dicey matter.”[5]

If evolutionary science paints an accurate historical picture of human origin, what implications does that have for the potential that sexual minority experiences were long a part of this evolutionary journey? Additionally, if there isn’t a distinct historical moment where the Fall happened, can we be so sure that biological sex differentiation is as clearly defined as a literal reading of Genesis 1-2 might imply?

If the reality is that there were many persons who were the ancestors of the human race, might any of them have been born with an intersex condition? Intersex describes persons who are ambiguous in their biological sex. Virginia Ramey Mollenkott describes it this way, “Scientific evidence that there are more than two human sexes or genders is found chiefly in biology, psychology, sociology, and anthropology. The biological evidence comes in the form of millions of intersexuals, people who fit neither male nor female categories. The anatomical components of sex include six interrelated factors – chromosomes, hormones, gonads, internal reproductive organs, the brain, and external genitalia – but for intersexual people, these components do not mix together in conventionally male or female patterns.”[6] Current prevalence rates for intersex conditions run as high as one in two hundred persons. What kind of theology of sexuality can deeply consider the reality of these individuals? Are they not also created in the image of God and therefore created to long for opportunities for self-giving bonding and love?

Harlow, in positing that Adam and Eve are literary not literal, does not only rely on molecular biology. He also turns to the genre of the text. He says, “The vast majority of interpreters take the narratives in these chapters as story, not history, because their portrait of protohistory from creation to flood to Babel looks very stylized—with sequences, events, and characters that look more symbolic than “real” events and characters in “normal” history.”[7] He also engages a detailed comparison of the Genesis text with other creation myths from ancient peoples. For Harlow, the fact that the text is story does not diminish the spiritual and theological significance of what God reveals. But it may cause challenge to particular doctrines that have been built upon presumptions of the text. For many, the primary doctrines that are challenged by the concept of Adam and Eve being literary rather than literal are the Fall and a penal substitutionary understanding of the Atonement. I suggest, however, that another doctrine that may need to be reimagined is the fundamental place of the complementary nature of male and female in the understanding of human personhood and of sexuality.

Many Christians will recoil at such suggestions, however, in light of their view of concordance. “Concordism, generically, stands on belief in the inerrancy of the Bible: belief that every assertion of fact in the Bible is necessarily true, because every assertion originates with God, via divine inspiration. And on this understanding of divine revelation as mediated by inspiration and inerrancy, it follows that for any true assertion in science (or for any true assertion at all), no logical conflict can exist between it and any assertion of Scripture.”[8]

Concordism has particularly made engagement with the creation narratives of Genesis 1-3 a source of pressure and tension. Schneider goes on to say, “Especially when reinforced by a doctrine of biblical inerrancy, distinctly Protestant hermeneutical principles of sola scriptura and biblical perspicuitas combine (under the nearly unconscious influence of Augustinian authority in the West) to make it seem obvious that our classical (western) reading and theology of Genesis 1–3 is as securely biblical as it can be, and the tendency to put the issue beyond dispute is very strong.”[9]

When you consider the statements made in both Pope John Paul's “Theology of the Body” and Grenz’s “Sexual Ethics”, it seems clear that any re-imagining of an anthropology that is not so thoroughly centered on the complementary nature of male and female will be strongly resisted. The mounting evidence from the physical sciences, of which not only church tradition but the authors of Scripture themselves were unaware of, suggests that the way forward will require robust levels of courage, humility and deep dependence on the Holy Spirit to discern new wineskins in understanding the invitation for human beings to embrace and live into the reality of their embodiment and sexuality.

David Carr’s notion of the “untamable” nature of Scripture may be of encouragement. He says, “If scripture is to survive as a lifegiving resource in the new millennium, it will be because our reading is flexible enough to address creatively circumstances that the Bible's original authors never could have imagined. It may be the very "untamability" of tensive texts like Genesis and the broader Christian canon that will enable them to be conduits of God's revelation for the future.”[10]

Next post: A Trinitarian and Incarnational Foundation for Sexuality
-wg

[1] Dan Harlow “After Adam: Reading Genesis in an Age of Evolutionary Science” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 62, no. 3 (2010): p.179

[2] Ibid. p. 179

[3] John R. Schneider, “Recent Genetic Science and Christian Theology on Human Origins: An “Aesthetic Supralapsarianism” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 62, no. 3 (2010): p.199

[4] George L. Murphy, “Roads to Paradise and Perdition: Christ, Evolution, and Original Sin,” Perspectives on Science

and Christian Faith 58, no. 2 (2006): p.110

[5] Elizabeth Newman. “Scripture and homosexuality: biblical authority and the church today” Perspectives in Religious Studies 23 no 4 Winter 1996, p 447

[6] Virginia Ramey Mollenkott. “Crossing Gender Borders” in Body and Soul ed. Marvin Ellison, Sylvia Thorson-Smith (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press 2003) p.187

[7] Dan Harlow “After Adam: Reading Genesis in an Age of Evolutionary Science” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 62, no. 3 (2010): p. 180

[8] John R. Schneider, “Recent Genetic Science and Christian Theology on Human Origins: An “Aesthetic Supralapsarianism” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 62, no. 3 (2010): p.197

[9] Ibid. p.199

[10] David McLain Carr. “Untamable text of an untamable God: Genesis and rethinking the character of scripture” Interpretation 54 no 4 O 2000, p 352

What's your Starting Point? Part 1

2013-02-26T15:09:00.000-05:00

Debates about human sexuality within the church have left a lot of damage in their wake. Internally, churches have experienced the pain of division and fractured unity. Ongoing polarity has eroded trust and the capacity to engage with one another humbly and generously. In some cases, Christians judge one another's salvation on the basis of their particular perspectives on sexuality.

Such enmity has deeply painful consequences. The witness of the church to a watching world is compromised by our internal strife. Many people feel alienated from the church because of their perception of the church’s response to matters of sexuality. In particular, sexual minority persons legitimately question whether the church could be a safe place for them to explore or wrestle with their questions about faith, spirituality, and their sexuality.

In the midst of such turmoil, it is critical to explore ways the church might recover a sense of unity in the reality of diverse perspectives on sexuality. Given that the authority of Scripture is used as both a defense of a particular position and an attack against an opposing position, might we find in our use of Scripture a place to experience common ground together? The Anglican Archbishop from South Africa says, “What is important is the recognition that authority implies relationship and is a dynamic process rather than a static rule. That this is so is evidenced by the changing attitudes towards all forms of authority (both ecclesial and secular) in the past twenty years.”[1] If the authority of Scripture was embraced as a dynamic process, enlivened by the Holy Spirit in each particular time and place, could we become more generous in our capacity to listen to how those who differ from us are engaging with the text?

The idea that two persons who claim faith in Christ and high regard for the Scriptures can come to different conclusions on a question such as, “What does faithful discipleship look like for a same-sex oriented Christian?” can seem to be very difficult for some to accept. The reality, however, is that on the basis of their engagement with primarily Scripture, supported by the interpretive resources of tradition, reason, and experience, followers of Christ come to different perspectives on many different questions of doctrine and conduct.

In the book, “The Embrace of Eros: Bodies, Desires and Sexuality in Christianity”, David Jensen says, “What does the Bible say about sex?” many Christians ask. This seemingly simple question yields anything but a simple answer. The Bible says many sometimes conflicting things about sex, so in some regards this is the wrong question to be asking. Christians ought to first ask, “What is the character of the book we call Scripture?”[2] This idea of the character of the book of Scripture can be viewed in different ways. Some consider the Bible to be a guidebook for sexual behavior. Their engagement with Scripture on the matter of sexuality is primarily to mine the clear prohibitions regarding sexual activity and to articulate the general principles that guide godly sex. Others may view Scripture as “insufficient, outmoded, or oppressive” on matters of sexuality.[3] In this case, Scripture is engaged with a hermeneutic of suspicion that seeks to deconstruct patriarchy and hierarchy. This view critiques Scripture's lack of erotic justice. A third assessment on the character of Scripture is that it needs to be received through a narrative framework. A narrative framework prioritizes opening the imagination to what God is revealing about himself. It also opens the possibility to consider this powerful gift he has given humanity through our sexuality in both the texts that address sexual matters and those texts that do not explicitly address sexuality.

Within these different views, there can be different emphases and starting points. The first of two common starting points is creation order. This approach begins with the Genesis narratives of the creation account and emphasizes the complementary creation of the human race through the male and female binary. This complementary relation of male and female builds the foundation for their theology of sexuality.

A second approach emphasizes the Trinitarian nature of God and specifically develops a theology of sexuality through the implications of the Incarnation. This approach will not have the same emphasis on the complementary role of biological sex or gender, but will prioritize the relational nature of God and the outpouring of self-giving love based not on need but on desire, and connect the image of God in humanity to these characteristics.

Unlike many of the debates over human sexuality, I am not trying to propose that one starting point is correct and the other incorrect or that one starting point honours the authority of Scripture while the other fails to do so. Rather, I want to demonstrate that the human interpretive process is always open to critique regardless of the starting point. In our differences in theological starting point, we need the humility to acknowledge the limitations and critiques of our preferred point of reference and be willing to engage the insights and reflections from alternative starting points. Such a process of “iron sharpening iron” will enrich our journey of creating a theology of sexuality that can breathe life into our current contextual realities.

Creation Order:

The creation order starting point is illustrated particularly significantly in two works that have proven formational in the Catholic and Evangelical communities respectively.

Arguably the most influential piece of writing with a creation order priority is, “Theology of the Body”, written by Pope John Paul II.[4] He begins by tying Jesus’ discourse with the Pharisees around the question of divorce with the accounts in Genesis. It was the Pope’s position that the Genesis accounts are the basis for any faithful anthropology or theology of sexuality. He says, “Following the narrative of Genesis, we have seen that the “definitive” creation of man consists in the creation of the unity of two beings. Their unity denotes above all the identity of human nature; their duality, on the other hand, manifests what on the basis of this identity, constitutes the masculinity and femininity of created man.”[5] “The fundamental fact of human existence at every stage of its history is that God “created them male and female.” He always creates them in this way and they are always such.”[6] He infers the unacceptability of deconstructing of these binary categories when he says under the heading “Man and Woman: A Gift for Each Other” , “The opposite of this “welcoming” or “acceptance” of the other human being as gift would be a privation of the gift itself. Therefore, it would be a changing and even a reduction of the other to an “object for myself” (an object of lust, of misappropriation etc.).”[7]

For the evangelical community in Canada, Stanley Grenz’ book, “Sexual Ethics”[8] has been a trust-worthy guide in the tumultuous cultural landscape. In his chapter, “Male and Female: The Nature of Human Sexuality”, Grenz states, “Sexuality refers to our fundamental existence as male and female.”; “Sexuality comprises all aspects of the human person that are related to existence as male and female.”; and “Sexuality is a powerful, deep, and mysterious aspect of our being. It constitutes a fundamental distinction between the two ways of being human (i.e. as male or female).”[9] Additionally, he states, “Genesis 1: 27 declares, “male and female he created them.” There is simply no other way to be created human, to exist as a human being, except as an embodied person. And embodiment means existence as a sexual being, as male or female.”[10]

The creation order starting point that is developed in both “Theology of the Body” and Grenz’s “Sexual Ethics” constructs a fundamentally heteronormative sexual ethics. This is clear when Grenz addresses the matter of homosexuality. He says, “For Paul, then, the only proper model of sexual relations is that patterned after the creation story in Genesis 1-2. In keeping with the injunctions of the Holiness Code, Paul concludes that this model is natural, for it alone was instituted by the Creator. Homosexual relations, whether between men or women, are against nature, because they are contrary to the pattern placed within creation itself.”[11] He further argues, “The application to the sex act is obvious. Sexual intercourse is intended to convey the union of two persons in their entirety as two sexual beings: the two becoming one. For this meaning to be fully expressed, the physical act itself must be one whereby the dialectic of sameness and difference is taken up into a union. This occurs when each of the partners contributes himself or herself in entirety, so that this contribution results in a uniting of the two into a supplementary union.”[12] For Grenz, the creation narratives lay out a blueprint for human bonding that is ordered by the differentiation of male and female.

The implications of a creation order starting point can be seen in this statement, “We are not just human beings. We are male and female human beings, and everything about us — our role, drives, impulses, sources of satisfaction, sense of identity, relationships, the whole social order — is in significant measure determined by this biological fact. Tamper with sexual differentiation, deny it, and you invite the whirlwind. You can't fool Mother Nature.”[13]

Next post: A Challenge to the Creation Order Starting Point

-wg

[1] Ndungane, Njongonkulu, Abp “Scripture: what is at issue in Anglicanism today?” Anglican Theological Review 83 no 1 Wint 2001, p 12

[2] David H. Jenson. The Embrace of Eros: Bodies, Desires, and Sexuality in Christianity ed. Margaret Kamitsuka (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010) p. 15

[3] Ibid. p.19

[4] John Paul II. Theology of the Body Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1997.

[5] Ibid. p.45

[6] Ibid. p.74

[7] Ibid. p. 70

[8] Stanley J. Grenz, Sexual Ethics Louisville, KY: Westminster/JKP, 1997

[9] Ibid. p.21

[10] Ibid. p. 27

[11] Grenz p.230

[12] Grenz p.236

[13] Eliot Fremont-Smith, New York Magazine, 7 January 1974.

Experiencing True Community

2013-02-05T11:59:00.000-05:00

Imagine a place of unconditional acceptance..... A place where everyone around you is willing to be a friend even if you don't know them. Imagine a place where you know that you have something deeply personal in common with everyone around you, even if you have no clue who they are. Imagine a place where you will walk away with a new friend simply by asking the question, "What's your story?"

The 2013 Gay Christian Network Conference was held in Phoenix January 10 - 13 and I had the privilege of attending on behalf of New Direction. I went last year and had an incredibly positive and moving experience so I was definitely looking forward to being there again. But I was unsure if it would have the same impact it did last year. Well the highlight, in both experiences, was the incredible sense of community.

The conference is such a vivid illustration of the Body of Christ and a glimpse of Generous Spaciousness. Here is a community that could be divided on so many issues. The key differences personally impact the individuals deeply as they concern our convictions at the intersection of faith and sexuality. The GCN community seeks to be a safe space for gay Christians across the spectrum, whether they hold the conviction that same-sex sexual behavior is sinful (Side B), or if they hold the conviction that God can bless same-sex relationships (Side A). It is also a community that gathers individuals from a multitude of faith traditions ranging from Baptist to Anglican to Evangelical Pentecostal to Mennonite. These tensions all exist. But the focus is on Christ and his love, grace, and hospitality. And this is shared in an environment that encourages each individual to pursue a deep, personal, passionate pursuit of Christ and to live out being the church He calls us to be.

At last year's conference, one of the memories that impacted me so incredibly was walking up to a group of people that I honestly didn't know, and without anyone saying a word the circle opened a space and invited me into the conversation. There was no expectation except to just be, to join, to come into the community. Over and over this happened through invitations to conversations, sharing stories and journeys with each other, and entering into worship. Going in to last year's conference, I knew just one person, Wendy - but left with a multitude of new, close, and lasting friendships.

Another profound snapshot of this community is the worship experience. A new meaning of the life of Christ is understood when you stand in a room full of people - many of whom have been told by family, friends, and churches they CANNOT have a walk with Christ - and hear passionate singing of songs that talk about God's amazing grace, His unconditional love, and wanting to share that with the world around them. As someone who walked away from the church with a sense of not being able to be authentically me, to enter into a time of worship with a community of similar individuals and sensing the presence of God in such a profound way is a transformational experience. Despite different worship styles and traditions there is deep and unified worship that takes place. Reflecting on this year I think of us singing these words of 'Mighty to Save':

"Everyone needs compassion, Love that's never failing; Let mercy fall on me.
Everyone needs forgiveness, The kindness of a Saviour; The Hope of nations.
So take me as You find me, All my fears and failures, Fill my life again.
I give my life to follow, Everything I believe in, Now I surrender......."

The Sunday service is more of a liturgical style and somewhat uncomfortable for me, but I will never forget sitting next to a dear friend who is an Anglican music minister and sensing how deeply meaningful the worship was for him. Communion is shared together with space for each faith tradition to partake, be honored, and acknowledged even in the midst of many differences (there was even a gluten-free option).

For many individuals who attend GCN Conference, this is the only real time of community they are able to participate in. Many are not in a place where they can share all of who they are with those around them at home, and yet they can be themselves and be fully accepted and loved for who they are at conference. For many this may be the only time of communion with a Body of believers because it is unsafe for them to fellowship at home. It's humbling to share in this community. And it is motivating for our work through New Direction to continue to pursue such a breath-taking and humbling experience of the Body of Christ where there can be a deep, passionate, and conviction filled unity even in the midst of great diversity.

Coming home from Phoenix and looking ahead, I'm most definitely looking forward to the New Direction Generous Spaciousness Conference Retreat that we're gearing up for in May. Experiencing community in the space of grace and hospitality, is unforgettable and life changing! If you want to help create that kind of community, make sure to join us for New Direction's Generous Spaciousness Conference Retreat - May 10 - 12! More information is available here: http://www.newdirection.ca/content.xjp?id=447

-wp

Nurturing Generous Spaciousness in 2013!

2013-01-04T16:30:00.000-05:00

Happy New Year! As I write that, I am mindful of how easily that can roll off someone’s tongue and how much it can miss the mark of the reality that many are living. Last year, many people wished me a happy new year. But neither they nor I had any idea of the unexpected challenges, grief and loss that would come in 2012. Likewise, when I wish people happy new year now - we have no idea what lies ahead of us. Some of us are struggling – spiritually, emotionally, financially, relationally ….. and some of us are doing that in great isolation. Happy new year? Well maybe not a superficial hallmark greeting .... but as people of faith we do extend confident prayers for one another that the new year will be blessed.

We have a tradition at my church of praying over the calendar at our New Year’s day service. We talk together about some of the things that are likely to happen in the months ahead, but mainly we simply consecrate each day of the year to God in the knowledge that so many unexpected things may happen. As a community, when difficult things happen, it is not uncommon to remind each other, “Remember, we consecrated this day to God.” We live, as a community, in the remembrance that we serve Emmanuel – God with us. We live in the knowledge that God enters and exits each day with us.

During our mini-retreat for New Direction, several of us gathered to reflect on 2012 and to look with anticipation towards 2013. And I can honestly say that I am as excited as I have probably ever been in my years with New Direction for what lies ahead. For many years, I have been leading change in our organization. But, as I have thought, prayed, reflected, spoken and taught about generous spaciousness in the last year, I find myself feeling a paradoxical sense of restful anticipation. Generous spaciousness is where New Direction is supposed to be, it is what we are supposed to be about, it is what we need to model, share, and promote.

We acknowledge that Christians who love Jesus and care deeply about the Scriptures arrive at different conclusions about gay marriage for Christians. In this acknowledgement, we commit ourselves to nurture spaces that give room for people to wrestle with, clarify, and live in alignment with their beliefs and values concerning faithful discipleship for gay people. In the midst of this spacious place, we want to point people to Jesus, to encourage vibrant, intimate relationship with our Trinitarian, relational God. We want to support people as they grow in discernment, in spiritual disciplines, in living out obedience, faithfulness, justice and love in their day-to-day lives. We want to bless people to experience gracious freedom as they serve God with their whole life. We want to see people know joy, grow in being peace-makers, and work for the common good of those around them. We want to put first things first and not allow second-place things to divide, fracture or disrupt our unity as sisters and brothers in Christ.

Generous spaciousness is a way of being together in the Body of Christ. Gay marriage, as such, is simply one case study. But there are so many realities in our complex and pluralistic world that challenge us in our unity as Christians. Learning to listen to one another, learning to clothe ourselves in a deep humility, learning to extend grace to one another in the midst of the tensions of disagreements or different views, learning to discern the voice of the Holy Spirit and trust his leading - these are spiritually formational opportunities.

Last year I had so many opportunities to meet gay people who had either drifted away from connection with church community, were feeling marginalized or like they didn’t really fit in their congregation, or were frustrated with the lack of space and opportunity they experienced in their church. The sparks of faith were not dead, but rather than fanning these sparks into flames – the church was quenching them. This has motivated me all the more to be bold in sharing the message of generous spaciousness.

The idea that Christians disagree on a moral matter is nothing new in the church. Paul dealt with it. And instead of making a pronouncement about what was the RIGHT position – Paul implored the sisters and brothers to treat each other gently and to make room for people to follow their conscience. He recognized that people were coming from very different backgrounds and experiences – and his priority was that people would have every opportunity to grow in the knowledge and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Truth is we need one another in the Body of Christ – as painful as it is at times to encounter perspectives that differ from our own. Iron sharpens iron. We need each other to challenge our tendency to get lazy, selfish, and complacent. We need to hold one another accountable to get back to our prayer closets, back into the story of Scripture, and back to extending forgiveness and grace to each other. We need each other to really learn how to love. Jesus told us that it was easy to love our friends, and by extension to love those who agree with us. But he called us to a higher standard – to love our enemies. To love those who are different than we are, those we disagree with, those we would tend to judge negatively and evaluate as missing the mark.

Generous spaciousness challenges us to grow up. It demands a level of maturity where it isn’t all about us and our correct way of interpreting things. Generous spaciousness honours the people Jesus honoured – the last workers in the vineyard, the prodigal sons, the folks from the wrong side of the tracks. Generous spaciousness staggers us as we realize WE are the ones who are recipients of such outrageous grace. It challenges us to live incarnationally – to strip ourselves of the privilege we have and to identify with those who lack such privilege. And it is really hard. It costs us. It is uncomfortable. It exposes our fears, our judgments, our insecurities.

But generous spaciousness, I am more convinced than ever, smells a lot like Jesus. It isn’t about control or fear or pride. It is about giving room to one another to encounter Jesus, to share with each other the ways that Jesus is impacting our lives, and to encourage each other to love Jesus more deeply.

So in the year ahead, we are planning on talking a whole lot more about generous spaciousness and the way that it can bring hope and encouragement to our sexual minority sisters and brothers in the church. We hope to get across Canada and offer seminars in a number of major cities. We are also preparing for a spring conference/retreat with generous spaciousness as the focus. This year I’ll also begin working on my thesis for my doctorate with the focus being, you guessed it, the impact of generous spaciousness on how a congregation navigates a discussion on gay marriage. And, by hook or by crook, I will get my book manuscript published this year – the title being, “Nurturing Generous Spaciousness: A Response to Gay Christians in the Church”.

I know and love gay Christians who are navigating their journeys of faith in Christ in a variety of ways. I want to encourage their faith, in full confidence that God who began a good work in them will bring it to completion. And I commit, in 2013 and beyond, to do what I can to expose, address and remove the barriers that would keep sexual minority Christians from finding their place in the community of faith and from growing as vibrant disciples of Jesus Christ. New Direction, with every resource available to us, will be out there, faithfully day-after-day, talking about generous spaciousness as a way of life that will help the church live out the good news of the gospel in more hospitable, generous, and fruitful ways.

-wg

next-generation-truth-telling

2012-11-14T00:35:00.000-05:00

My daughter who just turned 14 came home all excited today. She'd received a very good grade on a poem she wrote and when I read it, I said that it would be a great addition to our blog. She seemed to like the idea of it being posted - so here it is:

Homo"phobia"~ by Renate Gritter

Phobia, what does it mean?

A fear, that's at least what it seems to be

What is fear? A thing that makes you scared

Well then what is homophobia?

The fear of homosexuals?

I think not.

I believe that it is so much more than that.

It's question-ing love, it's using wrath

It's saying, "I can love him but you can't love her"

"It's saying I have power, I will conquer"

I think homo-phobia is not fear at all

It's using "fear" as an excuse to build a wall

That threatens the free

That closes them out

That says, "I love all.....

but wait, not you .... you're not the same as us"

Some have minds, that restrict,

that assume that there is a way that all must do things

that think every human must fit a criteria or they are weird

they are not wanted

they are "feared".

Her analysis of her poem reads like this: "I think this poem targets the meaning and structure of the word homophobia. It challenges it, it deconstructs the word. Not only that, but it also challenges those who are homophobic to think about their views on the matter. It makes them think. Maybe they don't think of it as "building a wall" or "questioning love". Maybe they don't realize that they're "using wrath". When I say "I believe that it is so much more than that" I'm saying the truth Homophobia is so much more than fear."

My daughter's generation is the church of tomorrow. She embodies a sense of justice and truth-telling that the church of today needs to hear.

-wg

how we can find unity in our diversity .....

2012-11-13T10:23:00.001-05:00

Today’s post, after a long period of silence on this blog due to an inordinate amount of doctoral work, is in solidarity with Justin Lee over at Crumbs at the Communion Table, his synchroblog, and in celebration of the launch of his new book, “Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays vs.Christians Debate”.

Justin has asked us to share some thoughts about how to positively address the ongoing polarization caused by this issue. Let me begin by saying that I think it will be the lives of gay Christians that make the most significant difference when we look at this matter with history on our side. Gay Christians ARE the bridge. It is as people build relationship, share their spiritual journey as mutual pilgrims, and celebrate the gifts, passions and Kingdom contributions of each other that this disconnect within the Christian community will dissipate.

But even more specifically, I think there is one significant point that the church needs to grapple with and own if there is hope to move forward in a peaceable way, in a way that is able to experience unity in our diversity. It is a simple concept really – but one that people seem to have such great trouble accepting…..

“People who love Jesus and care about the Scriptures come to different positions on controversial matters.” And because of this reality, this fact, we need to be reminded that at the end of the day it is only God himself who perfectly can judge which position most closely represents his heart, his intention, and his will. That means that all the human participants in the conversation need to embody a humility that acknowledges that their best reflections on the question of whether marriage is an appropriate expression of faithful discipleship for gay Christians are incomplete and imperfect. We are called to wrestle with Scripture, do our homework, study, read widely, pray deeply, contemplate, seek wisdom, exercise discernment, test our conclusions, consider context, access the resources of reason including those from the disciplines of psychology, sociology, history, anthropology, biology, and philosophy, and engage in diverse experiences in the lives of followers of Jesus who are gay. And once we have invested in such a process, we are still called to a place of humility that acknowledges that we are guaranteed to NOT have the perfect interpretation on this matter – because no human being has the perfect interpretation. That means, in a nutshell, that we can open ourselves to conversation with those who have also gone through this process, and who have arrived at a different conclusion than we have, and have the grace to listen well, anticipate God’s presence in the dialogue, and trust fully that the Holy Spirit can and will continue to lead, teach, guide and direct us towards a God-honoring response to the very real and personal dilemma that gay Christians face.

Because at the end of the day the majority of Christians do not face this as a personal dilemma. They are not trying to discern, because of their sexual orientation, whether they should prepare to live a single, celibate life, or whether they should open their lives to the possibility of making a covenant commitment to an intimate life companion through marriage. Most Christians think about gay marriage as a theoretical idea. It costs them very little. My challenge is that, at the very least, the price all Christians ought to pay is the willingness to humble themselves and simply acknowledge that they could be wrong – and that those who disagree with them may be just as vibrantly committed to Christ and just as robustly honoring of the Scriptures as they are.

I hope that many, many Christians will pick up Justin's book and be part of a hope-filled, love-filled, and unity-focused response to the pluralistic reality in the Body of Christ on the question of gay marriage .... and that we will all grow up and learn in deeper and richer ways what humility-shaped justice really means.

-WG

Musings for Moving Forward...

2012-09-25T08:58:00.000-04:00

There have been a number of happenings in the last few days that I’ve been percolating on …..

A pastor called, having received our invitation to Relevant Engagement. He wanted to know more about New Direction and how a congregation might begin to engage a more open conversation about these matters. It seems that about 15% of the congregation are aware that a daughter in one of the church families will be marrying her partner later in the year. The reality is that people have different perspectives, different questions, different priorities and different concerns. A conversation, like the ones New Direction nurtures, helps people understand how to extend generous spaciousness to each other, giving each other the freedom to seek, to listen, to wrestle, and to ultimately discern how Christ is leading.

Another pastor came to visit me. Some time back he’d received an email from a leader he knew who is engaged in ex-gay ministry. The leader warned the pastor that New Direction had been deceived by the enemy and asking him to pray against us. This email didn’t sit well with this particular pastor, so he called the leader saying that he’d looked at our website and didn’t find anything that concerned him or raised red flags for him. He told the other leader that he wanted the space to ask questions. A while later, he ordered our dvd set and took the time to watch them. Then he called me and set up a time to meet in person. We talked for nearly three hours about the many complex points of tension in pastoring a congregation through this kind of topic, extending pastoral care to people, wrestling with interpretive issues, leading leadership to understand how to engage, discerning how to consider cultural context. It was an invigorating conversation. He asked a lot of great questions. There was a sense of peace and grace in our conversation.

I heard a bit about the new ex-gay network conference. I’d thought it was called Restoring Hope ….. but it came to my attention that it is actually called Restored Hope. This struck me in its tone. Perhaps this is only my perception …. But it seems like this purports to say, “We have now restored hope. Period. The end.” Restoring hope would have at least given the impression that there is some sort of process, that isn’t yet complete ….. some sense that they are part of something larger which together works towards hope. I saw a picture of the new board for this network and recognized all the faces. These are people I’ve broken bread with, prayed with, laughed with. I heard some things, albeit second-hand, that seem harsher and more rigid than my memories of my friends. And I feel sadness that territory seems to be getting staked out, lines in the sand drawn, and somehow past friendships are blowing like dust in the wind.

I encountered argumentation that states that any Christian who builds a biblical sexual ethics that does not uphold the traditional heterosexual marriage or celibacy position is in error and needs to repent and may not even be a true Christian. Many people believe that to be true based on their best reading of Scripture. But HOW we speak about our beliefs matters. How we view other Christians and churches who hold different perspectives than we do matters. How we communicate those who have been bruised by the church matters. And the passion of the argument ought not overshadow how we engage with people, people who are dearly loved by God.

I read a letter written by a man who broke through years of self-loathing and fear. Honesty costs us. Sometimes our honesty hurts others – people we love and care about.

I talked about boundaries with someone in a complex web of relationship, expectation, guilt and resentment. Really hard stuff. And I prayed and hoped that God would give him the strength to keep taking the risks to step towards health and wholeness in these relationships.

I went to class with liberal, progressive, traditional and everything in-between Christians. We talked about how we reflect, discern, deconstruct, reconstruct, live-into and embody sexual ethics. And in the line, waiting for lunch, I spoke with a fellow student. She grew up in one of the mainline churches. She and her partner are both studying for the ministry. She made the association of New Direction with change and ex-gay paradigms. She was gracious to listen as I talked about generous spaciousness and where we are today. I’m not sure that I completely shook the lingering legacy that separates and offends. But, she did ask if I might be interested in speaking to the queering religion group since most of them had never had a conversation with a former ex-gay leader. But some of my sadness stayed with me as I thought about how hard it is to overcome an impression, a perception, a sense from the past …..

I went to a wedding of the son of a couple who have connected with one of the parent support groups for a number of years. I interviewed this mom at last year’s Relevant Engagement. She shared her heart about how much God had changed her and freed her to love her son in new and generous ways. I didn’t really know the son or his partner. And when the mom told him that I was coming, he was a bit uncertain and had to clarify with his mom that we weren’t about change. I wanted to go to share with these parents, but I didn’t want my presence to feel in any way like a cloud blocking part of the sun for these young grooms. And again, the history of New Direction perceived to be hostile rather than hospitable loomed over me.

I read with Wes from the book, Friendship at the Margins, and we reflected together on the vocational call to be relationally present, to build friendships, to live out community for the long haul. We resonated. But we also struggled. How do we build friendships when we still seem to need to overcome negative expectation and perception of who we are, what we’re about, what hidden motive we might have ….. And yet, as we reflected together, we thought about all the relationships, as two introverts no less, that we enjoy with so many different people who have somehow found their way to connect with New Direction. We shared about our friends – people we respect, people we enjoy, people we learn from, people we care about.

And we talked about the risk to bring Relevant Engagement, our annual event, to downtown Toronto. Can we break through a perception of hostility and live into our vision for hospitality? Can we welcome new friends? Can we authentically catalyze respectful, life-giving conversation with a diverse group of people – all looking for hope, all looking for connection, all looking for belonging, all expecting alignment with their particular beliefs? Are we crazy? Will our attempts to be peace-makers in the midst of difference and tension blow up in our faces? Will our best efforts to be genuinely loving and hospitable to all be trusted, received, celebrated?

I had a conversation with someone I hadn’t seen for a few years. This man is a conservative Christian in a mixed orientation marriage. I wasn’t sure how much he’d kept up with New Direction. I felt a little anxious that he might feel betrayed by how New Direction has embraced generous spaciousness. He shared about where he’s at, his family, the richness of his prayer life ….. and he seemed at peace. And I was glad. As I talked with him about my role in the ministry, I could feel my passion rising and found myself close to tears a few times. Things have become so simple for me. I want to love people and I hope that they will glimpse Christ. I want to embody the kindness of Christ. I want to convey to people how precious they are to God, how much he loves them. I want to live the values I cherish – humility, hospitality, respect, mutuality, hopefulness, gentleness. And I think his eyes misted a few times too, and he nodded, and indicated that he enjoyed reading my blogs and staying connected that way.

And these few snapshots give just a glimpse of the kaleidoscope of experiences that draw me to prayer, to silence, to wait, to listen. God, who is New Direction called to be in this new chapter ahead of us? Today we welcome some new board members. Our most diverse board yet. And I am excited. I am hopeful for the future. I don’t have a map. I don’t know what it will all look like. But I sense the presence of Christ. I sense his smile. And what I do know is that our steps ahead will be marked by offering kindness, hope, encouragement and the invitation to find peace and rest. And in these realities, I believe that God will be present and he will be pleased.

-WG

"It is what it is"

2012-09-21T11:40:00.000-04:00

The worst loneliness is not to be comfortable with yourself. ~ Mark Twain

Acceptance of one's life has nothing to do with resignation; it does not mean running away from the struggle. On the contrary, it means accepting it as it comes, with all the handicaps of heredity, of suffering, of psychological complexes and injustices. ~ Paul Tournier

These years in silence and reflection made me stronger and reminded me that acceptance has to come from within and that this kind of truth gives me the power to conquer emotions I didn't even know existed. ~ Ricky Martin

We had an email inquiry yesterday that got me writing about acceptance. Wes, my colleague, asked if I’d written anything for the blog on that theme – and while it has come up here and there – I couldn’t think of a post with that emphasis. Now for many of our readers who are out and comfortable with their identity some of the following may seem like it is from an age-gone-by. The reality is that we continue to regularly get emails from Christians who experience same-sex attraction who are full of anguish and self-loathing. So it is my hope that this post will somehow find their way to them and that it will provide them some encouragement so that they can take a step towards courageous self-acceptance.

In the interest of disclosure, this idea of acceptance is something I’ve been working on personally for the last couple of years. Without going into too much detail, there has been a long-standing reality in my life that has caused me much grief, disappointment, and frustration. No matter what I tried to bring about change in this area, it continued to be pretty much the same. I prayed. I read. I pleaded and bargained and begged. I engaged. I backed off. I stood on my head naked (ok, well not really). But essentially, I did everything I knew to do to try to break patterns and cycles that were causing me so much pain. But, nothing I did helped in a sustainable way. Sometimes there would be little glimmers of hope or little signs of transformation, and each time that would spur me on to engage even more and try even harder. After many years of this, I began to feel emotionally and spiritually burnt out. I’m not an expert in this area, but it seems to me that the human heart can only take so much disappointment and despair. The writer of Proverbs says it this way, “Hope deferred makes the heart sick.”

Over the years, I’d invited a lot of different people into my life to try to help me understand and learn how to navigate my reality more effectively. Pastors. Spiritual directors. Professors. Counselors. Prayer warriors. Inner healing practitioners. Wise friends. Many of these people did their best to encourage me to continue persevering, to offer their insight and input, and to simply care for me in my pain. But none of them had any real guidance that would change the situation I was dealing with on a daily basis.

A few years ago, feeling again at the end of my rope, I started to connect with a new therapist. And she began to talk to me about acceptance. And, truth be told, I didn’t want to hear it. After so many years of engaging and trying and working at it, the idea of acceptance felt like resignation, like giving up. And if I was anything, I was not a quitter. Giving up was not in my vocabulary. I would continue to work away – even through pain and discouragement and burn out.

Over time, however, we would continue to come back to this idea of acceptance. We worked at understanding what it was, and what it wasn’t. And my therapist helped me to make the connection of acceptance with things that were out of my control. We have probably all heard the serenity prayer in one of its versions, “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.” Sometimes, however, for those of us who take initiative, hold to high ideals, and work for change, it can be hard to see what is beyond our influence to affect. We think somehow that if we just try hard enough that eventually we'll experience the transformation we long for. But that’s why the prayer asks for wisdom - because sometimes wisdom calls us to let go and accept.

With my therapist’s help, I began to better understand the things that I could not change about my reality. I began to realize that accepting those things wasn’t the same as quitting or giving up. But as I began to accept this reality, different and difficult questions arose. If it is true that these things are beyond my capacity to influence, then how do I need to learn to let go of the ways they bring such disappointment, frustration and pain into my life. How can I find life-giving boundaries so that I am able to live the fullest life God has prepared for me? What fears do I need to release so that I can let go? What losses do I need to grieve? How can I live beyond my worries about what other people will think or what judgments they might hold against me? These questions lead to other challenges in acceptance. How can I accept that some people will never understand why I’ve made the decisions I believe I need to make? How can I accept that some people will judge me anyway, no matter how hard I try to explain the journey, with God, I’ve been on to get to this point?

People contact us at New Direction from all across the spectrum of understanding and accepting the reality of same-sex attraction. Some people contact us in a very difficult and painful place of struggle. These are such sad emails to receive. As I read through the anguished description of all the different things they are trying to escape the reality of experiencing same-sex attraction, something deep within my heart breaks. Even though the reality in my life was not same-sex attraction, I do know what it is like to be on that treadmill. I know what it is like to be so afraid of accepting something. I know what it is like to dread God’s disapproval or disappointment. I know what it is like to feel the fear that taking any other path is going to lead to rejection and judgment from people we care about and who are important to us. I know what it is like to feel so terribly trapped, so overwhelmingly exhausted, and so full of despair that you wonder if you'll be able to keep holding on.

One of the things that I have been very blessed by in the last decade of walking with gay Christians is to so often witness a tenacious and resilient spirit that believes God loves them for all of who they are. You can quickly see the difference in a gay Christian who accepts the reality of their sexuality and a same-sex attracted Christian who is in great conflict and striving to somehow overcome their attractions. There is a peace and calm about those who have accepted that their same-sex attraction does not disqualify them from God’s love. But there can often be an anxiousness in those who feel that their experience of same-sex attraction is something God is waiting for them to deal with.

Regardless of whether a gay Christian believes they should be celibate or is open to experiencing love and family in a covenanted relationship, self-acceptance makes all the difference. This is also the case with those who may find themselves in a mixed orientation marriage. Being honest and self-accepting of the reality of experiencing same-sex attraction does not diminish your love or commitment to your opposite gender spouse or your children. For most people, experiencing same-sex attraction simply “is what it is”. It is a reality that was not chosen, perhaps isn’t particularly desired, but for the most part is persistent and resistant to change. We really don’t know what causes someone to experience same-sex attraction. It is a complex matter and there is likely no simplistic determinative factor. Rather, current research suggests to us that it is a complex combination of both essential (nature) factors and constructionist (nurture) factors that influence different people to different degrees. What we do know is that people do not choose to experience same-sex attraction. In this sense, the experience of same-sex attraction is morally neutral – the individual is not culpable for experiencing them.

Many Christian denominations differentiate between the experience of same-sex attraction and the decision to engage in same-sex sexual activity. Many Christians would not consider the experience of same-sex attraction to be sinful or inherently problematic. It can be very freeing and very healthy to simply accept that this is a reality that you experience. It isn’t necessarily good or bad – it just is. Living with serenity means, we refuse to feel shame or enter into striving or allow others’ opinions or judgments impede our ability to receive God’s unconditional love, and to love ourselves, with confident, strong faith and trust.

Not only that, but acceptance can really help us in some areas that we do have some capacity to change and influence for the better. For those who spend a lot of energy trying to fight against experiencing same-sex attraction, their lack of acceptance might actually make their struggle worse. You see, the more you fight against it – the more you think about it - the more vulnerable you may be to struggle with temptation or lust. Self-acceptance will actually help you not be so preoccupied with your sexual attractions. If for example, a same-sex attracted guy sees a good looking man and finds they are drawn to him or attracted to him, they can simply acknowledge that that is their same-sex attraction. It doesn’t have to automatically be a reason to beat themselves up or feel guilty. What they have simply done is acknowledge that they feel drawn, accept it for what it is, and then choose to get on with what they were doing. But if they right away start to focus on how bad they feel about having experienced that attraction, and start to focus on feeling guilty, the more power the attractions have in their life. They become a much bigger deal. This is true whether the sexual attraction someone feels is for the same or the opposite gender. Sexual attraction is a normal part of life. Lust is a different ballgame. As we know from the book of James, there is a progression from thought to temptation to lust to sin. Simply recognizing an attraction is an innocent reality that you can simply accept as “it is what it is”. One way to help such thoughts from becoming lustful temptations is to acknowledge the goodness of God’s creation in that person. “Wow God, you made a beautiful, attractive person.” You can admire and appreciate without becoming lustful. And you don’t need to be afraid of admiring or appreciating. There can be a level of innocent acceptance that this is who you are drawn to – without it becoming an issue of objectification or lust. This self-acceptance will free you from obsessing about these matters.

It may be, in your life circumstances that this acceptance is something internal within yourself – and that may be sufficient for you to live an honest life free from guilt and self-loathing. But, you may find that it is even more freeing to be able to honestly share this reality with another person you trust who you are close to – or perhaps a small group of people. This is entirely up to you. Only you can judge whether there are people in your life who could receive this disclosure without judgment and who could extend acceptance and care to you. But, if you have people like that in your life – then it could be very helpful to not live with the weight of secrecy. Honestly disclosing this reality to trusted confidantes doesn’t mean you are going to go do something crazy – (for example, if you are in a mixed orientation marriage, it doesn’t mean your commitments to your spouse or family have changed) – it simply means you don’t have to live with a secret anymore – and that you are free to simply be yourself.

Our sexual attractions don’t define us – but they are also an expression of our personhood. And so to be able to be more fully known is a gift – and a great protection against our desires gaining power over us in a way that we don’t want. Afterall, every human being seeking to honour God and steward their sexuality appropriately needs to learn to manage their thought life to align with their beliefs and values. Everyone has to learn how to maturely deal with temptation. Part of that is recognizing that temptation grows really well in the dark and secret place. But it has a harder time gaining speed in the light of honesty and authenticity.

No matter what your convictions about same-sex sexual activity may be, self-acceptance of the reality you experience is important for you to be able to live a life of peace and serenity. Refusing to accept your reality is not a sign of your commitment to Christ, it is a sign that the fear, shame, and expectations of others have impeded your capacity to truly believe, in the core of your being, that God loves you no matter what. Not only that but the refusal to honestly accept your reality may be a barrier to the very life of discipleship that you so deeply want to express.

-WG

Prophets of Peace

2012-08-02T13:16:00.001-04:00

Wes and I have been working through Jean Vanier’s book, “Finding Peace” in our staff devotions. I love this little book and have prayed through it many times. Vanier’s context is working with adults who are intellectually and physically differently abled. This is quite distinct from the arena of faith and sexuality and those who find themselves outside the majority status of gender and sexual orientation. However, his insights about humanity, about finding peace in the midst of difference, are universal and often deeply inspiring as we seek to go about our work through New Direction.

Vanier says, “The world is divided into many thousands of more or less hermetically closed groups. If each group is sure that it is better than others, how will peace ever come? It is difficult to dialogue with others if we cling arrogantly to the idea that we are right or that our power and technology are a sign of our humanity and goodness. Walls and barriers exist between people because of language, but also because of fear – each group fearful of those who are different, fearful of losing its identity. People resist opening up to others. Aren’t we all in one way or another enclosed in a secure group, in our culture, our religion, our family, our network of friends? Family and different types of groups are needed for human growth, but when they become sealed they engender rivalry, conflict, elitism.”

Yesterday, I quietly prayed and lamented a world that became more entrenched in its polarization. How do prophets of peace speak into the madness of boycott and counter-appreciation events? How does a peace-maker respond to the reality of pain and anger and reductionism on both ends of the spectrum?

Some wrote thoughtful posts attempting to bring some nuance to the whole debacle. And I am glad for their stewardship of influence and their attempt to bring humble wisdom and charity into the fodder for extreme reactions, biting bitterness, and cutting cynicism.

I chose to refrain from speaking. That’s hard to do. It’s a moment. An opportunity. Throw your opinion into the ring. See if you can ride the internet traffic wave. See if people will like what you say.

That’s how it works these days. Find your significance, build your credibility, leverage your opportunities, grow your network, increase your influence …. and don’t let up …. and don’t stop ….. and keep writing…. keep posting….. stay on top ….. be first ….. be the brightest and the best …. be the “go to” …. make it to the top of the list ….

Staying silent, lamenting, praying …. allowing your heart to deeply hear the hurt and confusion ….. allowing yourself to be present to the shrill anger marked by exaggerated claims and desperation to be heard, acknowledged, honoured …. while withholding the very same from other …. this is the hard and hidden work of those prophets of peace who persevere day after day, month after month, year after year. Not living from one sensational happening to another – but down in the trenches with real people taking sometimes seemingly imperceptible steps towards justice, towards reconciliation, towards dialogue, towards understanding, towards mutuality and generosity and kindness and humility and extending spaciousness to one another despite difference …..

But this kind of work doesn’t generate the kind of energy and excitement that boycotts and protests and public venting, name-calling, and generalized write-offs do.

But ….. can it sow seeds of peace that are lasting ….. seeds that can take root ….. that can grow ….. and in time bear fruit?

Having to be persistently patient is hard work. Staying present in the tension…. loving across the divides …. listening deeply to each one all across the spectrum …. extending friendship. Learning contentment and living in the rhythms of grace in the face of systems of power that fight each other and wound countless others in the process seems not only counter-intuitive but useless…… and yet …..

“Real peace implies something deeper than polite acceptance of those who are different. It means meeting those who are different, appreciating them and their culture, and creating bonds of friendship with them. Family, culture, religion, community, and friendship are all realities that are vital for human growth. But we need to learn how not to remain enclosed or imprisoned in such groups. We have to cross boundaries and meet others who are different. Coexistence is a foundation, and it is important, but peace is something much deeper. To create peace we have to go further than just saying hello. We have to discover who the other person is and reveal who we are. As we listen to and really meet one another, we begin to see the work of God in the beauty and value, in the deepest personhood, of those who are different.”

The reason yesterday’s event and the days leading up to it have seemed to be so painful is that it seems to paint this public and absolute demonstration of the lack of desire and willingness to work for peace. The polarized voices are the loud ones. And each time one side or the other reacts it is louder, it is stronger, it is more certain, it is more alienating, it moves farther and farther from the deep peace that in our deepest hearts we are desperate for.

The lines that became deeper and darker in the last few days hurt everyone …. and lead no one to peace. New sprouts of dialogue and openness may well have been crushed by yesterday’s displays. Hope for dialogue and reconciliation took a blow yesterday.

But prophets of peace aren’t a flash in the pan, or very flashy at all. They are the ones the day after a big hoopla, through prayers and tears, who stand quietly to begin again. To speak words that invite us to the hard work of peace ….. again. They call us to extend ourselves, again, in willingness to enter conversation, to listen more than we speak, to wait, to exercise patience, to risk befriending, to endure being misunderstood, to refuse to take offence, to choose to see and value the humanity in another. Prophets of peace grieve with those who encounter locked doors, loved ones who refuse to engage. Prophets of peace stand with those who, as of yet, are too hurt, bitter, or angry to try again….. extending love and gentle patience. Prophets of peace remind us that we are so much more than the shrill words and strong emotions that came up and out of us yesterday in the heat of the battle. They, again, raise the vision of unity in diversity which nurtures shalom for the common good. And they risk getting shot at by those who are unwilling or not ready to lay down the weapons of the latest skirmish.

Prophets of peace emerge to remind us that this isn’t about chicken or business or promotion or politics or power or winning or being proved right….. it is about our common humanity, our shared Belovedness, our call to share this earth together and to find peace together ….. where all people can flourish, where all can love and be loved. We cannot find this place without one another. We can try to take short-cuts that leave the losers in the dust …. but in the end, “if I diminish you, I diminish myself.” We are inter-connected and inter-dependent whether we like it or not. In our anger and our pain we want to take what we believe we deserve …. but in the taking we lose something of ourselves as we cast others aside.

“Those who seek encounters with those who are different do not always know where the relationship will lead. To love is always a risk: it can mean rejection and marginalization by the secure group one belongs to; it can mean pain in the relationship itself. To love in this way can cause a loss of security, even a loss of friends from one’s own culture who remain stuck behind categories and do not understand.”

To those who hold conservative views concerning gay marriage, to those who hold affirming views of gay marriage, to those who are personally impacted by these matters, to those who engage more theoretically, to those who are well versed in these issues, to those who are only scratching the surface, to those who are confused, to those who want to love but don’t know how to navigate the tensions, to those who feel battered and bruised, weary, discouraged, to those whose energizing anger is justifying arrogant words and deeds that have lost sight of our interconnected human reality …..

Please. Be. Still.

These issues matter deeply. They matter so deeply that we must pursue a deeper peace that will sustain life-giving shalom for us all.

“I know how much I myself still need to be cleansed. When I’ve been faced with people who challenge me, or whose anguish and disordered behavior awaken anguish in me, I have experienced anger and violence within. There are still barriers and fears in me that prevent me from being compassionate and open to some people. And when I feel lost, I turn to the people around me, to the prophets of peace who, unknown and unrecognized, are sowing the seeds of peace in our world. They have made the long journey to self-acceptance and purification, recognizing what is sacred and universal. I think of them as they nurture hope and love in individual hearts, finding and spreading peace in small communities around the globe, and I remember that each us can change, that in the presence of isolation, anguish, terror, and violence, individuals – you and I – can unleash a torrent of loving kindness that will change the world.”

Note: go here to purchase Vanier's book

-WG

The other side of the coin.... when gay people long for reconciliation with their conservative Christian family

2012-07-24T15:55:00.001-04:00

Last week I read about a young girl, just 16 years of age, in Kentucky who was attacked by two men shouting anti-gay slurs. Her jaw was broken, she lost several teeth and one of the younger boys with her suffered a concussion trying to protect his friend.

Then today I read about a woman in Nebraska who was bound, had anti-gay slurs carved into her skin, doused with gas, and had her house set on fire. The woman managed to escape the house. But one can only imagine the long difficult road ahead of her to recover from this level of trauma.

A friend left a video link on my facebook wall that tells the story of a profoundly hurtful family response to the partner of a gay son who had died in an accident.

And these are just snippets of what passes through not only my inbox, but my mind and heart, on a daily basis. And some days I just want to scream and yell and pound my fists and say to God, “Enough! I can’t take it anymore! Too much pain. Too much hatred. Too much fear. Too much already! Do something! Intervene! Change hearts! Do it now before someone else gets hurt or dies or is so emotionally and spiritually wounded that they walk away from you or take their own life ….. Enough already God!!!”

It is true that New Direction seeks to promote generous spaciousness rather than a particular political agenda. It is true that we tend to focus on the slow, patient work of relational reconciliation, constructive dialogue, and mutual respect amidst difference. And in the big picture of things, I believe that that is what we are called to, that is what will eventually bring sustainable transformation that ushers in more love, peace, hope, and life for the common good of all. But ….. some days ….. I just can’t take it anymore! Some days I just want God to act – and to act quickly. Some days I just want to call out the people who smugly think they are doing God’s will by being complete a--holes. Some days, I feel like I can’t extend any more grace to those who seem so arrogant in their ignorance and whitewash it in the name of Jesus.

(Note: I am not suggesting that every straight conservative Christian is a smug jerk ….. I know there are many kind-hearted people who are trying to find a way to be loving and to relate well. I also think, however, that sometimes people caught in the invisible web of straight privilege do not realize how they trigger hurt and alienation in those who do not enjoy that same privilege.)

For those of you who may not end up reading through all of the comments on posts, I want to share with you a comment that just broke my heart yesterday.

Marty said, “Wendy, I have a question from the opposite end. I have a brother who refuses to speak to me until I leave my "sinful lifestyle." (Not sure what that means since I'm single and live pretty much as I always have.)

Growing up and into adulthood we had a good relationship. I was the best man at his wedding before I came out. But afterward, not so much. Almost a year after I came out to him, he and his wife had their first child and my first nephew. I planned the thousand mile trip to visit and deliver gifts. But when I called to make the arrangements, he told me not to come and to never call him again.

I've sent him messages and birthday wishes several times since, saying that I would like to talk about our relationship and how we can get along even if we disagree. But he thinks that even having a relationship would be condoning sin. (I'm pretty well-versed in the Bible, so I get the irony. Unfortunately, he isn't as well versed. He just knows what his pastor tells him, but his pastor doesn't know me.)

I feel horrible about the whole thing, and I wish there were something I could do. I think about it constantly. Some of my friends tell me I just need to let him go. It's just that I've grown up my whole life hearing about how important family is and how they will be the ones who always stick with you. It feels like I'd be giving up on that too. Reading this over again, maybe it's already gone.

That's sad.”

OK so we know in this situation that logic is not going to likely soften or open this brother’s heart. We could explain that when Paul says, in I Cor. 5:11, “But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people” he is speaking to a specific group in a specific historical and cultural context. We could explain that he is talking about behavior not orientation or attraction. We could point out the gross inconsistencies in how we associate with all kind of people who are greedy or heterosexually sexually immoral without giving it too much agonizing thought. We could contrast this text with other statements by Paul such as the thought that “everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial” (see chapter 10 of the same letter about a believer's freedom). Or we could contrast this text with the example of Jesus who dined with tax collectors, prostitutes and other sinners. Not to mention the universal truth that all human beings have been created in the image of God, are loved by him, and are worthy of being treated with dignity and respect. But, the likelihood would be that all of this would fall on the deaf ears that have been closed by certainty, anger or fear.

In these situations, we may be served by letting go of the hope or expectation that just the right argument will unlock their hearts. Going over all the logical argumentation in your head will just drive you crazy. And it is a pretty remote possibility that logic will bring change.

On the flip side, when we are hurt by another’s silence or overt exclusionary statements, it can be easy to justify ourselves in a way that puffs us up – but doesn’t really help us grieve the loss we are feeling. It is true, the person who has cut us off isn’t acting like Jesus. It is true, that they may be acting out of their own fear, anxiety or insecurity. It is true, that they may not be able to risk thinking for themselves but are relying on the advice of a pastor or leader who may be poorly equipped to offer Christ-like wisdom. It is true, that you may be more mature, that you’ve given more, that you’ve reached out more, and that you feel like you’ve been more Christ-like than they have. But when we wrap these assurances around ourselves like a warm protective blanket, deep on the inside something will still ring hollow, and we will still feel hurt, and nothing will have been done to help the relationship. This kind of self-protection is completely understandable, we all do it. I don’t describe it here in any kind of judgmental tone. But I do describe it because I know only too well how this strategy backfires in leaving us still longing for reconciliation and still hurting inside.

So, what then can we do?

We can’t force reconciliation – especially when the other person has put themselves on the “I’m right and righteous and you’re wrong and an abomination” pedestal. Maybe we’ve already tried demonstrating unconditional love and reaching out – and it has been consistently met with silence or rebuff – and to keep doing that is just pouring salt into our wounds. Maybe, you’ve tried to confront with honest, clear, truthful statement about how their actions make you feel. But they’ve ignored you. Or turned around and blamed you for being attacking or unloving because you confronted them. And you just ended up being hurt even more. Or you simply feel your heart shutting down because it is just too hard to keep getting hurt, disappointed and let down by the people who are supposed to love you and support you no matter what.

I wish I had some perfect magic formula to heal your heart and bring reconciliation. I sure could use that in my own life. But I haven’t found it.

But there are a few things I know to be true:

It is really important that you give yourself the space, time and permission to grieve. Being shut out of a family member’s life is profoundly hurtful. It is a great loss. Grieving may begin with acknowledging this. Maybe it will mean allowing your emotions to emerge: the good, the bad and the ugly. Maybe it will mean gathering a small group of friends who love you and accept you and support you and reading them a letter that you have written to your family member about how you feel …. Then destroying the letter with your friends around you offering comfort and support. As you destroy the letter you choose to release that family member, choose to release yourself, and receive and accept the freedom to move on. Not forgetting, but not being bound into an interminable loop of longing and disappointment either.

Grieving, as I wrote in a couple of posts ago, is a messy chaotic and unpredictable journey. So be gentle with yourself.

Learn what triggers you and pulls you back into the cycle of trying to fix this. There may be some mementos or photos that you need to put away. Maybe you need to hide someone’s profile in your facebook. Maybe you need to give yourself some boundaries about calling or contacting them.

Be intentional about your own heart and spiritual health. Hurt hearts can get infected. It is a common and pervasive problem. But infected hearts hurt us even more because they fill us with bitterness and anger and cynicism and the infection blocks up our ability to be the loving, kind, giving person that we want to be. Make sure you have a trusted confidante who will be gracious when you need to vent, who will be pastoral when you need to confess, who will be humorous when you need to laugh, who will weep with you when you need to cry. Don’t isolate yourself in this hurt. Don’t just fill your life with stuff – make some room for silence and reflection – and allow the still, small voice of God bring you comfort and peace.

Remember that God puts the lonely in families. Be intentional to build a support system of friends, surrogate parents, and loving sisters and brothers in Christ, who you can share the deep and intimate happenings of your life with – both your joys and your sorrows. Welcome children into your life in whatever capacity makes sense in your stage of the journey. Children have a way of bringing us back to the simple place of loving and being loved.

None of this is perfect or complete …. So remember that as Paul describes in the 8^th chapter of Romans, that we are groaning with all of creation for God to finally come and pull back the veil and make all things right. We are not alone in our groaning – but the whole creation is saying, “Enough already God …. C’mon …. Make things right!! We’re tired of waiting …. We’re not sure if we can wait any longer ….. Fulfill your victory!” And remember that we are not diminished in our waiting.

Waiting in this time between the times, where Christians don’t act like Jesus, where families don’t act like families, where friends fail us, where churches reject us, where citizens beat us, where the powerful stomp on the weak …. Waiting in this place is made bearable because we serve a risen Saviour who displays his wounds. Waiting in this place is made bearable because we have been sent and given the Comforter. Waiting is made bearable because of Emmanuel – God is with us.

And so as you grieve and wait ….. may you know the Everlasting Arms of Grace enfolding you, sustaining you, loving you and being your Abba.

-WG

For the straight conservative Christian trying to repair a relationship with a gay loved one .....

2012-07-23T16:03:00.003-04:00

I heard from a Christian who described a pretty common experience. The Christian has a loved one who is gay and the relationship has deteriorated to the point that the gay person, as the Christian perceives it, is angry and demanding that if the Christian wants to have a relationship with them, they'll need to affirm gay marriage and become an advocate for LGBT people. The Christian person does want to work on restoring the relationship, but also feels that what is being asked puts them in a position of compromising their Scriptural beliefs. The Christian is wondering where they can begin to try to open communication.

This is my response:
"You describe a common but difficult relational impasse with a gay loved one. There may be a number of inadvertent things you have communicated (through body language, tone of voice as well as words) over time that have built up the anger in your loved one. Anger is almost always a secondary emotion – it is often a protection for the pain that one feels. When you feel different in a way that you feel others perceive as wrong, immoral, broken, a problem etc. you develop a very strong sense of self-protection – and this can commonly manifest as anger. They may be angry about things that you are unaware of. Or their anger may be amplified by other matters that have nothing to do with you. So, if you can remember that their anger is probably covering a lot of pain – that may be helpful.

One way to begin to break down the patterns of hostility and distance, would begin with this kind of introduction:

“I feel really sad about where our relationship is. I would really like to repair our relationship. I’m sure that I don’t even understand all the kinds of things that I have said or done in the past that have contributed to you feeling frustrated about our relationship. I am sorry for the ways that you have felt hurt in how I’ve responded to you coming out. I want to acknowledge that I don’t really know what it is to walk in your shoes – but I would like to try to learn and understand more. Would you tell me about what this journey has been like for you?”

Note: you also want to admit to them that this is an area you’ve been trying to learn about – but that you will need their help to understand language usage. And you may need to ask them to point out to you when something you say feels offensive or alienating. Affirm that you don't want to say things that are hurtful - but you may need their help in understanding what is hurtful to them.

An introduction like this demonstrates humility, care, a willingness to learn and a desire to understand more. There is a lot of rapport to build before there is enough trust to try to negotiate terms of the relationship. This rapport and trust is built as you learn to empathize with the experience and the pain of your loved one – without expecting that they will be able to empathize or extend grace to you. This is going the second mile for your loved one.

What you want to get to in your conversations together is the place where your loved one can reveal the pain that is underneath the anger …. That may require that you listen patiently to a lot of what may feel like political or pro-gay rhetoric before enough trust is built for them to actually share their feelings and emotions with you. You don’t need to express agreement with the rhetoric – but you don’t need to verbalize your disagreement either. What you can simply do is listen patiently and humbly – and where it feels appropriate you can ask the question, “How did you feel about that?” With this kind of question you offer the opportunity to connect to emotions. If they don’t go there … then you just go back to patient listening – and looking for the opportunity to again ask, “How did you feel about that?” Eventually, you will have built enough trust by listening that they may begin to tell you about about the emotions behind what they have experienced.

Once you begin to be able to talk about some of their emotions – you can begin to demonstrate empathy for some of the pain, rejection, disappointment, loneliness etc. that they may have experienced. At this point, it would be helpful to not expect a mutual experience of sharing. Don’t expect to be able to share your feelings and for them to be empathetic. You may get there eventually – but it would probably be helpful to not expect that in the beginning of rebuilding the relationship. The more you can serve, extend grace, and simply seek to be present with them, the more trust can be built. If they ask how you have felt about things, by all means, be honest and share your emotions. But just don't expect that.

As feelings begin to emerge – and you have opportunity to extend empathy, a focus will be on what you CAN affirm about your loved one. You can affirm that they are loved by God, created in God’s image and have inherent worth and dignity. And you can express regret and sadness for the ways that they have felt that their worth or dignity was compromised by you, people in the family, or people in the church. You CAN affirm that you value your relationship with them. You CAN affirm that you want them to experience love, joy, peace, and hope in their life. You CAN affirm them in the accomplishments in their life – school, work, ways they care for others etc.

As you feel the relationship is growing in trust, honesty and sharing (which may take months of intentional conversations and patience on your part) – then you can begin to broach the idea of how to negotiate your relationship regarding expectations. They may have expressed expectations that you will be fully affirming and an advocate for LGBT people and issues such as gay marriage – things that you may feel uncomfortable or unable to do. What you want to eventually communicate is that you hope that you will be able to have a mutually respectful relationship – that doesn’t demand that you both think exactly the same things or agree on everything – but that you trust and respect one another to give each other room to make your own decisions and clarify your own beliefs and values. For this to work – you have to extend that same space and respect to your loved one in their beliefs and values. If you have tried to influence them in this area in the past by being conditional in your love and care for them – you may want to apologize and tell them that you want to honour their autonomy even if you don’t share some of the same beliefs and values that they hold. You may need to acknowledge that Scripture is something that is viewed differently or prioritized differently by the two of you. And you may need to have some honest and caring conversations about how to navigate the boundaries that you will both need to be able to feel safe and respected in the relationship.

A healthy mature relationship will never happen in a context where there is coercion or manipulation. You may want to do some reflection on whether or not you are able to communicate in a kind, assertive manner – or if you tend to resort to passive aggression or overt aggression. And the two of you may need to commit to one another to strive for assertive communication marked by kindness, patience, humility and respect for the sake of the kind of relationship that would bless both of you.

Working through this relationship will require energy, intentionality, prayerfulness, and patience on your part. Your ability to love unconditionally may be tested. But in this opportunity, you will be able to live out Jesus’ example of incarnational self-emptying. You will be called to lay down your life for your loved one. But, God will give you the grace, patience, wisdom and love that you need. And if you persist in gentle listening, connecting to feelings, and extending respect for each other’s autonomy, you may well begin to experience a deeper and more free relationship with your loved one than you have ever imagined.

And you may be surprised by the capacity for love and grace that your loved one extends to you."

-WG